Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

A proof for the Stationary Earth, Part 2

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
    So no argument and no evidence presented.

    JM
    And nutjob continue to want to sit on his throne and cast down divine judgments. Everybody else needs evidence, JM doesn't.
    "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
    GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

    Comment


    • Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View Post
      Sorry nutjob, but we both know that church's today (and this includes the Catholic church too) have not interpreted these passages as being literal for centuries and today accept a rotating earth and accept those passages you mention as not being literal. Today, only nutjob John and the handful of other nutjobs do.
      The Papal Bull by Pope Urban VIII condemning Galileos moving earth theory have never been retracted. In fact Galileo converted back to geocentrism after the condemnation.



      So your own church is wrong on the issue when it says:
      No. The encyclopedia as expressing the opinion of some authors is in error. The Papal decrees are all true and remain in force today.

      The present system, in the widest sense of the term, forms the subject of universal cosmography. Descriptions of this kind were made by Lambert, the two Herschels, Laplace, Newcomb, and others. The present section treats only of the solar system, and in particular of the disputed theories of Ptolemy and Copernicus, and the proofs in favour of the latter.
      http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=11816


      Oops... care to try this again?
      The so called proofs are merely claims about the meaning of several experiments which Geocentrists have shown can be interpreted other than that required by the Helio model. There is no proof presented in the Catholic encyclopedia for the moving earth. One such example -

      (b) Our satellite furnishes another more direct proof of the annual revolution of the earth. Carl Braun shows in the Wochenschrift für Astronomie X (1867) 193 that the moon is attracted nearly three times more forcibly by the sun than by the earth. Our satellite would therefore leave us unless we revolved with it around the sun. The earth is only able to give the annual lunar orbit a serpentine shape so as to have the satellite alternately outside and inside her own orbit.
      Resolution - place the earth at the Newtonian barycenter of the universe and the forces required to have the moon and sun orbit the earth will be generated within the Newtonian, rotating universe and the earth will not move. The so called Helio proof is simply false.

      JM
      Last edited by JohnMartin; 05-10-2016, 09:03 PM.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View Post
        And nutjob continue to want to sit on his throne and cast down divine judgments. Everybody else needs evidence, JM doesn't.
        You made the initial claim about the rotating earth and magnetism. I'm still waiting for the evidence and an argument. You probably don't have either.

        You have a foul mouth.

        JM

        Comment


        • Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
          You made the initial claim about the rotating earth and magnetism. I'm still waiting for the evidence and an argument. You probably don't have either.
          John, please explain the cause of empirically observed analemma motion of geosynchronous satellites.

          John, please explain why geostationary satellites don't fall straight to the ground.

          You have posted lots of excuses and hand waves but have yet to provide answers to the two questions. You probably don't have either.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
            John, please explain the cause of empirically observed analemma motion of geosynchronous satellites.

            John, please explain why geostationary satellites don't fall straight to the ground.

            You have posted lots of excuses and hand waves but have yet to provide answers to the two questions. You probably don't have either.
            I probably do have answers. You could also read the pertinent book by the pertinent author by the initials of RS and find out for yourself.

            JM
            Last edited by JohnMartin; 05-10-2016, 09:23 PM.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
              The Papal Bull by Pope Urban VIII condemning Galileos moving earth theory have never been retracted. In fact Galileo converted back to geocentrism after the condemnation.
              And yet, the modern Catholic church doesn't support a geocentric system and actually supports a heliocentric one. Something you keep denying because you don't want it to be true. So is the modern church wrong when it says there's more evidence for a heliocentric system vs a geocentric system or not?

              No. The encyclopedia as expressing the opinion of some authors is in error. The Papal decrees are all true and remain in force today.
              That's right, even though nutjob has to go back over 500 years to find any support for his insanity, he flat out ignores that the modern church doesn't support or endurance his insanity. Does the modern church support geocentrism or heliocentrism, nutjob? What I keep finding is the modern church supports heliocentrism, not geocentrism. Is your church wrong or is nutjob John wrong?

              The so called proofs are merely claims about the meaning of several experiments which Geocentrists have shown can be interpreted other than that required by the Helio model. There is no proof presented in the Catholic encyclopedia for the moving earth. One such example -

              Resolution - place the earth at the Newtonian barycenter of the universe and the forces required to have the moon and sun orbit the earth will be generated within the Newtonian, rotating universe and the earth will not move. The so called Helio proof is simply false.
              Sorry nutjob, but you've already been shown that you don't understand barycenters or orbits, so I don't trust your view on this one at all. The fact remains, you church doesn't support your insanity and the only way you can get them to support it is to make references to papal bulls that were written over 500 years ago and flat out ignore modern stuff that says otherwise. This is from, again, from other Catholics:

              As more recent science has shown, both Galileo and his opponents were partly right and partly wrong. Galileo was right in asserting the mobility of the earth and wrong in asserting the immobility of the sun. His opponents were right in asserting the mobility of the sun and wrong in asserting the immobility of the earth.
              http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-galileo-controversy


              So why are modern Catholics publishing all of these 'opinions' that you're a nutcase that isn't in step with modern Catholic doctrine? When will the church start to make others condemn heliocentrism or is the reality that geocentrism is wrong, still something nutcase John refuses to accept?
              Last edited by lilpixieofterror; 05-10-2016, 09:25 PM.
              "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
              GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

              Comment


              • Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
                You made the initial claim about the rotating earth and magnetism. I'm still waiting for the evidence and an argument. You probably don't have either.
                Sorry John, but the evidence is easy to look up. You won't bother to do that though because you don't care.

                You have a foul mouth.
                Still angry about a women showing you're a nutcase that your own church doesn't seem to agree with?
                "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
                GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

                Comment


                • Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View Post
                  So why are modern Catholics publishing all of these 'opinions' that you're a nutcase that isn't in step with modern Catholic doctrine?
                  You haven't established such doctrine from church documents. Your link was only to the private opinion of a Catholic apologetics website, which has no authority. The Papal Bulls condemning the moving earth theory remain. Its not my fault I've chosen to follow the Papal encyclicals, the church fathers and scripture, (because they are the sources of revelation) and other Catholics have simply decided not to follow the truths contained within those sources.

                  The Catholic Church is a historical institution and doctrines need not be propounded every year for the doctrine to be true and binding. The Council of Chalcedon gave a definition of the incarnation, which is still binding, yet the Church has not explicitly discussed that particular definition (as far as I currently know). Does that mean the definition has been lost, not binding, or not to be believed by Catholics? No. Chalcedon, like all the other ecumenical council's is always binding on matters of faith. Likewise, the Papal Bulls are also still binding. Time does not change a doctrine.

                  Galileo as one of the champions of the Helio cause actually lived an died much of his life as a geocentrist. Galileo died as a geocentrist.

                  Geocentrism is the historical Catholic position on the doctrines revealed by God concerning the nature of the universe.

                  JM
                  Last edited by JohnMartin; 05-10-2016, 09:36 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View Post
                    Sorry John, but the evidence is easy to look up. You won't bother to do that though because you don't care.



                    Still angry about a women showing you're a nutcase that your own church doesn't seem to agree with?
                    Still no evidence presented. You are lazy and have a foul mouth.

                    JM

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
                      You haven't established such doctrine from church documents. Your link was only to the private opinion of a Catholic apologetics website, which has no authority. The Papal Bulls condemning the moving earth theory remain. If other Catholics don't understand what they are talking about, its not my fault I've chosen to follow the Papal encyclicals, the church fathers and scripture, (because they are the sources of revelation) and other Catholics have simply decided not to follow the truths contained within those sources.

                      The Catholic Church is a historical institution and doctrines need not be propounded every year for the doctrine to be true and binding. The Council of Chalcedon gave a definition of the incarnation, which is still binding, yet the Church has not explicitly discussed that particular definition (as far as I currently know). Does that mean the definition has been lost, not binding, or not to be believed by Catholics? No. Chalcedon, like all the other ecumenical council's is always binding on matters of faith. Likewise, the Papal Bulls are also still binding. Time does not change a doctrine.

                      Galileo as one of the champions of the Helio cause actually lived an died much of his life as a geocentrist. Galileo died as a geocentrist.

                      JM
                      So nutjob, when is the church going to excommunicate them or ask them to recant from their views? Will that be the week after never or is nutjob John so desperate to believe something he wants to be true as true, that he'll desperately cling to a 500 year old Papal Bull, while completely ignoring that the modern church doesn't support a geocentric model, lets writers get away with writing that the geocentric model is false, and has done absolutely nothing to ensure that modern Catholics are in line with geocentric thought? Face it John, you're a nutcase all alone as the modern church has long ago abandoned the position that the earth is the center of the universe.

                      BTW I don't care what Galileo believed or didn't nutjob, he was wrong about a lot of things (you are aware that he proposed that the universe orbited the sun, right?).

                      Geocentrism is the historical Catholic position on the doctrines revealed by God concerning the nature of the universe.
                      So when is the modern church going to start excommunicating all these Catholics that keep saying that the geocentric model, is wrong? Is the church somehow unaware of what is written in the Catholic encyclopedia? Are they unaware of what Catholic Answers writes? Or do they not care because JM is a nutcase?
                      Last edited by lilpixieofterror; 05-10-2016, 09:44 PM.
                      "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
                      GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
                        Still no evidence presented.
                        I found it within two minutes of searching nutjob. You're a waste of time though because there's no point in presenting you with the evidence. You'll just ignore it or show that you don't understand basic science.

                        You are lazy and have a foul mouth.
                        Still angry that a women dares to disagree with you, eh nutjob? Do I need to get back in the kitchen and stop disagreeing with a man?
                        "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
                        GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                          Yeh sure. They've tested Newtonian mass and found mass doesn't change. They've tested R mass and found that it does change. Tested Newtonian time, and is doesn't change. R time and it does change. Tested Newtonian lengths of objects in motion and they are constant. Tested R lengths of objects in motion and they are not constant They've tested it all and science claims the test affirm both the positive and negative.

                          This is what MSer's have to believe. A cursory logical analysis of the claims shows the system is junk.

                          JM
                          what??? your mocking excuses don't even make any sense. You obviously know nothing about newtonian or einsteinian theories. sheesh. Read a book.
                          The logic is easy enough to understand. The Newtonian and Relativity models are so diverse that experimental evidence for one model is necessarily exclusive of the other model. If an experiment is evidence for time dilation, then Newtonian physics has been invalidated. If an experiment demonstrated space is absolute, then Relativity theory is invalidated. With so many experiments performed it is highly likely that experiments have mutually invalidated each theory.

                          This problem is one of the many quandaries of the MSer's world view. The experimental based world view nearly always comes back to haunt the empiricist, for it only takes one experiment to invalidate a theory. We have so many theories done over so many years. Who is to know what experiment really is evidence for what theory? After all, it seems so easy to show that a theory is evidence for a theory and therefore evidence against all other competing theories.

                          For example, the Cavendish experiment is said to be evidence for the G constant in Newtonian mechanics. If such is so, then the Cavendish experiment is strong evidence against any non mass attraction theories concerning gravity. Such evidence abounds for an experimental based approach in developing a physical world view of the universe. Such problems are better resolved by seeking what has been revealed by God and seeing God has revealed that the earth has been created by God at the center of the universe. We can then use this one, and several other revealed truths to form a better, more stable physical understanding of the universe.

                          Those who ignore what has been revealed by God concerning the nature of the universe, do so at their own peril. Ignorance of what God has revealed can only lead down false paths and to mutually competing theories about such fundamental notions as gravity. The false path may not be evident for some time, maybe even decades or centuries. Yet the path will eventually lead to a precipice, or a thick, impenetrable jungle, from which there is no physical return.

                          Perhaps two fatal blunders physics has made in the last few centuries is to engage the Newtonian model of the universe with its model of gravity and absolute space. Such is done at the expense of the Christian world view, based upon the stationary earth as the absolute reference frame, surrounded by a firmament.

                          The second major blunder was to embrace relativity theory, as a pseudo solution to the problems posed by the small, non zero results of the Michelson Morley (MM) experiment. To embrace shrinking lengths of bodies, time dilation and mass change is simply to fall into an error of psychologically projecting Newtonian physics and Copernicanism into the results of the MM experiment. The MM experiment was both set up to demonstrate, and/or provide evidence for the moving earth. When the MM results were known, the science establishment already psychologically knew the earth was moving before the experiment was performed, so the data was naturally interpreted within a new theory. The human psychology associated with the prior intellectual ascent to Newtonian mechanics and Copernicanism meant there was simply no other way to approach the MM experiment.

                          The earth was moving because science theory, science history, and the science establishment produced a deeply held belief that the earth was doing what scientists thought science theory and history predicted it to be doing. Hence the MM experiment results necessitated the generation of the theory of relativity. The establishment simply had no other alternative than to embrace the new relativity theory with all of its "counter intuitive" themes.

                          So here we are today with Newtonian mechanics (NM), Relativity (R) and the moving earth theory. Both NM and R are very problematic and simply cannot every be married together. The moving earth theory is then both a projection of a preconceived NM physics model into the MM experiment and the child of an unhappy marriage of NM and R theory.

                          It is something to behold. The beast that is the moving earth theory. It has captivated the minds of many, yet remains quite possibly one of the most fragile theories ever constructed.

                          JM

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View Post
                            Still angry that a women dares to disagree with you, eh nutjob? Do I need to get back in the kitchen and stop disagreeing with a man?
                            JM has given no indication of that. And you really do resort to the name calling far more than anyone else around here.
                            Middle-of-the-road swing voter. Feel free to sway my opinion.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
                              The Newtonian and Relativity models are so diverse that experimental evidence for one model is necessarily exclusive of the other model. If an experiment is evidence for time dilation, then Newtonian physics has been invalidated. If an experiment demonstrated space is absolute, then Relativity theory is invalidated. With so many experiments performed it is highly likely that experiments have mutually invalidated each theory.
                              Once again, you are incorrect. Newtonian Mechanics is an approximation that is used for most everyday purposes. It is not invalidated by Relativistic (or Quantum) Mechanics.
                              Middle-of-the-road swing voter. Feel free to sway my opinion.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
                                John, please explain the cause of empirically observed analemma motion of geosynchronous satellites.

                                John, please explain why geostationary satellites don't fall straight to the ground
                                I probably do have answers.

                                JM
                                Then please provide your answers. I've looked and there's nothing in anything written by Sungenis that addresses those specific questions.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                                48 responses
                                135 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                                16 responses
                                74 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                                6 responses
                                47 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X