ken_sylvania wrote: ↑Tue Dec 05, 2023 1:53 pm
How does that tell us whether the earth is stationary and the rest of the universe is whirling around it?
It is almost impossible to disprove that theory from earth as the data is too small to prove to someone. Parallax measurements are best taken from space.
Considering it, one rapidly has a harder time believing it though then a heliocentric model considering the gyroscopic effects needed.
ken_sylvania wrote: ↑Tue Dec 05, 2023 1:34 pm
How do we know that the earth isn't stationary?
Astronomical observation and science.
And GPS now gives us actual direct observations of plate tectonics and the movements of the continental plates. We now know, for example, that North America is moving away from Europe at about 4 cm per year. We can measure that directly.
How does that tell us whether the earth is stationary and the rest of the universe is whirling around it?
We can observe the earth rotating on its axis directly from space. Ever since the first spacecraft this has been directly observable.
We can also directly observe all the other planets orbiting the sun along their ecliptic planes. And also observe the earth's rotation in relation to all these other objects.
Finally we can observe gravitational forces and understand exactly the forces involved that keep the earth in its orbit of the sun. As well as understand that due to the differences in masses it is actually the earth orbiting the sun and not the other way around. Johannes Kepler figured this all out in 1609 with his laws of planetary motion. In point of fact, both the earth and sun are orbiting each other, but because the sun's mass is 330,000 larger than the earth, it is the earth that does most of the moving, not the sun. The sun basically just wobbles. You can see the same exact thing if you attach a ping pong ball to a bowling ball and toss them spinning into the air. The ping pong ball will spin around the bowling ball and not the other way around.
Much of science is actually the result of indirect observation. For example, we have never seen gravity waves and don't even exactly know how they work. But we do know that gravity exists due to observation. And every observation humans have ever made of gravity from the first caveman seeing something fall from a tree has been an indirect observation of the force of gravity.
Up until recently, we have never actually observed individual atoms and subatomic particles. Despite the fact that all of modern chemistry is premised on their existence. All of chemistry is based on indirect observations as well.
Last edited by Ken on Tue Dec 05, 2023 2:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
0 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
And GPS now gives us actual direct observations of plate tectonics and the movements of the continental plates. We now know, for example, that North America is moving away from Europe at about 4 cm per year. We can measure that directly.
How does that tell us whether the earth is stationary and the rest of the universe is whirling around it?
We can observe the earth rotating on its axis directly from space. Ever since the first spacecraft this has been directly observable.
We can also directly observe all the other planets orbiting the sun along their ecliptic planes. And also observe the earth's rotation in relation to all these other objects.
Finally we can observe gravitational forces and understand exactly the forces involved that keep the earth in its orbit of the sun. As well as understand that due to the differences in masses it is actually the earth orbiting the sun and not the other way around. Johannes Kepler figured this all out in 1609. In point of fact, both the earth and sun are orbiting each other, but because the sun's mass is 330,000 larger than the earth, it is the earth that does most of the moving, not the sun. The sun basically just wobbles. You can see the same exact thing if you attach a ping pong ball to a bowling ball and toss them spinning into the air. The ping pong ball will spin around the bowling ball and not the other way around.
How do we know what is moving more though? What fixed point of reference are we comparing this all to?
ken_sylvania wrote: ↑Tue Dec 05, 2023 1:53 pm
How does that tell us whether the earth is stationary and the rest of the universe is whirling around it?
We can observe the earth rotating on its axis directly from space. Ever since the first spacecraft this has been directly observable.
We can also directly observe all the other planets orbiting the sun along their ecliptic planes. And also observe the earth's rotation in relation to all these other objects.
Finally we can observe gravitational forces and understand exactly the forces involved that keep the earth in its orbit of the sun. As well as understand that due to the differences in masses it is actually the earth orbiting the sun and not the other way around. Johannes Kepler figured this all out in 1609. In point of fact, both the earth and sun are orbiting each other, but because the sun's mass is 330,000 larger than the earth, it is the earth that does most of the moving, not the sun. The sun basically just wobbles. You can see the same exact thing if you attach a ping pong ball to a bowling ball and toss them spinning into the air. The ping pong ball will spin around the bowling ball and not the other way around.
How do we know what is moving more though? What fixed point of reference are we comparing this all to?
Pick whatever fixed point of reference you want. We are sophisticated to observe the motion of the earth and other celestial bodies from multiple reference points.
We can observe the motions of the earth and planets from the reference point of the sun.
We can observer their motions from the reference point of the Milky Way galaxy and all the other stars in the galaxy
Or we can observe them with respect to the known universe and take into account the speed at which our galaxy is moving relative to others.
Regardless of your frame of reference, in no case is the earth a fixed and unmoving body in space with all the rest of the universe revolving around it.
0 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
Soloist wrote: ↑Tue Dec 05, 2023 2:55 pm
Ken, you may know modern biology teaching, but I think you need to read up on how we actually know the earth rotates around the sun.
ie, parallax.
True. I'm not an astronomer but I do trust the science.
But I would point out that there are also multiple types of observations and pieces of evidence to support the idea that the earth revolves around the sun and not the other way around. Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation gets us there too. According to Newton's law, both objects are actually revolving around each other but the earth is doing most of its moving while the sun is simply wobbling because its mass is 330,000 times larger than the earth.
0 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
We can observe the earth rotating on its axis directly from space. Ever since the first spacecraft this has been directly observable.
We can also directly observe all the other planets orbiting the sun along their ecliptic planes. And also observe the earth's rotation in relation to all these other objects.
Finally we can observe gravitational forces and understand exactly the forces involved that keep the earth in its orbit of the sun. As well as understand that due to the differences in masses it is actually the earth orbiting the sun and not the other way around. Johannes Kepler figured this all out in 1609. In point of fact, both the earth and sun are orbiting each other, but because the sun's mass is 330,000 larger than the earth, it is the earth that does most of the moving, not the sun. The sun basically just wobbles. You can see the same exact thing if you attach a ping pong ball to a bowling ball and toss them spinning into the air. The ping pong ball will spin around the bowling ball and not the other way around.
How do we know what is moving more though? What fixed point of reference are we comparing this all to?
Pick whatever fixed point of reference you want. We are sophisticated to observe the motion of the earth and other celestial bodies from multiple reference points.
We can observe the motions of the earth and planets from the reference point of the sun.
We can observer their motions from the reference point of the Milky Way galaxy and all the other stars in the galaxy
Or we can observe them with respect to the known universe and take into account the speed at which our galaxy is moving relative to others.
Regardless of your frame of reference, in no case is the earth a fixed and unmoving body in space with all the rest of the universe revolving around it.
I'm picking myself as the reference point and observing how all of the visible universe moves around me!
The problem in determining what the real facts are is that those who report their findings are all working from some presuppositions that are based in the world view that is held to by their cultural group. For instance, when I asked a Christian Banawa man if he accepts the explanation given in their story about the origin of the jaguar, he deduced that it was true, based on what was observable. The story tells how a man who was acting more and more animal-like turned into a jaguar (through a complicated string of events). The jaguar-man told his killers that he would now eat them. When I asked the Banawa Christian if he thought the story was accurate, he said "Well, jaguars DO eat people." So the facts, that jaguars are people-eaters, "proved" the logical progression of the story about how that came to be.
Now none of us would accept that explanation, for one thing, we would have already rejected the story early on, because we do not accept as fact that animals came from humans. Nor do we accept as fact that a dead person, simply by having been thrown into a body of water, would came back to life in a different form. But they have multiple stories that "prove" this to be so. Stories that tell of events for which there is no other logical explanation. (These are also not all "ancient myths" from the very distant past. Some of the stories that "prove" this are recent enough that the person who died and came back to life as a different type of being has a name, and a place in the tribal genealogy. These more recent stories are not "origin of species" stories like the older myths are, but similar in that they involve the regenerative effects of water on a corpse.)
Obviously this is all foreign to us as Westerners, and I am not suggesting that these myths reflect truth. But the explanations given by both Christians and secular evolutionists are equally foreign to their respective world views. I know, scientists attempt to bypass the assumptions of their world views, but this is extremely difficult, and most do not really succeed in carrying it out. To do so would require that they seriously question the assumptions of those on whose knowledge and work they are basing their own conclusions. The idea that 'the earth is millions of years old" (the universe, actually), and that the slow evolution of very small organisms into all of the living things we see around us is also indisputable fact. These ideas have been accepted within a certain world view, and they are no longer questioned or doubted. But for the skeptic, these are incredible conclusions. Why? Because each group has a different world view that informs and confirms the conclusions which seem perfectly indisputable to them.
[In a different context, I recall a visiting preacher who spoke in a chapel service at the Bible college where I attended who said "Doubt is the first step toward true or true belief." This is especially true of Christian belief, because (as I have said before) "God has no grandchildren". This is also why I do not think it is wise to attempt to shelter our children from other views of reality. The destiny of each of us is dependent on our having struggled our own way through the stages of doubt - hopefully into belief, and not unbelief.]
Last edited by Neto on Tue Dec 05, 2023 3:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
It is interesting to me how certain parts of the Bible are deemed to be taken without question as literal while at the same time other parts are not. I'm thinking of the mode of water baptism as an example or what Peter said when they asked what they need to do to be saved. I guess we all do that with drawing our lines in the sand on what can be taken literal and what not.
Sudsy wrote: ↑Tue Dec 05, 2023 3:28 pm
It is interesting to me how certain parts of the Bible are deemed to be taken without question as literal while at the same time other parts are not. I'm thinking of the mode of water baptism as an example or what Peter said when they asked what they need to do to be saved. I guess we all do that with drawing our lines in the sand on what can be taken literal and what not.
The Bible is not one single text written by one single author with one single purpose at one point in time.
It is a compilation of a large number of different texts written by different authors at vastly different points in time for different purposes. Some of it is law which was meant to be taken literally. Some of it is poetry and written using poetic metaphor. Some of it is contemporary history written by authors who experienced those actual events and intend to be factual, or else portray events form a certain perspective. Some of it is sermons, often using parables or examples, that are intended to impart life lessons. And some of it is probably oral legends that were written down long centuries or millennia after the events described actually occurred.
I'm not sure where we got the notion that every word of the Bible from beginning to end is intended to be read literally. But it isn't Biblical and it also isn't historical. For most of the history of Christianity, most Christians actually didn't even have access to the written Bible. So one can be a Christian without ever reading a Bible.
0 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr