|
Forums118
Topics9,194
Posts195,567
Members1,323
| |
Most Online5,850
Feb 29th, 2020
|
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here is a link to show exactly where the Space Station is over earth right now: Click Here
|
|
|
2 registered members (2 invisible),
3,186
guests, and 17
spiders. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: Deep Universe: Hubble's Universe Unfiltered
[Re: Alchemy]
#160597
01/19/14 09:15 PM
01/19/14 09:15 PM
|
NON-SDA
Active Member 2019
Dedicated Member
|
Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 1,195
Canada
|
|
Did you all actually watch the two videos in the first post in this thread? Yes, I did; but the idea that "the earth is at the orbital centre of all celestial bodies" is false. Gen. 1 is based on that belief. It envisages a geocentric universe because the ancient people looked up from the earth. To them, it was obvious that the celestial bodies revolved around the land on which they stood. Today we know that the earth revolves around the sun and the sun is on the outskirts of the Milky Way, rotating about the centre of the galaxy. Now look at this symbol: " O o ." where "O" is the Milky Way, "o" is the sun on the edge of "O" and the period "." is our earth rotating about the sun, "o". Try to imagine the "." rotating about the "o" which is itself rotating about the "O". It is mathematically and physically impossible for "O" to be then rotating about the "." Do you see that? Therefore the celestial bodies do not rotate about the earth and thus do not have the earth as their orbital centre. Neither the sun nor any planet rotates about the earth. Only a fool would believe such a thing today. Even a grade 5 student can tell you that. .... ... Hahahahahaha..... It always amazes me how evolutionists beat this center of the universe point to death. First of all, all the best evidence does suggest that the earth is at or near the center of the universe. Even what Hubble discovered in the 1920's showed everything around us moving away from us. The fact that there really is a cosmological constant to the universe is also evidence of a static universe. Now, the red shift Hubble discovered could mean the universe is expanding, but it is not at all definitive. So, all because neither the solar system nor the galaxy revolve around the earth, but the other way around, doesn't prove in any way that the earth isn't at or close to the center. I tend to believe the earth is close to, but not at the center of the universe. But, so what. Pick up an astronomy book and read it. It'll do you good. ///
|
|
|
Re: Deep Universe: Hubble's Universe Unfiltered
[Re: James Peterson]
#160619
01/20/14 10:52 AM
01/20/14 10:52 AM
|
SDA
Active Member 2018
Most Dedicated Member
|
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,264
Asia
|
|
James, did you understand my point about the cosmological constant of the universe?
|
|
|
Re: Deep Universe: Hubble's Universe Unfiltered
[Re: Alchemy]
#160621
01/20/14 03:06 PM
01/20/14 03:06 PM
|
NON-SDA
Active Member 2019
Dedicated Member
|
Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 1,195
Canada
|
|
James, did you understand my point about the cosmological constant of the universe? Alchemy, did you understand my point about the earth revolving around the sun, and that ONLY the moon has the earth at its "center of rotation", that the planets DO NOT revolve around the earth and therefore the universe is not and was never geocentric? Kindly pick up an astronomy book and read it. It'll do you good. ///
|
|
|
Re: Deep Universe: Hubble's Universe Unfiltered
[Re: James Peterson]
#160624
01/20/14 04:59 PM
01/20/14 04:59 PM
|
SDA
Active Member 2020
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 6,368
Western, USA
|
|
It is mathematically and physically impossible for "O" to be then rotating about the "." Do you see that? Depends on your definitions. If I define ME as MY observational reference frame, then EVERYTHING moves relative to that reference frame. The math may be ugly, but it is not impossible. I look out my window, the local hills do not move all day long, but the sun moves. Mathematically it IS possible to define the sun moving and all the stars moving, and I am the one that is fixed and not moving. If I now go from work to home, it is mathematically possible to describe the ground moving beneath me and I am the one that if fixed. YES, it is mathematically possible to describe the universe that way.
Oh, that men might open their minds to know God as he is revealed in his Son! {ST, January 20, 1890}
|
|
|
Re: Deep Universe: Hubble's Universe Unfiltered
[Re: APL]
#160636
01/20/14 06:55 PM
01/20/14 06:55 PM
|
SDA
Active Member 2024
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 6,425
Midland
|
|
If I now go from work to home, it is mathematically possible to describe the ground moving beneath me and I am the one that if fixed. YES, it is mathematically possible to describe the universe that way.
Yes! Think of a hamster in a rolling ball! The inside of the surface has gone nowhere but in a circle.
|
|
|
Re: Deep Universe: Hubble's Universe Unfiltered
[Re: APL]
#160642
01/20/14 09:00 PM
01/20/14 09:00 PM
|
NON-SDA
Active Member 2019
Dedicated Member
|
Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 1,195
Canada
|
|
It is mathematically and physically impossible for "O" to be then rotating about the "." Do you see that? Depends on your definitions. If I define ME as MY observational reference frame, then EVERYTHING moves relative to that reference frame. The math may be ugly, but it is not impossible. I look out my window, the local hills do not move all day long, but the sun moves. Mathematically it IS possible to define the sun moving and all the stars moving, and I am the one that is fixed and not moving. If I now go from work to home, it is mathematically possible to describe the ground moving beneath me and I am the one that if fixed. YES, it is mathematically possible to describe the universe that way. That would be like an optical illusion. You are describing a geocentric universe out of ignorance, according to what you see with your eyes. Thank you. ///
|
|
|
Re: Deep Universe: Hubble's Universe Unfiltered
[Re: kland]
#160643
01/20/14 09:07 PM
01/20/14 09:07 PM
|
NON-SDA
Active Member 2019
Dedicated Member
|
Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 1,195
Canada
|
|
If I now go from work to home, it is mathematically possible to describe the ground moving beneath me and I am the one that if fixed. YES, it is mathematically possible to describe the universe that way.
Yes! Think of a hamster in a rolling ball! The inside of the surface has gone nowhere but in a circle. Now imagine many rolling balls, each with its own hamster. No hamster is running around another except if there were a ball in another ball. Unfortunately, ONLY the moon rotates about the earth. And everything else is ignorance.  ///
|
|
|
Re: Deep Universe: Hubble's Universe Unfiltered
[Re: James Peterson]
#160645
01/20/14 09:39 PM
01/20/14 09:39 PM
|
SDA
Active Member 2020
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 6,368
Western, USA
|
|
It is mathematically and physically impossible for "O" to be then rotating about the "." Do you see that? Depends on your definitions. If I define ME as MY observational reference frame, then EVERYTHING moves relative to that reference frame. The math may be ugly, but it is not impossible. I look out my window, the local hills do not move all day long, but the sun moves. Mathematically it IS possible to define the sun moving and all the stars moving, and I am the one that is fixed and not moving. If I now go from work to home, it is mathematically possible to describe the ground moving beneath me and I am the one that if fixed. YES, it is mathematically possible to describe the universe that way. That would be like an optical illusion. You are describing a geocentric universe out of ignorance, according to what you see with your eyes. Thank you. /// No - its is call the observational reference frame. It is valid to describe the universe from your own reference frame. It makes the math really tough, but it works, that is the point, it IS mathematically possible. And before you say this is all ignorance, take a course if physics.
Oh, that men might open their minds to know God as he is revealed in his Son! {ST, January 20, 1890}
|
|
|
Re: Deep Universe: Hubble's Universe Unfiltered
[Re: APL]
#160652
01/21/14 12:57 AM
01/21/14 12:57 AM
|
NON-SDA
Active Member 2019
Dedicated Member
|
Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 1,195
Canada
|
|
No - its is call the observational reference frame. It is valid to describe the universe from your own reference frame. It makes the math really tough, but it works, that is the point, it IS mathematically possible. And before you say this is all ignorance, take a course if physics. No, the earth goes around the sun, not the other way around though IT APPEARS as if the sun is going around the earth. It is silly therefore to speak of a geocentric universe as fact, when the definitive evidence relegates such a model to rubbish. The equivalent of what you are advocating is like holding the statement that Mohammed is a true prophet of God must be true since about a billion Muslims believe so within their own "frame of reference." ///
Last edited by James Peterson; 01/21/14 01:01 AM.
|
|
|
Re: Deep Universe: Hubble's Universe Unfiltered
[Re: James Peterson]
#160666
01/21/14 03:09 AM
01/21/14 03:09 AM
|
SDA
Active Member 2023
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 5,583
California, USA
|
|
The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either coordinate system could be used with equal justification. The two sentences: “the sun is at rest and the Earth moves,” or “the sun moves and the Earth is at rest,” would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different coordinate systems. (The Evolution of Physics: From Early Concepts to Relativity and Quanta, Albert Einstein and Leopold Infeld, 1938, 1966, p. 212) Thus from Einstein's point of view Ptolemy and Copernicus are equally right. What point of view is chosen is a matter of expediency. For the mechanics of the planetary system the view of Copernicus is certainly the more convenient. But it is meaningless to call the gravitational fields that occur when a different system of reference is chosen 'fictitious' in contrast with the 'real' fields produced by near masses: it is just as meaningless as the question of the 'real' length of a rod...in the special theory of relativity. A gravitational field is neither 'real' nor 'fictitious' in itself. It has no meaning at all independent of the choice of coordinates, just as in the case of the length of a rod. (Max Born, Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, 1962, 1965, p. 345) The system of the world is given once to us, and the Ptolemaic or Copernican view is our interpretation, but both are equally actual …The motions of the universe are the same whether we adopt the Ptolemaic or the Copernican mode of view. Both are indeed equally correct; only the latter is more simple and more practical. The universe is not twice given, with an earth at rest and an earth in motion; but only once, with its relative motions alone determinable. (Ernst Mach, The Science of Mechanics, pp. 279, 284) (emphasis in the original) We know that the difference between a heliocentric theory and a geocentric theory is one of relative motion only, and that such a difference has no physical significance (Sir Fred Hoyle, Astronomy and Cosmology, 1975, p. 416). Geocentrism may be false, but those are some big names that should make us a bit more circumspect.
By God's grace,
Arnold
There is no excuse for any one in taking the position that there is no more truth to be revealed, and that all our expositions of Scripture are without an error. The fact that certain doctrines have been held as truth for many years by our people, is not a proof that our ideas are infallible. Age will not make error into truth, and truth can afford to be fair. No true doctrine will lose anything by close investigation. RH 12/20/1892
|
|
|
|
|
Here is the link to this week's Sabbath School Lesson Study and Discussion Material: Click Here
|
|
|
