tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post5908467334644956352..comments2024-03-23T07:33:30.972+00:00Comments on Quodlibeta: Neo-geocentrismJameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01594220073836613367noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-90093416536415449352012-05-15T21:34:30.842+01:002012-05-15T21:34:30.842+01:00More info on our geocentric universe here:
http:/...More info on our geocentric universe here:<br /><br />http://christian-wilderness.forumvi.com/t39-stationary-earthStrangelovehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08836014673952717431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-46843220507914695202009-07-11T20:15:03.405+01:002009-07-11T20:15:03.405+01:00Well, this situation is no different then the one ...Well, this situation is no different then the one involving the flat Earth Myth. A bunch of atheists who don't know nearly enough about history or theology tell some Christians that also don't know enough about history or theology and they swallow it hook, line, and sinker.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18319161892002614759noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-50067237711008510192009-07-09T18:46:55.495+01:002009-07-09T18:46:55.495+01:00Thomas Kuhn, he of paradigm fame, has also said th...Thomas Kuhn, he of paradigm fame, has also said that geocentrism is no less true than heliocentrism, in a letter to the NY Times and in private correspondence to William Wallace. I don't know his reasons, Wallace did not say. But a physicist friend, an atheist, contends that since Einstein showed that no acceleration frame is "privileged," one can center the origin of the coordinate system anywhere at all, and the only price is the relative complexity of the math. <br /><br />At the time of Galileo, heliocentrism had been "falsified" (in our present terminology). There was no observable stellar parallax and objects dropped from towers did not fall east of the plumb line. Galileo himself suggested the latter experiment, but there is no evidence he ever carried it out. [Maybe he did, found no deflection, and kept mum.] As to the former, known to Aristotle and Archimedes, Copernicus responded that maybe the stars were much farther away than their relative luminosity suggested (which was around 70-120 million miles!) But you cannot save one unproven hypothesis with a second unproven hypothesis. <br /><br />Scientifically, Galileo's proof was bogus: he claimed that the ocean tides were caused by sloshing due to the earth's rotation and that this was the clincher. But even Aquinas had known that the tides were due (somehow) to the moon. This led Duhem to remark that Galileo was right but for all the wrong reasons, while Osiander and others were wrong for all the right reasons. It is likely also why Darwin's Bulldog, Huxley, after examining the facts, concluded that the Church had the better arguments. <br /><br />Around 1800, Italian scientists detected stellar parallax and measured the minute eastward deflection of falling bodies. Settele brought this to the Church's attention. The Office looked it over and agreed, and lifted the injunction. The <i>empirical</i> evidence demanded by Bellarmine had finally been delivered.TheOFloinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14756711106266484327noreply@blogger.com