Geocentrism - a question of perspective?

[Supercertari]

I wouldn’t at all deny that the scientific material view of which is at the “centre” would have the Sun at the centre of our solar system and some ultra-dense quality at the centre of the Milky Way of which our system is a part.

Again, though, that is a perspective issue. What holds for the Sun/Earth orbits applies as well for Sun/Solar system orbit, as shown below where the Sun (pink dot) rotates on its orbit (white circle with 12 red dot points of the orbit) around the centre of the galaxy but perceived from a “solar stationary” bird’s eye view.



It is absolutely about perspective and the convention of our age is to have the language of physics as the genre within it is discussed. However, is the purely material realm where our language derives its meaning? The biblical language and traditional understanding of the Earth as being at the centre of creation is perfectly acceptable.

There is a desire not to sound daft in the current world and its conventions of description. To suggest the Earth is at the centre is what: ignorant? dogmatic? primitive?

However expand it beyond the two genres of description (physical/spiritual) and find what other perspectives there might be. I know Star Trek is fairly popular around here so let’s take an inter-galactic view. Picard is heading home, what point of the Universe will be at the centre of his navigational view? What point will be the emotional centre of the Universe for his crew? What point will be the intellectual focus for the journey “home”?

From so many perspectives, physical and otherwise, the earth is/may be the centre of solar system, galaxy and universe. Not least of this is the spiritual perspective and, dare I say it, the Divine perspective. The physics view exiles humanity from its place in creation, instead of being the centre we are motes floating irrelevantly somewhere insignificant and people run to find another centre. We know that on the contrary the earth is where there are the sparrows and flowers that God watches and the humanity that God sent His only Son to. Are we not at the centre then from this perspective too?

Finally, another one of those pesky “star flowers” this one is the orbit of the Sun in the Milky Way before animation. I know there’s a perfectly good mathematical equation to describe why all the intersections are where the red dots appear but I still think it’s neat:

[Carthusian]

Supercertari,

I see the argument you are trying to make.  However, our sun is not stationary.  It wobbles because it is also affected by the gravitational pull of the planets.  Also, the point of persepctive is off because it defy's gravity.  A bird's eyeview of our galaxy would not show what your animation produced.   

In your model, does the sun or earth rotate on it's own axis?  Or are they completely stationary?

[geogeer]

Occams Razor.  The simplest answer is most likely the true answer.

1) Motion is measured relative to two or more points therefore all we can say is motion relative to each other.

2) Gravity does exist and can be approximated through mathematical equations.

3) Objects assume orbits around each other based on gravity.  Smaller lighter objects rotate around larger denser objects.

4) The best explanation for the motion of the universe is the Big Bang theory which basically states that all of creation exploded out from some infinitesimally small point (nothing).

So we have 2 options:

1) We rotate about the Sun which rotates about a massive black hole in the centre of our Galaxy which in turn is pushed and pulled both by the initial momentum of the Big Bang and the gravitational forces of other cosmic bodies.

2) Or we can assume that we are located right at the very centre of the big bang, where all other matter in the universe has been flung far away from us in such a manner that it is all perfectly balanced so that we never move and it is all moving in a perfectly balanced manner around us.

#1 is easily explained.  #2 is basically impossible.  This becomes even more unlikely as you look at how planets are formed etc...

[Herr_Mannelig]

Occams Razor.  The simplest answer is most likely the true answer.

1) Motion is measured relative to two or more points therefore all we can say is motion relative to each other.

2) Gravity does exist and can be approximated through mathematical equations.

3) Objects assume orbits around each other based on gravity.  Smaller lighter objects rotate around larger denser objects.

4) The best explanation for the motion of the universe is the Big Bang theory which basically states that all of creation exploded out from some infinitesimally small point (nothing).

So we have 2 options:

1) We rotate about the Sun which rotates about a massive black hole in the centre of our Galaxy which in turn is pushed and pulled both by the initial momentum of the Big Bang and the gravitational forces of other cosmic bodies.

2) Or we can assume that we are located right at the very centre of the big bang, where all other matter in the universe has been flung far away from us in such a manner that it is all perfectly balanced so that we never move and it is all moving in a perfectly balanced manner around us.

#1 is easily explained.  #2 is basically impossible.  This becomes even more unlikely as you look at how planets are formed etc...

No one knows how planets are formed although the composition of them is known.

Geocentrists typically do not argue that the earth is the physical centre of the universe as a foci of a circle, but that the earth is the centre of the focus of the universe and is unique. All data so far indicates the earth is unique.

[geogeer]

No one knows how planets are formed although the composition of them is known.

Geocentrists typically do not argue that the earth is the physical centre of the universe as a foci of a circle, but that the earth is the centre of the focus of the universe and is unique. All data so far indicates the earth is unique.

As to how planets are made, the theory that best describes this process involves the explosion of a supernova.

I would partially agree with the second point.  I have no difficulty whatsoever in that the whole of creation is singularly for this little planet we live on.  If you consider the magnitude of the gift to us it is truly awe inspiring.  As God created the physical laws of the universe, the entirety of the cosmos was brought into being in a logical manner just so that the ideal conditions for us on this little planet could be made.  There are countless stars with countless planets formed over billions of years.  Such is the greatness of God's love for us.  We are the focus of the universe!  Just not in the manner that is being debated on this forum.

[Herr_Mannelig]

We are the focus of the universe!

I'd go further and say that I am the focus of the universe, but some may think me egotistic.

Just not in the manner that is being debated on this forum.

Well, according to accepted science, geocentrism is a valid model and is even used in actual practice by scientists when it is convenient.

[geogeer]

Well, according to accepted science, geocentrism is a valid model and is even used in actual practice by scientists when it is convenient.

Only because we launch from the earth hence it is the easiest point to calculate from.  If we had a station on mars and wanted to put up a satellite we use a marscentrism (probably not a word) model because it would be the simplest to calculate.  If I'm observing the movement of our solar system to the next nearest solar system I'd use a heliocentric model because I'm measuring from the relative centre of one to the relative centre of the other.

I'm just trying to make sure that we don't confuse mathematical simplicity with actual physical movement.

[Herr_Mannelig]

Only because we launch from the earth hence it is the easiest point to calculate from.  If we had a station on mars and wanted to put up a satellite we use a marscentrism (probably not a word) model because it would be the simplest to calculate.  If I'm observing the movement of our solar system to the next nearest solar system I'd use a heliocentric model because I'm measuring from the relative centre of one to the relative centre of the other.

I'm just trying to make sure that we don't confuse mathematical simplicity with actual physical movement.

Physical movement is relative. An astronaut on a space walk is typically moving, relative to the surface of the earth, thousands of miles per hour. Yet, they do not feel this movement and see themselves as stationary or moving relative to there ship.

And yes, because it is relative, almost any object can be the "centre" however, we were created on earth and only on earth according to all current evidence.