Geocentrism?

[One Little Nail]

That is a Total of 67 Verses in 35 Books of the Bible Which Say that It Is the Sun that Moves and Not the Earth!

Is such language being used in the modern scientific sense in Scripture, or in the ordinary sense?

The scripture is making plain, truthful & Infallible Statements on this matter,The Bible is Infallible in all matters whether relating to Faith or whether to "science", you can't separate The Faith,Doctrine & Scripture into one compartment & hold to observable phenomena i.e. natural "sciences" in another.

Science see's things from a humanistic unbelieving position & believes that God & His Scriptures are in error when they make their "observations" regarding those things that He Himself Created, we should not believe & have faith in the teachings of science which is usually just the fallible observations & speculations of fallen man whose understanding is darkened & whose carnal mind is in enmity to God & His Truth, can you see the folly & absurdity of that position?

I am not a pagan sun worshipper, this doctrine of a motionless sun at the centre of the heavens was contrived by sun god worshippers

Copernicus? Galileo? Newton? Sun god worshippers? You need some evidence there.

Copernicus maybe as he was a pagan greek, I'm not saying everybody who holds to Heliocentricity is a sun worshipper,
but take for instance the Jesuits they have been pushing this theory through colleges & universities overtly & covertly
as part of the Counter-Reformation to destroy Protestantism & trust in the Scriptures, & they are a solar cultus.

you can do this by placing the sun in its God ordained position of subordinate servanthood to mankind on the Earth.

Now here you make a false dichotomy: theologically, we are all geocentrists. The theological centre of the universe is the earth: it is unique in the heavens. No question. But in terms of scientific models, it is not the center any more than the sun is. The sun has been placed where it is in order that earth may be warmed and in order that man may have life on the earth. You are confusing cosmographic location with importance here.

I believe it is science & heliocentrists who are the ones making the false dichotomy.

Theologically, we are all Geocentrists, wow!

I don't think the Bible is presenting it "theologically" its making a statement that the Earth is in it's Geocentric Position Scripturally,Which is to say that it is were God has said he has placed it,so that it is located there both Theologically & in accordance with "science" that is in actual physical terms it is stationary, with the sun rotating around the Earth,as the regulator of night & day and the seasons, I think we ought to take Scripture in there plain ordinary sense here.

 

[Philip]

The scripture is making plain, truthful & Infallible Statements on this matter,

It is talking phenomenologically, much the same way as it is when it refers to "the four corners of the earth." We all know that the world is round, so how can the world have corners? How does it have foundations (Job 38)?

you can't separate The Faith,Doctrine & Scripture into one compartment & hold to observable phenomena i.e. natural "sciences" in another.

I'm not claiming that you do, merely claiming that Scripture uses the ordinary sense of words, which is phenomenological, not scientific. That is, the Scriptures speak from the perspective of a viewer, and the use of language here implies nothing about the gravitational situations of heavenly bodies.

Science see's things from a humanistic unbelieving position & believes that God & His Scriptures are in error when they make their "observations" regarding those things that He Himself Created

Again, this would be news to the men who actually started the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries. (Copernicus, by the way, was a 16th century Polish canon lawyer). The men who started looking at these things did so from the perspective that God is a God of order and his universe obeys universal laws.

I'm not saying everybody who holds to Heliocentricity is a sun worshipper,
but take for instance the Jesuits they have been pushing this theory through colleges & universities overtly & covertly
as part of the Counter-Reformation to destroy Protestantism & trust in the Scriptures, & they are a solar cultus.

Ah, so that whole banning of Copernicus and Galileo in the 17th century was just a farce then? The counter-reformation actually tried to suppress heliocentrism and it was only because of the freedom of thought in Protestant countries like England and the Netherlands that it flourished in the 17th century. Sorry, conspiracy theories based on dubious assumptions impress me very little. I suggest reading the actual history.

I don't think the Bible is presenting it "theologically" its making a statement that the Earth is in it's Geocentric Position Scripturally,Which is to say that it is were God has said he has placed it,so that it is located there both Theologically & in accordance with "science" that is in actual physical terms it is stationary, with the sun rotating around the Earth,as the regulator of night & day and the seasons, I think we ought to take Scripture in there plain ordinary sense here.

The plain ordinary sense here is phenomenological. A heliocentrist does not take his girlfriend to watch the earth-turn but to watch the sunset. The ordinary language of everyday life (which the the plain ordinary sense in which Scripture is written) speaks phenomenologically. We also describe carrots and potatoes as vegetables, when they are roots. We use names for our days of the week and months of the year taken from pagan mythology. It is in this kind of wonderful ordinary everyday unscientific language that Scripture speaks because it speaks to wonderful ordinary everyday unscientific people. And from this perspective, of course we are geocentrists because the earth is where we are: it is the perspective from which we view the universe and the stage for redemptive history.

But I don't think we should take this as binding us to an Aristotelian or even Tychonic view of the universe in a scientific sense. Those models are not taught in Scripture any more than heliocentrism. The language of Scripture is simply not intended to give us a cosmographical description of relative movement.

 

[Mr. Bultitude]

We all know that the world is round, so how can the world have corners?

 

[InSlaveryToChrist]

We all know that the world is round, so how can the world have corners?

Maybe people today have an unbiblical view of corners.

 

[Afterthought]

On some of the philosophical issues involved with this question, here is a discussion on absolute rotation and the notes look useful too. Here is a lengthy discussion on inertial reference frames.

There is one more important point, though. As far as I understand (and I could be wrong here), relativity is only a quantitative description of the motion of objects. We may have logical reasons for preferring one frame of reference to another. One can equally validly mathematically represent a train moving east at 80 mph relative to a stationary observer or a observer moving west 80 mph relative to a stationary train. Would we not, though, have logical reasons for preferring one way of describing the situation?

There is definitely a difference between mathematically being able to represent motion and giving a physical theory to describe it. However, from what I've seen and understand the reasons for choosing one frame or another are usually practical, i.e., whatever makes the calculation easier. The lack of preference between frames refers to physics, i.e., the form of the laws of physics, not to lack of philosophical reasons or preferences, or to whether a frame is inertial (no acceleration effects like Coriolis effect are present) or not. Nevertheless, if one chooses to describe the motion of the sun and earth with respect to the solar system (which is an approximate inertial frame), the earth moves around the sun. "Common sense" would say then that the earth really does move around the sun, since experience shows us that to tell who is moving one needs to look on the situation at a distance, similar to the way that we would say that the train moves while the observer doesn't (and also that this frame is approximately inertial, unlike the earth frame which is noninertial).

But then, that same "common sense" may say that we need to look from a larger distance out, and recognizing the complexity of motion, may say that regardless of how it appears at that larger distance, both are true in different senses. And then, that same sense may believe that the preferred frame from God's perspective would be the earth centered one. Such does not require an entirely new scientific theory to accommodate, but instead, it could remain a theological statement (or more properly, "perspective"), rather than necessarily motivating an entirely new scientific theory. That is what I understand many of those who believe geocentrism on Scriptural grounds to argue, but of course, those who believe it on Scriptural grounds would not want to hang their arguments on science, since it could change to be hostile to their views at some point; the concern for non-conflict with science just tends to be a hermeneutical issue ("to what extent must Scripture not contradict scientific findings and be interpreted in light of them?") or a "even science doesn't disallow it, so you have no reason to object."

Edit: In all this, I am speaking in terms of picking a frame of reference. Acceleration and rotation I already gave my understanding of, and I have a link at the top of this post on them too.

 

[Free Christian]

[quote We all know that the world is round, so how can the world have corners?[/quote]
Don't forget the "pillars" as well!

 

[MW]

How long is a piece of string? It is impossible to provide ultimate calculations for that which has nothing but a functional definition. All explanations of matter and motion end up being self-referential. They do not describe ultimate reality.

 

[lynnie]

Dont miss Martin Selbrede:

Geocentricity critics refuse to do their homework

I am a geocentrist. Both models work and work perfectly to predict eclipses and the path of the planets and so forth. Even a secular high school textbook on Astronomy I have points out that both models work. The heliocentric is simpler- in geocentric the planets orbit the sun which orbits the earth. But both work. Either one in that sense is acceptable

The real question is, does a wave of light behave like other waves, the way we hear sound waves go up and down in pitch when an ambulance goes by? The velocity of the ambulance is added or subtracted to the velocity of the sound waves blaring from the horn, hence higher or lower pitch according to the speed of the sound wave.

Michaelson and Morley were the first to show that the speed of light coming from a star stays the same if you are allegedly rushing towards the star at one moment during the year, and six months later are rushing away from the star in the earth's orbit around the sun. The change in the speed of light is zero, unlike the ambulance where the pitch goes up or down. The velocity of the earth does not add to, or decrease, the measurement of speed of the lightwave. It essentially proves geocentricity ( along with other phenomena) unless you subscribe to the theory of relativity, Einstein's attempt to reconcile heliocentrism with Michaelson- Morley. I am not great at explaining it but that's the core of it. Both geocentric models and heliocentric models work for our observations of the solar system. So it really comes down to classic physics for light waves, or relativity.

I am pretty sure most of the more known names are Reformed. Gerhardus Bouw is, and Malcolm Bowden in England. Quite a few astrophysics PhDs among them.

 

[lynnie]

"We seem to have gotten rather technical, far more technical than I expected.

Let me ask this simply; does the earth rotate on it's axis and does it orbit the sun?"

I should add that at least some geocentrists do believe in some small degree of rotation along the axis introduced after the fall. Somebody holds to an original 360 day years with the moon in sync for 12x 30 day months. That may be speculative and I forget who is into that theory. But being geocentric does not necessarily mean believing that after the fall in Eden, the earth stayed entirely motionless. It is late and I am too tired to try and look up which guys think what. As I recall the violent break up at the flood with the fountains of the deep erupting ( and maybe a asteroidal type hit) may have lurched it into some rotation on the axis.

 

[Logan]

Michaelson and Morley were the first to show that the speed of light coming from a star stays the same if you are allegedly rushing towards the star at one moment during the year, and six months later are rushing away from the star in the earth's orbit around the sun. The change in the speed of light is zero, unlike the ambulance where the pitch goes up or down. The velocity of the earth does not add to, or decrease, the measurement of speed of the lightwave. It essentially proves geocentricity ( along with other phenomena) unless you subscribe to the theory of relativity, Einstein's attempt to reconcile heliocentrism with Michaelson- Morley. I am not great at explaining it but that's the core of it. Both geocentric models and heliocentric models work for our observations of the solar system. So it really comes down to classic physics for light waves, or relativity.

My M.S. is in electromagnetics and I work in radar and let me assure you that a Doppler shift is real, we use it all the time to detect the speeds of moving aircraft and such. We use electromagnetic waves that barely go into the Gigahertz range, while light is in the 400 to 800 THz range (about 400,000 times higher frequency). Visible light is higher-frequency electromagnetic waves, and it makes sense that it would behave much the same (aside from some particle behavior but I digress). The reason it's so difficult to detect any frequency shift and especially with instruments of the 1800s is because it's so high of a frequency, in the many trillions of Hertz range. Keep in mind that the speed of light, in terms you're familiar with, is about 670 million mph, and to see a shift from say, red to orange (very small shift) would require you to travel 141 million mph relative to the source. Did Michelson and Morley come close to that speed? Keep in mind that the earth (or the sun if you're geocentrist) is only moving at 67,000 mph!

So the change in the speed of light isn't zero, it's just so, so small at the speeds we can attain that it's barely detectable, and certainly not detectable in the 1800s.

Nevertheless, we do see a doppler shift toward red light from distant stars, if you followed the recent starlight thread.

Question: I'm familiar with Michelson's and Morley's famous experiment to determine the speed of light (amazing experiment) but am not familiar with the one being cited by geocentrists. Is it from the same experiment or a different one?

 

[Logan]

I followed this thread and looked through some of the older ones where amourbearer has gone into more detail of his view, which seems to center around an exegetical treatment of the passage in Joshua 10.

I understand the belief that if God says the sun stood still, then the sun must have stood still and not just "seemed" to stand still. But when I read the passage this is what I see: "The sun stopped in the midst of heaven and did not hurry to set for about a whole day."

From either perspective: heliocentric or geocentric, the sun stopped in the midst of heaven. This is what Joshua wanted to happen, this is what the people observed, this is what the Bible tells us: the sun stopped in the midst of heaven. I believe it. The mechanics of how that was accomplished seem irrelevant and to me it makes sense with either model.

But to take an absolutely literal, wooden exegesis of it and say this means the sun stopped, not the earth, and therefore the universe is geocentric is seems somewhat needless and frightening to me because it goes against all observation. I find this frightening because it seems to mean that we can do no exploration, no discovery, no fulfillment of the mandate to subdue the earth and discover God's creation. The solar system looks and behaves heliocentric. Every other solar system looks and behaves heliocentric, gravity behaves in a predictable way where smaller masses orbit greater masses for every single thing in the universe and I see order everywhere except the earth? In other words, how can I believe anything my eyes tell me? How can I discover anything if for all I know, it's just an illusion? The earth appears to orbit the sun but in reality it's reversed?

That we shouldn't let science dictate how to read the Bible I agree, but are we so certain this is what the Bible means that we're willing to ignore all observation? Or is there a very simple way in which they are harmonized and we gain understanding and admiration for what God has made? This I believe is the heliocentric model, and God did make the sun stop in the "midst of heaven".

 

[Afterthought]

How long is a piece of string? It is impossible to provide ultimate calculations for that which has nothing but a functional definition. All explanations of matter and motion end up being self-referential. They do not describe ultimate reality.

Would you elaborate further what you mean by all of these explanations being "self-referential"? And why does this and having nothing but a functional definition do not describe ultimate reality? Perhaps better still, is there a philosophical or theological work you could recommend that discusses this?

Every other solar system looks and behaves heliocentric, gravity behaves in a predictable way where smaller masses orbit greater masses for every single thing in the universe and I see order everywhere except the earth?

As an aside, this is actually the reason I've seen some geocentrists who defend the view on scientific grounds say that the earth is in the center of the universe and is not moving. Whatever is at the center is at a special place and can be expected to not move, unlike other similar objects that are not at the center.

In other words, how can I believe anything my eyes tell me? How can I discover anything if for all I know, it's just an illusion? The earth appears to orbit the sun but in reality it's reversed?

It's not a matter of sense, but the systematization of sense. If you were on the earth, you see the sun move. If you were on the moon, you would "see" the earth rotate at the same rate you see an hour hand move on a clock. You still may find that problematic, but it seems to me precision is very important on this point.


Rev. Winzer can respond to your questions on his view in the way that he chooses, but it should be noted that in those past threads he has not denied the use of the heliocentric model for science and has explicitly said that there may be a true sense in which the earth goes around the sun. Perhaps my previous post was too dense or technical to make that point explicit, but the sort of geocentrism I've seen advocated on the PB and possibly in some other places too (my memory fails me here) has never denied that heliocentrism could be true in some sense nor that it could be used in science to systematize our observations. Rather, the concern for geocentrism has been an exegetical or revelation perspective on the matter, which since from a divine perspective, is what is true according to absolute ("ultimate") reality.

Further, (and I'm sure you noted this, but just in case) it should be noted the exegetical argument takes into account all of Scripture, not just Joshua. I again recommend Wilhelmus a Brakel's discussion on the matter if you haven't looked at it already.


Also, general relativity will answer most of your scientific questions....to a certain degree, anyway (as I noted in my previous posts in this thread). I can give you a hostile witness to it if you wish.

 

[Logan]

It's not a matter of sense, but the systematization of sense. If you were on the earth, you see the sun move. If you were on the moon, you would "see" the earth rotate at the same rate you see an hour hand move on a clock. You still may find that problematic, but it seems to me precision is very important on this point.

I'm aware of this. I have a pretty solid grasp of coordinate systems and frames of reference, the main objection would be how things behave gravitationally. A geocentric model seems to assume that even though smaller masses orbit larger masses, it's really just an illusion, or it works that way with everything but the earth. It's possible, but it certainly seems unnatural! A person may certainly believe in an absolute coordinate system that centers on the earth. They may also believe that north is "up" and south is "down".

Also, general relativity will answer most of your scientific questions....to a certain degree, anyway (as I noted in my previous posts in this thread).

I don't have any problems with general relativity or using alternate frames of reference. My questions were primarily rhetorical, I don't have any doubts in my own mind.

 

[py3ak]

The earth appears to orbit the sun but in reality it's reversed?

That we shouldn't let science dictate how to read the Bible I agree, but are we so certain this is what the Bible means that we're willing to ignore all observation?

But that isn't what appears. What you observe almost daily is the sun progressing from one point of the sky to another. That's hardly ignoring "all observation," when it matches the quotidian observation of every sighted human being on the planet.

 

[Cymro]

Someone asked how long was a piece of string? Remembering my
school days, it is twice as long as the middle to the end.
But seriously, someone unrelated to the board or to this discussion,
sent me this week The Biblical Astronomer. I had no knowledge that
this magazine existed and found it (and this discussion fascinating),
and would ask fellow members their estimation of its scholarship and
value.
,

 

[Loopie]

As far as the 'sun standing still in the sky', the issue is not so much heliocentrism as it is the rotation of the earth. We can debate all day about whether the earth orbits the sun or not, but the question really is: "Does the earth rotate on its axis?" If it does not rotate on its axis, then based on a geocentric model, what Joshua was observing was actually true in a astronomical sense (the sun was orbiting the earth, and the earth did not rotate at all). But if the earth does rotate on its axis, then that would contribute to the 'apparent' motion of the sun across the sky.

Now, I believe it is much harder to argue that the earth does not rotate, then it is to argue that the earth orbits the sun. The very existence of geosynchronous satellites makes it logically impossible that the earth does not rotate. If you put a satellite into space, and you want it to stay centered over Las Vegas, there is a certain distance you have to send the satellite away from the earth. This is because the earth's gravity would eventually pull the satellite back into itself. So the satellite has to have a certain orbital velocity (akin to centrifugal force) in order to offset the gravitational force that is 'pulling' the satellite back to earth. Of course, if the satellite is going too fast, it won't match the rotation of the earth, and it won't stay above the same point on the ground. That is why the satellite must be further away, so that it can go fast enough to offset the gravitational force while staying over the same point on the earth as the earth itself also rotates.

So, immediately we have an apparent conundrum. If the earth does not rotate, then it is impossible for satellites to be put into geosynchronous orbits (and not fall back to the earth). If the earth DOES rotate, then it's own rotational velocity would have contributed to the sun 'appearing to move' across the sky in Joshua's time. So when God performed a miracle of 'stopping' the sun in the sky, this must have involved SOME stopping of the earth's rotation, even if the sun orbits the earth. This is because, even if you hold to geocentrism (in an astronomical sense), the earth's rotation would still be contributing towards the sun 'moving', and so that rotation would have to be 'stopped' for the sun to be 'fully stopped' in the sky. Either way, in some sense the Bible is using observational language, and not making a statement regarding the astronomical situation of the solar system.

 

[Mushroom]

Models are useful to specific purposes, but as has been shown previously, models may be in error and still be useful.

As for Michaelson - Morley, Einstein will be sorely grieved to hear that it was just too primitive to detect the differences necessary to determine changes in the speed of light, since it was part of his motivation to come up with General Relativity. Of course, since the experiment has been replicated again and again, and is considered by relativity and quantum theorists to be the foundational evidence for a universal constant for C, perhaps we shouldn't be too quick to dismiss those neanderthals. It either proved that, or that the earth is at rest.

<Edit> Oops! Cross-posted with the son-in-law! Sooo... The Bible says the sun stood still, not the Earth, which was already standing still. God's creation is even more complex than we have begun to understand. The article linked by Lynnie is excellent, BTW.

But I will say that I think this is important in that the currently 'accepted' models tend to impose a relativist and atomistic bent to one's worldview. If everything is moving and just a byproduct of collapsed wave function, then nothing is permanent and not much more than a dream.

 

[au5t1n]

But I will say that I think this is important in that the currently 'accepted' models tend to impose a relativist and atomistic bent to one's worldview. If everything is moving and just a byproduct of collapsed wave function, then nothing is permanent and not much more than a dream.

I thought of you when I read the section in the article on the Copenhagen interpretation of QM.

 

[Mushroom]

But I will say that I think this is important in that the currently 'accepted' models tend to impose a relativist and atomistic bent to one's worldview. If everything is moving and just a byproduct of collapsed wave function, then nothing is permanent and not much more than a dream.

I thought of you when I read the section in the article on the Copenhagen interpretation of QM.

Me? The loudest trumpeter of "bad surface-level physics"? I can barely pronounce 'Copenhagen', much less wrap my feeble mind around anything to do with QM. That's why we lassoed you into the family...

 

[MW]

As my view from other threads has been raised, I think it is important to note that while discussion naturally gravitates to Joshua 10, it is more important for me to follow the cosmology of biblical revelation as a whole, which can only be understood as geocentric. The creation itself is geocentric; the poetic descriptions of the Psalms assume it; numerous phenomena in the histories and prophets only make sense on the basis of it; and there is of course nothing which suggests an alternate view. Moreover, science has done nothing to disprove it. I feel no necessity to re-evaluate or reformulate biblical revelation in the light of hypotheses which themselves are undergoing continual re-evaluation and reformulation. I also see no need to attempt to alter the Bible to make it look credible in the eyes of the scientific community. There are pertinent philosophical considerations which limit the scope of empirical science, and allow us to hold to the biblical view even when it conflicts with the observations of men. Our aim should always be to let the Bible speak for itself, and to accept its message regardless of how it is judged by others.

 

[MW]

Would you elaborate further what you mean by all of these explanations being "self-referential"? And why does this and having nothing but a functional definition do not describe ultimate reality? Perhaps better still, is there a philosophical or theological work you could recommend that discusses this?

They are self-referential in the sense that there is no ultimate definition provided in the first instance which establishes a certain explanation for anything built upon it. The starting-point is itself based on induction, probability, and hypothesis. This can be overturned by later findings and result in a "revolution." Man has only peered so far into the nature of matter and motion. He speculates what lies beyond his ken, but he cannot be sure. If he cannot be sure he has no basis for ruling out other theories which may ultimately be proven correct. This means his own view is merely functional, and should not be presented as if it is foundational.

 

[thbslawson]

The earth rotates. There is absolutely positively no question about this. It cannot NOT be so. The Coriolis effect and geosynchronous satellites prove this. Why is this so hard to believe? Why is this seen as such a threat to Biblical truth? If the earth didn't spin, this couldn't happen...

Uganda Equator "Coriolis effect" water draining show - YouTube

 

[lynnie]

Visible light is higher-frequency electromagnetic waves, and it makes sense that it would behave much the same (aside from some particle behavior but I digress).

Logan, I appreciated your post. You hit the central core of the discussion from the scientific point of view as I understand it. Does visible light behave like the rest of the electromagnetic spectrum ( geocentric theory) or does it not(relativity theory)?

The M-M experiment I quote was actually made to prove the "aether" in which waves move through space, but now with heliocentricity there is no aether...unless what they call dark matter is aether. Not sure. Geocentrists believe in aether, and refer to it as the firmament in which the heavenly bodies are set and the (radio, light, x-ray, etc) waves move. So was that the same experiment, to measure the speed of light? I am not sure, it has been a while since I devoted myself to reading a lot of material on this ( mid 1990s). Does any great scientist stop at one experiment

One thing I do know, and I posted a link on one of the other threads here, is that in 2000 Time Magazine had Einstein as its person of the Century, and some where in the ( subscription only now) article, they mention his greatness in theorizing relativity, after a couple decades of science being stumped by the Michaelson-Morley experiment which showed the earth at rest ( using classical physics for measuring visible light). So somewhere along the line M-M did such an experiment.

The solar system looks and behaves heliocentric

Well actually, as I pointed out before, it looks and behaves geocentric. Both models work. I have an old Atlantic Monthly filed away with a letter from a pilot about navigating according to fixed earth theory and how it works perfectly to fly a plane.

It is better to read the really brilliant scientists on this. I am a novice. Also, the other phenomena that show the earth ( or at the very least, our solar system, or our galaxy) at the center of the entire universe are fascinating.

Thanks again for your thoughtful scientific post. You summed up the basic scientific arguement well. If all the other waves on the electromagnetic spectrum can be measured with objects coming towards them, or away from them, by adding or decreasing the velocity of the other object moving, does visible light behave the same way? Yes- Michaelson/ Morley. No- Einstein. When you talk about science and study and illusion, the geocentrists would say that the relativity theory exception- for one small segment of the electromagnetic spectrum- in how waves are measured, lacks common sense and scientific validity.


I love this subject. The total thrill to me of biblical inerrancy and geocentricity, and light behaving the same same as radar and microwaves and so forth, is one of the most precious doctrines I know besides salvation itself.

 

[lynnie]

Thomas Lawson, you missed my post I see ( for which I will blame only myself). Many geocentrists believe at some point the earth was knocked into some rotation on the axis, that seems indisputable ( I think, I forget who says what). This is not the same as the subject of the earth orbiting the sun, or the sun orbiting the earth. Apples and oranges.

 

[Afterthought]

I'm aware of this. I have a pretty solid grasp of coordinate systems and frames of reference, the main objection would be how things behave gravitationally. A geocentric model seems to assume that even though smaller masses orbit larger masses, it's really just an illusion, or it works that way with everything but the earth. It's possible, but it certainly seems unnatural! A person may certainly believe in an absolute coordinate system that centers on the earth. They may also believe that north is "up" and south is "down".

Since you understand the science then, you should also know that from its perspective there is nothing "illusory" or "unnatural" about it. "Ugly" maybe, "perverse" (to use the term my hostile witness used) perhaps, but not "unnatural." The only "wrong" thing from its perspective (given the qualifications I've already made in previous posts) would be taking a reference frame as absolute or global, making things unnecessarily complicated, and not being "reasonable" by simply taking the approximate inertial frames that show the earth's rotation and revolution around the sun.

Once we leave the realm of science and enter philosophy, that is where we might find it silly or arbitrary to believe north is "up," and whether we might prefer one frame or another, even as absolute in some way. However, that is also where we might acknowledge the possibility of knowledge we have not yet acquired in science that might cause our current science to find a way to view things the other way (in the manner I stated in one of my previous posts). And of course, in this realm of philosophy, criteria will need to be made to judge a particular belief silly and how to judge whether to prefer one frame or another and which one to prefer. And of course, careful guards will need to be placed around science, noticing its limited perspective and probabilistic account. We will need to decide how much science tells us gives us ultimate reality (and I don't think it does give us that), if anything, and how much of it gives reality at all (scientific realism vs non-realism).

Once we leave the realm of philosophy and enter theology, there we might see that some views are not actually silly or arbitrary but motivated by Scripture. In the case of the earth, we may find it to be a preferred frame. Is it an absolute frame? Maybe. Is it a preferred frame? Maybe. But that is to enter the realm of philosophy again; it is a way to understand how science's pronouncements might connect to what theology declares. In the realm of theology, we can be certain that whatever it says accords with ultimate reality, however that might fit in with our limited perspectives in philosophy, and even more limited perspectives in empirical science.


Anyway, all this science talk is besides the point, and I may partially be at fault for getting sidetracked (I don't recall the flow of the thread just now). It seems to me that the only reason to bring it up at this point in the thread is because a hermeneutic is presupposed that something so obviously true by science means that the contradictory found in Scripture must be an incorrect interpretation of Scripture. Why not from here on out discuss this hermeneutic and the exegetical arguments, since that is where the arguments of geocentrists tend to lie? (Well, admittedly some geocentrists base their position on science or denial of modern science, like some YECs seem to base theirs on science or denials of modern science, and that no doubt makes these discussions somewhat more confusing. Nevertheless, it seems the hermeneutical and exegetical questions are more pertinent to the changing and grounding of belief. And as Austin noted, this is the Puritanboard.) And while we're at it, we might discuss some philosophy concerning the role and abilities of science, since that is relevant to judging whether something is "obviously true" according to science, and science's connection to Scripture.

 

[thbslawson]

Why is it "Unbelievable"? I find it equally unbelievable that it's difficult to grasp such a simple fact.

 

[thbslawson]

The earth rotates. There is absolutely positively no question about this. It cannot NOT be so. The Coriolis effect and geosynchronous satellites prove this. Why is this so hard to believe? Why is this seen as such a threat to Biblical truth? If the earth didn't spin, this couldn't happen...

If you are going to start a thread on a controversial subject, at least take the time to read all of the responses before you come back with dogmatic assertions that betray a fundamental misunderstanding of general relativity, as well as the fact that you haven't been reading the discussion you started.

Read it. Disagree with it. Find it convoluted and silly.

 

[thbslawson]

I should have left well enough alone and stayed out of the conversation.

 

[thbslawson]

Why is it "Unbelievable"? I find it equally unbelievable that it's difficult to grasp such a simple fact.

It was unbelievable because we had just got through discussing the fact that the article Lynnie linked contained a detailed explanation of how geocentric models account for geosynchronous satellites, and I had just got through mentioning that folks are too prone to propping up bad examples like geosynchronous satellites without doing even a superficial amount of research into how the other side accounts for them, and you came along and mentioned them as incontrovertible proof. You have also now suggested several times that I (we) have "difficulty grasping" something that, actually, I grasp quite well, being a solid-state electronics graduate student with a strong quantum mechanics and thermodynamics background. Please read the article that Lynnie linked and spend some time reading up on general relativity before you make another post suggesting that geocentrists are stupid or willfully ignorant (and I'm not claiming to be one -- just trying to be fair and honest in handling the claims, as I wish all would do).

Never called anyone ignorant or stupid. The fact that you have the kind of background you do is admirable, and I'm glad you're able to use the expertise and knowledge you have to support your position well.

The fact of the matter is, if we're going by studies, evidence, expertise and knowledge, there are far more solidly biblical scientists, physicists, mathematicians, etc. who can all easily and, I believe, definitively defend the concept that the earth is rotating. I find their arguments far superior.

The real issue is whether or not Scripture dictates the geocentric position, which I certainly do not think it does.

 

[Mushroom]

Find it convoluted and silly.

Ain't nuthin' 'bout fizzics that ain't convoluted, brer...