I have a couple of comments for you Domenic. Nicolaus Copernicus was a brainy guy but he may have been wrong about the solar system. The Copernican and Ptolemaic systems both work and just because something works does not mean that it is true. We can measure something in inches or centimeters. These both work but the numbers are imaginary. Therefore we use the Pythagorean Theorem because it works, but don't believe it because it is not true.
I recommend reading "Geocentrism for Dumskies and Smart Kids" by Robert Sungenis. Sungenis has written several books on Geocentrism. You might consider the possibility that Copernicus was incorrect and Aristotle and Aquinas (some other brainy guys) were right. The Book of Genesis places the earth and man in the very center of the universe. Carl Sagan thought the earth was just a speck of dust in the middle of nowhere. If God created everything where do you think He placed the our earth?
In that scripture passage that you commented on, it seems that the rich young man did sell everything and follow Jesus. This seems to be true because it states that Jesus looked upon him with love. And love never fails.
Jesus loves everyone; that doesn't mean that everyone chooses to follow Him. The passage neither condemns nor exalts the young man, and it gives no indication what happened to the young man in the future. There's always room for people who reject Jesus to change their minds later, and maybe that's what happened to the young man. I pray it did!
I think God placed Earth in orbit around the sun. It was a good call on His part, methinks :-) Yes, the fact that something can be shown to achieve a result doesn't necessarily mean that the underlying premise is true and correctly formulated. But the fact that something works does give it a huge lead over something that doesn't work; the bigger burden of proof rests with those things that are less competent (like geocentrism).
"Jesus looked steadily at him and he was filled with love for him," Mk 10:21
Does Jesus look at everyone the same?
Does the young man return in the Gospel of Mark? At the garden of Gethsemane, "A young man followed him with nothing on but a linen cloth. They caught hold of him, but he left the cloth in their hands and ran away naked?" Could this be the same young man? Later at the tomb, "On entering the tomb they saw a young man in a white robe seated on the right-hand side and they were struck with amazement." Who is this young man? Could he be Mark, the author of the Gospel?
What evidence do you have that the geocentric universe is less competent?
> Who is this young man? Could he be Mark, the author of the Gospel?
A possibility, yes. Like I said, there's always room for people who reject Jesus to change their minds later, and maybe that's what happened to the young man 😇
> What evidence do you have that the geocentric universe is less competent?
The solar-system explanation works better and more efficiently for tracking the orbits of planets in the system. I've seen no indication that an Earth-centered model is a more realistic explanation.
Domenic, you wrote, "The solar-system explanation works better and more efficiently for tracking the orbits of planets in the system." Please provide proof of this.
You also wrote, "I've seen no indication that an Earth-centered model is a more realistic explanation." Let me offer you some indications that Earth-centered view may be AS realistic, based on comments by the following famous scientists:
PHYSICIST ALBERT EINSTEIN: “…to the question whether or not the motion of the Earth in space can be made perceptible in terrestrial experiment. We have already remarked that all attempts of this nature led to a negative result.”
PHYSICIST HANS REICHENBACH: “It makes no sense, accordingly to speak of a difference in truth between Copernicus and Ptolemy: both conceptions are equally permissible descriptions.”
PHYSICIST DENNIS SCIAMA: “Whether the Earth rotates once a day from west to east, as Copernicus taught, or the heavens revolve once a day from east to west as his predecessors believed, the observable phenomena will be exactly the same. This shows a dfect in Newtonian dynamics, since an empirical science ought not to maintain a metaphysical assumption, which never be proved or disproved by observation.”
PHYSICIST HENRY LORENTZ: “Briefly, everything occurs as if the Earth were at rest…”
PHY. WOLFGANG PAULI: “The failure of the many attempts to measure terrestrially any effects of the Earth’s motion…”
SCIENCE HISTORIAN MARTIN GARDNER: “The ancient argument over whether the Earth rotates or the heavens revolve around it (as Aristotle taught) is seen to be no more than an argument over the simplest choice of a frame of reference. Obviously the most convenient choice is the universe. Nothing except inconvenience prevents us from choosing the Earth as fixed frame of reference.”
PHILOSOPHER BERTRAND RUSSELL: “But in the modern theory the question between Copernicus and his predecessors is merely oe of convenience: all motion is relative, and there is no difference between the two statements: ‘the earth rotates once a day’ and ‘the heavens revolve about the Earth once a day.’”
ASTRONOMER J.L. DRYER: “…the Earth centered system…is in reality absolutely identical with the system of Copernicus and all computation of the places of the planets are the same for the two systems.”
ASTRONOMER PHIL PAIT: I have two things to say that might surprise you: first, geocentrism is a valid frame of reference, and second, heliocentrism is not any more or less correct.”
I recommend you use your critical mind to examine some experiments to measure the earth rotation that failed, because the earth is not rotating. See George Biddel Airy and also the Michelson – Morley experiment. (Albert Michelson and Edward Morley)
We both know that our minds are limited and subject to error. Therefore, we should always reconsider what we think we know.
Very well said! Especially about the shameful harm we are allowing/enabling weak men to do to the women we should be protecting. Sickening.
I have a minor quibble with Dunbar's number. I think he arrived at his number by measuring the brainpan of various species of apes and comparing that to their group sizes. Our brain's neocortex is famously "larger" than our brainpan size due to it's many folds.
But regardless, clearly there is some limit to the optimal (of possible) size of our interpersonal groups. That's why it's so critical that we establish rules, norms, and shared values such that we can coordinate peacefully with one another, even though we meet as strangers. That's how we create and maintain a high-trust society capable of specialization and the division of labor and all the magnificent things that enables.
That's the true value of Western Civilization. I sure hope we don't forget that.
I didn’t know that about Dunbar’s methodology. Thanks for the extra info!
I always figured Dunbar’s number was a nice, round number represetning the approximate middle of a range, rather than an exact amount for every person. It sure seems to work the general way he described: We have a limited number of close relationships we can actively maintain.
I have a couple of comments for you Domenic. Nicolaus Copernicus was a brainy guy but he may have been wrong about the solar system. The Copernican and Ptolemaic systems both work and just because something works does not mean that it is true. We can measure something in inches or centimeters. These both work but the numbers are imaginary. Therefore we use the Pythagorean Theorem because it works, but don't believe it because it is not true.
I recommend reading "Geocentrism for Dumskies and Smart Kids" by Robert Sungenis. Sungenis has written several books on Geocentrism. You might consider the possibility that Copernicus was incorrect and Aristotle and Aquinas (some other brainy guys) were right. The Book of Genesis places the earth and man in the very center of the universe. Carl Sagan thought the earth was just a speck of dust in the middle of nowhere. If God created everything where do you think He placed the our earth?
In that scripture passage that you commented on, it seems that the rich young man did sell everything and follow Jesus. This seems to be true because it states that Jesus looked upon him with love. And love never fails.
Jesus loves everyone; that doesn't mean that everyone chooses to follow Him. The passage neither condemns nor exalts the young man, and it gives no indication what happened to the young man in the future. There's always room for people who reject Jesus to change their minds later, and maybe that's what happened to the young man. I pray it did!
I think God placed Earth in orbit around the sun. It was a good call on His part, methinks :-) Yes, the fact that something can be shown to achieve a result doesn't necessarily mean that the underlying premise is true and correctly formulated. But the fact that something works does give it a huge lead over something that doesn't work; the bigger burden of proof rests with those things that are less competent (like geocentrism).
"Jesus looked steadily at him and he was filled with love for him," Mk 10:21
Does Jesus look at everyone the same?
Does the young man return in the Gospel of Mark? At the garden of Gethsemane, "A young man followed him with nothing on but a linen cloth. They caught hold of him, but he left the cloth in their hands and ran away naked?" Could this be the same young man? Later at the tomb, "On entering the tomb they saw a young man in a white robe seated on the right-hand side and they were struck with amazement." Who is this young man? Could he be Mark, the author of the Gospel?
What evidence do you have that the geocentric universe is less competent?
> Who is this young man? Could he be Mark, the author of the Gospel?
A possibility, yes. Like I said, there's always room for people who reject Jesus to change their minds later, and maybe that's what happened to the young man 😇
> What evidence do you have that the geocentric universe is less competent?
The solar-system explanation works better and more efficiently for tracking the orbits of planets in the system. I've seen no indication that an Earth-centered model is a more realistic explanation.
Domenic, you wrote, "The solar-system explanation works better and more efficiently for tracking the orbits of planets in the system." Please provide proof of this.
You also wrote, "I've seen no indication that an Earth-centered model is a more realistic explanation." Let me offer you some indications that Earth-centered view may be AS realistic, based on comments by the following famous scientists:
PHYSICIST ALBERT EINSTEIN: “…to the question whether or not the motion of the Earth in space can be made perceptible in terrestrial experiment. We have already remarked that all attempts of this nature led to a negative result.”
PHYSICIST HANS REICHENBACH: “It makes no sense, accordingly to speak of a difference in truth between Copernicus and Ptolemy: both conceptions are equally permissible descriptions.”
PHYSICIST DENNIS SCIAMA: “Whether the Earth rotates once a day from west to east, as Copernicus taught, or the heavens revolve once a day from east to west as his predecessors believed, the observable phenomena will be exactly the same. This shows a dfect in Newtonian dynamics, since an empirical science ought not to maintain a metaphysical assumption, which never be proved or disproved by observation.”
PHYSICIST HENRY LORENTZ: “Briefly, everything occurs as if the Earth were at rest…”
PHY. WOLFGANG PAULI: “The failure of the many attempts to measure terrestrially any effects of the Earth’s motion…”
SCIENCE HISTORIAN MARTIN GARDNER: “The ancient argument over whether the Earth rotates or the heavens revolve around it (as Aristotle taught) is seen to be no more than an argument over the simplest choice of a frame of reference. Obviously the most convenient choice is the universe. Nothing except inconvenience prevents us from choosing the Earth as fixed frame of reference.”
PHILOSOPHER BERTRAND RUSSELL: “But in the modern theory the question between Copernicus and his predecessors is merely oe of convenience: all motion is relative, and there is no difference between the two statements: ‘the earth rotates once a day’ and ‘the heavens revolve about the Earth once a day.’”
ASTRONOMER J.L. DRYER: “…the Earth centered system…is in reality absolutely identical with the system of Copernicus and all computation of the places of the planets are the same for the two systems.”
ASTRONOMER PHIL PAIT: I have two things to say that might surprise you: first, geocentrism is a valid frame of reference, and second, heliocentrism is not any more or less correct.”
I recommend you use your critical mind to examine some experiments to measure the earth rotation that failed, because the earth is not rotating. See George Biddel Airy and also the Michelson – Morley experiment. (Albert Michelson and Edward Morley)
We both know that our minds are limited and subject to error. Therefore, we should always reconsider what we think we know.
Very well said! Especially about the shameful harm we are allowing/enabling weak men to do to the women we should be protecting. Sickening.
I have a minor quibble with Dunbar's number. I think he arrived at his number by measuring the brainpan of various species of apes and comparing that to their group sizes. Our brain's neocortex is famously "larger" than our brainpan size due to it's many folds.
But regardless, clearly there is some limit to the optimal (of possible) size of our interpersonal groups. That's why it's so critical that we establish rules, norms, and shared values such that we can coordinate peacefully with one another, even though we meet as strangers. That's how we create and maintain a high-trust society capable of specialization and the division of labor and all the magnificent things that enables.
That's the true value of Western Civilization. I sure hope we don't forget that.
I didn’t know that about Dunbar’s methodology. Thanks for the extra info!
I always figured Dunbar’s number was a nice, round number represetning the approximate middle of a range, rather than an exact amount for every person. It sure seems to work the general way he described: We have a limited number of close relationships we can actively maintain.
I agree. I think his principle is sound, but I would treat the number as the low end of the range (with a lot of guesswork involved.