PDA

View Full Version : Religion and Science of Cosmology (s.f. Science Stories)



Capablanca-Fan
09-05-2013, 10:29 AM
The flat earth myth (http://creation.com/flat-earth-myth)

For the last 200 years or so, many anti-Christians have resorted to a scurrilous lie (acting consistently with their worldview (http://creation.com/evolutionist-its-ok-to-deceive-students-to-believe-evolution)): that the early and medieval Christian Church taught that the earth is flat.

What did the early church really teach?

Historian Jeffrey Burton Russell (1934–) thoroughly demolished the flat earth myth over 20 years ago in his definitive study Inventing the Flat Earth.5

The famous evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould (1941–2002) favourably reviewed this masterpiece:


“There never was a period of ‘flat earth darkness’ among scholars (regardless of how the public at large may have conceptualized our planet both then and now). Greek knowledge of sphericity never faded, and all major medieval scholars accepted the earth’s roundness as an established fact of cosmology.”6

Russell showed that flat-earth belief was extremely rare in the Church. The flat earth’s two main proponents were obscure figures named Lactantius and Cosmas Indicopleustes (meaning “voyager to India”). However, they were hugely outweighed by tens of thousands of Christian theologians, poets, artists, scientists, and rulers who unambiguously affirmed that the earth was round. Russell documents accounts supporting earth’s sphericity from numerous medieval church scholars such as friar Roger Bacon (1220–1292), inventor of spectacles; leading medieval scientists such as John Buridan (1301–1358) and Nicholas Oresme (1320–1382); the monk John of Sacrobosco (c. 1195–c. 1256) who wrote Treatise on the Sphere, and many more.

One of the best-known proponents of a globe-shaped earth was the early English monk, theologian and historian, the Venerable Bede (673–735), who popularized the common BC/ AD dating system. Less well known was that he was also a leading astronomer of his day.7

In his book On the Reckoning of Time (De temporum ratione), among other things he calculated the creation of the world to be in 3952 BC, showed how to calculate the date of Easter, and explicitly taught that the earth was round. From this, he showed why the length of days and nights changed with the seasons, and how tides were dragged by the moon. Bede was the first with this insight, while Galileo explained the tides wrongly centuries later.8

Here is what Bede said about the shape of the earth—round “like a ball” not “like a shield”:


“We call the earth a globe, not as if the shape of a sphere were expressed in the diversity of plains and mountains, but because, if all things are included in the outline, the earth’s circumference will represent the figure of a perfect globe. … For truly it is an orb placed in the centre of the universe; in its width it is like a circle, and not circular like a shield but rather like a ball, and it extends from its centre with perfect roundness on all sides.”

And the leading church theologian of the middle ages, Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274), wrote in his greatest work Summa Theologica/Theologiae:


“The physicist proves the earth to be round by one means, the astronomer by another: for the latter proves this by means of mathematics, e.g. by the shapes of eclipses, or something of the sort; while the former proves it by means of physics, e.g. by the movement of heavy bodies towards the centre, and so forth.”

Rincewind
09-05-2013, 02:44 PM
Here is what Bede said about the shape of the earth—round “like a ball” not “like a shield”:


“We call the earth a globe, not as if the shape of a sphere were expressed in the diversity of plains and mountains, but because, if all things are included in the outline, the earth’s circumference will represent the figure of a perfect globe. … For truly it is an orb placed in the centre of the universe; in its width it is like a circle, and not circular like a shield but rather like a ball, and it extends from its centre with perfect roundness on all sides.”

Of course Bede was wrong and we now know the earth is nothing like a perfect globe but more like an oblate spheroid than a sphere with the poles approximately 21 km closer than opposite points on the equator. He was also mistaken placing the earth at the "centre" of anything.

Ian Murray
09-05-2013, 04:51 PM
Of course Bede was wrong and we now know the earth is nothing like a perfect globe but more like an oblate spheroid than a sphere with the poles approximately 21 km closer than opposite points on the equator. He was also mistaken placing the earth at the "centre" of anything.
How long did it take theologians to concede that the earth was not created by God as the centre of the universe, but is in fact an insignificant planet orbiting an insignificant star in a universe of uncountable billions of stars.

Rincewind
09-05-2013, 05:27 PM
How long did it take theologians to concede that the earth was not created by God as the centre of the universe, but is in fact an insignificant planet orbiting an insignificant star in a universe of uncountable billions of stars.

Well the shit started to hit the fan in the 16th century after the works of Copernicus became well-known. Both Calvin and Luther railed strongly against the heliocentristic model proposed by Copernicus, despite the fact that it was a far more elegant way to perform astronomical calculations than the previous model of geocentrism with epicycles. Apparently there were some Biblical verses which it apparently contradicted and therefore it could not be right (where have we heard that one before?) Funnily enough Tycho Brahe proposed a compromised geo-heliocentric system which was still not at elegant as Copernicus. Of course heliocentrism only shifts the centre of the universe from the earth to the sun. So addresses to some extent the insignificant planet, but not the insignificant star or galaxy issues. Anyway it continued to be an issue in the 17th century but by the time the 18th century rolled around theologians were mostly over it. So I guess it takes on average 200 years to convince a theologian that a scientific fact isn't nonsense, even if it does seem to contradict the incoherent scrawls of a bronze age tribe of shepherds.

Garrett
09-05-2013, 05:31 PM
If we are not at the center of the Universe then in which direction is the edge of the Universe closer ?

Rincewind
09-05-2013, 05:33 PM
If we are not at the center of the Universe then in which direction is the edge of the Universe closer ?

That is an interesting question. An even better one to ponder is if you were on a planet circling a star in the galaxy of Andromeda (say) how would you answer your question?

William AS
09-05-2013, 08:52 PM
I have no desire to be at the centre of the Universe, as like the centre of our Galaxy it is probably an enormous Black Hole, only bigger. :eek:
Can a Black Hole be enormous? :hmm:

Adamski
09-05-2013, 09:02 PM
Why shouldn't the earth be st the centre of the universe? Recent author John Hartnett believes it is. So did Russell Humphries. Of course as a cteationist I believe God did create ths significant planet st the centre of the universe.

Oepty
09-05-2013, 09:16 PM
Why shouldn't the earth be st the centre of the universe? Recent author John Hartnett believes it is. So did Russell Humphries. Of course as a cteationist I believe God did create ths significant planet st the centre of the universe.

The earth goes round the sun.

Where in the Bible does it say the earth is the centre of the universe?

Adamski
09-05-2013, 09:21 PM
The earth goes round the sun.

Where in the Bible does it say the earth is the centre of the universe?
There are verses which indicste it. I will check and get back to you No concordance handy at the mo.

Oepty
09-05-2013, 09:27 PM
There are verses which indicste it. I will check and get back to you No concordance handy at the mo.

Okay, whenever you are ready.

Ian Murray
09-05-2013, 09:36 PM
That is an interesting question. An even better one to ponder is if you were on a planet circling a star in the galaxy of Andromeda (say) how would you answer your question?
It's easy to see we are far from the centre of our galaxy, simply by looking at the Milky Way

Rincewind
09-05-2013, 09:50 PM
Can a Black Hole be enormous? :hmm:

The term is supermassive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermassive_black_hole).

BTW the galactic central black holes are thought to be almost entirely supermassive. Almost certainly, the one at the centre of the Milky Way is supermassive.

Rincewind
09-05-2013, 09:57 PM
Why shouldn't the earth be st the centre of the universe? Recent author John Hartnett believes it is. So did Russell Humphries.

Why should the universe have a centre? John Harnett and Russell Humphries believe so on religious grounds. Certainly if there was no theological reason to think so there would be no reason to come up with such tortuous conjectures to try and justify those beliefs.


Of course as a cteationist I believe God did create ths significant planet st the centre of the universe.

That's cool. Of course as Rincewind I know the earth is disc supported by four elephants which are in turn supported by the great celestial turtle A'Tuin. It looks something like this...

http://atlanticjaxx.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/paul-kidby-disque-monde-the-great-a-tuin-2.jpg?w=600

Rincewind
09-05-2013, 10:00 PM
The earth goes round the sun.

Where in the Bible does it say the earth is the centre of the universe?

From Wikipedia...


In the King James Bible First Chronicles 16:30 state that "the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved." Psalm 104:5 says, "[the Lord] Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever." Ecclesiastes 1:5 states that "The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose."

None of the use the words "centre of the universe" but the idea is the Earth doesn't move and hence if everything else does move (around the immoveable Earth) then ipso facto the Earth is the centre.

Rincewind
09-05-2013, 10:03 PM
It's easy to see we are far from the centre of our galaxy, simply by looking at the Milky Way

True but Garrett's question was asking which way to the closest edge of the universe. It was a good question, but unfortunately the question presupposes certain things about the shape of the universe and the curvature of space.

Jay
09-05-2013, 10:04 PM
On the basis of the general lack of scientific (whatever) this thread should be renamed - "pseudo-scientific discussions"

Adamski
09-05-2013, 11:36 PM
From Wikipedia...


In the King James Bible First Chronicles 16:30 state that "the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved." Psalm 104:5 says, "[the Lord] Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever." Ecclesiastes 1:5 states that "The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose."

None of the use the words "centre of the universe" but the idea is the Earth doesn't move and hence if everything else does move (around the immoveable Earth) then ipso facto the Earth is the centre.Yes. These are the verses I was thinking of. Ta RW.

Rincewind
09-05-2013, 11:47 PM
Yes. These are the verses I was thinking of. Ta RW.

It goes to show how much bronze age shepherds knew about celestial mechanics? (Not surprisingly, very little as it turned out.)

Agent Smith
10-05-2013, 07:49 AM
On the basis of the general lack of scientific (whatever) this thread should be renamed - "pseudo-scientific discussions"
Yes - the clueless superstitious rants should be banned from this forum at least.

I saw "The Color of Magic" recently... haha.

http://atlanticjaxx.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/paul-kidby-disque-monde-the-great-a-tuin-2.jpg?w=600

Adamski
10-05-2013, 08:07 AM
I have no issue with a mod changing the name of the thread as suggested if so desire.

Oepty
10-05-2013, 08:36 AM
It goes to show how much bronze age shepherds knew about celestial mechanics? (Not surprisingly, very little as it turned out.)


None of this says anything about the centre of the universe and I am not sure how it could be implied. Even if they meant that the earth does not move, which I dispute they mean when having a closer look at what the Hebrews words translated actually mean, they do not say anything about the distance in various directions to the edge of the universe being the same.

Rincewind
10-05-2013, 09:45 AM
None of this says anything about the centre of the universe and I am not sure how it could be implied. Even if they meant that the earth does not move, which I dispute they mean when having a closer look at what the Hebrews words translated actually mean, they do not say anything about the distance in various directions to the edge of the universe being the same.

I think seeing the implication is obvious and certainly the like of Calvin and Luther (and many theologians of the 16th and 17th century) had no trouble connecting the dots. Now that it is a demonstrable fact nearly everyone agrees it isn't there and some people claim that they can't even see how it is implied. ;)

Regarding the distance to the edge of the universe. That is a complicated question that deserves its own thread. However if you take the OT cosmology and the earth is static then you do need a universe which is rotationally symmetric and therefore one in which the earth may not be at the centre, but it is certainly on the central axis. Since everything is rotating about it.

Capablanca-Fan
10-05-2013, 10:11 AM
Why should the universe have a centre? John Harnett and Russell Humphries believe so on religious grounds. Certainly if there was no theological reason to think so there would be no reason to come up with such tortuous conjectures to try and justify those beliefs.
No, these guys think that the galaxy is close to the centre. They point out that the big bang theory assumes no centre; it doesn't prove it. E.g. Dr Hartnett writes in Cosmologists Can’t Agree and Are Still In Doubt! (http://creation.com/cosmologists-can-t-agree-and-are-still-in-doubt):


The very meaning of redshifts themselves is argued over by cosmologists. Only in F–L expanding universe models is the interpretation that redshifts result from the stretching of space as the photons of light are in flight through the cosmos. The unproven and unprovable Cosmological Principle is then invoked to say that what we see is not special and any observer anywhere in the universe would see the same. The implication of empirical evidence is that the redshifts measured in the starlight of galaxies in all directions in the sky imply that the Earth is near the centre of the universe. The simplest assumption would tell us that they are Doppler shifts, but because this was philosophically unacceptable, an alternative was developed, that the centre is everywhere and that the red-shifts are cosmological in an infinite universe that is essentially homogeneous. Hubble’s 1937 book The Observational Approach to Cosmology reveals the bias:


‘Such a condition [these Doppler shifts] would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, … But the unwelcome supposition of a favored location must be avoided at all costs … is intolerable … moreover, it represents a discrepancy with the theory because the theory postulates homogeneity.’

Hubble himself was driven by his own bias to avoid a conclusion he could not accept. The notion of positively curved space also gets the cosmologist out of the ‘hot’ water of the Earth being in a special place in the universe. In that case the universe can be finite but have no centre. The problem with that model is according to its adherents the supernova data indicate flat space. Also the CMB data is interpreted by de Bernardis15 to be consistent with flat space but by Gurzadyan16 with negative curvature. Why not accept the obvious?


That's cool. Of course as Rincewind I know the earth is disc supported by four elephants which are in turn supported by the great celestial turtle A'Tuin. It looks something like this...
That would be typical of the level of intellect you show in debates, I must say.

Capablanca-Fan
10-05-2013, 10:13 AM
From Wikipedia...
Typical of RW's low level of scholarship.


In the King James Bible First Chronicles 16:30 state that "the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved."
From my article Galileo Quadricentennial Myth vs fact (http://creation.com/galileo-quadricentennial):

Unfortunately, the church was led astray by the scientific establishment, so tried to read the then current model into Scripture, although, as shown below, the Bible doesn’t teach it. So they actually made the same mistake as the churches that now try to read the modern “scientific” fads of evolution and long ages into the Bible.

This included hijacking the Psalms and reading the establishment model into them. But the Psalms are clearly poetic (not historical like Genesis), so were never intended to be used as a basis for a cosmological model.

Take Psalm 93:1–2: “The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved.” The next verse says that “[God’s] throne is established of old.” Here the same Hebrew word (כּוּן kôn) is translated “established” [i.e., stable, secure, enduring, not necessarily stationary, immobile]. Also, the same Hebrew word for ‘moved’ (מוֹט môt) is used in Psalm 16:8, ‘I shall not be moved.’ Surely, even skeptics wouldn’t accuse the Bible of teaching that the Psalmist was rooted to one spot! He meant that he would not stray from the path that God had set for him. So the earth ‘cannot be moved’ can also mean that it will not stray from the precise orbital and rotational pattern God has set for it.

Furthermore, there is no error in physics either. All motion must be described with respect to a reference frame. And you can choose any one you like. The Bible was simply using the earth as a reference frame, just as we do today. Even a modern astronomer will say, “Look at that beautiful sunrise (or sunset)” rather than, “Look at the way the earth has rotated to place its curvature directly in the light path of the sun.” And we always talk about a “stopped” car, meaning stopped relative to the ground. Only a pedant would point out that it’s travelling at about 1670 km/h due to the earth’s rotation on its axis,8 and orbiting 108,000 km/hr around the sun, as well as 900,000 km/h around the galaxy. Speed limits are likewise set relative to the ground.

Capablanca-Fan
10-05-2013, 10:16 AM
The term is supermassive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermassive_black_hole).

BTW the galactic central black holes are thought to be almost entirely supermassive. Almost certainly, the one at the centre of the Milky Way is supermassive.
Agreed. See Black holes and Lilith: reality and myth (respectively) (http://creation.com/black-holes-lilith). And in Creation magazine (http://creation.com/creation-magazine-352-contents), I interviewed Dr Markus Blietz whose doctorate was in Seifert galaxies, which are powered by supermassive black holes.

Capablanca-Fan
10-05-2013, 10:24 AM
Of course Bede was wrong and we now know the earth is nothing like a perfect globe but more like an oblate spheroid than a sphere with the poles approximately 21 km closer than opposite points on the equator.
Oh please. To a very good approximation, the earth is a sphere. The equatorial radius is 6,378.1 km and the polar radius 6,356.8 km. Scale this down to ball size, and if a round object were 63.781 mm in one radius and 63.568 mm in a perpendicular radius, you could safely call this a "ball" or "globe" or "sphere", you silly pedant. It would take a sharp eye indeed to notice that a ~6½-cm ball bulged a bit in the middle, by a fifth of a millimetre.


He was also mistaken placing the earth at the "centre" of anything.
The point of quoting Bede, of course, was to show that the early church believed in a round earth, not a flat earth as mendacious atheopaths have claimed.

Rincewind
10-05-2013, 10:49 AM
No, these guys think that the galaxy is close to the centre. They point out that the big bang theory assumes no centre; it doesn't prove it. E.g. Dr Hartnett writes in Cosmologists Can’t Agree and Are Still In Doubt! (http://creation.com/cosmologists-can-t-agree-and-are-still-in-doubt):


The very meaning of redshifts themselves is argued over by cosmologists. Only in F–L expanding universe models is the interpretation that redshifts result from the stretching of space as the photons of light are in flight through the cosmos. The unproven and unprovable Cosmological Principle is then invoked to say that what we see is not special and any observer anywhere in the universe would see the same. The implication of empirical evidence is that the redshifts measured in the starlight of galaxies in all directions in the sky imply that the Earth is near the centre of the universe. The simplest assumption would tell us that they are Doppler shifts, but because this was philosophically unacceptable, an alternative was developed, that the centre is everywhere and that the red-shifts are cosmological in an infinite universe that is essentially homogeneous. Hubble’s 1937 book The Observational Approach to Cosmology reveals the bias:


‘Such a condition [these Doppler shifts] would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, … But the unwelcome supposition of a favored location must be avoided at all costs … is intolerable … moreover, it represents a discrepancy with the theory because the theory postulates homogeneity.’

Hubble himself was driven by his own bias to avoid a conclusion he could not accept. The notion of positively curved space also gets the cosmologist out of the ‘hot’ water of the Earth being in a special place in the universe. In that case the universe can be finite but have no centre. The problem with that model is according to its adherents the supernova data indicate flat space. Also the CMB data is interpreted by de Bernardis15 to be consistent with flat space but by Gurzadyan16 with negative curvature. Why not accept the obvious?

Whether it is the galaxy or the earth doesn't really make much difference. The point is neither is a cosmologist by training and are just pottering to come up with a conjecture that propose up a bronze age mythology.


That would be typical of the level of intellect you show in debates, I must say.

And your perception is as typically poor as always since I was replying to satirise Adamski's post. I mean I even aped the sentence structure to make it obvious for the guys like you who are still reading at a 3rd grade level.

Rincewind
10-05-2013, 10:50 AM
Typical of RW's low level of scholarship.

Were the quotes wrong?

Rincewind
10-05-2013, 11:40 AM
Oh please. To a very good approximation, the earth is a sphere.

You're third grade reading level has let you down again. Bede said...


if all things are included in the outline, the earth’s circumference will represent the figure of a perfect globe

You do know what "perfect" means, don't you Jono?

Oepty
10-05-2013, 11:50 AM
I think seeing the implication is obvious and certainly the like of Calvin and Luther (and many theologians of the 16th and 17th century) had no trouble connecting the dots. Now that it is a demonstrable fact nearly everyone agrees it isn't there and some people claim that they can't even see how it is implied. ;)

Regarding the distance to the edge of the universe. That is a complicated question that deserves its own thread. However if you take the OT cosmology and the earth is static then you do need a universe which is rotationally symmetric and therefore one in which the earth may not be at the centre, but it is certainly on the central axis. Since everything is rotating about it.

The Bible does not say the earth is static. It says nothing will move it from where God placed it. As we know that is in the solar system orbiting around the sun.
As for Calvin or Luther, they could have believed the earth was made out of ice cream for all I care about their opinions. I do not see why I should be held to their opinions or the opinions of anybody but myself.

Rincewind
10-05-2013, 11:56 AM
Is Hartnett a YEC? If so I am confused by the abstract to his paper [1] from 2006 which says,


"We conclude that the expansion is now accelerating and that the transition from a closed to an open universe occurred about 8.54 Gyr ago."

1. Hartnett and Oliveira, Foundations of Physics Letters, 19 (2006) 519-535.

Capablanca-Fan
10-05-2013, 12:33 PM
You do know what "perfect" means, don't you Jono?
What did it mean to Bede though? Who says he is talking about a mathematical abstraction, as opposed to an object that if scaled down, almost everyone would call it a sphere? In most usages, there are degrees of perfection or accuracy. The earth is a perfect sphere down to about 0.3%, which is perfect enough for most people, including Bede's readers. See also Henderson, T., World-famous astronomers celebrate the Venerable Bede (http://www.journallive.co.uk/north-east-news/todays-news/2009/02/13/world-famous-astronomers-celebrate-the-venerable-bede-61634-22918335/), The Journal, 13 February 2009, which properly appreciates Bede's astronomic skills.

Oepty
10-05-2013, 12:38 PM
I have heard it claimed that if the earth was shrunk to the size of a billiard ball it would be smoother than a billiard ball. I have no idea whether it is true or not, but I have heard it claimed.

Agent Smith
10-05-2013, 12:38 PM
The Bible does not say the earth is static. It says nothing will move it from where God placed it
Thats an idea i'd never heard before. :hmm:
Of course it's totally erroneous in basis though - like all religions ultimately (sorry). Religion's place as a cultural glue and rules-to-live-by has been replaced (in our priviledged society at least) by education and science. Anyway i don't like to rant.

I vote Oepty to be our new benchmark for entertaining religious frivolity and debate.

Agent Smith
10-05-2013, 12:40 PM
I have heard it claimed that if the earth was shrunk to the size of a billiard ball it would be smoother than a billiard ball. I have no idea whether it is true or not, but I have heard it claimed.
Yes, i was under that impression too. If so, that's good enough to a perfect sphere imho.

Rincewind
10-05-2013, 12:42 PM
The Bible does not say the earth is static. It says nothing will move it from where God placed it. As we know that is in the solar system orbiting around the sun.
As for Calvin or Luther, they could have believed the earth was made out of ice cream for all I care about their opinions. I do not see why I should be held to their opinions or the opinions of anybody but myself.

I'm not holding you to account for the opinions of others. I was just showing that in the 16th and 17th century a number of noted theologians thought heliocentricity was contrary to biblical teaching. Nowadays almost everyone accepts that the earth rotates (more or less) around the sun as shown by Copernicus and explained by Newtonian gravitation. It is a good demonstration of the attempted suppression of new scientific knowledge because it was contrary to religious thought of the time.

Evolution has been out there for around 150 years so it has done quite well since now it is accommodated by mainstream religious thought and it is only the lunatic fringe which still questions common descent of all life on earth via natural selection.

Rincewind
10-05-2013, 12:48 PM
What did it mean to Bede though? Who says he is talking about a mathematical abstraction, as opposed to an object that if scaled down, almost everyone would call it a sphere?

A sphere is a mathematical object and perfect sphere means precisely that. By my reading Bede is trying to make a point linking the perfection to the divine origin of the earth and the special place it has at the centre of the universe by a perfect deity.

Unfortunately Bede's deity was a bit sloppy and appears to have slapped a spheroid in orbit around a sun in the outer reaches of an nondescript galaxy which is just one of billions in the observable universe.

Rincewind
10-05-2013, 01:01 PM
Yes, i was under that impression too. If so, that's good enough to a perfect sphere imho.

Depends on the purpose and standards upon which one applies. If you are arguing that near enough is good enough the usual tactic is to shrink it down and then say it is a smooth as some small spherical object. But that is just a parlor trick. Also the smoothness is not the issue here. Smoothness is about the scale of local feature like mountains and valleys compared to the scale of the object in question. We are talking about the eccentricity which is a measurement of the overall roundness of an object. Would an earth shaped billiard ball roll true? Perhaps well enough for a game of eight-ball at the local pub.

Rincewind
10-05-2013, 02:34 PM
Here is an interesting blog entry on the whole earth is as round or smooth as a billiard ball issue...

Is the Earth Like a Billiard Ball Or Not? (http://possiblywrong.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/is-the-earth-like-a-billiard-ball-or-not/)

If you don't want to read the whole thing the summary is...


1. Is the Earth as smooth as a billiard ball? Answer: I’m not sure. The question may be rephrased by comparing again with the Mariana Trench: can one detect a 49-micron groove in a billiard ball, and if so, would it be acceptable to play with? [Edit: As mentioned in the edit above, I think the answer is now a definite No.]
2. Is the Earth as round as a billiard ball? Answer: technically, yes… but you probably wouldn’t want to play with it.

Adamski
10-05-2013, 06:57 PM
... the Psalms are clearly poetic (not historical like Genesis...) Take Psalm 93:1–2: “The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved.” The next verse says that “[God’s] throne is established of old.” Here the same Hebrew word (כּוּן kôn) is translated “established” [i.e., stable, secure, enduring, not necessarily stationary, immobile]. Also, the same Hebrew word for ‘moved’ (מוֹט môt) is used in Psalm 16:8, ‘I shall not be moved.’ Surely, even skeptics wouldn’t accuse the Bible of teaching that the Psalmist was rooted to one spot! He meant that he would not stray from the path that God had set for him. So the earth ‘cannot be moved’ can also mean that it will not stray from the precise orbital and rotational pattern God has ..e always talk about a “stopped” car, meaning stopped relative to the ground. Only a pedant would point out that it’s travelling at about 1670 km/h due to the earth’s rotation on its axis,8 and orbiting 108,000 km/hr around the sun, as well as 900,000 km/h around the galaxy. Speed limits are likewise set relative to the ground.
Great analysis Jono and corrects some of my woolly thinking. Thanks.

Rincewind
10-05-2013, 09:38 PM
Surely, even skeptics wouldn’t accuse the Bible of teaching that the Psalmist was rooted to one spot!

But it was not sceptics who used these arguments to suppress heliocentric model, it was the theologians.

Oepty
10-05-2013, 10:11 PM
I'm not holding you to account for the opinions of others. I was just showing that in the 16th and 17th century a number of noted theologians thought heliocentricity was contrary to biblical teaching. Nowadays almost everyone accepts that the earth rotates (more or less) around the sun as shown by Copernicus and explained by Newtonian gravitation. It is a good demonstration of the attempted suppression of new scientific knowledge because it was contrary to religious thought of the time.

Evolution has been out there for around 150 years so it has done quite well since now it is accommodated by mainstream religious thought and it is only the lunatic fringe which still questions common descent of all life on earth via natural selection.

What happened in the 16th or 17th century has absolutely nothing to do with me, I was born in 1978. To keep bringing up these things rather annoys me. I believe what I believe not what someone else believes. If you want to know what I believe ask me, if you want to know what the Bible says read the Bible. Just leave Luther, Calvin or anybody else's opinion out of it.

Capablanca-Fan
10-05-2013, 10:26 PM
I'm not holding you to account for the opinions of others. I was just showing that in the 16th and 17th century a number of noted theologians thought heliocentricity was contrary to biblical teaching.
Mainly because the scientific establishment of the time was under the thumb of Aristotle and Ptolemy. So theologians reinterpreted the Bible to fit, just like too many do now to fit evolution and millions of years. Giorgio de Santillana (1902–1974), philosopher of science and historian of science at MIT, pointed out:

“It has been known for a long time that a major part of the church’s intellectuals were on the side of Galileo, while the clearest opposition to him came from secular ideas.” [The Crime of Galileo, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1955, p. xii.]


Nowadays almost everyone accepts that the earth rotates (more or less) around the sun as shown by Copernicus and explained by Newtonian gravitation.
It doesn't rotates around the sun, it revolves around the sun and rotates about its axis.

About Luther, his only recorded comment on the issues is a single off-hand remark (hardly a concerted campaign), during a ‘table talk’ in 1539 (four years before the publication of Copernicus’ book). The Table Talk was based on notes taken by Luther’s students, which were later compiled and published in 1566―twenty years after Luther’s death. Luther actually was reported to have said:

“Whoever wants to be clever must agree with nothing that others esteem. He must do something of his own. This is what that fellow does who wishes to turn the whole of astronomy upside down. Even in these things that are thrown into disorder I believe the Holy Scriptures, for Joshua commanded the sun to stand still and not the earth [Jos. 10:12].”
The parts I have italicized show that a major reason for Luther’s objection was Copernicus’ challenging the establishment and common sense for its own sake (as Luther saw it). At the time, there was no hard evidence for geokineticism. And Kepler, a devout Lutheran, saw no conflict between the Bible and Lutheran theology. He showed how Joshua 10:12 could be explained as phenomenological language, using Luther’s own principles of Biblical interpretation!

Capablanca-Fan
10-05-2013, 10:31 PM
A sphere is a mathematical object and perfect sphere means precisely that.
To you, but not to Bede and most of his readers. He obviously knew that the shape wasn't mathematically perfect, because he could see hills and valleys, and that land was higher than the sea.

The billiard ball article was interesting. All the same, a ball with the proportions of the earth would be totally suitable for most ball games, e.g. basketball, soccer, tennis, cricket …


By my reading Bede is trying to make a point linking the perfection to the divine origin of the earth and the special place it has at the centre of the universe by a perfect deity.
Where did you get that from the text? Actually, your claim shows complete ignorance of the historical context. The old geocentric view, i.e. with Earth at the centre, was not at all edifying. For much of church history, the centre was regarded as the lowest place to be. At the lowest was Hades at Earth’s centre, and the abode of man on Earth’s surface was the next worst, quite corrupted compared to heavenly perfections. The further away from the centre, the closer to heaven you were thought to be.

The moon, as fairly close to Earth, was regarded as a transitional place. The sun was in a higher plane, planets were pretty good, in their spheres made of the imperishable fifth element (quintessence), but not as exalted as the distant fixed stars, while the firmament was depicted as beyond even the stars, and God’s realm was further beyond that.

So moving the earth away from the centre was, in the context of the middle ages, actually exalting it. Rather, what really upset the establishment was Galileo’s discovery of blemishes on the sun (sunspots), precisely because it undermined the idea of perfect heavenly bodies.


Unfortunately Bede's deity was a bit sloppy and appears to have slapped a spheroid in orbit around a sun in the outer reaches of an nondescript galaxy which is just one of billions in the observable universe.
Actually, the sun is at an ideal distance from the galactic centre, called the co-rotation radius. Only here does a star’s orbital speed match that of the spiral arms—otherwise the sun would cross the arms too often and be exposed to supernovae.

Patrick Byrom
11-05-2013, 12:02 AM
Mainly because the scientific establishment of the time was under the thumb of Aristotle and Ptolemy. So theologians reinterpreted the Bible to fit, just like too many do now to fit evolution and millions of years. Giorgio de Santillana (1902–1974), philosopher of science and historian of science at MIT, pointed out:

“It has been known for a long time that a major part of the church’s intellectuals were on the side of Galileo, while the clearest opposition to him came from secular ideas.” [The Crime of Galileo, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1955, p. xii.]
That may have been the case initially, but the works of Galileo and Copernicus were prohibited by the Catholic Church (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/evolution/galhrsy.htm) until 1820. Obviously the scientific establishment had abandoned geocentric views by that time, so the prohibition must have been for theological reasons - in fact, it appears that Catholic scientists were largely responsible for having the works removed from the Index.

Rincewind
11-05-2013, 12:04 AM
What happened in the 16th or 17th century has absolutely nothing to do with me, I was born in 1978. To keep bringing up these things rather annoys me. I believe what I believe not what someone else believes. If you want to know what I believe ask me, if you want to know what the Bible says read the Bible. Just leave Luther, Calvin or anybody else's opinion out of it.

You have a hard time being objective in particular factoring out the cultural norms of your time. The fact that in the 16th and 17th century, heliocentricity was considered heretical is interesting as a cultural observation regarding the effect of the sum total of scientific knowledge on the interpretation of scripture.

Rincewind
11-05-2013, 12:14 AM
Mainly because the scientific establishment of the time was under the thumb of Aristotle and Ptolemy. So theologians reinterpreted the Bible to fit, just like too many do now to fit evolution and millions of years. Giorgio de Santillana (1902–1974), philosopher of science and historian of science at MIT, pointed out:

“It has been known for a long time that a major part of the church’s intellectuals were on the side of Galileo, while the clearest opposition to him came from secular ideas.” [The Crime of Galileo, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1955, p. xii.]

By the time of Galileo that may have been true but that was a good 60+ years after the death of Copernicus and the usefulness of heliocentric model had time to have some traction by then.


About Luther, his only recorded comment on the issues is a single off-hand remark (hardly a concerted campaign), during a ‘table talk’ in 1539 (four years before the publication of Copernicus’ book). The Table Talk was based on notes taken by Luther’s students, which were later compiled and published in 1566―twenty years after Luther’s death. Luther actually was reported to have said:

“Whoever wants to be clever must agree with nothing that others esteem. He must do something of his own. This is what that fellow does who wishes to turn the whole of astronomy upside down. Even in these things that are thrown into disorder I believe the Holy Scriptures, for Joshua commanded the sun to stand still and not the earth [Jos. 10:12].”
The parts I have italicized show that a major reason for Luther’s objection was Copernicus’ challenging the establishment and common sense for its own sake (as Luther saw it). At the time, there was no hard evidence for geokineticism. And Kepler, a devout Lutheran, saw no conflict between the Bible and Lutheran theology. He showed how Joshua 10:12 could be explained as phenomenological language, using Luther’s own principles of Biblical interpretation!

I disagree with your analysis. Luther specifically stated that Copernicus was wrong because Joshua commanded the sun to stand still. This is a clear case of scripture interpretation used to support the geocentric OT cosmology.

Oepty
11-05-2013, 12:29 AM
You have a hard time being objective in particular factoring out the cultural norms of your time. The fact that in the 16th and 17th century, heliocentricity was considered heretical is interesting as a cultural observation regarding the effect of the sum total of scientific knowledge on the interpretation of scripture.

Interesting it might be, but it is totally irrelevant to me.
To be frank if me saying I am Christian means you think I am anything like Luther or Calvin or whatever theologians you might think views are worth looking at then I AM NOT A CHRISTIAN.
All it means in a follower of Christ.

Oepty
11-05-2013, 12:35 AM
And what are the cultural norms of today?

Capablanca-Fan
11-05-2013, 12:55 AM
That may have been the case initially, but the works of Galileo and Copernicus were prohibited by the Catholic Church (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/evolution/galhrsy.htm) until 1820. Obviously the scientific establishment had abandoned geocentric views by that time, so the prohibition must have been for theological reasons - in fact, it appears that Catholic scientists were largely responsible for having the works removed from the Index.
James Hannam, with a Ph.D. in the history of science from Cambridge, writes:

Academic historians are now convinced that this had as much to do with politics and the Pope’s ego as it did with science. [God's Philosophers (2010)]
Science historian John Heilbron provides further evidence in his book The Sun in the Church (1999). In this book, favourably reviewed by the secular science journals New Scientist and Science, he points out:

Galileo’s heresy, according to the standard distinction used by the Holy Office, was “inquisitorial” rather than “theological”. This distinction allowed it to proceed against people for disobeying orders or creating scandals, although neither offence violated an article defined and promulgated by a pope or general council. … Since, however, the church had never declared that the Biblical passages implying a moving sun had to be interpreted in favour of a Ptolemaic universe as an article of faith, optimistic commentators … could understand “formally heretical” to mean “provisionally not accepted”.
Heilbron supports this simply by documenting the general reactions by Galileo’s contemporaries and later astronomers, who:

appreciated that the reference to heresy in connection with Galileo or Copernicus had no general or theological significance.
This is shown by the fact that far from opposing astronomical research, the church supported astronomers and even allowed the cathedrals themselves to be used as solar observatories—hence the subtitle of Heilbron’s book, Cathedrals as Solar Observatories. These observatories, called meridiane, were ‘reverse sundials’, or gigantic pinhole cameras where the sun’s image was projected from a hole in a window in the cathedral’s lantern onto a meridian line. Analyzing the sun’s motion further weakened the Ptolemaic model, yet this research was well supported. And Arthur Koestler documented in his book The Sleepwalkers (1959) that only 50 years after Galileo, astronomers of the Jesuit Order, ‘the intellectual spearhead of the Catholic Church’, taught geokinetic astronomy in China.

Capablanca-Fan
11-05-2013, 01:02 AM
By the time of Galileo that may have been true but that was a good 60+ years after the death of Copernicus and the usefulness of heliocentric model had time to have some traction by then.
Yes, no one doubted that the geokinetic model was more useful mathematically. Cardinal Bellarmine saw that. But this is a long way from proving that the earth moved. One of Galileo's main "proofs" was the tides, which is now known to be fallacious. Bede had the right explanation for the tides: the moon mainly. (Of course reality is not really heliocentric—the deviation from heliocentricity is far more than the deviation from sphericity of the earth that you whinged about.)


I disagree with your analysis. Luther specifically stated that Copernicus was wrong because Joshua commanded the sun to stand still. This is a clear case of scripture interpretation used to support the geocentric OT cosmology.
This was the only recorded statement, and he was annoyed at what he saw as novelty for its own sake. The citation of Joshua's long day was an afterthought. His theological disciple Kepler had no problem with that verse, and neither should anyone today who understands reference frames.

Rincewind
11-05-2013, 01:06 AM
To you, but not to Bede and most of his readers. He obviously knew that the shape wasn't mathematically perfect, because he could see hills and valleys, and that land was higher than the sea.

Are you really this disingenuous Jono? If Bede said perfect globe surely we have to assume he meant what he said. You're argument is nothing than putting the words of a 20th century apologists words in his mouth. He was very specifically using mathematical language to describe the shape. For example...


... because, if all things are included in the outline, the earth’s circumference will represent the figure of a perfect globe...

Note the use of the words circumference, figure and he does not say ball-like, but explicitly a "perfect globe"


...it extends from its centre with perfect roundness on all sides...

Here he repeats the claim that it is not just round but perfectly round. He is clearly describing a sphere and definitely not a spheroid.


The billiard ball article was interesting. All the same, a ball with the proportions of the earth would be totally suitable for most ball games, e.g. basketball, soccer, tennis, cricket …

You mean games that having a spheroidal ball would be fine? :lol:


Where did you get that from the text?

It certainly is in the text since in the following sentence


For truly it is an orb placed in the centre of the universe; in its width it is like a circle, and not circular like a shield but rather like a ball,
and it extends from its centre with perfect roundness on all sides.

He talks about the the origin of the Earth being placed at the centre of the universe referring to the act of creation by Bede's god and as I already mentioned he again emphasises in the same sentence the perfect roundness of the Earth.


Actually, your claim shows complete ignorance of the historical context. The old geocentric view, i.e. with Earth at the centre, was not at all edifying. For much of church history, the centre was regarded as the lowest place to be. At the lowest was Hades at Earth’s centre, and the abode of man on Earth’s surface was the next worst, quite corrupted compared to heavenly perfections. The further away from the centre, the closer to heaven you were thought to be.

Now you are just being silly. The location of individuals in the cosmology has nothing to do with the grand design of the backdrop of the universe. The fact that Hades was thought to be in the Earth's centre is more evidence of how special the Earth was. If the Earth was just another rock circling the sun then that makes the Earth less special because presumably there is not an individual Hades inside of all the other planets.


So moving the earth away from the centre was, in the context of the middle ages, actually exalting it. Rather, what really upset the establishment was Galileo’s discovery of blemishes on the sun (sunspots), precisely because it undermined the idea of perfect heavenly bodies.

Sun spots are irrelevant to the discussion. Yes there were other weird beliefs which caused friction when scientific discoveries are made. The geocentric ones are interesting to me because they show the way that religion is initially resistant to ideas that challenge the inerrant scripture. But after a while the theologians "discover" the scripture can be read in a way that is not heretical.


Actually, the sun is at an ideal distance from the galactic centre, called the co-rotation radius.

That is wrong. The speed of the solar system is close to that of the spiral arms but it is not "ideal".

Rincewind
11-05-2013, 01:09 AM
Interesting it might be, but it is totally irrelevant to me.
To be frank if me saying I am Christian means you think I am anything like Luther or Calvin or whatever theologians you might think views are worth looking at then I AM NOT A CHRISTIAN.
All it means in a follower of Christ.

I don't really care what you believe. If you feel this discussion is not relevant to the bits of the bible you think are important or how you interpret them then simply don't respond. I won't be offended.

Patrick Byrom
11-05-2013, 03:45 AM
Science historian John Heilbron provides further evidence in his book The Sun in the Church (1999). In this book, favourably reviewed by the secular science journals New Scientist and Science, he points out:

Galileo’s heresy, according to the standard distinction used by the Holy Office, was “inquisitorial” rather than “theological”. This distinction allowed it to proceed against people for disobeying orders or creating scandals, although neither offence violated an article defined and promulgated by a pope or general council. … Since, however, the church had never declared that the Biblical passages implying a moving sun had to be interpreted in favour of a Ptolemaic universe as an article of faith, optimistic commentators … could understand “formally heretical” to mean “provisionally not accepted”.
Heilbron supports this simply by documenting the general reactions by Galileo’s contemporaries and later astronomers, who:

appreciated that the reference to heresy in connection with Galileo or Copernicus had no general or theological significance.
So why did the heliocentric works remain prohibited until 1820, if the Catholic Church had no real objection to them?

And if Galileo's heliocentric beliefs weren't considered to be heresy, why was he forced to make this abjuration (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/galileo/):

I have been judged vehemently suspect of heresy, that is, of having held and believed that the sun in the centre of the universe and immoveable, and that the earth is not at the center of same, and that it does move. Wishing however, to remove from the minds of your Eminences and all faithful Christians this vehement suspicion reasonably conceived against me, I abjure with a sincere heart and unfeigned faith, I curse and detest the said errors and heresies, and generally all and every error, heresy, and sect contrary to the Holy Catholic Church.

Cardinal Bellarmine definitely thought (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1615bellarmine-letter.asp) that heliocentric views were contrary to the Bible.

Capablanca-Fan
11-05-2013, 03:53 AM
So why did the heliocentric works remain prohibited until 1820, if the Catholic Church had no real objection to them?
As I cited Hannam, because of papal personality politics. Galileo's Dialogue placed Pope Urban's pro-geocentric arguments into the mouth of the character Simplicio ('fool').


And if Galileo's heliocentric beliefs weren't considered to be heresy, why was he forced to make this abjuration (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/galileo/):

I have been judged vehemently suspect of heresy, that is, of having held and believed that the sun in the centre of the universe and immoveable, and that the earth is not at the center of same, and that it does move. Wishing however, to remove from the minds of your Eminences and all faithful Christians this vehement suspicion reasonably conceived against me, I abjure with a sincere heart and unfeigned faith, I curse and detest the said errors and heresies, and generally all and every error, heresy, and sect contrary to the Holy Catholic Church.
I already told you: as scholars like Hannam and Heilbron showed, the "heresy" was political and "inquisitorial" rather than theological.


Cardinal Bellarmine definitely thought (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1615bellarmine-letter.asp) that heliocentric views were contrary to the Bible.
My above-cited article Galileo Quadricentennial: Myth vs fact (http://creation.com/galileo-quadricentennial) (2009) documented that Bellarmine was not dogmatic on this:


The Church was at first quite open to Galileo

To show that it was not mainly “religion vs science”, an example of the Church’s early attitude was shown by their top theologian, Cardinal Robert Bellarmine. He said it was “excellent good sense” to claim that Galileo’s model was mathematically simpler, and:


“… If there were a real proof that the Sun is in the centre of the universe, that the Earth is in the third sphere, and that the Sun does not go round the Earth but the Earth round the Sun, then we should have to proceed with great circumspection in explaining passages of Scripture which appear to teach the contrary, and we should rather have to say that we did not understand them than declare an opinion false which has been proved to be true. But I do not think there is any such proof since none has been shown to me.”

Actually, Galileo had not proven his case at the time—indeed, his best “proof” involving the tides is now known to be wrong. It is unfair to judge the church according to knowledge they couldn’t have possessed at the time.

Capablanca-Fan
11-05-2013, 04:02 AM
[Boring same-old nonsense about mathematical as opposed to practical perfection deleted] You mean games that having a spheroidal ball would be fine? :lol:
If the spheroid had a mere 0.3% deviation from mathematically perfect sphericity, then of course it would be fine. Most balls apart from billiard balls have a greater deviation than this.


Now you are just being silly. The location of individuals in the cosmology has nothing to do with the grand design of the backdrop of the universe. The fact that Hades was thought to be in the Earth's centre is more evidence of how special the Earth was. If the Earth was just another rock circling the sun then that makes the Earth less special because presumably there is not an individual Hades inside of all the other planets.
Wrong again, as already documented. This comes from Dr James Hannam's book, and it has also been pointed out by astronomer Owen Gingrich. You are anachronistically reading "perfection" into a central location, which was not what the church believed at the time.


Sun spots are irrelevant to the discussion.
Not at all. This was a major discovery by Galileo, and it was a big challenge to the prevailing worldview which did not expect imperfections in the heavenly bodies.


That is wrong. The speed of the solar system is close to that of the spiral arms but it is not "ideal".
Only in the hyper-literal sense that you apply to Bede's "perfect" sphere. But take it up with Marcus Chown and New Scientist.

Rincewind
11-05-2013, 11:33 AM
Only in the hyper-literal sense that you apply to Bede's "perfect" sphere. But take it up with Marcus Chown and New Scientist.

Not at all. You used the word ideal meaning that of all the stars in the galaxy ours is very special. However there are a number of issues with this position particularly for a YEC (and Marcus Chown is not a YEC).

(1) The corotation radius (Rc) is difficult to measure

Any measurement of distances at the Galactic scale has sizeable error bars usually +- 5% at least and so while some people have estimated by some authors at around 8 kpc which is also roughly the distance to the galactic central point from the sun the error bars makes it impossible to honestly use a word like "ideal". In fact there are different methods to measure Rc and the numbers that have been published vary from around 3.5 to 8 kpc.

(2) Location at Rc is not necessary for life to develop.

While avoidance of star cluster regions in the spiral arms is probably a good idea, this is a hypothesis and we simply don't know enough about life out side of earth to say. Even if it is a good idea there is likely an upper and lower radius within which disturbances to the solar system from external forces is minimised. Current theory is that these are described by the Lindblad resonance radii. The number of stars in the Milky Way which are in the zone between the inner and outer Lindblad radii is enormous. So again not that special or ideal.

(3) Life developing in this way is actually more evidence that YEC is wrong

The sun being located in a stable region is only an issue if the universe is millions of years old. If the universe is just 10,000 years old then it simply doesn't matter. We haven't had enough time to collide with a star cluster or super nova. So the fact the universe that we see is the sort of universe that we would expect if life has required billions of years to evolve from simple unicellular organisms to the biodiversity we see today is evidence that we didn't just pop into existence last Thursday.

Patrick Byrom
11-05-2013, 11:34 AM
My above-cited article Galileo Quadricentennial: Myth vs fact (http://creation.com/galileo-quadricentennial) (2009) documented that Bellarmine was not dogmatic on this:

The Church was at first quite open to Galileo
To show that it was not mainly “religion vs science”, an example of the Church’s early attitude was shown by their top theologian, Cardinal Robert Bellarmine. He said it was “excellent good sense” to claim that Galileo’s model was mathematically simpler, and:

“… If there were a real proof that the Sun is in the centre of the universe, that the Earth is in the third sphere, and that the Sun does not go round the Earth but the Earth round the Sun, then we should have to proceed with great circumspection in explaining passages of Scripture which appear to teach the contrary, and we should rather have to say that we did not understand them than declare an opinion false which has been proved to be true. But I do not think there is any such proof since none has been shown to me.”
Actually, Galileo had not proven his case at the time—indeed, his best “proof” involving the tides is now known to be wrong. It is unfair to judge the church according to knowledge they couldn’t have possessed at the time.
So we agree that Bellarmine thought that the heliocentric theory was contrary to Biblical teaching? He was a Church intellectual who clearly wasn't on the side of Galileo.

Presumably if there had been 'real' evidence, he would have 're-interpreted' the Bible. Would that have been a good thing to do?

Rincewind
11-05-2013, 11:48 AM
As a side note I will also mention that the main paper I could find which posits an Rc=8kpc [1] has an amusing consequence. They measure the corotation radius using a method based on the ages of star clusters in the galaxy. While some of those star clusters are young compared to the age of the Milky Way, they are orders of magnitude older than the 10,000 year age YEC's like Jono believes (we are talking about ages in the region of 9-15 Myr). The authors who perform calculations based on non-age based methods tend to be the ones that come up with a Rc=3.5 or so.

1. Dias and Lepine, The Astrophysical Journal, 629 (2005) 825-831.

Oepty
11-05-2013, 12:28 PM
I don't really care what you believe.

So anything you say about the Bible is almost certainly going to be wrong. If you are comfortable posting lots of incorrect posts then go ahead.

Rincewind
11-05-2013, 12:43 PM
So anything you say about the Bible is almost certainly going to be wrong. If you are comfortable posting lots of incorrect posts then go ahead.

You do realise that most of the stories in the bible a historically incorrect? Garden of Eden - not possible, Noah's Ark - not possible, Jewish serviude in Egypt - maybe possible but so unlikely as to be astronomically unlikely.

Keep believing a a bunch of fairy-tales if you like. But you will have wasted your life.

Oepty
11-05-2013, 12:45 PM
You do realise that most of the stories in the bible a historically incorrect? Garden of Eden - not possible, Noah's Ark - not possible, Jewish serviude in Egypt - maybe possible but so unlikely as to be astronomically unlikely.

Keep believing a a bunch of fairy-tales if you like. But you will have wasted your life.

I realise you wrongly believe they are not histoically correct. That is a very different thing from the truth

Rincewind
11-05-2013, 12:53 PM
I realise you wrongly believe they are not histoically correct. That is a very different thing from the truth

No it is the very best scholarship that we have at the moment.

Garden of Eden really hasn't been viable for 150 years at least. Most theologians have moved past it now but there are the lunatic fringe who cling on to that.

Likewise Noah's flood. Just untenable for at least 150 years. Again mainstream theology is mostly over it but not the lunatic fringe.

The Jews Servitude in Egypt is more tenable but there is absolutely no evidence in history for it. Likewise for the conquest of the Levant by Joshua that it is almost certainly also just a fairy-tale.

There are some parts of the OT which are reliable but they are very late in the piece. I can't think of anything in Genesis or Exodus which is even remotely historically certain.

Oepty
11-05-2013, 12:54 PM
Unfortunately for you Barry you have incorrectly elevated the thinking of man and ignored God. That is your choice but it does not mean it is the correct choice.

Rincewind
11-05-2013, 12:56 PM
Unfortunately for you Barry you have incorrectly elevated the thinking of man and ignored God. That is your choice but it does not mean it is the correct choice.

Scott, of course God could have miraculously changed historical evidence to make it look like the stores in Genesis and Exodus are historically wrong. Do you think God did that? Tried to deceive all the historians in the world as a test of their faith?

Oepty
11-05-2013, 01:03 PM
Scott, of course God could have miraculously changed historical evidence to make it look like the stores in Genesis and Exodus are historically wrong. Do you think God did that? Tried to deceive all the historians in the world as a test of their faith?

I can not know why you believe what you believe.
I can just state I believe you are wrong to believe what I believe.

As far as God deceiving historians, I do not believe that to be the case.

Rincewind
11-05-2013, 01:18 PM
As far as God deceiving historians, I do not believe that to be the case.

Mainstream science and history paints a very different picture. No miraculous creation of Adam and Eve in a garden without death. No flood. No enslavement of the tribes of Israel by the Egyptians. If they were true or even if there was a good reason to think they might be true then why do the vast majority of the world's experts see convincing evidence to the contrary? It is a very strange state of affairs for God to have allowed. I mean if he has a message for his creation surely he would make it as clear as possible.

Capablanca-Fan
11-05-2013, 01:25 PM
So we agree that Bellarmine thought that the heliocentric theory was contrary to Biblical teaching? He was a Church intellectual who clearly wasn't on the side of Galileo.
The point was, he was open to his views, if they could be proven. It was the Pope who encouraged Galileo to publish after their discussions. He hadn't counted on Galileo's abrasive personality and putting the Pope's words in the mouth of the fool.


Presumably if there had been 'real' evidence, he would have 're-interpreted' the Bible. Would that have been a good thing to do?
Yes, if, as I have shown, they had been wrongly interpreted in the first place, by being wrenched out of context and hijacked to support Aristotelian/Ptolemaic cosmology.

They should have known better, since about 250 years before, the logician and scientist Jean Buridan had shown that Aristotelian physics was wrong, and had developed the concept of impetus, which is basically Galileo's idea of inertia. Buridan's friend and colleague Nicholas Oresme had even considered that if the earth was spinning, it would share its motion with everything on it, including air and water, so we would not notice. Oresme even said that the Bible is not conclusive one way or the other, because if the earth really were spinning, then a passages like Joshua's long day "conforms to the customary usage of popular speech". Like Galileo and Copernicus, he thought that a rotating tiny earth would be more economical than the rotating vast heavens. But in the end, he thought that the evidence was inconclusive one way or the other, and affirmed a geocentric view, although without asserting that either science or the Bible proved it.

Patrick Byrom
11-05-2013, 05:03 PM
The point was, he was open to his views, if they could be proven. It was the Pope who encouraged Galileo to publish after their discussions. He hadn't counted on Galileo's abrasive personality and putting the Pope's words in the mouth of the fool.
I agree about Galileo and the Pope, although I think the Church over-reacted. I'm not so sure that Bellarmine was open to new views, but it's hard to draw accurate conclusions from a translation.


Yes, if, as I have shown, they had been wrongly interpreted in the first place, by being wrenched out of context and hijacked to support Aristotelian/Ptolemaic cosmology.
So it was Augustine and Aquinas (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v15/n2/geocentrism) who made this mistake, which was also made by Calvin (http://www3.nd.edu/~mdowd1/postings/CalvinAstroRev.html) and (probably) Luther. That is a very impressive quartet of theologians to all make the same mistake in interpretation! The first two have actually been canonised by the Catholic Church (along with Bellarmine).

It does raise the question of how any Biblical interpretation can be relied upon, if such distinguished theologians can all be wrong about such a simple issue :hmm:

Capablanca-Fan
12-05-2013, 03:39 AM
I agree about Galileo and the Pope, although I think the Church over-reacted.
It was a political over-reaction, not a theological one. After Galileo's death, the political motivation was gone, and the leading intellectuals in the Church were usually happy to follow the evidence, They realized what Oresme did in the 14th century, that Scripture was just using frame-of-reference "penomenological" language.


I'm not so sure that Bellarmine was open to new views, but it's hard to draw accurate conclusions from a translation.
Well, if you can prove that he was mistranslated, go for it.


So it was Augustine and Aquinas (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v15/n2/geocentrism) who made this mistake,
In future, if you quote an article from the Journal of Creation (http://creation.com/journal-of-creation-formerly-technical-journal-tj), then please would you quote from the website of its publisher, Creation Ministries International? Thanks. I was actually an editor/reviewer of this article, and it should not be credited to another site. The correct link is Geocentrism and Creation (http://creation.com/geocentrism-and-creation).

Also, Dr Faulkner's actual statement was:

In the middle ages and well into the Renaissance, the Roman Catholic Church did teach geocentrism, but was that based upon the Bible? The Church’s response to Galileo (1564–1642) was primarily from the works of Aristotle (384–322 BC) and other ancient Greek philosophers. It was Augustine (AD 354–430), Thomas Aquinas (1224–1274) and others who ‘baptized’ the work of these pagans and termed them ‘pre-Christian Christians’. This mingling of pagan science and the Bible was a fundamental error for which the Church eventually paid a tremendous price.

Confusion persists to today in that nearly every textbook that discusses the Galileo affair claims that it was a matter of religion vs science, when it actually was a matter of science vs science. Unfortunately, Church leaders interpreted certain Biblical passages as geocentric to bolster the argument for what science of the day was claiming. This mistake is identical to those today who interpret the Bible to support things such as the big bang, billions of years, or biological evolution. Therefore, any evangelical Christian misinformed of this history who opines that the Bible is geocentric is hardly any more credible a source on this topic than an atheist or agnostic.


Also, Augustine and Aquinas were never faced by a credible alternative. They lived long before Copernicus.


which was also made by Calvin (http://www3.nd.edu/~mdowd1/postings/CalvinAstroRev.html) and (probably) Luther. That is a very impressive quartet of theologians to all make the same mistake in interpretation! The first two have actually been canonised by the Catholic Church (along with Bellarmine).
That article on Calvin was equivocal as well. He may not have known much about any alternative to geocentrism, and after all, the science supporting the geokinetic view was not very strong in his day. The quotes by him are very low-key, correctly regarding any teachings about the earth's motion as secondary to what the text was teaching.


It does raise the question of how any Biblical interpretation can be relied upon, if such distinguished theologians can all be wrong about such a simple issue :hmm:
Were they that "wrong", since they were not opposing any geokinetic view, because there was no credible view at the time to oppose! And who says it's a "wrong" interpretation, as opposed to treating the earth as the reference frame. Sir Fried Hoyle wrote:


The relation of the two pictures is reduced to a mere coordinate transformation, and it is the main tenet of the Einstein theory that any two ways of looking at the world which are related to each other by a coordinate transformation are entirely equivalent from a physical point of view. Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is ‘right’ and the Ptolemaic theory ‘wrong’ in any meaningful physical sense. [Nicolaus*Copernicus, Harper & Row, NY, 1973.]

Rincewind
12-05-2013, 11:59 AM
Sir Fried Hoyle wrote:


The relation of the two pictures is reduced to a mere coordinate transformation, and it is the main tenet of the Einstein theory that any two ways of looking at the world which are related to each other by a coordinate transformation are entirely equivalent from a physical point of view. Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is ‘right’ and the Ptolemaic theory ‘wrong’ in any meaningful physical sense. [Nicolaus*Copernicus, Harper & Row, NY, 1973.]

There is actually a little more to it than that as the frame of reference with the sun as the origin is much closer to an inertial frame of reference than the one with the earth as the origin. (It is not entirely so as we are all involved in the rotation of the galaxy). This is actually the point of the Copernican model being superior for calculation. Also note that Hoyle does not talk about the Churches position (that the Earth was immobile and around which everything else rotates) as being equivalent. That is not a tenable theory as the stars would need to have velocities exceeding c.

In any case, the question about scientifically truth in this sense is a red herring anyway. In the 20th century after the discoveries of Newton and Einstein we might say, well, neither was right. However to get there Newton built on the works of Galileo and Einstein on the work of Newton (and both on many others besides). So the suppression of Galileo's work by the church did inhibit the advancement of human knowledge even though that eventually lead to Galileo's theories becoming superseded by better ones.

Capablanca-Fan
12-05-2013, 12:09 PM
There is actually a little more to it than that as the frame of reference with the sun as the origin is much closer to an inertial frame of reference than the one with the earth as the origin.

Sometimes a non-inertial reference frame is better—it’s perfectly reasonable at times to use ‘moving’ reference frames. For example, if you’re a passenger in a car that’s tailgating dangerously close to the car in front, you could tell the driver to ‘pull back!’—this expression uses the reference frame of the car in front. But you’re really telling the driver to ‘slow down’ not ‘reverse’—in the reference frame of the road. And electrical engineers often find it most convenient to use a ‘bug on the rotor’ as the reference frame when studying induction motors, to understand the way the rotating magnetic field ‘slips’.


(It is not entirely so as we are all involved in the rotation of the galaxy). This is actually the point of the Copernican model being superior for calculation. Also note that Hoyle does not talk about the Churches position (that the Earth was immobile and around which everything else rotates) as being equivalent. That is not a tenable theory as the stars would need to have velocities exceeding c.
It wouldn't matter for the model. Cosmological models are actually driven by philosophy (religion), not evidence. George Ellis, a respected Seth Effrican cosmologist and former collaborator with Hawking, said:


“People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations,” Ellis argues. “For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations.” Ellis has published a paper on this. “You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.” —Gibbs, W. Wayt, 1995. Profile: George F. R. Ellis; Thinking Globally, Acting Universally. Scientific American 273(4):28, 29.

Capablanca-Fan
12-05-2013, 12:10 PM
The sun is not completely inertial, and an inertial frame is not always the best. Full astronomy professor Danny Faulkner points out in Geocentrism and Creation (which PB cited):

Capablanca-Fan
12-05-2013, 12:10 PM
Faulkner continued:

For instance, a planetarium is a geocentric model. Calculation of rising, transiting, and setting of various celestial objects is calculated geocentrically. There are numerous other examples. Since modern astronomers often use an Earth-centred reference frame, it’s unfair and anti-scientific to criticise the Bible for doing the same.

Capablanca-Fan
12-05-2013, 12:11 PM
Faulkner:

But there are many times when the Earth is a convenient reference frame; i.e. at some point we all use the geocentric model in one sense.

Capablanca-Fan
12-05-2013, 12:12 PM
… something well known to high-school physics students, but apparently not to biblioskeptics—

Capablanca-Fan
12-05-2013, 12:13 PM
that it’s valid to describe motion

Capablanca-Fan
12-05-2013, 12:14 PM
from any reference frame, although an inertial one usually makes the mathematics simpler.
[Don't blame me for multiple posts. Blame the stupid chess chat glitch.]

Rincewind
12-05-2013, 12:33 PM
You are wrong Jono because you don't understand the limitations of what you are proposing.

The point of Einstein special relativity is that any two inertial frames are equivalent. All bets are off for non-inertial frames and so if you are doing cosmology choosing a non-internal is a bad idea. I'd be very interested in seeing the paper which chooses the immobile earth as the centre of the universe as I am sure that his model would still require the earth to rotate on axis to make it possible for the stars to trace their paths through the heavens.

However the biblical model as advocated by the theologians resisting the heliocentic model was based on the idea that the sun revolved around the earth. In that model the stars would also need to rotate around the Earth and that is a highly non-inertial reference frame that would be able to be disproved by an appeal to special relativity: the background of stars would all be moving with superluminal velocities.

Capablanca-Fan
12-05-2013, 04:11 PM
You are wrong Jono because you don't understand the limitations of what you are proposing.
Then take it up with Ellis.


However the biblical model as advocated by the theologians resisting the heliocentic model was based on the idea that the sun revolved around the earth.
Who wants to believe in a heliocentric model? The sun is not at the centre. Distant observers would observe a "wobble" and deduce at least that Jupiter was orbiting. The biblical language is just the same as that of a modern planetarium, so quit bleating.

Oepty
12-05-2013, 05:26 PM
You are wrong Jono because you don't understand the limitations of what you are proposing.

The point of Einstein special relativity is that any two inertial frames are equivalent. All bets are off for non-inertial frames and so if you are doing cosmology choosing a non-internal is a bad idea. I'd be very interested in seeing the paper which chooses the immobile earth as the centre of the universe as I am sure that his model would still require the earth to rotate on axis to make it possible for the stars to trace their paths through the heavens.

However the biblical model as advocated by the theologians resisting the heliocentic model was based on the idea that the sun revolved around the earth. In that model the stars would also need to rotate around the Earth and that is a highly non-inertial reference frame that would be able to be disproved by an appeal to special relativity: the background of stars would all be moving with superluminal velocities.

You are still peddling the falsehood that the Bible says the earth was immovable.

Patrick Byrom
12-05-2013, 05:37 PM
In future, if you quote an article from the Journal of Creation (http://creation.com/journal-of-creation-formerly-technical-journal-tj), then please would you quote from the website of its publisher, Creation Ministries International? Thanks. I was actually an editor/reviewer of this article, and it should not be credited to another site. The correct link is Geocentrism and Creation (http://creation.com/geocentrism-and-creation).
That's fair enough. It was an innocent mistake, as there is nothing on the website I quoted from to indicate that it isn't the appropriate one.



And who says it's a "wrong" interpretation, as opposed to treating the earth as the reference frame.
Dr Faulkner seems to think it's a wrong interpretation of the Bible (as also quoted above, but with my underlining):

In the middle ages and well into the Renaissance, the Roman Catholic Church did teach geocentrism, but was that based upon the Bible? The Church’s response to Galileo (1564–1642) was primarily from the works of Aristotle (384–322 BC) and other ancient Greek philosophers. It was Augustine (AD 354–430), Thomas Aquinas (1224–1274) and others who ‘baptized’ the work of these pagans and termed them ‘pre-Christian Christians’. This mingling of pagan science and the Bible was a fundamental error for which the Church eventually paid a tremendous price.
Dr Faulkner clearly believes that geocentrism was not based on the Bible. But that means that he must also believe that any theologian who quoted Biblical passages in support of geocentrism (eg, Calvin) must have wrongly interpreted those passages.

Oepty
12-05-2013, 05:43 PM
That's fair enough. It was an innocent mistake, as there is nothing on the website I quoted from to indicate that it isn't the appropriate one.


Dr Faulkner seems to think it's a wrong interpretation of the Bible (as also quoted above, but with my underlining):

In the middle ages and well into the Renaissance, the Roman Catholic Church did teach geocentrism, but was that based upon the Bible? The Church’s response to Galileo (1564–1642) was primarily from the works of Aristotle (384–322 BC) and other ancient Greek philosophers. It was Augustine (AD 354–430), Thomas Aquinas (1224–1274) and others who ‘baptized’ the work of these pagans and termed them ‘pre-Christian Christians’. This mingling of pagan science and the Bible was a fundamental error for which the Church eventually paid a tremendous price.
Dr Faulkner clearly believes that geocentrism was not based on the Bible. But that means that he must also believe that any theologian who quoted Biblical passages in support of geocentrism (eg, Calvin) must have wrongly interpreted those passages.

I would very strongly agree with Dr Faulkner if his views is as you have just explained.

Rincewind
12-05-2013, 10:13 PM
Then take it up with Ellis.

I have no issue with Ellis because I believe he would have had to allow for the earth to rotate. However you don't know the limitations of what is possible with regards a non-inertial frame of reference. Definitely an immobile earth as believed by the early church fathers is not tenable. (See Luther's reference to Joshua stopping the sun and not the earth).


Who wants to believe in a heliocentric model? The sun is not at the centre.

There is no centre. However to get to our present understanding we needed to move away from the geocentric model and heliocentric was a step from bronze age mythos to relativity. The theologians who spent 200 years trying to suppress the heliocentric model retarded science based on a literal interpretation of some fairy-tales. Today you do exactly the same thing with evolution.


Distant observers would observe a "wobble" and deduce at least that Jupiter was orbiting. The biblical language is just the same as that of a modern planetarium, so quit bleating.

The language used (like sunrise) does not underpin a geocentric model. The theologians language DID underpin geocentric model and it was a model they believed to be supported by scripture.

Rincewind
12-05-2013, 10:16 PM
You are still peddling the falsehood that the Bible says the earth was immovable.

The early church fathers and the early reformers such as Calvin and Luther believed it did. That is all I am saying and that is not a false. I also said that practically no one today thinks it does.

If you paid attention to what I said instead of being angry all the time perhaps you would not make yourself look such an ass.

Capablanca-Fan
13-05-2013, 01:39 AM
I have no issue with Ellis because I believe he would have had to allow for the earth to rotate. However you don't know the limitations of what is possible with regards a non-inertial frame of reference.
I am well aware of nothing-faster-than-c. It might be possible to salvage it in the same way as inflation allegedly salvaged the horizon problem. Inflation proposes superluminal expansion of space itself, which doesn't violate relativity, since this forbids something from travelling through space faster than c. So under a geocentric model that Ellis said he could construct, it's probable that space itself would rotate about the earth. There is just no biblical or scientific reason to construct such a model.


Definitely an immobile earth as believed by the early church fathers is not tenable. (See Luther's reference to Joshua stopping the sun and not the earth).
Luther's off-the-cuff and only recorded defence of geocentrism, because he was apparently annoyed at copernicus' novelty which as yet had no scientific backing.


There is no centre.
This is a philosophical position, not an observational position, as even Hubble admitted.


However to get to our present understanding we needed to move away from the geocentric model and heliocentric was a step from bronze age mythos to relativity. The theologians who spent 200 years trying to suppress the heliocentric model retarded science based on a literal interpretation of some fairy-tales.
As the modern founders of geokineticism were all young-earth creationists who accepted biblical reliability (Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Newton, your atheopathic revisionism is bollocks.


Today you do exactly the same thing with evolution.
Actually, appeasement of evolution in the church and Scripture-twisting to fit is what the Church did with Aristotelian science in Galileo's day. See The Galileo ‘twist’ (http://creation.com/the-galileo-twist).


The language used (like sunrise) does not underpin a geocentric model. The theologians language DID underpin geocentric model and it was a model they believed to be supported by scripture.
Not for very long. As shown, the opposition was due far more to the Aristotelian scientific establishment and Papal politics than science or theology. Even back in the 14th century, the clergyman/philosopher/scientist Nicolas Oresme realized that the language of Scripture wasphenomenological reference-frame language. the same sort astronomers use today in any planetarium.

Rincewind
13-05-2013, 02:49 AM
I am well aware of nothing-faster-than-c. It might be possible to salvage it in the same way as inflation allegedly salvaged the horizon problem. Inflation proposes superluminal expansion of space itself, which doesn't violate relativity, since this forbids something from travelling through space faster than c. So under a geocentric model that Ellis said he could construct, it's probable that space itself would rotate about the earth. There is just no biblical or scientific reason to construct such a model.

Space itself rotating doesn't help you since at some point before the surface of the earth it would have to not rotate and observations across the boundary would show light travelling in a very odd fashion.


Luther's off-the-cuff and only recorded defence of geocentrism, because he was apparently annoyed at copernicus' novelty which as yet had no scientific backing.

You claim it was off-the-cuff but so far that is just ipse dixit. What it does show that in Luther's mind at least the sun revolved around the earth and scripture supported this view.


This is a philosophical position, not an observational position, as even Hubble admitted.

Hubble died in 1953. Since that time the fields of Astronomy and Cosmology have moved on.

Of course one cannot observe the absence of a centre. In fact we cannot observe the vast majority of the universe. So even if there is a centre it might not be in the observable universe.


As the modern founders of geokineticism were all young-earth creationists who accepted biblical reliability (Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Newton, your atheopathic revisionism is bollocks.

No the beliefs of Copernicus et al on the age of the universe is totally irrelevant. Heliocentric model was wrong but better and a necessary step to enable Newton and Einstein to make their contributions. The Church did try to suppress their ideas as heretical and thereby retard science.


Actually, appeasement of evolution in the church and Scripture-twisting to fit is what the Church did with Aristotelian science in Galileo's day.

The interpretation of scripture is always done in light of the scientific knowledge of the day. There is a credibility hurtle past which a church cannot survive. So they have to keep their bible stories credible enough for the general population to swallow them. Over the last 400 years the credibility gap has been pushed back such that most of the stories of Genesis and Exodus cannot be taken literally. There is always a fringe following that cling on but mainstream theology has had to revise them to allegory.


Not for very long. As shown, the opposition was due far more to the Aristotelian scientific establishment and Papal politics than science or theology. Even back in the 14th century, the clergyman/philosopher/scientist Nicolas Oresme realized that the language of Scripture wasphenomenological reference-frame language. the same sort astronomers use today in any planetarium.

How much is debatable but it took around 200 years for Copernicus' idea to become uncontroversial. There may have been some people in the church who accepted it immediately but they were rare in Copernicus' time and would have made themselves scarce when the Galileo controversy was going on.

Capablanca-Fan
13-05-2013, 03:23 AM
Space itself rotating doesn't help you since at some point before the surface of the earth it would have to not rotate and observations across the boundary would show light travelling in a very odd fashion.
It wouldn't be a problem, since no information is travelling through space faster than c. We can have weird observations all the time. Just turn your hear in the direction of the night sky. The point at which the mathematical line of sight intersects a mathematical sphere of radius 10 light years would move faster than c without violating relativity.


You claim it was off-the-cuff but so far that is just ipse dixit. What it does show that in Luther's mind at least the sun revolved around the earth and scripture supported this view.
Not at all. The only reference was in a posthumously published table talk.


Hubble died in 1953. Since that time the fields of Astronomy and Cosmology have moved on.
But doesn't change the point he made: that the red shift observations are consistent with the earth being near the centre of the universe, but he rejected that conclusion on philosophical grounds.

[QUOTE=Rincewind]No the beliefs of Copernicus et al on the age of the universe is totally irrelevant. Heliocentric model was wrong but better and a necessary step to enable Newton and Einstein to make their contributions.
As cited, even Cardinal Bellarmine recognised the "good sense" that the heliocentric model was easier to understand mathematically. Similarly, neither Ellis nor I have any interest in actually constructing an earth-centred model, because it would be purely kinematic and divorced from dynamics.


The Church did try to suppress their ideas as heretical and thereby retard science.
Yet Kepler and Newton had no problems. And remember, the Pope had encouraged Galileo to publish his geocentric ideas.


The interpretation of scripture is always done in light of the scientific knowledge of the day. There is a credibility hurtle past which a church cannot survive. So they have to keep their bible stories credible enough for the general population to swallow them. Over the last 400 years the credibility gap has been pushed back such that most of the stories of Genesis and Exodus cannot be taken literally.
That really is an ipse dixit.


How much is debatable but it took around 200 years for Copernicus' idea to become uncontroversial. There may have been some people in the church who accepted it immediately but they were rare in Copernicus' time and would have made themselves scarce when the Galileo controversy was going on.
They became uncontroversial thanks to Kepler (whom Galileo ignored) and Newton, and when actual scientific evidence was discovered—something lacking for evolution from goo to you via the zoo. You keep painting the Church as "anti-science", and willfully forget that the "science" of its day was Aristotelian/Ptolemaic cosmology and had weak physical evidence for geokineticism.

Rincewind
13-05-2013, 10:51 AM
It wouldn't be a problem, since no information is travelling through space faster than c. We can have weird observations all the time. Just turn your hear in the direction of the night sky. The point at which the mathematical line of sight intersects a mathematical sphere of radius 10 light years would move faster than c without violating relativity.

It is not about a place in the sky moving faster than c. In fact the problem with your rotating space idea is not relativistic violation at all. It is that light travelling towards us will at some point transition from your moving space (having an apparent curved arc) into the region of stationary space you need to encase around the earth. At the transition plane the light will inexplicably change direction. We can either measure that and prove your model or measure it not happening and disprove your model. Of course the latter is what would happen.


Not at all. The only reference was in a posthumously published table talk.

Are you denying he said it?


But doesn't change the point he made: that the red shift observations are consistent with the earth being near the centre of the universe, but he rejected that conclusion on philosophical grounds.

You are conveniently ignoring all the observations made since 1953. What one scientist considered to be so in 1953 is not a knock-down argument. Especially in cosmology which was really a fledgling discipline in 1953.


As cited, even Cardinal Bellarmine recognised the "good sense" that the heliocentric model was easier to understand mathematically.

One cardinal does not make it the position of the entire church. Rome's banning of the Galileo's work has already been mentioned here. On top of the noted protestants such as Luther and Calvin also supported the geocentric model.


Similarly, neither Ellis nor I have any interest in actually constructing an earth-centred model, because it would be purely kinematic and divorced from dynamics.

Ellis probably could do it by allowing the earth to rotate however I would not rule out a clever physicist coming up with an experiment to test it. However if you require the sun to revolve around the earth it is difficult to imagine how you are going to construct a model at all which keeps everything subluminal and doesn't present an opportunity to measure some difference to reality (like your moving space idea which would result in the inexplicable bending of light).


Yet Kepler and Newton had no problems. And remember, the Pope had encouraged Galileo to publish his geocentric ideas.

It is difficult to say but bother Kepler and Newton's finding may have been discovered by people working earlier if there was a greater acceptance of Copernicus.


That really is an ipse dixit.

Not at all. As you point out prior to the 18th century almost every scientist was a young earth creationist. Now much less than 1 % are.


They became uncontroversial thanks to Kepler (whom Galileo ignored) and Newton, and when actual scientific evidence was discovered—something lacking for evolution from goo to you via the zoo. You keep painting the Church as "anti-science", and willfully forget that the "science" of its day was Aristotelian/Ptolemaic cosmology and had weak physical evidence for geokineticism.

No science of its day was Copernicus. Ptolemaic cosmology was entrenched and Copernicus needed to cross those hurdles to prove his model superior. However the church (both Rome and noted reformers such as Calvin and Luther) did suppress the heliocentric model and justified that suppression on theological grounds.

Capablanca-Fan
13-05-2013, 02:08 PM
Are you denying he said it?
It's dubious, since the only recorded statement was published years after he died. And it clearly can't have been that strongly held because it wasn't in his own writings.


You are conveniently ignoring all the observations made since 1953. What one scientist considered to be so in 1953 is not a knock-down argument. Especially in cosmology which was really a fledgling discipline in 1953.
Nothing relevant has changed. There is nothing in physics that requires a non-centre universe.


One cardinal does not make it the position of the entire church.
A Cardinal of Bellarmine's position really was a semi-official position, as opposed to the Papal personality politics that didn't survive the death of him and Galileo.


Rome's banning of the Galileo's work has already been mentioned here.
Only for political reasons, as I have mentioned here. The church in practice had neither political nor theological problems.


On top of the noted protestants such as Luther and Calvin also supported the geocentric model.
With Luther, it was a reported one-off comment, and with Calvin, there is no proof that he was opposing any alternative.


It is difficult to say but bother Kepler and Newton's finding may have been discovered by people working earlier if there was a greater acceptance of Copernicus.
You are once more demanding that people accepted a proposal which at the time had little scientific evidence. I would argue that if the Renaissance propagandists had not been so reactionary and hero-worshipping of Aristotle and dismissive of medieval scientist/philosopher/theologians like Buridan and Oresme, they might have been more open to Copernicus.

No science of its day was Copernicus. [/QUOTE]
The establishment science at the universities was Aristotelian/Ptolemaic.


Ptolemaic cosmology was entrenched and Copernicus needed to cross those hurdles to prove his model superior.
But he didn't have the scientific evidence. His model had simpler mathematics, but had some epicycles of his own. Galileo refused to acknowledge Kepler's contribution of ellipses which would have solved many of the problems with the Copernican/Galilean model.


However the church (both Rome and noted reformers such as Calvin and Luther) did suppress the heliocentric model and justified that suppression on theological grounds.
As pointed out, the Church's accusation of "heresy" was inquisitorial and not theological. Luther has only one reported attack on geokineticism. Calvin didn't attack geocentrism per se, but just accepted the phenomenological reference-frame language at face value.

Rincewind
13-05-2013, 04:35 PM
As you didn't bother trying to patch up your faulty geocentric model with moving space I assume you concede that it can't be done and indeed the heliocentric model while not perfect is certainly better than geocentric model with a stationary Earth.


It's dubious, since the only recorded statement was published years after he died. And it clearly can't have been that strongly held because it wasn't in his own writings.

You can't equate strength in a belief with it not appearing in his writings. Perhaps there was no reason to write about it because there was no audience. Very few people would have held the heliocentric model to be true and so why write about it?

But by calling it dubious it sounds like you are casting doubt that Luther ever said it. I guess it is convenient to dismiss any evidence that you find difficult to argue against but do you have any reason to doubt its authenticity as a quote?


Nothing relevant has changed. There is nothing in physics that requires a non-centre universe.

Ipse dixit.


A Cardinal of Bellarmine's position really was a semi-official position, as opposed to the Papal personality politics that didn't survive the death of him and Galileo.

Bellarmine's position is certainly not more official than the Pope's.You understand the hierarchy of the Catholic church, I hope.

Suppression of Galileo's work certainly did extend beyond the death of both the Pope and Galileo. His works not being removed from the Index until the 18th century. Likewise Copernicus' unedited De Revolutionibus was banned until the 18th century.


Only for political reasons, as I have mentioned here. The church in practice had neither political nor theological problems.

That is just blatant revisionism. Even your "hero" Bellarmine saw heliocentrism as a useful calculation device that should not be taken to represent a physical reality. This is explainable in the churches interest in calendars and the reason De Revolutionibus was edited rather than banned outright was simply because it was too useful.


With Luther, it was a reported one-off comment, and with Calvin, there is no proof that he was opposing any alternative.

With Luther is is reported he objected on scriptural grounds with Calvin if you look at his Commentary on the Book of Psalms (on Ps 93:1) you will find...


The heavens revolve daily, and, immense as is their fabric and inconceivable the rapidity of their revolutions, we experience no concussion - no disturbance in the harmony of their motion. The sun, though varying its course every diurnal revolution, returns annually to the same point. The planets, in all their wanderings, maintain their respective positions. How could the Earth hang suspended in the air were it not upheld by God's hand? By what means could it maintain itself unmoved, while the heavens above are in constant rapid motion, did not its Divine Maker fix and establish it?

So while some of the reported opposition of Calvin to heliocentric model was overstated by some writers, Calvin certainly saw the link between Psalm 93:1 and a geocentric cosmology.


You are once more demanding that people accepted a proposal which at the time had little scientific evidence. I would argue that if the Renaissance propagandists had not been so reactionary and hero-worshipping of Aristotle and dismissive of medieval scientist/philosopher/theologians like Buridan and Oresme, they might have been more open to Copernicus.

I'm not saying there was no secular opposition. I'm saying that opposition based on religious grounds was more problematic and had a greater effect to retard scientific advancement.


The establishment science at the universities was Aristotelian/Ptolemaic.

Of course, otherwise Copernicus' ideas would not have been new. However Copernicus' ideas were new science and provided a more parsimonious explanation of phenomena known at the time and provided better explanation of new phenomena as were discovered shortly thereafter such as phases of the moons of other planets.


But he didn't have the scientific evidence. His model had simpler mathematics, but had some epicycles of his own. Galileo refused to acknowledge Kepler's contribution of ellipses which would have solved many of the problems with the Copernican/Galilean model.

On parsimonious grounds alone Copernicus' model deserves attention. As already stated it was an essential first step away from the mystical and towards the discoveries of Galileo, Newton and Einstein.


As pointed out, the Church's accusation of "heresy" was inquisitorial and not theological.

These are not exclusive terms. There was no inquisition of Copernicus (he had been dead for 70+ years by the time of the 1616 trial) however Copernicus' book was also placed on the Index until an edited form could be published and the unedited version remained on the Index until the 18th century.


Luther has only one reported attack on geokineticism.

And in addition to that there was also scriptural criticism of Copernicus by Luther's collaborator Philipp Melanchthon.


Calvin didn't attack geocentrism per se, but just accepted the phenomenological reference-frame language at face value.

The evidence on Calvin is scanty and tainted by a controversy which I was not aware of until recently. Perhaps Calvin never even heard of Copernicus since there doesn't seem to be any reliable reference of Calvin referring to him by name. Given that, I'm happy to agree that Calvin did not criticise Copernicus directly. By the same token I have not seen any evidence that Calvin ever wavered from believing the earth was immoveable and the sun, planets and stars were doing all the moving, see for example his commentary on Ps 93:1 and there are other examples in the commentaries of similar verses with cosmological implications.

Rincewind
13-05-2013, 09:11 PM
Unfortunately for you Barry you have incorrectly elevated the thinking of man and ignored God. That is your choice but it does not mean it is the correct choice.


Every sect, as far as reason will help them, make use of it gladly; and where it fails them, they cry out, “It is a matter of faith, and above reason.”

- John Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1690)

Capablanca-Fan
14-05-2013, 12:20 AM
As you didn't bother trying to patch up your faulty geocentric model with moving space I assume you concede that it can't be done and indeed the heliocentric model while not perfect is certainly better than geocentric model with a stationary Earth.
It was Ellis you need to argue with, and there is nothing in Relativity that is violated by a superluminal rotation of space itself around the earth. But it has no practical value in constructing a dynamic model.


You can't equate strength in a belief with it not appearing in his writings.
You can't assert that a belief was strong when there is only one posthumously recorded statement on the issie.


Perhaps there was no reason to write about it because there was no audience. Very few people would have held the heliocentric model to be true and so why write about it?
Exactly my point! Along with the fact that the scientific evidence to support it was not then available.

But by calling it dubious it sounds like you are casting doubt that Luther ever said it. I guess it is convenient to dismiss any evidence that you find difficult to argue against but do you have any reason to doubt its authenticity as a quote?
Of course it's dubious, because it's technically hearsay. We certainly have no evidence of any sustained campaign for geocentrism.


Bellarmine's position is certainly not more official than the Pope's.You understand the hierarchy of the Catholic church, I hope.
But the rest of the church realized it was more to do with the Pope's ego than theology. They knew that the Pope had encouraged Galileo to publish his pro-geokinetic ideas.


Suppression of Galileo's work certainly did extend beyond the death of both the Pope and Galileo. His works not being removed from the Index until the 18th century. Likewise Copernicus' unedited De Revolutionibus was banned until the 18th century.
Again, this was political, because in practice, the church supported heliocentrism during this time with their meridiane and their astronomical teaching of Chinese astronomers.


That is just blatant revisionism. Even your "hero" Bellarmine saw heliocentrism as a useful calculation device that should not be taken to represent a physical reality.
Unless it could be proven. Bellarmine quite reasonably said that no proof had been demonstrated.


With Luther is is reported he objected on scriptural grounds with Calvin if you look at his Commentary on the Book of Psalms (on Ps 93:1) you will find...


The heavens revolve daily, and, immense as is their fabric and inconceivable the rapidity of their revolutions, we experience no concussion - no disturbance in the harmony of their motion. The sun, though varying its course every diurnal revolution, returns annually to the same point. The planets, in all their wanderings, maintain their respective positions. How could the Earth hang suspended in the air were it not upheld by God's hand? By what means could it maintain itself unmoved, while the heavens above are in constant rapid motion, did not its Divine Maker fix and establish it?
All compatible with the earth being used as a reference frame, as Oresme suggested centuries earlier, and he was a man in very good standing in the church.

[QUOTE=Rincewind]So while some of the reported opposition of Calvin to heliocentric model was overstated by some writers, Calvin certainly saw the link between Psalm 93:1 and a geocentric cosmology.
A geocentric cosmology is consistent with a description using earth as a reference frame, but not the only view consistent with this.


I'm not saying there was no secular opposition. I'm saying that opposition based on religious grounds was more problematic and had a greater effect to retard scientific advancement.
Yet Galileo's leading opponents were the secular scientific establishment of his day, as per the documentation of Giorgio de Santillana cited earlier.


On parsimonious grounds alone Copernicus' model deserves attention.
And Bellarmine said so!


As already stated it was an essential first step away from the mystical and towards the discoveries of Galileo, Newton and Einstein.
What was "mystical" about the Aristotelian/Ptolemaic system, except that it could provide no simple dynamical model. Even Kepler's model was kinematic. And I've agreed that the geokinetic model is more productive for developing a dynamic model.


And in addition to that there was also scriptural criticism of Copernicus by Luther's collaborator Philipp Melanchthon.
What was this?

Rincewind
14-05-2013, 01:14 AM
It was Ellis you need to argue with, and there is nothing in Relativity that is violated by a superluminal rotation of space itself around the earth. But it has no practical value in constructing a dynamic model.

No because you have borrowed Ellis' idea and tried to apply them to a different situation. As I have already pointed out a number of times have the earth fixed in space is one thing but having it quite immoveable so that the stars are rotating about it is quite another.

Regarding the rotation of space that is fine but it would require the light to move from the rotating to the non-rotating region and there would be a bending of that light which would be measurable and otherwise inexplicable. Unless you can get around that problem your rotating space idea is a dead duck.


Of course it's dubious, because it's technically hearsay. We certainly have no evidence of any sustained campaign for geocentrism.

As I said the belief in heliocentrism was probably not a major issue and hence required no campaign. However he is on the record as criticising it and never as supporting it.


But the rest of the church realized it was more to do with the Pope's ego than theology. They knew that the Pope had encouraged Galileo to publish his pro-geokinetic ideas.

Ipse dixit (regarding the state of mind of the entire church hierarchy).


Again, this was political, because in practice, the church supported heliocentrism during this time with their meridiane and their astronomical teaching of Chinese astronomers.

Banning the works of Copernicus and Galileo for 200 years is a funny way of showing it.


Unless it could be proven. Bellarmine quite reasonably said that no proof had been demonstrated.

Perhaps he believed that or perhaps he was given his remarks the imprimatur of reason.


All compatible with the earth being used as a reference frame, as Oresme suggested centuries earlier, and he was a man in very good standing in the church.

Calvin's words go furhter than a mere reference frame for convenience he explicitly fixes the earth even so far as to not have it rotate on axis.


A geocentric cosmology is consistent with a description using earth as a reference frame, but not the only view consistent with this.

Rubbish. He consistently says the Earth is fixed and the heavenly bodies are moving with incredible speed. He was not just using phenomenological language.


Yet Galileo's leading opponents were the secular scientific establishment of his day, as per the documentation of Giorgio de Santillana cited earlier.

Well the secular opponents did not have his books placed on the Index and forced him to recant on pan of torture and then confined him to house arrest. Only the church had the power to do any of those things.


And Bellarmine said so!

One man.


What was "mystical" about the Aristotelian/Ptolemaic system

The linking of the model with spiritual locations of hell and heaven. Beliefs about the nature of the heavens based on theological suppositions are mystical at best.


What was this?

Quis est motus mundi from the Initia Doctrinae Physicae (1549)


But some dare say, either because of the love of novelties or in order to appear ingenious, that the earth moves, and contend that neither the eight sphere nor the sun moves while they assign other movement to the celestial spheres and place the earth among the stars. The joke is not new. There is a book by Archimedes called De Numeratione Arenae, in which he reports that Aristarchus of Samos defended this paradox, that the sun remains fixed and the earth turns around the sun. And although clever workers investigate many questions to give expression to their ingenuity, the young should know that it is not good to defend such absurd opinions publicly, nor is it honest or a good example.

Capablanca-Fan
14-05-2013, 08:59 AM
No because you have borrowed Ellis' idea and tried to apply them to a different situation. As I have already pointed out a number of times have the earth fixed in space is one thing but having it quite immoveable so that the stars are rotating about it is quite another.
But that was what Ellis said he could model.


Regarding the rotation of space that is fine but it would require the light to move from the rotating to the non-rotating region and there would be a bending of that light which would be measurable and otherwise inexplicable. Unless you can get around that problem your rotating space idea is a dead duck.
Probably could be explained by the fabric of spacetime carrying around light with it. Note that Galileo and Oresme pointed out that the earth would share its motion with the objects on it.


As I said the belief in heliocentrism was probably not a major issue and hence required no campaign. However he is on the record as criticising it and never as supporting it.
There was very little reason to support it at the time.
The fact remains that Protestants had little problem with it, including Kepler and Newton.

Banning the works of Copernicus and Galileo for 200 years is a funny way of showing it.
Politics, not theology.


Calvin's words go furhter than a mere reference frame for convenience he explicitly fixes the earth even so far as to not have it rotate on axis.
Still a reference frame issue.


Rubbish. He consistently says the Earth is fixed and the heavenly bodies are moving with incredible speed. He was not just using phenomenological language.
But that is phenomenological language from the vantage point of Earth as a reference frame. Go to any planetarium and you'll hear the same sort of language.


Well the secular opponents did not have his books placed on the Index and forced him to recant on pan of torture and then confined him to house arrest. Only the church had the power to do any of those things.
An object lesson on the evils of any concentration of power into man-made instutions. But again, the recantation was a political and inquisitorial heresy, not theology.


One man.
A man known as one of the leading theologians of the church, now regarded as one of only 35 "Doctors of the Church".


Quis est motus mundi from the Initia Doctrinae Physicae (1549)


But some dare say, either because of the love of novelties or in order to appear ingenious, that the earth moves, and contend that neither the eight sphere nor the sun moves while they assign other movement to the celestial spheres and place the earth among the stars. The joke is not new. There is a book by Archimedes called De Numeratione Arenae, in which he reports that Aristarchus of Samos defended this paradox, that the sun remains fixed and the earth turns around the sun. And although clever workers investigate many questions to give expression to their ingenuity, the young should know that it is not good to defend such absurd opinions publicly, nor is it honest or a good example.
This seems more like Luther's reported objection: that it was a scientific absurdity. If they had read more medieval scholars like Oresme and fewer pagan Greeks like Aristotle, they would have known better.

Rincewind
14-05-2013, 11:25 AM
Jono,

Your arguments have reduced to a very dull ipse dixit on your side. As you are just repeating the same garbage there is little point continuing the discussion with you at this point. Except perhaps your rotating geocentric model with is fundamentally flawed but I haven't been able to dumb down the problem with it to your level of physical understanding just yet. So if you bother replying to this post I will only engage in discussion on that matter.

Regarding phenomenological language

When I say sunrise or that Mars is in Sagittarius it is clear I am talking about the apparent position of celestial bodies in the sky. That is phenomenological. When Luther said


The heavens revolve daily, and, immense as is their fabric and inconceivable the rapidity of their revolutions, we experience no concussion - no disturbance in the harmony of their motion.


He is making a point about the rapidity of the motion and the fact that they occur without concussion is (according to Luther) surprising. That is not phenomenological that it s statement of Luther's belief in a physical reality.

The other examples are similar. The fact that you continue to wave your hands and repeat the disingenuous claim of phenomenological language is clearly wrong and you are just failing to concede that point does your reputation no favours.

Theological resistance to Copernicus/Galileo

Regardless of what evidence is presented you continue to peddle the mistruth that there was no theological resistance to the Copernicus and Galileo. You claim the trial, the banning of their works for 200 years and so forth was entirely political and you have found the most enlightened church official you could find and tried to read a particular interpretation into his position and then use that faulty interpretation as the official church view of the time.

The churches opposition was partially fueled by the pope ego. Galileo was pretty provocative in the way he presented the case for the geocentric model. However that does not mean there was no theological opposition. As pointed out in previous posts Luther, Calvin and others saw a link between the scriptures and a geocentric cosmology and hence the heliocentric model was criticised on those grounds. The keep denying this in the face of evidence of multiple theologians who did this is again disingenuous.

Thanks for playing but when you just continue to repeat the same old illogical positions without any justification it becomes somewhat pointless.

Rincewind
14-05-2013, 12:25 PM
But that was what Ellis said he could model.

Do you have a reference to Ellis's model?


Probably could be explained by the fabric of spacetime carrying around light with it.

Of course space carries around light if it didn't do that then there would be no point. Let me try to explain the problem with your idea using physical objects rather than light.

You need the space around the earth to be static (like the Earth). You need the space in which the stars are living to be rotating about the Earth with period of 24 hours. There are different ways to do this but it boils down to needing a sphere (or rotationally symmetric solid) of static space embedded in the rotating space and the earth at the center of the static sphere. When light or objects cross the boundary between the static and the moving space they will behave differently. They will start to rotate. The onset of this effect will appear to be a force which will move objects and bend light and will have no explanation other than the crossing over from the static to the moving space.


Note that Galileo and Oresme pointed out that the earth would share its motion with the objects on it.

Objects moving with the earth does not affect the path of light. Also heavy objects moving through the air are not brought along by the earth so much leading to the Coriolis effect which is important in navigation of planes and missiles and the calculation of trajectories of large projectiles.

Capablanca-Fan
14-05-2013, 01:33 PM
Do you have a reference to Ellis's model?
I gave you a reference for his quote.


Of course space carries around light if it didn't do that then there would be no point. Let me try to explain the problem with your idea using physical objects rather than light.
I don't need any explanation.


Objects moving with the earth does not affect the path of light. Also heavy objects moving through the air are not brought along by the earth so much leading to the Coriolis effect which is important in navigation of planes and missiles and the calculation of trajectories of large projectiles.
Again, according to Ellis one could make a geocentric model that could account for all this, so be impossible to disprove observationally. But who would want to?

Rincewind
14-05-2013, 04:04 PM
I gave you a reference for his quote.

You note I asked if you had a reference to his model, not his quote.


I don't need any explanation.

You patently do as I have been trying to get this point across to you now for the third time now. As you don't have any way to patch up your model I assume you are now abandoning it.


Again, according to Ellis one could make a geocentric model that could account for all this, so be impossible to disprove observationally. But who would want to?

So he hasn't done so? What a coincidence as you could do so either. Hence your whole premise that it is an arbitrary choice of coordinates is bogus.

Actually in fairness to Ellis I think he would be ok if he allowed the earth to rotate on axis. Certainly that would take care of the major observational issues and relativistic problems for the distant stars - however that would not be scriptural according to the pre-18th century church's cosmology - and hence cannot be adopted as your model.

What it boils down to is that inertial frames of reference are better than non-inertial ones for understanding the universe and moving to a heliocentric model was an important first step in an understanding that lead to the subsequent discoveries of Kepler, Galileo, Newton and Einstein etc.

Capablanca-Fan
15-05-2013, 12:01 AM
You note I asked if you had a reference to his model, not his quote.
If you had read properly, you would have realized that he said he could build such a model, not that he had done so.


You patently do as I have been trying to get this point across to you now for the third time now. As you don't have any way to patch up your model I assume you are now abandoning it.
Not at all. Even now, any planetarium shows the celestial sphere rotating about the earth, which would entail the space-time fabric moving faster than life as a phenomenological observation.

But the point is that as Ellis said, one could choose such a model and it would not be disprovable observationally. But whether its' practical is another matter. When it comes to dynamics, of course, the more inertial, the better. So the reason the more inertial frame is usually chosen is practical, not because this is "right" and the earth-as-reference-frame view "wrong", as Sir Fred Hoyle pointed out.


Actually in fairness to Ellis I think he would be ok if he allowed the earth to rotate on axis. Certainly that would take care of the major observational issues and relativistic problems for the distant stars - however that would not be scriptural according to the pre-18th century church's cosmology - and hence cannot be adopted as your model.
As I showed, Oresme in the 14th century argued that the Bible would be compatible with the earth's rotation if understood as a phenomenological/earth-as-reference-frame description. And Kepler was in good standing with the Lutheran Church at about the same time as Galileo.


What it boils down to is that inertial frames of reference are better than non-inertial ones for understanding the universe and moving to a heliocentric model was an important first step in an understanding that lead to the subsequent discoveries of Kepler, Galileo, Newton and Einstein etc.
Inertial frame are certainly easier in cosmology; no one doubts that. In electrical engineering, this is not always true though ("bug on the rotor" reference frame).

Capablanca-Fan
15-05-2013, 12:17 AM
Your arguments have reduced to a very dull ipse dixit on your side. As you are just repeating the same garbage there is little point continuing the discussion with you at this point.
No loss, because you persist with the false history that it was religion v science as opposed to science v science as many scholars of the era have shown (John Heilbron, Georgio de Santillana, James Hannam).


Except perhaps your rotating geocentric model with is fundamentally flawed but I haven't been able to dumb down the problem with it to your level of physical understanding just yet. So if you bother replying to this post I will only engage in discussion on that matter.
I doubt that I need lessons in physics from the likes of you. But you evidently need reading comprehension. I said that Ellis said he could construct a geocentric model that would be impossible to disprove, so the choice of reference frames is a philosophical decision.


Regarding phenomenological language

When I say sunrise or that Mars is in Sagittarius it is clear I am talking about the apparent position of celestial bodies in the sky. That is phenomenological.
It is, but without knowing your background, it would not be clear whether you believed it was phenomenological or treating the earth as an absolute reference frame. The same benefit of the doubt should be awarded to the Bible when it uses similar language. This applies whether or not some pre- or peri-Copernican exegetes took this language as implying that the earth was an absolute reference frame; the language itself doesn't imply this.


When Luther said


The heavens revolve daily, and, immense as is their fabric and inconceivable the rapidity of their revolutions, we experience no concussion - no disturbance in the harmony of their motion.


He is making a point about the rapidity of the motion and the fact that they occur without concussion is (according to Luther) surprising. That is not phenomenological that it s statement of Luther's belief in a physical reality.
Even if he believed that, there is nothing dogmatic about it or explicitly anti-geokinetic. An astronomer today might say something similar. Oresme, two centuries before Luther, said that if the earth were rotating, we would also not experience any disturbance or harmony-breaking (WTTE) because the earth would share its motion with the air, water, and everything else on it.


Theological resistance to Copernicus/Galileo

Regardless of what evidence is presented you continue to peddle the mistruth that there was no theological resistance to the Copernicus and Galileo. You claim the trial, the banning of their works for 200 years and so forth was entirely political.
It was largely political, and the results of the Pope's bruised ego, as shown by widespread Church embrace of geokinetic astronomy not long after Galileo's death. And before the Pope's ego was bruised, he had encouraged Galileo to publish his geokinetic model. This indicates that the theological opposition was more of an excuse than the real reason. Kepler had no trouble with his Lutheran church.


and you have found the most enlightened church official you could find and tried to read a particular interpretation into his position and then use that faulty interpretation as the official church view of the time.
One wouldn't normally call Bellarmine that enlightened; he was very much part of the "Counter-Reformation". But he was probably the Church's leading theologian of his day.


The churches opposition was partially fueled by the pope ego. Galileo was pretty provocative in the way he presented the case for the geocentric model. However that does not mean there was no theological opposition.
But your revisionism majors on the alleged Bible v science debate, which at best was a minor part of the problem.


As pointed out in previous posts Luther, Calvin and others saw a link between the scriptures and a geocentric cosmology and hence the heliocentric model was criticised on those grounds. The keep denying this in the face of evidence of multiple theologians who did this is again disingenuous.
But we find little or no criticism of geokineticism per se in their writings.

Rincewind
15-05-2013, 12:35 AM
Jono, since I have pointed out the problem with your geocentric model but you have studiously ignored it and kept repeating the same rubbish there I think we are also at an impasse on this topic unless you respond the the specific problems with your model.

A summary of the problems with your model are as follows.

Reliance on Ellis

You cannot do this as Ellis only claims to have been able to do something and did not (apparently) do it. For you to claim that Ellis position is reasonable you must have some idea how it might be done.

I suspect Ellis was thinking of a model with a rotating earth which would be geocentric but would not be the cosmology of the 16th century reformers such as that described by Luther and Calvin.

Problem with stars moving with superluminal speed

If the earth is stationary and the stars moving they would be moving with a speed faster that light. In the knowledge of relativity we know this cannot be physical and therefore the planetarium-like model would not be feasible.

Your only attempt to patch this up was to posit that space itself rotates taking the stars with it and therefore overcoming the superluminal motion. This is fine in so far as avoiding relativity violation however it introduces a second issue which you have not yet addressed (and from some of your posts it is not even clear that you have understood it).

Problem with rotating space

To repeat my post from above which you edited out of your reply...

You need the space around the earth to be static (like the Earth). You need the space in which the stars are living to be rotating about the Earth with period of 24 hours. There are different ways to do this but it boils down to needing a sphere (or rotationally symmetric solid) of static space embedded in the rotating space and the earth at the center of the static sphere. When light or objects cross the boundary between the static and the moving space they will behave differently. They will start to rotate. The onset of this effect will appear to be a force which will move objects and bend light and will have no explanation other than the crossing over from the static to the moving space.

Unless you have a solution for this problem you don't have a model which would stand up to everyday measurement. If you do have a solution to this problem please reply but if you are going to continue to wave your arms wildly claiming there is no problem when their clearly is then you are either being disingenuous or you are simply out of your depth.

Capablanca-Fan
18-05-2013, 09:16 AM
My own summary:

Most of the church’s intellectuals were on Galileo's side, while the clearest opposition to him came from secular ideas (Georgio de Santillana).
The Church's leading theologian, Cardinal Bellarmine, said he was open to Galileo's view, agreed that it made mathematical good sense, and even was prepared to re-interpret Scripture, if geokineticism could be proven.
The evidence for geokineticism was not so strong at the time; Galileo's proof of the tides was fallacious.
200 years before Galileo, Oresme had shown that a rotating earth would deny neither Scripture nor science.
Soon after Galileo's death, the church intellectuals were teaching his view in China and using their own cathedrals as giant sundials (meridiane) to develop the geokinetic model.
The difference between Galileo's views and the establishment Ptolemaic view lies only in the choice of reference frames (Sir Fred Hoyle).
Luther's only recorded denunciation of Copernicus was from a Table Talk account published years after his death.
Calvin's didn't address geokineticism; his teachings make just as much sense in an earth-as-reference-frame view as with absolute geocentrism.
The Church almost universally taught a ball-shaped earth, including very unambiguous statements from Bede and Aquinas.

Rincewind
18-05-2013, 10:01 AM
My own summary:

Most of the church’s intellectuals were on Galileo's side, while the clearest opposition to him came from secular ideas (Georgio de Santillana).
The Church's leading theologian, Cardinal Bellarmine, said he was open to Galileo's view, agreed that it made mathematical good sense, and even was prepared to re-interpret Scripture, if geokineticism could be proven.
The evidence for geokineticism was not so strong at the time; Galileo's proof of the tides was fallacious.
200 years before Galileo, Oresme had shown that a rotating earth would deny neither Scripture nor science.
Soon after Galileo's death, the church intellectuals were teaching his view in China and using their own cathedrals as giant sundials (meridiane) to develop the geokinetic model.
The difference between Galileo's views and the establishment Ptolemaic view lies only in the choice of reference frames (Sir Fred Hoyle).
Luther's only recorded denunciation of Copernicus was from a Table Talk account published years after his death.
Calvin's didn't address geokineticism; his teachings make just as much sense in an earth-as-reference-frame view as with absolute geocentrism.
The Church almost universally taught a ball-shaped earth, including very unambiguous statements from Bede and Aquinas.


Almost all of which have already been dismissed as wishful thinking on your behalf. In fact some of your claims here you haven't even tried to prove. For example your very first point...


Most of the church’s intellectuals were on Galileo's side

When was this shown above?

Capablanca-Fan
18-05-2013, 10:02 AM
Almost all of which have already been dismissed as wishful thinking on your behalf. In fact some of your claims here you haven't even tried to prove.
Au contraire, throughout this thread I've adduced ample evidence.


For example your very first point...


Most of the church’s intellectuals were on Galileo's side

When was then shown above?
Argue with Giorgio de Santillana then.

Rincewind
18-05-2013, 10:04 AM
Argue with Giorgio de Santillana then.

He died in 1974.

Capablanca-Fan
18-05-2013, 10:30 AM
He died in 1974.
Obviously I meant, argue with his point. He was well qualified in the history of science; a prof at MIT.

Rincewind
18-05-2013, 10:41 AM
Obviously I meant, argue with his point. He was well qualified in the history of science; a prof at MIT.

Since when has "a major part" (de Santillana's words) meant "most"?

Capablanca-Fan
18-05-2013, 12:02 PM
Since when has "a major part" (de Santillana's words) meant "most"?
As opposed to a minor part, presumably. But this quibble hardly affects the main point.

Rincewind
18-05-2013, 02:31 PM
As opposed to a minor part, presumably.

No. An organisation may be comprised of many major parts. Noting it was "a major part" not "the major part".


But this quibble hardly affects the main point.

It means a completely different thing. A major part could just be a couple of senior guys and not the majority of the rank and file. In fact a major part could have accepted heliocentrisim and another major part (or several other major parts) could have rejected it.

But the main point is the dishonest way you misrepresent de Santillana's words and when you are sprung you don't even have the good grace to admit that you have made a "mistake".

Capablanca-Fan
19-05-2013, 10:55 AM
More Rincewindian petty quibbling, overlooking Santillana's point that Galileo's main opposition was secular.

Rincewind
19-05-2013, 12:19 PM
More Rincewindian petty quibbling, overlooking Santillana's point that Galileo's main opposition was secular.

I didn't deny there were member of the church that where open to heliocentricity. After all the reason De Revolutionibus was only suspended until an edited version could be published (after Copernicus' death of course) was because the church scientific community found it useful for their calculations of calendars. However the majority of educated people at the time were geocentrists and the church was no different in this regard. Where the churches differed is that they saw a link between the scriptures and geocentrism. So in their minds Copernicus and Galileo were not just counter to conventional wisdom, they were going against scripture.

To quote Pope John-Paul II (L'Osservatore Romano N. 44 (1264) - November 4, 1992)


The error of the theologians of the time, when they maintained the centrality of the earth, was to think that our understanding of the physical world's structure was, in some way, imposed by the literal sense of Sacred Scripture.

A statement of exactly the sort of thing Jono is trying to deny.

Capablanca-Fan
20-05-2013, 02:27 AM
To quote Pope John-Paul II (L'Osservatore Romano N. 44 (1264) - November 4, 1992)


The error of the theologians of the time, when they maintained the centrality of the earth, was to think that our understanding of the physical world's structure was, in some way, imposed by the literal sense of Sacred Scripture.

A statement of exactly the sort of thing Jono is trying to deny.
As I explained in Answering another uninformed atheist: Galileo, Miller–Urey, probability (http://creation.com/answering-another-uninformed-atheist-galileo-miller-urey-probability), this is just another example of the modern fashion of False Apology Syndrome, brilliantly skewered by Dr Theodore Dalrymple.

Rincewind
20-05-2013, 01:06 PM
As I explained in Answering another uninformed atheist: Galileo, Miller–Urey, probability (http://creation.com/answering-another-uninformed-atheist-galileo-miller-urey-probability), this is just another example of the modern fashion of False Apology Syndrome, brilliantly skewered by Dr Theodore Dalrymple.

The papal office apologising for the Galileo affair may well be a manifestation of FAS. However that is not to deny that the entire address as incorrect.

Pope John-Paul correctly states that there were theologians contemporary with Galileo who saw the Ptolemaic cosmology as supported by the scripture and therefore viewed a heliocentric assumption as heretical.

Of course Galileo was not making an argument on theological grounds and therefore there was no reason to try him as such. However that does change the fact that the theological position cannot be dismissed as purely phenomenological for the reasons I've already given.


BTW it is nice to see you describe a famous atheist as brilliant and not one of your made up insults you seem to reserve for other atheists.

Capablanca-Fan
20-05-2013, 02:50 PM
The papal office apologising for the Galileo affair may well be a manifestation of FAS. However that is not to deny that the entire address as incorrect.
It is, basically, since the theologians' main mistake was not in opposing science but in trying to bring Scripture into line with the science of their day: Ptolemaic cosmology.


Pope John-Paul correctly states that there were theologians contemporary with Galileo who saw the Ptolemaic cosmology as supported by the scripture and therefore viewed a heliocentric assumption as heretical.
The Pope was a philosopher, not an expert in the history of science, unlike Giorgio de Santillana, or James Hannam, Ph.D. historian of science from Cambridge, and author of God's Philosophers, who pointed out:

Academic historians are now convinced that this had as much to do with politics and the Pope’s ego as it did with science.


Of course Galileo was not making an argument on theological grounds and therefore there was no reason to try him as such. However that does change the fact that the theological position cannot be dismissed as purely phenomenological for the reasons I've already given.
That's exactly what they were, as was realized by Kepler, Newton, Oresme, and indeed Galileo himself.


BTW it is nice to see you describe a famous atheist as brilliant and not one of your made up insults you seem to reserve for other atheists.
Actually, it was "brilliantly", which is an adverb.

Rincewind
20-05-2013, 02:56 PM
Actually, it was "brilliantly", which is adverb.

Certainly better than your ability to use the quoting in this instance which was decidedly dim.

Rincewind
20-05-2013, 03:09 PM
Are you edited and enhanced your post, well done! :clap:


It is, basically, since the theologians' main mistake was not in opposing science but in trying to bring Scripture into line with the science of their day: Ptolemaic cosmology.

I agree that to people today that seems to be a reasonable assessment but are in possession of considerable hindsight in making that call. At the time the theologians certainly made the link and there is evidence that Holy Scripture was used to crticise these ideas.


The Pope was a philosopher, not an expert in the history of science, unlike Giorgio de Santillana, or James Hannam, Ph.D. historian of science from Cambridge, and author of God's Philosophers, who pointed out:

Academic historians are now convinced that this had as much to do with politics and the Pope’s ego as it did with science.

No one denies that Galileo enraged the pope by portraying those who clung to geocentrism are fools. However neither de Santillana or Hannam words (insofar as you have relied on them here) are inconsistent with theological opposition to heliocentrism based on scripture.

Forgive me if I am mistaken but you have shamelessly continued to rely on de Santillana supporting your proposition that most of the church were not anti-heliocentrism which is not what he said.


That's exactly what they were, as was realized by Kepler, Newton, Oresme, and indeed Galileo himself.

Again hindsight which the protagonists of the time were not aware. Of course Galileo argued this. But it is obvious by the words of theologians such as Calvin that they were talking about the stars actually moving at incredible speeds and not consistent with apparent motion caused by the rotation of the earth on its axis.


Actually, it was "brilliantly", which is an adverb.

Yes of course. But compliments for atheist are few and far between in your posts. Surely you can agree that someone able to brilliantly skewer an opposing view must have some quality worthy of the adjectival form. :D

Capablanca-Fan
20-05-2013, 04:04 PM
Are you edited and enhanced your post, well done! :clap:
Just some minor updates, before I even saw your excuse for a post.


I agree that to people today that seems to be a reasonable assessment but are in possession of considerable hindsight in making that call. At the time the theologians certainly made the link and there is evidence that Holy Scripture was used to crticise these ideas.
They made the link because the establishment science was geocentric.


No one denies that Galileo enraged the pope by portraying those who clung to geocentrism are fools. However neither de Santillana or Hannam words (insofar as you have relied on them here) are inconsistent with theological opposition to heliocentrism based on scripture.
It was not the main point. With their leading theologian Bellarmine, he was prepared to admit that he may have misunderstood Scripture, if there were actually proof of Galileo's ideas, which there wasn't at the time.


Forgive me if I am mistaken but you have shamelessly continued to rely on de Santillana supporting your proposition that most of the church were not anti-heliocentrism which is not what he said.
Even under your interpretation, there is no doubt that he said, “the clearest opposition to him came from secular ideas.”


Again hindsight which the protagonists of the time were not aware. Of course Galileo argued this. But it is obvious by the words of theologians such as Calvin that they were talking about the stars actually moving at incredible speeds and not consistent with apparent motion caused by the rotation of the earth on its axis.
Calvin's views on this are ambiguous, as shown.


Yes of course. But compliments for atheist are few and far between in your posts. Surely you can agree that someone able to brilliantly skewer an opposing view must have some quality worthy of the adjectival form. :D
Dalrymple is a rare exception.

Rincewind
20-05-2013, 04:19 PM
Even under your interpretation, there is no doubt that he said, “the clearest opposition to him came from secular ideas.”

Translation: yes. :lol:

Seriously Jono if you think the difference between "a major part" and "most" is merely one of interpretation then you are certainly more depraved than I originally thought. However it does explain how you can continue the farce of claiming that Calvin's "The heavens revolve daily, and, immense as is their fabric and inconceivable the rapidity of their revolutions" could be interpreted as merely phenomenological language.

Capablanca-Fan
21-05-2013, 03:40 AM
Translation: yes. :lol:
Translation: I will continue to portray the Galileo controversy as science v religion when it was mostly science v science.


However it does explain how you can continue the farce of claiming that Calvin's "The heavens revolve daily, and, immense as is their fabric and inconceivable the rapidity of their revolutions" could be interpreted as merely phenomenological language.
Of course it is compatible with phenomenological reference-frame language, because any modern planetarium will show the rotation of the celestial sphere with earth as the centre. Calvin showed no interest in disputing the absolute geocentrism v geokineticism. This can be shown in his commentary on Genesis (http://creation.com/calvin-said-genesis-means-what-it-says), where he explicitly teaches that the Bible is using phenomenological language not adjudicating between different reference frames:


For, to my mind, this is a certain principle, that nothing is here treated of but the visible form of the world. He who would learn astronomy and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. Here the Spirit of God would reach all men without exception and therefore….the history of creation…is the book of the unlearned. … I have said, that Moses does not here subtilely descant, as a philosopher, on the secrets of nature, as may be seen in these words … . Here lies the difference; Moses wrote in a popular style things which, without instruction, all ordinary persons, endued with common sense, are able to understand; but astronomers investigate with great labor whatever the sagacity of the human mind can comprehend. … Nor did Moses truly wish to withdraw us from [astronomy] in omitting such things as are peculiar to the art; but because he was ordained a teacher as well of the unlearned and rude as of the learned, he could not otherwise fulfill his office than by descending to this grosser method of instruction….. Moses, therefore, rather adapts his discourse to common usage.

Damodevo
21-05-2013, 04:24 AM
They made the link because the establishment science was geocentric.

Indeed, as these researches point out (http://www.sartonchair.ugent.be/file/80), it took 300 years to scientifically prove heliocentrism


Finding sufficient experimental evidence for establishing the validity of the heliocentric doctrine took more than 300 years after Copernicus' proposition of the model.

Rincewind
21-05-2013, 11:53 AM
Indeed, as these researches point out (http://www.sartonchair.ugent.be/file/80), it took 300 years to scientifically prove heliocentrism

Heliocentrism cannot be scientifically proven as it is wrong. What Sterken is talking about was proving that the earth rotates on axis. And while Foucault's experiment provided additional support for this which could be witnessed by anyone who cared to look, it did not prove it any further from a scientific standpoint really. Since Newtonian gravitation explained the motion of the planets to a very good approximation the only way to support a stationary earth would be to posit phenomenal speeds and a hitherto unexplained force (or the hand of God) to generate the circular motion. If someone believed in this mysterious force was a physical reality then the same force would also explain the motion of Foucault's pendulum. However as an exercise in the popularisation of science Foucault's pendulum was a success and continues to be so today.

Capablanca-Fan
21-05-2013, 03:10 PM
Heliocentrism cannot be scientifically proven as it is wrong.
That was the word you were using, so don't blame Damodevo. I have been using the more precise term geokineticism.


What Sterken is talking about was proving that the earth rotates on axis. And while Foucault's experiment provided additional support for this which could be witnessed by anyone who cared to look, it did not prove it any further from a scientific standpoint really.
Of course it did.


Since Newtonian gravitation explained the motion of the planets to a very good approximation
Yes, but that was too late for Galileo.


the only way to support a stationary earth would be to posit phenomenal speeds and a hitherto unexplained force (or the hand of God) to generate the circular motion. If someone believed in this mysterious force was a physical reality then the same force would also explain the motion of Foucault's pendulum. However as an exercise in the popularisation of science Foucault's pendulum was a success and continues to be so today.
Newton's own proposal of gravitation was regarded as an "occult" force because it was action at a distance.

Rincewind
21-05-2013, 04:10 PM
That was the word you were using, so don't blame Damodevo. I have been using the more precise term geokineticism.

Actually geokinetics as a term is too broad and when I have needed to be specific I have said something like the rotation of the Earth on its axis.


Of course it did.

No. By the time of Foucault the fact that the Earth rotated on its axis was scientifically well established. He provided a way to demonstrate it in an accessible fashion.


Yes, but that was too late for Galileo.

We are not talking about Galileo here but when the Earth rotation on its axis was well established by the time Foucault came along. And as a scientific theory Newtonian gravitation explained the motion of the planets but only in the context of the earth rotating on axis.


Newton's own proposal of gravitation was regarded as an "occult" force because it was action at a distance.

Relevance? I doubt it was ever widely regarded as such by the scientific community.

Capablanca-Fan
23-05-2013, 04:50 AM
Actually geokinetics as a term is too broad and when I have needed to be specific I have said something like the rotation of the Earth on its axis.
It is broad but accurate. Heliocentrism isn't quite accurate even for our solar system, and certainly not for our galaxy and higher orders of size.


No. By the time of Foucault the fact that the Earth rotated on its axis was scientifically well established. He provided a way to demonstrate it in an accessible fashion.
Or was Newton's theory considered the most parsimonious so that Earth's rotation was accepted before it had been experimentally proved. Newton did predict and equatorial bulge.

Here is something else, busting another Galileo myth:
Who Refused to Look Through Galileo's Telescope? (http://bedejournal.blogspot.com/2006/11/who-refused-to-look-through-galileos.html)
James Hannam (Ph.D. in history of science from Cambridge)

So who refused to look through Galileo's telescope? According to the historical record, no one did for certain. The argument was over what they could see once they once they did look.

Rincewind
23-05-2013, 11:28 AM
It is broad but accurate. Heliocentrism isn't quite accurate even for our solar system, and certainly not for our galaxy and higher orders of size.

Yes but heliocentric model is the common term for the Copernican system which involved the rotation of the earth on axis and orbit around the sun. in the case of Foucault's pendulum it demonstrated the rotation of the earth on axis and says nothing about (say) the orbit of the earth around the sun.


Or was Newton's theory considered the most parsimonious so that Earth's rotation was accepted before it had been experimentally proved. Newton did predict and equatorial bulge.

As I already mentioned if one was wont to posit that there was some mysterious force causing celestial bodies to orbit daily around the earth then that force would also explain Foucault's pendulum and the Coriolis effect. It is always because of parsimony that Newtonian gravity is the accepted theory. Observation proves nothing in the mathematical sense. It can provide counterexamples when competing theories make different predictions but there is always the need to apply Occam's razor when two theories make the same predictions.