Geocentrism (the theory that claims the earth being the center of the universe) and Heliocentrism (the theory that claims the sun being the center of the universe)... which one is more accurate?
For most of history the consensus was more inclined towards the former model. It wasn't until the 1500s that new ideas and changes on this model were proposed... primarily from one guy. The name of that famous astronomer was Nicolaus Copernicus, who first suggested the sun being the focal point instead of the earth. The Roman Catholic Church - which ruled the land in those days - condemned his beliefs on charges of heresy, making the publication of his book, On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres, delayed for at least 16 years. This caused a lot of bickering back and forth, but no real consensus was yet established. It wasn't until Albert Einstein came along with his theories, that the tide shifted towards Heliocentrism.
Is this based on personal preference or real concrete evidence? I can't say for sure, but one thing that's of paramount importance is how we define our terms and the series of innovations and advancements that GET us to where we are now, and what we currently think.
Some of the ancient astronomers like Ptolemy noticed, while looking through his telescope, that some the planets seemed to advance forward in the sky, and then revert backwards slightly. This puzzled many until Aristotle came along and proposed the idea of epicycles, creating an additional rotation of the planets, i.e. a planet would orbit a specific point while simultaneously orbiting earth (in our current model most of the epicycles are done away with). Now I don't pretend to know exactly the ins and outs of Einstein's Theory of Relativity, but the theory doesn't seem to point an accusing finger in either direction (geocentrism or heliocentrism), but more so just to say that both ends of the spectrum are feasible.
What we are currently taught in regards to the solar system is what is known as Kepler's Model. This is pretty simple to understand... the sun is in the center, 8 planets revolve around it, and several of THOSE planets have subsequent moons that revolve around them. End of story. But what people aren't getting is the full picture... this idea is just the tip of the iceberg in regards to rest of the universe and how it works.
What is actually being proposed, in it's full extent, is that our Milky Way galaxy is flying through space as well, that the SUN itself isn't stationary but revolving around the Milky Way, too, (along with all our planets and moons still staying true to their revolutions). However, if this were true it only seems to create bigger problems and more questions. Like how is it that considering all this celestial movement that ALL of our constellations never change. We see the same constellations, year in and year out, in precisely the same way. If the Sun is zooming through the universe at breakneck speed how is it that every year, around August, we see the same meteor shower activity: more and more comets and asteroids come into our view ON August compared to any other time of the year. Does this not seem to imply that our earth is fixed, based on these annual observations?
When designing blueprints for a rocket, all the math is based on the earth being fixed... just think of how complicated it would be to design any sort of spaceship while trying to factor in the speed of the earth beneath you. Untold thousands of pounds of thrust to put a Space Station in Orbit, it would only require a very little extra thrust to break free and go off into Space when they are at the end of their life span, yet they always fall back to Earth?
A shuttle was launched to Mars and during the voyage the shuttle was taking pictures of earth. And from 2 million miles away, not having yet arrived at Mars, Earth was still in plain sight, it never left where it was... from the video it didn't even show the Earth's rotation (which only equates to 1,000+ miles an hour, which theoretically speaking, is a very low gravitational pull). Would it not follow that a shuttle, already millions of miles AWAY from earth, would NO longer be attached to the earth's orbit?
At the Equator the World is moving at 1,040 miles per hour approximately according to Science. It would stand to reason you could buy Gold at the Equator then go to England and have it weigh more as England is traveling at around 600 to 800 miles per hour. But Science claims Centrifugal Force ceases to exist when concerning the Earth . . . to me this seems like a dogmatic practice, i.e. breaking laws to support a preferable theory.
Now you may be getting the impression, by now, that I'm trying to support Geocentrism at all costs, but that isn't the case. I'm simply trying to understand how it is we've come to this "concrete" conclusion. All of our so-called "knowledge" of astronomy and cosmology are based on this one analogy: it is like stacking Jenga Blocks one on top of the other; we've come to this conclusion because of some other established conclusion; we know THIS based on something prior; and on and on it goes. But the key thing lies in the Foundation, which if incorrect, makes everything on TOP of these "blocks" flawed.
Take for example, judging the distant of stars from earth. All of other mathematical equations, trigonometry, parallax, and other such practices (though very well thought out) is lacking in one very fundamental principle... and that is perspective (which ours is incredibly limited). All of our measurements, no matter how precise, are performed ON EARTH. To give an analogy it is like we have tunnel vision, forced to see but ONE angle of the diamond at a time. We try to make up for this lack of perspective by elaborating on our methods, but that doesn't change the fact that the lack-thereof is severely detrimental to our so-called "Knowledge of the Universe". It is conjecture and theories that lead us to think one way or the other, but the math points it's finger in either direction. Our diagrams which attempt at explaining these complex methods are written on flat two-dimensional paper. This is a gross oversimplification of the matter. This implies that the universe is FLAT, and it's not.
Gravitational Pull and Orbital Movement.
I can't wrap my head our WHY these two concepts overlap each other? Gravity brings things down. Orbital rotation are about spheres circling one another. What causes gravity to make things spin, instead of crash into each other? And for that matter Pluto, ninth "planet" from the sun, seems to follow an epicycle, i.e. it orbits a fixed point (which is seemingly nothing), WHILE orbiting the sun. How does this fit into gravity being the sole cause of both of these phenomenons? Granted Kepler's Model was easier to understand than previous models (but it didn't altogether get rid of the epicycles). Simplicity doesn't, however, equate to accuracy.
I've said all I really can on the science perspective. So let's jump into the biblical perspective.
By reading Genesis 1:1-31 we can deduce a very methodical and logical approach with which God created everything. It is much in the same way a painter will approach an open canvas... creating the basic outline and then filling in the more elaborate details. First the heavens and the earth were created, then God added more concrete structure by separating the dry land from the seas, then more details were added. Grass and plants sprouted forth from the ground, bearing fruit, then the universe, previously empty, gets sprinkled with lights (i.e. the sun, the moon, and the stars), then the empty heavens were filled with birds. Then the land animals also began to fill the earth, as well as the whales, filling in the empty oceans. This all seems to follow a very clear cut pattern. As I gave reference to how a painter approaches a blank canvas, I will try to give more clarity. A painter wouldn't typically paint the clothes and accessories and THEN paint the person that's wearing them. God seems to have a similar method, which is why he didn't create animals BEFORE creating the land which they were standing on. This is both literal and symbolic on the principles of having a solid foundation. Now let's take a gander at Genesis once again...
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
(three days later)
God creates the lights that fill the universe; the sun, the moon, and the stars. From what I gather the very first focal point is the earth: the foundation. Everything that comes after is filling and elaborating detail to what the main focus is. Could God have created the Sun on the fourth day, to have earth THEN revolve around the sun, thereby diverting the original focal point? Well he could very well have, of course, although it seems out of character for him to do so given the context of the rest of Genesis, as it is plainly written.
Decide for yourself
There are other scriptures that may also point to a fixed Earth hypothesis - depending of course on how you read the Bible. We can get to those specific verses as the conversation progresses. The general consensus in the scientific community today is that a fixed Earth is completely bogus and we shouldn't waste our time discussing it... but is it really so black-and-white?
For most of history the consensus was more inclined towards the former model. It wasn't until the 1500s that new ideas and changes on this model were proposed... primarily from one guy. The name of that famous astronomer was Nicolaus Copernicus, who first suggested the sun being the focal point instead of the earth. The Roman Catholic Church - which ruled the land in those days - condemned his beliefs on charges of heresy, making the publication of his book, On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres, delayed for at least 16 years. This caused a lot of bickering back and forth, but no real consensus was yet established. It wasn't until Albert Einstein came along with his theories, that the tide shifted towards Heliocentrism.
Is this based on personal preference or real concrete evidence? I can't say for sure, but one thing that's of paramount importance is how we define our terms and the series of innovations and advancements that GET us to where we are now, and what we currently think.
Some of the ancient astronomers like Ptolemy noticed, while looking through his telescope, that some the planets seemed to advance forward in the sky, and then revert backwards slightly. This puzzled many until Aristotle came along and proposed the idea of epicycles, creating an additional rotation of the planets, i.e. a planet would orbit a specific point while simultaneously orbiting earth (in our current model most of the epicycles are done away with). Now I don't pretend to know exactly the ins and outs of Einstein's Theory of Relativity, but the theory doesn't seem to point an accusing finger in either direction (geocentrism or heliocentrism), but more so just to say that both ends of the spectrum are feasible.
What we are currently taught in regards to the solar system is what is known as Kepler's Model. This is pretty simple to understand... the sun is in the center, 8 planets revolve around it, and several of THOSE planets have subsequent moons that revolve around them. End of story. But what people aren't getting is the full picture... this idea is just the tip of the iceberg in regards to rest of the universe and how it works.
What is actually being proposed, in it's full extent, is that our Milky Way galaxy is flying through space as well, that the SUN itself isn't stationary but revolving around the Milky Way, too, (along with all our planets and moons still staying true to their revolutions). However, if this were true it only seems to create bigger problems and more questions. Like how is it that considering all this celestial movement that ALL of our constellations never change. We see the same constellations, year in and year out, in precisely the same way. If the Sun is zooming through the universe at breakneck speed how is it that every year, around August, we see the same meteor shower activity: more and more comets and asteroids come into our view ON August compared to any other time of the year. Does this not seem to imply that our earth is fixed, based on these annual observations?
When designing blueprints for a rocket, all the math is based on the earth being fixed... just think of how complicated it would be to design any sort of spaceship while trying to factor in the speed of the earth beneath you. Untold thousands of pounds of thrust to put a Space Station in Orbit, it would only require a very little extra thrust to break free and go off into Space when they are at the end of their life span, yet they always fall back to Earth?
A shuttle was launched to Mars and during the voyage the shuttle was taking pictures of earth. And from 2 million miles away, not having yet arrived at Mars, Earth was still in plain sight, it never left where it was... from the video it didn't even show the Earth's rotation (which only equates to 1,000+ miles an hour, which theoretically speaking, is a very low gravitational pull). Would it not follow that a shuttle, already millions of miles AWAY from earth, would NO longer be attached to the earth's orbit?
At the Equator the World is moving at 1,040 miles per hour approximately according to Science. It would stand to reason you could buy Gold at the Equator then go to England and have it weigh more as England is traveling at around 600 to 800 miles per hour. But Science claims Centrifugal Force ceases to exist when concerning the Earth . . . to me this seems like a dogmatic practice, i.e. breaking laws to support a preferable theory.
Now you may be getting the impression, by now, that I'm trying to support Geocentrism at all costs, but that isn't the case. I'm simply trying to understand how it is we've come to this "concrete" conclusion. All of our so-called "knowledge" of astronomy and cosmology are based on this one analogy: it is like stacking Jenga Blocks one on top of the other; we've come to this conclusion because of some other established conclusion; we know THIS based on something prior; and on and on it goes. But the key thing lies in the Foundation, which if incorrect, makes everything on TOP of these "blocks" flawed.
Take for example, judging the distant of stars from earth. All of other mathematical equations, trigonometry, parallax, and other such practices (though very well thought out) is lacking in one very fundamental principle... and that is perspective (which ours is incredibly limited). All of our measurements, no matter how precise, are performed ON EARTH. To give an analogy it is like we have tunnel vision, forced to see but ONE angle of the diamond at a time. We try to make up for this lack of perspective by elaborating on our methods, but that doesn't change the fact that the lack-thereof is severely detrimental to our so-called "Knowledge of the Universe". It is conjecture and theories that lead us to think one way or the other, but the math points it's finger in either direction. Our diagrams which attempt at explaining these complex methods are written on flat two-dimensional paper. This is a gross oversimplification of the matter. This implies that the universe is FLAT, and it's not.
Gravitational Pull and Orbital Movement.
I can't wrap my head our WHY these two concepts overlap each other? Gravity brings things down. Orbital rotation are about spheres circling one another. What causes gravity to make things spin, instead of crash into each other? And for that matter Pluto, ninth "planet" from the sun, seems to follow an epicycle, i.e. it orbits a fixed point (which is seemingly nothing), WHILE orbiting the sun. How does this fit into gravity being the sole cause of both of these phenomenons? Granted Kepler's Model was easier to understand than previous models (but it didn't altogether get rid of the epicycles). Simplicity doesn't, however, equate to accuracy.
I've said all I really can on the science perspective. So let's jump into the biblical perspective.
By reading Genesis 1:1-31 we can deduce a very methodical and logical approach with which God created everything. It is much in the same way a painter will approach an open canvas... creating the basic outline and then filling in the more elaborate details. First the heavens and the earth were created, then God added more concrete structure by separating the dry land from the seas, then more details were added. Grass and plants sprouted forth from the ground, bearing fruit, then the universe, previously empty, gets sprinkled with lights (i.e. the sun, the moon, and the stars), then the empty heavens were filled with birds. Then the land animals also began to fill the earth, as well as the whales, filling in the empty oceans. This all seems to follow a very clear cut pattern. As I gave reference to how a painter approaches a blank canvas, I will try to give more clarity. A painter wouldn't typically paint the clothes and accessories and THEN paint the person that's wearing them. God seems to have a similar method, which is why he didn't create animals BEFORE creating the land which they were standing on. This is both literal and symbolic on the principles of having a solid foundation. Now let's take a gander at Genesis once again...
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
(three days later)
God creates the lights that fill the universe; the sun, the moon, and the stars. From what I gather the very first focal point is the earth: the foundation. Everything that comes after is filling and elaborating detail to what the main focus is. Could God have created the Sun on the fourth day, to have earth THEN revolve around the sun, thereby diverting the original focal point? Well he could very well have, of course, although it seems out of character for him to do so given the context of the rest of Genesis, as it is plainly written.
Decide for yourself
There are other scriptures that may also point to a fixed Earth hypothesis - depending of course on how you read the Bible. We can get to those specific verses as the conversation progresses. The general consensus in the scientific community today is that a fixed Earth is completely bogus and we shouldn't waste our time discussing it... but is it really so black-and-white?
