Hi im new here, looking for more info on Geocentrism.

[Scotty99]

This has all been in this thread earlier ajb. It all started with galileo which the church deemed as heresy at the time, dont even bother with the 1820's this was way before then. Robert sungenis has dedicated his life to this work and wrote a book called "Galileo was wrong the church was right".

 

The second volume is very important. It clears up the statements of the popes, it explains what actually happened in 1822, it explains what John Paul II actually said in 1992, and much more, incuding the true extent of what occured at the Galileo trial. Volume II conclusively shows that the Church did support geocentrism solidly through at least 1833, then to some degree became ambivalent to it without reversing its earlier decrees. Volume II also presents the Scriptural and patristic consensus for geocentrsim, the basis of the action of the popes.

 

 

We need to understand first off that the church believed for HUNDREDS of years that the earth was the center of the universe, without question. Only until galileo came along was this questioned, and ever since there has been problems with our view of the cosmos.

 

We all know there are problems with our current view of the cosmos, we dont know everything! But if you took forums like these at face value you would think we have everything figured out (people get really upset when you even hint at something that disagrees with our current world view).

 

Let me make clear i understand sungenis has a religious bias, but everything he has put forward in relation to the idea of geocentrism makes sense to me on a basic understanding of the universe. In fact, the original video i saw (which in linked in the first post) has no religious implications whatsoever. I had no idea he was a religious person, i only found this out later.

[ajb]

Let me make clear i understand sungenis has a religious bias, but everything he has put forward in relation to the idea of geocentrism makes sense to me on a basic understanding of the universe. In fact, the original video i saw (which in linked in the first post) has no religious implications whatsoever. I had no idea he was a religious person, i only found this out later.

I can only advice you look harder into learning some more physics and cosmology. You should try to listen to those that have actually studied and worked on these things and not people who have some other agenda.

[Strange]

There is just SOMETHING about geocentrism that my brain will NOT let go.

 

Fine. But you need to separate your personal beliefs from science. I don't really care what you believe. Just don't try and invent scientific support for it. I am always rather baffled when people try and find scientific evidence for their believe in God or whatever. Surely the whole point of faith is faith. It shouldn't need evidence.

 

The major factor for me it that it is impossible to measure the movement of the earth in relativity....

 

It is impossible to measure the (absolute) motion of anything. So, again, nothing special about the Earth here. However, it is possible to measure the movement of the Earth relative to the Sun, or relative to the galaxy or relative to the CMB, or ...

 

nothing so far that science has shown me says unequivocally that geocentrism isnt a possibly valid theory.

 

If you mean "strong" geocentrism then this is (as has been repeatedly pointed out) contradicted by evidence. If it is "weak" geocentrism then, "meh".

 

I mean a conscience in a way that you feel wrong after doing something bad, how do we inherently know right from wrong?

 

Evolution can explain that. (But that doesn't stop anyone believing in God, souls, or whatever. They are just unnecessary.)

 

Let me just add one more thing. I have watched a metric crapton of videos on youtube

 

This is a particularly poor way of learning. You will only be presented with a high-level "sound bite" version of science. Things will be distorted, simplified and often just wrong.

 

That comment is not meant in any way as a denouncement of anyone who has replied in this thread, i view you guys as a source of knowledge because i clearly got started on my research into this way late into the game and i fully respect you guys for having an insight early in your life about what is really important, that i have only grasped fairly late in life.

 

I don't think insight has anything to do with it.

Yes, geocentrism states we are the only life in the universe, that we are in a preferred spot. This is in my assessment why science is so absoultely single minded in finding life outside of this planet, it would nullify geocentrism god/creator and religion.

 

That last part is almsot more bizarre than your belief in geocentrism. Why on Earth would finding life elsewhere say anything about geocentrism or God?

 

That is only true for one very narrow and idiosyncratic version of geocentrism and God (i.e. yours). I suppose there might be a few other people who share your view, but as far as I know there is no mainstream religion that holds this view.

[Klaynos]

 

See this is the point i was making earlier. Why do they have to be detecting us?

They don't but the statements tension true if you considered I was talking about some other planet and we're trying to detect them.

 

Logically thinking people would assert that if the universe is so massive there would have been signals sent at many different points throughout history and that at least ONE of them has hit us,

But it all takes time you need time for life to evolve and develop technology. The signals then take time to travel. Whilst there has beena lot of time the distances are huge. And we don't know how long they were broadcasting for. There has to be an overlap of us looking and the signal getting here.

 

even in our short time of searching, I dont see how us searching for only a short period of time matters,

If you were asked to find a blue grain of sand on a beach when there was only 0.000001% of the beach being blue sand and you stopped after 30 seconds would you still be asking why the time of looking matters? You need to increase the probability of getting a hit with more time.

 

how about all of the information that has reached us and PASSED our planet many times over?

What about it? If we've not intercepted or how can we discuss it?

[Strange]

 

Maybe i went a step far in the religion comment, i only know if we found life on another planet it would be a massive blow to Christianity, i am not well enough versed on the other religions of the world.

 

Apparently, one of the major Christian churches disagrees with you:

http://www.christianpost.com/news/vatican-astronomer-says-alien-life-will-be-discovered-but-will-not-prove-or-disprove-god-126813/

This has all been in this thread earlier ajb. It all started with galileo which the church deemed as heresy at the time, dont even bother with the 1820's this was way before then. Robert sungenis has dedicated his life to this work and wrote a book called "Galileo was wrong the church was right".

 

We have all moved on since then. Apart from Sungenis maybe (and his views have been officially rejected by the Roman Catholic church - I suspect they wish he would stop claiming to be a Catholic).

 

Any why use someone so dishonest as a reference for your views anyway? He is just another in the long line of "it's OK to lie if it is to promote my beliefs".

 

 

Let me make clear i understand sungenis has a religious bias, but everything he has put forward in relation to the idea of geocentrism makes sense to me on a basic understanding of the universe.

 

Fine. But it ain't science (and is contradicted by science).

[Scotty99]

 

Fine. But you need to separate your personal beliefs from science. I don't really care what you believe. Just don't try and invent scientific support for it. I am always rather baffled when people try and find scientific evidence for their believe in God or whatever. Surely the whole point of faith is faith. It shouldn't need evidence.

 

 

It is impossible to measure the (absolute) motion of anything. So, again, nothing special about the Earth here. However, it is possible to measure the movement of the Earth relative to the Sun, or relative to the galaxy or relative to the CMB, or ...

 

 

If you mean "strong" geocentrism then this is (as has been repeatedly pointed out) contradicted by evidence. If it is "weak" geocentrism then, "meh".

 

 

Evolution can explain that. (But that doesn't stop anyone believing in God, souls, or whatever. They are just unnecessary.)

 

 

This is a particularly poor way of learning. You will only be presented with a high-level "sound bite" version of science. Things will be distorted, simplified and often just wrong.

 

 

I don't think insight has anything to do with it.

 

That last part is almsot more bizarre than your belief in geocentrism. Why on Earth would finding life elsewhere say anything about geocentrism or God?

 

That is only true for one very narrow and idiosyncratic version of geocentrism and God (i.e. yours). I suppose there might be a few other people who share your view, but as far as I know there is no mainstream religion that holds this view.

 

I am just going to respond best i can, i dont know how to individually quote stuff rather than copy pasting each line and pressing the quote button.

 

Strange, what do you mean by personal beliefs? Have you not paid attention to my posts? I have said an innumerous amount of times that i am not a religious person. I was not raised religious nor did i have a religious experience to explain my thoughts of geocentrism. Its just that so far, it makes the most sense to me.

 

Yes of course some movement is happening (as you mention earth around the sun etc) but the PROBLEM comes in that we dont know WHICH is moving.

 

I dont know what the hell strong vs weak geocentrism means, the only geocentrism i know of places the earth at the exact center of mass in the universe and everything rotates around us.

 

If you say evolution gives us a conscience i guess ill have to take that as fact, i havent studied enough on it to know if that is possible or not. To me it seems evolution means the strong survives, im not entirely convinced conscience and empathy fits into that.

 

You say youtube is a poor way of learning, this i cannot disagree with. What i can disagree with is that you assume im watching crackpots. No, i watch people as neil degrasse tyson, michiu kaku, and plenty of the other well know physicists of this planet. I understand you are saying videos may be a poor way to learn other than starting at the bottom with books, this i do not disagree with, but how do you disagree with the teaching of such revered people in the field?

 

I do believe insight has something to do with it, i was giving you a compliment. I was too worried about girls at a young age, not until later in life did i really start wondering about our place in this cosmos. Call it insight, call it whatever....you had an interest that put you a step ahead.

 

Your last comment is really confusing to me. Geocentrism states that we are the only life in the cosmos, im talking about geocentrism from the bible. If one exists outside of that, id like to see the author.

Apparently, one of the major Christian churches disagrees with you:

http://www.christian...ove-god-126813/

 

 

Ive read that before, but it is of no consequence to the view of a geocentrist. You need to understand that from the view of a geocentrist, they got it wrong from the start with galileo. Opinions past that (even from the vatican!) are of no consequence. There is a TRUTH here strange, its on us to find it.

[Strange]

I am just going to respond best i can, i dont know how to individually quote stuff rather than copy pasting each line and pressing the quote button.

 

That is about the only way of doing (as far as I knwo).

 

Strange, what do you mean by personal beliefs? Have you not paid attention to my posts? I have said an innumerous amount of times that i am not a religious person. I was not raised religious nor did i have a religious experience to explain my thoughts of geocentrism. Its just that so far, it makes the most sense to me.

 

Your beliefs may no be religious; but they are still just beliefs - i.e. not supported by evidence. Whether that is "religion" or not depends how you define that term.

 

Yes of course some movement is happening (as you mention earth around the sun etc) but the PROBLEM comes in that we dont know WHICH is moving.

 

That is not a problem. You can choose. You happen to have chosen the Earth as stationary. Someone else can make another choice.

 

I dont know what the hell strong vs weak geocentrism means, the only geocentrism i know of places the earth at the exact center of mass in the universe and everything rotates around us.

 

I defined these in post #196 (I don't think they are my terms, though):

There are two forms of geocentrism: weak ("the Earth can be the centre of the universe", which is true but meaningless) and strong ("the Earth is the centre of the universe", which is clearly false).

 

To me it seems evolution means the strong survives

 

Absolutely not.

 

You say youtube is a poor way of learning, this i cannot disagree with. What i can disagree with is that you assume im watching crackpots.

 

I don't know why you think I assume that. I assumed that you had been watching videos by serious physicists. My comments still apply. (Of course, Sungenis and Kaku [sadly] don't count.)

 

how do you disagree with the teaching of such revered people in the field?

 

The problem is with popularizations of science which rely heavily on simplifications and analogies. People watching rarely realise that and so don't understand what a poor approximation to science they are learning.

 

Your last comment is really confusing to me. Geocentrism states that we are the only life in the cosmos, im talking about geocentrism from the bible. If one exists outside of that, id like to see the author.

 

 

I thought you weren't religious? Why rely on Genesis for your physics when we have learnt a lot more since those fairy tales were first written down (probably by the Babylonians).

 

Ive read that before, but it is of no consequence to the view of a geocentrist. You need to understand that from the view of a geocentrist, they got it wrong from the start with galileo. Opinions past that (even from the vatican!) are of no consequence.

 

That is not the point. You said it would be a blow to Christianity. The biggest church disagrees it would be a blow at all. It might be a blow to you, Sungenis and his few dozen followers, but that's all.

 

But clearly, if evidence is irrelevant to a geocentrist (which you have made plain) then the opinion of the church or anyone else who disagrees with it is irrelevant too. That is the nature of blind faith.

 

There is a TRUTH here strange, its on us to find it.

 

I am not a great fan of the concept of "truth"; it is too religious for me.

Edited August 7, 2015 by Strange

[Scotty99]

Your beliefs may no be religious; but they are still just beliefs - i.e. not supported by evidence. Whether that is "religion" or not depends how you define that term.

 

Ok, thats fine. I dont feel tied to one thing, i just have a bit of bias towards geocentrism.

 

That is not a problem. You can choose. You happen to have chosen the Earth as stationary. Someone else can make another choice.

The problem lies herein. Geocentrism seems to at least offer a bit of proof as to why it makes sense rather than "everyplace in the universe is the same, no special coordinates" With geocentrism you at least have hundreds of years of an entire civilization of people believing in something, compared to 100 years of current science. Dont forget, we are absolutely stuck in science right now, no one know what the hell is happening in the cosmos.

I defined these in post #196 (I don't think they are my terms, though):

There are two forms of geocentrism: weak ("the Earth can be the centre of the universe", which is true but meaningless) and strong ("the Earth is the centre of the universe", which is clearly false).

I cannot speak to this. I did a google search of it and i still cannot comprehend the difference between the two.

Absolutely not.

I have no answer for this. Evolution to me is a conundrum, we know it exists but we dont know exactly how it works.

I don't know why you think I assume that. I assumed that you had been watching videos by serious physicists. My comments still apply. (Of course, Sungenis and Kaku [sadly] don't count.)

I find it wild you group those two together, given their standings in society today.

The problem is with popularizations of science which rely heavily on simplifications and analogies. People watching rarely realise that and so don't understand what a poor approximation to science they are learning.

I think the problem with watching videos is not a poor approximation but not a full grasping of what i am watching. At times i need to pause videos to understand a term so i can continue watching the video and comprehend it.

I thought you weren't religious? Why rely on Genesis for your physics when we have learnt a lot more since those fairy tales were first written down (probably by the Babylonians).

Again, im confused here. Can you list a physicist who proposed geocentrism who wasnt religious?

That is not the point. You said it would be a blow to Christianity. The biggest church disagrees it would be a blow at all. It might be a blow to you, Sungenis and his few dozen followers, but that's all.

But clearly, if evidence is irrelevant to a geocentrist (which you have made plain) then the opinion of the church or anyone else who disagrees with it is irrelevant too. That is the nature of blind faith.

Yes we can both agree the church has moved on from geocentrism, but that does not falsify it. (again, we need to look back to the times of galileo)

I am not a great fan of the concept of "truth"; it is too religious for me.

Whats crazy about this statement is ive always felt there is a truth. In fact ive felt my whole life i need to find the truth. I dont know what that means, but i feel i need to get there before other people do.

[Strange]

The problem lies herein. Geocentrism seems to at least offer a bit of proof as to why it makes sense rather than "everyplace in the universe is the same, no special coordinates" With geocentrism you at least have hundreds of years of an entire civilization of people believing in something, compared to 100 years of current science.

 

It doesn't offer any proof at all. It is just a belief. The fact that some people have believed it for a long time doesn't make it any more credible.

 

Dont forget, we are absolutely stuck in science right now, no one know what the hell is happening in the cosmos.

 

That is just nonsense. There is a big difference between "there are some unanswered questions" and not knowing naything. We know a hell of a lot more now than we did 50, 100 or 1000 years ago.

 

There will always be unanswered questions in science. I guess that is why some people prefer the certainty of faith.

 

I cannot speak to this. I did a google search of it and i still cannot comprehend the difference between the two.

 

The weak version say you can choose the Earth (or anywhere else) as a central point. But so what. The strong version says that the Earth is special and this is provably false.

 

I have no answer for this. Evolution to me is a conundrum, we know it exists but we dont know exactly how it works.

 

Since Wallace and Darwin we have known pretty much how it works. Small details are still being discovered and understood but the basic mechanism are very well understood.

 

I find it wild you group those two together, given their standings in society today.

 

They are both people whose public statements cannot be trusted. "Standing" or status is (or should be) irrelevant in science.

 

I think the problem with watching videos is not a poor approximation but not a full grasping of what i am watching. At times i need to pause videos to understand a term so i can continue watching the video and comprehend it.

 

And if you are struggling to understand the grossly simplified version, what makes you able to criticise the real science behind it?

 

Again, im confused here. Can you list a physicist who proposed geocentrism who wasnt religious?

 

I don't see the relvance, but I can't think of any physicists who have supported geocentrism. However, there are plenty of religious physicists who support the existing models of cosmology (one of the founders of the big bang model was a Roman Catholic priest as well as a physicist).

 

Yes we can both agree the church has moved on from geocentrism, but that does not falsify it.

 

No, but the science does.

 

(again, we need to look back to the times of galileo)

 

Why?

 

Whats crazy about this statement is ive always felt there is a truth. In fact ive felt my whole life i need to find the truth. I dont know what that means, but i feel i need to get there before other people do.

 

Which is why your (quasi)religious beliefs appeal so much. You will never be happy with science because it only gives us our current best understanding, subject to change. Holding on to ancient beliefs obviously gives you some sort of comfort. That's fine. Just don't try and pretend they are supported by evidence.

[ajb]

I can't be the first to use 'weak' and 'strong' in this context (can I?). But the usage seems appropriate.

 

The 'weak' form is a trivial statement that boils down to all observers are equivalent. There is no problem in choosing the Earth to be at the centre of the coordinate system you use to describe the Solar System, the Milky Way or the Universe.

 

The 'strong' form then says that the Earth really is at the centre of the Universe.

 

The 'strong' form just makes no sense in light of modern cosmology, while the 'weak' form is trivial. Further statements about how special the Earth can then be added to the 'strong' form, such as life can only be found on Earth (well, originates from Earth at last). Anyway, relativity does not support the 'strong' form while it trivialises the 'weak' form.

[Phi for All]

Ive read that before, but it is of no consequence to the view of a geocentrist. You need to understand that from the view of a geocentrist, they got it wrong from the start with galileo. Opinions past that (even from the vatican!) are of no consequence. There is a TRUTH here strange, its on us to find it.

 

Person 1: "I know you, I recognize your face but can't remember your name."

 

Person 2: "It's Jane."

 

Person 1: "No, that's not it."

 

 

 

In a search for Truth, you overlook a lot of facts.

[swansont]

 

Let me just add one more thing. I have watched a metric crapton of videos on youtube, from the "giants" of science and physics and almost universally they all say "to question everything". This is how discoveries are made. If there arent people like me out there that try and question things (no matter how silly they look on a forum of educated people such as this one) how are we going to move our race forward? I would rather come off as an idiot with a tiny chance of discovery than being chained to a certain way of thinking and being "right" in the eyes of others.

 

 

"Question everything" carries with it the implicit requirement not to ignore the answers we've found.

[Scotty99]

I am truly not trying to overlook facts not sure why it comes off that way, just trying to wrap my head around things and why geocentrism hasn't gotten a fair shake in a long time. Here is another article on the same subject from space.com (not sure how revered this site is in the science world):

 

http://www.space.com/30166-giant-galaxy-ring-should-not-exist.html

 

Last line of the article:

So is the Cosmological Principal flawed? It's certainly looking that way.

 

 

O.o

[swansont]

I am truly not trying to overlook facts not sure why it comes off that way, just trying to wrap my head around things and why geocentrism hasn't gotten a fair shake in a long time.

 

You are ignoring the reasons why geocentrism was abandoned

[Strange]

Here is another article on the same subject from space.com (not sure how revered this site is in the science world):

 

It is just a news site. Why would it be "revered"? Journals like Nature might be respected, but hardly revered.

 

And, even if the cosmological principle turns out to be wrong, that still doesn't give a special place to Earth. And, of course, relativity proves that Earth does not have a special place. (A fact you keep overlooking.)

[ajb]

I would not yet rewrite all the cosmology books because of this observation. It needs proper investigating by other groups including mathematical modelling. This 'anomaly' may yet go away. We have to wait and see.

[Nathaniel222]

Technically I'm the center of the universe, and the rest of you are revolving around me.

Edit: Well, that's what I'm observing, anyway.

Edited August 9, 2015 by Nathaniel222

[Scotty99]

 

It is just a news site. Why would it be "revered"? Journals like Nature might be respected, but hardly revered.

 

And, even if the cosmological principle turns out to be wrong, that still doesn't give a special place to Earth. And, of course, relativity proves that Earth does not have a special place. (A fact you keep overlooking.)

 

Revered was the wrong word, respected is the one i wanted. The reason i even asked is i wasnt sure if space.com was a site like national enquirer or something of that sort.

I would not yet rewrite all the cosmology books because of this observation. It needs proper investigating by other groups including mathematical modelling. This 'anomaly' may yet go away. We have to wait and see.

 

See im not asking for this, all i ask is people take a real look at geocentrism again. I feel it is one of the true travesties of our time, the stigma carried with geocentrism is on a level with child abuse. Its actually insane to me.

[Nathaniel222]

I also think it'd be fair if you considered the possibility that I'm actually the center of all existence and the culmination of all events preceding me. I think there's alot to support the notion. I mean, for one, I exist, and there is only one person exactly like me in the entire universe. That makes me pretty unique, and dare I say, statistically impossible.

 

It's pretty clear all the events before me just happened in order to accommodate my creation. The big bang, the formation of the sun and earth... I mean, DNA formed in ancient oceans so I could pass on my genes. My parents met at an art fair to ensure my birth. Almost like the universe itself exists just for me, to ensure my birth life and existence.

 

In fact, based on my observations, the universe probably didn't exist before I was born. I can't remember it, so it must have just been darkness. When I die, the universe will probably die with me too. Sorry about that.

[ajb]

See im not asking for this, all i ask is people take a real look at geocentrism again.

People did, and realised that there is no proper meaning to the question when you take into account relativity. This is then backed up by plenty cosmological evidence.

 

Now, if there was some reason to look at this again, and the notion would need some modification, then it will be looked at again. Scientists love to show that our current thinking is not quite right, but right now no-one thinks that our general view of the Universe is that bad.

 

 

I feel it is one of the true travesties of our time, the stigma carried with geocentrism is on a level with child abuse. Its actually insane to me.

Do you say the same about the flat Earth theory or the idea that Humans once lived alongside dinosaurs?

[Scotty99]

People did, and realised that there is no proper meaning to the question when you take into account relativity. This is then backed up by plenty cosmological evidence.

 

Now, if there was some reason to look at this again, and the notion would need some modification, then it will be looked at again. Scientists love to show that our current thinking is not quite right, but right now no-one thinks that our general view of the Universe is that bad.

 

 

 

Do you say the same about the flat Earth theory or the idea that Humans once lived alongside dinosaurs?

 

Absolutely not lol. Flat earth theorists are nut jobs, geocentrism is something different entirely. Again im not sure what you mean by "no proper meaning", as we have discussed geocentrism has a place in relativity, and is in fact validated by relativity.

[ajb]

Flat earth theorists are nut jobs, geocentrism is something different entirely.

Are you sure? ;-)

 

Again im not sure what you mean by "no proper meaning", as we have discussed geocentrism has a place in relativity, and is in fact validated by relativity.

Okay, the notion is either totally debunked, there is no proper meaning to the centre of the Universe or the notion is totally trivial, it is just a choice of how you decide to pick coordinates and has no deep meaning.

 

Relativity in no way validates geocentrism; it debunks or trivialises. Thus, we pretty much throw the idea away as it does not help us understand the Universe.

[Nathaniel222]

Claiming the earth is the center of the universe is like claiming a gluon inside a photon in an atom in a molecule in a carbon chain in a cell in skin tissue in an organ in your left foot is the center of your body.

 

Gluon < Photon < Atom < Molecule < Long-chain molecule < Cell < Tissue < Organ < Limb < Body < Home < City < State < Country < Continent < Planet < Solar System < < < < < < < Galaxy <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Universe

 

Cosmologically, we are tiny. Galactically, we're in the back woods on the end of a spiral arm, far, FAR from the galactic center. Universally... our Galaxy is of unremarkable size or composition, like any one of the other hundred billion others.

 

We are so far removed from being central, my chance being the center of All is just as likely as the rest of this entire planet's.

[ajb]

We are so far removed from being central...

It is more fundamental than that. The claim is that there is no proper notion of the centre of the Universe.

 

As an illustration, take a sphere (so the surface of a ball) and tell me what point is the centre? If you pick a point and define that to be the centre, then how is it different to any other point on the sphere? Can I pick any point and define it as the centre?

[Scotty99]

Relativity in no way validates geocentrism;

 

 

Why not? How is it any different?

It is more fundamental than that. The claim is that there is no proper notion of the centre of the Universe.

 

As an illustration, take a sphere (so the surface of a ball) and tell me what point is the centre? If you pick a point and define that to be the centre, then how is it different to any other point on the sphere? Can I pick any point and define it as the centre?

 

You literally just proved the entire point i was trying to make in this sentence.