Heliocentrism an Anti-Christian Hoax?

Apparent retrograde motion of the planets is simply explained in the heliocentric model, whereas in the geocentric model it baffles and requires elaborate and unlikely explanations.

Apparent Retrograde Motion

Apparent retrograde motion is the motion of a planetary body in a direction opposite to that of other bodies within its system as observed from a particular vantage point. Direct motion or prograde motion is motion in the same direction as other bodies.

While the terms direct and prograde are equivalent in this context, the former is the traditional term in astronomy. Prograde was first seen in an abstract of an astronomy-related professional article in 1963.[1]

Diagrams and explanation:
Retrograd Motion of Mars

[edit on 19-8-2010 by elfie]

reply to post by misinformational
Newton invented gravity, it seems.
That formula would be nice to test out if we knew what G was.

. . .the limited accuracy available for G often limits the accuracy of scientific determination of such masses in the first place.

en.wikipedia.org...
I don't think gravity has been worked out completely.
For that matter, I think a lot of things are not adequately explained, and I think that the reason for things like existence of anything is dependent on God constantly making things exist.
When you get down to the smallest particles there is no such thing as mass and it could be that mass is more an illusion than a reality.



[edit on 19-8-2010 by jmdewey60]

reply to post by Phage

It is a quest for physical truths,. . .

That is a healthy attitude and it would be nice if everything you said in the post were true.

reply to post by jmdewey60

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?

A few years ago I went to the Greenwood Memorial Park, Renton, Washington to see the Jimi Hendrix memorial. I was struck by the odd layout. Jimi's burial spot was central, with his relatives buried around him as if in his orbit. It struck me as just plain wrong. As if these people had no individual lives or importance except as they were related to Jimi.

Each person is the center of a universe, I came to know this when I worked in a long term care facility. I've been there many times to see a whole universe wink out.

The earth is where we live, work, and breathe together. As such, it is the center of our collective universe. There are verses in the Bible which would indicate that God isn't far off.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by misinformational

 

Newton invented gravity, it seems.
That formula would be nice to test out if we knew what G was.

. . .the limited accuracy available for G often limits the accuracy of scientific determination of such masses in the first place.

en.wikipedia.org...
I don't think gravity has been worked out completely.

Your statements about gravity are misleading.

It is true that any theory that attempts to explain WHY gravity as a force exist, is just that, a theory. And in this regard, gravity is indeed a mysterious phenomenon - most certainly on a quantum level.

This, however, does not mean that we cannot observe this force, nor does it mean that we do not understand HOW the observed force of gravity effects our solar system, because we do - we can in fact measure gravity within an extremely small degree of uncertainty (0.0014%).

In fact, here is modern method of measuring gravitational force:

Since its introduction in the 17th century, the gravitational constant, G,has been difficult to measure to great accuracy owing to the intrinsic weakness of the gravitational force. A new measurement of Gfrom researchers in Washington is the most accurate value yet, improving on the previous world best by a factor of 10.

The group modified the technique of Cavendish's 200-year-old torsion balance experiment with a thin, flat, rectangular plate hung vertically on a torsion fibre as the pendulum, and melon-sized stainless steel spheres as attractor masses, sitting on a turntable around the pendulum. As the turntable rotates, the gravitational forces exerted by the spheres try to twist the torsion fibre. However, a computer-controlled feedback mechanism adjusts the speed of the turntable, keeping the pendulum twisting to a minimum - an important factor for accuracy.

The acceleration of the turntable is recorded and gives the value of Gas 6.67390 ¥ 10-11 m3/kg/s2, with an uncertainty of 0.0014%. Combined with data from the Lageos satellite, more "best ever" results can be derived: the mass of the Earth is (5.97223 ± 0.00008) ¥ 1024 kg and the Sun's mass is (1.98843 ± 0.00003) ¥ 1030 kg.

Source

[edit - readability]

[edit on 19-8-2010 by misinformational]

Originally posted by jmdewey60

I don't think gravity has been worked out completely.
For that matter, I think a lot of things are not adequately explained, and I think that the reason for things like existence of anything is dependent on God constantly making things exist.

Adequately explained for whom? But you're right, there are very many things that science cannot explain. Reasons for example. Science describes how things work, not why.

If you are so dissatisfied with science, ignore it. Walk away from your computer. Get rid of your refrigerator. Isn't using these things a bit hypocritical since you eschew the process which makes them possible? You know, there are those who are true to their religious beliefs, those who do not concern themselves with '"the world" that secular types have built. Join them. No one is preventing you from doing so. Live in your geocentric world, don't expect anyone else to.

[edit on 8/19/2010 by Phage]

reply to post by jmdewey60


I aint got the time to read every post so im sorry if someone said this.

You said in the post "earth orbits the sun and not the other way around" Is that not an easy $200? what is the gimmick?

If the earth held the sun then i must ask.

#1 Why do all the planets follow a the same pattern (orbit) around the sun.

#2 If the sun was orbiting the Earth then the earth can't be the center because Jupiter is far far bigger and more dense so how can the earth hold that?

#3 What proof do we have that its the density of an object that creates gravity other then a black-hole in witch we know almost nothing about (as in facts) . How do we know its not the heat like the core of the earth or the super heated gases of the Sun?


As for #1 by "same pattern " i mean all the same direction.

Came back to edit lol: By heat i mean heat and centripetal force,mass.


[edit on 19-8-2010 by GunzCoty]

reply to post by GunzCoty

You said in the post "earth orbits the sun and not the other way around" Is that not an easy $200? what is the gimmick?

Not sure exactly. I think it is to perhaps attract some good response to Jeffrey's questions he has that he does not think are being adequately addressed in comments to his videos on Youtube. I was not too impressed either and figured there would be more intelligent responses on abovetopsecret and I am not disappointed. I think he wants a concise sort of proof that the average person can understand and be convinced.
Jeffrey is like a world authority on the topic of atomism which is breaking things down to their smallest components. I think he tried to use some of his knowledge to look at bigger things and could see some flaws in the logic, or whatever. Just listening to him I began to share in his scepticism and wondered if there was some compelling reason for why people are determined to put the Sun at such an exalted position.




[edit on 19-8-2010 by jmdewey60]

reply to post by misinformational
There was this old inventor guy who used to live by me and he would build things in his shop to demonstrate different concepts and that sort of changed the way I think about things. He would have an aluminum disc that would spin and create what seemed like magnetic fields and he could produce what looked to me like gravity. I could not figure it out and it make me sceptical about things following laws.

Another influence on me is when I worked in a factory making industrial and scientific magnets. These were permanent magnets using very expensive rare earths and stuff. The guy who owned the business lectured on magnetism at UCLA, I think because he was the only person who understood them. It is different than the magnetism I studied in physics, which is dependent on electromagnetic energy. Anyway, there are forces at work that are not easily explained, and attraction is one of them.


[edit on 19-8-2010 by jmdewey60]

reply to post by jmdewey60

How much do you know about electrodynamics? If you don't know what Lenz's law is (among others) it it can be easy to misunderstand things about magnetism and electricity.

If you don't know the laws of physics, how can you know if they're being violated or not?

reply to post by pthena

There are verses in the Bible which would indicate that God isn't far off.

The universe is possessed.
God made man in the god likeness.
The material body became possessed of a soul.
Much like god does, but on a much larger scale.
The material world, so to speak, does what the spirit of everything moves it to do.

reply to post by jmdewey60

Just listening to him I began to share in his scepticism and wondered if there was some compelling reason for why people are determined to put the Sun at such an exalted position.

You sound paradoxically interested in understanding HOW things work as well as WHY.

I say 'paradoxically' because your religious beliefs may not allow you to reconcile with the scientific understanding of this HOW (hence your insistence upon justifying every explanation given within this thread). Obviously your beliefs do a fabulous job of explaining WHY, as all religions do. But the religious notions being discussed were constructed when our scientific understanding was infantile compared with now.

I think if you do some open-minded exploring of the history of religion you will see that throughout time, human religion has always adapted to the culture (logical and emotional) at hand. One of the reasons for this was the necessity for religion (as an institution) to reconcile with science. When a society's scientific understanding trumped their explanation of WHY, the society was forced to adapt and either alter or all together abandon their religion (e.g. literal vs. interpreted bible).

Of course this isn't the only reason religions have changed (morality, genocide, and others are reasons as well) but it fairly obvious, to me at least, that science has been a quiet but strong factor for religious adaptation and reform.

I challenge you to push forward with your scientific understanding - to get a thorough grasp of HOW in the areas that plague reconcilation. Question everything you learn of course, but do so with logic, not emotion. Because as Phage detailed, just because a layperson doesn't understand HOW something works, doesn't mean that science doesn't.

The human understanding of science has grown tremendously in the past 100 years and will continue to do so. It's an exciting time to be a part of, and I hope, for your sake, that you can marvel at its achievements as well.

That said, that are countless religious scientists that are able to reconcile their spiritual understanding with their scientific one. None of which dispute the heliocentric model.

reply to post by misinformational
I'm all for that. The problem is that science comes up with data but does not interpret it as in fully realising the implications.
Fundamental to understanding how things work is the notion of cause and affect. Let's say a canon ball is flying through the air and we consider why it will in the next moment be in a different location. Well, it appears in the next moment in this particular place because previously to that moment it was heading to that point. So we have an example of cause and effect, that one moment dictates what will exist in another moment in a predictable manner because there is a continuity between moments in an unbroken manner. Seems logical but when it is looked at in a quantum level, there is nothing that connects those two moments. In fact, that ball may not even contain any particle that was making up the ball that existed the previous moment.
The correct interpretation of a scientific fact is that each moment is discrete and the universe is recreated between each moment, requiring the existence of a god who makes it happen, considering the material world is not able to do it by itself.



[edit on 20-8-2010 by jmdewey60]

reply to post by jmdewey60

There was this old inventor guy who used to live by me and he would build things in his shop to demonstrate different concepts and that sort of changed the way I think about things. He would have an aluminum disc that would spin and create what seemed like magnetic fields and he could produce what looked to me like gravity. I could not figure it out and it make me sceptical about things following laws.

I've seen these models of the Solar system before, where the sun is fixed to a base, and you flip a switch and the planets move around the sun. If instead, you clamped the Earth in a vise so it didn't move, and flipped the switch, the movement would still happen, yet would be ever more chaotic looking.

It seems to me, that the Heliocentric model would be easier to look at, more aesthetically pleasing. Scientists would use the Heliocentric for the ease of calculation. Astrologers stick to the Terrecentric because they are concerned with the influence upon the Earth, and what is observable from the Earth, as in, why worry about the influence of Jupiter upon Venus, but rather how Jupiter and Venus both influence the Earth.

As for laws, whether you understand a particular law or not, it is implied in the repeatability of an experiment. Laws seem to be steady on a macro level, as far as I know. I've heard tell that on the subatomic level, results of experiments aren't repeatable. The scientists working in subatomic fields would tend to be more skeptical about laws. Pure speculation on my part of course, being a complete layman.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The Calculus was developed to explain those ever decreasing in length periods of time. Some equations tend one way, say to infinity as they get closer to the Limit, but become zero when the Limit is reached. On a practical level things would be predictable, but on an absolute level not.

You seem to be tending away from a Deist view of creation, in which the Creator sets a bunch of laws in place, then goes away, and to a view that the Creator isn't that sort at all, but rather making each moment be.

[edit on 20-8-2010 by pthena]

I may have just disproved my own theory.
The story of the Sun and Moon standing still for 24 hrs may have nothing to do with the particular alignments of celestial bodies.
If God wanted to stop the rotation of the Earth, or everything except what was going on in a specific locality, then He could just do it and would take care of inertial affects that would happen if the core stopped and the surface wanted to keep going.

Originally posted by Wise Man
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.

Not only do they account for it, they use the world spinning at 1675 km/h at the equator (The speed boost may be closer to 1450km/h in Florida, I haven't calculated it) as a basis for choosing where to place launch sites! Why do you think launch sites are in southerly places like Florida and Texas? It's BECAUSE OF the 1675 km/h rotation of the Earth at the equator, that NASA chooses launch sites not too far away from the equator. They also use the orbit speed of the Earth around the sun, contrary to your claim they don't:

spaceplace.nasa.gov...

In picking a time to launch, space engineers and scientists have to consider quite a number of things. Most of them have to do with getting the biggest boost possible from the big launch pad called planet Earth! Earth goes around the sun at a brisk 107,000 kilometers per hour (66,000 miles per hour)! If our interplanetary spacecraft is aimed in the same direction Earth is already going, it will get a big head start.

The Earth's rotation around its axis is also used:

Earth rotates eastward on its axis, one complete turn each day. At the equator, Earth's surface is rotating at 1675 kilometers per hour (1041 miles per hour)!So if we launch the rocket toward the east, it will get another big boost from Earth's rotational motion. Using both the rotational motion of Earth on its axis and the orbital motion of Earth around the Sun, we can save a lot of fuel and a lot of time in getting to our far distant destination!

Originally posted by Phage

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".

This is the most damaging evidence to the geocentric model that anybody can observe from a cheap, small telescope in their back yard, or even at the local astronomy club meetings. There is simply no way the geocentric model makes sense with the size of Mars varying by a factor of seven-fold or 700%

What does this model give you, 200% or 300% at the most?
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/fb88d69fc493.gif[/atsimg] And if you play around with the size of the circle the retrograde motion gets even more off than it already is.

science.jrank.org...

The enormous variations in the angular size of Mars could not be explained by a circular orbit about Earth, but were easily understood if Mars orbits the Sun instead, thus varying its distance from Earth by a factor of five from the closest approach to the most distant retreat.

The geocentric model can't explain the enormous variations in the angular size of Mars and anyone can see these large size variations for themselves with a cheap telescope.

Re: Arbitrageur.

Your argument is absolutely correct and easy to control, but the problem is, that some individuals with certain ideological leanings are unable to perform this test.

You see, to use a telescope for this purpose, you need a completely open horizon with no mountains etc., which means you have to stand very close to the edge of the world, where the risk of falling off is immanent.

And Dog knows, where you might end up. Possibly on one of the turtles carrying the world. I hope, you're humane enough not to expose anyone to such a risk just to win an argument.

Originally posted by Wise ManMy research shows me that Heliocentric garbage for the sun worshipers so they stuck it in their Britannica.

Care to actually post the results of your "research", with citations, sources, etc.?

By the way, the only official word of Heliocentric is the Rockefeller published Encyclopedia Britannica which also used to claim Christopher Columbus discovered America.

Which has since been revised. Also, Galileo published a book - "Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems" - which I believe is still in print. Further, Galileo was publishing his observations in support of the Copernican heliocentric model. Copernicus also published a book - "On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres" - which is also still in print. Or maybe we just have different opinions on what constitutes "official word".

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

Reference? I'd be interested in reading about it, if it exists.

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.

"They don't agree with me, therefore they must be idiots or liars. In spite of the fact that a vast majority of the evidence agrees with what they say and not with what I say." Solid logic there.

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.

Such as who?

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

About what exactly?

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.

This is just wrong. It would have taken you, literally, about ten seconds to find multiple sources that say the exact opposite. There's a reason NASA does their launches in an eastward direction - they take advantage of the rotation of the Earth to improve thrust efficiency. There's a reason they do it from southern latitudes as opposed to northern - there's about a 200 kph difference in rotational speed between the two, and they can squeeze even more extra thrust out of the Earth's rotation closer to the equator.

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.

You don't try because you can't.

reply to post by jmdewey60

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.

Their money is safe. I'm quite sure the rules of the 'reward' ensure that.

If you are talking about to isolated bodies that are in orbit one about the other, then it makes no difference what-so-ever which one you want to nominate as 'still' and which one 'in-motion'. This means that it perfectly reasonable to say that the Sun is orbiting the Earth, as long as you ignore everything else in the solar system. Relative mass doesn't have much to do with it, except that it is convenient to choose the most massive of the pair as the stationary object.

However, as soon as you introduce a third body such as Mars or Venus, while it is still possible to think of the Sun orbiting the Earth, it becomes impossible to account for the motion of those third bodies in an accurate manner. The more bodies you have to account for the more unsatisfying the result.

The Sun is not deemed to be the center of the solar system due to any intrinsic 'correctness'. It is deemed to be the center of the solar system because it simplifies the calculation of orbits thus providing useful information.

In short, Occam's Razor decides.

Earth or Solar or Mars or Jupiter centric models can all be used if you have a mind to but it turns out that the Solar Centric model is the simplest by far for virtually all uses.

Simple as that.