Geocentrism

zone · Jan 11, 2013

Hi Ken

as promised, here's a thread considering a Stationary Earth: a Geocentric Model of the Universe.

i'll say right up front, i am not a scientist by any stretch of the imagination.

but i have considered this model of the universe, following the scholarly debate between the Geocentric and Heliocentric models as best i am able.

i know that both are theories. Helicentrism is no more proven than Geocentrism.

stats say 20+% of Westerners believe in the Geocentric Model; 33% of Russians; and the overwhelming majority of Muslims believe in Geo. this in itself doesn't prove anything other than Geo is not new, nor unknown...in reality, Heliocentrism as a scientific theory is the new kid on the block - sun worship (sun is center of all things) obviously is not new.

what i am wondering is, is there anything which absolutely rules out (makes impossible) a Stationary Earth?

as a Christian man who is skilled in math and science, Ken, does the Geocentric Model actually align more precisely with God's Word than a Heliocentric view does?

(i repeat, i am not qualified to debate anyone on this issue, only to present and consider what is presented by others who are qualified).

love zone.

~

Stationary Earth

Joshua 10:12
Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon.

Joshua 10:13
And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

zone · Jan 11, 2013

Hi Ken....here's a sample of what the debate looks like.

.............

"One can imagine why many who were looking for proof of a rotating Earth would appeal to the Foucault pendulum. It seems logical to posit that the reason the plane of the pendulum appears to be moving in a circle is that the Earth beneath it is rotating. In other words, the heliocentrist insists that the pendulum's circular motion is an illusion. The pendulum is actually moving back-and-forth in the same plane and the Earth is turning beneath it. Since the Earth is too big for us to sense its rotation, we instead observe the plane of the pendulum rotate. All one need do to prove the Earth is rotating, he insists, is to reverse the roles, that is, imagine the plane of the pendulum is stationary and the Earth beneath it is moving. This particular logic, however, doesn't prove that the Earth is rotating. One can begin the critique by asking this simple question: if the pendulum is constantly swinging in the same plane (while the Earth is rotating beneath it), what force is holding the pendulum in that stationary position? In other words, if the plane of the pendulum is stationary, with respect to what is it stationary? This is understood as an 'unresolved' force in physics. The only possible answer is: it is stationary with respect to the rest of the universe, since it is certainly not stationary with respect to the Earth. With a little insight one can see that this brings us right back to the problem that Einstein and the rest of modern physics faced with the advent of Relativity theory: is it the Earth that is rotating under fixed stars, or do the stars revolve around a fixed Earth? As Einstein said: 'The two sentences: the sun is at rest and the Earth moves, or the sun moves and the Earth is at rest, would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different coordinate systems.'

As such, it would be just as logical, not to mention scientifically consistent, to posit that the combined forces of the universe which rotate around the Earth are causing the plane of the pendulum to rotate around an immobile Earth. In other words, in the geocentric model the movement of the pendulum is not an illusion, it really moves. According to Einstein, there is no difference between the two models. Ernst Mach, from whom Einstein developed many of his insights, stated much the same. He writes: 'Obviously, it doesn't matter if we think of the Earth as turning round on its axis, or at rest while the fixed stars revolve round it. Geometrically these are exactly the same case of a relative rotation of the Earth and the fixed stars with respect to one another. But if we think of the Earth at rest and the fixed stars revolving round it, there is no flattening of the Earth, no Foucault's experiment, and so on..'.

Barbour and Bertotti proved that a large hollow sphere (representing the distant star fields) rotating around a small solid sphere inside (modeling the Earth) produced exactly the same pattern of Coriolis and centrifugal forces that are claimed as proof of Earth's spinning in space. If the hollow shell of matter accelerates or rotates, any object inside the shell will tend to be carried along with the acceleration or rotation to some extent. But they note this all-important fact: An object at the center of the hollow sphere will not be affected by the inertial forces. The space around the Earth will exhibit the inertial effects of the distant sphere, but not the Earth itself, if it is centrally located.

From Mach's principle we can conclude that inertia is a universal property, like gravity. But in Mach's principle the conventional interpretation of distant masses as causing inertial effects around the Earth is too restrictive. The cause of inertia could also logically be the properties of the space around each object, modified by the presence of the mass in or around that space. In other words the ether/firmament may be the source of inertia, which causes the gravity and inertial effects on bodies embedded in the ether. The ether's properties are changed by the masses (via feedback), but it is the ether that is the primary or first cause. Linear inertia is the resistance to motion of objects moving linearly caused by the ether drag....:

"Galileo was Wrong"
Dr. Robert Sungenis and Dr. Robert Bennett

Geocentrism . com
geocentrism.com GWW < click

Geocentrism 101
geocentrism.com 101 < click

zone · Jan 11, 2013

The Seasons:

Geocentric explanation - The Sun orbits our Earth yearly on a non-linear but fixed path within the rotating firmament. It spiral-orbits the Earth north-south and clockwise from the Tropic of Cancer to the Tropic of Capricorn in six months and then "alters course laterally" (carried along by the rotating firmament) to spiral-orbit south-north and continues clockwise for the next six months (total of one tropical year). Seasons result from the yearly helical oscillation of the sun's path around the un-tilted stationary Earth.

Nautilus · Jan 11, 2013

zone said:

I guess this proves 20% of westerners, 33% of russians, and the majority of muslims are dumb...

SPUZIT · Jan 11, 2013

Ok have to admit was interesting, ,, very much... yet left me with this,,, your adorable son... but I want some of the coffee your drinking, ( I'll take mine with milk, please) now then I always did love Sheldon On big bang theroy.. Opps miss spelled.. great verses too.

kenisyes · Jan 11, 2013

Let's first realize these are two problems:
1. Does the earth go around the sun (Heliocentric, I'll call it HC) or does the sun go around the earth (Terracentric TC)
2. If TC is true, does the earth spin on its axis?

TC does not imply there is no spin. If TC is true then the spin plus or minus the sun's path equals a day. All of this follows exactly from general relativity; you can't tell who's moving if you are moving with it. For comparison, study the flat earth theories and the hollow earth theories advanced before satellite data proved them wrong. And speaking of the TC model of the seasons, study out the gates of the sunrise in the Book of Enoch. Then ask yourself why the times match England, and not Palestine.

I was not going to add to your proofs, but Nautilus has just called me dumb, so I feel obligated. Charles Fort was the curator of the Library of New York for many years, and his hobby was collecting unexplainable facts from newspapers. When he got a small inheritance, he was free to write several books. Today, he is hailed as the founded of "Forteana", the collection of hard to explain facts, and his have gone worldwide.

I prove the earth is not going around the sun, based on Fort's proof, in every mathematics sampler class I teach. You see, stars are never observed to cross each other. But if the earth is going around the sun, they must. If star A is in front of star B, then, as you go from side to side, perpendicular to their common line, star A will first be on the left of star B, and later on the right. That's called parallax. You can try it in a room with a couple objects whenever you like. If you observe carefully as you change position, they must cross each other. Fort collected 80 years of astronomical observations (before TV took over as a pastime) and none were ever recorded.

My favorite solution was actually provided by a student in this class one semester. I doubt I could ever find the site again, but a specific four dimensional equation graphed in five dimensional space creates a specific stationary graph in that space, which appears, from a three dimensional perspective to move just as does our solar system. The student found the equation, and played the graph for us on a laptop. In other words, if we could open our eyes enough, we are not moving at all, and it's all a question of perspective. That actually is my belief, and I teach it Scripturally, when I note that "God created light, and evening came and morning followed". God creates light, the earth becomes dark first, turning away from God, night before day. God is too big for us to see all at once, so we create rotating motion to/from Him, so we can take Him one piece at a time". That single observation explains the reason we see anything rotating at all.

Scientifically, my answer to both questions is "it's our choice". The math can be made to check either way, as can all the scientific laws by suitable redefinition.

When the sun stood still (Noah, Joshua, and Hezekiah), I can prove by cross referencing other cultures, the continents moved. By applying a discovery of Ivan Sanderson's about the origin of astrology, I can demonstrate that the fifth book of the Christian Sybillines describes the motion of the splitting Pangea during the flood, consistent with the spinning earth hypothesis. in other words, we do not need TC to get these three happenings.

The best way to answer your question about Scripture is a quote from the ancient Roman Encyclopedia "Pliny's Natural History" to the effect that "those who put the sun in the center of the solar system err, because they deprive the gods of their personalities". First, he proves that the ancient people were as we are, and noticeable numbers of people believed the other theory. Second, he business about "personalities for the gods" comes from how the math is done. Our society is HC. The choice, we are told, is because the math is easier. It is, if you do it by algebra. If you do it by geometry, the math of TC is easier. Greeks did it by geometry. They had computers for it. One is in the British Museum, called the antikythera device. The home models are called astrolabes. You see, when you put the earth in the center, each planet needs two orbits to account for what you see. A small orbit rotates in the larger orbit perpendicular to the one that rotates around the earth, like Ezekiel's wheel in a wheel, only meaning something different. The nature of the relationship of the two orbits is what Pliny means by the "personalities" of the planets, which the Greeks thought were manifestations of gods.

To me, HC or TC is a matter of translation. "Sun" "Moon", etc. mean something slightly different in Greek and Hebrew because of the different expectation of rotation. I simply adjust in my mind to the correct understanding that they had, and convert the pictures in my head as I go. That way, I hear what God is saying through the human language He chose to use, without needing to prove either theory, which I have already proved is arbitrary.

I have a theory as to why we changed from TC to HC. I think subconsciouly, the sun is a symbol for Jesus ("light of the world"), the earth a symbol for the Roman Catholic Pope (home planet as in "the Church is our mother"), the other planets symbols for other churches, like the Eastern rite churches that were around in the 1500's. Just apply the symbols, and note how TC is the Catholic model, and the HC is the Reformation model.

zone · Jan 11, 2013

Nautilus said:

now now Naughty

don't judge a Kabbalistic Big Bang theory before you've weighed it.
lol
zone

zone · Jan 11, 2013

kenisyes said:

Let's first realize these are two problems:
1. Does the earth go around the sun (Heliocentric, I'll call it HC) or does the sun go around the earth (Terracentric TC)
2. If TC is true, does the earth spin on its axis?

TC does not imply there is no spin. If TC is true then the spin plus or minus the sun's path equals a day. All of this follows exactly from general relativity; you can't tell who's moving if you are moving with it. For comparison, study the flat earth theories and the hollow earth theories advanced before satellite data proved them wrong. And speaking of the TC model of the seasons, study out the gates of the sunrise in the Book of Enoch. Then ask yourself why the times match England, and not Palestine.

I was not going to add to your proofs, but Nautilus has just called me dumb, so I feel obligated. Charles Fort was the curator of the Library of New York for many years, and his hobby was collecting unexplainable facts from newspapers. When he got a small inheritance, he was free to write several books. Today, he is hailed as the founded of "Forteana", the collection of hard to explain facts, and his have gone worldwide.

I prove the earth is not going around the sun, based on Fort's proof, in every mathematics sampler class I teach. You see, stars are never observed to cross each other. But if the earth is going around the sun, they must. If star A is in front of star B, then, as you go from side to side, perpendicular to their common line, star A will first be on the left of star B, and later on the right. That's called parallax. You can try it in a room with a couple objects whenever you like. If you observe carefully as you change position, they must cross each other. Fort collected 80 years of astronomical observations (before TV took over as a pastime) and none were ever recorded.

My favorite solution was actually provided by a student in this class one semester. I doubt I could ever find the site again, but a specific four dimensional equation graphed in five dimensional space creates a specific stationary graph in that space, which appears, from a three dimensional perspective to move just as does our solar system. The student found the equation, and played the graph for us on a laptop. In other words, if we could open our eyes enough, we are not moving at all, and it's all a question of perspective. That actually is my belief, and I teach it Scripturally, when I note that "God created light, and evening came and morning followed". God creates light, the earth becomes dark first, turning away from God, night before day. God is too big for us to see all at once, so we create rotating motion to/from Him, so we can take Him one piece at a time". That single observation explains the reason we see anything rotating at all.

Scientifically, my answer to both questions is "it's our choice". The math can be made to check either way, as can all the scientific laws by suitable redefinition.

When the sun stood still (Noah, Joshua, and Hezekiah), I can prove by cross referencing other cultures, the continents moved. By applying a discovery of Ivan Sanderson's about the origin of astrology, I can demonstrate that the fifth book of the Christian Sybillines describes the motion of the splitting Pangea during the flood, consistent with the spinning earth hypothesis. in other words, we do not need TC to get these three happenings.

The best way to answer your question about Scripture is a quote from the ancient Roman Encyclopedia "Pliny's Natural History" to the effect that "those who put the sun in the center of the solar system err, because they deprive the gods of their personalities". First, he proves that the ancient people were as we are, and noticeable numbers of people believed the other theory. Second, he business about "personalities for the gods" comes from how the math is done. Our society is HC. The choice, we are told, is because the math is easier. It is, if you do it by algebra. If you do it by geometry, the math of TC is easier. Greeks did it by geometry. They had computers for it. One is in the British Museum, called the antikythera device. The home models are called astrolabes. You see, when you put the earth in the center, each planet needs two orbits to account for what you see. A small orbit rotates in the larger orbit perpendicular to the one that rotates around the earth, like Ezekiel's wheel in a wheel, only meaning something different. The nature of the relationship of the two orbits is what Pliny means by the "personalities" of the planets, which the Greeks thought were manifestations of gods.

To me, HC or TC is a matter of translation. "Sun" "Moon", etc. mean something slightly different in Greek and Hebrew because of the different expectation of rotation. I simply adjust in my mind to the correct understanding that they had, and convert the pictures in my head as I go. That way, I hear what God is saying through the human language He chose to use, without needing to prove either theory, which I have already proved is arbitrary.

I have a theory as to why we changed from TC to HC. I think subconsciouly, the sun is a symbol for Jesus ("light of the world"), the earth a symbol for the Roman Catholic Pope (home planet as in "the Church is our mother"), the other planets symbols for other churches, like the Eastern rite churches that were around in the 1500's. Just apply the symbols, and note how TC is the Catholic model, and the HC is the Reformation model.

KEN ROCKS

zone · Jan 11, 2013

theory adjustment?

kenisyes said:

I have a theory as to why we changed from TC to HC. I think subconsciouly, the sun is a symbol for Jesus ("light of the world"), the earth a symbol for the Roman Catholic Pope (home planet as in "the Church is our mother"), the other planets symbols for other churches, like the Eastern rite churches that were around in the 1500's. Just apply the symbols, and note how TC is the Catholic model, and the HC is the....... <'SECULAR' ENLIGHTENMENT - read: KABBALAH infiltration>...... model.

kenisyes · Jan 11, 2013

Sorry, Zone, I'm completely lost what you are getting at.

zone · Jan 11, 2013

kenisyes said:

LOL Ken.

you agree the earth is stationary, right? of course it is. it doesn't spin on its axis, it is fixed.

my last comment was Helio wasn't a reformation per say innovation, but a kabbalistic injection disguised as secular scientism.

i was just blown away by your knowledge...so let's carry on. but try to keep it simple for my sake.

i'll post on some stuff from the Bible which says the earth doesn't move. at all

kenisyes · Jan 11, 2013

Either the earth spins or the sky spins. Normally, I think it's easier to think about the earth spinning, but it really makes no difference to me. I can see why God would not spin the earth; He wants to stay the same relative to us. But I can't see why He would want to spin the stars around the earth?

My comment is that wherever the idea comes from, it's acceptance is in part motivated by the symbols I mentioned related to the reformation. I would like to see that Kabbalah passages imply Heliocentric.

Digital_Angel_316 · Jan 11, 2013

zone · Jan 11, 2013

Digital_Angel_316 said:

DA...could you explain Polaris (The North Star)?

zone · Jan 11, 2013

kenisyes said:

okay...i'll get to it.

for now, let's just frame the debate some more...any resources or personal writing you have (that lay persons like me can understand) would be good.

Cosmology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia < click

Physical cosmology is the branch of physics and astrophysics that deals with the study of the physical origins and evolution of the Universe. It also includes the study of the nature of the Universe on its very largest scales. In its earliest form it was what is now known as celestial mechanics, the study of the heavens. The Greek philosophers Aristarchus of Samos, Aristotle and Ptolemy proposed different cosmological theories. In particular, the geocentric Ptolemaic system was the accepted theory to explain the motion of the heavens until Nicolaus Copernicus, and subsequently Johannes Kepler and Galileo Galilei proposed a heliocentric system in the 16th century. This is known as one of the most famous examples of epistemological rupture in physical cosmology.

~

CHART:

Ptolemaic model (based on Aristotelian universe) Ptolemy (2nd century AD) Geocentric Universe orbits about a stationary Earth. Planets move in circular epicycles, each having a center that moved in a larger circular orbit (called an eccentric or a deferent) around a center-point near the Earth. The use of equants added another level of complexity and allowed astronomers to predict the positions of the planets. The most successful universe model of all time, using the criterion of longevity. Almagest (the Great System).

Aryabhatan model Aryabhata (499) Geocentric or Heliocentric The Earth rotates and the planets move in elliptical orbits, possibly around either the Earth or the Sun. It is uncertain whether the model is geocentric or heliocentric due to planetary orbits given with respect to both the Earth and the Sun.

zone · Jan 11, 2013

i would also ask us, as a community of Christians....how is it the "scientific" world (Enlightenment) managed to convince nearly everyone, and propagate as fact a theory that has absolutely no foundation in reality: EVOLUTION.

how is it this theory managed to usurp Creation, and in such a short period of time, through a continued and overwhelming legitimization via 'ACADEMIA'?

zone · Jan 11, 2013

kenisyes said:

Sefer HaTemunah (Hebrew: ספר התמונה &#8206 (lit. "Book of the Figure", i.e. shape of the Hebrew letters) is a 13–14th century kabbalistic text. It is quoted in many Halakhic sources.

By interpreting the texts of Sefer HaTemunah and the Midrash, Isaac ben Samuel of Acre calculated the age of the universe to be 15,340,500,000 years old.[1][9] His reasoning was as follows: as the Midrash states, "A thousand years in your sight are but as yesterday" (Psalm 90:4); a physical year contains 365 ¼ days, which, if multiplied by 1000 would give the length of a divine year as 365,250 physical years; if we are living in the last, 7th Sabbatical cycle, that would mean that the creation as it described in the Bible happened 42,000 divine years ago; to convert this figure to physical years it should be multiplied by 365,250; this gives the result 15,340,500,000 years.[1]

In 1993, Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan wrote that the Big Bang occurred "approximately 15 billion years ago", calling this "the same conclusion" as the 13th century kabbalists.[1] According to a 2010 estimate by NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe project, the age of the universe is 13.75 ± 0.13 billion years.[10]

Sefer HaTemunah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia < click

zone · Jan 11, 2013

Kabbalistic Cosmology
and its parallels in the
‘Big-Bang' of Modern Physics

Kabbalistic Cosmology < click

zone · Jan 11, 2013

Sabbatianism, Tikkun and the Big Bang Theory

Yakov Leib haKohain

"In previous essay I have alluded to the fact that Isaac Luria's 16th century, Kabbalistic notion of the "Sheviret HaKelim" (or "Shattering of the Vessels") -- on which the Neo-Sabbatian concept of Tikkun, or "Holy Repair of the Face of God" -- is virtually identical to that of the "Big Bang" theory of 20th-century astrophysics. The importance of this is that modern science has literally confirmed the validity of Lurianic and, therefore, Neo-Sabbatian Kabbalah and, by extension, the Jewish mystical texts, such as the Zohar, on which they were based. In this new series, I propose to explore this radical idea in greater detail and from the perspectives of Neo-Sabbatian Kabbalah, astrophysics and Jungian metaphysics...."

Sabbatianism, Tikkun and the Big Bang Theory < click

the Neo-Sabbatian concept of Tikkun, or "Holy Repair of the Face of God" -- is virtually identical to that of the "Big Bang" theory of 20th-century astrophysics.

The importance of this is that modern science has literally confirmed the validity of Lurianic and, therefore, Neo-Sabbatian Kabbalah and, by extension, the Jewish mystical texts, such as the Zohar, on which they were based.

zone · Jan 11, 2013

The Lurianic Theory of Creation and Redemption

The Lurianic and Sabbatian Kabbalah teach about a very dynamic and controversial (even dialectical in almost Schellingian sense of this word) process of self explication and self construction of the Absolute (as well as His liberation from even the shadow of the roots of evil) which as the process of tikkun (Restoration, or Universal Correction) unfolds the unlimited richness of His contents in the system of Personalities, or Hypostases (Partzufim). Therefore, the World of Restoration ('Olam Tikkun) is not equal (but is not different as well) to the world of 'Or En-Sof (Ultimateless Light, or Absolute) of the beginning. Tikkun 'Olam is of the same nature as 'Or En-Sof but it is not simplicity and potentiality but concrete unity of differences and actuality. And the process of Tikkun is called "the repairing of the God's Face" because it corrects the existential break, or gap in the Absolute Being as such which is also a moment in His unfolding.

Tikkun - The Lurianic Theory of Creation and Redemption < click

Geocentrism

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

SPUZIT

Guest

kenisyes

Guest

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

kenisyes

Guest

Senior Member

kenisyes

Guest

Banned

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member