Stationary Earth

Grandpa wrote:I was looking into that Lagrangian point thing because I didn't know what it was. I found out it was just points that things would be in orbit because of gravity. I didn't see how geocentricity would change gravity...

I looked for your explanation but didn't find it.

MUSKOKAMAN wrote:How does shooting beams of light into the air explain geocentricism?

MUSKOKAMAN wrote:Your whole argument fails if there is nothing but a vacumm in space which is what they say there is!

MUSKOKAMAN wrote:The whole Heliocentric/Geocentric argument is a waste of time anyways!

MUSKOKAMAN wrote:You can use the old (I don't believe you cause the bible says so)
argument till the cows come home and deny modern science all you want
doesn't change the fact that we have sent literally thousands of probes
in to space to understand it better that have accumulated data that
refutes your hypothesis.

MUSKOKAMAN wrote:Your only evidence to point to the contrary is to say the last 500 years
of space exploration is a ruse or conspiracy and your mishandeled
interpretation of scripture!

MUSKOKAMAN wrote:1 Were the people who wrote the scripture Scientists or even learned men of science?

MUSKOKAMAN wrote:2 When explaining to a child why they got sick do you go into great
depth of medical techno savvy telling them of viruses and germs and how
they affected their body?

Or do you say it happened because of demons?

Or do you say you shouldn't eat or drink those things which make you ill?

MUSKOKAMAN wrote:God never gave us a technological breakdown of the cosmos!

MUSKOKAMAN wrote:His revelations were given in accordance with our limited capabilities
of understanding and earthbound observance of the heavens.

MUSKOKAMAN wrote:Just as a child doesn't understand about viruses and germs and their
interaction with the human body in illness, neither did we understand
about the cosmological make up of the universe and its intricasies 3500
years ago when Moses wrote the Deuteronomical canon to explain to the
children of Israel the makeup of the cosmos!

1. [url=http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=1 Thessalonians+5:21&version=9]1 Thessalonians 5:21[/url]
   Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
   

MUSKOKAMAN wrote:No point Doc. you would just refute it like all the other stuff I
have given you and say that it was a talmudist conspiracy responsible
for the source of my info

MUSKOKAMAN wrote:No he didn't men wrote it Doc. claiming a vision from God directed them

MUSKOKAMAN wrote:Suppose I am Doc. too many referrences that I just do not agree on when
it comes to interpretation of meaning and I am getting quite fed up with
being told I am wrong when my understanding of the English language
would seem better than most I read on any site and the scripture and how
I interpret it is my own belief of the true meaning of the text and
even when I politely try to put forth my views I am met with a flurry of
hatred and disrespect from those who would call themselves Christians
but who would seem to me to be farther from the truth than I! Then the
argument of heresy vs obvious truth developes and it's all down hill
from there. After studying the bible more in depth than ever in my life
from a NEUTRAL point of view I have drawn my own conclusions about
Christianity and other world religions and have found that like most
religions everyone regardless of religous belief believes they are doing
what's best for you and feel they know more than you so you had better
just listen up or you are damned to hell if you
don't........................................

WELL I have come to
many conclusions where Christianity is concerned not the least of which
is errancy of transposition of scripture over millenia and will hold
fast to a scripture I have found to be quite useful Doc. I have serious doubts about the common belief of Godhead

I
have never found 1 piece of scripture that shows Jesus DIRECTLY claimed
to be God not one! Other authors such as Paul say this but Haven't found
anything in Matthew, Mark, Luke or John or 1 or 2 Peter that quote
Jesus as saying "I am God"

Jesus himself said to give all glory to the father............no problem done!

I
believe Jesus is the messiah spoken of by Daniel and many other old
testament prophets and that He is the Son of God as scripture states and
was given Authority over heaven and earth and all that is in it except
the Father after his ascension because that is what the scriptures say 1
Peter 3:22 and I do not feel like going into a debate about it because
THAT IS WHAT THE SCRIPTURES SAY I don't care what the greek exegete says
it's greek man not english.

MUSKOKAMAN wrote:When people hear my views they freak out and throw snide and sarcastic
remarks around as though I attacked them themselves and when I find
someone who seems to have a brain of their own I find it polluted with
the teachings of somebody else from days gone bye instead of their own
mind understanding the plain english before them. I have studied more
history than I ever wanted too when it comes to the bible because
something as important as my eternal soul I figure is kinda important to
know the ins and outs of what it is I am supposed to believe in.
Problem is any authority on the bible for the most part is already part
of a group of people whom I find to be as much a part of the problem as
they purpot themselves to be giving you an education on aquiring eternal
life THEIR WAY!

MUSKOKAMAN wrote:Can't tell you how many debates with PPS I had and he always refers to
the greek exegete on scripture as authoritative is the English not good
enough?

What do the greeks have that the english don't?

MUSKOKAMAN wrote:Bottom line Doc. Life's handing me a crappy deal right now so I thought
hey can't hurt let's give God another try perhaps he is listening and
while were at it lets investigate and learn everthing I can get my hands
on pertaining to the scriptures. So I have and the more I read the more
my hypothesis as stated above seems to be corroberated. Then I meet
these mighty theologians on the internet who say to me YOU ARE WRONG yet
they can't prove to me how I am wrong other than jumping from one end
of the bible to the other to pull out choice phrases to attempt to
confound me because they are confounded themselves and believe their
interpretations to be correct!

If God don't do something for me
soon I don't know how much longer I can keep this up! My flesh is weak, I
am broke (in more ways than one), my kids and wife and best friend
think I have lost my mind and all I am doing is what I thought God
wanted me to do! I haven't lost my faith I gained it yet in gaining it I
have given up everything else so If he has a plan he had better make it
plain soon because I am about a month away from a divorce and less than
that for reposession of my only vehicle for non payment I have tried to
sell almost everything I own but for some reason no buyers:cry:

Grandpa wrote:What are the other 3 experiments Doc?

Strangelove wrote:
And I can refute that too..



LEFT: Johannes Kepler, Heliocentrist, witch, Ratface. Probable murderer of...

RIGHT: Tychoe Brahe, Geocentrist, Christian, handsome and noble fellow.

1. Jeremiah 31:33
   But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
   
   
   
2. Hebrews 8:10
   For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
   
   
   
3. Hebrews 10:16
   This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;
   

Strangelove wrote:

(3) SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENTS. Most scientists know about the Michelson-Morely experiment - that failed to detect any movement of the earth round the sun. This had to be overcome so the Fitzgerald-Lorentz shortening of the apparatus was proposed, and eventually the paradoxical Relativity Theory was invented by Einstein to overcome this problem. However, there are three other experiments that have been deliberately ignored by universities because they support geocentricity -

(a) The Michelson-Gale experiment (Reference - Astrophysical Journal 1925 v 61 pp 140-5 - I forgot to put this reference in my book!) This detected the aether passing the surface of the earth with an accuracy of 2% of the speed of the daily rotation of the earth! Thus, the Michelson-Morely experiment detected no movement of the earth around the sun, yet the Michelson-Gale experiment measured the earth's rotation (or the aether's rotation around the earth!) to within 2%! This surely speaks volumes for geocentricity.

(b) "Airey's failure" (Reference - Proc. Roy. Soc. London v 20 p 35). Telescopes have to be very slightly tilted to get the starlight going down the axis of the tube because of the earth's "speed around the sun". Airey filled a telescope with water that greatly slowed down the speed of the light inside the telescope and found that he did not have to change the angle of the telescope. This showed that the starlight was already coming in at the correct angle so that no change was needed. This demonstrated that it was the stars moving relative to a stationary earth and not the fast orbiting earth moving relative to the comparatively stationary stars. If it was the telescope moving he would have had to change the angle.

(c) The Sagnac experiment (Reference - Comptes Rendus 1913 v157 p 708-710 and 1410-3) Sagnac rotated a table complete with light and mirrors with the light being passed in opposite directions around the table between the mirrors. He detected the movement of the table by the movement of the interference fringes on the target where they were recombined. This proved that there IS an aether that the light has to pass through and this completely destroys Einstein's theory of Relativity that says there is no aether. It is for this reason that this experiment is completely ignored by scientists. More recently Kantor has found the same result with similar apparatus.

All these experiments are never taught at universities, so consequently, scientists, including most Christian creationists, are ignorant of this evidence for geocentricity. Is it any wonder, therefore, that Christian geocentrists find their most vociferous opponents are fellow Christian creationists to whom geocentricity comes as a shock. They do not want to be tarred with such a heretical brush that will only increase the great ridicule they are already receiving for their stance against evolution?

SOURCE: THE BASIC SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENTS FOR GEOCENTRICITY

MUSKOKAMAN wrote:Remember Doc. History is written by the victor! Though we differ in
agreement on this topic is it truly a good thing that you judge by
outward appearances?

MUSKOKAMAN wrote:What kind of light would you expect Keppler to be painted in considering
his stance against Geocentricism and the period he lived and you
continue to propagate the dissent put forth by the Catholic church of
the era against a great man and thinker tsk tsk!

MUSKOKAMAN wrote:All this because it has to fit the profile of the talmudic conspiracy?

MUSKOKAMAN wrote:Much of your argument if not all of it is based on observable motion with the naked eye

MUSKOKAMAN wrote:You say if I cannot see it with my own eyes then it does not exist!

MUSKOKAMAN wrote:Thank goodness you haven't used that approach to spirituallity or you would be doomed.

Have you seen Jesus?

How do you know he exists?

Have you ever seen an angel?

How do you know they exist?

Have you ever seen Satan or his demons?

How do you know they exist?

Have you ever seen heaven, hell or sheol?

How do you know it exists?

Pretty
sure I know the answers you are going to give for the top 8 questions
so you can skip them if you are going to say it is written in the
bible:D

MUSKOKAMAN wrote:Can you see atoms or molecules with your own eyes?

How do you know they exist?

Can you see radiation with your own eyes Doc.?

Then how do you know it exists?

Can you see viruses with your own eyes Doc.?

Then how do you know they exist?

Can you see electricity with your eyes Doc.? Not the effects created by it itself?

Then how do you know it exists?

Can you see the force of magnets with your eyes Doc.? Not the effects created by them!

Then how do you know it exists?

Can you see the wind Doc.? Not the effects created by it the wind it self!

Then how do you know it exists?

Can you see love or hate in of itself not the effects created by either?

MUSKOKAMAN wrote:The earths orbit around the sun is not circular not even remotely this is thinking 2 dimensionally

MUSKOKAMAN wrote:Do you know what a double helix is Doc.?

Best way I can explain
this is using our own DNA as an example. Maybe that's why our DNA looks
the way it does under a microscope?

The sun is on its course
through space/time as it is not stationary either. So take the course of
the sun on it's trip through the Galaxy although its course is seen as
eliptical and essentially it is as such it is more akin to sine wave on
an oscilloscope when viewed from the side or above or below because of
the pull of Gravity that is exerted by the cellestial bodies within our
solar system on the sun which is ever travelling it's orbit of the
center of the galaxy therefore our true path through the cosmos is more
of a corkscrew shape than a perfectly eliptical orbit. Giving it (the
solar systems movements) a double helix (appearance) when viewed from a
distance over a time period of years or decades! If it weren't for
computers and the advancement of technology in the last 20 years this
would never have been found.

MUSKOKAMAN wrote:Yes this can explain how the sun sat in the sky for 24 hours without moving just as stated in Joshua.

MUSKOKAMAN wrote:I hope I am not writing this too fast as I know you can be a slow reader! LOL just kidding:lol:

When
it all comes down to the brass tacts the material universe is only a
temporary thing anyways so going to great lengths to understand it could
be seen as a falling away from God when viewed from a more holy
perspective!

MUSKOKAMAN wrote:One cannot live on the eternal etherial plane with God without his
permission anyways as it is written so shall it be! This is probably why
I fight the doctrines of men with such fervour as I do because I take
the following scriptures literally;

MUSKOKAMAN wrote:What a load of horsemanure the whole thing! LOL

The Sagnac experiment...........LOL it was performed on earth within an atmosphere no wonder he found an aether DUHHHHHHH!

MUSKOKAMAN wrote:Airey............hahahahaha lets fill the telescope with water kiddies
that will give us exact measurements......lets not take into account
parabolic distortion of water no that would blow the experiment to hell
where it belongs. lol

MUSKOKAMAN wrote:Michaelson Galey ...........hmmm I guess Morley must have realized the
stupidity of Michaelsons argument and left so Galey jumped on board.

MUSKOKAMAN wrote:The sun rises the sun sets, the sun rises the sun sets...........is this supposed to be proof?

MUSKOKAMAN wrote:A referrance to the time of day or an assurance of something to come
being related to the listener or reader as the rising of the sun.

Pretty weak argument!

So you admit theres an aether? Good. Therefore the Michelson-Morley experiment stands and the earth is stationary.

[So your argument is that anything anyone tells us is true no matter if we observe it or not? Just believe the theoretical scientists right?

MUSKOKAMAN wrote:Once again you take words out of context to attempt to prove your point! On earth there are bound to be aethers but NOT in space!

On earth, where the experiment was performed there is an atmosphere so logically there are aethers but there are NONE in space.

MUSKOKAMAN wrote:
Are you saying the experiment was performed outside our atmosphere?

MUSKOKAMAN wrote:
Since the onus is on you to prove Geocentricism it is you who has to provide empiracal evidence to support your theory not I my friend

Strangelove wrote:

"Aether" was described by Albert Michelson as "the most generalized term in science". It just means STUFF. The aether is the STUFF that the firmament (heavens) is made out of. So yet again we see that your only challenge to these experiments is to say that space is not made up of STUFF. Which is absurd, everything is made from something.

STUFF........STUFF...........er........umm........well isn't that scientific......Thought it was a void or vaccumm.....lol



It doesnt need to be! The aether comes right down to the ground. The only difference in our atmosphere is a different chemical make up. A spinning atmosphere independent from the rest of the aether makes ZERO SENSE as proved by this article by a PhD geocentrist:

Heliocentric problem no. 3 - Restoring Forces

And a spinning atmosphere in relation to a spinning earth picked up by this experiment makes even LESS sense! How did they pick up an aether drag if the earth is spinning exactly in sync with it!? Lolz!
no one said the atmosphere was spinning
Airy's failure proved that its the stars moving not the earth. You mentioned something about parabolics? Are you gonna explain why this refutes the experiment?

Think about it man look through a lake sometime ............better still try spearfishing and you will learn about refraction!,.......lol



I am on the heliocentric side remember I have more evidence than you ever will .......problem is you won't accept it so the problem here is with your acceptance of modern scientific data rather than hyperbolus rhetoric of those who misinterpret scripture for their own purposes!

No my friend...it is YOU who inists that everything we see is an illusion, therfore the onus is on YOU to prove that this illusion is real. Until then I will believe observational science and the bible, which both testify to Gods stationary earth.

MUSKOKAMAN wrote:oh well any ways show 1 piece of scripture that definitively shows the earth as the center of the cosmos just 1

MUSKOKAMAN wrote:STUFF........STUFF...........er........umm........well isn't that scientific......Thought it was a void or vaccumm.....lol

MUSKOKAMAN wrote:Think about it man look through a lake sometime ............better still try spearfishing and you will learn about refraction!

MUSKOKAMAN wrote:I am on the heliocentric side remember I have more evidence than
you ever will .......problem is you won't accept it so the problem here
is with your acceptance of modern scientific data rather than
hyperbolus rhetoric of those who misinterpret scripture for their own
purposes!

MUSKOKAMAN wrote:Nope that's your misinterpretation and spurious exsponging of modern scientific data as nonsense!

MUSKOKAMAN wrote:I never once mentioned illusion as anything we see, suppose that is a misdirectional

MUSKOKAMAN wrote:oh well any ways show 1 piece of scripture that definitively shows the earth as the center of the cosmos just 1

will consider any scientific data you have to share with us. So far you have brought none forward. Saying that you dont want to because I would not accept/refute it, is just a giant hairy COPOUT.

Heliocentrism carries with it the concept that what we see and feel is illusion. Example...the moon orbiting earth east to west is an illusion...you say it actually orbits west to east.

PROVE IT. Prove it to be illusion rather than real!

zone wrote:

Genesis 1

1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2And 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. 3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 5And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.



He created the earth FIRST. on the fist day. and God saw that it was good.

He created the stars sun and moon on the fourth day.

He created them ALL for the purposes of life on earth.

MUSKOKAMAN wrote:If you refute what NASA tells you of the nature of our Solar system then you refute scientific data my friend

MUSKOKAMAN wrote:so all those photos and satellites collecting data above the earth are false and total lies then is that it?

MUSKOKAMAN wrote:Where did I say the moon moves west to east? Is this more propaganda to
attempt to discredit my beliefs in the nature of the Solar system and
others who may read what I have to say and agree?

I NEVER SAID THAT DOC.

The moon orbits the planet (earth) east to west just to make darn sure you get the point!

MUSKOKAMAN wrote:Heliocentricism carries NO SUCH CONCEPTION WITHIN ME!

MUSKOKAMAN wrote:The illusion is believing that the earth is the center of all creation!

IT'S A LIE!

...............GOD IS THE CENTER OF ALL CREATION..............

MUSKOKAMAN wrote:The moon orbits the earth in 28 days that is why we have full moons new
moons quarter moons etc. This is also why you don't see it in the night
sky for many days each month as well but you will see it in the early
morning or late afternoon during these periods. This is also why we have
eclipses of the sun because of the aperture of the moon in midday over
the sun. Why is this so hard for you to understand? The ancients knew
this and yet you refute it to believe hyperbole of men instead!

MUSKOKAMAN wrote:Just because NASA shows you evidence to heliocentricism you deny
everything they say because you say they are evil! Utter foolishness! Do
you think that all who work for NASA are evil? Your proposterous
argument in light of knowledge gained in the last 70 years is at best
foolhearty and at it's worse counterproductive and destructive!

MUSKOKAMAN wrote:Sometimes Doc. even the wicked gain knowledge that would not have been
attained had their wickedness not been used as a tool by God to bring
forth knowledge to all of mankind for mankinds embetterment!

Heliocentricism makes more sense than any geocentric argument, even a child can understand it

MUSKOKAMAN wrote:yet you prefer to believe in a flat earth that never moves with a sun orbiting you and your flat earth

MUSKOKAMAN wrote:but this simply cannot be due to the size of the sun and what an
orbiting mass that large would do to the moons orbit around earth! (rip
it from it's very orbit of the planet)

MUSKOKAMAN wrote:Though you hold the likes of Albert Einstien, Edwin hubble, Isaac
Newton, Johannes Keppler and Galileo as evil heretics bent on decieving
the whole world I DO NOT! These were all great thinkers and
mathematicians and astronomers whom you speak ill of though they are all
dead and cannot be here to defend their own gifts of God and the
knowledge HE BESTOWED UPON THEM! FOR SHAME!

MUSKOKAMAN wrote:You do all this because your pride will not allow your heart to see
what's before your own eyes and accept it as such. Preferring instead to
listen to the doctrine of devil possessed men such as Tycho Brahe and
Albert Michelson..........Sorry Doc. It is YOU who is wrong not I in
this regard.

MUSKOKAMAN wrote:LISTEN UP PROPHET IN THE WILDERNESS SO THAT YOU MAY KNOW THAT THE LORDS
WAYS ARE MYSTERIOUS AND ARE NOT THAT OF MAN! WAS JOSEPH NOT RAISED FROM
THE PIT TO BECOME LORD OVER ALL EGYPT AND GIVEN LORDSHIP BY PHAROAH
HIMSELF?

DID HIS BROTHERS BELIEVE WHEN HE TOLD THEM THEY WOULD BOW TO HIM?

YOUR MIND IS MUDDIED AS THE PHARISEES, PREFERRING OLD TRADITIONS OF MEN AND THEIR WORDS OVER THE TRUTH THAT IS BEFORE YOU!

MUSKOKAMAN wrote:how does this prove stationary earth
BTW where did the light come from or what was it's source that God created on the first day?

MUSKOKAMAN wrote:Doc. here's my email [better not to leave personal emails lying around the threads]

please send me a message I have some questions of a private nature to ask!

Muskokaman

MUSKOKAMAN wrote:The view of modern science
Kepler's laws of planetary motion were used as arguments in favor of the heliocentric hypothesis.

MUSKOKAMAN wrote:An apparent proof of the heliocentric hypothesis was provided only in 1838 by Friedrich Wilhelm Bessel. Bessel proved that parallax of a star was greater than zero. He measured the parallax of 0.314 arcseconds of a star named 61 Cygni. In the same year Friedrich Georg Wilhelm Struve and Thomas Henderson measured the parallaxes of other stars, Vega and Alpha Centauri.

MUSKOKAMAN wrote:The thinking that the heliocentric view was also not true in a strict
sense was achieved in steps. That the Sun was not the center of the
universe, but one of innumerable stars, was strongly advocated by the
mystic Giordano Bruno,
who had little regard for observation or experiment. Over the course of
the 18th and 19th centuries, the status of the Sun as merely one star
among many became increasingly obvious. By the 20th century, even before
the discovery that there are many galaxies, it was no longer an issue.

MUSKOKAMAN wrote:The concept of an absolute velocity, including being "at rest" as a particular case, is ruled out by the principle of relativity, eliminating any obvious "center" of the universe as a natural origin of coordinates. Some forms of Mach's principle consider the frame at rest with respect to the distant masses in the universe to have special properties.

MUSKOKAMAN wrote:Even if the discussion is limited to the solar system, the Sun is not at the geometric center of any planet's orbit, but rather approximately at one focus of the elliptical
orbit. Furthermore, to the extent that a planet's mass cannot be
neglected in comparison to the Sun's mass, the center of gravity of the
solar system is displaced slightly away from the center of the Sun.^[70] (The masses of the planets, mostly Jupiter, amount to 0.14% of that of the Sun.) Therefore a hypothetical astronomer on an extrasolar planet would observe a small "wobble" in the Sun's motion.

MUSKOKAMAN wrote:In modern calculations the terms "geocentric" and "heliocentric" are often used to refer to coordinate systems that are chosen for practical reasons. In such systems the origin in the center of mass
of the Earth, of the Earth-Moon system, of the Sun, of the Sun plus the
major planets, or of the entire solar system can be selected. However,
such selection of "geocentric" or "heliocentric" coordinates has only
practical implications and not philosophical or physical ones.

Here is something to mull over Doc.!

Strangelove wrote:Trying to pass off a wiki article as your own now?

Ok.



But not proof....cus its a theory involving universal gravitation which is an assumption. We only observe gravity on earth.



Apparent proof because they didnt understand that kinematic evidences are irrelevant because you can put anything in the centre of the system and you would still see parallax of stars from your vantage point on earth.

So, again...its proof of nothing.



No science in there. Just the thoughts of a mystic and a bold pronouncement.

The sun is the sun. The stars are different. Read Genesis.



Hooray! Machian universe! Thats exactly what we live in. Earth at rest and everything spinning around us, just like we observe. It certainly explains coreolis.



We dont know the masses of anything. All that is totally theoretical.



See that? NO PHYSICAL IMPLICATIONS. No difference! Same same...geo and helio models are IDENTICAL, just with a different CO-ORDINATE SYSTEM.

Do you understand now? There is no observation you can bring forward that proves anything. Not moon phases, not parallax, not mars retrograde, not orbits...nada. All you got is gravity. And we only observe that on earth.

On the other hand I have 4 experiments that prove the earth doesnt move.



Ya...erm....that took like, 2 minutes to dismiss...easily.