Is the Stationary Earth the Heaviest Object in the Universe?

[oxmixmudd]

Aberration, parallax and the doppler effect are all included in the modified tychonian model. These phenomena do not prove either model is true.

JM

No they don't prove one model or the other. But there is only one model that conforms to known physics. The sun's gravitational force dominates the solar system. So the planets orbit it, including the Earth. That is the logical conclusion. You don't accept it because of a combination of a desire to be faithful to God (a good thing) and a totally mixed up understanding of the Scripture and RCC teaching - as evidenced by you discussions with Leon (and the fact almost all RCC priests, bishops and even the popes of the last hundreds of years all reject your position)

Jim

[oxmixmudd]

I really hope it was not hard to understand to anyone!

I really hope the intellectual challenge wasn't understanding it - but answering it.

The answer is simple. The mass of the Sun and the mass of the Earth are such that there are no physics of any known sort that will allow the configuration in the left side of your diagram to exist. The Earth orbits the Sun, therefore the annual shift we see in stellar positions is due to that motion and therefore we can confidently assess their positions relative to the Earth using trigonometry to the accuracy of our parallax measurement.

Secondarily, and consistent with the first, the expected behavior of all the planets, including the Earth, if they are indeed governed by the gravity of Sol, is exactly what we observe (excepting of course relativistic effects). All previously puzzling observations like retrograde motion, difference in the phases of the inner planets and outer planets, behavior of planetary moon systems, comets, meteors, and on and on an on are explained by this simple fact that mass and gravity are directly related, and the strength of the gravitational field in inversely related to the square of the distance between the objects. When we factor in the Earth's rotation, we can determine rocket fuel requirements regardless of orbit direction, plot trajectories to the planets, predict precisely the positions of planets in the sky for centuries, and so on and so forth.

The answer is that the left side of your diagram is fantasy. And the right side is the simple reality of the elegant universe God has designed.

"No - I looked at you diagram and understood exactly what you were trying to say - and what was wrong with it - in less time than it will take me to type the last word of this sentence."

But you have still not made any attempt of showing WHAT is wrong with it - other than that it disagrees with your prejudice.

I have spent pages telling you what is wrong with it, but you aren't listening.

You are imagining two totally erroneous things.

1) That there is (and that somewhere in my heart of heart I know there is) a question of angels deceiving mankind in my theory.

I am rebuking you for repeating that allegation, and even for making it : in that case, an astrologer could as easily claim that if horoscopes for individual men have no significance, God has (even if only from start of Universe, on your view) arranged for him to be deceived into thinking there is.

That argument is horrible. Astrology is not an observational science, it is superstition. God doesn't make the stars govern people's lives, indeed He calls us away from such superstitious prattle. We are to abstain from any sort of divination and practices of Babel - of which astrology was just one element of their false religion. You have made Angels into deceivers by claiming they move the stars as we observe them, imitating precisely the motions we would see if the Earth orbits the Sun and the Universe is at least many 10's of thousands of light years across (hundreds of thousands if you add in SN1987a). You think they could be excused if that correlation was incidental to some other purpose, but you are just too ignorant of the scope of the data to understand there could be NO incidental cause other than direct deception - assuming Angels are in fact assigned this task.

2) That I would respect anyone theologically who repeated this idiotic blunder of yours.

I would never expect you to respect my opinion or my theology. The cold and simple fact is that no one living in the current age and in their right mind can arrive at your position. And no-one with even the slightest respect for knowledge or science could ever arrive at your position. The very fact you hold the position you do means you have zero respect for any legitimate scientist or any legitimate scientific writings, and probably means you have some sort of serious mental condition. Why then should I expect you to respect me?

"Hence my attempts to present data that should have been able to convince any rational being."

And they should, and would.

Yes, before I gave the diagram, which you STILL have not dared tell anyone what is wrong with. THEN you came with "nothing can convince him anyway, from me at least".



The measurements are moot, see my diagram.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]19974[/ATTACH]

The consistency with the rest is no problem for me, since it was invented after misuing the Bessel phenomenon, interpreted as parallax, as a "measure".

I've wasted far too much time on this fools errand ...

You have instead of telling each and all openly, so I could refute anything, what is "wrong" with my diagram, presumed it is so wrong to "any rational person" that no one need discuss it.



That these things are not produects of angels moving things around, and that the constellations vary very much from culture to culture are two disputable things. Anyway, Greek, Hebrew and Roman culture - the ones which were most relevant to St John - all agree with modern culture in naming these things as named here.

I have heard one claim that the constellation for next year's sept 23 occurred once earlier, based on someone ascribing Apocalypse to a fourth century forgery, since including a fourth century sighting of these precise conditions. That is about how rare these conditions could be taken to be.

Hans, your position is just too absurd and it is just too tempting to mock you. If you were actually simply misinformed and could be made to see the folly of you position it would be different. I know where this is headed, and before too long I'll be treating you poorly if we continue this discussion - and I'd really rather not do that. If you ever have serious questions about your position I'll be glad to answer them to the best of my ability. But It is time for this to end.

Blessings again.


Jim

[hansgeorg]

The answer is simple. The mass of the Sun and the mass of the Earth are such that there are no physics of any known sort that will allow the configuration in the left side of your diagram to exist.

That means, there was no geometrical problem, while your answer is not adressing the point of freewilled spirits doing any part of what we see.

Like that ball on the football field.

Sure, the pull toward centre of Earth is only for - was it ten ounces? - but it is not the gravitation of the Earth which will be countering it.

And since there was no geometrical problem, you have no trigonometric proof for stars being all that far away, or all that big, which means that astrophysics started out being theorised on some unproven assumptions.

Thank you.

I might adress the rest later or tomorrow or monday, but I want you to first deal with exactly this one!

[JonF]

That means, there was no geometrical problem, while your answer is not adressing the point of freewilled spirits doing any part of what we see.

Like that ball on the football field.

Sure, the pull toward centre of Earth is only for - was it ten ounces? - but it is not the gravitation of the Earth which will be countering it.

And since there was no geometrical problem, you have no trigonometric proof for stars being all that far away, or all that big, which means that astrophysics started out being theorised on some unproven assumptions.

Thank you.

I might adress the rest later or tomorrow or monday, but I want you to first deal with exactly this one!

SN1987a

[HMS_Beagle]

There's those angels again.

Why do planets move? Angels push them.
Why don't stars fall down? Angels hold them up.
Why don't small stars dissipate? Angels hold them together.
Retrograde satellites? Angels working for NASA
Planetary slingshots? Angels with pistons
Pulsars? Angels wit hcatherone wheels
Coriolis? Angels with bellows
Stellar Aberration? Exoplanet occlusion? Asteroidea? Supernovae? Multiple images? Angels, angels, angels...

It's worse than moonbat magic aether.

My theory: The angels are pushing hansgeorg's fingers on the computer keyboard and having him write stuff which makes him seem nuttier than a case of Snickers.

[Christianbookworm]

Or one of them hacked his computer. Why not?

[hansgeorg]

My theory: The angels are pushing hansgeorg's fingers on the computer keyboard and having him write stuff which makes him seem nuttier than a case of Snickers.

Or one of them hacked his computer. Why not?

If you see letters missing (like I saw Nanterr rather than correct Nanterre on one of my posts the other day), you can ask legitimately if I was tired, the key board was bad or there was an angelical or human hacker of my writing activity.

Angels do not usually hack people's activities, exception for the linguistic one at Babel, if that punitive miracle was effected by angels.

Angels going hacking people's activities would be interfering with their freewill a lot.

Angels conducting stars and planets far above where we are active is not.

Bookworm, did you ever read Silmarillion? Note what the story said about Anor and Isil? Apart from the one sided love story involved, or for that matter an angelic being actually creating the shining bodies from sap of shining trees, that is pretty ok as an explanation (not meaning I believe the general story line of the work, of course).

[hansgeorg]

SN1987a

This one, I presume:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SN_1987A

Well, what trigonometric implications do you see from the supernova?

With me it is, as usual, 1 light day away, 1 light day up, and correspondingly smaller than believed by the scientist. Feel free to specify any argument to the contrary.

[JonF]

The distance to SN1987a was determined by trigonometry. There are plenty of explanations better than I could write on the Web. There's a brief one in the article you linked to. Also see http://chem.tufts.edu/science/astronomy/sn1987a.html, http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscien...to-sn1987a.htm, and http://galaxy.asu.cas.cz/~richard/te...x1-SN1987A.pdf.

What's your explanation? Show your calculations.

[shunyadragon]

My theory: The angels are pushing hansgeorg's fingers on the computer keyboard and having him write stuff which makes him seem nuttier than a case of Snickers.

I think he is possessed, and it does not have white wings and a halo.

[hansgeorg]

The distance to SN1987a was determined by trigonometry. There are plenty of explanations better than I could write on the Web. There's a brief one in the article you linked to. Also see http://chem.tufts.edu/science/astronomy/sn1987a.html, http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscien...to-sn1987a.htm, and http://galaxy.asu.cas.cz/~richard/te...x1-SN1987A.pdf.

What's your explanation? Show your calculations.

I'll quote this one first:

When SN1987A exploded, its light struck the central ring of gas after 0.658 years, illuminating it. Then, in the early 1990's it was predicted that the the expanding shock wave of matter would hit the inner ring within about 10 years making it a source of light and x-rays. This has now started to happen. ... radius = 6.23 x 1012 km (see note 1 below) = 0.658 light-years

In other words, the fault lies in calculating the radius' distance by assumption that the matter reached the inner ring at light speed.

If you don't grant this, all the rest becomes moot.

Precisely as I recall same question a few years ago.

[Christianbookworm]

If you see letters missing (like I saw Nanterr rather than correct Nanterre on one of my posts the other day), you can ask legitimately if I was tired, the key board was bad or there was an angelical or human hacker of my writing activity.

Angels do not usually hack people's activities, exception for the linguistic one at Babel, if that punitive miracle was effected by angels.

Angels going hacking people's activities would be interfering with their freewill a lot.

Angels conducting stars and planets far above where we are active is not.

Bookworm, did you ever read Silmarillion? Note what the story said about Anor and Isil? Apart from the one sided love story involved, or for that matter an angelic being actually creating the shining bodies from sap of shining trees, that is pretty ok as an explanation (not meaning I believe the general story line of the work, of course).

I'd apologize for making jokes at your expense, but you really deserve it from my view. And I don't think insecure apologies are a good thing. But if I hurt your feelings,

[hansgeorg]

OK, what exact problem do you have with angels?

Are they those I adressed to John Martin here?

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...f-Faith/page16*

Apart from that apology not demanded, but accepted, not as admission of fault, but as esxpression of goodwill.

The only fault I saw in your stance was on the intellectual level, not a moral fault about me.

* Sorry, this page:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...f-Faith/page15

[HMS_Beagle]

OK, what exact problem do you have with angels?

Besides the fact you offer them as an evidence-free ad hoc cause for every physical phenomenon you can't explain?

[Christianbookworm]

Besides the fact you offer them as an evidence-free ad hoc cause for every physical phenomenon you can't explain?

Precisely! It's the new "a wizard did it"! Deus ex machina courtesy of powerful beings!