Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Geocentrisim or Heliocentrism?
-
24-09-2010 04:29PM#1Hi, this is a purely Christian topic but I welcome other people to hop in also, just as long as we all stick to the topic being discussed.
This is my limited knowledge on the subject.
Geocentrism is the belief ( in Accordance with scripture ) that the earth is the centre of the universe and everything revolves around it? right?
( Hope I've got that right.
Heliocentrism is the belief that the earth and everything else revolves around the sun.
What are your thoughts? Geo or Helio for you-o?:phehe
Let the discussion commence * blows trumpet *0
Comments
-
-
-
But...science has never proven Helio centrism nor has it been able to disprove geocentrism, so isnt it possible for Christians to hold both views?
It's possible to hold any view. That's why we have UFO-nuts wearing tinfoil hats.
I would see the scientific evidence for heliocentrism to be overwhelming and easy enough to understand.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
(it doesn't, for example, deal in proofs)
Did you read that? all you wannabe scientists? what fanny is saying is you might as well become another writer of fantasy novels and become a member of the harry potter fan club as well as study science
0 -
-
yes it has to a satisfactory degree.
By the way I should introduce some terminology and some modern context. Geokenetic is a moving earth and heliostatic is a stationary Sun. Peripathetic Philosophy of Galileos time assumed the Earth didnbt move and the sun was at the centre because it fitted in with Greek non-relativistic Philosophy and rationality which Aquinas had adopted into the church. Thus the "prime Mover" became the "first cause"
Modern physics would assert that ther is no absolute reference frame or privileged observer and thus we can assert it is just like Earth being at the centre of the Universe. However it demonstrably goes round the sun and rotates on its axis.
You have it the wrong way around!It is unreasonable to "argue from authority" as the Middle Age Philosophers did with Galileos empirically and philosophically superior position.
By the way Galileo also had an ego and let it get in the way.
Yes science has a "received view" or "accepted paradigm" but it is based on reason and measurement and non scientific academics are even worse in this at defending what they believe in. But science also says "if you have a better theory or an improvement then feel free to show it to us" . If you really dont want to be told it then think about it. What evidence would show the Earth does not Go around the Sun or move? What evidence would show it does go round the sun? the evidence is there. If you remain willfully ignorant dont blame others.
So if harry potter movie number 1 isnt to your taste, change directors and make a harry potter two? either way your still in fantasy land with no evidence. 0 -
Advertisement
-
Did you read that? all you wannabe scientists? what fanny is saying is you might as well become another writer of fantasy novels and become a member of the harry potter fan club as well as study science
That wouldn't be my reading of Fanny's post. Science deals in theories and hypotheses, and searches for evidence supporting one hypothesis over another. I don't what he/she said is controversial. Mathematics deals with proofs, not science.
Anyway, what precludes a scientist from writing novels or being a member of the Harry Potter fan club?0 -
-
Did you read that? all you wannabe scientists? what fanny is saying is you might as well become another writer of fantasy novels and become a member of the harry potter fan club as well as study science
I dont kn ow if he said that but what is wrolng with being a Scientist and writing fantasy. ever heard of isaac asimov?0 -
-
-
-
-
-
no it does not! that is your interpretaqtion!
But the argument you advance was about SCIENCE and you cant argue a science argument based on a personal belief in the literal absolute word of the Bible!
Indeed but again that is an argument about scripture and not about science! If you were to believe literally every word you might even claim it literaqlly meant the Earth could not be more than a few thouisand years old and not thousands of millions of years old! But that is dealt with in the creationism discussion elsewhere.
Are you Christian? because if you read my scriptural quote it is what it is, there is nothing to interpret in that verse it is pretty clear in its statement. 0 -
-
Advertisement
-
He didnt! He believed it! How would he have known? How would you meaqsure it today using what Copernicus had available to him? You couldnt do it.
You actually can, but it would be a real inefficient waste of time. The first way would to be start measuring the angle at which ships appear to sink down the horizon. Then you'd have to visit various places several kilometres apart and at midday note the angle of shadows for various times in the years. The third way is star referencing, which it is believed how the babylonians and greeks figured it out. Similar to the shadows angle being different, depending on your location in earth the location of particular star in the sky would be different. There are several other ways too, I just can't think of them offhand.
Today all you have to do is use Newton's equations to get a spherical earth with a bulging equator and flattened poles. That would be a much easier starting point.
That said, if you really wanted to do it, you would have to to translate bablyonian number system to out current one, use the star data collected by them and the greeks and get out there and start measuring shadows. 0 -
Are you Christian? because if you read my scriptural quote it is what it is, there is nothing to interpret in that verse it is pretty clear in its statement.
again you propose a scientific argument but base you r argument on literal fundamental biblical quotes
Your non science aside, literal interpretations can get you ibnto trouble her is just one example - slavery.
references to slavery in the Christian Scriptures:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_bibl2.htm
People in debt (and their children) were still being sold into slavery in the first century CE:
bullet Matthew 18:25: "But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made."
Priests still owned slaves:
bullet Mark 14:66: "And as Peter was beneath in the palace, there cometh one of the maids of the high priest:"
Jesus is recorded as mentioning slaves in one of his parables. It is important to realize that the term "servant" or "maid" in the King James Version of the Bible refers to slaves, not employees like a butler, cook, or maid. Here, a slave which did not follow his owner's will would be beaten with many lashes of a whip. A slave who was unaware of his owner's will, but who did not behave properly, would also be beaten, but with fewer stripes.
This would have been a marvelous opportunity for Jesus to condemn the institution of slavery and its abuse of slaves. But he is not recorded of having bothered to taken it:
bullet Luke 12:45-48: "The lord [owner] of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers. And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more."
One of the favorite passages of slave-owning Christians was St. Paul's infamous instruction that slaves to obey their owners in the same way that they obey Christ:
bullet Ephesians 6:5-9: "Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him."
Other passages instructing slaves and slave owners in proper behavior are:
bullet Colossians 4:1: "Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven."
bullet 1 Timothy 6:1-3 "Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honor, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort. If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;"
In his defense, St. Paul incorrectly expected that Jesus would return in the very near future. This might have demotivated him from speaking out against slavery or other social evils in the Roman Empire. Also he regarded slaves as persons of worth whom at least God considers of importance. St. Paul mentioned that both slaves and free persons are sons of God, and thus all part of the body of Christ and spiritually equal.
bullet 1 Corinthians 12:13: "For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit."
bullet Galatians 3:28: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."
bullet Colossians 3:11: "Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all."0 -
You actually can, but it would be a real inefficient waste of time. The first way would to be start measuring the angle at which ships appear to sink down the horizon.
that might prove a round earth but not that it moved! Or orbited the sun!Then you'd have to visit various places several kilometres apart and at midday note the angle of shadows for various times in the years.
again this only demonstrates the earth ios roiund and not that it moves.
ditto - dont show the earth moves!The third way is star referencing, which it is believed how the babylonians and greeks figured it out. Similar to the shadows angle being different, depending on your location in earth the location of particular star in the sky would be different.
The Greeks by the way as far back as ariustarchus of samos i think had suggested shadows and indeed even measured the circumpherence at 25,000 miles. But they believed it to be unmoving!There are several other ways too, I just can't think of them offhand.
Sorry thats not good enough. WHAT other ways based on copernicus technology?Today all you have to do is use Newton's equations to get a spherical earth with a bulging equator and flattened poles. That would be a much easier starting point.
That was not measured until a French expedition in the 1700's.
Newtons equations derived the oblatness but it was not measured till much later and with more advanced technology.That said, if you really wanted to do it, you would have to to translate bablyonian number system to out current one, use the star data collected by them and the greeks and get out there and start measuring shadows.
Which don,t prove the cosmos is unmoving!0 -
I can understand how people might not accept evolution as it something that occurs over huge timescales. I can also understand how people might not trust statistics because it disagrees with their own personal experience, but this is something I cannot even grasp. This is science that we can demonstrate within the limits of science as true with actual experiments that even lay people can easily watch and understand. Our understanding of the very simple concept of a day on earth is based on this theory. Our day to day proof of other planets orbiting stars is proof of this theory. But, to my mind, nothing proves the theory better than the extremely efficient orbital trajectories calculated by Space Agencies. For example when NASA launched the Voyager probes to the edge of our solar system they were able to predict when and where the probes would meet each planet along its journey. Using this knowledge they were also able to make the journey more efficient by availing of gravitational boosts from each planet. None of this would have been possible if the Everything orbited the Earth.
And for those interested in seeing (or reliving) this remarkable journey.
0 -
that might prove a round earth but not that it moved! Or orbited the sun!
Oh my brain fart, I was under the impression that the poster you were responding to in the quote was just referring a round earth as compared to a flat earth and not to heliocentrism.
daithiocondun wrote:In fact, its thought that Copernicus knew the Earth was round long before Galileo and his contemporaries.0 -
-
I can understand how people might not accept evolution as it something that occurs over huge timescales.
I think we should bew clear here about "huge".Creationists think in terms of thousands or tens of thousands maybe. Classical evolution is gradualist in terms of hundreds of millions of years. I myself am a catastrophist and lean on the idea that it can happen over "short" periods of a million years or less for a species and then not happen at all for a long time e.g. hundreds of millions of years.I can also understand how people might not trust statistics because it disagrees with their own personal experience,
Science and "common sense" are two different things. Science does indeed have a values and commpn sense component phronesis. but science also has episteme and techne the rational and know how elements. here is a reference:
http://books.google.com/books?id=yVBXPf50EV0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22making+social+science+matter%22&ie=ISO-8859-1&sig=CNCTRgLt1z1rRBTbFsPrUf_w_M0#v=onepage&q&f=false
Flyvbjerg, Bent, Making Social Science Matter: Why Social Inquiry Fails and How It Can Succeed Again (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001)but this is something I cannot even grasp. This is science that we can demonstrate within the limits of science as true with actual experiments that even lay people can easily watch and understand.
Indeed but there are those who wont see the experiment and wont believeOur understanding of the very simple concept of a day on earth is based on this theory.
as you can see aboive in some case it is not and was not.Our day to day proof of other planets orbiting stars is proof of this theory.
No it isnt! Day to day common sense isnt rigourous technical scientific proof as I have alluded to above.But, to my mind, nothing proves the theory better than the extremely efficient orbital trajectories calculated by Space Agencies. For example when NASA launched the Voyager probes to the edge of our solar system they were able to predict when and where the probes would meet each planet along its journey.
Which in fact they got "wrong" and almost destroyed VII on encounter with Jupiter and had to change V1s trajectory Probes have been destroyed by extermely inefficient calculations! But my question was about proving to a normal person without advanced mathematics using technology available only to Copernicus.
Travellers tales and argument from authority dont constitute proof. Im only trying to get people to think scientifically for themselves.
Using this knowledge they were also able to make the journey more efficient by availing of gravitational boosts from each planet. None of this would have been possible if the Everything orbited the Earth.And for those interested in seeing (or reliving) this remarkable journey.
Thanks for that.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Na1mLpjxmYY
Advertisement