Heliocentrism an Anti-Christian Hoax?

Is heliocentricity an anti-Christian hoax and the "official" adoption of the Copernican model a slap in the face of established religion?
Astrology has for ages used the geocentric model with no problems so I think if there was a problem with it, the practitioners of astrology would have switched a long time ago.
Ptolemy came up with a good model based on what would have been good science of his day and it was used for a long time.
Most astronomers were resistant to the Copernican model when it came out.
Newtonian gravitation does not really work perfectly to describe the motions of the planets.
Galileo and the invention of the telescope are touted by the adherents of the Copernican model as the death nell to geocentrism but all it proved was that the inner planets, Mercury and Venus, orbit the sun, as can be deduced by the phases similar to what the moon experiences. Mercury is a small rock, and the large Venus is gaseous, so no great mass is required to hold them.
The earth has a very dense core and is enough to hold the sun, which is not much more than a hollow plasma field, in orbit.
Jeffrey Grupp is offering a $200 reward to someone who can prove that the earth orbits the sun and not the other way around. So there must be something to this, and people may want to rethink their notions about our world and the people living on it, who are the crowning achievement of God's creation and that we were put into the center of that creation.


[edit on 18-8-2010 by jmdewey60]

reply to post by jmdewey60


A $200 reward? They must really stand by their convictions!

And there are people practicing heliocentric astrology... A google search on those two words generates 289,000 hits.

reply to post by JoshNorton
That is something that looks like a non-tradition type of astrology.
I doubt that there would be a high percentage of astrologers using it.
My point I was trying to make was that there has existed a system of tracking the movements of the celestial bodies that matched with what is observable and could be predictive to a certain extent.
There seems to not be a compelling reason to scrap it or modify it if it works.

As for "conviction", it is really more his inability to find any irrefutable evidence one way or the other and a desire to get to the truth. What is a "official" government sanctioned "truth" in today's world of control by lies, we should probably be suspicious of.


[edit on 18-8-2010 by jmdewey60]

reply to post by jmdewey60

"Official truth". Yes, very important to ignore science because it represents the "official truth".

You know that Galileo was tried and convicted for supporting a heliocentric solar system, right? Do you really think that the Church (the ultimate "official truth") was an exception. Do you think the Inquisition was supporting the "official truth" or reality?

Maybe you should explain why Kepler's laws and Newtonian physics are inadequate instead of just stating that they are. It turns out that their predictions are just as good as Ptolemy's. Better in fact. Why would the perfect center of the universe wobble, causing that perfect universe to move around in the sky? Astrology had to adjust itself to allow for precession of the equinoxes (the sun is not in the constellation Leo at the moment), a heliocentric solar system does not.

[edit on 8/18/2010 by Phage]

reply to post by jmdewey60
You might want to ask LeoVirgo. She does have an Astrology which is different from the old system. She maintains that the old system is "off" by certain degrees. I think her's is actually based on observation rather than prediction.

reply to post by Phage

You know that Galileo was tried and convicted for supporting a heliocentric solar system, right?

Galileo was an antagonist, meaning he was not content with just publishing a theory but had to take it a step further by pointing out that the Church was wrong.



[edit on 18-8-2010 by jmdewey60]

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Phage

 

You know that Galileo was tried and convicted for supporting a heliocentric solar system, right?

Galileo was an antagonist, meaning he was not content with just publishing a theory but had to take it a step further by pointing out that the Church was wrong.



[edit on 18-8-2010 by jmdewey60]

Yeah, how dare he do that, telling the church they were wrong.

reply to post by Phage

Why would the perfect center of the universe wobble, causing that perfect universe to move around in the sky?

Here is one answer I found:

This motion, which is caused mostly by the Moon's gravity, gives rise to the precession of the equinoxes. . .

en.wikipedia.org...
I think you would run into this same problem no matter what system one subscribes to.

reply to post by Phage

Maybe you should explain why Kepler's laws and Newtonian physics are inadequate instead of just stating that they are. It turns out that their predictions are just as good as Ptolemy's. Better in fact.

When you watch a science show on TV, they word things in such a way that makes you think that all of a sudden it was a simpler thing to describe the planetary motions using the heliocentric system. In fact the calculations are more complex and a new model had to be made using elliptical orbits.Tycho Brahe did not adopt the Copernican system and created a modified version of the Egyptian system. They believed that the planets Mercury and Venus were basically moons of the sun, which circled the earth.

reply to post by Phage

Maybe you should explain why Kepler's laws and Newtonian physics are inadequate instead of just stating that they are.

I am not an astronomer or physicist so I do not understand it enough to be able to adequately explain it. Here is an example:

Newton's Theory does not fully explain the precession of the perihelion of the orbits of the planets, especially of planet Mercury, which was detected long after the life of Newton.

en.wikipedia.org...'s_law_of_universal_gravitation#Observations_conflicting_with_Newton.27s_theory



[edit on 18-8-2010 by jmdewey60]

reply to post by Phage

"Official truth". Yes, very important to ignore science because it represents the "official truth".

Science may be the new religion.
What if Einstein's curved space was really the "ether" known to the ancients?

reply to post by jmdewey60

Galileo was an antagonist, meaning he was not content with just publishing a theory but had to take it a step further by pointing out that the Church was wrong.

Why did you edit out your statement about "official truth" in the OP? Galileo was tried and convicted for protesting the "official truth".

We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare that you, the said Galileo, by reason of the matters adduced in trial, and by you confessed as above, have rendered yourself in the judgment of this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the doctrine—which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures—that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the center of the world; and that an opinion may be held and defended as probably after it has been declared and defined to be contrary to the Holy Scripture; and that consequently you have incurred all the censures and penalties imposed and promulgated in the sacred canons and other constitutions, general and particular, against such delinquents.

www.law.umkc.edu...

I think you would run into this same problem no matter what system one subscribes to.

Why would the "center of that creation" be subject to something so imperfect as a wobble? The center of the universe wiggles? According to Ptolemy, the Earth does not rotate. If the Earth does not rotate it has no axis of rotation. If there is no axis of rotation there is no precession. Or, if the Moon were causing the wobble, it would occur on a monthly basis, not a 26,000 year cycle. Ptolemy ignored precession. His model did not correctly predict the motion of the stars. That is why "modern" astrology has had to make adjustments to his model. His model did not predict precession. On the other hand, precession is irrelevant to the heliocentric model.

In fact the calculations are more complex and a new model had to be made using elliptical orbits.

Kepler's laws are quite simple really and you have not explained why they or Newtonian gravitation are inadequate to describe planetary motion. Yes, Newton's laws do not account for very small relativistic effects (and Ptolemy certainly did not). I see you realized that by invoking relativity to dispute Newton you created a little problem for yourself. Einstein's space-time has nothing to do with "ether".

[edit on 8/18/2010 by Phage]

reply to post by Phage
The only edit on the OP was to insert the word "much" because the sun probably has a central core of some sort.

(Albert Einstein, 1928, Leiden)
According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; . . .

www.spaceandmotion.com...
I tend towards the Egyptian model. I don't especially want to defend any other, personally. My main point is that the heliocentric model could be and most likely is, in my opinion, wrong.
The question I have is, "Why was it adopted and to what lengths will the government controlled religion of fake science go to support it?".
How about making up excuses for why we can't have manned flights to Mars since it is really over 93 million miles away, being in an outer orbit around the earth compared to the Sun's orbit?


[edit on 18-8-2010 by jmdewey60]

so you think this was all satans plan to trick mankind? Just like dinosaur bones...... and refusing the signs sent to us by jesus and mary in cracker and burnt toast form?

Really good try phage.... but there are many people who dont want to live in a world where their fantasys dont exist. the only thing you have to look forward to after removing their ignorance, is suicide......

reply to post by jmdewey60

You left out a significant part of Einstein's statement. He was talking about a "new aether" with no connection or resemblance to classical aether. His new aether had no substance.

But this aether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it.

www.aetherometry.com... You might want to read the whole thing...or not.

The heliocentric model was "adopted" (accepted) because it is correct. The Ptolemaic model (Ptolemy was a Roman citizen, btw, and more closely tied to Greek culture and ethnicity than Egyptian) was finally rejected because it is incorrect and does not account for observed phenomena (not to mention precession). It was also a mishmash of stuff to force it to work. You know it wasn't just a bunch of nice round circles don't you? It required a special fudge factor for each planet.

What do manned flights to Mars have to do with anything? That is one very smelly red herring. Oh, and right now, Mars is 194,277,000 miles from Earth.

[edit on 8/18/2010 by Phage]

reply to post by jmdewey60


It's clear from this post that you don't actually know how science works. In order for what you propose to be true every astronomer on the planet would have to be in on the conspiracy, including amateur astronomers. Otherwise, someone would provide verifiable data that the heliocentric is wrong. Instead, they all agree that the Earth revolves around the Sun, including a large number of astronomers who are Christian. So, what seems more likely a worldwide cabal of every scientist with the sole agenda of putting forth a heliocentric model in order to dispute an insignificant claim made in the Bible, or that the Earth actually does revolve around the Sun?

reply to post by Phage

The heliocentric model was "adopted" (accepted) because it is correct.

Good! Well just give us the proof. I emailed Jeff so he knows about this thread. You can get the reward if your evidence is in a post made before someone else comes up with it. What I mean is that if you have the answer, no one is going to be able to read your post and turn around and claim the reward.
OK, mishmash. That could be. People are always borrowing things, everyone gets accused of that and there never seems to be anything completely original. The Egyptians had some sort of knowledge passed down from some real scientists perhaps from a lost civilization and if they realized that Mercury and Venus orbited the Sun then that is further evidence of a superior technology that someone had, considering it took the invention of the telescope for the likes of Galileo to come up with the same conclusion.
Mars to me is not a red herring and is kind of central to my even considering a geocentric system. To find the distance to mars, it is accepted generally that the only way to accurately make that determination one would have to have access to something like an elaborate radar array which would not be available to the average amateur astronomer. There was an attempt recently by a school project to find the distance to mars using the best technology they could find, and their results showed a distance in the multiples of what it should have been using the government issued data.
A practical example of the discrepancy of what would be expected with Mars, and what is actually found, is the rover. The thing was only expected to run for a couple months and then the dust would block the solar cells to where it would loose power and stop. Amazingly, the wind blew off the dust and it kept going. Wind? doesn't that take an atmosphere? If Mars was really that much further away, then it would have to be bigger than we think. A bigger planet can have an atmosphere.



[edit on 18-8-2010 by jmdewey60]

reply to post by Xcalibur254

Otherwise, someone would provide verifiable data that the heliocentric is wrong.

Maybe the global warming scare has changed the way that people perceive science works. If there is a list compiled by someone that shows all the scientists believe, even if they are not actually climatologists, that man is making the planet warm, then it's "settled science". Maybe now-days we use science by consensus, but I don't think that is how it should work. People should use what they can see themselves. This is called empirical science, not just a bunch of people at a convention agreeing to all go along with the best sounding theory.


[edit on 18-8-2010 by jmdewey60]

reply to post by jmdewey60

The Egyptians though all the planets circled the Earth. It has been claimed that Heraclides Ponticus proposed a system in which Venus and Mercury circled the Sun but this is not supported by the documents.
adsabs.harvard.edu...

Ptolemy thought all the planets circled the Earth (though each had their own little eccentric circle in order to make their motions fit observations. Tycho Brahe (before Galileo saw the phases of Venus), because of his very precise observations, knew that didn't work and deduced that all the planets except Earth circled the Sun. He just couldn't bring himself to believe that the Earth moves. Of course, with the use of telescopes his observations could be refined even more to show that the Earth does indeed spin on its axis and revolve around the Sun.

Do you mean this high school project? They didn't use radar, there really isn't any radar that can do that. They used parallax measurements.

we calculate the distance to Mars at that time to be ~38.1 ±4.0 million miles. The value from the JPLephemeris is 0.4026 AU, or 37.4 M mi.

www.mccarthyobservatory.org...
They missed by less than 1 million miles (less than 2%). That isn't exactly "multiples of what it should have been". Pretty cool project but it does require an understanding math and science. You might not be too interested.

How do you suppose the solar panels on the Mars rovers got dust on them in the first place? We've known that Mars has an atmosphere for a long time. It is quite large enough to have an atmosphere. But what does its size have to do with its distance from Earth?

Forget the reward. Jeff will just move the goalposts (kind of the way the Earth moves). Those high school kids proved it. Give it to them.

[edit on 8/18/2010 by Phage]

reply to post by Phage
I was using your post as an opportunity to comment on the reward and please do not take it in a bad way, that I think you were interested in it.
It seems obvious that Mercury and Venus orbit the Sun so that has to be a given. What the outer planets are doing is not so obvious and need some consideration.

The band was present at the end of 2009, right before Jupiter moved too close to the sun in the sky to be observed from Earth. When the planet emerged from the sun's glare again in early April, its south equatorial belt was nowhere to be seen.

www.newscientist.com...
Too close to the Sun?
If Jupiter and the sun both orbit the Earth, then it would be possible for them to get close.
That may have been the project I was thinking of. I did not read their release but someone else's comment about it.
It seems, following the link you provided, that what they were doing was using Mars against a background star to determine the distance between the Earth and the Sun. If I missed something, let me know.


[edit on 18-8-2010 by jmdewey60]