[geocentrism] Resonse to two-pager sent out
- From: Bernie Brauer <bbrauer777@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 17:16:53 -0700 (PDT)
Christa wrote:
Hello,
Dr H. offered to forward me your ( Bernie's ) email thinking that since I am
Christian I might be better equipped to reply. As a little bit of
background on me, I am Anglican (baptized as an infant, confirmed when I
was in my early teens), have my BSc in Physics and Astronomy from ***, and
have worked for a planetary astronomer as well as for Dr H.
Before I address the points in your email I feel I should make a general
comment: I think that perhaps you are misusing the Bible. That is, I think
the purpose of the Bible is basically to 1) state that God exists, 2) give
us some rules about how we should behave, and 3) invite us to be in
relationship with God. I do not think it is meant to be the be all and end
all of every subject because if it was EVERYTHING we ever needed then why
would we need to be in a relationship with God? If the Bible contained all
knowledge we would have no need to actually talk to God.
>> Facts: by Marshall Hall
>> - There is NO proof that the Earth rotates on an "axis" daily and
orbits the sun annually. None.
In science there is no such thing as a 'proven' fact. One can disprove
(that is provide proof AGAINST) things by showing them to be wrong. There
is no way to provide absolute proof FOR something. That said, I do not
believe there is any proof against the Earth rotating on its axis or
orbiting the sun. Furthermore, I think there is a lot of evidence that
strongly suggests that the Earth is doing so.
>> - All calculations for eclipses, the space program, navigation,
satellite movements - anything that demands precision and accuracy -
are based on a non-moving Earth. Boiled down, heliocentric math is the
same as Geocentric math.
Actually calculations in the heliocentric frame ('heliocentric math') are
different from the geocentric frame. This difference is because the
heliocentric frame is 'intertial', that is, not accelerating, whereas the
geocentric frame is 'non-intertial' (not accelerating). It's hard to
explain without visual guides or going in to some more detailed vector
calculus but inertial frames work differently than non-intertial frames.
>> - No experiment has shown the Earth to be moving ( much less at 30
times rifle bullet speed in solar orbit and at 250 times RBS around a
galaxy. One would think such speeds would flap one's collar a little
even if the "science" establishment says no! )
This statement is incorrect. For example, the satellite WMAP records the
power from background photons, called the Cosmic Microwave Background
(CMB), that are everywhere in our universe and moving in every direction.
In this data there is a feature commonly referred to as the CMB dipole. In
one direction photons are predominantly blue-shifted (relative to the
average) and in the opposite direction photons are red-shifted. This is
because the Earth is moving relative to these photons. Furthermore, this
dipole changes annually. As an analogy, imagine that you are in the center
of a circle of arrowmen. Each one fires an arrow towards you at the same
time. If you do not move then each arrow travels towards you at the same
speed. However, If you move in some direction then arrows coming from that
direction approach you with a greater speed (analogous to being
blue-shifted) and the arrows in the opposite direction approach you with a
lesser speed (red-shifted). So, the dipole in the WMAP data demonstrates
that the Earth is moving relative to the CMB photons. The annual change in
the dipole suggests further movement of the Earth on a yearly basis
relative to this background. At the very least the Earth and the Sun are
moving at 30 km/s relative to each other.
>> - Multiple experiments have shown the Earth to be stationary.
I am not familiar with any experiments that show this.
>> - Revisionist history reveals the roles that Copernicus, Kepler,
Galileo, Newton, Einstein, Sagan et al have played in foisting this lie
on mankind.
These men simply stated how they believed the universe works. They did not
claim that their views disproved God. Also, they never stated that others
were required to agree with them.
It might interest you to know that many of these men were Christian.
Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo were (and was Darwin too). I cannot tell
you the exact opinions of these men but for me, as a Christian scientist,
I hold the opinion that as God's creation the universe is a partial
reflection of the awesomeness of God. Since the universe seems to work in
such an elegant and beautiful way that must mean that God is so beautiful
it is beyond my comprehension.
>> - The logic against a moving Earth is overpowering.
I cannot see this logic.
>> - World-class astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle said take your pick between the
two models...
I'm afraid I don't have time to look this up. I apologize but I am going
to skip this point.
>> - Copernicanism paved the way for Darwinism which then spawned
>> Marxism, Freudism, Einsteinism and Saganism. )
Besides, if it's wrong then someone will disprove it at some point in the
future. Science is about what our current best guess at how the universe
works is. Every scientist has to live with the fact that eventually
someone else will probably prove them wrong.
>> - Star speeds are not a problem when the thickness of the universe is
seen to be what it really is, that is, less than half a light day
thick ( eight billion mile radius ).
I don't understand how this conclusion is arrived at.
>> - NASA's space program is labelled "Origins Research" and costs
taxpayers mega-bucks. Computerized telescopes are programmed to send
back "synthesized images". The "image warper" permits "geometric
transformations" while "origins technology... configures the multiple
small mirrors..." in these telescopes. Talk about a con job!
I am not sure I follow the meaning here. The above seems to state that
NASA purposefully deceives the public. For NASA to be perpetuating massive
fraud it would involve a lot of people. Furthermore, NASA does not control
all astronomy programs. There are many telescopes that independently
funded and run. Extend the conspiracy to all of these people involves a
very VERY large number of people. I don't think one can assume that none
of these people have chosen to break their silence (and offer proof)
simply because they could gain a lot of wealth by breaking their silence.
>> - The Bible says The Earth is NOT Moving and cannot be moved. What'll
it be folks? False science as the source of absolute truth... or God's
Word?
Certainly God's Word is truth. However, I think our interpretation of His
Word can be faulty. We are mere mortals after all.
I'm afraid I will have to leave this discussion for later. It's not
that I don't want to discuss that paragraph but that when I do discuss it
I want to do it thuroughly which I don't have time to do at the moment.
In my humble opinion I do not think that physics (which describes HOW the
universe works) is contradictory to Christianity (which talks about WHY).
~Christa
---------------------------------
Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news,
photos & more.
Other related posts:
