The Copernican Principle
"The scientist Nicolaus Copernicus recognized that Earth is not in any particularly privileged position in the solar system. This elegant fact can be extended to encompass a powerful idea, known as the Copernican Principle, that we are not in a special or favorable place of any sort. By looking at the world through the eyes of this principle, we can remove certain blinders and preconceptions about ourselves and re-examine our relationship with the universe. The Copernican Principle can be used in the traditional spatial sense, providing awareness of our mediocre place in the galaxy, and our galaxy's place in the universe. We now recognize that our solar system, once thought to be the center of the galaxy, is actually in the suburban portions of the Milky Way. And the Copernican Principle helps guide our understanding of the expanding universe, allowing us to see that anywhere in the cosmos one would also view other galaxies moving away at rapid speeds, just as we see here on Earth. We are not anywhere special."https://www.edge.org/response-detail/10277
"The key point is that I don’t really believe there is any discursive process of reasoning in the way YouTuber and Sagan move from the Copernican Principle to metaphysics. Instead, so far as I can see, their perception of the awesome size of the universe and our non-privileged position in it provides the occasion for them to form certain basic beliefs such as “You are not special” or “We’re on our own” or “There is no God.”"https://randalrauser.com/2014/04/does-the-copernican-principle-favor-atheism/
Many years ago Al Gore came out with a documentary titled "An Inconvenient Truth". It was rather ironic in the sense that the documentary was award winning and popular among the elites. However, there are things that are at times both true and inconvenient. Such is the case with the Neo-Tychonian Solar system often labeled under the heading Geocentrism. If this argument has merit it automatically devastates any academic field advocating either atheism, secularism or naturalism.
It is a position held by intellectuals and is an effective argument. Yet it is cursed as being confused with conspiracy theories. Many a creationist, are afraid of such a position for this very reason.
The mainstream of creation science as a rule, distances itself from Geocentrism. But Danny Faulkner often consider a father of modern creation astronomy gives a more even handed appraisal.
"There are some very highly educated people who are geo-centrists today, including physicists and at least one person with a PHD in astronomy. Geo-centrists use Physical arguments, but there main motivation seams to be their belief that the bible teaches that the earth does not move. And this movement does not appeared to have any flat-earthers in their midst.
"It should be obvious that flat-earthers must be geo-centrists. However, one ought not to confuse the "traditional" or Tychonic, geocentrists described above with the flat-earth movement.
It is ironic, however that after the Tychonic geo-centrists had labored for decades, the sudden rise in the flat earth movement has resulted in there probably being more flat-earth geo-centrists today than there are geo-centrists who believe the earth is a sphere. To add insult to injury, that flat earthers use many of the arguments, both physical and biblical, that they borrowed from the Tychonic geo-centrists. However it is doubtful that any flat-earthers understand the physical arguments as well as most Tychonic geo-centrists do." Dr. Danny Faulkner "Falling Flat: A refutation of Flat Earth Claims ch. 7 pg. 201-202 Aug 2019 Masterbooks publishing
Thus, we who are of the classic Geocentric position, have found ourselves in a most unenviable position. Why even bother? Why do we work so hard to get nothing but ridicule in return?
But Danny Faulkner is not the only creationist to recognize the efforts of a geo-centric creationist.
"The book True Science Agrees with the Bible by Malcolm Bowden is another of his thoroughly researched, highly readable books on the vitally important subject of the Bible and science. When I started to read it, I found it hard to put down since he has included so many fascinating and important subjects in his book, many of which are not discussed in other works. As the reader will discover, Bowden covers a wide range of material, including a survey of Genesis, archaeological discoveries, the age of the earth, early British Christianity and the founding of Britain, and a critique of Einstein’s theories of relativity, just to name a few. Bowden’s position on a few subjects may be controversial, but he provides a careful, thorough defense of his acceptance or rejection of the subject in question. This book contains a wealth of material that will be of interest to scientists, pastors, students, and the average layman. We owe a great debt of gratitude to Malcolm Bowden for the countless hours he has spent in researching this material and assembling it in an enjoyable and easily readable form." Duane T. Gish, PhD Senior Vice President Institute for Creation Research El Cajon, California 92021 (Forward to "True Science Agrees with the Bible by Malcolm Bowden") This does not erase the fact that the Geocentric position has a soiled reputation among mainstream creationists. But it says that this is a respectable enough case to be heard by Intellectual Christians and as we will see is more than ready to be presented to Atheists as well..
Helio-centricity is the fundamental principle of humanism both secular and religious.
"During the 1970's John Hick regarded his approach to world religions as so radical that he began to describe it as a Copernican Revolution in religion. As Hick saw things, Christian exclusivism is analogous to the old, outdated Ptolemaic model of the solar system. Claudius Ptolemy, an astronomer and mathematician who lived in Alexandria Egypt, from around AD 100 to 170, taught what is called the geocentric theory of the solar system and pictured the sun and the planets as revolving around the earth. Ptolemy's view was challenged by the polish astronomer Nicholaus Copernicus (1473-1543). For several hundred years now, it has become almost cliche' that scholars who have a dramatically new idea to propose describe it as a "Copernican Revolution".
However, Hick was doing more than just suggesting that his theory was revolutionary. He found in the Copernican Revolution an appropriate metaphor for his own understanding on the relation between the major religions of the world. That is, Hicks proposal in comparative religions was patterned after the transformation from a Ptolemaic model to a Copernican model in cosmology.
Hicks sees Christian exclusivism as analogous to the out dated Ptolemaic model of the solar system. He defined "Ptolemaic theology" as a system "whose fixed point is the principle that outside the church or outside Christianity there is no salvation"."
Is Jesus the Only Savior? chapter 3 The early stages of John Hicks pluralism
Pg. 30 By Ronald H. Nash
So here we see the justification for distorting the gospel of Christ. Since changing the viewpoint of the universe of the world we live in, was so successful we can apply it to God himself. The understanding of the universe and reality is foundational and beyond question. When this pillar collapses then all other principles are subject to change. Ironically, the foundation of heliocentrism is not the foundation of the secular worldview.
First, the Biblical case for Geo-centricity
No solar creation
Genesis 1: 1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."
God created the earth 3 days before day 4. If there is no sun, then there is no gravitational force to move the earth. Besides, what would the earth be moving through? Starting the motion of 1700km per hr could easily be catastrophic to survival of life on earth.
Stationary earth
1 chronicles 16:30 Fear before him, all the earth:
the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved."
Now considering hermeneutics, the wording of the psalm is probably not as concrete as it appears.is the earth stable compared to man or in light of God? There are verses that speak of the earth moving like shaking out of it's place. But nothing in scripture describing the rapid movement of heliocentrism.
Acts 7:49 Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool: what house will ye build me? saith the Lord: or what is the place of my rest?"
God's place in Heaven is a symbol of his immutability. But the metaphor implies that the earth would connect to such immutability to the earth via his footstool.
Motion of the sun
Ecclesiastes 1:4 One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever.5 The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.
6 The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits.7 All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again."
We see the geocentric movement of the sun is paralleled by that of the wind. There are many passages which describe the motions of the sun and moon it all follows the same current.
Sun and moon rotation stopped
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.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.14 And there was no day like that before it or after it, that the Lord hearkened unto the voice of a man: for the Lord fought for Israel.
Unanimous vote of pre-scientific exposition
Martin Luther
There was mention of a certain new astrologer who wanted to prove that the earth moves and not the sky, the sun, and the moon. This would be as if somebody were riding on a cart or in a ship and imagined that he was standing still while the earth and the trees were moving. [Luther remarked] “So it goes now. Whoever wants to be clever must agree with nothing that others esteem. He must do something of his own. This is what that fellow does who wishes to turn the whole of astronomy upside down. Even in these things that are thrown into disorder I believe the Holy Scriptures, for Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth [Josh. 10:12].”iiMartin Luther, Luther’s Works. Vol 54. Table Talk, ed. Helmut T. Lehmann (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1967), 358–9.
Classic geocentricity from John Calvin
"Justly does Augustine complain that God is insulted whenever any higher reason than His will is demanded (Lib. de Geut.) He also in another place wisely reminds us that it is just as improper to raise questions about infinite periods of time as about infinite space.(De Civit Dei.). However wide the circuit of the heavens may be, it is of some definite extant." John Calvin The Institutes of the Christian Religion book 1 chapter 14 part 1
"But now he has arranged the motions of the sun and stars for man's use,..."John Calvin The Institutes of the Christian Religion book 1 chapter 14 part 2
"The
former is exemplified when we consider how great the Architect must be
who framed and ordered the multitude of the starry hosts so admirably;
that it is impossible to imagine a more glorious sight, so stationing
some, and fixing them to particular spots that they can not move; giving
a freer course to others, yet setting limits to their wanderings; so
tempering the movement of the whole as to measure out day and night,
months, years and seasons and at the same time so regulating the
inequality of the days as to prevent everything like confusion. The
former course is moreover, exemplified when we attend to his power in
sustaining the mass, and guiding the swift revolutions of the heavenly
bodies..." John Calvin The Institutes of the Christian Religion book 1
chapter 14 part 22
Early-medieval church Commentators
Ambrose: Worthy surely was he to stand forth as a man who might stay the course of the river, and who might say: "Sun, stand still," and delay the night and lengthen the day, as though to witness his victory. Why? a blessing denied to Moses--he alone was chosen to lead the people into the promised land. A man he was, great in the wonders he wrought by faith, great in his triumphs. The works of Moses were of a higher type, his brought greater success. Either of these then aided by divine grace rose above all human standing. The one ruled the sea, the other heaven. (Duties of the Clergy, Bk II, Ch XX, 99)
Ambrose: But they say that the sun can be said to be alone, because there is no second sun. But the sun himself has many things in common with the stars, for he travels across the heavens, he is of that ethereal and heavenly substance, he is a creature, and is reckoned amongst all the works of God. He serves God in union with all, blesses Him with all, praises Him with all. Therefore he cannot accurately be said to be alone, for he is not set apart from the rest.(Exposition of the Christian Faith, Bk V, Ch II)
Anatolius of Alexandria: Eudemus relates in his Astrologies that Enopides found out the circle of the zodiac and the cycle "of the great year. And Thales discovered the eclipse of the sun and its period in the tropics in its constant inequality. And Anaximander discovered that the earth is poised in space, and moves round the axis of the universe. And Anaximenes discovered that the moon has her light from the sun, and found out also the way in which she suffers eclipse. And the rest of the mathematicians have also made additions to these discoveries. We may instance the facts--that the fixed stars move round the axis passing through the poles, while the planets remove from each other round the perpendicular axis of the zodiac; and that the axis of the fixed stars and the planets is the side of a pente-decagon with four-and-twenty parts. (XVII)
Aphrahat: For the sun in twelve hours circles round, from the east unto the west; and when he has accomplished his course, his light is hidden in the night-time, and the night is not disturbed by his power. And in the hours of the night the sun turns round in his rapid course, and turning round begins to run in his accustomed path. (Demonstrations, 24).
Archeleus: When the light had been diffused everywhere, God began to constitute the universe, and commenced with the heaven and the earth; in which process this issue appeared, to wit, that the midst, which is the locality of earth covered with shadow, as a consequence of the interpositions of the creatures which were called into being, was found to be obscure, in such wise that circumstances required light to be introduced into that place, which was thus situated in the midst. (Disputation with Manes, 22).
Arnobius: The moon, the sun, the earth, the ether, the stars, are members and parts of the world; but if they are parts and members, they are certainly not themselves living creatures (Arnobius Against the Heathen, Book 3, 350)
Athanasius: but the earth is not supported upon itself, but is set upon the realm of the waters, while this again is kept in its place, being bound fast at the center of the universe. (Against the Heathen, Book I, Part I)
Athanasius: For who that sees the circle of heaven and the course of the sun and the moon, and the positions and movements of the other stars, as they take place in opposite and different directions, while yet in their difference all with one accord observe a consistent order, can resist the conclusion that these are not ordered by themselves, but have a maker distinct from themselves who orders them? or who that sees the sun rising by day and the moon shining by night, and waning and waxing without variation exactly according to the same number of days, and some of the stars running their courses and with orbits various and manifold, while others move without wandering, can fail to perceive that they certainly have a creator to guide them? (Against the Heathen, Bk 1, Part III, 35)
For by a nod and by the power of the Divine Word of the Father that governs and presides over all, the heaven revolves, the stars move, the sun shines, the moon goes her circuit, and the air receives the sun's light and the aether his heat, and the winds blow: the mountains are reared on high, the sea is rough with waves, and the living things in it grow the earth abides fixed...” (Against the Heathen, Bk 1, Part III, 44)
Athenagoras: to Him is for us to know who stretched out and vaulted the heavens, and fixed the earth in its place like a center (Why the Christians do not Offer Sacrifices, Ch XIII)
Augustine: Let not the philosophers, then, think to upset our faith with arguments from the weight of bodies; for I don't care to inquire why they cannot believe an earthly body can be in heaven, while the whole earth is suspended on nothing. For perhaps the world keeps its central place by the same law that attracts to its center all heavy bodies. (City of God, Bk XIII, Ch 18)
Augustine: For an eclipse of the sun had also happened; and this was attributed to the divine power of Romulus by the ignorant multitude, who did not know that it was brought about by the fixed laws of the sun's course (City of God, Bk III, Ch 15)
Augustine: This he said either of those things of which he had just been speaking--the succession of generations, the orbit of the sun, the course of rivers,--or else of all kinds of creatures. that are born and die. (City of God, Bk XII, Ch 13).
Augustine: What is there so arranged by the Author of the nature of heaven and earth as the exactly ordered course of the stars? What is there established by laws so sure and inflexible? And yet, when it pleased Him who with sovereignty and supreme power regulates all He has created, a star conspicuous among the rest by its size and splendor changed its color, size, form, and, most wonderful of all, the order and law of its course! Certainly that phenomenon disturbed the canons of the astronomers, if there were any then, by which they tabulate, as by unerring computation, the past and future movements of the stars, so as to take upon them to affirm that this which happened to the morning star (Venus) never happened before nor since. But we read in the divine books that even the sun itself stood still when a holy man, Joshua the son of Nun, had begged this from God until victory should finish the battle he had begun; and that it even went back, that the promise of fifteen years added to the life of king Hezekiah might be sealed by this additional prodigy. But these miracles, which were vouchsafed to the merits of holy men, even when our adversaries believe them, they attribute to magical arts; so Virgil, in the lines I quoted above, ascribes to magic the power to "Turn rivers backward to their source, And make the stars forget their course." (City of God, Book XXI, Ch 8).
Augustine: Who else save Joshua the son of Nun divided the stream of the Jordan for the people to pass over, and by the utterance of a prayer to God bridled and stopped the revolving sun? Who save Samson ever quenched his thirst with water flowing forth from the jawbone of a dead ass? Who save Elias was carried aloft in a chariot of fire? (Tractates, XCI, Ch XV, 24-25, 2).
Augustine: I desire to know the power and nature of time, by which we measure the motions of bodies, and say (for example) that this motion is twice as long as that. For, I ask, since "day" declares not the stay only of the sun upon the earth, according to which day is one thing, night another, but also its entire circuit from east even to east, according to which we say, "So many days have passed" (the nights being included when we say "so many days," and their spaces not counted apart), since, then, the day is finished by the motion of the sun, and by his circuit from east to east, I ask, whether the motion itself is the day, or the period in which that motion is completed, or both? For if the first be the day, then would there be a day although the sun should finish that course in so small a space of time as an hour. If the second, then that would not be a day if from one sunrise to another there were but so short a period as an hour, but the sun must go round four-and-twenty times to complete a day. If both, neither could that be called a day if the sun should run his entire round in the space of an hour; nor that, if, while the sun stood still, so much time should pass as the sun is accustomed to accomplish his whole course in from morning to morning. I shall not therefore now ask, what that is which is called day, but what time is, by which we, measuring the circuit of the sun, should say that it was accomplished in half the space of time it was wont, if it had been completed in so small a space as twelve hours; and comparing both times, we should call that single, this double time, although the sun should run his course from east to east sometimes in that single, sometimes in that double time. Let no man then tell me that the motions of the heavenly bodies are times, because, when at the prayer of one the sun stood still in order that he might achieve his victorious battle, the sun stood still, but time went on. For in such space of time as was sufficient was that battle fought and ended. I see that time, then, is a certain extension. But do I see it, or do I seem to see it? Thou, O Light and Truth, wilt show me. (Confessions, Bk XI, Ch XXIII, 30)
Basil: There are inquirers into nature who with a great display of words give reasons for the immobility of the earth...It is not, they go on, without reason or by chance that the earth occupies the center of the universe...Do not then be surprised that the world never falls: it occupies the center of the universe, its natural place. By necessity it is obliged to remain in its place, unless a movement contrary to nature should displace it. If there is anything in this system which might appear probable to you, keep your admiration for the source of such perfect order, for the wisdom of God. Grand phenomena do not strike us the less when we have discovered something of their wonderful mechanism. Is it otherwise here? At all events let us prefer the simplicity of faith to the demonstrations of reason. (Nine Homilies on the Hexameron, 10)
Basil: If the sun, subject to corruption, is so beautiful, so grand. so rapid in its move-meat, so invariable in its course; if its grandeur is in such perfect harmony with and due proportion to the universe: if, by the beauty of its nature, it shines like a brilliant eye in the middle of creation; if finally, one cannot tire of contemplating it, what will be the beauty of the Sun of Righteousness? (Homilies, 6)
Basil: From thence the sun, returning to the summer solstice, in the direction of the North, gives us the longest days. And, as it travels farther in the air, it burns that which is over our heads, dries up the earth, ripens the grains and hastens the maturity of the fruits of the trees. (Homilies, 6, 8).
Basil: It will not lead me to give less importance to the creation of the universe, that the servant of God, Moses, is silent as to shapes; he has not said that the earth is a hundred and eighty thousand furlongs in circumference; he has not measured into what extent of air its shadow projects itself whilst the sun revolves around it, nor stated how this shadow, casting itself upon the moon, produces eclipses. (Homilies, IX).
Basil: In the midst of the covering and veil, where the priests were allowed to enter, was situated the altar of incense, the symbol of the earth placed in the middle of this universe; and from it came the fumes of incense. (The Mystic Meaning of the Tabernacle, Bk V, Ch VI; Clement of Rome, Stromata, Bk V)
Basil: Like tops, which after the first impulse, continue their evolutions, turning upon themselves when once fixed in their centre; thus nature, receiving the impulse of this first command, follows without interruption the course of ages, until the consummation of all things. (Homilies, V, 10)
John Cassian: He was a man who, after the close of his life had been decreed and the day of his death determined by the Lord's sentence, prevailed by a single prayer to extend the limits set to his life by fifteen years, the sun returning by ten steps, on which it had already shone in its course towards its setting, and by its return dispersing those lines which the shadow that followed its course had already marked, and by this giving two days in one to the whole world, by a stupendous miracle contrary to the fixed laws of nature. Yet after signs so great and so incredible, after such immense proofs of his goodness, hear the Scripture tell how he was destroyed by his very successes. (Twelve Books on the Institutes, Bk XI, Ch X).
Chrysostom: Dost thou not see how God is daily blasphemed and mocked by believers and unbelievers, both in word and in deed? What then? Has He for this extinguished the sun? or stayed the course of the moon? Has He crushed the heavens and uprooted the earth? Has He dried up the sea? Has He shut up the fountains of waters? or confounded the air? Nay, on the contrary, He makes His sun to rise, His rain to descend, gives the fruits of the earth in their seasons, and thus supplies yearly nourishment to the blasphemers, to the insensible, to the polluted, to persecutors; not for one day or two, but for their whole life. Imitate Him then, emulate Him as far as human powers admit. Can thou not make the sun arise? (Homilies on First Timothy, Homily VI)
Chrysostom: And what took place at a later period were few and at intervals; for example, when the sun stood still in its course, and started back in the opposite direction. And this one may see to have occurred in our case also. For so even in our generation, in the instance of him who surpassed all in ungodliness, I mean Julian, many strange things happened. Thus when the Jews were attempting to raise up again the temple at Jerusalem, fire burst out from the foundations, and utterly hindered them all. (Homilies on Matthew, Homily IV)
Chrysostom: And again, David saith of the sun, that "he is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a giant to run his course." Seest thou how he places before thee the beauty of this star, and its greatness? For even as a bridegroom when he appears from some stately chamber, so the sun sends forth his rays under the East; and adorning the heaven as it were with a saffron-colored veil, and making the clouds like roses, and running unimpeded all the day; he meets no obstacle to interrupt his course. Beholdest thou, then, his beauty? (Homilies to Antioch, Homily X)
Chrysostom: For He not only made it, but provided also that when it was made, it should carry on its operations; not permitting it to be all immoveable, nor commanding it to be all in a state of motion. The heaven, for instance, hath remained immoveable, according as the prophet says, "He placed the heaven as a vault, and stretched it out as a tent over the earth." But, on the other hand, the sun with the rest of the stars, runs on his course through every day. And again, the earth is fixed, but the waters are continually in motion; and not the waters only, but the clouds, and the frequent and successive showers, which return at their proper season. (Homilies to Antioch, Homily XII)
Chrysostom: [Speaking of the end of the world]: For the heaven shall be disturbed and the earth shall be shaken from its foundations by reason of the fury of the wrath of the Lord of Sabaoth, in the day when His wrath shall come upon us." And again "windows" he saith "shall be opened from the Heaven, and the foundations of the earth shall be shaken the earth shall be mightily confounded, the earth shall be bent low, it shall be perplexed with great perplexity, the earth shall stagger grievously like the drunkard and the reveller; the earth shall shake as a hut, it shall fall and not be able to rise up again: for iniquity has waxed mighty therein. And God shall set His hand upon the host of the Heaven in the height in that day, and upon the kingdoms of the earth, and He shall gather together the congregation thereof into a prison, and shall shut them up in a stronghold." And Malachi speaking concordantly with these said" Behold the Lord almighty cometh, and who shall abide the day of His coming or who shall stand when He appeareth? for He cometh like a refiner's fire, and like fullers soap: and He shall sit refining and purifying as it were silver, and as it were gold." (Letters to Theodor, Letter I, 12)
Chrysostom: Consider of how great value is the righteous man. Joshua the son of Nun said, "Let the sun stand still at Gibeon, the moon at the valley of Elom" (Josh. x. 12), and it was so. Let then the whole world come, or rather two or three, or four, or ten, or twenty worlds, and let them say and do this; yet shall they not be able. But the friend of God commanded the creatures of his Friend, or rather he besought his Friend, and the servants yielded, and he below gave command to those above. Seest thou that these things are for service fulfilling their appointed course?
This was greater than the [miracles] of Moses. Why (I ask)? Because it is not a like thing to command the sea and the heavenly [bodies]. For that indeed was also a great thing, yea very great, nevertheless it was not at all equal [to the other]. Why was this? The name of Joshua [JESUS], was a type. For this reason then, and because of the very name, the creation reverenced him. What then! Was no other person called Jesus? [Yes]; but this man was on this account so called in type; for he used to be called Hoshea. Therefore the name was changed: for it was a prediction and a prophecy. He brought in the people into the promised land, as JESUS [does] into heaven; not the Law; since neither did Moses [bring them in], but remained without. (Homily on the Epistle to the Hebrews, Homily VIII)
Chrysostom: Therefore it was, that Joshua, the son of Nave, said, "Let the sun stand still in Gibeon, and the moon over against the valley of Ajalon.' And again the prophet Isaiah made the sun to retrace his steps, under the reign of Hezekiah; and Moses gave orders to the air, and the sea, the earth, and the rocks. Elisha changed the nature of the waters; the Three Children triumphed over the fire. Thou seest how God hath provided for us on either hand; leading us by the beauty of the elements to the knowledge of His divinity; and, by their feebleness, not permitting us to lapse into the worship of them. (Homily to Antioch, Homily X)
Clement of Rome: The sun and moon, with the companies of the stars, roll on in harmony according to His command, within their prescribed limits, and without any deviation. (First Epistle to the Corinthians, Ch XX).
Clement of Rome: the Creator, long-suffering, merciful, the sustainer, the benefactor, ordaining love of men, counselling purity, immortal and making immortal, incomparable, dwelling in the souls of the good, that cannot be contained and yet is contained, who has fixed the great world as a centre in space, who has spread out the heavens and solidified the earth (Homily II, Ch XLV)
Clement of Rome: For it is manifest even to the unbelieving and unskilful, that the course of the sun, which is useful and necessary to the world, and which is assigned by providence, is always kept orderly; but the courses of the moon, in comparison of the course of the sun, seem to the unskilful to be inordinate and unsettled in her waxings and wanings. For the sun moves in fixed and orderly periods: for from him are hours, from him the day when he rises, from him also the night when he sets; from him months and years are reckoned, from him the variations of seasons are produced; while, rising to the higher regions, he tempers the spring; but when he reaches the top of the heaven, he kindles the summer's heats: again, sinking, he produces the temper of autumn; and when he returns to his lowest circle, he bequeaths to us the rigour of winter's cold from the icy binding of heaven. (Pseudo-Clementine, Bk VIII, Ch XLV)
Cyril of Jerusalem: And he, who could not hope to live because of the prophetic sentence, had fifteen years added to his life, and for the sign the sun ran backward in his course Well then, for Ezekias' sake the sun turned back but for Christ the sun was eclipsed, not retracing his steps, but suffering eclipse, and therefore shewing the difference between them, I mean between Ezekias and Jesus. (Catechetical Lectures, II, 15)
Cyril of Jerusalem: the earth, which bears the same proportion to the heaven as the center to the whole circumference of a wheel, for the earth is no more than this in comparison with the heaven: consider then that this first heaven which is seen is less than the second, and the second than the third, for so far Scripture has named them...” (Catechetical Lectures, VI, 3)
Ephraim the Syrian: The sun in his course teaches thee that thou rest from labour. (On Admonition and Repentance)
Eusebius: The vast expanse of heaven, like an azure veil is interposed between those without, and those who inhabit his royal mansions: while round this expanse the sun and moon, with the rest of the heavenly luminaries (like torch- bearers around the entrance of the imperial palace), perform, in honor of their sovereign, their appointed courses; holding forth, at the word of his command, an ever-burning light to those whose lot is cast in the darker regions without the pale of heaven. (Oration of Constantine, Ch 1).
Eusebius: to whom he has permitted the contemplation of celestial objects, and revealed the course and changes of the sun and moon, and the periods of the planets and fixed stars. (Oration of Constantine, Ch VI).
Eusebius: Even so one and the same impression of the solar rays illumines the air at once, gives light to the eyes, warmth to the touch, fertility to the earth, and growth to plants. The same luminary constitutes the course of time, governs the motions of the stars, performs the circuit of the heavens, imparts beauty to the earth, and displays the power of God to all: and all this he performs by the sole and unaided force of his own nature.(Oration of Constantine, Ch XII)
Gregory Nanzianzus: But who gave him motion at first? And what is it which ever moves him in his circuit, though in his nature stable and immovable, truly unwearied, and the giver and sustainer of life, and all the rest of the titles which the poets justly sing of him, and never resting in his course or his benefits? How comes he to be the creator of day when above the earth, and of night when below it? or whatever may be the right expression when one contemplates the sun? (Orations, Oration XXVIII, XXX)
Gregory Nanzianzus: The sun is extolled by David for its beauty, its greatness, its swift course, and its power, splendid as a bridegroom, majestic as a giant; while, from the extent of its circuit, it has such power that it equally sheds its light from one end of heaven to the other, and the heat thereof is in no wise lessened by distance. (Funeral Orations for St. Basil, 66).
Gregory of Nyssa: "This is the book of the generation of heaven and earth," saith the Scripture, when all that is seen was finished, and each of the things that are betook itself to its own separate place, when the body of heaven compassed all things round, and those bodies which are heavy and of downward tendency, the earth and the water, holding each other in, took the middle place of the universe; while, as a sort of bond and stability for the things that were made, the Divine power and skill was implanted in the growth of things, guiding all things with the reins of a double operation (for it was by rest and motion that it devised the genesis of the things that were not, and the continuance of the things that are), driving around, about the heavy and changeless element contributed by the creation that does not move, as about some fixed path, the exceedingly rapid motion of the sphere, like a wheel, and preserving the indissolubility of both by their mutual action, as the circling substance by its rapid motion compresses the compact body of the earth round about, while that which is firm and unyielding, by reason of its unchanging fixedness, continually augments the whirling motion of those things which revolve round it, and intensity s is produced in equal measure in each of the natures which thus differ in their operation, in the stationary nature, I mean, and in the mobile revolution; for neither is the earth shifted from its own base, nor does the heaven ever relax in its vehemence, or slacken its motion. (On the Making of Man, 30, 1, 1)
Gregory of Nyssa: But, boasting as they do that they know these things, let them first tell us about the things of inferior nature; what they think of the body of the heavens, of the machinery which conveys the stars in their eternal courses, or of the sphere in which they move; for, however far speculation may proceed, when it comes to the uncertain and incomprehensible it must stop. For though any one say that another body, like in fashion (to that body of the heavens), fitting to its circular shape, checks its velocity, so that, ever turning in its course, it revolves conformably to that other upon itself, being retained by the force that embraces it from flying off at a tangent, yet how can he assert that these bodies will remain unspent by their constant friction with each other? And how, again, is motion produced in the case of two coeval bodies mutually conformed, when the one remains motionless (for the inner body, one would have thought, being held as in a vice by the motionlessness of that which embraces it, will be quite unable to act); and what is it that maintains the embracing body in its fixedness, so that it remains unshaken and unaffected by the motion of that which fits into it? (Answer to Eunomius’ Second Book)
Gregory of Nyssa: And how does earth below form the foundation of the whole, and what is it that keeps it firmly in its place? what is it that controls its downward tendency? If any one should interrogate us on these and such-like points, will any of us be found so presumptuous as to promise an explanation of them? No! the only reply that can be given by men of sense is this:--that He Who made all things in wisdom can alone furnish an account of His creation. For ourselves, "through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God," as saith the Apostle. (Answer to Eunomius’ Second Book)
Gregory of Nyssa: “...the vault of heaven prolongs itself so uninterruptedly that it encircles all things with itself, and that the earth and its surroundings are poised in the middle, and that the motion of all the revolving bodies is round this fixed and solid center...” (On the Soul and Resurrection)
Gregory of Nyssa: “...on whatever side the sun's rays may fall on some particular point of the globe, if we follow a straight diameter, we shall find shadow upon the opposite point, and so, continuously, at the opposite end of the direct line of the rays shadow moves round that globe, keeping pace with the sun, so that equally in their turn both the upper half and the under half of the earth are in light and darkness...” (On the Soul and Resurrection)
Gregory of Nyssa: And when you look at the waning and waxing moon you are taught other truths by the visible figure of that heavenly body, viz. that it is in itself devoid of light, and that it revolves in the circle nearest to the earth, and that it is lit by light from the sun; just as is the case with mirrors, which, receiving the sun upon them, do not reflect rays of their own, but those of the sun, whose light is given back from their smooth flashing surface. Those who see this, but do not examine it, think that the light comes from the moon herself. But that this is not the case is proved by this; that when she is diametrically facing the sun she has the whole of the disc that looks our way illuminated; but, as she traverses her own circle of revolution quicker from moving in a narrower space, she herself has completed this more than twelve times before the sun has once traveled round his; whence it happens that her substance is not always covered with light. (On the Soul and Resurrection).
Gregory Thaumaturgos: And the life of men weareth away, as day by day, and in the periods of hours and years, and the determinate courses of the sun, some are ever coming, and others passing away. And the matter is like the transit of torrents as they fall into the measureless deep of the sea with a mighty noise. And all things that have been constituted by God for the sake of men abide the same: as, for instance, I that man is born of earth, and departs to earth again; that the earth itself continues stable; that the sun accomplishes its circuit about it perfectly, and rolls round to the same mark again; and that the winds in like manner, and the mighty rivers which flow into the sea, and the breezes that beat upon it, all act without forcing it to pass beyond its limits, and without themselves also violating their appointed laws. (On Ecclesiastes, Ch 1, 2)
Hippolytus: When Hezekiah, king of Judah, was still sick and weeping, there came an angel, and said to him: "I have seen thy tears, and I have heard thy voice. Behold, I add unto thy time fifteen years. And this shall be a sign to thee from the Lord: Behold, I turn back the shadow of the degrees of the house of thy father, by which the sun has gone down, the ten degrees by which the shadow has gone down," so that day be a day of thirty-two hours. For when the sun had run its course to the tenth hour, it returned again. And again, when Joshua the son of Nun was fighting against the Amorites, when the sun was now inclining to its setting, and the battle was being pressed closely, Joshua, being anxious lest the heathen host should escape on the descent of night, cried out, saying, "Sun, stand thou still in Gibeon; and thou moon, in the valley of Ajalon," until I vanquish this people. And the sun stood still, and the moon, in their places, so that day was one of twenty-four hours. And in the time of Hezekiah the moon also turned back along with the sun, that there might be no collision between the two elemental bodies, by their bearing against each other in defiance of law. And Merodach the Chaldean, king of Babylon, being struck with amazement at that time--for he studied the science of astrology, and measured the courses of these bodies carefully – on learning the cause, sent a letter and gifts to Hezekiah, just as also the wise men from the east did to Christ. (Fragments, I, Discourse on Hezekiah).
Hippolytus: We find in the commentaries, written by our predecessors, that day had thirty-two hours. For when the sun had run its course, and reached the tenth hour, and the shadow had gone down by the ten degrees in the house of the temple, the sun turned back again by the ten degrees, according to the word of the Lord, and there were thus twenty hours. And again, the sun accomplished its own proper course, according to the common law, and reached its setting. And thus there were thirty-two hours. (Fragments, III, Discourse on Hezekiah).
Hippolytus: For what richer beauty can there be than that of the circle of heaven? And what form of more blooming fairness than that of earth’s surface? And what is there swifter in the course than the chariot of the sun? And what more graceful car than the lunar orb? And what work more wonderful than the compact mosaic of the stars? And what more productive of supplies than the seasonable winds? And what more spotless mirror than the light of day? And what creature more excellent than man?(Discourse on the Holy Theophany, 1)
Hippolytus: [Refuting the view of the Greek Ecphantus]: “And that the earth in the middle of the cosmical system is moved round its own center towards the east.” (The Prooemium, Ch XIII)
Irenaeus: The sun also, who runs through his orbit in twelve months, and then returns to the same point in the circle (Against Heresies, Bk I, Ch XVII, 1)
Jerome: In Exodus we read that the battle was fought against Amalek while Moses prayed, and the whole people fasted until the evening. Joshua, the son of Nun, bade sun and moon stand still, and the victorious army prolonged its fast for more than a day. (Against Jovinianus, Bk 2).
Jerome: The moon may dispute over her eclipses and ceaseless toil, and ask why she must traverse every month the yearly orbit of the sun. The sun may complain and want to know what he has done that he travels more slowly than the moon. (Against the Pelagians, Bk I, 19)
John Damascene: For it is night when the sun is under the earth, and the duration of night is the course of the sun under the earth from its rising till its setting. (The Orthodox Faith, Bk 2, Ch 7)
Justin Martyr: The former, after he had been named Jesus (Joshua), and after he had received strength from. His Spirit, caused the sun to stand still. (Dialogue with Trypho, Ch CXIII)
Justin Martyr: And again, when the land was given up to you with so great a display of power, that you witnessed the sun stand still in the heavens by the order of that man whose name was Jesus (Joshua), and not go down for thirty-six hours, as well as all the other miracles which were wrought for you as time served; and of these it seems good to me now to speak of another, for it conduces to your hereby knowing Jesus, whom we also know to have been Christ the Son of God, who was crucified, and rose again, and ascended to heaven, and will come again to judge all men, even up to Adam himself. (Dialogue with Trypho, Ch CXXXII)
Mathetes: by whom He made the heavens – by whom he enclosed the sea within its proper bounds--whose ordinances all the stars faithfully observe--from whom the sun has received the measure of his daily course to be observed – whom the moon obeys, being commanded to shine in the night, and whom the stars also obey, following the moon in her course; by whom all things have been arranged, and placed within their proper limits (To Diognetes, Ch 7).
Methodius: And, of a truth, it seemed worth while to inquire also about the sun,--what is the manner of his being set in the heaven; also what is the orbit he traverses; also whither it is that, after a short time, he retires; and why it is that even he does not go out of his proper course: but he, too, as one may say, is observing a commandment of a higher power, and appears with us just when he is allowed to do so, and departs as if he were called away. (Concerning Free Will)
Methodius: Resuming then, let us first lay bare, in speaking of those things according to our power, the imposture of those who boast as though they alone had comprehended from what forms the heaven is arranged, in accordance with the hypothesis of the Chaldeans and Egyptians. For they say that the circumference of the world is likened to the turnings of a well-rounded globe, the earth having a central point. For its outline being spherical, it is necessary, they say, since there are the same distances of the parts, that the earth should be the center of the universe, around which, as being older, the heaven is whirling. For if a circumference is described from the central point, which seems to be a circle, for it is impossible for a circle to be described without a point, and it is impossible for a circle to be without a point,--surely the earth consisted before all, they say, in a state of chaos and disorganization. (Banquet of the Ten Virgins, Discourse VIII, Ch XIV)
Tertullian: In Exodus, was not that position of Moses, battling against Amalek by prayers, maintained as it was perseveringly even till "sunset," a "late Station?" Think we that Joshua the son of Nun, when warring down the Amorites, had breakfasted on that day on which he ordered the very elements to keep a Station? The sun "stood" in Gibeon, and the moon in Ajalon; the sun and the moon "stood in station until the People was avenged of his enemies, and the sun stood in the mid heaven." When, moreover, (the sun) did draw toward his setting and the end of the one day, there was no such day beforetime and in the latest time (of course, (no day) so long), "that God," says (the writer), "should hear a man" – (a man,) to be sure, the sun's peer, so long persistent in his duty – a Station longer even than late. (On Fasting, Ch X)
Memoirs of Edessa: For look at the sun, and the moon, and the signs of the zodiac,(4) and all the other creatures which are greater than we in some points, and see how individual freedom has been denied them, and how they are all fixed in their course by decree, so that they may do that only which is decreed for them, and nothing else. For the sun never says, I will not rise at my appointed time; nor the moon, I will not change, nor wane, nor wax; nor does any one of the stars say, I will not rise nor set. (Book of the Laws)
No evidence or 50/50?
"Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is "right" and the Ptolemaic theory is "wrong" in any meaningful sense. The two theories which improved by adding terms involving the square of higher powers of the eccentricities of the planetary orbits, are physically equivalent to one another." Sir Fred Hoyle Scientific American March 1995 p. 47 also pg.88, "Nicholas Copernicus", harper and Row, publishers 1973
"Although in the nineteenth century this argument was believed to be a satisfactory justification of the heliocentric theory, one found causes for disquiet if one looked into it a little more carefully. When we seek to improve on the accuracy of calculation by including mutual gravitational interactions between planets, we find – again in order to calculate correctly – that the center of the solar system must be placed at an abstract point known as the “center of mass,” which is displaced quite appreciably from the center of the Sun. And if we imagine a star to pass moderately close to the solar system, in order to calculate the perturbing effect correctly, again using the inverse-square rule, it could be essential to use a “center of mass” which included the star. The “center” in this case would lie even farther away from the center of the Sun. It appears, then, that the “center” to be used for any set of bodies depends on the way in which the local system is considered to be isolated from the universe as a whole. If a new body is added to the set from outside, or if a body is taken away, the “center” changes" (Fred Hoyle, Nicolaus Copernicus, 1973, p. 85.)
Fred Hoyle was one of the more popular Astronomers in the 20th century.
"If there was anything to the merit of the Copernican hypothesis is not truth, but simplicity; in view of the relativity of motion, no question of truth is involved."
Bertrand Russell; (1872-1970); A History of Western Philosophy; 1945; p217
That's right most reputable Atheist in the 20th century admitted that heliocentrism was not based on evidence!
"I can construct a spherical symmetrical universe with Earth at the centre, and you cannot disprove it based on observations. You can only exclude it based 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." -George Ellis cosmologist and mathematician, Scientific America October 1995
Here we go again! George Francis Rayner Ellis, FRS, Hon. FRSSAf (born 11 August 1939), is the emeritus distinguished professor of complex systems in the Department of Mathematics and Applied Mathematics at the University of Cape Town in South Africa. He co-authored The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time with University of Cambridge physicist Stephen Hawking, published in 1973, and is considered one of the world's leading theorists in cosmology.[1]"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_F._R._Ellis
"The Copernican conception is indeed simpler, but this does not make it any “truer” since this simplicity is descriptive … One description may be simplest for some phenomena while a different description may be simplest for others; but no simplest description is distinguished from other descriptions with regard to truth. The concept of truth does not apply here, since we are dealing with definitions." Hans Reichenbach; (1891-1953); Philosophy of Space and Time; 1927/1958; p219
An expert on empirical philosophy certainly wouldn't understand evidence! lol.
"the Ptolemaic theory of the solar system was abandoned in favor of the Copernican not because it failed to “agree” with all the facts, for it explained as much as the Copernican did, but because the latter, as Copernicus himself said, was “simpler,” more elegant mathematically, and a more harmonious addition to the body of science than the former. … there was no intellectual inconvenience at one time in regarding the earth as the fixed center of the universe, nor was there any particular reason, socially or otherwise, why it should not have been accepted, nor was it inconsistent with the existent body of knowledge." J. H. Randall; (1899-1980); Philosophy: An Introduction; 1957; p135, 139
"Absolute space, that is to say, the mark to which it would be necessary to refer the earth to know whether it really moves, has no objective existence. … the two propositions: “the earth turns around” and “it’s more convenient to suppose the earth turns around” have the same meaning; there is nothing more in the one than in the other." Henri Poincaré; (1854-1912); Science &Hypothesis; 1905/1952; p116-117
Henri Poincaré, in full Jules Henri Poincaré, (born April 29, 1854, Nancy, France—died July 17, 1912, Paris), French mathematician, one of the greatest mathematicians and mathematical physicists at the end of 19th century. He made a series of profound innovations in geometry, the theory of differential equations, electromagnetism, topology, and the philosophy of mathematics." https://www.britannica.com/biography/Henri-Poincare
Well, what would he know about a mathematical model??? ( go ahead and laugh)
"Obviously it matters little if we think of the earth as turning about on its axis, or if we view it at rest while the fixed stars revolve around it. Geometrically these are exactly the same case of a relative rotation of the earth and the fixed stars with respect to one another. All masses, all velocities, thus all forces are relative. There is no basis for us to decide between relative and absolute motion….If there are still modern authors who, through the Newtonian water bucket arguments, allow themselves to be misled into differentiating between relative and absolute motion, they fail to take into account that the world system has been given to us only once, but the Ptolemaic and Copernican views are only our interpretations, but both equally true"-Ernst Waldfried Josef Wenzel Mach Die Mechanik in Ihrer Entwicklung Historich-Kritisch Dargestellt, Liepzig: Brokhaus, 1883. English title: The Science of Mechanics: A Critical and Historical Account of its Development, translated by T. J. Macormack, La Salle, Open Court Publishing, 1960, 6th edition, p. 201. The seventh edition of Mach’s book was published in 1912. This is the legendary Ernst Mach who has constructed a geocentric system Though he is better known for his study of shock waves.
Real simplicity:
"Now at first sight, all this evidence that the universe looks the same whichever direction we look in might seem to suggest there is something special about our place in the universe. In particular, it might seem that if we observe all other galaxies to be moving away from us, then we must be at the center of the universe. There is, however, an alternate explanation: the universe might look the same in every direction as seen from any other galaxy too. This, as we have seen, was Friedmann’s second assumption. We have no scientific evidence for, or against, this assumption. We believe it only on grounds of modesty: it would be most remarkable if the universe looked the same in every direction around us, but not around other points in the universe!"
-- Stephen Hawking, "A Brief History of Time", Chapter 3
Here the famous Stephen Hawking admits that the universe appears to make the earth special and the weight of his denial is the concept of "modesty". As in, 'we life forms don't want hurt the feelings of dead matter'(!!!)
"Copernicus and the Need for Epicycles
There is a common misconception that the Copernican model did away with the need for epicycles. This is not true, because Copernicus was able to rid himself of the long-held notion that the Earth was the center of the Solar system, but he did not question the assumption of uniform circular motion. Thus, in the Copernican model the Sun was at the center, but the planets still executed uniform circular motion about it. As we shall see later, the orbits of the planets are not circles, they are actually ellipses. As a consequence, the Copernican model, with it assumption of uniform circular motion, still could not explain all the details of planetary motion on the celestial sphere without epicycles. The difference was that the Copernican system required many fewer epicycles than the Ptolemaic system because it moved the Sun to the center."http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/retrograde/copernican.html
This may not appear to have much weight. However, when we consider the facts of floating objects, We begin to realize that we are dealing with a battle of conceptions.
The justification for the shifting of an empire's worldview hinged on the supposed simplicity of the Copernican model. But has the Copernican model proved to be quite so simple?
"…
in fact simplicity of the mathematical theory was the only argument
Copernicus &; Kepler could advance in favor of their heliocentric
theory as opposed to the older Ptolemaic theory.
Is the path of the earth around the sun an ellipse? No. Only if the
earth &sun are regarded as points and only if all other bodies
in the universe are ignored. Do the four seasons on earth repeat
themselves year after year? Hardly. Only in their grossest aspects,
which are about all men can perceive anyway, do they repeat."
Morris Kline; (1908-1992); Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty; 1982;
p344, 350
So here is another major mathematician making the same argument I have that heliocentricity ignores the consequences of the gravity of the universe.
"The
commonly held view is that Copernicus’s heliocentric model vanquished
the competition, especially the geocentric view of Ptolemy, because it yielded better predictions of the positions of the celestial bodies. In
actual fact, the predictions of the Copernican model were a little worse
than those obtained via the complicated series of epicycles… the real
selling point of the Copernican model was that it was much simpler than
the competition yet still gave a reasonably good account of the
observational evidence."
J. L. Casti & W. DePauli; Gödel; 2000; p166 Earth Centered Inertial Framework [Proof Geocentricity is the simpler model!!]
"Earth-centered inertial (ECI) coordinate frames have their origins at the center of mass of Earth and do not rotate with respect to the stars.[1] ECI frames are called inertial, in contrast to the Earth-centered, Earth-fixed (ECEF) frames, which remain fixed with respect to Earth's surface in its rotation. It is convenient to represent the positions and velocities of terrestrial objects in ECEF coordinates or with latitude, longitude, and altitude. However, for objects in space, the equations of motion that describe orbital motion are simpler in a non-rotating frame such as ECI. The ECI frame is also useful for specifying the direction toward celestial objects." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth-centered_inertial
So the math actually works in favor of geo-centricity and they know this and practice this, they simply give it a different title.
What Heliocentricity REALLY TEACHES!
"You may contemplate that as you are reading this, your body in a stationary position. But, everything inside the universe travels, from our planet (Earth) –which revolves on its axis at a speed of approximately 1700 km/h— to the solar system and even the Milky Way Galaxy."
"But what about the Speed? In order to finish a successful revolution around the galactic center, the Star (Sun) has to travel at a stunning speed of 792,000 km/h. Including Earth and all other objects in our complete solar system follow the sun at this obsessive speed."
"This means that the Milky Way Galaxy is travelling through space at an amazing speed of 2.1 million km/h, in the direction of the constellations of Virgo and Leo; exactly where the so-called Great Attractor is situated."
http://www.physics-astronomy.com/2017/07/the-milky-way-is-moving-through.html
So in Helio/Copernican reality when you are standing still you are potentially moving at 2,993,700km per hour!! So how can bible believers still HANG on to this verse?
Job 26: 7 He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing."
Experimental Evidence and Peer Review
arXiv:2002.08885
[pdf, ps, other]
On the persistence of the ether as absolute space
Abstract:
We analyse how the concept of the ether, playing the role of absolute space, is still present in physics. When the problem is considered in the context of classical mechanics, we show that vestiges of absolute space can be found in the standard presentation of inertial systems. We offer an alternative -- fully relational -- definition of inertial systems which not only eliminates the problem but it further shows that the equivalence principle is just a particular consequence of the No Arbitrariness Principle. In terms of Special Relativity, the non-existence of relative velocities implies a constructive contradiction (their existence is assumed in the construction). The problem is inherited from Lorentz' use of the ether, developed in his interpretation of Maxwell's electrodynamics. In summary, the velocities in the Lorentz transformations must be considered velocities relative to the ether (absolute space) if the theory is not to fall apart for being inconsistent. We discuss the relevance of the phenomenological map, and how previous works have failed to acknowledge that the consistency problem is not in the exposed part of the theory but in the supporting phenomenological map which, rather than being constructed anew, it transports concepts of classical mechanics by habit, without revising their validity in the context of Special Relativity.
△ Less
Submitted 12 February, 2020;
originally announced February 2020.
arXiv:1910.07082
[pdf, ps, other]
The construction of Electromagnetism
Abstract:
We examine the construction of electromagnetism in its current form, and in an alternative form, from a point of view that combines a minimal realism with strict demands of reason that we first introduce. We follow the historical development as presented in the record of original publications, the underlying epistemology (often explained by the authors) and the mathematical constructions. The historical construction develops along socio-political disputes (mainly, the reunification of Germany and the second industrial revolution), epistemic disputes (at least two demarcations of science in conflict) and several theories of electromagnetism. Such disputes resulted in the militant adoption of the ether by some, a position that expanded in parallel with the expansion of Prussia, but was facilitated by the earlier adoption of a standpoint that required physical hypothesis in the form of analogies as condition for understanding, antithetic to Newton's "\emph{hypotheses non fingo}". ...
△ Less
Submitted 12 February, 2020; v1 submitted 26 September, 2019;
originally announced October 2019.
Comments:
87 pages, one figure
MSC Class:
01A55; 01A72
Vortices and atoms in the Maxwellian era
Abstract:
The mathematical study of vortices began with Herman von Helmholtz's pioneering study in 1858. It was pursued vigorously over the next two decades, largely by British physicists and mathematicians, in two contexts: Maxwell's vortex analogy for the electromagnetic field and William Thomson's (Lord Kelvin) theory that atoms were vortex rings in an all-pervading ether. By the time of Maxwell's death in 1879, the basic laws of vortices in a perfect fluid in three-dimensional Euclidean space had been established, as had their importance to physics. Early vortex studies were embedded in a web of issues spanning the fields we now know as "mathematics" and "physics" - fields which had not yet become institutionally distinct disciplines but overlapped. This paper investigates the conceptual issues with ideas of force, matter, and space, that underlay mechanics and led to vortex models being an attractive proposition for British physicists, and how these issues played out in the mathematics of vortices, paying particular attention to problems around continuity. It concludes that while they made valuable contributions to hydrodynamics and the nascent field of topology, the British ultimately failed in their more physical objectives.
△ Less
Submitted 2 June, 2019;
originally announced June 2019.
Quaternion algebra on 4D superfluid quantum space-time. Gravitomagnetism
Abstract:
Gravitomagnetic equations result from applying quaternionic differential operators to the energy-momentum tensor. These equations are similar to the Maxwell's EM equations. Both sets of the equations are isomorphic after changing orientation of either the gravitomagnetic orbital force or the magnetic induction. The gravitomagnetic equations turn out to be parent equations generating the following set of equations: (a) the vorticity equation giving solutions of vortices with nonzero vortex cores and with infinite lifetime; (b) the Hamilton-Jacobi equation loaded by the quantum potential. This equation in pair with the continuity equation leads to getting the \Schrodinger equation describing a state of the superfluid quantum medium (a modern version of the old ether); (c) gravitomagnetic wave equations loaded by forces acting on the outer space. These waves obey to the Planck's law of radiation.
△ Less
Submitted 21 January, 2019;
originally announced January 2019.
Comments:
38 pages,15 figures. It will be printed in Foundations of Physics. This matherial was reported on 4th International Conference on High Energy & Particle Physics, Valencia, Spain
Journal ref:
Foundations of Physics, 49(2), 107-143, 2019
So here we have 4 peer reviewed journal papers all dealing with the concept of ether. Especially in terms of the study of electromagnetism. It seems that once again Ether has been resurrected as a valid physics cosmological concept.
But what once we have the ether, by implication we will have geocentricity!
Michelson-Gale experiment
Astrophysical Journal 1925 v 61 pp 140-5
In 1904, Albert Michelson conceived
of an experiment to detect the relative motion of the earth and the
ether [1]. His primary goal was to design an experiment to determine if
light is entrained by the rotation of the earth, in other words, does a
preferred frame of reference for light rotate with the earth or not? He considered an
experiment where it might be possible to send two beams of light in
opposite directions around the earth at the equator. He argued that if
the light beams are not entrained by the rotation of the earth, then
one beam would be faster and the other slower, in proportion to the
rotational velocity of the earth. He also conceived that the velocity
difference would be proportional to "the length of the parallel of the
latitude at the place.", in other words, the velocity difference would
decrease as one went higher in latitude. A measurement of time
difference for each beam to return to the start would then be a measure
of the amount of entrainment due to the rotation of the earth."
"The
result of the experiment when it was finally conducted in 1925 was that
the measured fringe shift was found to be 0.230 +/- 0.005, which was
found to agree with the prediction of no ether drag by rotation within
the experimental error. What this means is that the speed of light is
constant in the non-rotating frame, a result that is consistent with Lorentz Ether Theory.
Theories that propose that the Earth Centered Inertial Frame (ECI
Frame) is a preferred frame for the speed of light also are consistent
with this result, since the speed of light in this experiment is
constant in the ECI frame of the earth." http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Michelson-Gale/Michelson-Gale.html
Sagnac Experiment
http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.6341 "We focus on the Sagnac effect for light beams in order to evaluate if the higher order relativistic corrections of kinematic origin could be relevant for actual terrestrial experiments. Moreover, we discuss to what extent the analogy with the Aharonov-Bohm effect holds true in a fully relativistic framework. We show that the analogy with the Aharonov-Bohm is not true in general, but is recovered in a suitable low order approximation, and that even though the Sagnac effect is influenced by both the position of the interferometer in the rotating frame and its extension, these effects are negligible for current terrestrial experiments."
[Illustration note identical to quote]
Bradley’s “aberration” measurements. Bradley accurately measured the direction of a star from 1725 to 1728 and found that it moved in a very small circle. He assumed that this was due to the movement of the earth through the aether. As the earth moved around the sun, its velocity of 30 km/s meant that he had to tilt the telescope slightly forward in the direction of travel to get the light from the star to pass down the centreline. This can be explained by imagining a tube being held upright in vertically falling rain. If the tube is now moved relative to the rain, it will have to be tilted slightly forward to get the rain to fall down the centre of the tube (Fig. 2A). The amount of tilting depends upon the speed of the falling rain and the horizontal velocity of the tube. For Bradley, these were really the speed of light and the velocity of the earth, and the small angle was only 20.5 seconds of arc, giving a circle with a diameter of 41 seconds of arc. This may appear to be proof of the motion of the earth, but there is an equally valid explanation - which is that the star, and the light from it, is moving relative to a stationary earth as shown in Fig. 2B. The amount of tilt would be exactly the same. It should be noted that this small variation applies to all stars and should not be confused with parallax measurements of nearby stars as seen against the background of distant stars. The path for this measurement is also circular, but is at 90 degrees to the aberration measurement as shown in Fig. 3. The parallax measurement is used to calculate the distance of these nearby stars, knowing the baseline distance of the earth’s orbit around the sun. The distance to the those further away are estimated using a number of assumptions and indirect methods. Thus, Bradley’s aberration measurements gave no proof of any movement of the earth. The next experiment using this approach was even more surprising.504 Sect. 7: Appendix 10 - Geocentricity
[Illustration note identical to quote]
“Airy’s Failure” In the Fig. 2A above, if the rain falling down the tube were to be slowed up (say by a fan blowing upwards), the tube would have to be tilted even further. This is because the rain is falling vertically but slower but the tube is still travelling at the same speed. Therefore the ratio of horizontal speed to falling speed is greater, requiring a larger angle. In 1871, Airy, the Astronomer Royal, repeated Bradley’s measurements [Airy] but filled the telescope with water, slowing the light down to 77% of its normal speed. He found that no further tilting was needed. Referring to Fig. 2B, we can see that the tube is stationary and the light is already coming in at the “correct” angle because the speed of the star is still the same relative to the stationary earth. Going slower in the tube will not affect the angle. Therefore, even if the speed of the rain is slower down the tube, no additional tipping is required. In the case of the starlight, this would be coming in at the same angle as the tilt of the telescope, so no extra tilt would be required."Sect. 7: Appendix 10 - Geocentricity 505
The Michelson-Morley experiment On the assumption that the aether was stationary, then as objects, such as the earth, moved through it, it should be possible to detect this relative movement by its effect upon light waves. To this end, the famous Michelson-Morley experiment (Mich) was carried out in 1887, which produced a null result; i.e. no movement of the earth around the sun could be detected. We have examined this whole subject in detail in Appendix 8, and shown how Einstein’s relativity theory was produced mainly to overcome the apparent lack of movement of the earth through the aether.
The non-null results. This experiment was later carried out several times by other scientists, with much the same result, the degree of accuracy being within 0.5 Km/sec. In the original Michelson-Morley and all later similar experiments, this result, surprisingly was not zero. A fairly small positive value was registered that seemed to vary from one location to another, all in the range of two to ten kilometres per second (MillD). Later, the experiment was carried out using laser beams and gave a result of only 1 km/s. Bouw suggested that with even more careful measurements, the true figure could be zero, placing the earth at the centre of a stationary aether. Various criticisms have been made but refuted and careful checks made to see if there are any instrumental errors that could explain these positive results. None have been discovered. Dayton C. Miller made many measurements in different locations and published the results (MillD). Allais, a Nobel prizewinner, analyzed these results and concluded that there was a periodicity that corresponded to sidereal time, that they could determine where the earth was on its orbit
506 Sect. 7: Appendix 10 - Geocentricity
around the sun, and that the earth was moving towards the Hercules constellation (Allais98). These results are still very strange and there is no easy explanation for them. Miller’s latest results indicated movement of the aether that approximately accorded with the direction of star streaming which we now consider.
Star Streaming. Very accurate measurements of the positions of stars has shown that they appear to be moving apart in one area of the sky and “closing up” in the opposite direction. This is the effect that would be seen if the sun were to be moving towards this point in the sky and the stars were “streaming” past it as it moved in space. This movement is towards the constellation of Hercules. It is now thought that this streaming is not due to the movement of the earth so much as the stars passing the earth as they slowly revolve around the center of the mass of stars that make up our own galaxy, known as the Milky Way. Interestingly, galaxies appear to stream in another direction. Surprisingly, it is reported that Marinov (Marin74) and Silvertooth have independently measured the passage of the earth through the aether as 300 km/s (Q24/4:216). This was probably obtained by using a one way measurement of the speed of light in different directions. This seems to contradict the result of the Michelson-Morley experiment, but this relied on interference between light paths that have been on a “round trip”. Aspden calculated a movement through the aether of 120 km/s (Asp69:184). If this movement is correct it would surely raise problems in the observation of starlight, for there should be easily detectable difference in the spectra of stars approaching compared with those receding, but none have been found. These measurements are just some of the observations that astronomers and physicists cannot easily explain. " Bowden, Malcolm "True Science agrees with the Bible'
Michelson Morley: Not So null after all!
"In that year, Dayton Miller demonstrated the fact that even though the duo's experiment had not specifically found the expected range of interference patterns, they had found an interesting little noticed effect. Miller then went on to suggest that Michelson Morley had found an experimental sine wave like set of data that correlated well with the predicted pattern of data. He also described how thermal and directional assumptions inherent in the experimental arrangement may have impacted badly on the fringe interference data. Thus, the test may have been performed in an imperfectly conceived experimental setup and with a built in mathematical bias against the detection of an appropriate outcome. Thus, in the future the aether theory in some form or another may still be sustainable as a foundational theory of physics." http://arpast.org/newsevents/articles/article78.pdf pg3
http://arpast.org/newsevents/articles/article78.pdf
Historical overview
"The Michelson - Morley experiment confronted scientists with an embarrassing alternative. On the one hand they could scrap the ether theory which had explained so many things about electricity, magnetism, and light. Or if they insisted on retaining the ether they had to abandon the still more venerable Copernican theory that the earth is in motion. To many physicists it seemed almost easier to believe that the earth stood still than that waves - light waves, electromagnetic waves - could exist without a medium to sustain them. It was a serious dilemma and one that split scientific thought for a quarter century. Many new hypotheses were advanced and rejected. The experiment was tried again by Morley and by others, with the same conclusion; the apparent velocity of the earth through the ether was zero." (Lincoln Barnett, The Universe and Dr. Einstein, p. 44.)
This is practically predicting my new years cosmology hypothesis! an electric universe and geo centricity are inherently connected.
"Thus the theory might be valid provided the universe were packed with matter to the very threshold of perception. Nevertheless, the ever expanding model of the first kind SEEMS rather DUBIOUS. It cannot be ruled out by the observations, but it suggests a FORCED interpretation of the data. The DISTURBING features are all introduced by the recession factors, by the ASSUMPTION that red-shifts are velocity-shifts. The departure from a linear law of red-shifts, the departure from uniform
distribution, the curvature necessary to restore homogeneity, the excess material demanded by the curvature, each of these is merely the recession factor in another form…if the recession factor is dropped, if red-shifts are not primarily velocity-shifts, the picture is SIMPLE AND PLAUSIBLE. NO EVIDENCE There is no evidence of expansion and no restriction of the time-scale, no trace of spatial curvature, and no limitation of spatial dimensions. Moreover, there is no problem of inter-nebular material [“Dark Matter”].493
If the redshifts are a Doppler shift...the observations as they stand lead to the anomaly of a closed universe, curiously small and dense, and, it may be added, suspiciously young. On the other hand, if redshifts are not Doppler effects, these anomalies disappear and the region observed appears as a small, homogeneous, but insignificant portion of a universe extended indefinitely in both space and time." - Edwin Hubble. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 17, 506, 1937.
"The problem which now faced science [after the Michelson-Morley null result] was considerable. For there seemed to be only three alternatives. The first was that the earth was standing still, which meant scuttling the whole Copernican theory and was UNTHINKABLE. The second was that the ether was carried along by the earth in its passage through space, a possibility which had already been ruled out to the satisfaction of the scientific community by a number of scientific experiments notably through English astronomer James Bradley. The third solution was that the ether simply did not exist which to many nineteenth century scientists was equivalent to scrapping current views of light electricity and magneticism and starting again".
Ronald W. Clark. Einstein: The life and times pp. 109-110
"In 1905 I was of the opinion that it was no longer allowed to speak of the ether in physics, this opinion however was too radical, as we will see later when we discuss the general theory of relativity it does remain allowed as always to introduce a medium filling all space and to assume that the electromagnetic fields (and matter as well) are its states... once again "empty space" appears as endowed with physical properties i.e., no longer as physically empty as seemed to be the case according to special relativity. One can thus say that the ether is resurrected in the general theory of relativity... since in the new theory, metric facts can no longer be separated from "true" physical facts, the concepts of "space" and ether merge together." Albert Einstein "Grundgedanken and methoden der Relativita'tstheorie in ihrer Entwicklung dargestellt,"Morgan manuscript, EA70, as cited in Ludwig Kostro, Einstein and the Ether, Aperion, 2000, p.2
"Mach's Principle (Newton's law of Inertia F=m.a, is established by all the matter of the universe) is sensibly and simply explained by the Metaphysics of Space and Motion and the Wave Structure of Matter. The obvious problem of the particle conception of matter is to explain how all the distant matter of the universe could instantaneously act upon a
"Mach's ideas on motion like Leibniz's and Berkley's before him, were based on the conviction that physics is ultimately concerned with the relations between things and abstract space. We believe this to be still a valid guiding principle, although of course our conceptions of the nature of things and the nature of their relations has changed. We believe that neither special nor general relativity fulfills Mach's ideal, and we consider it important and suggestive to implement it in a prerelativistic classic framework." Gravity and inertia in a Machian Framework by J.B. Barbour and B.Bertotti
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/malcolmbowden/barbour.htm
Here we see two physicists who argue that Einstein has failed in reconciling Mach's principle with general relativity.
Several people in the sciences have complained that we have replaced empirical data with the dazzling intensity of mathematics.
"The theory [Relativity] is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king... it's exponents are brilliant men, but they are metaphysicist, not scientists" Nikola Tesla New York Times, July 11, 1935
John W. Moffat (born 1932) is a Canadian physicist and cosmologist, Professor Emeritus in physics at the University of Toronto and adjunct Professor in physics at the University of Waterloo.
Let's look at His book.....
Reinventing Gravity (2008)[edit]
Could it be, nevertheless, that Einstein's theory is wrong? Might it be necessary to modify it—to find a new theory of gravity that can explain both the stronger gravity and the apparent antigravity being observed today—rather than simply throwing in invisible things to make the standard model work? Introduction, A New Gravity Theory, p. xi
Almost 30 percent of the total matter-energy budget is said to be composed of so-called cold dark matter and almost 70 percent of "dark energy," leaving only about 4 percent as visible matter in the form of the atoms that make up the stars, planets, interstellar dust, and ourselves. Such is the degree of discrepancy between theory and observations today. Prologue, The Elusive Planet Vulcan, A Parable, p. 5
When I was a student at Trinity College, Cambridge, in the 1950s, Sir Isaac Newton's presence was still almost palpable. Chapter 1, The Greeks To Newton, p. 24
Einstein entertained counter intuitive notions that allowed him to pull physics from the mechanistic, clockwork universe of the eighteenth century up into the twentieth century. Chapter 2, Einstein, p.25
The eighteenth-century German philosopher Immanuel Kant had conjectured that Messier's nebulae were distant "island universes" outside our Milky Way galaxy, but many scientists in the early twentieth century disagreed. Chapter 3, The Beginning Of Modern Cosmology, p. 54
Today, like the elusive planet Vulcan in the nineteenth century, dark matter is accepted by the majority of astronomers and physicists as actually existing. Dark matter, although it has never been seen, is part of the generally accepted standard model of physics and cosmology, which also includes the big bang beginning of the universe. Chapter 4, Dark Matter, p. 69
Hunting for elusive dark matter is now a multibillion dollar international scientific industry.Hunting for elusive dark matter is now a multibillion dollar international scientific industry. Chapter 4, Dark Matter, p. 75
It may be that ultimately the search for dark matter will turn out to be the most expensive and largest null result experiment since the Michelson-Morely experiment, which failed to detect the ether. Chapter 4, Dark Matter, p. 77
It is hard to understand how this infinitely dense singularity can evaporate into nothing. For matter inside the black hole leak out into the universe requires that it travel faster than the speed of light. Chapter 5, Conventional Black Holes, p. 85
Is the reader feeling confused about the status of the black hole information paradox and black holes in general? So am I! Chapter 5, Conventional Black Holes, p. 87
Experimentalists dream of some spectacular discovery such as the proof of the existence of black holes to justify the more than eight billion dollars it has cost to build the LHC. Chapter 5, Conventional Black Holes, p. 88
A much faster speed of light in the infant universe solved the horizon problem and therefore explained the overall smoothness of the temperatures of the CMB radiation, because light now traveled extremely quickly between all parts of the expanding but not inflating universe. Chapter 6, Inflation And Variable Speed Of Light (VSL), p. 100
Inflation itself proceeds at a speed faster than the measured speed of light. Chapter 6, Inflation And Variable Speed Of Light (VSL), p. 102
In estimating the amount of dark matter, cosmologists developing the standard model have to make some rather strong assumptions about their observations. Chapter 7, New Cosmological Data, p. 120
One truth we have been able to count on concerning scientific persuit over the centuries has been that only testable theories survive the intense scrutiny of experimental science. Chapter 8, Strings And Quantum Gravity, p. 136
The eighteenth-century German philosopher Immanuel Kant had conjectured that Messier's nebulae were distant "island universes" outside our Milky Way galaxy, but many scientists in the early twentieth century disagreed.To physicists such as myself, the huge amount of invisible dark matter needed to make Einstein's theory fit the astrophysical data is reason enough for exploring modified gravity theories. Chapter 9, Other Alternative Gravity Theories, p. 143
It is difficult to falsify the hypothesis of dark matter, because, as with Ptolemy's epicycles, true believers can always add additional arbitrary features and free parameters to overcome any conceivable difficulties that occur with the dark matter models. Chapter 10, Modified Gravity (MOG), p. 163-164
"A large part of the relativity community is in denial - refusing even to contemplate the idea that black holes may not exist in nature, or seriously consider the idea that any kind of new matter such as the new putative dark energy can play a fundamental role in gravity theory. Chapter 14, Do Black Holes Exist In Nature?, p. 204
This is the only sure way I know to counter the anti-Copernican idea that the universe is accelerating in our epoch - to get rid of the problem entirely! Chapter 15, Dark Energy And The Accelerating Universe, p. 207
Indeed, there is a now a minority of cosmologists who question a beginning of the universe at all; instead they favor a cyclic model with a series of expansions and contractions. Chapter 16, The Eternal Universe, p. 213 (See also: Fred Hoyle)
This is an extraordinary time in the history of science, in that we cannot only theorize about the beginning of the universe, but actually study the celestial fossils of how it happened. Chapter 16, The Eternal Universe, p. 220
Giving up Einstein's theory of gravity is simply unacceptable to many in the community. It may take a new generation of physicists to view the evidence with unclouded eyes. Epilogue, p. 221
It is obvious that this physicist sees cracks in the ENTIRE system of modern physics and cosmology! So if the current model is bunk, then the alternative of geocentricity makes more sense.
"Obviously it matters little if we think of the earth as turning about on its axis, or if we view it at rest while the fixed stars revolve around it. Geometrically these are exactly the same case of a relative rotation of the earth and the fixed stars with respect to one another. All masses, all velocities, thus all forces are relative. There is no basis for us to decide between relative and absolute motion….If there are still modern authors who, through the Newtonian water bucket arguments, allow themselves to be misled into differentiating between relative and absolute motion, they fail to take into account that the world system has been given to us only once, but the Ptolemaic and Copernican views are only our interpretations, but both equally true"-Ernst Waldfried Josef Wenzel Mach Die Mechanik in Ihrer Entwicklung Historich-Kritisch Dargestellt, Liepzig: Brokhaus, 1883. English title: The Science of Mechanics: A Critical and Historical Account of its Development, translated by T. J. Macormack, La Salle, Open Court Publishing, 1960, 6th edition, p. 201. The seventh edition of Mach’s book was published in 1912.
So if ever there were a definitive word. Modern Cosmology has failed to defeat the ghost of Tycho Brahe, thus a resurrection of this cosmology is DEMANDED!
Anthropic principle
"Over the past thirty years or so, scientists have discovered that just about everything about the basic structure of the universe is balanced razor's edge for life to exist. The coincidences are far too fantastic to attribute this to mere chance or to claim that it needs no explanation. The dials are set too precisely to have been a random accident. Somebody, as Fred Hoyle quipped, has been monkeying with physics.""This has to be among the most fascinating scientific discoveries of the century, 'who first noticed this?" I asked.
"Way back in the late 1950's, Hoyle talked about the precise process by which carbon and oxygen are produced in a certain ratio inside stars. If you tinker with the resonance states of carbon, you won't get the materials you need for building life. Incidentally recent studies by the physicist Heinz Oberhummer and his colleagues show that just a one percent change in the strong nuclear force would have a thirty- to a thousand-fold impact on the production of oxygen and carbon in stars.
Since stars provide the carbon and oxygen needed for life on planets, if you throw that off balance, conditions in the universe would be much less optimal for the existence of life.
"Anyway-back to your question- most of the research and writing about the fine-tuning has taken place since the early 1980's. There have been hundreds of articles and books written on it from both a technical and popular perspective."
"Physics can get very complicated very quickly. So when I asked Collins to describe one of his favorite examples. I was relieved that he chose one easy to envision.
"Let's talk about gravity," he said, "Imagine a ruler, or one of those old fashioned linear radio dials, that goes all the way across the universe. It would be broken down into one inch increments, which means there would be billions upon billions of inches."
"The entire dial represents the range of force strengths in nature, with gravity being th e weakest force and the strong nuclear force that binds protons and neutrons together in the nuclei being the strongest, a whopping ten thousand billion billion billion billion times stronger than gravity. The range of possible settings for the force of gravity can plausibly be taken to be at least as large as the total range of force strengths.
"Now, let's imagine that you want ot move the dial from where it's currently set. Even if you were to move it only by an inch, the impact on life in the universe would be catastrophic." 'One inch compared to the whole universe?' I asked. 'What kind of impact could that have?' 'That small adjustment of the dial would increase gravity by a billion fold,' he said. 'Whoa!' I said. 'that sounds like a lot!' 'Actually it's not,' he replied. 'Relative to the entire radio dial- that is, the total range of force strengths in nature- it's extraordinarily small, just one part in ten thousand billion billion billion.'" The case for a creator ch.6 pg 131-132 Lee Strobel interviews Physicist Robin Collins
Now when you consider the immense scale of gravity, you can look back at what we learned at the Copernican universe with millions of kilometers of motion and see the glaring paradox!
We are spinning at 30km per second with a moon revolving around us, while we are revolving around the sun with other planets and we are all revolving around the milky way galaxy which is also moving! IF god is not guiding our world then what is going to stop us from getting too close to a black hole and shifting the force of gravity??
If God does have control of the earth then why not revert back to geocentricity?
Anecdotal evidence: Now many of these early arguments are only corroborative evidence. Helio-centrists will have an explanation. But a person needs time to think about a Geo-centric cosmology. The secular world will train people over a life time in heliocentric cosmology without considering any alternative. After all, youth are focused on learning facts as opposed to critical thinking. So we must take time to meditate on how this cosmology deals with reality
Anecdotes do not prove a thing scientifically, yet are ways to illustrate and rationalize concepts that are too abstract for a common observer. Popular Science uses anecdotes all the time.
Sunflowers catching the sun.
https://youtu.be/oaRUkF3-cPU
As we speak of perspective, I think of the Sunflower. This plant is not intelligent. It has no perspective. Yet it must react every 24 hrs. So it is not relative to my view of the world, it is a real motion. The question is whether there is an objective point of reference.
Airplane flights
Here is a helio centric science group discussing it. " If you were to jump straight up in the air, would the Earth rotate beneath you? (Those who do believe that the Earth rotates around them may want to stop reading right now.) No, because when you left the Earth's surface, you were traveling at the same speed as the surface, so, in essence, the Earth matched your speed through space while you were in the air! The same condition holds true for an airplane as it travels from Los Angeles to Bombay. If we were to ignore the winds, no matter which direction you flew from Los Angeles, the speed of the aircraft relative to the Earth would be the same. While the aircraft's speed through space would change, the effect of the Earth's rotation remains constant, and in effect is "cancelled out" no matter which direction you travel."
" So, the end result of that long discussion is that the rotation of the Earth has no effect on the travel time of an aircraft. Actually, as you suggested, it is the headwinds and tailwinds that cause the change in travel times."
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/dynamics/q0027.shtml
Flight of the butterfly
The Monarch butterfly must travel thousands of miles every couple years. This 3inch winged insect can fly at a high altitude like an air plane. Yet it is not knocked off course by the spin of the earth. Even if the animal expects the spin. it should effect the bug's flight patterns.
Now here again we see that there is not even the slightest alteration upon the earth in this massive spin, even in the sky of a little butterfly.
Sunlight and gravity
"The sun also plays a major role, affecting the size and position of the two tidal bulges. The interaction of the forces generated by the moon and the sun can be quite complex." http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/kits/tides/tides03_gravity.html
How is it that the light air can not be affected by rotation of the earth, which is gravity based. yet meanwhile the heavier ocean can feel the pull of the tides?
star's course
http://www.leavingjesus.net/TC/TorahCreation/TorahCreation/tychomodel.gif
In tychonic model the movement and gravity of the stars, keeps the solar system up.
Copernicus still used epicycles!
"Copernicus and the Need for Epicycles
There is a common misconception that the Copernican model did away with the need for epicycles. This is not true, because Copernicus was able to rid himself of the long-held notion that the Earth was the center of the Solar system, but he did not question the assumption of uniform circular motion. Thus, in the Copernican model the Sun was at the center, but the planets still executed uniform circular motion about it. As we shall see later, the orbits of the planets are not circles, they are actually ellipses. As a consequence, the Copernican model, with it assumption of uniform circular motion, still could not explain all the details of planetary motion on the celestial sphere without epicycles. The difference was that the Copernican system required many fewer epicycles than the Ptolemaic system because it moved the Sun to the center."http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/retrograde/copernican.html
north star) In relation to the earth the north star s always due north. Thus we have a fixed relationship which implies a fixed vantage point. We see the implication of egocentricity through time lapse photography.
the moving sun) Many people are easily deceived by heliocentrism due to their use of poor illustrations. We imagine the sun as unmoving. yet the helio centric model is tied to the helical model of the universe. this means that the sun is orbiting the milky way. This orbit requires 225 million years. The sun must move at 1.4 million miles per day the rest of the solar system must accompany it. This looks bizarre when we consider the seasonal shift. the earth other planets must pass the sun up every year.
So·lar day) NOUN the time between successive meridian transits of the sun at a particular place." Dictionary
So a solar day is a perfect 24hrs, so it has a relationship with the earth. The "sidereal day" is a fraction short of 24hrs, and it presupposes heliocentricity. However the paradox hits if we investigate the earth's prehistoric rotation which in the past would have increased and given the dinosaurs quite a bump ride!
The mechanics of the moon) The moon does not spin on it's axis, instead it spins on the axis of the earth. Thus, we always see the same face of the moon. the darkside is forever pointed away from the earth. What is particularly significant is not only the fact that the moon's motions ar therefore geo-centric. But the sun is also in an alignment with the motions of the moon! This is why we have the phenomena of a solar eclipse every 2-3years. The diameter of the moon is in a perfect 400th diameter of the sun making this possible. Thus, since the sun is in motion, it's motions are always in alignment with the earth, thus making it a geocentric motion. This is especially evident as we see the relationship of the sun with the earth in the solar day and the sun in relationship through the moon in a solar eclipse.
"The sun and moon appear the same size in Earth’s sky because the sun’s diameter is about 400 times greater – but the sun is also about 400 times farther away. At this particular moment in Earth’s history – although the sun’s diameter is about 400 times larger than that of the moon – the sun is also about 400 times farther away."
earthsky.org/space/coincidence-that-sun-and-moon-seem-same-size
retrograde motion of mars) This motion is strange in terms of the early Ptolemaic model. And while this fits with heliocentricity it also fits in the neo-Tychonic model
Jupiter does not orbit the sun?!)
"The gas giant is so big that it pulls the center of mass between it and the sun, also known as the barycenter, some 1.07 solar radii from the star's center — which is about 30,000 miles above the sun's surface."https://www.businessinsider.com/jupiter-orbits-center-mass-near-sun-2017-7
incompatibility of the evolution of the solar system
either dark matter or either Aether
"Axis of evil" and geocentricity
A picture is worth a thousand words!
As we see from the various maps there is a pattern in a universe that was supposed to be chaotic and without pattern thus pointing to design especially when the most designed part of the universe is our very earth and the axis point of that universe.
Concentric shells around the earth.
"Slices through the SDSS 3-dimensional map of the distribution of galaxies with the Earth at the center."https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sloan_Digital_Sky_Survey#/media/File:Sloan_Digit_Sky_Survey_1.25_Declination_Slice_2013_Data.jpg
http://creation.com/cmb-conundrums#.U-4Rd2g3A8o
"But the fact that there is poor correlation on large scales, even when corrections are taken into account, suggests that the cosmological contribution is very weak indeed. This then is very bad news for the standard big bang model. However, this is the evidence we would expect for a galacto-centric universe,13 with certain special features even attributed to the solar system."
problems with galacto centrism) galacto-centrism is a bi-product of young earth creationism. They scientifically argue for the center of the milky way to be the center of the universe sense the other galaxies rotate. however the 225million year rotation contradicts the 6,000yr young earth model. And it is only logical if we have an old earth model because 6,ooo yrs is just flat out not long enough to even perceive that we are making a 225,000,000 million year rotation!
young sun
The faint young sun paradox. According to stellar evolution theory, as the sun’s core transforms from hydrogen to helium by means of nuclear fusion, the mean molecular weight increases, which would compress the sun’s core increasing fusion rate. The upshot is that over several billion years, the sun ought to have brightened 40% since its formation and 25% since the appearance of life on earth. For the latter, this translates into a 16–18 ºC temperature increase on the earth. The current average temperature is 15 ºC, so the earth ought to have had a -2 ºC or so temperature when life appeared. See: Faulkner, D., The young faint Sun paradox and the age of the solar system, Journal of Creation (TJ) 15(2):3–4, 2001. As of 2010, the faint young sun remains a problem: Kasting, J.F., Early Earth: Faint young Sun redux, Nature 464:687–689, 1 April 2010; doi:10.1038/464687a; www.nature.com/nature/journal/v464/n7289/full/464687a.html
"Kelvin and Helmholtz argued that gravitational contraction would cause the Sun's gases to become hot enough to radiate heat energy into space. This process does in fact happen in the protostar phase of stellar formation. However, this type of contraction can not be the main source of stellar energy for billions of years..... a hundred million maybe but not a billion. A clue to the source of stellar energy was provided by Albert Einstein. In 1905, while developing his special theory of relativity, Einstein showed that mass can be converted into energy and vice versa. These quantities are related to mass quantity relation. E=mc2.
Where E is the energy released (in units called Joules) from the conversion of a mass (in units of kg) and c is the speed of light (in meters per second). In 1920 British astronomer Arthur Eddington proposed that the sun and other stars are powered by nuclear reactions."https://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/questions/question13.html
So if the sun had less energy, energy it would have less mass. But if it has less mass in the past then would not that effect the sun's hold upon the planets in the solar system? Especially with the Sun barreling around the milky way.
This is a response to
"Refuting absolute geocentrism
Refutation of our detractors
http://creation.com/refuting-geocentrism-response
Absolute Geocentrist straw men
Denial.
1. I do not advocate the ptolemaic system
2. I do not support moon landing conspiracies
3. I do not believe in a flat earth
4. I am not Roman Catholic
"The most detailed response was by a Roman Catholic man named Robert Sungenis,1
who seems to have taken over from a Protestant man named Gerardus Bouw
as the most vocal geocentrist, and a few of the other respondents
restated many similar arguments."
"most vocal" is a bizarre phrase. The natural phrase would be most famous. Dr. Sungenis' movie "The Principle" was cast with many stars including CMI's John Gideon Hartnett. The documentary broke records in most theaters that were screen and the mainstream media even though it was very negative did give a huge amount of publicity to this movie, it was famous.
But I must contend that I was not knowledgeable of geocentrism till the work of Malcolm Bowden was shown to me, I first came about hearing him in a debate with none other than Hugh Ross. Malcolm bowden is a presbyterian.
Also the "man named Robert Sungenis" Is a fellow with a bachelorette in physics and a PHD in theology focusing his dissertation on the concept of Geocentricity.
It is a bit deceptive to call him "a man" as if he had no qualifications on the subject or any other. They do so as well with Gerardus Bouw who has a PHD in Astronomy. I get angry when creationists like those in CMI are slighted when the media trumpets their oppositions accomplishments and willfully ignores theirs. And I hold CMI to the same accountability when they address opposition.
"We do not need to defend our defense of the early scientists who
pioneered geokinetic theory. Most geocentrists today are Catholic, and
most of geokinetic pioneers were Catholics (for example, the priest
Buridan, the bishop Oresme, the Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, the canon
Copernicus, and, of course, Galileo)."
CMI needs to realize that they have admitted that helio-centrism is a form of Roman catholicism and that these pioneers would take RCC in a more liberal direction which dominates the church today especially from the papacy.
Meanwhile Tycho brahe was a protestant and both Luther and Calvin argued for the geo centric view. A church father of the Black Baptist Slaves John Jasper, also preached on geocentrism repeatedly even before the US president Abraham Lincoln.
" The “neo-Tychonian” view of some of the modern proponents of geocentrism
tries to take the purely descriptive (“kinematic”) model of Tycho Brahe
and turn it into a physical (“dynamic”) model where the earth is
balanced in place by the forces of gravity."
My NYC model is different from the Sungenis model in the sense that it is not entirely gravitation-ally based. I want to make the point that while there is the use of the term "balanced"; I am not sure if they would agree that the earth is not therefore stationary.
The biblical concept is that the earth "hangs".
job 26: 7 He stretcheth out the north over the empty place,
and hangeth the earth upon nothing.
This hanging, NYC postulates, is through electromagnetic force. The gravity that is postulated is in accordance with Mach's principle The idea that the "star field" generates the gravitational energy for the Zodiac current.
(ZODIAC, noun [L, Gr., an animal.] A broad
circle in the heavens, containing the twelve signs through which the sun
passes in its annual course. The center of this belt is the ecliptic,
which is the path of the sun. It intersects the equator at an angle or
23 degrees and a half or rather 29 minutes. This is called its
obliquity.)
Thus the gravitation orbiting with the ether is carrying the sun and by extension the solar system. around the earth. The earth is hanging electromagnetically in line with the cosmic microwave background radiation as an electric universe spins around it.
http://creation.com/refuting-geocentrism-response
"Some responders noted that we failed to directly engage with the
proponents of geocentrism. This is true. Actually, it was by design. We
also deliberately didn’t refer to previous modern creationist critics of
geocentrism."
This is a bit disingenuous as later Robert Carter admits
"We also knew that the supporters of geocentrism would eventually attempt to refute our arguments, which has indeed happened."
"We also knew that the supporters of geocentrism would eventually attempt to refute our arguments, which has indeed happened."
"We were careful to separate “absolute geocentrism” (where the earth is
fixed in place and everything rotates around it) from geocentrism in
general (where earth is simply used as a convenient reference frame).
Among the former are the Ptolemaic model (where everything orbits the
earth) and the Tychonian model (where the sun and moon orbit the fixed
earth but the planets orbit the sun). The “neo-Tychonian” view of some
of the modern proponents of geocentrism tries to take the purely
descriptive (“kinematic”) model of Tycho Brahe and turn it into a
physical (“dynamic”) model where the earth is balanced in place by the
forces of gravity."
These issues need to be settled separately. CMI must be careful not to paint such a broad brush. In other words, since they knew the neo-tychonians would respond, they should be fair to note the changes.
" We see that geocentrists reject time dilation in general, claiming that
clocks slow down because of the mechanical effects of gravity or
inertial forces. We wonder how an atomic clock (the only clocks
sensitive enough to detect time dilation), that is in turn based on
molecular vibrations in crystals, is subject to mechanical interference.
Also, the amount of time dilation in GPS satellites is exactly the
amount predicted by Einstein—before the technology to measure time
dilation was available."
I am not dogmatic about time-dialation. I reject the speed of light as a constant but there might be something to salvage as we observe the effect. But when we argue against the big bang theory, we point out that an idea like the universe stretching, implying that measurements and space stretching along with the universe is contradictory and immeasurable.
We have to assume that we have a nearly perfect measurement in distancing the stars and galaxies. But our ways of guessing these measurements, stellar parallax (trigonomic proccess of calculating the distance with triangulated distances of stars) and spectroscopy (a measurement based off of the doppler interpretation of red shift observations) conflict with each other at the most crucial points, such as the measurement of Polaris/(north star). So we have yet to ascertain any certainty on the matter of distance and so it is not possible to be certain about the time dilation of these galaxies.
Isn't it ironic that Carter presents his evidence from earth centered stand points? Measuring the GPS satellites is by nature comparing time on the GPS with time of the earth assumes a stationary earth to understand the difference between the time scales. But if we want to claim dogmatically a time dilation we are either stuck no measurement based upon the copernican principle (the idea that there is no center of the universe). Or, we can take a galacto-centric route, where the center of the milky way is the base for time dilation. thus the solar system has to go through an aging process of at 220 million years seeing as that is the calculated time it would take for the sun to rotate around the milky way. Giving this model the benefit of the doubt, an argument might be made that this distance crossed would be fast in relative motion. Yet the motion still would be made with massive calculations of wear and tare.
"Several wondered how the earth could maintain a precise annual orbital
period in light of internal inertial forces, cosmic forces, and
planetary perturbations. Our answer is simple: Newton. One triumph of Newton, a biblical creationist,
was that his laws of motion and gravity (along with his co-invention,
calculus) could straightforwardly explain in a dynamic model the
kinematic three laws of planetary motion discovered by his fellow
creationist, Kepler. There’s no magic here. The relevant factors are reasonable and measureable."
They are creating the illusion that Newton was a fundamentalist christian. by today's standards Newton was not a liberal, but compared to the Christians of the time Newton was a liberal whose intellectual ancestors would become deists.
"These quotes from the text, Memoirs of the Life, Writings, and discoveries of Sir Isaac Newton, volume 2 by Sir David Brewster from 1855 and available in full on Google Books.
Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
Pg 450 of that book we find:
As to Moses, I do not think his description of ye creation either philosophical or feigned, but that he described realities in a language artificially adapted to ye sense of ye vulgar. Thus when he speaks of two great lights, I suppose he means their apparent not real greatness. So when he tells us God placed these lights in ye firmament, he speaks I suppose of their apparent not real place, his business being not to correct the vulgar notions in matters philosophical, but to adapt a description of the creation as handsomely as he could to ye sense and capacity of ye vulgar. So when he tells us of two great lights, and ye stars made ye 4th day, I do not think their creation from beginning to end was done the 4th day, nor in any one day of ye creation, nor that Moses mentions their creation, as they were physicall bodies in themselves, some of them greater than the earth, and perhaps habitable worlds, but only as they were lights to this earth, so therefore though their creation could not physically [be] assigned to any one day, yet being a part of ye sensible creation which it was Moses’s design to describe, and it being his design to describe things in order according to the succession of days, allotting no more than one day to one thing, they were to be referred to some day or other, and rather to the 4th day than any other, if they [the] air then first became clear enough for them to shine thro’ it, and so put ye appearance of lights in ye firmament to enlighten the earth…”
https://thenaturalhistorian.com/2012/08/03/isaac-newton-mosaic-account-of-creation-burnet-theory-earth/
"There’s no magic here."
Now is Carter dealing with a group of pagans? No he is aligning himself with newton against geocentrists. What was Newton doing? He was giving a materialistic mechanistic understanding of the universe.
Now, Newtonian science historically produced Deists and later atheists because the mission was simple, give non-supernatural answers to everything!
This is the key philosophical flaw to mainstream creationism they are still trying to operate from the same "positivist" attitude of their secular science education and get supernatural results.
Yes, we agree that there is scientific evidence for creation, but just because it is scientific does not mean it has to become naturalistic.
When we look into the cosmos and see a light move, can we truly see the force that is carrying the object? Who is to say that gravity is at work and not an angel?
The astronomers of the scholastic period thought this way. So will that force me to partake in mass transubstantiation?
No because the angel would not become the planet. Now I am not quite as direct as these old catholic astronomers. I believe there are natural forces. But these forces are operated by angelic spirits(aka powers).
Instead of nature as a machine, it is nature as a corporation!
Colossians 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist."
psalm 91 11 For he shall give his angels charge over thee,
to keep thee in all thy ways.
ephesians 3: and to make all men see what is
the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world
hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: 10 to the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God
"We see that geocentrists reject time dilation in general, claiming that
clocks slow down because of the mechanical effects of gravity or
inertial forces. We wonder how an atomic clock (the only clocks
sensitive enough to detect time dilation), that is in turn based on
molecular vibrations in crystals, is subject to mechanical interference."
I am not thoroughly convinced that it is necessary to reject time dilation. At least I don't see why we would have to abolish the effect of time dilation. "the Beginning" in Genesis 1:1 suggests a relationship between time and motion.
However the force of gravity in NYC is a subset of electromagnetic force. Electromagnetic force does start at the molecular level and that is also in accord with the molecular vibrations. Thus in the NYC model Einstein's time dilation has yet to prove relativity's version of time dilation as the true explanation.
"Also, the amount of time dilation in GPS satellites is exactly the
amount predicted by Einstein—before the technology to measure time
dilation was available."
This exposes mainstream creationisms weakness in the areas of philosophy and/or logic. A theory can make a prediction and be successful, yet that does not prove the theory true. The Scientific method is not truly designed to make a theory true. It is only designed to make a theory false. There is no doubt that Einstein got hundreds of propositions right with several predictions correct. The issue is that there are central aspects of the theory that have proven his system false. Such as the changing speed of light as well as the existence of the ether.
"Many of them believe that the Earth is balanced at the universe’s center
of mass and that the earth can be at rest if the proper forces outside
the solar system are properly balanced. Newton said something to this
effect, and theoretically one could construct such a universe. But it
would only work if the major gravitational sources in the universe were
indeed far away. Instead, there is a star (the sun) only 8 light-minutes away from earth that dominates the local gravitational environment."
Now before anything else I must say that the most important observation of the earth in this regard is found in the scripture.
Job 26: 7 He stretcheth out the north over the empty place,
and hangeth the earth upon nothing."
The earth hangeth. The universe may be balanced, but the earth hangeth upon nothing. The earth is hanging in the balance of a spinning universe.
The earth is placed at the center of mass so as the earth is not effected in it's position in the universe.
"But it
would only work if the major gravitational sources in the universe were
indeed far away. Instead, there is a star (the sun)"
This thought ignores Mach's principle by assuming that the stars have no relationship with the sun. The sun still has a relationship with the rest of the solar system in the annual orbit. Yet the sun has to have a relationship with the ether winds, Plasmatic electric force and stellar gravity. There is nothing unfathomable about our sun being carried by these greater forces of nature. In fact, We have seen how the stars relate in accordance with each other. Assuming quantum physics models they have come up with the concept of worm holes to verify this observation. Yet in a electric NYC model these forces would multiply. The force of gravity is 10 to the 36th power weaker than electromagnetic force. The stars being electrically connected across the ether membrane would have an extreme greater influence upon the sun which would naturally comply.
I can't help but notice the assumptions about prediction of the kinematic model.
1st Einsteins predictions were only made for mercury as opposed to the entire solar system.
2nd much of the assumed proof was calculated with the assumptions of solar centricity. The helical model, where the solar system is revolving around the milky has mathematical issues as to keeping the planets aligned in centripedal motion permanently while the sun is being carried around the milkyway at about 250km per second. Assuming as Relativity states that light speed is the constant then the speed of gravitation can not exceed the speed of light and it would take gravity 8 minutes. Gravity operates from the center of the object. So with the sun in a constant state of exit we see, major problems.
https://youtu.be/73mZMcV-OgU
Btw, it is important that this video was produce by proponents of the electric universe who are NOT geocentric but critical of relativity.
"It was claimed that geokinetic theory cannot explain why the planets don’t fly off into space, since “gravity only acts at the speed of light” (some geocentrist models require gravity to propagate at infinite velocity). Actually, since the sun’s gravitational field permeates the solar system, this is no problem at all. Jupiter, for example, experiences the sun’s gravitational attraction at all points and at all times in its orbit and it is exactly the correct gravitational attraction to keep it in orbit at that distance. Even if gravity waves arriving at Jupiter are delayed by a couple of minutes as they propagate outward from the sun, there is never a time when gravity is not there. In any case, under General Relativity, gravity curves space, and that curvature is always there. Also, the recent measurement of two black holes colliding is evidence that gravity propagates as a wave and at the speed of light (We already know that many of them reject this experimental evidence. Update: there has been a second detection. Also, Hartnett has defended the data interpretation.)"
This is a classic case of reification..."Actually, since the sun’s gravitational field permeates the solar system, this is no problem at all. Jupiter, for example, experiences the sun’s gravitational attraction at all points and at all times in its orbit and it is exactly the correct gravitational attraction to keep it in orbit at that distance."
Carter is assuming that the sun's gravity is successfully carrying Jupiter along as it orbits the milky way.
The challenge is whether this is mathematically possible according to the data. Instead of defending the theory he confuses the theory with the observation in hopes that no one has to test the theory! Geocentricity does not question the observation of the movement of Jupiter, it questions whether the suns gravity can accomplish the task while simultaneously traveling across the milky way, especially as we observed above that the sun barely accomplishes the task, if it indeed accomplishes Jupiter's orbit.
"It was claimed that geokinetic theory cannot explain why the planets don’t fly off into space, since “gravity only acts at the speed of light” (some geocentrist models require gravity to propagate at infinite velocity). Actually, since the sun’s gravitational field permeates the solar system, this is no problem at all. Jupiter, for example, experiences the sun’s gravitational attraction at all points and at all times in its orbit and it is exactly the correct gravitational attraction to keep it in orbit at that distance. Even if gravity waves arriving at Jupiter are delayed by a couple of minutes as they propagate outward from the sun, there is never a time when gravity is not there. In any case, under General Relativity, gravity curves space, and that curvature is always there. Also, the recent measurement of two black holes colliding is evidence that gravity propagates as a wave and at the speed of light (We already know that many of them reject this experimental evidence. Update: there has been a second detection. Also, Hartnett has defended the data interpretation.)"
This is a classic case of reification..."Actually, since the sun’s gravitational field permeates the solar system, this is no problem at all. Jupiter, for example, experiences the sun’s gravitational attraction at all points and at all times in its orbit and it is exactly the correct gravitational attraction to keep it in orbit at that distance."
Carter is assuming that the sun's gravity is successfully carrying Jupiter along as it orbits the milky way.
The challenge is whether this is mathematically possible according to the data. Instead of defending the theory he confuses the theory with the observation in hopes that no one has to test the theory! Geocentricity does not question the observation of the movement of Jupiter, it questions whether the suns gravity can accomplish the task while simultaneously traveling across the milky way, especially as we observed above that the sun barely accomplishes the task, if it indeed accomplishes Jupiter's orbit.
Now when he says "gravity curves space" this is another way of saying space-time which in fact is another way of saying the "Aether". now one the advantages to giving hyperdulia to albert Einstein is that when you are worshipping an image you do not have to understand him rationally as to his true words! Because while Einstein trashed the theory of Ether to salvage helio-centricity, he enraged the prevailing science of electromagnetism, Among those was Nikola Tesla. As Electromagnetism originally conceived from the great Young Earth Creationist James Clark Maxwell depended on the ether as a conduit for electric force. Eventually Einstein gave in."In 1905 I was of the opinion that it was no longer allowed to speak of the ether in physics, this opinion however was too radical, as we will see later when we discuss the general theory of relativity it does remain allowed as always to introduce a medium filling all space and to assume that the electromagnetic fields (and matter as well) are its states... once again "empty space" appears as endowed with physical properties i.e., no longer as physically empty as seemed to be the case according to special relativity. One can thus say that the ether is resurrected in the general theory of relativity... since in the new theory, metric facts can no longer be separated from "true" physical facts, the concepts of "space" and ether merge together." Albert Einstein "Grundgedanken and methoden der Relativita'tstheorie in ihrer Entwicklung dargestellt,"Morgan manuscript, EA70, as cited in Ludwig Kostro, Einstein and the Ether, Aperion, 2000, p.2 Now besides this implying egocentricity it shows where quantum theory overlaps the observations of Electromagnetic force. When we deal with the observation of "gravitational waves" we are giving a new title to an already discovered phenomena that has been understood to be electromagnetic in nature.
"After Kristian Birkeland first suggested in 1908 that "currents there [in the aurora] are imagined as having come into existence mainly as a secondary effect of the electric corpuscles from the sun drawn in out of space,"[3] the story appears to have become mired in politics.[12] Birkeland's ideas were generally ignored in favor of an alternative theory from British mathematician Sydney Chapman.[13]
In 1939, the Swedish Engineer and plasma physicist Hannes Alfvén promoted Birkeland's ideas in a paper[14] published on the generation of the current from the Solar Wind. In 1964 one of Alfvén's colleagues, Rolf Boström, also used field-aligned currents in a new model of auroral electrojets.[15]""https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birkeland_current
Now what is called gravitational waves is identical to these established birkeland currents.
The calculation of electromagnetic force converts the paraodxes of quantum into elegant flowing effects of electrical energy.
For instance, Black holes are a great paradox for Orthodoxy
"By
merging two seemingly conflicting theories, Laura Mersini-Houghton, a
physics professor at UNC-Chapel Hill in the College of Arts and
Sciences, has proven, mathematically, that black holes can never come
into being in the first place. The work not only forces scientists to
reimagine the fabric of space-time, but also rethink the origins of the
universe.
"I'm still not over the shock," said Mersini-Houghton. "We've been studying this problem for a more than 50 years and this solution gives us a lot to think about."
For decades, black holes were thought to form when a massive star collapses under its own gravity to a single point in space – imagine the Earth being squished into a ball the size of a peanut – called a singularity. So the story went, an invisible membrane known as the event horizon surrounds the singularity and crossing this horizon means that you could never cross back. It's the point where a black hole's gravitational pull is so strong that nothing can escape it."
"But now Mersini-Houghton describes an entirely new scenario. She and Hawking both agree that as a star collapses under its own gravity, it produces Hawking radiation. However, in her new work, Mersini-Houghton shows that by giving off this radiation, the star also sheds mass. So much so that as it shrinks it no longer has the density to become a black hole."
"I'm still not over the shock," said Mersini-Houghton. "We've been studying this problem for a more than 50 years and this solution gives us a lot to think about."
For decades, black holes were thought to form when a massive star collapses under its own gravity to a single point in space – imagine the Earth being squished into a ball the size of a peanut – called a singularity. So the story went, an invisible membrane known as the event horizon surrounds the singularity and crossing this horizon means that you could never cross back. It's the point where a black hole's gravitational pull is so strong that nothing can escape it."
"But now Mersini-Houghton describes an entirely new scenario. She and Hawking both agree that as a star collapses under its own gravity, it produces Hawking radiation. However, in her new work, Mersini-Houghton shows that by giving off this radiation, the star also sheds mass. So much so that as it shrinks it no longer has the density to become a black hole."
By merging two
seemingly conflicting theories, Laura Mersini-Houghton, a physics
professor at UNC-Chapel Hill in the College of Arts and Sciences, has
proven, mathematically, that black holes
can never come into being in the first place. The work not only forces
scientists to reimagine the fabric of space-time, but also rethink the
origins of the universe.
"I'm still not over the shock," said Mersini-Houghton. "We've been studying this problem for a more than 50 years and this solution gives us a lot to think about."
For decades, black holes were thought to form when a massive star collapses under its own gravity to a single point in space – imagine the Earth being squished into a ball the size of apeanut
– called a singularity. So the story went, an invisible membrane known
as the event horizon surrounds the singularity and crossing this horizon
means that you could never cross back. It's the point where a black
hole's gravitational pull is so strong that nothing can escape it.
The reason black holes are so bizarre is that it pits two fundamental theories of the universe against each other. Einstein's theory of gravity predicts the formation of black holes but a fundamental law of quantum theory states that no information from the universe can ever disappear. Efforts to combine these two theories lead to mathematical nonsense, and became known as the information loss paradox.
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-09-black-holes.html#jCp
"I'm still not over the shock," said Mersini-Houghton. "We've been studying this problem for a more than 50 years and this solution gives us a lot to think about."
For decades, black holes were thought to form when a massive star collapses under its own gravity to a single point in space – imagine the Earth being squished into a ball the size of a
The reason black holes are so bizarre is that it pits two fundamental theories of the universe against each other. Einstein's theory of gravity predicts the formation of black holes but a fundamental law of quantum theory states that no information from the universe can ever disappear. Efforts to combine these two theories lead to mathematical nonsense, and became known as the information loss paradox.
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-09-black-holes.html#jCp
By merging two
seemingly conflicting theories, Laura Mersini-Houghton, a physics
professor at UNC-Chapel Hill in the College of Arts and Sciences, has
proven, mathematically, that black holes
can never come into being in the first place. The work not only forces
scientists to reimagine the fabric of space-time, but also rethink the
origins of the universe.
"I'm still not over the shock," said Mersini-Houghton. "We've been studying this problem for a more than 50 years and this solution gives us a lot to think about."
For decades, black holes were thought to form when a massive star collapses under its own gravity to a single point in space – imagine the Earth being squished into a ball the size of apeanut
– called a singularity. So the story went, an invisible membrane known
as the event horizon surrounds the singularity and crossing this horizon
means that you could never cross back. It's the point where a black
hole's gravitational pull is so strong that nothing can escape it.
The reason black holes are so bizarre is that it pits two fundamental theories of the universe against each other. Einstein's theory of gravity predicts the formation of black holes but a fundamental law of quantum theory states that no information from the universe can ever disappear. Efforts to combine these two theories lead to mathematical nonsense, and became known as the information loss paradox.
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-09-black-holes.html#jCp
"I'm still not over the shock," said Mersini-Houghton. "We've been studying this problem for a more than 50 years and this solution gives us a lot to think about."
For decades, black holes were thought to form when a massive star collapses under its own gravity to a single point in space – imagine the Earth being squished into a ball the size of a
The reason black holes are so bizarre is that it pits two fundamental theories of the universe against each other. Einstein's theory of gravity predicts the formation of black holes but a fundamental law of quantum theory states that no information from the universe can ever disappear. Efforts to combine these two theories lead to mathematical nonsense, and became known as the information loss paradox.
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-09-black-holes.html#jCp
http://phys.org/news/2014-09-black-holes.html
"Another part of their model requires ‘ether’ and they believe this ether would cause drag on objects moving through space. Yet, there is essentially no friction in space, and we have measured it by sending multiple space probes through the essentially frictionless void of space without ever having to take any ether-caused drag into account."
No quotes to be found are there? Probably, because Carter does not have a credible source! Maybe an amature critic perhaps, but obviously he is not getting this from someone like Sungenis.
First of all The ether permeates all the universe, so the specific place to measure would be from the earth. Though it may credibly be measured from these probes if they recreate the Michelson-Morrely experiment from space, and I have never heard of them doing such. In fact Geocentrists have requested this in the past.
Second, this suggestion is purely anecdotal, not to mention the fact that Carter is using smoke and mirrors! Even Creationist Russel Humphreys in his 2nd Cosmology theory takes into account "new gravity" We have filled space with dark matter, dark energy, Spacetime and solar storms. All of which ad hoc. They are seeing plenty which would have typically been classified ether.
"Michelson and Morley’s apparatus is usually accepted as proving ether exists instead of being taken as an equivocal result that proves nothing. What can one do when faced with stubborn refusal to engage the most salient arguments?"
This is a rubber-glue type of argument! LOL!
I have already noted multiple experiments that are repeatable and in the case of Michelson Morrely had been repeated 100,000times. Showing an ether wind of 4-11kilometers a second. They may have a scale in which it is rounded to zero but that is only due to a larger scale. just like the diet soda that has less than a gram might say zero. Of course, when you add all the servings then you have consumed several grams! This attitude is simply dense.
"In that year, Dayton Miller demonstrated the fact that even though the duo's experiment had not specifically found the expected range of interference patterns, they had found an interesting little noticed
effect. Miller then went on to suggest that Michelson Morley had found an experimental sine wave like set of data that correlated well with the predicted pattern of data. He also described how thermal and
directional assumptions inherent in the experimental arrangement may have impacted badly on the fringe interference data. Thus, the test may have been performed in an imperfectly conceived experimental setup and with a built in mathematical bias against the detection of an appropriate outcome. Thus, in the future the aether theory in some form or another may still be sustainable as a foundational theory of
physics."http://arpast.org/newsevents/articles/article78.pdf pg3
"We also saw several examples of people rejecting redshift/blueshift for calculating local motion, but nobody explained why, when we measure the absorption lines of hydrogen here on earth, those same apparent absorption lines seen in interstellar objects are shifted one way or the other? Some contradicted themselves by accepting that there is local, independent motion of stars and galaxies. But how can we “know” this without trusting the spectral line data? And what are the implications of local motion in the geocentric model? Clearly, the stars are not “fixed” in relation to one another. What then holds them in their respective places as they whirl about the earth at incredible speeds? Why do neighboring stars orbit at the same rate as distant galaxies when there is a multi-billion-fold difference in their respective distances? What causes them to orbit once a day when some are very close compared to others and nothing is fixing them in place with respect to one another? And if nearby stellar objects (those with the greatest gravitational effects impinging on the earth) have relative motion, how much of a potential effect would this have on ‘balancing’ earth at the center of the universe?"
We see this pattern of vaguery and prejudice. One person said something, therefore they are all this way. BTW, if individuals disagree, they simply disagree and are not contradicting themselves. We know that Carter is not dealing with a monolith, So let's not try to bait the geocentrist with that. Now, some of these questions are not essential to the theories and others are going to have differing opinions, which is how science is supposed to work!
1. I deny the doppler effect in favor of the un-ruh effect. So the red and blue are temperatures instead of movement like sound. The red shift does not in any case explain motion. it simply shows signs of it. In geo centricisty the thought is that the universe spins The outer edges are experiencing friction creating the red shift and reversals turn off the heat making a blue shift.
2. motions aside from the ether spin are easily explained/ The spin is explained by Coriolis forces So that motion within the ether is distinct and separate. Heliocentrists use the same explanation inversed as to why the earth never gives the appearance of motion.
3. Other forces that could make planetary motion are electromagnetism, gravity and also there is a season shifting of the ether which also shakes things up being with the ether.
4. Halton Aarp showed the fallacy in finding the distances with red shift. Also the calaculation of stellar parallax contradicts the measurements of spectroscopy. Specifically starting at polaris and this alters navigation through the rest of the universe.3. Other forces that could make planetary motion are electromagnetism, gravity and also there is a season shifting of the ether which also shakes things up being with the ether.
5. In an electric universe cosmology fusion is not the composition of stars but indeed and effect on the outside edges of their exterior. While the stars are connected through a universal electric conduction. This is a good idea for creationist because the time it takes for light to travel from the center of the sun to the exterior.
"What you probably don’t know, is that these photons striking your eyeballs were ACTUALLY created tens of thousands of years ago and it took that long for them to be emitted by the sun."https://www.universetoday.com/15021/how-long-does-it-take-sunlight-to-reach-the-earth/
So the problem is for the mainstream creationist, how could the light be upon the earth either the first or fourth day if the light takes "tens of thousands of years"?
"It pains us to note that many of them do not believe in the moon landings. If one has to reject so much operational science in order to explain the universe, science cannot then be used to explain the universe. So why bother to try to build a ‘scientific’ model at all? This is their greatest Achilles’ heel."
This is a strawman! I don't hold to the moon landings being faked, and there are other geocentrists who do not buy that conspiracy either. You could just as easily insert "young earth creationist" and implicate Dr. Carter. But I am pretty certain that this conspiracy does not require any particular worldview position, besides a distrust of NASA.
BY the way Geocentiricty does not require conspiracy theory. It is simply an long unnotticed error that has propagated itself through cognitive dissonance and naivety.
"Such a counterbalance does not exist in near space, and the farther away it is, the more massive it must be (at a mere 1 light year, the counterbalancing mass would need to have the mass of over 4 billion suns"
So, in an electric universe the sun would be magnetically connected to many stars and galaxies. So there is not really a need of a counterbalance as he is suggesting. Though the appeal would be the connections of the star feild creating a mutal gravity for the solarsystem and galaxies have billions of stars would be adequate. On gravity a lone the stars have an adequate amount of gravity to conduct this. This was proved in the barbour and bertotti peer reviewed paper. "Gravity and Inertia in a Machian Framework"
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1977NCimB..38....1B/abstract
"This, of course invalidates all the assumptions of geocentrism, but they have not explained why the earth is balanced at the center and the sun (which, on a universal scale, is only a fraction of a fraction of a percent from the center in their model) is not. And where is this balance point? Is it at the center of the earth? In that case, the crust would be free to rotate about the liquid core. Is it at the surface of the earth? At the edge of the atmosphere? Considering how large the universe is, what physical reason is there that the earth, the whole earth, and nothing but the earth is at an unmoving central position?"
"but they have not explained why the earth is balanced at the center and the sun (which, on a universal scale, is only a fraction of a fraction of a percent from the center in their model) is not."
The Bible explains
Psalms 19;4 Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun,5 Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race.6 His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof"
The sun is a figure of coming messiah and it is also there to provide heat and light for life on the earth..
Now at this point they are wanting to have natural purposeless explanation. But the universe is not physical purposeless plane of existence; it was designed by God specially to have life on earth.
psalm 8 O Lord, our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth! who hast set thy glory above the heavens.2 Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou ordained strength because of thine enemies, that thou mightest still the enemy and the avenger.3 When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained;4 What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?5 For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour."
The universe has been specially designed to house mankind and life on earth in general. This is called the anthropic principle.
"The anthropic principle is a philosophical consideration that any data we collect about the universe is filtered by the fact that, in order for it to be observable in the first place, it must be compatible with the conscious and sapient life that observes it. Proponents of the anthropic principle reason that it explains why this universe has the age and the fundamental physical constants necessary to accommodate conscious life. As a result, outside the narrow range thought to be compatible with life it would seem impossible that life (in particular, intelligent life) could develop. " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
"If the earth is only balanced and not ‘fixed’ in place, what is to prevent the earth from moving? The solar system could be moving at millions of miles an hour toward the edge of the universe and we would not know it."
No God is keeping it in place. If you are worried about such a scenario, the corpernican principle sure willnot give you any solace!! As we have shown the solar system under heliocentrism is indeed hurtling st a million miles per hour at least!
"Also, if one is attempting to claim the earth is balanced at the center of mass of a rotating universe, one runs into a very large problem: the earth should turn in synchrony with that universe." No this is simply a refusal to deal with coriolis forces. Such an argument must then balance itself with issues of coriolis forces on the earth. Where airplanes flying from Ny are slaming into LA.
" Another common aspect of their model is the belief that all the stars orbit at the same distance from earth."
How about, no. There is no need to think that there are any geometric differences inthe stars. Now there could be argument for our measurements being different, there is no need at all however. The cycle of starfield will make a circuit and even out in the cycle.
"Likewise, the Coriolis force on Jupiter is due to its rotation, but they believe the Coriolis force on Earth is due to the universe rotating around the Earth. "
Now this work is very unscholarly, they don't have any academic charitability or even scholarship to actually quote sources.
Neverthe less Jupiter is a gas planet that is utterly uninhapitable, is a hundred times the size of the earth and yet has a global spin about 2.4 that of the earth. The coriolis forces are incapable of the relative tranquility we have on earth.
"Sadly, they failed to engage some of our best arguments: The “long-period comets must come with warp drive” claim, the source of universal acceleration question, and the speed of the moon largely went unanswered. What is the point of having this debate when our best arguments are ignored? Actually, we anticipated that the defenders of geocentrism would either ignore, misunderstand, or misrepresent this section. They chose the former. Par for the course." Probably because Carter did not highlight thses questions.
I will say that I saw a section on halley's comet which only seemed to pose a problem if we argued that gravity was not existent.
As far as the complaint of Satelites like the moon. The moon has different forces at play besides the Ether. For instance, the earths gravity."Our “Oddly Wiggling Universe” section got a lot of attention"
I explain this in my "New years cosmology class" the shifting of the universe was part of an intergalactic catastrophe which resulted in the world wide flood.
As far as the the Japanese tsunami, there is no peer reviewed records of references to research to give any type of analysis as to whether it was accurate or accurately recorded. There could be an electric phenomena effecting the sea beds. and in a deeper relationship with the sun.
"Things in the universe are only connected though gravity. "
Fallacious! You do not know what composes the universe
For more information on my brand of geocentrity and creation science :"New Years Cosmology class" click on the link.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3v-8ib8j_c&list=PLr4zHIDphGjQhba6EkMxdTEgRsyqTdOJw
