It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# A defence of helio-centricism

page: 3
8
share:

posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 10:43 PM

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Yes, it sounds confusing. Motion implies speed/velocity. So I must say at this point, you lost me. What about Saturn? It's not a star, is it moving at any kind of speed? If it's not moving at any kind of speed, how does it manage to appear in different positions relative to other objects like stars? What about Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto? Same question, are they moving at any kind of speed?

Well, if you are talking about the planets, they have ORBITAL speeds yes. Which are the same speeds that you have in your model. But they are also carried with the aether around Earth once per day, as they are embedded in it. In their travels around the Earth they are not actually doing the moving as they are carried in the aether. You can look at it as the space doing the moving not the planet.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
The lambda CDM theory (mainstream theory) says that it's space itself which is expanding. This expanding space gives distant galaxies a redshift which is more a result of space itself expanding, than a result of the galaxies moving through space. For this reason it wouldn't be a violation of GR for the redshift of a distant galaxy to approach the speed of light. It's possible that some galaxy may have a recessional velocity greater than the speed of light, but it's not moving through space at this velocity, this would be the result of the metric expansion of space between us and that galaxy. I don't see how the rotating framework you suggest allows greater than speed of light velocity though.

Excellent. So....you say its the space expanding not the actual galaxies moving at speed in your model.

In my model its space itself ROTATING around the Earth and not actually the stars moving at speed.

We both have space doing the moving rather than the objects in them.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
It does seem to be saying that, but it doesn't make it true.

You are welcome to post solid documentation from any experts who disagree.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
It does seem to be saying that, but it doesn't make it true. I'm actually much more concerned with your comment that the stars are moving around the Earth without traveling at any kind of speed. That shows a lack of agreement on a much simpler concept...the definition of speed, which should be fairly simple...it's just distance per unit time. In contrast to that, Relativity is pretty complex. There's not much point in debating what does or doesn't conform to relativity, if we can't even agree that objects rotating around the Earth must be traveling at some kind of speed.

But you say yourself that objects (galaxies) arn't actually travelling at any kind of speed, but they are still moving away from eachother because space is expanding. I think I can just as easily say that objects (stars) arn't actually travelling at any kind of speed, but they are still moving around the Earth because space is rotating.

A melon carried in a wheelbarrow pushed by a man isn't, in and of itself, travelling at any kind of speed, its the man and the wheelbarrow that are doing the moving.

The stars are not travelling at any kind of speed, its the aether doing the moving.

Good to talk to you. Hope that makes it clearer. Thanks for the civil debate.

posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 10:46 PM

Originally posted by ImaFungi

i dont need that theory to be true, or it just doesnt matter to me, it doesnt effect my views on the incredible fact that the universe exists, and we, life and all our functions exist, every day of my life for years and years, some times for 6 hours at a time or more i have spent in deep thought contemplating and interpreting the deepest questions i could come up with of my existence on this planet. i dont have a craving to justify my importance and im not a baby craving the universe to revolve around me,,. every pinpoint of consciousness believes it is the center, because relativisticly it is its own center, it is a point, a sole, one, every fly, ever bear, .,,.,. i knew you would point out my misuse of the word, i should have said "the" theory instead of your.... it wouldnt make any difference to me which theory is true, What would it mean to you? ah assuming you will say it means we have a much more personal relationship with god... i will say any way i look at it, I have the most personal relationship with god, you shouldn't need cheap concepts to justify this, if anything the fairy tale stuff hurts your mission..

You say you have a personal relationship with God.

Is it He the biblical God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob?

posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 11:52 PM

it is the only god that exists, the god that exists if we were monkeys or man, the god that would exist for you if you never read the bible and had no way of knowing of it or its characters,

Humans are awesome and great, and we have infinite potential and are amazing beings in uncountable diverse ways... the "thing" "god" that CREATED THE UNIVERSE, that brought existence into existence, through unsnippinfathomable methods, I believe in that supreme intelligence,when I was born on this planet I knew nothing, now as thomas edison has said, I know one billionth of one percent of nothing, what science is slowly attempting to do is know all that is something, what it is, why it is, what it can do,.,. its so perfect, the many ways for energy to productively interact on infinite scales,,. this life was given to me, I did not create anything, not even myself, how can i take responsibility for knowing any true significance and insight of the totality of the creators work, after holding on for dear life for a couple of revolutions on this rock.. I do personally have a relationship with the creator, for without it where, what, and how would i be? I do feel i can know it, but only in cautious glimpses in this hazy window of a world,. for every answer I can give myself, 2 or 3 questions may be given back..

posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 05:19 AM

So if you believe in that God then you need to believe His Word which is set forth in the bible and is truth.

That truth is that the Earth is the unmoving centre of the universe. If you spread this truth then more people will come to God.

posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 06:15 AM

Originally posted by ArmorOfGod
You are welcome to post solid documentation from any experts who disagree.
Thanks for welcoming me to do so, but would that help?

Don't at least 99.99 percent of all experts agree with the Heliocentric model?

posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 06:33 AM

Can you explain why when we look at the mini solar systems we have within our own ie Jupiter and its moon's and Saturn and it's moons, the moons all orbit around the larger mass!

Then since the Sun has 99% of the mass of the solar system WHY wouldn't all the planets orbit it

posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 07:05 AM
@ignorant_ape: I fear your defence will never be adequate. You opponents are free to utilise scientific observations that support their belief and ignore or explain away the ones that don't because Earth or our Solar System is a 'special case', which is of course impossible to falsify.

@ArmorOfGod: I'm interested in what the Bible has to say on the subject if you could post the pertinent bits. To be honest I didn't realise the geo-centric universe was a belief some held today and was surprised at the amount of work that has been put in to support the view. However your view doesn't fare well against Occam's razor but is still within the realms of possibility. How do you account for things like the temperature gradients of Mars which should be pretty steep with the sun at it nearest compared to its furthest?

posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 04:53 AM

it would be most remarkable if the universe
looked the same in every direction around us, but not around other points in the universe!

you sieze upon one secction of the sentence - but ignore the second half - which contradicts you point

posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 04:58 AM
and now that AoGs psuedoscientific twaddle has descended - as i expected to " Aether " its time to bo bang my head on a different brick wall

but i will leave you with the news that AoG has changed his tune - in his first post he attempted to support his dogma using kinematic fallacies - that demanded that the earth orbit a null point with no explaination

now he claims the earth is the fixed crentre of the universe

busted

posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 11:54 AM

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Thanks for welcoming me to do so, but would that help?

It certainly would give your position more credibility.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Don't at least 99.99 percent of all experts agree with the Heliocentric model?

Yeah probably, but they do so on philosophical grounds rather than scientific. Most experts will tell you that it is uncertain which model is correct scientifically.

posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 11:57 AM

Originally posted by wmd_2008
Can you explain why when we look at the mini solar systems we have within our own ie Jupiter and its moon's and Saturn and it's moons, the moons all orbit around the larger mass!

Then since the Sun has 99% of the mass of the solar system WHY wouldn't all the planets orbit it

All the planets DO orbit around the sun. But the Earth is not a planet (wanderer). The Earth is located at the barycentre of the universe, and the forces produced by the rotating universe keep it locked there. It doesnt matter how massive the sun is, if the rest of the mass in the universe is arranged correctly then the Earth can quite happily be at the centre.

posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 12:12 PM

You opponents are free to utilise scientific observations that support their belief and ignore or explain away the ones that don't because Earth or our Solar System is a 'special case', which is of course impossible to falsify.

God sent Jesus to die here for our sins. Yes its special.

I'm interested in what the Bible has to say on the subject if you could post the pertinent bits.

Before I do let me summarize the biblical argument.

FACT:

Whenever the bible talks about a moving/non moving earth/sun...its ALWAYS the sun thats moving and the Earth thats stationary.

You can argue phenomenogical (sic?) or metaphorical to your hearts content, doesnt matter...there is...

FACT:

Never.....ever...any mention of the Earth spinning or orbiting the sun.

Having said that,

About 60 refrences to the sun going up/down/around plus:

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

Plaus the Earth created first (no sun to orbit) then the heavens after.

To be honest I didn't realise the geo-centric universe was a belief some held today and was surprised at the amount of work that has been put in to support the view. However your view doesn't fare well against Occam's razor but is still within the realms of possibility.

Actually geocentricity is the simplest explanation, doesnt involve the acausal fallacy of 'action at a distance', doesnt need fudge factors like 'dark energy' to make it work, adequately explains what gravity IS, is supported by real scientific experimentation and cosmic radiation analysis, and doesnt involve absurd necessities like the silly perfectly synced spinning atmosphere or shrinking/expanding mass.

How do you account for things like the temperature gradients of Mars which should be pretty steep with the sun at it nearest compared to its furthest?

The sun is the same distance away from mars in both our models. There is no kinematic difference.

posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 12:15 PM

Originally posted by ignorant_ape

it would be most remarkable if the universe
looked the same in every direction around us, but not around other points in the universe!

you sieze upon one secction of the sentence - but ignore the second half - which contradicts you point

It doesnt contradict my point it supports it.

It IS remarkable. Thats the whole point. God created the universe....and if if the universe looked the same in every direction around us, but not around other points in the universe...then its PROVEN.

posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 12:19 PM

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
and now that AoGs psuedoscientific twaddle has descended - as i expected to " Aether " its time to bo bang my head on a different brick wall

The aether model is a totally coherent position as experts will tell you.

"Later in our treatise we will find that the very ether Louis de Broglie desired offers a solution to the wave/particle conundrum that has hampered modern science since de Broglie first discovered that electrons produce waves. Any particle that moves through a medium will, indeed, create waves. In fact, a return to ether will help solve one of the most mysterious and perplexing problems in Quantum Mechanics today, the phenomenon of “entanglement” – the spooky connection between pairs of photons, electrons or atoms even though they are separated by great distances. Perhaps this was why John Stewart Bell, the inventor of Bell’s Theorem to answer the phenomenon of entanglement, stated in a BBC radio interview: “Yes, the idea that there is an ether…that is a perfectly coherent point of view.”

- Ludwik Kostro, Einstein and the Ether, p. 154, citing M. Jammer’s, “John Stewart Bell and the Debate on Significance of his Contributions to the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics,” in Bell’s Theorem and the Foundations of Modern Physics, eds. A. Van der Merwe, F. Felleri, G. Tarozzi, Singapore, 1992, p. 5; also cited in P. C. W. Davies and J. R. Brown, eds., The Ghost in the Atom, 1986, pp. 49-50.

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
but i will leave you with the news that AoG has changed his tune - in his first post he attempted to support his dogma using kinematic fallacies - that demanded that the earth orbit a null point with no explaination

now he claims the earth is the fixed crentre of the universe

busted

I have never claimed the Earth orbited anything.

posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 01:07 PM

Originally posted by ArmorOfGod
Yeah probably, but they do so on philosophical grounds rather than scientific. Most experts will tell you that it is uncertain which model is correct scientifically.
Care to back up that claim?

In fact, I'll bet you can't find even one single expert who is involved with sending space probes around our solar system who believes your neo-Tychonian geocentric model.

This is NOT philosophical. If they applied a geocentric model, the probe wouldn't go where it was supposed to go. But the probes all go where they are supposed to, because you can't find a single person using your neo-Tychonian geocentric model involved with trajectory calculations for space probes.
edit on 14-2-2012 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 01:42 PM

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Care to back up that claim?

Well I just have backed it up on this very thread. I've shown that there is no scientific defence for heliocentrism that cannot also be used for geocentrism.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
In fact, I'll bet you can't find even one single expert who is involved with sending space probes around our solar system who believes your neo-Tychonian geocentric model.

I have already agreed with your statement, and it doesnt bother me if they believe in it or not.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
This is NOT philosophical. If they applied a geocentric model, the probe wouldn't go where it was supposed to go. But the probes all go where they are supposed to, because you can't find a single person using your neo-Tychonian geocentric model involved with trajectory calculations for space probes.

The trajectory calculations are the same for both models. I already showed you theres no kinematic difference.

You can call NASA and ask them for yourself.

posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 02:51 PM

Originally posted by ArmorOfGod

Originally posted by ignorant_ape

it would be most remarkable if the universe
looked the same in every direction around us, but not around other points in the universe!

you sieze upon one secction of the sentence - but ignore the second half - which contradicts you point

It doesnt contradict my point it supports it.

It IS remarkable. Thats the whole point. God created the universe....and if if the universe looked the same in every direction around us, but not around other points in the universe...then its PROVEN.

How can god create the universe when we CREATED HIM!!!

posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 12:42 AM

in the bible when they are speaking of the sun moving... they are speaking in an early man way and human man perspective of viewing the sun "rise" and "set" over the plane of view and horizon...

If the earth is the only thing of importance, why did god create infinite x eternal infinite amounts of energy and other stars, galaxies, why does the universe exist and not just earth on its own? ( My guess is he works in mysterious ways)

do you think the earth is flat? do you think the sun is the size of a silver dollar? do you think the stars you see in the night sky are the size of your pinky nail?

how do you explain seasons?

posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 12:48 AM

is there any graphic model showing how the solar system as an entity moves through space? i have a hard time envisioning the great distances, orbits, and speeds..... but If im imagining correctly is the sun the leader of the pack, in its orbit around the galaxy, and the planets orbit the actual sun? or always chasing the suns tail?

I know this guy may not be reputable but do you think it works something like this?

edit on 15-2-2012 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 02:14 AM

Originally posted by ignorant_ape

i refuse to discuss any claim that relys on " the magic roundabout " and dismisall of newtonian physics without any causality for the mahic roundabout , or any reason why the observed premises of newtonian physics should be dismissed

the reason i replied as i did is simple :

you ignored my instruction , i wrote :

Any geo-centric claim , must also be holistic – its no good attempting to attack one single point of the explanations I give above – as it is likely that your “ rebuttal “ will be incompatible with a another point or key issue of physics

And all claims must address EVERY observation , with no special pleadings or “ magic physics “

you attempted to throw out newtonian physics and slide the magic roundabout in

and i refuse to engage such shenanigants

besides my claim was all obervations are compatible with heliocentricism and no observations falseify it

further i warned that no majic physics or ignorting other scientific observations [ i specifically mentioned newtonian physics was allowed

Seconded!

And Agreed

top topics

8