Heliocentrism an Anti-Christian Hoax?

page: 2
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 10:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 

How do you suppose the solar panels on the Mars rovers got dust on them in the first place?
Off the wheels or something?
I haven't made a real serious study of the subject myself but other people have and this thing was a surprise, that's what I was getting at.
If Mars has an apparent size and we are told it is a certain distance, it would mean that it is a specific actual size. If it was in fact further away than we thought, it would be larger. A larger than expected planet would have a denser than expected atmosphere, or at least you might think so with a planet that does not seem so dissimilar to our own.




posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 10:05 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 




Astrology has for ages used the geocentric model with no problems


Except for the problem that when it was laid down the constellations were at entirely different points than they are today. And that astrology proves to be an exceedingly useless and vague attempt at foretelling the future.



Newtonian gravitation does not really work perfectly to describe the motions of the planets.


Considering how old Newtonian physics is I find it amazing it is still a fundamental part of our understanding of physics. A testament to the brilliance of Newton. Newtonian physics is adequate still today, at least when it comes to our own solar system.



and the large Venus is gaseous, so no great mass is required to hold them.


I'm not sure what you mean. If you are suggesting that Venus is a gas giant you are gravely mistaken. If are you suggesting that a gas planet would be "easy" to hold than you are again mistaken.



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.


Even if we were to entertain the idea of a plasma sun I highly doubt the Earth could hold something as super massive as the sun. The size of the sun is pretty well understood, as is its distance and functions.

What's next, you attempt to resurrect the glass firmament and tell us outer space is filled with water?



Jeffrey Grupp is offering a $200 reward to someone who can prove that the earth orbits the sun and not the other way around


It really is too bad that Galileo is dead, if he wasn't he'd be 200 dollars richer




So there must be something to this


Why? Simply because there are people clinging to a long dead idea does not mean that idea has merit. There are people who still think the Earth is hollow and gods in the sky cause Hurricanes. Anyone can assert and believe anything they want but merely the act of belief, even when done by millions or billions, does not make something true.



who are the crowning achievement of God's creation and that we were put into the center of that creation.


I hate the idea that we're the best God can come up with. If we are the best he can do than I am not impressed, not in the slightest.

I really don't think we are the center of God's creation, if there is a God, because if we were would ten year old's get cancer and die? Would people be brutally torn apart by wild animals? Would some animals have better eye sight, sharper claws, and razor fangs while we are left with weak fingernails, teeth adapted for eating primarily plant matter and legs that can't carry us fast enough to escape an apex predator?

What we see when we look at nature is the not signs of intelligent design but signs of survival, of animals competing to pass on their genes, of adaptation and Evolution.

When we look out at the cosmos we see endless galaxies, a sea of stars and suns like ours. One doesn't need to destroy the idea that we are not the center of the Universe, all it takes is a telescope to see the vastness of the Cosmos. To think that all of this was made for us, this beauty, this majesty, is selfish and arrogant even if there is a God.



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 10:30 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 

Jupiter was on the opposite side of the Sun. Jupiter never actually gets close to the Sun. It was too close to the Sun from our point of view. It was only in the sky during daylight hours. If you don't understand that it's no wonder you can believe the Sun circles the Earth.

Yes, you missed something. The rotation of Earth on its axis (which you don't believe in) was also used to determine the distance to Mars.




[edit on 8/18/2010 by Phage]



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 10:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Phage

If Mars has an apparent size and we are told it is a certain distance, it would mean that it is a specific actual size.

Good point.
If Mars circles the Earth, how can its apparent diameter change so much? This past January it had an apparent diameter of 14". It's now less than 5". It actually varies from 25" to 3.5". Is it not a solid body? It's exactly this sort of thing that proved to Galileo's mind that the planets do not revolve around the Earth. Of course, you do need a telescope to recognize that.



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 11:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 

The Egyptians thought all the planets circled the Earth.

This is what I was thinking of when I said Egyptian system.
It is an illustration from an old book on the history of astronomy.
You may be right that there is some assertions from medieval writers about where some ideas came from, and it could be that the Egyptians did not believe this but could have been fabricated as reinforcement for their own ideas.



[edit on 18-8-2010 by jmdewey60]



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60

Newtonian gravitation does not really work perfectly to describe the motions of the planets.


That's true, but Newtonian theory has been replaced by Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, which *does* accurately predict the planets' motions. Newtonian theory is still used a lot in practice because the mathematics are simpler, and it provides a good estimate.



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.


Huh?


Jeffrey Grupp is offering a $200 reward to someone who can prove that the earth orbits the sun and not the other way around.


This was done several centuries ago.



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 09:28 AM
link   
I'm going to say that we are revolving around the sun. Just because our mass isn't enough to hold the sun in orbit and other planets at their distance. I don't think it has anything to do with anti-christian.



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 12:13 PM
link   
I go with Geocentric.

My research shows me that Heliocentric garbage for the sun worshipers so they stuck it in their Britannica.
By the way, the only official word of Heliocentric is the Rockefeller published Encyclopedia Britannica which also used to claim Christopher Columbus discovered America.

Some multi-billion dollar Geocentric project is going on in the Middle East right now to prove Geocentricity.

After listing groups of so called Mathematicians and Astronomers that support Heliocentricism , the people they work for and their agendas fall into the "compulsive liars and occult related" group who I don't trust and have been know for printing lies.

However there are plenty of highly Educated Mathematicians and Astronomers who deal with Geocentric only. They fall into more trust worthy groups of people most working and researching for non-profit and usually not affiliated with a big corporation.

My main reason for be Geocentric is the Bible which always turns out to be correct in the end.

By the way. There is a reason NASA uses Geocentric math for all their space research and missions. Because Heliocentric is a pile of crap.
NASA does not account for the world spinning at 1450 km and 66,660 mph orbit speed around the sun when they launch space missions, they use Geocentric Math only. All the Math points at Geocentric. The Theory Of Relativity is trash today.

But to each his own. I certainly don't try to convince anyone of Geocentricity because 8 years ago I would have pass it off as madness.



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Xiamara
 


Here is a quote from a wikipedia article on the history of determining the distance to the Sun:

It does suggest that the Sun is clearly larger than the Earth, which could be taken to support the heliocentric model.
en.wikipedia.org...
If size was the only important factor, I suppose this would be proof enough.
A geocentric model would have to have a Sun with practically no mass.



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Wise Man
 


My main reason for be Geocentric is the Bible which always turns out to be correct in the end.

The Bible is a little sketchy on the subject, for example:

The sun stood still and the moon stood motionless while the nation took vengeance on its enemies. The event is recorded in the Scroll of the Upright One. The sun stood motionless in the middle of the sky and did not set for about a full day. Joshua 10:13
So it is recorded in the Book of Jashar.
It could be taken to mean "apparently motionless" except, if only the Earth stood still, the moon would have kept moving, so it has to be deduced that both the Sun and the Moon stood still.
If one wanted to get into conspiracy, you could consider the title to the movie The Day the Earth Stood Still being an Illuminati smear on the Bible.

The point I was making, or attempting, was how people like to use the Galileo story to make Christians seem like fools. The geocentric model may not seem too supportable today but at the time, it may have seemed very reasonable. I am not a supported of organized religion and do not agree with persecution for people's thoughts. But it seems that the tables are turned and now it is the new system that has power and they want everyone to throw away their belief in God, based on so-called science without any really clear concise bit of proof that they are right. People are just to think that men smarter than themselves have it all figured out and they are supposed to just go along and not question anything, sound familiar?


[edit on 19-8-2010 by jmdewey60]



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Xiamara
 

If size was the only important factor, I suppose this would be proof enough.
A geocentric model would have to have a Sun with practically no mass.


A necessary justification for the geocentric model to be conceivable indeed.

A question to you: How do you explain the empirical observation of all other solar systems?

There is not a single observed solar system - or observed phenomena for that matter - that shows a star revolving around a planet (of any mass, much less the mass of our tiny earth). This fact alone supports the otherwise verifiable fact that our solar system's star's mass is in the order of magnitudes denser than the earth's. Likewise, there is a whole gaggle of other evidence that lends credence to the sun's mass (via heliocentric model).

Combine that with the fact that we have observed hundreds, if not thousands, of systems - Are you suggesting that not only our planet, but our system, is unique to all others observed? If so, please provide data/observation supporting your theory.

I ask in complete earnestness.

[edit - readability]

[edit on 19-8-2010 by misinformational]



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by misinformational
 
At this moment, I rationalise it by thinking that what is observed is fluctuations in light from stars which people interpret as planets crossing and changing the amount of light that we can see.

I should add that they would have an argument if it is very consistent and of an amount comparable with what may be expected from a planet. I am sure there are moons of stars just as planets have moons.

[edit on 19-8-2010 by jmdewey60]



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60

The Bible is a little sketchy on the subject, for example:The sun stood still and the moon stood motionless..



Hi,
Thats not the only scripture dealing with stationary Earth, and the Bible isn't sketchy on motionless Earth at all.

There is about 67 verses.


[edit on 19-8-2010 by Wise Man]



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


to me wiki isn't a source... Sorry get me a better source than wiki.



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


Also, what do make of our solar system orbiting the center of the galaxy (super-massive blackhole)?

This has been empirically observed.



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Titen-Sxull
 

To think that all of this was made for us, this beauty, this majesty, is selfish and arrogant even if there is a God.
Well what if we were to look at the person next to us and think, "You are special and God did this for you," maybe we could see all people as important and deserving of our respect and the world could become a better place and deserving of being the center of everything.
Maybe if we realize that we are given an important role in the cosmos we would take the steps to be empowered to make changes, since we are the masters of the universe we can do things and take control for the better, and that the people hell bent to make the world an evil place can be overcome.



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by misinformational
 
I am sure there are moons of stars just as planets have moons.


You are correct, they are called planets - The Earth is a moon or satellite of the Sun.

[edit - format]

[edit on 19-8-2010 by misinformational]



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 01:56 PM
link   
For your consideration: How do we measure the mass of stars?


You've asked about one of the fundamental issues in astronomy, namely determining the mass of objects such as the Sun and other stars. The short answer is that there is no other way to *directly* measure the mass of the Sun or any other star than by observing the gravitational effects of one object on another.

You can estimate the mass of the Sun one of two ways. Both use Newton's Laws of motion. The first way uses Newton's revision of Kepler's third law, which states that the period squared or any body orbiting the Sun is proportional to its average distance from the Sun cubed. Newton generalized this for all gravitating systems. In the case of the Sun, the equation we can use is:

Mass_of_Sun=((4*pi2)/G) (a3/P2), where pi=3.14159, G is a fundamental constant, a is the radius of the Earth's orbit about the Sun, and P is the orbital period of the Earth about the Sun.

Another method uses Newton's second law and gravitation. In this case, one starts with F=m*a (where F is the force on an object, m is the mass of the object and a is the acceleration of the object due to the force). Since the gravitational force can be expressed as

F = G(MSun)(Mearth)/(R2)

where MSun and Mearth are the masses of the Sun and Earth, and R is the distance between the two, and the acceleration for a circular orbit is equal to the velocity2/R, Newton's second law can be rewritten in this case to give

Mass_of_Sun=velocity2*R/G

In both cases, putting in the values for Earth's orbital velocity, distance from Sun and the value for G gives a value of about 2 x 1030 kg for the mass of the Sun. (That's 2 with 30 zeroes after it.)


Source



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 

You realize that Galileo was a Christian don't you. You realize that Copernicus was a Christian, don't you? They did not lose their belief in God because of the work they did, if anything it strengthened their faith. Ptolemy did a great job of reconciling the motions of the planets but his model was wrong. He actually did pretty good science but better tools (telescopes) came along there was better information which revealed that the geocentric model is not supportable. It was evidence which showed that the Earth revolves around the Sun, not a conspiracy to bring down religion. It was science. That's the way science works.

Science is not a conspiracy to bring down religious belief. Science doesn't care about religion. It is a quest for physical truths, it has nothing to do with religion. If someone's faith is so weak that the search for these truths is a threat then the problem lies with them, not science. Science does not claim to "have it all figured out" but that does not mean that a lot has not been figured out. You see, unlike religious views, scientific views are not set in stone. They change as new information is obtained. It was once thought that the Earth was the center of the universe and that idea came from long before Christianity. We know better now, and it still has nothing to do with Christianity. That's the was science works. That's the way the world works. It changes.


[edit on 8/19/2010 by Phage]



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by misinformational
 
I don't have a cosmology that encompasses the entire universe as in positioning things by a coordinate grid where the axes converge on Earth.
I have a more philosophical approach thinking that wherever it happens to be the most ideal spot in the universe for our world to exist and for us to flourish, then that's where we were put.





new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join