Vy considers I accused him falsely of mis-citing the Bible, Rod invokes relativity

1) Assorted retorts: ... on Not Believing Vedic Astronomy Apart from Geocentrism, on Believing Scholastic Astronomy Including Geocentrism, 2) ... on Nicole d'Oresme refusing to apply relativity perfectly understood to Geocentric appearances, 3) ... on Black Holes and Geocentrism, 4) Back to Godinci, 5) HGL's F.B. writings: A "Biblical" Heliocentric Misciting Holy Scripture, 6) Vy considers I accused him falsely of mis-citing the Bible, Rod invokes relativity, 7) Vy makes his point more clearly - so do I, 8) New blog on the kid : Columbus and Joshua (Imagine Christopher Columbus had worked a miracle)

Mariah

not to argue or anything, but Vy, why did you curse?

Hans-Georg

I could not find him cursing, did he take it away Mariah?

Vy, once again, you cited Joshua as:

"What "we" do find is Joshua saying to God to make the movement of the sun and moon as seen from WITHIN the earth (as is expected with a rotating earth) to stop"

... when for one thing his exact words to God are not recorded and for another thing his exact words to Sun and Moon are recorded?

Btw, Mariah, I found where he cursed. You were perfectly right.

Rod

If we want to provide experimental evidence of the Earth being stationary, we must redo the Michelson Morley experiment on another planetary body and compare the results. The experiment expected to show movement, but didn't. Mars moves in both models, so the Michelson Morley experiment should show movement on Mars. If it doesn't, the experiment is flawed. If it does, but doesn't on Earth, Earth is stationary. We need a second experiment to compare to.

Hans-Georg

Making experiments and observations on Mars would be hard - I read on Reasons to Believe it was so radioactive it would quickly cause cancer in someone satying there. But, yes, some experiments and observations might quickly refute Heliocentrism if not true and if redone from Mars. I was also thinking of parallax angles and form.

Here is where I previously suggested this:

HGL's F.B. writings : Creationism and Geocentrism are sometimes used as metaphors for "outdated because disproven inexact science"
http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2011/04/cagasuamfobdis.html

The 30 or so comments are very little by one other commenter whom I answered, but mostly by myself as ongoing continuations of the thought on the blog post.

First part of the thread is now here:

HGL's F.B. writings : A "Biblical" Heliocentric Misciting Holy Scripture
http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2014/11/a-biblical-heliocentric-misciting-holy.html

Vy

"1) Joshua speaks with God"

False, Joshua speaks TO God, not WITH God.

"2) Joshua publically addresses Sun and Moon"

And I said he didn't??

Anyways, I'm glad you noticed this part because Joshua never said anything about:

• angelically controlled planets
  
  
• faster_than_light (ftl) rotating universe/heavens,
  
  
• a stationary earth, earth revolving galaxies etc.

For a third time, show me something moving at 5-25% ftl and then, maybe you can then claim geoheliocentrism is plausible.

Also show me:

• any scripture that says the stars/galaxies revolve around the earth
  
  
• any scripture that says the universe rotates around the earth.

Rod

Earth is stationary in relation to what?

Vy

Hans, did you seriously turn my comments into a blog post?

Mariah, which curse?

Rod

"Vy Your first article has a loooooo...t of special pleading, damn!"

Vy

The "damn!"?

Hmm, OK.

Rod

That's the only thing I can find.

Hans-Georg

That is what I found too.

I routinely turn OUR discussions into posts - my own [comments] along with yours.

If you hate it so much you sue me, you are the first. If you are simply annoyed you are not the first.

2) Joshua publically addresses Sun and Moon

"And I said he didn't??"

At least you ignored that part as less relevant.

Supposing he had asked God "let sun and moon stand still from our view point, that is let earth stop rotating around its axis" ... would he not have been most honest if, when speaking up publically, he had told EARTH to stop turning around itself?

Or are you not, when putting unstated words into Joshua's mouth as to the prayer, implying these contradict the stated words which he said openly before all the people?

As to the rest, some of what Joshua did not say might be very clearly implied by the fact it was Sun and Moon that stopped moving and not Earth. OTHER parts might be more like merely human conjecture on my part and I did not attribute these to the Joshua passage.

Angelic movers of celestial bodies/angels being celestial bodies (either is at least somehow consistent with sacred text) is not in Joshua passage but in other parts. Job 38:7 for instance.

Earth being still ("and it shall not be moved") is in one Psalm passage, besides this being implied in its not being involved as to changing behaviour in Joshua text or Hezekias' text - unlike Sun.

Whether stars turn around us every 23 h 55 or so minutes within an empty space / non-moving Heavens, or whether aether / Heavens move every such period, slowing down perhaps towards Earth, is NOT in Bible as directly, can't recall a passage, but is by now getting a bit more obvious in favour of second alternative.

Like if Sun had been zapping THROUGH space rather than flowing along with space (and moving through it slower, like one turn backwards against its westward turn completed per year), it might have, as you mentioned had a tail like a comet.

So, you consider it was Earth that stopped turning around its axis. How is that consistent with what Joshua said before all the people?

(Apart from St Robert's observation to Galileo, that such a stop would have left Moon moving even relatively to Earth)

Vy

"Earth being still ("and it shall not be moved")"

The word for "moved", mowt, also translates to "removed" and based on Psalm 104:5, I consider it to be "removed", so all those verses you claim to support geoheliocentrism do not.

[It was in fact Psalm 103:5 I had referred to, the verse rather proves Geostasis than that "removed" from a non-stationary context is better translation than "moved" locally.]

"At least you ignored that part as less relevant"

Are you selectively blind or just selectively ignorant? When you tried to misrepresent me in your blog post, didn't you see where I said Joshua talked about the sun and moon??

"Supposing he had asked God"

First, he didn't need to. They were involved in a war and there was no need for God to start explaining the workings of the planets during such a time.

Second, he never said the earth was stationary.

"How is that consistent with what Joshua said before all the people?"

And "I have butterflies in my stomach" means I actually do have butterflies in my stomach?

When I talk about the sun reaching its apex, I refer to its motion I see from WITHIN the earth which is caused by the rotation of the earth. Simply put, everything Joshua said is correct.

"Like if the Sun had been zapping THROUGH space rather than flowing along with space"

That's the explanation you're going with? Seriously? Thanks for letting me know just how much mental gymnastics you have to perform to make geoheliocentrism make sense to you.

"Job 38:7 for instance"

That has just as much to do with controlling planetary/galactic/universal motions as Luke 15:10 has to do with angels being humans, NOTHING.

Seriously, for the FOURTH time, show me a single verse that says angels control planetary/galactic/universal motions.

You falsely accused me of misciting the Bible (when I didn't even cite it) but instead, made accurate comments about it, and now you have attributed (and have been attributing) non-described positions to angels and have consistently failed to provide a biblical basis for such claims, THREE times.

[He does perhaps not notice difference between Biblical basis in general for a theory and Biblical citations for salient details. Plus I'll have a thing to answer on angels and Job 38:7]

Hans-Georg

"When you tried to misrepresent me in your blog post, didn't you see where I said Joshua talked about the sun and moon??"

I did not misrepresent you. I quoted your exact words as per here and I quoted my own exact words as per here.

The verse does not say Joshua talked about Sun and Moon when speaking to God. It sayd Joshua talked to God and then publically adressed Sun and Moon.

He did not tell Sun and Moon "appear to be still as seen from here, whatever it takes in real cosmology", he told them to stand still.

"And "I have butterflies in my stomach" means I actually do have butterflies in my stomach?"

Figurative language is at its place very often but NOT when a miracle worker says the words that trigger the miracle.

Or would you consider Christ used figurative language when adressing impure spirits? Of course not. The impure spirits were there and He told THEM to get out.

"They were involved in a war and there was no need for God to start explaining the workings of the planets during such a time."

Immaterial.

First off, God could have given Joshua an intuitive understanding of it all in one split second.

Second, God could have preapared Joshua for the moment in his previous life, when he was at leasure, so the explaining did not have to take place only then and there.

"When I talk about the sun reaching its apex, I refer to its motion I see from WITHIN the earth which is caused by the rotation of the earth. Simply put, everything Joshua said is correct."

Except that he told them to stop. And they did. And a miracle worker adresses the entity he wants to accomplish something unusual. Like demons getting out of a guy for once and leaving him alone.

"That has just as much to do with controlling planetary/galactic/universal motions as Luke 15:10 has to do with angels being humans, NOTHING."

That is your exegesis. Not St Thomas Aquinas, not mine.

Your supposed parallel never ever suggested to anyone that angels are humans.

Luke 15:10 say very clearly that ANGELS are concerned with us doing penance and glad for it if we do.

However, Job 38:7 states "morning stars sang". This leaves us with an obvious option of stars being alive, and thus being a kind of angels - or a less obvious but perhaps more correct option - the one of St Thomas Aquinas - of stars each being moved by an angel. If the angel sang and moved a star, one could consider that as "the star sang".

"You falsely accused me of misciting the Bible (when I didn't even cite it)"

YOUR story:

Joshua asked God to make Sun and Moon still as to where they appear from Earth.

BIBLE story:

Joshua spoke to God. THEN he spoke up before all and TOLD Sun and Moon to stand still.

[I took citation in a looser sense than only quotes - paraphrases count too and are correct if meaning same thing and misciting if saying something quite other]

Do you get it this fifth time?

Rod, you gave me two challenges.

• 1) proving Geocentrism as per experiments redone from Mars.
  
  Here I answered with a challenge (long, but old) to prove Heliocentrism that way.
  
  
• 2) Earth being still relative to what?
  
  I am not a relativist.
  
  I understand relativity is a phenomenon which sometimes occurs, that does not amount to everything being relative.
  
  When I say Earth is still, I mean absolutely.
  
  It is not moved and is not removed from its place where God placed it.

Rod

I ask because everything we observe is relative to something else. If mars moves in space-time, and experiences all the effects, but earth is stationary beyond space-time, but moves within it . . .

Hans-Georg

I do not believe "everything we is observe is" JUST "relative to something else", nor do I believe in "space time".

I believe the space of the Universe has an outer limit and that it has an inner centre, the latter being to a close approximation earth but to an even closer one Hell, down in the middle of it.

I also believe we have been placed so that seven or eight billion in their daily lives rather than very few, backed up by very much money, at very few occasions in their lives, can see the Earth we live on as it is - whether moving or still.

That is why I asked Vy which of the views was more likely to be correct and which one more likely to be explained by relativity.

If you recall his answer, I consider it unfair to the truthfulness of God, our Creator.

Rod

Hans-Georg, I was not saying that everything IS relative, but that the only way WE, as humans, observe it is relative. Thus, if we were on an earth that was alone in space, we could not tell if it was moving or not, rotating or not. When other planets are added, we still only see motion relative to another planet, or star. We cannot definitively say which is moving relative to the other. Most astrophysicists admit that both views are equally valid, physically. However, there are phenomena which tend to push me to an earth-centred universe without an earth centred rotation. I am still neither geo or helio centrist. I do believe that many verses in the Bible are intended observationally, not scientifically. As to whether the Bible requires geocentricism, this juror is still out.

Hans-Georg

Ah, then it is not "everything we observe is relative" but "everything we observe, we observe it as relative". Sure. Ultimately relative to us. When we stand still, Earth stands still. Which we note through our inner ears as much as through our eyes.

Now, this can be taken two ways.

• 1) presumably Earth is still
  
  OR
  
  
• 2) since we cannot compare it, we can not tell if it stands still.

My point in that quandary is about if we cannot tell, we should presume it stands still. If we are Atheists (I am not), we may have no particular reason to believe we were placed in best position of objective observation, but we have no particular reason to believe we can find any other one that is the best either.

If we are Christians and not Gnostics, we can trust God placed us so we could observe Universe with sufficient correctness for our needs.

Like Geostationists of the past who concluded existence of God from either cohesion of non-contiguous stars going around us (Abraham according to a tradition recorded in Antiquitates) or from moving of a Heaven that are so much bigger than the single stars and their presumable movers (thus St Thomas Aquinas) were not deluded but luckily right there was a God. Rather they were, as all of us, placed where they did and all of us can draw the right conclusions.

Mike P

Hans-Georg, you walked straight into a false dichotomy. There's another way to "take" things. Does geo best fit into other realities that we observe, such as day and night and the seasons and even the 365-day year measurement? It is submitted that with its orbiting around the sun and its angular momentum, those presumptions best fit the evidence.

In a couple of days I'll be listing my objections to geocentrism in an OP. The responses I'm sure will be quite interesting.

Hans-Georg

[posts:] HGL's F.B. writings : Vy considers I accused him falsely of mis-citing the Bible, Rod invokes relativity
http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2014/11/vy-considers-i-accused-him-falsely-of.html

[answers:] "Does geo best fit into other realities that we observe, such as day and night"

If God produces them by turning the Heavens around us, they proclaim his glory. As Holy Writ says.

"and the seasons and even the 365-day year measurement?"

The 365 and one quarter but a little shorter day year and its seasons are perfectly explained in the Geocentric models.

That of St Thomas Aquinas would imply that Sun-angel so to speak "swims backward against the stream" of the Heavens and it takes him a year to get around the Zodiak.

N hemisphere Autumn is when Sun is for instance between Virgo and Earth, N hemisphere spring when Sun is for instance between Pisces and Earth. Both occasions Zodiac and celestial equator are crossing.

N hemisphere Winter is when Sun is between a Zodiacal sign south of Heavenly equator, N hemisphere Summer when Sun is in a sign north of Heavenly equator.

No problems whatsoever for a proper understanding, no. In other words, these factors fit equally well, unless you start out denying God and angels.

And Sun angel of course knows he has to be further away around the Capricorn than around Cancer of Zodiak.

If instead of aether model and aether turned around us you prefer empty space and whatever celestial bodies move to move exactly locally as they move within the empty coordinate system, that is Abraham's view, that would instead imply Sun angel obeying God is going forward, westward each day, but intentionally lagging behind those that hold Fix Stars. There too he would have to be moving North and South along the year always staying between Zodiac and Earth and not along Celestial equator.