Geocentrism

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
S

st_sebastian

Guest
#361
#361
For what it's worth, modern science teaches neither heliocentrism nor geocentrism. With the advent of relativity, it is realized that there are no preferred frames of reference and that calculations can be carried out in either system with equal accuracy. Again - there are no preferred frames of reference, so neither is stationary except by convention.

However, in the Earth-Sun system, the center of mass is definitely within the sun. Hence, when you use the center-of-mass frame, the system looks heliocentric.
 
M

Married_Richenbrachen

Guest
#362
#362
st_sebastian said:
For what it's worth, modern science teaches neither heliocentrism nor geocentrism. With the advent of relativity, it is realized that there are no preferred frames of reference and that calculations can be carried out in either system with equal accuracy. Again - there are no preferred frames of reference, so neither is stationary except by convention.
Click to expand...
Exactly. So the heliocentrists' relativity still permits a geocentric view (although true geocentrism is more than just a frame of reference). However, a view far more consistent with the evidence is to disregard relativity altogether. It is unneeded, unless one accepts the unproven (and unprovable to date) assumption the Earth is moving. Why believe in fairy tales, especially fairy tales that oppose scripture?

st_sebastian said:
However, in the Earth-Sun system, the center of mass is definitely within the sun.
Click to expand...
Prove it. I think your reasoning is circular (i.e. the Earth revolves around the sun, therefore the sun has the larger mass, therefore the Earth revolves around the sun). What we actually observe is that the sun revolves around the Earth (however we interpret this observation). And from where I stand, the sun looks a lot smaller than the Earth. So if the sun/Earth system behaves according to the theory of gravity (which I doubt), I'd say the Earth has a greater mass than the sun.

st_sebastian said:
Hence, when you use the center-of-mass frame, the system looks heliocentric.
Click to expand...
Nothing looks heliocentric. Heliocentricity is a theory used to explain why things don't look the way we see them.
 
S

st_sebastian

Guest
#363
#363
The mass of the sun is no longer calculated by apparent motion, but by the bending of light. It is a valid calculation.
 
M

Married_Richenbrachen

Guest
#366
#366
st_sebastian said:
The mass of the sun is no longer calculated by apparent motion, but by the bending of light. It is a valid calculation.
Click to expand...
I trust you understand what circular reasoning is, and that a theory based on an assumption can't logically be used to prove the assumption upon which the theory is based.

Graybeard said:
How does the Geocentric explain this?
Click to expand...
Geocentrism holds that the Earth is stationary, and that it is the Heavens that rotate. The Foucault pendulum just as easily "proves" that it is the Heavens that rotate about a stationary Earth, as it "proves" that the Earth rotates about its axis in relation to a (stationary) universe. Remember, what do heliocentrists hold that the pivot on a Foucault pendulum is stationary to? (Hint: not Earth).
 
doseofreality

doseofreality

Banned
#367
Dec 9, 2013
753
5
0
#367
Married_Richenbrachen said:
I trust you understand what circular reasoning is, and that a theory based on an assumption can't logically be used to prove the assumption upon which the theory is based.
Click to expand...
Do you see any irony here?

Married_Richenbrachen said:
Geocentrism holds that the Earth is stationary, and that it is the Heavens that rotate. The Foucault pendulum just as easily "proves" that it is the Heavens that rotate about a stationary Earth, as it "proves" that the Earth rotates about its axis in relation to a (stationary) universe. Remember, what do heliocentrists hold that the pivot on a Foucault pendulum is stationary to? (Hint: not Earth).
Click to expand...
I believe the pivot is only 50 or 100 feet high....are you claiming that everything above the surface of the earth is rotating around a stationary earth?
 
M

Married_Richenbrachen

Guest
#368
#368
doseofreality said:
Do you see any irony here?
Click to expand...
Do you think I should?

doseofreality said:
I believe the pivot is only 50 or 100 feet high....are you claiming that everything above the surface of the earth is rotating around a stationary earth?
Click to expand...
With respect to what is the pendulum's pivot stationary? (Hint: As before, not Earth). Once you determine this, you will find the height is irrelevant.
 
M

Married_Richenbrachen

Guest
#369
#369
Married_Richenbrachen said:
With respect to what is the pendulum's pivot stationary? (Hint: As before, not Earth). Once you determine this, you will find the height is irrelevant.
Click to expand...
The above is incorrect. It should read:

"With respect to what is the plane of the Foucault pendulum's swinging arm stationary?" As the assertion is that the swinging plane of the Foucault pendulum's arm is stationary with respect to the universe, either a rotating Earth/stationary universe or a rotating universe/stationary Earth will give the same result. For this reason, the height of the pendulum is irrelevant.

My apologies for any confusion caused with my previous incorrect terminology.
 
S

st_sebastian

Guest
#370
#370
Married_Richenbrachen said:
I trust you understand what circular reasoning is, and that a theory based on an assumption can't logically be used to prove the assumption upon which the theory is based.
Click to expand...
You had already decided my argument was circular before you knew what it was. When presented with a completely different calculation, you forged ahead and decided that it too was circular. If I had told you that the mass of the sun was calculated with poodles, I have no doubt you would have responded that it was a circular argument.

You are not taking the conversation seriously enough. Your responses are generic.
 
doseofreality

doseofreality

Banned
#371
Dec 9, 2013
753
5
0
#371
Married_Richenbrachen said:
I trust you understand what circular reasoning is, and that a theory based on an assumption can't logically be used to prove the assumption upon which the theory is based.

Geocentrism holds that the Earth is stationary, and that it is the Heavens that rotate. The Foucault pendulum just as easily "proves" that it is the Heavens that rotate about a stationary Earth, as it "proves" that the Earth rotates about its axis in relation to a (stationary) universe. Remember, what do heliocentrists hold that the pivot on a Foucault pendulum is stationary to? (Hint: not Earth).
Click to expand...
Married_Richenbrachen said:
The above is incorrect. It should read:

"With respect to what is the plane of the Foucault pendulum's swinging arm stationary?" As the assertion is that the swinging plane of the Foucault pendulum's arm is stationary with respect to the universe, either a rotating Earth/stationary universe or a rotating universe/stationary Earth will give the same result. For this reason, the height of the pendulum is irrelevant.

My apologies for any confusion caused with my previous incorrect terminology.
Click to expand...
I apologize if I don't follow but what you are saying does not make sense to me ... even if everything is rotating around a stationary earth, the swinging plane of the pendulum would not change because there are no moving parts acting on the pendulum. That was the whole point of the experiment to begin with.
Therefore since the plane rotates it means the pendulum is moving, thus the earth is moving

[video]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Foucault_pendulum_plane_of_swing_semi3D.gif[/video]
 
T_Laurich

T_Laurich

Senior Member
#372
Mar 24, 2013
3,356
122
63
29
#372
doseofreality said:
I apologize if I don't follow but what you are saying does not make sense to me ... even if everything is rotating around a stationary earth, the swinging plane of the pendulum would not change because there are no moving parts acting on the pendulum. That was the whole point of the experiment to begin with.
Therefore since the plane rotates it means the pendulum is moving, thus the earth is moving

[video]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Foucault_pendulum_plane_of_swing_semi3D.gif[/video]
Click to expand...
I am not very good at physics... So can you explain to me if a pendulum should work on the equator... And if so, why and how...

(Edit: taking in note you are referring to a pendulum that gains it's rotation from a rotating earth... Then this is what my question is directed towards)
 
M

Married_Richenbrachen

Guest
#373
#373
st_sebastian said:
You had already decided my argument was circular before you knew what it was. When presented with a completely different calculation, you forged ahead and decided that it too was circular. If I had told you that the mass of the sun was calculated with poodles, I have no doubt you would have responded that it was a circular argument.

You are not taking the conversation seriously enough. Your responses are generic.
Click to expand...
One of the tactics of obfuscation used by disinformation shills and their unwitting parrots to convince people of lies, is to throw in a jargain-filled argument, relying on the lack of technical knowledge of the readers, in hopes of silencing criticism. When people ask them to explain what they mean, they either don't, or tell them to read a nonsense book describing such vain imaginations.

You are correct in that if you had advised that you calculated the mass of the sun with poodles, and it mysteriously/magically gave the same number as that expected by the theory of gravity, I would have claimed your reasoning was circular. The alternatives are that your equations or data are deliberately fraudulent, or that somehow poodles truly do have something to do with the mass of the sun. I assumed what seemed the most statistically probable to me, but I am certainly open to correction if you can prove that the bending of light does prove the mass of the sun (e.g. your argument doesn't go something like - the sun is moving, therefore when we measure the bending of light from the sun, this gives a mass of x, which in turn, must mean the Earth revolves around the sun).
 
M

Married_Richenbrachen

Guest
#374
#374
doseofreality said:
I apologize if I don't follow but what you are saying does not make sense to me ... even if everything is rotating around a stationary earth, the swinging plane of the pendulum would not change because there are no moving parts acting on the pendulum. That was the whole point of the experiment to begin with.
Therefore since the plane rotates it means the pendulum is moving, thus the earth is moving

[video]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Foucault_pendulum_plane_of_swing_semi3D.gif[/video]
Click to expand...
The heliocentrist holds that the plane of the pendulum swinging arm is stationary (with respect to the universe). They hold that the universe is still, and that the rotation pattern produced by the pendulum is "proof" that the Earth moves with respect to the stationary universe.

However, a geocentrist can just as easily interpret the result as follows: The pendulum swinging arm is stationary (with respect to the universe, which is actually revolving about Earth). The Earth is absolutely at rest. The rotation pattern produced by the pendulum is "proof" that the universe moves with respect to the stationary Earth.

The key to understanding the interpretations, is realising with respect to what is each group claiming the plane of the pendulum swinging arm to be stationary. In heliocentrism (which logically requires relativity), there is no absolute of stationary, so the plane must always be stationary with respect to something else.
 
M

Married_Richenbrachen

Guest
#375
#375
Married_Richenbrachen said:
One of the tactics of obfuscation used by disinformation shills and their unwitting parrots to convince people of lies, is to throw in a jargain-filled argument, relying on the lack of technical knowledge of the readers, in hopes of silencing criticism. When people ask them to explain what they mean, they either don't, or tell them to read a nonsense book describing such vain imaginations.

You are correct in that if you had advised that you calculated the mass of the sun with poodles, and it mysteriously/magically gave the same number as that expected by the theory of gravity, I would have claimed your reasoning was circular. The alternatives are that your equations or data are deliberately fraudulent, or that somehow poodles truly do have something to do with the mass of the sun. I assumed what seemed the most statistically probable to me, but I am certainly open to correction if you can prove that the bending of light does prove the mass of the sun (e.g. your argument doesn't go something like - the sun is moving, therefore when we measure the bending of light from the sun, this gives a mass of x, which in turn, must mean the Earth revolves around the sun).
Click to expand...
What I meant to say... :|

I am certainly open to correction if you can prove that the bending of light does prove the mass of the sun (e.g. your argument doesn't go something like - the Earth is moving, therefore when we measure the bending of light from the sun, this gives a mass of x, which in turn, must mean the Earth revolves around the sun).
 
S

st_sebastian

Guest
#376
#376
doseofreality said:
I apologize if I don't follow but what you are saying does not make sense to me ...
Click to expand...
Probably because it's unrelated to the conversation you're having. He apparently likes to set up arguments (that he supposes you can or will make) and then knocks down the strawmen without any serious consideration. He still believes I would use the language of "revolves around," when I've already made it clear that I like any modern scientist do not believe there are such things as preferred frames of reference.

The guy has built up such a comprehensive wall of rhetoric that the conversation is not worth your time. You will be labeled either a disinformation shill or a parrot and any references you attempt to post will be similarly dismissed.

This was one of my most worthy plonks.
 
S

st_sebastian

Guest
#377
#377
Married_Richenbrachen said:
What I meant to say... :|
Click to expand...
Nah, bud. Don't worry with clarifications. You so quickly, too quickly, jump to the assumption that I'm actively trying to give bad information or haven't bothered to confirm these things for myself.

Disinformation? Seriously? Is this /x/?
 
doseofreality

doseofreality

Banned
#378
Dec 9, 2013
753
5
0
#378
T_Laurich said:
I am not very good at physics... So can you explain to me if a pendulum should work on the equator... And if so, why and how...

(Edit: taking in note you are referring to a pendulum that gains it's rotation from a rotating earth... Then this is what my question is directed towards)
Click to expand...
I am no physics expert either but maybe i can explain this. At the equator, the pendulum would work but not rotate.
So if the experiment was only tried at the equator it would seem that the earth is stationary, however, you must explain why at the North pole the pendulum rotates 360 degrees in 1 day.

The theory that earth rotates around its axis explains both observations.

Also the earth has curvature, at the equator the curvature is zero or the tangent is vertical.
At the poles the curvature is 1 or the tangent is horizontal.
You can describe the curvature as the sine of the degree of Latitude relative to the equator.

Imagine trying to draw a straight line on a piece of paper as it is rotating, that is the effect at the poles.
Now imagine drawing the line as you are walking with the paper moving along side parallel to you, that is the effect at the equator.
Everywhere else is a combination of those two effects, walking alongside the paper as it is slowly rotating.
How fast it rotates depends on the curvature.

Hope that helps

Foucault pendulum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
doseofreality

doseofreality

Banned
#379
Dec 9, 2013
753
5
0
#379
Married_Richenbrachen said:
The heliocentrist holds that the plane of the pendulum swinging arm is stationary (with respect to the universe). They hold that the universe is still, and that the rotation pattern produced by the pendulum is "proof" that the Earth moves with respect to the stationary universe.
Click to expand...
The universe is NOT still or stationary...everything is moving relative to something:cool:

planets rotate around an axis as they are orbiting a star which is wobbling around itself as it is orbiting the center of the milky way which is moving through space toward the Andromeda galaxy .... etc

Please study effects of gravity on matter and Einsteins theory of relativity, these theories are taught for a reason because they currently do the best job at explaining the world around us.
 
M

Married_Richenbrachen

Guest
#380
#380
st_sebastian said:
Nah, bud. Don't worry with clarifications. You so quickly, too quickly, jump to the assumption that I'm actively trying to give bad information or haven't bothered to confirm these things for myself.

Disinformation? Seriously? Is this /x/?
Click to expand...
Look. We can spend all day arguing "I'm right", "No, I'm right" etc. Like children. Or taking offense at perceived insults. This is an approach shills enjoy, as it doesn't require any basis in reality and their lies won't be exposed as wrong.

I never said you were a shill, I said giving a half-argument without explanation is a technique shills use. And I have neither time, money, nor inclination to debate shills. So if I see a half-argument whose only basis is its techno-jargain, I'm within my rights to categorise it as either poor logic/science (this was the category I put your light bending sun mass calculation into), or a deliberate attempt to deceive.

If you want to give your complete argument and explanation, I will debate it in kind. But I'm not going to spend a lot of time debating someone who makes a claim without explaining or backing up with any kind of evidence. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.