Is the Stationary Earth the Heaviest Object in the Universe?

[firstfloor]

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.

I see. JohnMartin is impressive for his ability to squeeze so much nonsense into such a small space.

[Roy]

No

[hansgeorg]

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.

I consider, as you might conceive, astrophysics a very moot "science".

[hansgeorg]

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

Not those of the Sungenis type.

I do.

[Yttrium]

I consider, as you might conceive, astrophysics a very moot "science".

Well, yes, obviously. You would have to. There is really nothing in the modern science of astrophysics that agrees with a geocentric model of the universe.

By the way, there's a thought problem you should consider. We've discussed it with JohnMartin here before. We have quite a few geostationary satellites up there, doing all sorts of useful things, such as communications and television transmission. They're put in orbit about 22,300 miles above the Earth. Their orbits are designed to keep them above a single spot on the Earth. The idea is that they move at just the right speed so they match the rotation of the Earth. If the Earth is stationary, then the geostationary satellites wouldn't be able to move. They'd just be hovering in place up there, and they should fall straight down due to gravity. So if the Earth is stationary, how do they stay up? Or are they some elaborate hoax, and there are no geostationary satellites?

[hansgeorg]

If the Earth is stationary, then the geostationary satellites wouldn't be able to move. They'd just be hovering in place up there, and they should fall straight down due to gravity. So if the Earth is stationary, how do they stay up? Or are they some elaborate hoax, and there are no geostationary satellites?

Ether moving relative to them is as good as them moving relative to aether.

Here are six posts mostly between me and Tom Trinko on that one, linking to the first:

http://correspondentia-ioannis-georg...hysics-of.html

[Yttrium]

Ether moving relative to them is as good as them moving relative to aether.

Here are six posts mostly between me and Tom Trinko on that one, linking to the first:

http://correspondentia-ioannis-georg...hysics-of.html

Thanks, but the problem I brought up is that the geostationary satellites would have to be... stationary. If the Earth isn't rotating, they can't move. They would be immobile. Aether would not be pushing them East or West, because that would move them out of position. The aether would have to be holding them in place somehow.

[hansgeorg]

They would s t i l l be in movement in relation to the aether, as I t r i e d to explain to Tom Trinko.

Could you read it first before I have to take same debate again?

Back to small stars.

The real issue for astrophysicists about stars needing a minimum mass in order to burn is really about them needing a mass superior to that of Jupiter to self ignite.

Theory of self ignition would imply Jupiter self ignited, if it could. Right material, but too small?

O r self ignition is wrong and ignition by act of God in day IV is right.

[Yttrium]

They would s t i l l be in movement in relation to the aether, as I t r i e d to explain to Tom Trinko.

Sorry, that's not making any kind of sense to me.

The real issue for astrophysicists about stars needing a minimum mass in order to burn is really about them needing a mass superior to that of Jupiter to self ignite.

Theory of self ignition would imply Jupiter self ignited, if it could. Right material, but too small?

A little too small.

[HMS_Beagle]

Ether moving relative to them is as good as them moving relative to aether.

Here are six posts mostly between me and Tom Trinko on that one, linking to the first:

http://correspondentia-ioannis-georg...hysics-of.html

Sorry but that's not going to work. Because the Earth is not a perfect sphere satellites put in a geostationary orbit tend to drift slightly in orbital inclination over time. As they do so their position as seen from the ground begins to trace a figure-8 shape in the sky over a 24 hour period. This pattern is called an analemma.

Basics of Geostationary Orbits

For your aether to be causing this motion it would have to be sloshing back and forth and up and down every 24 hours. In addition it would have to be sloshing back and forth a different amount and different direction for every geo satellite at every point on the 0 deg. inclination equatorial plane.

Bottom line: There is no aether, the Earth is rotating.

[JohnMartin]

Sorry but that's not going to work. Because the Earth is not a perfect sphere satellites put in a geostationary orbit tend to drift slightly in orbital inclination over time. As they do so their position as seen from the ground begins to trace a figure-8 shape in the sky over a 24 hour period. This pattern is called an analemma.

Basics of Geostationary Orbits

For your aether to be causing this motion it would have to be sloshing back and forth and up and down every 24 hours. In addition it would have to be sloshing back and forth a different amount and different direction for every geo satellite at every point on the 0 deg. inclination equatorial plane.

Bottom line: There is no aether, the Earth is rotating.

If the earth is rotating, then it is also orbiting the sun, as inferred through the Heliocentric model. The Earth's orbit around the sun is not taken into account in the Geostationary orbits. Which means the model of Geostationary orbits assumes the Earth is not orbiting the sun and therefore the Earth is 1) rotating in space, and 2) stationary in space. The Geostationary orbit model is a quasi stationary Earth model.

Heliocentrists have no compelling arguments to explain how the Earth's orbit around the sun, with its variable accelerations and distances relative to the sun can be ignored in the Geostationary model, whilst demanding that the Heliocentric model is superior to the Geocentric model. The usual Helio response is gravity takes into account all of these extra Earth motions through space not included within the geostationary model. Yet such an answer seeks to hide the problem under the term 'gravity' whilst ignoring the force of the problem.

The Earth's accelerations through space and variable distances from the sun, mean the Geostationary orbits must include those same accelerations and distances from the sun. As the Earth moves, accelerates and decelerates in space, so too the geostationary satellites must also accelerate and decelerate in space. But to do so requires that all the geostationary satellites have variable forces placed on them during the Earth’s orbit period around the sun. These forces acting on the satellites vary during the year and according to the location of the satellite relative to the Earth and sun. Each geostationary satellite will have forces acting on it which is diverse from all the other satellites. Such diverse forces are required to act on each satellite, to ensure every geostationary satellite will maintain accelerations and decelerations which coincide with the accelerations and decelerations of the Earth moving around the sun. Of course these forces are all ignored in the Geostationary orbit model, thereby invalidating the Helio model. So the claim that geostationary orbits are evidence for a rotating Earth is simply false.

If the Heliocentrists cannot provide all the forces required to act on the satellites, then the geostationary satellites are an example of a major invalidation within the Helio model.

Malcolm Bowden has a video explaining how satellites work in a geocentric model.

A paper by Ernst Mach explains how the distant masses of the stars cause forces on the planets. The paper entitled “Gravity and Inertia in a Machian Framework” J.B. Barbour and B. Bertotti. Il Nuovo Cimento, 32B(1):1-27, 11 March 1977. Machs approach is used by some Geocentrists to explain the forces experienced on earth caused by the rotating star masses. Such forces would also explain how satellties move relative to a stationary Earth.

The problem of satellites invalidates the heliocentric model and can be explained within the geocentric model.

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.

Its still not clear to me what the error is. Has Sungenis substituted the size of the universe with a compton wavelength, when the compton wavelength is really much smaller than the universe, or something else?

Are you intending to answer any of my recent questions in post 14 on this thread?

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

[Sparko]

rinse. repeat.

[HMS_Beagle]

If the earth is rotating, then it is also orbiting the sun, as inferred through the Heliocentric model. The Earth's orbit around the sun is not taken into account in the Geostationary orbits.

JM

It doesn't have to be. The local effects of Earth's gravity completely swamp the minuscule perturbations on the satellite orbit the sun's gravity induces. Of course the barycenter of the Earth / satellite system still orbits the Sun according to standard gravitational theory.

The stationary Earth wingnuts still can't explain satellite analemma.

[JohnMartin]

It doesn't have to be. The local effects of Earth's gravity completely swamp the minuscule perturbations on the satellite orbit the sun's gravity induces. Of course the barycenter of the Earth / satellite system still orbits the Sun according to standard gravitational theory.

The stationary Earth wingnuts still can't explain satellite analemma.

Another way the Helios handle the problem is by denial. The Earth-Sun distance varies by over 5 million km, and the variation in earth orbit velocity is about 1 km/s or 3,600 km/hr. An accelertion or decelration over 6 months is 3,600/ [(365/2)x24] = 0.821 km/hr². Over one day, the change in velocity of the satellite relative to the sun would be 0.821 x 24 = 19.7 km/hr. Over a month the change in velocity of the satellite relative to the sun would be 591 km/hr. These velocity values are not miniscule.

The distance from the sun to the earth changes about 5,000,000 km/182.5 = 27,397 km/month. The distance values are also not miniscule.

The Helio problem just will not go away.

JM