Taking Questions on Embedded Age Creation

[Hans Blaster]

Thank you for actually framing it in a non-insulting form; I think you are citing orbital mechanics or gravitational forces balanced by inertia? If that is what you are saying, then I say that the satellite that you are mentioning's position is maintained by the mechanics of the universe rotating around the earth, in which the satellites are effectively fixed relative to a point on the Earth's surface as a result of forces that maintain their place in the heavens. If need be, I can quote further on this matter, blessings!

You have "quoted" nothing. If you have a physics that can explain the motion of the artificial satellites, write the formula for that orbit.

 

[BCP1928]

Okay then.

They were written decades after the events they describe, so they're not contemporaneous accounts. And despite tradition attributing them to Matthew Mark, etc, there is nothing to indicate that they were in fact written by those people. They are anonymous accounts written decades after.

The Gospel of Barnabas is likely a late medieval text. Hardly contemporary. barnarom

I think it was the Epistle of Barnabas which was meant. Mid 2nd century, authorship uncertain. It's a favorite of YECs.

You mean "The Acts of Peter and Paul"? Pseudo-biographical text that was written in the fifth century.

And Paul's ideas fundamentally disagreed with James'.

Which of the Pauline epistles has Paul meeting John?

Acts was written around the year 80-90, hardly contemporaneous to events that occurred around the year 30.

And yet the only thing the majority of scholars can say about Jesus is that he was baptised and that he was crucified.

There is debate about the authenticity of the works of Josephus, but in any case, "The Antiquities of the Jews was written around the year 93 or 94, and the James it talks of died around the year 62. Hardly contemporaneous. Josephus also contradicts several of the New Testament accounts, so if we are to accept Josephus as a valid source, it casts doubt on what it written in the New Testament.

Tacitus' "Annals" was written even later. His work is just describing what the Christians of the time believed. Tacitus was in no position to know for himself what had happened, as he was born 25 years after the death of Jesus.

It all depends on what your are trying to prove and why. There is quite a bit more written material--I'm thinking for instance of the Apostolic Fathers, iindividuals who were plausibly associates or students of the original twelve. YECs don't like them very much because their writings don't particularly support YEC theology. Several years ago there was a poster (he's still around so I won't mentioned his name) who argued with vigor and sincerety that the Apostolic Fathers secretly believed in Sola Scriptura but taught something else because the "authorities" made them.

Here is the bottom line: Something happened, and it seemed important enough to start a new religious movement and, in addition, generate quite a bit of writting. Gospels, letters, commentary, doctrinal disputes, reams of it, much of which is now lost or exists only in fragments. Whatever else this corpus may or may not prove, I think it proves beyond doubt that the companions of Christ believed that He died on the cross and rose again from the dead. That's as good as it is going to get and for a Traditional Christian it is enough.

 

[AV1611VET]

You have "quoted" nothing. If you have a physics that can explain the motion of the artificial satellites, write the formula for that orbit.

L = mvr

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You are being nothing but rude; I would suggest framing this in a non-derogatory way rather than proving the age-old assumption that skeptics are naturally rude and inept socialites. To respond, to call my ideas "dusty" and "old" is to defame your own scientists. And to say I know nothing about astronomy is rich. As it appears you didn't read; here are a few non "dusty old" scientists after the invention of the telescope: Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time makes it very clear that scientific studies on geo- or helio- are a self-fulfilling prophecy: "…all this evidence that the universe looks the same whichever direction we look in might seem to suggest there is something special about our place in the universe. In particular, it might seem that if we observe all other galaxies to be moving away from us, then we must be at the center of the universe. There is, however, an alternate explanation: the universe might look the same in every direction as seen from any other galaxy, too. This, as we have seen, was Friedmann’s second assumption. We have no scientific evidence for, or against, this assumption. We believe it only on grounds of modesty: it would be most remarkable if the universe looked the same in every direction around us, but not around other points in the universe."

Moreover, Paul Davies, editor of Nature magazine, commented on George Ellis's work, stating: "These redshifts are due, of course, to matter flying away from us under the impetus of the Big Bang. But redshifts can also arise from the gravitational attraction of mass. If the Earth were at the center of the universe, the attraction of the surrounding mass of stars would also produce redshifts wherever we looked! The argument advanced by George Ellis in this article is more complex than this, but his basic thrust is to put man back into a favored position in the cosmos. His new theory seems quite consistent with our astronomical observations, even though it clashes with the thought that we are godless and making it on our own." Here are a few more points to show that you cannot disprove geocentrism based on observations:

• From George Ellis, a famous cosmologist in Scientific American, “Thinking Globally, Acting Universally,” October 1995: "People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations,” Ellis argues. “For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations.” Ellis has published a paper on this. “You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.”
• From Einstein and Infeld, The Evolution of Physics, p.212 (p.248 in original 1938 ed.); Note: CS = coordinate system: "No absolute uniform motion exists in classical physics. If two c.s. are moving uniformly, relative to each other, then there is no sense in saying, "This c.s. is at rest and the other is moving". But if two c.s. are moving nonuniformly, relative to each other, then there is very good reason for saying, "This body moves and the other is at rest (or moves uniformly) ". Absolute motion has here a very definite meaning. There is, at this point, a wide gulf between common sense and classical physics. The difficulties mentioned, that of an inertial system and that of absolute motion, are strictly connected with each other. Absolute motion is madepossible only by the idea of an inertial system, for whichthe laws of nature are valid. It may seem as though there is no way out of these difficulties, as though no physical theory can avoid them. Their root lies in the validity of the laws of nature for a special class of c.s. only, the inertial. The possibility of solving these difficulties depends on the answer to the following question. Can we formulate physical laws so that they are valid for all c.s., not only those moving uniformly, but also those moving quite arbitrarily, relative to each other? If this can be done, our difficulties will be over. We shall then be able to apply the laws of nature to any c.s. The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either c.s. could be used with equal justification. The two sentences, u the sun is at rest and the earth moves", or "the sun moves and the earth is at rest", would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different c.s."
• Max Born said in his famous book, “Einstein’s Theory of Relativity”, Dover Publications,1962, pgs 344 & 345: "…Thus we may return to Ptolemy’s point of view of a ‘motionless earth’…One has to show that the transformed metric can be regarded as produced according to Einstein’s field equations, by distant rotating masses. This has been done by Thirring. He calculated a field due to a rotating, hollow, thick-walled sphere and proved that inside the cavity it behaved as though there were centrifugal and other inertial forces usually attributed to absolute space. Thus from Einstein’s point of view, Ptolemy and Corpenicus are equally right."
• Sir Fred Hoyle, Astronomy and Cosmology – A Modern Course, (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman & Co.), p. 416,1975: "We know that the difference between a heliocentric theory and a geocentric theory is one of relative motion only, and that such a difference has no physical significance."

So no, you cannot disprove geocentrism based on observations. You are mistaken on that topic, and I think it is interesting that philosophy dictates what model we use and what model we call absurd, regardless of the fact that we cannot prove either of them definitively over the other. We are taught that Isotropy and Homogeneity create the Cosmological Principle, which calls on Copernicus for support: "Observed isotropy of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB), combined with the Copernican principle..." The Copernican principle, according to the Wikipedia article, is: "named after Nicolaus Copernicus, [and] states the Earth is not in a central, specially favoured position. More recently, the principle is generalised to the simple statement that humans are not privileged observers. In this sense, it is equivalent to the mediocrity principle, with significant implications in the philosophy of science. This is circular logic, and thus, how can one say that scientific study on the matter is not pushed to one side over the other, regardless of the equality of both models? For more sources/papers proving that there is no physical difference between geocentric and modern heliocentric views:

1. Barbour and Bertotti, 1977. Il Nuovo Cimento B, 38:1.
2. Brown, G. B., 1955. Proceedings of the Phys. Soc. B, 68:672.
3. Thirring, H., 1916. Phys. Z. 19:33.
4. Lense, J. & Thirring, H., 1918, Ibid. 22:29.
5. Gerber, P., 1898. Zeitschr. f. Math. u. Physik, 43:93.
6. Møller, C., 1952. The Theory of Relativity, (Oxford: Clarendon Press), pp. 318-321.
7. Moon, P. & Spencer, D. E., 1959. Philos. of Science, 26:125.
8. Rosser, W. G. V., 1964. An Intro. to the Theory of Relativity, (London: Butterworths), p. 460.

For rotation see: P. F. Browne, 1977. “Relativity of Rotation,” Jrnl. of Physics A: Math. & Gen. Relativity, 10:727. So, it is as if I asked you to take "Astronomy 202" rather than trying to quote the 'dogmatic' scientific statements of Scientific American. Prayers for you!

Y'know brother, I didn't know that philosophy dictates which model we use or what model we call absurd in science. This is the first I've heard of this operative description of it, which is strange since I have a degree in Philosophy.

I'm trying to figure out what it is precisely I may be misunderstanding in what you've just stated about the nature of philosophy.

 

[QvQ]

think it was the Epistle of Barnabas which was meant. Mid 2nd century, authorship uncertain. It's a favorite of YECs.

Epistle of Barnabas AD 70-Ad 135

 

[Hans Blaster]

You are being nothing but rude; I would suggest framing this in a non-derogatory way rather than proving the age-old assumption that skeptics are naturally rude and inept socialites. To respond, to call my ideas "dusty" and "old" is to defame your own scientists. And to say I know nothing about astronomy is rich. As it appears you didn't read; here are a few non "dusty old" scientists after the invention of the telescope: Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time makes it very clear that scientific studies on geo- or helio- are a self-fulfilling prophecy: "…all this evidence that the universe looks the same whichever direction we look in might seem to suggest there is something special about our place in the universe. In particular, it might seem that if we observe all other galaxies to be moving away from us, then we must be at the center of the universe. There is, however, an alternate explanation: the universe might look the same in every direction as seen from any other galaxy, too. This, as we have seen, was Friedmann’s second assumption. We have no scientific evidence for, or against, this assumption. We believe it only on grounds of modesty: it would be most remarkable if the universe looked the same in every direction around us, but not around other points in the universe."

It's odd that your quote stops there and doesn't include the very next sentence of Hawking's book for lay people.

In Friedmann’s model, all the galaxies are moving directly away from each other.

Good grief. This doesn't mean the Universe is rotating. It means it is expanding uniformly.

Moreover, Paul Davies, editor of Nature magazine, commented on George Ellis's work, stating: "These redshifts are due, of course, to matter flying away from us under the impetus of the Big Bang. But redshifts can also arise from the gravitational attraction of mass. If the Earth were at the center of the universe, the attraction of the surrounding mass of stars would also produce redshifts wherever we looked! The argument advanced by George Ellis in this article is more complex than this, but his basic thrust is to put man back into a favored position in the cosmos. His new theory seems quite consistent with our astronomical observations, even though it clashes with the thought that we are godless and making it on our own." Here are a few more points to show that you cannot disprove geocentrism based on observations:

• From George Ellis, a famous cosmologist in Scientific American, “Thinking Globally, Acting Universally,” October 1995: "People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations,” Ellis argues. “For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations.” Ellis has published a paper on this. “You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.”
• From Einstein and Infeld, The Evolution of Physics, p.212 (p.248 in original 1938 ed.); Note: CS = coordinate system: "No absolute uniform motion exists in classical physics. If two c.s. are moving uniformly, relative to each other, then there is no sense in saying, "This c.s. is at rest and the other is moving". But if two c.s. are moving nonuniformly, relative to each other, then there is very good reason for saying, "This body moves and the other is at rest (or moves uniformly) ". Absolute motion has here a very definite meaning. There is, at this point, a wide gulf between common sense and classical physics. The difficulties mentioned, that of an inertial system and that of absolute motion, are strictly connected with each other. Absolute motion is madepossible only by the idea of an inertial system, for whichthe laws of nature are valid. It may seem as though there is no way out of these difficulties, as though no physical theory can avoid them. Their root lies in the validity of the laws of nature for a special class of c.s. only, the inertial. The possibility of solving these difficulties depends on the answer to the following question. Can we formulate physical laws so that they are valid for all c.s., not only those moving uniformly, but also those moving quite arbitrarily, relative to each other? If this can be done, our difficulties will be over. We shall then be able to apply the laws of nature to any c.s. The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either c.s. could be used with equal justification. The two sentences, u the sun is at rest and the earth moves", or "the sun moves and the earth is at rest", would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different c.s."
• Max Born said in his famous book, “Einstein’s Theory of Relativity”, Dover Publications,1962, pgs 344 & 345: "…Thus we may return to Ptolemy’s point of view of a ‘motionless earth’…One has to show that the transformed metric can be regarded as produced according to Einstein’s field equations, by distant rotating masses. This has been done by Thirring. He calculated a field due to a rotating, hollow, thick-walled sphere and proved that inside the cavity it behaved as though there were centrifugal and other inertial forces usually attributed to absolute space. Thus from Einstein’s point of view, Ptolemy and Corpenicus are equally right."
• Sir Fred Hoyle, Astronomy and Cosmology – A Modern Course, (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman & Co.), p. 416,1975: "We know that the difference between a heliocentric theory and a geocentric theory is one of relative motion only, and that such a difference has no physical significance."

So no, you cannot disprove geocentrism based on observations. You are mistaken on that topic, and I think it is interesting that philosophy dictates what model we use and what model we call absurd, regardless of the fact that we cannot prove either of them definitively over the other. We are taught that Isotropy and Homogeneity create the Cosmological Principle, which calls on Copernicus for support: "Observed isotropy of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB), combined with the Copernican principle..." The Copernican principle, according to the Wikipedia article, is: "named after Nicolaus Copernicus, [and] states the Earth is not in a central, specially favoured position. More recently, the principle is generalised to the simple statement that humans are not privileged observers. In this sense, it is equivalent to the mediocrity principle, with significant implications in the philosophy of science. This is circular logic, and thus, how can one say that scientific study on the matter is not pushed to one side over the other, regardless of the equality of both models? For more sources/papers proving that there is no physical difference between geocentric and modern heliocentric views:

1. Barbour and Bertotti, 1977. Il Nuovo Cimento B, 38:1.
2. Brown, G. B., 1955. Proceedings of the Phys. Soc. B, 68:672.
3. Thirring, H., 1916. Phys. Z. 19:33.
4. Lense, J. & Thirring, H., 1918, Ibid. 22:29.
5. Gerber, P., 1898. Zeitschr. f. Math. u. Physik, 43:93.
6. Møller, C., 1952. The Theory of Relativity, (Oxford: Clarendon Press), pp. 318-321.
7. Moon, P. & Spencer, D. E., 1959. Philos. of Science, 26:125.
8. Rosser, W. G. V., 1964. An Intro. to the Theory of Relativity, (London: Butterworths), p. 460.

For rotation see: P. F. Browne, 1977. “Relativity of Rotation,” Jrnl. of Physics A: Math. & Gen. Relativity, 10:727.

Oh look you can cut and paste someone's block quotes. Which geocentric nutter did you get this all from?

So, it is as if I asked you to take "Astronomy 202" rather than trying to quote the 'dogmatic' scientific statements of Scientific American.

Like I would need to read a magazine to find this stuff out. SMH.

Prayers for you!

 

[Hans Blaster]

Such intellectual prowise, I wish every skeptic had your level of....uh...well, they say if you can't say anything good don't say anything at all so ill leave it there.

The proud skeptic always dismisses prayer until they are in a position where they need it

I have a conundrum, Rex. Maybe you can help me out.

How do I respond to a poster who posts abject nonsense and then tells me to take a course I taught before he was born?

 

[Kylie]

Everyone, in the end, will believe when they are standing before God

You don't actually think that's convincing to any degree, do you?

 

[Kylie]

The Epistle of Barnabas

Galatians mentions Paul meeting Peter and James. John was there at that time.

There are many documents that Church has but are not published widely.
The documents are available to reaserch.
I suggest you read the Bible and other Chrisitan documents for information about what is contained in the non-Canonical documents.

What do you say to those Christians such as @AV1611VET who are strict King James only?

 

[Kylie]

Yes, yes, yes.



That's true.

I love this, you actually made me laugh.

You declare that it most definitely works, and then immediately go on to acknowledge that it does NOT work.

Ask ten believers their interpretation of a given passage, and you just might get ten different answers.

BUT ...

The more they read the Bible and study It, the more they should start agreeing with one another.

They SHOULD, and I agree that they WOULD if it were true.

But people have been reading the Bible for CENTURIES now, AV, and they are further away from agreeing with each other than ever!

Then test it.

Put ten believers in ten different rooms and ask them to interpret Genesis 1:1.

See how many different interpretations you get.

Then, have them read the Bible ten times and re-test them.

Check your results.

How's come you academians are so quick to tell us what the Bible doesn't say -- or what It does say, but It's wrong -- but you're all a little short on that scientific method that allegedly works so well?

Am I right in suspecting that, in your minds, the scientific method can take a hike?

Why that passage? Why not another passage from the Bible. I mean, the Bible has lots of passages in it.

How about Deuteronomy 22:22?

 

[Kylie]

Logic can take a hike.

Yes, I've noticed your arguments often do that.

I disagree.

The No True Scotsman fallacy is any argument that takes the form:

"X will be Y."

"Here's an X that isn't Y."

"But a true X will be Y."

For example:

Person A: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Person B: "But my uncle Angus is a Scotsman and he puts sugar on his porridge."
Person A: "But no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."

And now we have an example here:

AV: No seeker of God will fail to find him.
Kylie: There are lots of people who sought God but didn't find him.
AV: Ah, but no TRUE seeker of God will fail to find him!

So yes, this most definitely is a No True Scotsman fallacy.

I don't know why you bother to claim it isn't a logical fallacy though, considering that you just declared that "logic can take a hike."

Sounds about right.

Hebrews 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

Circular reasoning.

It's the easiest thing in the world to convince somebody of something if they WANT it to be true.

It's called seeking after God.

No, it's a logical fallacy called begging the question, also known as circular reasoning.

I'm begging you to sincerely seek after God.

This may surprise you, but I already have. When my husband and I were about to get married, he asked me to pray to God, because his faith is important to him, and it was important to him that I at least be open to God. He told me that if I didn't find God he'd never ask me to do it again. I did, and I got nothing. I'm certain I've mentioned this before, though you might not have seen that conversation.

But you seem, like so many Christians, that anyone who is an atheist has not genuinely sought God. I did. I know that many atheists have. I know that many atheists were fervent believers in God before they lost their faith.

So why do you (not you specifically, but a significant number of believers) assume that just because someone doesn't share your faith that they've never tried it?

The Bible would be right about everything, even if It didn't say that.

Again, there's that circular reasoning.

So the Bible is correct when it says that Jesus cursed the fig tree before he drove the merchants from the temple (Mark 11:12-17), and it's also correct when it says that he cursed the fig tree AFTER driving the merchants from the temple (Matthew 21:12-19).

So both of these mutually exclusive claims are true, despite the fact that they contradict each other?

I shouldn't be surprised. After all, you did say:

Logic can take a hike.

 

[Kylie]

I think it was the Epistle of Barnabas which was meant. Mid 2nd century, authorship uncertain. It's a favorite of YECs.

Okay, but it's still not a contemporary source.

It all depends on what your are trying to prove and why. There is quite a bit more written material--I'm thinking for instance of the Apostolic Fathers, iindividuals who were plausibly associates or students of the original twelve. YECs don't like them very much because their writings don't particularly support YEC theology. Several years ago there was a poster (he's still around so I won't mentioned his name) who argued with vigor and sincerety that the Apostolic Fathers secretly believed in Sola Scriptura but taught something else because the "authorities" made them.

Here is the bottom line: Something happened, and it seemed important enough to start a new religious movement and, in addition, generate quite a bit of writting. Gospels, letters, commentary, doctrinal disputes, reams of it, much of which is now lost or exists only in fragments. Whatever else this corpus may or may not prove, I think it proves beyond doubt that the companions of Christ believed that He died on the cross and rose again from the dead. That's as good as it is going to get and for a Traditional Christian it is enough.

The fact that something happens and a new religion is formed is not sufficient to make me believe that the alleged events occured. By this logic, we'd have to assume Islam is true as well.

 

[Yttrium]

Thank you for actually framing it in a non-insulting form; I think you are citing orbital mechanics or gravitational forces balanced by inertia? If that is what you are saying, then I say that the satellite that you are mentioning's position is maintained by the mechanics of the universe rotating around the earth, in which the satellites are effectively fixed relative to a point on the Earth's surface as a result of forces that maintain their place in the heavens. If need be, I can quote further on this matter, blessings!

Forces that maintain their place in the heavens? That sounds complicated...

When we launch them into space, like all the satellites, we give them just the right velocity to maintain an orbit around the Earth. For geosynchronous satellites, this is about 11,300 km/hr at an altitude of about 35,786 km. We don't calculate in those forces you talk about, whatever they are, to get the satellites to somehow take a fixed position above the Earth.

 

[roman2819]

Atheism is difficult to even pinpoint, as the definition of "existence" is objective. As an example, St. Maximus: "If I must say whether or not God exists, I am closer to His truth when saying that He does not exist, since God is something entirely different from that which I recognize as existence."

I made this image as a testament to this:

View attachment 359879

The convention is atheists don't believe that God exist. Unlike the example of 3 people who don't totally disbelieve, I have met many who don't believe in God and wouldn't even discuss because they really believe there is no god or deities. The only say they don't believe that God or deities exist.

 

[roman2819]

You think I'm obsessed with the existence of God?

I have met many real atheists who don't believe in God, that wouldn't even discuss because they really believe there is no god or deities. Totally unlike the way you answer most of the posts written to you.

The vast majority of atheists just want evidence. They would, if given evidence that actually checks out, be quite happy to believe that God exists.

How do you know the majority of atheists just want evidence? Did you do a scientific poll?

The only reason that it seems to you that I never talk about anything other than the existence of God is because you only see me when I am here, and I talk about these things why I am here. You have a view of me that gives you an incorrect idea of how much I talk about this.

I see the same person driving a bus monday to friday, but surely that is not all he does.

 

[BCP1928]

Okay, but it's still not a contemporary source.

The fact that something happens and a new religion is formed is not sufficient to make me believe that the alleged events occured.

Of course not. What I am suggesting is that from examining the written material it is reasonable to conclude that the founders of the religion believed that something had occurred. The documents don't, in themselves, prove it. They only give us insight into what the authors believed about it.

By this logic, we'd have to assume Islam is true as well.

No, all you have to assume is that Mohammed and his followers thought Islam is true.

 

[QvQ]

What do you say to those Christians such as @AV1611VET who are strict King James only?

I am strict King James only.
However we are talking about historical artifacts.

You are applying a different standard to the Bible. That indicates bias.

The earliest surviving manuscript (scrap) we have of Plato's Dialogues is dated 400 AD, centuries after his death.
Yet you claim as absolute fact the document is a true account of Socrates written by Plato before or shortly after Socrate's death.

The earliest surviving manuscript (scrap) we have of the NT, written within 5 years of Jesus death, is the 1 Corinthian 15: 3-7 creed. It contains all the essential elements of Christianity. It is close enough and clear enough to qualify as an accurate and factual history of that time frame.

Call it the Ancient Israeli Times Newspaper. It is not what they believed but what the actual facts were on the ground.

It states, in part: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures; that he was buried; that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures; that he appeared to Cephas [Peter], then to the twelve,”

 

[AveChristusRex]

You have "quoted" nothing. If you have a physics that can explain the motion of the artificial satellites

The motion of satellites is explained by acknowledging that the universe rotates around a stationary Earth; satellites do not 'orbit' the Earth in the heliocentric sense but are carried by the dynamic framework of the rotating universe.

write the formula for that orbit.

Just use standard orbital mechanics equations to account for the relative motion of objects within a universe revolving around the Earth, but note that the centripetal force required is supplied by the effects of the universe's rotation, not by the Earth's gravitational pull alone

I have a conundrum, Rex. Maybe you can help me out.

How do I respond to a poster who posts abject nonsense and then tells me to take a course I taught before he was born?

Id stop and recognize your use of the appeal to authority fallacy before saying anything more, and frame it in a respectful, Christian way.

 

[AveChristusRex]

I am strict King James only.
However we are talking about historical artifacts.

You are applying a different standard to the Bible. That indicates bias.

Likewise I am strict Douay-Rheims only, but that does not mean that our understanding is limited.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Likewise I am strict Douay-Rheims only, but that does not mean that our understanding is limited.

Goodness! You Mohylite Catholics are particular, aren't you?