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?
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Hi, 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.
The Bible does not express support for geocentricism. Nor does it support that everything was created for mankind or that mankind is God's crowning creation. Each of which are strawman arguments made up by people who think that by arguing against such notions they are supporting the idea that the Copernican principle is where religion and science part company. Complete and utter balderdash.
The Copernican principle simply moves the earth from its then supposed (unsupported by scripture) position (i.e. the center of the universe) to one that put it on an equal par with Mars, Venus and all the other then known planets, i.e. they all revolved around the Sun. The prevailing view at this time (i.e. geocentricism) was not just the view held by the Church, but it was the view of all the scientists as well. The then new Copernican view was unsupported by any evidence until Galileo came along with his telescope. And the reason he was placed under house arrest by the Church was not because he held to this view but because he pissed off a lot of clergy and Bishops by putting them down in his writings, including (I think) the Pope.Heliocentrism is the belief that the earth and everything else revolves around the sun.
Heliocentrism is the view that all the planets including the earth orbit the Sun, which in turn orbits the center of the Milky Way Galaxy like all the other stars in that galaxy do.What are your thoughts? Geo or Helio for you-o?:phehe
Nobody knows where the center of the universe is, but if we were to nit pick at the Bible then we could argue that one of the oldest books in the Bible mentions a constellation called the Pleiades which is located in the neck of Taurus the bull and credits its creation to God - Job 9:9. Although not mentioned by name in the Bible, there is a star within this sub constellation named from the most ancient of times and in various different ancient cultures as, Alcyone, which means center. Maybe this is the center of the universe? And that the Bible actually supports Alcyocentricism as apposed to Geocentricism. 0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Soul Winner wrote: »Nobody knows where the center of the universe is
Current scientific understanding (which is supported reasonably well) is that every point in the universe can be considered the "centre" since the universe is thought to be homogenus.
It is a bit like a circle. Imagine a circle and then pick the "middle" of the outside line, ie the point on the circumference that is equally distant on the left and right of that point.
Every point can be considered the middle of the line.0 -
-
-
-
Soul Winner wrote: »So the ancients were right then? The earth is/or can be the center of the universe after all?
Yes I would agree with Wickednight here but the whole thing is a consequence of what we mean by the terminology. which is why I tried to be clear about "Einstiens theory of" and Aristotles relativity.
Im reminded of a story by George Liuis Borges in which he was at a party and said something like "The Universe is a sphere whose centre is everywhere and whose circumference is nowhere" someone commented that that was very clever. Borges said "I dont think it is original maybe I saw it before" So being a Classics scholar he went and looked it up and found similar comments by Napoleon Caesar and Alexander. His conclusion? -Nothing is original!
Except the "first cause" I suppose
Morbert:
In Einstines original paper he took the example of a train carriage with "magic" doors that opened instantly when they detected light within. A lamp was in the exact middle of the carriage. It was turned on.
What does the observer in the carriage see? Well now moving at constant speed (non accelerating reference frame) is exactly the same as standing still. So he sees the light travel the same distance to each door and if we assume light always has the same speed the doors open simultaneously.
What does an observer outside see? Well the train is moving along say from left to right. when the light is tuyrned on the door on the Left hand is moving towards the light and the one on the right hand end away from it . So the light has to traqvel les to reach the left hand door. since the speed is always the same the light reaches the left hand door first and then the right hand door opens later.
But the second assumption was "we always get the same result". So how can simultaneous events not be simultaneous? Something funny is happening with time. They DO see differnt things relative to where they were but we have to make it so they don't! Einstein then applied mathematics to show exactly how funny the distortion was based on the speed of the train relative to the outside observer.
I'm just saying the philosophical assumptions are "equivalence principle" and a constant speed for light. I'm saying the theory depends on these but the mathematical explanation arrived at is what we call "Einstein's theory of Relativity" . In that way the theory is not the assumptions which underpin the theory.
Does that explain my position?0 -
Soul Winner wrote: »So the ancients were right then? The earth is/or can be the center of the universe after all?
Yes. A stopped clock is right twice a day after all :P0 -
Yes I would agree with Wickednight here but the whole thing is a consequence of what we mean by the terminology. which is why I tried to be clear about "Einstiens theory of" and Aristotles relativity.
Im reminded of a story by George Liuis Borges in which he was at a party and said something like "The Universe is a sphere whose centre is everywhere and whose circumference is nowhere" someone commented that that was very clever. Borges said "I dont think it is original maybe I saw it before" So being a Classics scholar he went and looked it up and found similar comments by Napoleon Caesar and Alexander. His conclusion? -Nothing is original!
Except the "first cause" I suppose
Morbert:
In Einstines original paper he took the example of a train carriage with "magic" doors that opened instantly when they detected light within. A lamp was in the exact middle of the carriage. It was turned on.
What does the observer in the carriage see? Well now moving at constant speed (non accelerating reference frame) is exactly the same as standing still. So he sees the light travel the same distance to each door and if we assume light always has the same speed the doors open simultaneously.
What does an observer outside see? Well the train is moving along say from left to right. when the light is tuyrned on the door on the Left hand is moving towards the light and the one on the right hand end away from it . So the light has to traqvel les to reach the left hand door. since the speed is always the same the light reaches the left hand door first and then the right hand door opens later.
But the second assumption was "we always get the same result". So how can simultaneous events not be simultaneous? Something funny is happening with time. They DO see differnt things relative to where they were but we have to make it so they don't! Einstein then applied mathematics to show exactly how funny the distortion was based on the speed of the train relative to the outside observer.
I'm just saying the philosophical assumptions are "equivalence principle" and a constant speed for light. I'm saying the theory depends on these but the mathematical explanation arrived at is what we call "Einstein's theory of Relativity" . In that way the theory is not the assumptions which underpin the theory.
Does that explain my position?
Well ok I understand your position but it is a very unconventional one. It would mean Newton's laws are not part of Newtonian mechanics. And quantum postulates are not part of quantum mechanics.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
How am I saying this?
You : Philosophical assumptions + arguments of theory + evidential observations + conclusions of theory = Theory = a complete field of "hard" science - by "hard" I mean based on logic reason and data handled in a formal manner e.g. Newtonian mechanics, quantum physics.
Firdt the Godel bit
Since we assume hard science is consistent and logical like mathematics there will be things in physics which are true but which we cant prove true .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems
or even prove untrue, given the modern bent for falsification
This kind of flies in the face of "if it cant be shown it ain't science"
Now the null set bit. Suppose the theory only has the assumptions and nothing else. Nobody has developed anything else yet. In your definition it is still a theory since the theory is the assumptions plus all the other stuff. If all the other stuff is zero we are left with an epistemological connundrum. Interesting!
Something curious about all this.
Maybe it is a "type error" I am making? I am pushed into thinking that a theory "about" dinosaurs is not itself a dinosaur.
http://www.scienceandchristianbelief.org/articles/dawkinspoole1.php
Coulson, who coined the phrase 'God - of - the - gaps', wisely recommended out of his Christian convictions that, 'When we come to the scientifically unknown, our correct policy is not to rejoice because we have found God; it is to become better scientists. For the scientific enterprise is based on a belief that gaps can be filled - but with scientific explanations, not with talk 'about' God. So there is a restricted sense in which it is true to say that science has no need for God, that talk about God is unnecessary in science. Its practitioners have chosen to confine science to physical observables and consequently talk about God forms no part of a scientific explanation.
Im left with - Is a "scientific philosophy about relativity" a different type a different kind of knowledge to "relativity"? Or if we include the philosophical basis with the other stuff are we not into a "turtles all the way down" senario?
I am genuinely intrigued by the conundrum you have raised with me and I will have to think about it a bit as I haven' resolved the cognitive conflict.
LOL Maybe I am right but it is impossible to prove it!0
Advertisement