Geocentrism

A new model of the universe has just been released that is sensational, because it depicts a small Earth-centred cosmos that harmonizes with the Hebrew scriptures. Visit: http://www.geocentric-universe.comHeliocentrism (or the more commonly referred to Acentrism) has never been proven, despite having been taught as fact for the last four-hundred years. Even supposed “proofs” like Foucault’s Pendulum do not prove the rotation of the world either, because firstly on a very basic level this phenomenon could be explained in a geocentric model under the general relativity theory via the gravitational pull caused by the rotation of the entire universe rotating diurnally about a fixed Earth. Although this is not the correct answer because Albert Einstein’s relativity theories are not correct.The true answer is that all of the serous three story high pendulums that are located in museums around the world (like the one in Paris for example), have there own problems which are not usually talked about.For instance, not many know that at the very top of the pendulum next to the cable mounting there is a small motorized pin that always stays horizontally opposed to the cable. This pin rotates very slowly, once daily, so as to always ensure the pendulums reliability when hitting the radial teeth once every hour as it swings to and fro. Finally, the pendulum is always cranked up every morning by the caretaker.But regardless of the science, the scriptures are clear on the matter, which, ultimately is conclusive.For example, if you acknowledge the scriptures then take a look at:Psa 93:1
Ecl 1:5
Jos 10:13
Isa 38:8All of these scriptures refer either to a static World or to the heavens revolving around us, and not the hostile opposite secular view, whereby the Earth is rotating at greater than a thousand miles an hour at the equator whilst also going around the sun at a ridiculous sixty-seven-thousand miles an hour.Heliocentrism is all about an illusion, geocentrism is about special creation. We do not live in a universe where the Earth is nothing more than an insignificant piece of rock lost in a sea of space where there are more galaxies than people.I hope that this post will cause some of you to reconsider the reality regarding the cosmos."Astronomical measurements are, without exception, measurements of phenomena occurring in a terrestrial observatory or station; it is only by theory that they are translated into knowledge of a universe outside." - Sir Arthur Eddington.This message has been edited by Stavro, 02-01-2006 09:54 PM

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Hi, Stavro! Two terms for you:parallaxaberration of starlightGet back to me on these......

Hi Coragyps! Two terms for you:Parody? copy/pasteGet back to me on these......

Modulous is probably correct, that this reads like a parody.You have given an unconvincing explanation of Foucalt's pendulum. As Coragyps mentions, you also have to explain the parallax. Then you would need to explain the trade winds, the direction of rotation of cyclones, and various other phenomena that current science explains in terms of the rotation of the earth or the orbital motion of the earth.

Probably parody, yes, but check out the link in the OP. It may well be for real.

From the wit and wisdom of Stephen Ray Gould10 reasons to oppose heliocentrism.
1. The Bible teaches us that the sun and moon go around the Earth.
2. Once we think that we're no longer at the center of the universe, people will feel depressed at our new status, which will cause socialdisturbance - you can expect an increase in crime, divorce, etc. as people believe that they're not important any more.
3. The evidence in favour of geocentrism is all around us - it's
obvious.
4. In order to "understand" why it's wrong, you need to study
celestial mechanics, and surely no theory requiring such advanced study can really be right.
5. Heliocentrism isn't science - if the earth did go around the sun,then it would be true, and hence unfalsifiable.
6. It doesn't explain where the solar system came from in the first
place.
7. Occam's razor - for the heliocentric hypothesis to be true, not
only would the earth have to travel around the sun, but it would also
have to rotate on its own axis, whereas the geocentric hypothesis
requires only that the sun goes around the earth - a far simpler explanation (one fewer entities).
8. Heliocentrism is only a theory.
9. The probability that the earth is moving on exactly the right
path so that it doesn't fall into the sun -as required by the
heliocentric hypothesis - has been estimated to be 1 in 10^3736.29 by an eminent astronomer.
10. Stalin and Hitler believed it, as did Lenin, Mao,Goebbels,
Himmler,etc. Meanwhile Joan of Arc, Francis of Assisi, Thomas Aquinas
and St Augustine believed that the sun goes around the earth.

Due to some conversations that I have been in, I find this to be a gem:

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

Which is true, geocentrism or heliocentrism?I argue that this is not a true/false question. Instead, we have the pragmatic question of which is the most useful theory.Mathematically, the distinction between geocentrism and heliocentrism is rather simple. It is merely a matter of the choice of coordinate systems, and particularly the choice of the origin of coordinates (or center of coordinates). Any statement made in accordance with heliocentric assumptions can be transformed into its corresponding geometric equivalent.We have seen the benefits of heliocentrism, and those provide the pragmatic basis for heliocentrism. Newtonian physics grew under heliocentric assumptions. The rotation of the earth explains trade winds, the rotational direction of cyclones, Foucalt's pendulum, and many other earthbound phenomena.Newton's law of inertia, that a body continues its motion (without acceleration) if no force is applied, works pretty well in a heliocentric system. It fails for geocentrism. Instead we would have to say that celestial objects go in circles with period about 1 year, and radius about the distance from the earth to the sun.With geocentrism, laws of motion become very complex, the law of gravity becomes very complex. The pragmatic benefit of heliocentrism was that it simplified accounts of motion. The Newtonian revolution might not have been possible without that simplification.The scientific viewpoint: The religious viewpoint:

When was religion ever non-contradictory?

I hate taking my textbook's word for things, even the things that get laughed at by people for questioning, such as the age old geocentric model as compared to the heliocentric model.Can anyone tell my how mathematically it is known that the earth is not the center?I don't think it would matter to our destinies, or our relationship with God, but it is nice to know math.

Because the sun constitutes 98% of the mass of the entire solar system. Just from basic physics we should know that if anything is going to be the center of the system, it would be the sun.

When attempting to plot the orbit of things in the solar system, you can see how complex the orbits are of things when you use the earth as the center, and then how simpler it becomes when you use the sun as the center. Also, when plotting the orbit of another planet besides the earth, it is impossible to use earth as a way to predict it.Some animations that show a simiplified version of the heliocentric vs the geocentric models (just using mars) can be found at http://www.astro.utoronto.ca/~zhu/ast210/both.htmlMake it much more complex, when you have to deal with all the planets and all the astroids.

I think nwr's rather excellent Message 9 covers this quite nicely. When we measure the speed of a car we measure it relative to an object that is stationary relative to the earth.We *could* measure a cars speed relative to the speed of Haley's comet, but that would be incredibly complicated and unnecessary. It simply makes the calculations as consistent and practical to consider that all bodies revolve around the sun, rather than all bodies revolve around the earth.

We also have the phenomenon of parallax. This is the tiny back-and-forth shifting of nearish stars against the background of distant stars caused by the earth going from one side of its orbit to the other every six months. (Hold up a thumb at arm's length with an outdoor view in the background. Close each eye in turn. That's parallax.)If the Earth were static and the Sun went around us, each star close enough to have a measurable parallax would have to actually shift back and forth about an empty point in space. Stars near the plane of the "Sun's orbit around Earth" would make a line back and forth. Stars at 90 degrees to that plane would describe a little circle. Inbetweens would do ellipses. They would all take exactly a year to return to their starting places.Sure, that could happen - but it doesn't seem real logical, does it? Then tie it in with the Sun weighing 300,000 times as much as the Earth, and with NASA and their counterparts being able to send craft to Saturn or a 10-mile across asteroid, and it's fairly solid that we ain't the center of things.