Geo or Helio Centrism??

It was hypothesized in another thread that perhaps several people here believe Geocentrism. Well, I’m not convinced personally, and it’s not a major issue for me at this time. But I think it would be cool to be a really strong believer in something that so few people even take seriously (granted, it’s true, and not false of course).

Like, be at a science show where there’s a model of our solar system, and you bust out in a serious discussion about how it’s wrong, it should have the sun revolving around the earth, not the earth around the sun, and be able to explain why. That would be pretty cool!!

But this is just a poll, I thought it would be interesting to know.

In Newtonian physics (and in special relativity, for that matter), the sun, the Earth, the other planets, and the other non-planetary matter in our solar system all revolve around their common center of gravity, which I believe is located somewhere within the interior of the sun.

In general relativity, the question is technically meaningless, as there are no preferred frames of reference for the equations of gravity and motion, so one cannot ask whether the Earth or the sun is stationary with respect to a preferred reference frame.

I didn’t see a poll option that expressed this viewpoint, so I didn’t vote.

I picked me… but not just me.

The whole created universe revolves around the human race. Under the law, God has made us little less than gods (psalms 8), what more does He do for us through Jesus Christ? We will be given authority over the angels (1 Cor 6:3). We are the marriage of the material and the spiritual, brought to perfection in Our Blessed Lord’s Incarnation.

So in that way, the whole created world revolves around us. What a great God have we. So, if I die and find out that the earth is the center of the universe, I wouldn’t be surprised, though I’m pretty sure it is not. If the earth is, indeed, not the center of the universe, that still doesn’t change the fact that God made the universe for man none the less.

I believe the earth is round, like a plate…

Neither the earth of the sun are moving, they are perfectly stationary in relationship to each other. The plate is flipping end over end, creating an illuson of the sun encircling the earth, which we all know is nonsense!

The earth is very old, which may account for all the cracks in the plate, especially in California…

Anyway, when we are born, we are plopped down right at the center of this plate. Thus it is said that the world revolves around us when we are young, in fact it seems like when we are young we keep turning the world on it’s head, this gives our elders vertigo and they can’t help slipping a little further off-center.

When your parents said to you “you’re driving me over the edge, Dexter!” they weren’t kidding, they knew how perilous life had become for them. And how hard it is to hang on.

Some people are a little eccentric from the beginning, this kind will gravitate to the internet. They used to sit together in front of the general store in rocking chairs spinning yarns and watching the world go by. Now they sit at the keyboard in cheap, uncomfortable office chairs and kitchen chairs and pretend that the world still revolves around them. We say they are ‘off their rockers’.

Sometimes things don’t go so well…we lose a job, we spend too much…we lose things precious to us: friends, keys, the remote. If we lose the job and the friends it’s called ‘falling through the cracks’. Again, there can be more cracks in California.

As we get older we realize that the world no longer revolves around us but usually too late, we move slower and slower but the world keeps slipping by faster and faster. Pretty soon we are on the rim, hanging on to everything we can get ahold of and watching the antique road show.

Eventually, we reach the edge, thinking back to how it was for us when we thought we were the center of the universe. How carefree! How rash and recklass! How happy.

If we don’t eat right or exercise we reach the edge quicker. If we fast and pray it seems to take longer.

Pretty soon our bodies betray us, the things we have collected can’t save us, the moth eats…the rust corrodes, and the world flips us off (that’s the origin of the term).

It’s a good thing God loves us.

Well, I guess I should have put something in there about that.

I (like Dr. Who) am knowledgeable about all things, and I am aware that if you take it from the relativity point of view, it becomes a purposeless question. So I’m sorry you felt like your opinion was left out. I only did that because those that hold that opinion don’t matter in the general, relative scheme of things.

:bigyikes:

Hey, I’m joking, since so many others are, I guess I can too. Let’s just be silly instead of talk about astronomy. We won’t learn much, but we will at least be popular.

[quote=Théodred]I picked me… but not just me.

The whole created universe revolves around the human race. Under the law, God has made us little less than gods (psalms 8), what more does He do for us through Jesus Christ? We will be given authority over the angels (1 Cor 6:3). We are the marriage of the material and the spiritual, brought to perfection in Our Blessed Lord’s Incarnation.

So in that way, the whole created world revolves around us. What a great God have we. So, if I die and find out that the earth is the center of the universe, I wouldn’t be surprised, though I’m pretty sure it is not. If the earth is, indeed, not the center of the universe, that still doesn’t change the fact that God made the universe for man none the less.
[/quote]

Well allright, cool way to think about it. I’d have to say, though, and you may expect this, that if we were going to take a teleological approach to the universe’s center, it would be the Trinity and not man ultimately. But I get what you’re saying, and am not trying to be confrontational.

Sungenis Was Wrong

Not finished yet, but getting there. Doesn’t cover geocentrism, just those issues of science that were solved 200 years ago, rather than 300-400 years ago. :smiley: It will get 10 times stronger, I’m gonna beef it up some more and put it on the front page of my apologetics site with the heading “Sungenis Was Wrong” :smiley:

Oh yeah I voted for heliocentrism, and no I don’t have to study the physics on that. I got through my grade school science classes okay 20 years ago. :rolleyes:

Phil P

[quote=Reformed Rob] I’m joking, since so many others are, I guess I can too. Let’s just be silly instead of talk about astronomy. We won’t learn much, but we will at least be popular.
[/quote]

I suppose that’s a reference to me.

Well you’re wrong, I was never popular.

Anyway I pretty much agree with Catholic2003’s statement.

I couldn’t vote either.

+T+

Which makes relativity a homocentric concept and even the ancients, who had no knowledge of heliocentrism, would have found that ridiculous.

The initial justification for the 1905 concept was a fabrication based on Newton’s descriptions of time,space,place and motion.It takes only a little effort to realise that in 1843 and before Mawell they understood that something was really wrong -

bodley.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/ilej/image1.pl?item=page&seq=9&size=1&id=bm.1843.10.x.54.336.x.425

Is it so difficult for contemporaries to see that there is nothing behind relativity but a cardboard cutout idea of astronomy,created by mathematicians for mathematicians ?.

I can scarcely believe that Catholics would approve of the Newtonian/relativistic terminology just for the sake of attempting to impress people who cannot defend themselves against these concepts.

Newton was peevish and it should take any Catholic about a minute to look through the disgusting tactic he used in the Principia -

" I do not define time, space, place and motion, as being well known to all. Only I must observe, that the vulgar conceive those quantities under no other notions but from the relation they bear to sensible objects. "

members.tripod.com/~gravitee/definitions.htm#time

Go ahead and try and read the definitions and distinctions of time,space,place and motion and enjoy the writings of a peevish man who made things as intentionally ambiguous as he could.After bringing his reader through a torturous passage he ends it by negating what he just wrote -

“Upon which accounts, true motion does by no means consist in such relations.”

Everyone was vulgar by Newton’s reckoning and he knew his audience well insofar as they would rather pretend to understand the definitions than be considered vulgar.

It took me a few months to realise that Newton was creating a shortcut by shifting the rotation rate of the Earth from 24 hours via the Equation of Time correction to Flamsteed’s sidereal value via stellar circumpolar motion.

Basically,if you wish to study the imbalance between constant axial and variable orbital motion and its influence on crustal motion and consequently Earthquakes,it is impossible to it with the Newtonian system which calculates the Earth’s axial and orbital motion as a single sidereal motion.

Perhaps it is better to return to my immediate Catholic community and enjoy the Church from that level.

[quote=oriel36]Which makes relativity a homocentric concept and even the ancients, who had no knowledge of heliocentrism, would have found that ridiculous.
[/quote]

Why does the theory that the equations of physics do not have a preferred reference frame, i.e., that they are invariant/covariant/contravariant under general transformations of coordinates, imply whatever you think “homocentric” (concentric, having the same center) means?

[quote=oriel36]The initial justification for the 1905 concept was a fabrication based on Newton’s descriptions of time,space,place and motion.It takes only a little effort to realise that in 1843 and before Mawell they understood that something was really wrong -

bodley.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/ilej/image1.pl?item=page&seq=9&size=1&id=bm.1843.10.x.54.336.x.425
[/quote]

I don’t see what Newton and Maxwell thought has to do with the truth of their respective theories, each of which has been replaced twice now (Newtonian physics -> special relativity -> general relativity; Maxwell’s equations -> QED -> QCD).

[quote=oriel36]Is it so difficult for contemporaries to see that there is nothing behind relativity but a cardboard cutout idea of astronomy,created by mathematicians for mathematicians ?.
[/quote]

Then what is your explanation for the outcome of the Michelson-Morley experiment and all its subsequent replications?

[quote=oriel36]I can scarcely believe that Catholics would approve of the Newtonian/relativistic terminology just for the sake of attempting to impress people who cannot defend themselves against these concepts.
[/quote]

So it’s a no-no to use physics terminology to answer a physics question? :confused: Why should Catholics have a problem with the theory of relativity?

Well Phil, it’s nice (I think) to have you join the discussion and slip your view in on the poll. You’ve made plenty of good free plugs for Sungenis, I think that’s the largest font one so far on these forums:D!!

For the “PhD” folks here, maybe not everybody is into astrophysics and quantam mechanics and different theories of relativity and all that. When you talk about certain people and their views, it tends to alienate 98% of the other posters. And if you think that everybody else needs to catch up with the terms, well, maybe everybody else thinks you need to catch up on what they know about that you don’t know about.

Personally, my epistemic transcendentilator is booleaned out for lack of those who wish to post in base 16 what my monitor only displays in Binary. All I got was “1010 1100 0101 1001”

Anybody else have that problem??

[quote=Reformed Rob]For the “PhD” folks here, maybe not everybody is into astrophysics and quantam mechanics and different theories of relativity and all that. When you talk about certain people and their views, it tends to alienate 98% of the other posters.
[/quote]

So what can I do to alienate the other 2%? :rolleyes:

[quote=Reformed Rob]Personally, my epistemic transcendentilator is booleaned out for lack of those who wish to post in base 16 what my monitor only displays in Binary. All I got was “1010 1100 0101 1001”

Anybody else have that problem??
[/quote]

Nope, I get “AC59” clear as day. You should probably send your monitor in for service.

Is it alright if I still believe the universe revolves around my navel? I think I solved the lint problem…

Ok, I don’t know what else to say. I guess maybe I need my head examined and my monitor. All that guy’s belly button lint must have, wait, that makes me think of a question!!

OK, if the earth is not rotating :rolleyes: and the rest of the universe is spinning (relative to our not spinning) then wouldn’t that have the effect of causing the earth to NOT hold together? Like a centrifugal effect? Maybe I’m misunderstanding something. Like, I understand the heliocentric physics (basically), with the rotation around the sun, and our earth’s rotation as we’re orbiting the sun, and the moon, how it all works together. But what do you think? The earth “flying apart” if it were the middle of a big swirlie that expanded outward.

Oh no, I didn’t mean this to start another discussion about xycentrism! That’s usually what happens with polls though.

Sungenis and Galileo Are Right

[quote=Reformed Rob]OK, if the earth is not rotating :rolleyes: and the rest of the universe is spinning (relative to our not spinning) then wouldn’t that have the effect of causing the earth to NOT hold together? Like a centrifugal effect?
[/quote]

I don’t know if the forces involved are strong enough to affect whether the Earth holds together, but otherwise you have hit the nail on the head.

In Newtonian physics, a rotating Earth against a stationary universe will feel centrifugal force, while a stationary Earth surrounded by a rotating universe would not feel any such force. In general relativity, Einstein’s equation of gravity predicts that if the matter of the universe is rotating, it will generate an extra gravitational force that will have exactly the same strength as the centrifugal force generated by a rotating Earth would have.

This effect has been verified experimentally, by placing a sensitive measuring device within a heavy cylinder, and then watching the change in gravitational force when the cylinder is set to rotate at a high speed.

[quote=Catholic2003]Why does the theory that the equations of physics do not have a preferred reference frame, i.e., that they are invariant/covariant/contravariant under general transformations of coordinates, imply whatever you think “homocentric” (concentric, having the same center) means?

I don’t see what Newton and Maxwell thought has to do with the truth of their respective theories, each of which has been replaced twice now (Newtonian physics -> special relativity -> general relativity; Maxwell’s equations -> QED -> QCD).

?
[/quote]

Can you at least comprehend that Newton created an illegal geocentric/heliocentric orbital equivalency -

“PHÆNOMENON IV.
That the fixed stars being at rest, the periodic times of the five
primary planets, and (whether of the sun about the earth, or) of the
earth about the sun, are in the sesquiplicate proportion of their mean
distances from the sun.”

members.tripod.com/~gravitee/phaenomena.htm

Graphically it looks like this -

astrosun2.astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses//astro201/sidereal.htm

Newton assumes that you can swap the position of the Earth and the Sun (as demonstrated in the above graphic) and arrive at equivalency for orbital motion whether the Earth goes round the Sun or the Sun goes around the Earth.The only validity for that view is the sidereal format which is basically the equivalency for the Earth’s axial rotation against stellar circumpolar motion.

Permit me to show you where the .986 degree comes from [anyone can follow the arithmetic]

360 deg = 24 hour
15 deg = 1 hour
1 deg = 4 min

.986 deg = 3 min 56 sec

24 hours minus 3 min 56 sec = 23 hours 56 min 04 sec

If you follow the logic,Newton illegally transfered Flamsteed’s axial rotational/stellar circumpolar equivalency to a geocentric/heliocentric orbital equivalency.

I will tell you why this matters,there is a natural imbalance between constant axial and variable orbital motion (Kepler’s second law ) which would affect the stresses on terrestial crustal development and motion.Newton’s sidereal outlook for axial and orbital motion and a constant .986 deg orbital displacement prohibits any consideration of the effects of the Earth’s astronomical motion on crustal development.Graphically Newton’s outlook is a circular orbit with a constant orbital displacement whereas in reality the Earth speeds up and slows down .

Compare the sidereal graphic above with Kepler’s second law and it is a good indication that somebody is bluffing and blustering,I hope people have enough sense to realise that a person who determines that the Earth around the Sun is equivalent to the Sun around the Earth is on the road to insanity no matter how fashionable it has become to pick and choose ‘reference frames’.

The Earth is turning and men are turning with it so get use to it.

There is another thread that is quite interesting:

** Response to Keating Critique of Geocentrism**

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.