Is the Stationary Earth the Heaviest Object in the Universe?

[HMS_Beagle]

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.

Sorry but those delta accelerations and delta velocities happen to both the Earth and the satellite simultaneously. The net change between the Earth and satellite due to the sun is minuscule.

Moonbats never rest.

[DesertBerean]

rinse. repeat.

[JohnMartin]

Sorry but those delta accelerations and delta velocities happen to both the Earth and the satellite simultaneously. The net change between the Earth and satellite due to the sun is minuscule.

Moonbats never rest.

This is merely an assertion the Helios make. The satellites move along with the Earth, for the satellites are gravitationally attached to the Earth. This is only a claim that falls under the "gravity" panacea, whereby gravity causes the satellites to move with the earth. As the earth accelerates, the satellite accelerates. As the earth decelerates, the satellite decelerates. As the earth turns 180^o over 6 months, so too the satellites must also twist 180^o in the sky over 6 months. All of the satellite accelerations, decelerations, and twists in space requires forces. But those forces do not exist within any Helio model, so they are routinely ignored.

The geosynchronous satellites are evidence for a stationary earth and not a moving earth as claimed by the Helios. The Helio assertion that the satellite is gravitationally bound to the Earth is like a butterfly inside a moving car. If the car turns left, the butterfly must also turn left to avoid hitting the right side door. But for the butterfly to move left requires a force. The analogous force is ignored on the satellites within the Helio model. The satellites within the Helio model act like a passenger inside a car who is attached to the car via a seat belt. The Helio model requires the satellite to be attached to the car like a seat belt. Hence the Helio model requires a form of seat belt gravity to keep the satellites moving with the Earth.

JM

[hansgeorg]

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

I'll take it again. Aether is not just medium of light, but also of locality. Movement in the physical sense is movement in relation to aether.

This means that if satellite followed the aether at even pace, the speed of fixed stars, around Earth, though actually moving, it would not be moving in relation to the aether and would thus fall.

A little too small.

Well, for self ignition, if that had been the explanation I had accepted, you would have had a point.

But what stars and Sun need, is starting fusion on day four by Divine Fiat and last 7215 years (up to now) and a few more (we seem to be 7 years and a bit more before Doomsday).

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.

You would seem to be supposing aether as only vector. No.

Aether isn't a vector. Aether is moving so that still over Earth becomes a vector in it. The other vector is gravity.

Those two vectors, satellite moving through aether and gravity, are sufficient to explain that too.

[hansgeorg]

rinse. repeat.

Berean and Sparko, I wonder if this link about decorum and etiquette has anything to say about your behaviour right now?

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/fa...corumetiquette

[JohnMartin]

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

Error found in the above which should read 5,000,000 km/182.5 = 27,397 km/day, making the satellite problem far worse for the Helio model.

JM

[Roy]

This is merely an assertion the Helios make. The satellites move along with the Earth, for the satellites are gravitationally attached to the Earth. This is only a claim that falls under the "gravity" panacea, whereby gravity causes the satellites to move with the earth. As the earth accelerates, the satellite accelerates. As the earth decelerates, the satellite decelerates. As the earth turns 180^o over 6 months, so too the satellites must also twist 180^o in the sky over 6 months. All of the satellite accelerations, decelerations, and twists in space requires forces. But those forces do not exist within any Helio model, ...

Yes they do. The sun's gravity that affects the Earth and causes it to change direction also affects the satellites in orbit around the Earth.

This has been explained to you over and over and over and over again, but you are obviously too stupid to understand it.

[Roy]

If the earth is rotating, then it is also orbiting the sun, ...

Not so. There have been (incorrect) astronomy models proposed in which the Earth rotates but does not orbit the sun.

But thanks for ensuring that we don't need to even read a whole sentence before rejecting what you write.

[Leonhard]

the 1633 Papal decree against Galileo,

Its true, Galileo was sentenced at that time for his disobedience against the Pope, and the sentence itself charged him with heresy. However, the document itself was not written by the pope, nor did it carry his signature, that would elevate the sentencing to a papal decree. The Church made no doctrinal stance during that trial.

The Church has later made it clear that heliocentrism may be taught both as fact and as being in no way a conflict of the faith.

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

That is a matter of interpretation. I leave that to better men than myself.

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

But they are wrong on this matter, and since the question of geocentrism touches on no article of faith, and no moral truth, they carry no infallible authority here. The Church Fathers believed many things we now know are wrong, they were also racists and misogynists according to the state of morality of the time. They did heroic work in striving above that, but they weren't perfect, and no one but a fool considers them perfect. They themselves certainly didn't.

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

This question is odd, by the two previous questions, you've already received your answers.

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

But the Earth is not stationary. All the evidence is against the notion. The Church approves of heliocentrism and has done so for centuries. Robert is convinced that all the moral failings of the Church can be blamed on not taking geocentrism seriously. I think that's highly naive. We want simple explanations to complex problems. The state of the Church in the world today is caused by thousands of things. Not one small mistake on natural philosophy.

Mater Ecclesia has wisely chosen to stay out of the science debates because of their chaotic and earthly nature. As such don't hold your hats for an actual papal decree on cosmology.

All that Sungenis has managed to do with his geocentrism is move himself out to a harmless fringe of cranks. Safely dismissed. He no longer engages and debates, instead he rants to people who already agree with him. His anti-zionism nonsense has cost him a lot of respect, without showing any good fruits.

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?

True its possible for the actual frame of reference of the universe, known only to the angels and God, where the Earth is stationary. Trouble is, this is one out of an endless number of possibilities. Without good reason for taking the Earth as such, we'd be forced to accept that its very improbable that we're the exact center of the universe. This is double so with general relativity, where the frame would have to exactly cancel out all motion forever so that the center of the earth remained static.

But what you're claiming and what Sungenis is claiming, isn't merely that their position is that General Relativity has a possible interpretation with the Earth as the center of the universe. Both of you are claiming that relativity is bunk, and other evidence proves the earth is the center of the universe. That's the pseudoscience part. I'd have a much higher respect for you if you went the other route instead.

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.

Modern geocentrists deny the theory of relativity. They have to in order for their current aether models to work properly.

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?

Because the Bible has no clear answer on whether we are moving or not. At best a couple of citations can be found here and there, or you have the opinions of the Church Fathers which they themselves got not from revelation, but from whatever philosophy they grew up with.

In short, there is no revelation on it.

And taken as a natural philosophy the geocentric model is highly unlikely. Hence modern cosmology is the preferable answer.

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

People can look up the three 10000+ post long threads you started on this before. I have no desire or need to reproduce it.

[Leonhard]

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.

You do realize taht the Michelson Morley experiment works whether the experiment is moving or not? We have satellites in orbit with interferometers similar to that, zipping around the globe. But they don't see interference either, yet aether theory expects it (at least the aether as understood by Michelson and Morely).

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?

Because that investigation has been done, long ago, was found wanting and was replaced successively with much better theories. You're welcome to argue your case, but I haven't seen anything like a good theory come out of the geocentrists. At least nothing better.

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?

I'm not sure what you're referring to here. If its the multipole in the WMAP data, that more or less disappeared in the Planck dataset. It was just a fluke artifact due to WMAP's inferior sensors.

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?

Jesuits opinions carry no authority. Neither the pope, nor the bishops have made any formally binding demand on believers to subscribe to geocentrism. They had multiple opportunities to do so when other theories, like Heliocentrism became the norm, or when General Relativity replaced Heliocentrism. But nothing has come out. On the contrary Pope Pius VIII fully approved the printing of books on heliocentric theories.

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

That it carries no formal papal authority. Merely the sentence of Galileo.

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?

A pope can be wrong in his opinions. We know this to be true because popes have been wrong on minors things many times in history. If I lived in 1633, I and Galileo owed the reigning pope assent of the will. Galileo had been told that he could still teach his new theories and discuss them, but not teach them as fact and use them to challenge the Church (which is what he did and hence their strong judgement of him). If I were him at that time, I would quietly have kept developing the theory and talking about it with other scholars. Perfect what was needed etc...

Its ultramontanism, which is a ridiculous stance on the pope, that he can never be wrong even in his smallest opinions.

Show me a formal declaration from the Pope, with his signature on it, where he either invokes his title as Pope and successor of Peter, or with the signature 'in forma specifica approbavit'. Which means the Pope has actually read it, and decided to make its judgement his own and with his authority in this special way. Otherwise its considered approved 'in forma communis' that is by those who handled the matters, and then carries no more weight than declarations of any lone bishop on a matter.

[Leonhard]

Note, I will only answer questions regarding the Church's doctrinal stance on geocentrism, of which it is my opinion that they have none. The rest of your ideas I don't feel like discussing again with you for a fourth time John Martin. You're persistent, but you're not interesting.

[Leonhard]

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?

The compton wavelength is not a size. Its rather a limit to the precision of measuring size. The position of an object can at most be determined to within the precision of a compton wavelength. That's a rough way of understanding it. Turns out that the more mass you have, the more precisely your position can be defined. Note that this 'potentially defined', as in what can be done, not what was has been done. A tiny, ultra light weight particle is almost impossible to pin down. A bowling ball on the other hand is very precisely somewhere, and quantum mechanics put almost no limits to the precision with which we can measure where it is.

I don't know about you but stars don't exactly jump around randomly every time I look at them. They're pretty darn fixed up there. So the compton wavelength of the universe must be a lot, lot, lot less than that. And in fact its a ridiculously small number. But we can only calculate it by knowing the mass. There's no way to go the other way.

Sungenis found this equation. Didn't understand it. Thought that compton wavelength meant size. Plugged size into the equation, and got out nonsense.

That's hardly surprising.

So why did he think that the compton wavelenth meant size? Well for particles like electrons, they don't actually have a size at all, at least not the way they're conceived of in modern physics. Instead we can use that small limit on where they can be determined to be to say that they occupy that volume. That's a redefinition of the word 'size' for the convenience of thinking about these particles, but since Sungenis doesn't actually understand what he's reading, he didn't see that.

Again, he should stick to his knitting and go back discussing apologetics. Its pretty much the only thing he's really good at.

[Roy]

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.

Of course they can. Haven't you seen hansgeorg's recent contribution?

Geostationary satellites are held up by angels.

I'm not sure exactly how NASA arrange for a new angel every time they send up a new satellite, or how they stop the angels from pushing the satellites where NASA doesn't want them to go, but it's obviously working. Presumably NASA have some means of communicating with the angels, and enough leverage to convince the angels not to stray from Newtonian orbits.

It would explain why the atheist/commie/satanic Russians have less success with satellites than the Christian USA - demons must be much less reliable.

[Yttrium]

I'll take it again. Aether is not just medium of light, but also of locality. Movement in the physical sense is movement in relation to aether.

So if the geostationary satellites are moving to the East, and the Aether is moving to the West (applying no force to the satellite, just acting like space is moving), the velocities cancel out, and the satellites remain over their spots on the Earth... and so they fall to the ground, just like we don't see them do.

Or, if the Aether applies a force opposed to the geostationary satellites' movement to the East, then the satellites slow down, come to a stop, and start moving to the West, until they're moving at the same speed as the Aether, and so they're not maintaining a position over a spot on the Earth. And they fall down during that part that they were slowed down.

Keep working on it.

[hansgeorg]

You should have looked through my debate with Tom Trinko, I'll have to say it again:

So if the geostationary satellites are moving to the East, and the Aether is moving to the West (applying no force to the satellite, just acting like space is moving), the velocities cancel out, and the satellites remain over their spots on the Earth... and so they fall to the ground, just like we don't see them do.

The geostationary satellites are physically moving to the East in the Aether, the Aether is locally moving West, so, there is an Eastward vector for the satellite physically, despite there being no local displacement to the East.

It is only locally that they cancel out.

If there were no Eastward vector, satellite would follow Aether locally westward in a physical stillstand and fall down.

Or, if the Aether applies a force opposed to the geostationary satellites' movement to the East, then the satellites slow down, come to a stop, and start moving to the West, until they're moving at the same speed as the Aether, and so they're not maintaining a position over a spot on the Earth. And they fall down during that part that they were slowed down.

The aether is not applying a force. But it is the medium of space and therefore when it moves the vector eastward does not locally emerge as a movement eastward. All there is to it.

Keep working on it.

Read and try to understand what the terms mean.