Speed of Light
- Thread starter ZackF
- Start date
- Status
Logan
Puritan Board Graduate
I think you're confused between velocity of the wave and the Doppler (frequency) shift, which are not the same. Heliocentric or geocentric, what you are stating is just incorrect. If it were, every radar measurement we make would be completely ambiguous and nearly useless. What sources are you finding that state radar works this way?
There are some special properties of electromagnetic waves once you get to wavelengths near the atomic scale, but I'm curious to know where you think this switch between "classical physics" and "relativistic physics" happens in that spectrum.
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/another-article-against-geocentrism.90800/page-9#post-1115435
Old people talk louder online I've noticed. And they like exclammation points and CAPITALS more. Old people and Fundamentalists. I think it is a generational thing. Them soft Millenials just can't take it.
I hope you keep interacting.
As you get used to the PB you'll shout less and resort more to passive-aggressive smug smart-alecky-ness like the rest of us, putting subtle jabs like small doses of poison into your responses to kill your opponent gradually.
Grant
Puritan Board Graduate
We all have learned well from the master.........YOU
Grant
Puritan Board Graduate
Right are you.
In fact some can often reflect the Bible’s account of being a talking ass (Numbers 22).
Afterthought
Puritan Board Senior
The geocentrists that deny relativity have the planets orbiting the sun, and the sun orbiting the earth. Neither of these will disprove absolute geocentrism. These days, it is not about the data per se but about dynamics and metaphysics. (Although to be fair, Tycho Brahe's system has been around for a while, and it is just the coordinate transform one would get by changing to earth's frame; if a geocentrist model is consistent with relativity, then the model will definitely be consistent with both of the above data sets.)
Oh, but that donkey didn't lie. He told the truth. So there's that going for him.Right are you.
In fact some can often reflect the Bible’s account of being a talking ass (Numbers 22).
Can we say that some truths are metaphysically true even when they are not literally true? Such as Christ's crucifixion being the "center" of world history even though there doesn't have to literally be equal time before as after?
And in the same manner, the earth is the center of God's focus, even though not literally the center of the universe?
Logan-
I can't remember which sources. Just for my own clarification, can you tell me something.....
If I am on a moving train, and a person with a bright flashlight is standing on the track, relativity says the speed of the light will measure the same heading towards or away from them. However, if the person is an ambulance signal and they move towards me and then away from me, the soundwave will measure higher or lower ( we hear the pitch change) from velocities adding and subtracting.
Are you saying radar radio waves do not measure like sound waves? The velocity will always measure the same no matter which direction you move towards or away from a moving object? It doesn't matter for geocentricity but it is an example out there so I want to clarify. Thanks.
I can't remember which sources. Just for my own clarification, can you tell me something.....
If I am on a moving train, and a person with a bright flashlight is standing on the track, relativity says the speed of the light will measure the same heading towards or away from them. However, if the person is an ambulance signal and they move towards me and then away from me, the soundwave will measure higher or lower ( we hear the pitch change) from velocities adding and subtracting.
Are you saying radar radio waves do not measure like sound waves? The velocity will always measure the same no matter which direction you move towards or away from a moving object? It doesn't matter for geocentricity but it is an example out there so I want to clarify. Thanks.
John- here is a nice a little quote from a heliocentrist:
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-possible-to-construct-a-modern-geocentric-model
As mentioned above, the modern model has all the planets orbiting the sun, and the sun orbits center of mass of the universe. Your mercury is going around the sun, so please don't go to all kinds of trouble to get pictures of the inner planets.
Both models work fine with regard to our solar system and what we observe, you will find that out if you read more. Geo is considered egocentric and repulsive. We call it redemption and earth centered glorious, but I'll stop there.
Gregory Snelgar, Physicist
Answered Aug 31, 2016
A geocentric model would also be an ego-centric model. It would require you to believe that the whole universe revolves around you.
But mathematically it would actually be simpler and more elegant. Perhaps you are thinking of the Ptolemaic system which required complex and inelegant "deferents" and "epicycles".
If we take the neo-Tychonic model, it is actually simpler and more elegant than the current standard model. The other planets orbit the Sun as per modern observations, but the Sun orbits the center of mass of the universe, which is the Earth.
This is observationally identical to the standard model but philosophically unwelcome.
Mathematically it is more elegant because it does away with cosmic inflation, the Lorentz contraction, etc. which were designed with the specific goal of avoiding an egocentric model.
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-possible-to-construct-a-modern-geocentric-model
As mentioned above, the modern model has all the planets orbiting the sun, and the sun orbits center of mass of the universe. Your mercury is going around the sun, so please don't go to all kinds of trouble to get pictures of the inner planets.
Both models work fine with regard to our solar system and what we observe, you will find that out if you read more. Geo is considered egocentric and repulsive. We call it redemption and earth centered glorious, but I'll stop there.
Gregory Snelgar, Physicist
Answered Aug 31, 2016
A geocentric model would also be an ego-centric model. It would require you to believe that the whole universe revolves around you.
But mathematically it would actually be simpler and more elegant. Perhaps you are thinking of the Ptolemaic system which required complex and inelegant "deferents" and "epicycles".
If we take the neo-Tychonic model, it is actually simpler and more elegant than the current standard model. The other planets orbit the Sun as per modern observations, but the Sun orbits the center of mass of the universe, which is the Earth.
This is observationally identical to the standard model but philosophically unwelcome.
Mathematically it is more elegant because it does away with cosmic inflation, the Lorentz contraction, etc. which were designed with the specific goal of avoiding an egocentric model.
One question I have: if the red shift results from the universe expanding all around us, and if this red shift is seen 360 degrees around our planet, doesn't this indicate that we are at the center? If there is a red-shift found in every quadrant of the sky, this means we are in the middle.
SeanPatrickCornell
Puritan Board Junior
A modern cosmologist would tell you that everything is moving away from everything else, so everything looks red shifted from everywhere.
Image you have a small balloon (the surface of the balloon is space) and on that balloon a lot of dots are drawn. Each dot is a star / galaxy / planet / whatever. Now blow up the balloon. Each dot moves away from every other dot as the surface of the balloon inflates. Modern cosmologists would tell us that this is the same phenomenon that the universe at large experiences. So, from that point of view, "center" is meaningless on the one hand, and on the other hand EVERYTHING is at the "center" from its own point of view.
That also makes sense.
SeanPatrickCornell
Puritan Board Junior
Logan is perfectly equipped to answer, but I am here, and I have a solid background in radar as well as laser interferometers.
The short answer is that radar works exactly the same as light.
Shine a flashlight (or radiate a radar signal) at my face. I will measure the speed of the incoming wave to be 182,282 miles per second, and it will have a certain wavelength and frequency.
Now walk toward me. Or even run! But keep shining that flashlight (or radiating that radar). Now, I will measure the speed of the incoming wave to be exactly the same as before. Zero difference. But the wavelength of the incoming wave will be shorter and the frequency will be higher.
Now walk away from me. Or even run! But keep shining that flashlight (or radiating that radar). Now, I will measure the speed of the incoming wave to be exactly the same as before. Zero difference. But the wavelength of the incoming wave will be longer and the frequency will be lower.
Doppler Radar works by measuring the shift in wavelength / frequency of the reflected wave as it bounces off of a moving object. The speed of the wave is not changed, the wavelength / frequency changes.
Ok, anything wrong I say don't blame it on the leading geocentrists. LOL. There are all kinds of threads and sites out there and people draw conclusions and make statements that might be wrong. The internet is a mixture. I appreciate the clarification. I won't mention radar again if I talk to somebody. Just don't pin this on Bouw or Sungenis or Selbrede or Bowden.
To try and explain better- and here I am referring to the Time Magazine man of the Century article about Einstein which I linked in some other thread here- all the experimental work in the 1800s that assumed the earth hurling towards a distant star at one point, and six months later hurling away from that star in the opposite direction as the earth supposedly orbits the sun, expected to see a measurable difference in the light coming from the star, by adding and subtracting the velocity of the earth's orbit. But it didn't. It showed the earth at rest.
That liberal rag itself Time Mag wrote how this puzzled scientists for a couple decades. And they call the genius of Einstein that he figured out relativity, that the light from the star does not behave like you would expect a wave to behave. You can't add and subtract velocities of the moving earth, so really the earth is moving even if it measures as a body at rest, so they say . Classical physics got tossed for relativity. Geocentrists reject relativity.
There are links on the other threads for anybody interested to read more but I don't have time to go looking. But thanks for the reply. This isn't some flat earth internet group, this is brilliant scientist geocentrists, and I am not one of them, but they are worth investigating for anyone interested.
To try and explain better- and here I am referring to the Time Magazine man of the Century article about Einstein which I linked in some other thread here- all the experimental work in the 1800s that assumed the earth hurling towards a distant star at one point, and six months later hurling away from that star in the opposite direction as the earth supposedly orbits the sun, expected to see a measurable difference in the light coming from the star, by adding and subtracting the velocity of the earth's orbit. But it didn't. It showed the earth at rest.
That liberal rag itself Time Mag wrote how this puzzled scientists for a couple decades. And they call the genius of Einstein that he figured out relativity, that the light from the star does not behave like you would expect a wave to behave. You can't add and subtract velocities of the moving earth, so really the earth is moving even if it measures as a body at rest, so they say . Classical physics got tossed for relativity. Geocentrists reject relativity.
There are links on the other threads for anybody interested to read more but I don't have time to go looking. But thanks for the reply. This isn't some flat earth internet group, this is brilliant scientist geocentrists, and I am not one of them, but they are worth investigating for anyone interested.
Solparvus
Puritan Board Senior
So amazing... who can understand it?
Like all things from God we can understand to a point before it explodes into mystery.
SeanPatrickCornell
Puritan Board Junior
Instruments in the 1800s weren't sensitive enough to notice. The truth we have definitely observed a difference in the light from distant starts as the Earth moves toward or away from any given star as the Earth goes around the Sun.
For example, a distant star will appear slightly more blue (shorter wavelength) as the Earth is moving (relatively) toward a star for several months and the same star will appear slightly more red (longer wavelength) as the Earth is moving (relatively) away from the same star for several months. It takes really sensitive instruments to detect this, but the phenomenon is present, periodic, and repeatable, and exactly matches the "Earth goes around the Sun" model.
Logan
Puritan Board Graduate
I'm not entirely certain why "classical physics" seems to be considered almost sacred. Our models of our understanding of creation are getting better and better. Sir Isaac Newton contributed greatly to modern physics but some of the stuff he postulated in a large part overturned previous "classical physics". And all for the better. But there is nothing in the Bible that indicates "classical physics" is God-centered and anything else is not.
And if you start to get into anything like quantum, lasers, semi-conductors, you start to realize there are a whole lot of things that just simply can't be explained by "classical physics". And then you start to realize just how little we really know and how inscrutable the Creator really is.
Afterthought
Puritan Board Senior
By "metaphysics," I was referring to the essence of things, what reality actually is, the thing behind the appearances. Physics describes how things function, but it cannot tell us what they are. Even its descriptions of motion are relative to a prior understanding of reality (e.g., in terms of reference frames) and so cannot be held as absolute. Modern relativity theory gets around this to a degree because its definition of "space" and "time" are operationalist, i.e., it tries to avoid metaphysics and just stick with what we can measure. The question of geocentrism is tied up with questions of absolute motion and absolute location, and so it is tied up with metaphysical questions. Some metaphysical questions do get mixed up with the theological though, I suppose, e.g., I could say that the earth centered frame is the absolute frame of reference for theological reasons, even though any frame centered around anything will give the correct physical results; it's a question of metaphysics and theology.
However, to answer the questions, yes, I agree that such can be the case. I think there are three things to keep in mind though.
1) Sometimes, the theological significance is tied to the existence of the literal, e.g., typology. Or the literal significance will be so significant that it will give rise to the theological significance, e.g., if the earth was found to be in a special place physically, that would call for a theological explanation (at least at first; probably some false theology like evolutionary development plus searching for a new symmetry would replace it eventually).
2) Sometimes, the question is not merely theological significance, but literal significance. The person who views the Bible as teaching geocentrism is concerned with literal, factual placement/motion of the earth, not merely theological.
3) The theological significance can affect metaphysical issues that affect our formulation of physics and thereby influence how we view the world, and it is possible that the theological significance can be denied by how one approaches the literal significance in formulating physical theories. MW in the thread Logan linked to earlier mentioned how the "mediocrity principle" was a motivating factor in developing modern cosmology. While today it is used more as a simplifying device by the everyday research physicist (with a little supporting evidence too), a Christian who viewed the earth as being theologically significant would not have been driven by the same motivations and may have formulated physics differently (or maybe not; the motivation for the "mediocrity principle" may have come from another source for the Christian). Certainly, such a Christian could not rule out certain explanations merely because they made the earth seem physically special.
Last edited:
Sean- thank you for the reply! I truly appreciate it.
The problem is that years ago I spent so much time on this, and corresponded with Malcolm Bowden in the UK and wrote to Selbrede once ( his answer was way over my head). And while you can say that modern measurements are better and prove one thing, the geo scientists will not agree. I read it all at the time....what about the Foucault pendulum, what about the airplane that flew with an atomic clock, what about this what about that. It was all out there...Lambert Dolphin's library had a lot If I recall correctly, Sungenis has a site as does Bowden, I bought Bouws book and the Sungenis book and DVD. I read it all and it settled it for me. And at this point I don't want to go hunt for things anymore just to post on PB. Been there. But I mean it when I say I appreciate the dialogue.
I hope this analogy does not offend, but for me it is like trying to talk to a biologos person who is my saved brethren in Christ. They have all the modern proof that the earth is billions of years old and mankind conclusively evolved from an original group of at least 80 people with distinct DNA. And they Carbon dated Noah's bible and it was positively from 80,000 years ago in a local flood, well not exactly a quote but you get my drift.
Both helio and geo work to explain the solar system that we see. You cannot disprove either in that sense. Going broader to the universe, here is a set of lovely quotes:
https://quotesandreferences.blogspot.com/2016/08/quotes-in-favor-of-geocentrism.html
I'm tempted to post it all, but too long I think. A few below, but I hope you can read the link. Ultimately, it is philosophical, and modern science rejects geocentricity on philosophical grounds. There are other sites with way more quotes but I just don't want to put the time into this. Better people read the scientists instead of me screwing up something, LOL. Thanks again.
"I can construct for you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations. You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that."- Physicist, George F. R. Ellis
"What happened when the experiment was done in 1887? There was never, never, in any orientation at any time of year, any shift in the interference pattern; none; no shift; no fringe shift; nothing. What's the implication? Here was an experiment that was done to measure the speed of the earth's motion through the ether. This was an experiment that was ten times more sensitive than it needed to be. It could have detected speeds as low as two miles a second instead of the known 2mps that the earth as in its orbital motion around the sun. It didn't detect it. What's the conclusion from the Michelson-Morley experiment? The implications is that the earth is not moving..."- Physicist, Richard Wolfson
"The Earth is indeed the center of the Universe. The arrangement of quasars on certain spherical shells is only with respect to the Earth. These shells would disappear if viewed from another galaxy or quasar. This means that the cosmological principle will have to go. Also it implies that a coordinate system fixed to the Earth will be a preferred frame of reference in the Universe. Consequently, both the Special and General Theory of Relativity must be abandoned for cosmological purposes."- Astrophysicist, Yetendra P. Varshni
"No longer could astronomers hope that the Copernican dilemma would disappear with improved data. The data were in hand, and their implication inescapable: we are at the center of a spherically symmetric distribution of gamma-ray-burst sources, and this distribution has an outer edge."- Astrophysicist, Jonathan I. Katz
The problem is that years ago I spent so much time on this, and corresponded with Malcolm Bowden in the UK and wrote to Selbrede once ( his answer was way over my head). And while you can say that modern measurements are better and prove one thing, the geo scientists will not agree. I read it all at the time....what about the Foucault pendulum, what about the airplane that flew with an atomic clock, what about this what about that. It was all out there...Lambert Dolphin's library had a lot If I recall correctly, Sungenis has a site as does Bowden, I bought Bouws book and the Sungenis book and DVD. I read it all and it settled it for me. And at this point I don't want to go hunt for things anymore just to post on PB. Been there. But I mean it when I say I appreciate the dialogue.
I hope this analogy does not offend, but for me it is like trying to talk to a biologos person who is my saved brethren in Christ. They have all the modern proof that the earth is billions of years old and mankind conclusively evolved from an original group of at least 80 people with distinct DNA. And they Carbon dated Noah's bible and it was positively from 80,000 years ago in a local flood, well not exactly a quote but you get my drift.
Both helio and geo work to explain the solar system that we see. You cannot disprove either in that sense. Going broader to the universe, here is a set of lovely quotes:
https://quotesandreferences.blogspot.com/2016/08/quotes-in-favor-of-geocentrism.html
I'm tempted to post it all, but too long I think. A few below, but I hope you can read the link. Ultimately, it is philosophical, and modern science rejects geocentricity on philosophical grounds. There are other sites with way more quotes but I just don't want to put the time into this. Better people read the scientists instead of me screwing up something, LOL. Thanks again.
"I can construct for you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations. You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that."- Physicist, George F. R. Ellis
"What happened when the experiment was done in 1887? There was never, never, in any orientation at any time of year, any shift in the interference pattern; none; no shift; no fringe shift; nothing. What's the implication? Here was an experiment that was done to measure the speed of the earth's motion through the ether. This was an experiment that was ten times more sensitive than it needed to be. It could have detected speeds as low as two miles a second instead of the known 2mps that the earth as in its orbital motion around the sun. It didn't detect it. What's the conclusion from the Michelson-Morley experiment? The implications is that the earth is not moving..."- Physicist, Richard Wolfson
"The Earth is indeed the center of the Universe. The arrangement of quasars on certain spherical shells is only with respect to the Earth. These shells would disappear if viewed from another galaxy or quasar. This means that the cosmological principle will have to go. Also it implies that a coordinate system fixed to the Earth will be a preferred frame of reference in the Universe. Consequently, both the Special and General Theory of Relativity must be abandoned for cosmological purposes."- Astrophysicist, Yetendra P. Varshni
"No longer could astronomers hope that the Copernican dilemma would disappear with improved data. The data were in hand, and their implication inescapable: we are at the center of a spherically symmetric distribution of gamma-ray-burst sources, and this distribution has an outer edge."- Astrophysicist, Jonathan I. Katz
Kinghezy
Puritan Board Sophomore
We all have learned well from the master.........YOU
Hilarious. My first thought when I saw Perg's post was, "well, perfect spot for Grant to chime in". That was beautiful.
- Status
Similar threads
