"Refuting absolute geocentrism
Refutation of our detractors
by Robert Carter"
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 john Jasper, also preached on geocentrism repeatedly even before the US president.
" 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 their 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."
" who seems to have taken over from a Protestant man named Gerardus Bouw as the most vocal geocentrist"
" Most geocentrists today are Catholic, and most of geokinetic pioneers were Catholics"
"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.
" 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 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)
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 nonsupernatural 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 a operated by angelic spirits.
Instead of nature as a machine, it is nature as a corporation!
" 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 the NYC model is Einsteins time dialtion 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 predictiona 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
No comments:
Post a Comment