Is the Stationary Earth the Heaviest Object in the Universe?

[JohnMartin]

According to a recent article entitled Was Aristotle Correct that the Earth is the “Heaviest” Object in the Universe?, Robert Sungenis has proposed that the entire universe in the Geocentric model has an effect mass twenty orders of magnitude greater in mass than the entire universe.

The Compton wave is the quantum mechanical property of an object that is stationary.2 The deBroglie wave is a quantum mechanical property of an object that is moving.3 The Compton wavelength λ is equal to h/mc, where h is Planck’s constant, m is the rest mass of the object, and c is the terrestrial speed of light. For example, the Compton wavelength for the tiny electron is 2.426 x 10^–12 meters. For a baseball at rest, the Compton wavelength is 1.58 x 10^–27 meters. The deBroglie wavelength for the same baseball moving at 30 meters/second is 1.58 x 10^–34 meters. In comparing the electron to the baseball, we see that the bigger the object the smaller the wavelength.

We can apply these same calculations to the universe by first understanding that, in the geocentric system, the universe’s center of mass exactly coincides with the Earth’s center of mass. As such, the universe would function as a standing wave with a diameter of one Compton wavelength. If we then solve the Compton equation for the effective mass of the universe, we have:

m = h/λc

m = 2.5 x 10^–66 grams for the effective mass of the universe.

If we then solve the Compton equation for the effective mass of the Earth, we have: m =3.86 x10^–46 grams for the effective mass of the Earth. Hence, as measured by quantum wavelength, the tiny Earth is twenty orders of magnitude greater in mass than the universe. This difference is quite remarkable since the universe, as estimated by current cosmology, has a diameter of 93 billion light‐years. But even if the universe were only one million light years in diameter, its effective mass would be 2.32 x 10^–59 grams, and thus thirteen orders of magnitude lighter than the Earth. This is analogous to comparing a 1 pound ball to a 10 trillion pound ball. Which is easier to move?

If the Earth is stationary and the universe does the rotating once per day, it seems from the above calculations that the earth cannot be moved from its stationary point. Any comments on the above? Bogus thinking, or something to consider?

JM

[Yttrium]

"If we then solve the Compton equation for the effective mass of the Earth, we have: m =3.86 x10^–46 grams for the effective mass of the Earth."

Wow, that's mind-bogglingly massive. It's hard for me to imagine something with that much mass. But since the Earth is at the center of mass of the universe anyway, why would there be any forces pushing the Earth around? Any forces would balance each other out, if there were any. It's not like gravity would have an effect, lacking a medium to transfer the gravitational forces.

93 billion light years in diameter? Huh. The aether winds must be pushing the farthest stars at speeds much faster than what scientists say is the speed of light. Cool.

[Sparko]

with that much mass, why are we not flattened by the gravity?


oh yeah, gravity doesn't exist.

[hansgeorg]

93 billion light years in diameter? Huh. The aether winds must be pushing the farthest stars at speeds much faster than what scientists say is the speed of light. Cool.

If the medium of light is aether and moving aether does change speed of light, that is not necessarily a problem.

If, furthermore, the universe is n o t 93 billion light years in diameter, it furthermore reduces the problem.

As yet, Voyager 1 and 2 have not disproven my pet theory the universe is 1 lightday above Earth, all directions, or at least up to the fix stars.

[hansgeorg]

Robert Sungenis has proposed that the entire universe in the Geocentric model has an effect mass twenty orders of magnitude greater in mass than the entire universe.

My little beef with Robert Sungenis is, he rejects angelic movers, which implies a duty of explaining everything in terms of dynamics of the Newtonian type.

[Yttrium]

As yet, Voyager 1 and 2 have not disproven my pet theory the universe is 1 lightday above Earth, all directions, or at least up to the fix stars.

Hmm. Wouldn't all those stars have to be pretty small to fit into that small of a celestial diameter?

[hansgeorg]

Hmm. Wouldn't all those stars have to be pretty small to fit into that small of a celestial diameter?

Lots smaller than usually supposed, at least.

A visual size of so and so many degrees, sorry, minutes, sorry, seconds, sorry, parts of a second corresponds to different physical sizes according to what the physical distance is, that is rather basic geometry, or close to.

Here I find a post where I go through the implications of "Si Rigel était une journée-lumičre distante de nous?"

The size implication is here:

Volume du Rigel si elle est distante d'une journée-lumičre de nous:

1,412×1018 km3 * 0,000,000,000,020,570,824
= 29 046 003 km3

Ou davantage, je n'ai pas calculé d'aprčs une valeur unique du Soleil, mais d'aprčs deux renseignements qui peuvent ętre légčrement décalés.

La racine cubique de 29 046 003 km3 est 307 km, nettement moins que les 381,6 auxquels j'étais arrivé avec le renseignement pour diamčtre.

http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.fr/2015/0...e-lumiere.html

Another one is here: "How Big is Kepler 452? A Geocentric Minority Report"

In fact, I recounted a few things this morning, after a fairly good night's sleep.

First of all, the two smaller results differring should be no surprise. If I start with 3/2, then divide by 3 and then cube the result, I get 1/8. If I start with 3/2, then divide by cube of three, I get 1/18.

Next, yes, it is the first method I should have used – but I was wrong to start with 110 %. If Kepler 452 is 110 % the volume of the Sun, it means each dimension is 103 %. 1.03 cubed is 1.092727 which is adequately close to 1.1.

So, recalculating, I divide 103 % by 365 and stop after getting to decimals 0.2821, which I divide by 1400 and get 0.0002015. Cubing this I get 0.000,000,000,008,181,353,375 %. That is how much Kepler 452 is of the volume of the Sun if only one light day away. 0.1 parts per trillion, approx.

And this means the star is smaller than Earth, at least.

I checked volumes of Earth and of Sun on French wikipédie (in cubic km), and got two values which I proceeded to compare:

Terre (Earth) Volume 1,08321×10^12
Soleil (Sun) Volume 1,412×10^18

10^12 : 10^18 = 10^-6
0.7671458923512748 * 10^-6

And 7.671458923512748 * 10^-7 is obviously a greater part, nearly a whole ppm, than the 0.08 parts per trillion for Kepler 452, if it is 1 light day away.

So much about the star.

The exo-planet, Kepler 452b, I did some calculations tonight.

If astronomers supposing it 1400 ly away say it is 5 times the volume of earth, that means it is in each dimension approximately 1.7 times the volume of Earth. However, if you divide this by 1400 to reduce to one light year and then further by 365 to reduce to one light day, you get a very small fraction, which multiplied with 12600 km as diameter of Earth give you a diameter of Kepler 452b as 41 meters and 91 centimeters. I checked on a converter to get 137.5 ft, that is 137 ft and six inches.

Now, let us check if this is correct by doing the multiplications.

15297.15 m or 15.29715 km if same "apparent size" is for one light year (365 times more), multiply by 1400 you get 21,416.01 km. Divide that by 12,600 (diameter of Earth) and you get 1.6996833333333333 - a little further from the third root of five than I started with as proportion for each dimension of Kepler 452b to Earth on supposition it were five times as voluminous.

The star's volume at 1 light day off would be 115520.709655 cubic kilometres.

It's radius would be 33.25 and its diameter 66.5 km across. Or 41.325 miles. Or 41 miles, 1716 feet.

Obviously, this illustrates how "apparent size" as a given diversifies into different actual sizes according to distance assumed.

From comment section of a somewhat bungled article (mathematically):

http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.fr/2015/0...eocentric.html

[Yttrium]

Another one is here: "How Big is Kepler 452? A Geocentric Minority Report"

And 7.671458923512748 * 10^-7 is obviously a greater part, nearly a whole ppm, than the 0.08 parts per trillion for Kepler 452, if it is 1 light day away.

That's a pretty small volume, all right. Well, that would blow out current theories of how stars burn, because it's just not big enough for that.

[Leonhard]

I'm still sad to see Sungenis becoming obsessed with geocentrism and anti-zionism. He was actually a very good apologist, as many of the evangelical converts to the Catholic Church have been. However the stuff he engages in now is a dry desert. Nothing of substance grows in it. He flounders around in topics he clearly doesn't understand, and presents his findings with the a self-assurance you wouldn't find even among an ecumenical gathering of bishops.

As for the argument. He's correct that any object with mass can be ascribed a compton wavelength, though he doesn't seem to understand what it means, falling unfortunately into the trap of mistaking an error found in popular science descriptions, that tend to give sizes to these point particles by their compton wavelengths, with their size. As such this would have been fine enough, if Sungenis was honest with himself and his readers that he was an amateur who's clueless about the subject. At least then he could approach the subject with humility and learn.

Instead he takes the size of the universe as the wavelength, using it to calculate what mass an object would have to make such a huge wavelength. Gets a tiny nonsensically small mass, and call it a day.

He doesn't ask why a compton wavelength is much smaller than the baseball's physical size. What it actually relates to. Instead of understanding the big picture of the physics he's using to argue in his defense, he narrows in on a factoid he thinks he understands, plugs in numbers, sees that nonsense comes out and assumes it proves his point.

Its the sad sight of what used to be a good, if a bit aggressive, evangelical Catholic apologist, then turned eccentric, and now turned irreversible into a crank.

[Leonhard]

That's a pretty small volume, all right. Well, that would blow out current theories of how stars burn, because it's just not big enough for that.

Most geocentrists think the entire universe is less than one light year across.

[firstfloor]

"If we then solve the Compton equation for the effective mass of the Earth, we have: m =3.86 x10^–46 grams for the effective mass of the Earth."

Wow, that's mind-bogglingly massive.

10^-46 is a small number not a big one.

[Yttrium]

10^-46 is a small number not a big one.

I confess that my post might have been subtly sarcastic in nature... since they calculated mass of the Earth (not to mention the universe) to be far less than the mass of an electron.

[JohnMartin]

"If we then solve the Compton equation for the effective mass of the Earth, we have: m =3.86 x10^–46 grams for the effective mass of the Earth."

Wow, that's mind-bogglingly massive. It's hard for me to imagine something with that much mass. But since the Earth is at the center of mass of the universe anyway, why would there be any forces pushing the Earth around? Any forces would balance each other out, if there were any. It's not like gravity would have an effect, lacking a medium to transfer the gravitational forces.

93 billion light years in diameter? Huh. The aether winds must be pushing the farthest stars at speeds much faster than what scientists say is the speed of light. Cool.

My understanding is that the rotating universe is contained within the universal firmament and the aether flows account for local motion.

JM

[JohnMartin]

I'm still sad to see Sungenis becoming obsessed with geocentrism and anti-zionism. He was actually a very good apologist, as many of the evangelical converts to the Catholic Church have been. However the stuff he engages in now is a dry desert. Nothing of substance grows in it. He flounders around in topics he clearly doesn't understand, and presents his findings with the a self-assurance you wouldn't find even among an ecumenical gathering of bishops.

As for the argument. He's correct that any object with mass can be ascribed a compton wavelength, though he doesn't seem to understand what it means, falling unfortunately into the trap of mistaking an error found in popular science descriptions, that tend to give sizes to these point particles by their compton wavelengths, with their size. As such this would have been fine enough, if Sungenis was honest with himself and his readers that he was an amateur who's clueless about the subject. At least then he could approach the subject with humility and learn.

Instead he takes the size of the universe as the wavelength, using it to calculate what mass an object would have to make such a huge wavelength. Gets a tiny nonsensically small mass, and call it a day.

He doesn't ask why a compton wavelength is much smaller than the baseball's physical size. What it actually relates to. Instead of understanding the big picture of the physics he's using to argue in his defense, he narrows in on a factoid he thinks he understands, plugs in numbers, sees that nonsense comes out and assumes it proves his point.

Its the sad sight of what used to be a good, if a bit aggressive, evangelical Catholic apologist, then turned eccentric, and now turned irreversible into a crank.

Robert thinks geocentrism is worth defending and promoting because of

1) the 1633 Papal decree against Galileo,

2) the OT scriptural statements that say the sun, moon and stars do the moving and

3) the consent of the Church Fathers that favors a stationary Earth.

Some questions for you to consider -

1) How do you account for the above sources saying the Earth is stationary if the Earth is moving?

2) If the Earth is stationary, why not defend that truth as Robert is doing?

3) If the Earth is moving, how are we to know from science alone if Relativity theory says we cannot be sure of what body is moving past what body?

4) If the Earth is moving, how are we to know with certitude when Geocentrists claim modern Geocentric models account for all the phenomena that is classically presented as evidence for Heliocentrism? For example the existence of parallax, and aberration of star light is classically presented as strong evidence for the Earth's motion, but the new Geo models account for such motion with a stationary earth.

5) If there is no proof from science that the earth is moving, why not consider the earth to be stationary and let the sources of revelation speak for themselves on the matter location and motion of the Earth?

6) If there is proof from science that the Earth is moving, what then is the proof?

7) If there is proof for the stationary Earth from science, how do you explain the fact that geocentrists go to science and show there are several science experiments that provide evidence for a stationary Earth? For example, the Michelson Morely interferometer experiment is used as evidence for a motionless Earth, and WMAP is used to show the Earth is in a special place in the universe.

8) Why dismiss the investigation of a motionless Earth, when as a creationist, you beleive that God can create any universe He desires, which includes the creation of a universe with one or more stationary bodies within the universe?

9) It seems to me that the belief in the Earth's motion is only a belief based upon assumed principles with are said to hold tre throughout the universe. One such principle is the Copernican principle, which says there is no special place in the universe. If such principles underly the commonly held opinion that the Earth moves, why have any strong attachment to such an opinion when at least one of the underlying principles associates with the motion of the Earth in the Copernican principle, now has strong evidence against it in modern science?

10) The Jesuits for some time had to be edcated in astronomy as part of their formation. The Jesuits believed the Earth was stationary, and promoted such to cultures such as the Chinese as part of the evangelisation process. Where historically did the Jesuits get the idea that the Earth is stationary from? Scripture, science, or human opinion?

11) What is your position concerning the 1633 Papal condemnation of Galileo's moving Earth theory, which has never been rescinded?

12) Why should any Catholic take your opinion over that of a currently binding decree of a Pope, if your opinion contradicts that of a Pope?

JM

[DesertBerean]