Originally posted by JohnMartin
View Post
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
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
-
"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
-
Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View PostSorry 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.
So your own church is wrong on the issue when it says:
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?
(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.
JMLast edited by JohnMartin; 05-10-2016, 09:03 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View PostAnd nutjob continue to want to sit on his throne and cast down divine judgments. Everybody else needs evidence, JM doesn't.
You have a foul mouth.
JM
Comment
-
Originally posted by JohnMartin View PostYou 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 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 PostJohn, 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.
JMLast edited by JohnMartin; 05-10-2016, 09:23 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JohnMartin View PostThe 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.
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 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.
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 PostYou 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."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 PostSo why are modern Catholics publishing all of these 'opinions' that you're a nutcase that isn't in step with modern Catholic doctrine?
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.
JMLast edited by JohnMartin; 05-10-2016, 09:36 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View PostSorry 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?
JM
Comment
-
Originally posted by JohnMartin View PostYou 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
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.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 PostStill no evidence presented.
You are lazy and have a foul mouth."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 PostYeh 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.
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 PostStill 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?Middle-of-the-road swing voter. Feel free to sway my opinion.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JohnMartin View PostThe 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.Middle-of-the-road swing voter. Feel free to sway my opinion.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JohnMartin View PostJohn, 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
JM
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
by Sparko
03-20-2024, 09:13 AM
|
||
Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
|
16 responses
74 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
03-08-2024, 03:12 PM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
|
6 responses
47 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
03-08-2024, 03:25 PM
|
Comment