http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbK34NaMnQ4
However the point of this video was not that, I also thught it was Geocentric at first, it is not.
It is New Age.
spiralling motion is back about heavenly bodies.
When Tycho Brahe's view was rejected, it was because planets themselves orbitting a sun orbitting us would have been performing too much of a spiral motion for the uneducated plebeians to understand who eventually opted for heliocentrism.
Galileo part time among them, St Robert Bellarmine was with Tycho Brahe.
Even so it would be possible (if the explanation could explain orbits and spiralling orbits in the first place) that earth were in a node of equal pull into every direction = standing still, as Sungenis explains.
But moreoever you ignore the possibility of moves being made intentionally, by God or angels.
Point is heliocentrism is using what we don't really know but what some of us only guess.
Other point is: what is real is always really the explanation of something.
"If earth retrograded enough to cancel out any movement we had in orbit,"
Geostasis means earth having neither orbital movement nor retragradation.
"we would have no centrifugal force keeping us from being captured by gravity and centripetal force would drag us into another space body."
What if:
- God held us in place?
- Sun does not have that much pull (or if it does other things cancel it out)?
- All movements of orbital and retrograde kind are achieved by wills of God and of angels rather than by masses and gravity?
Your argument does not really answer it, only presuppose the contrary.
- how massive must such a body be to keep us in movement (according to Newton)?
- could masses supposedly known from orbits be wrong, since orbist have other causes (like, immediately, under God, angels)?
- and to honour Sungenis: could a greater gravity in greater masses in uninterrupted rotation around us keep us in place, despite bodies larger than us pulling?
I think your honest answers would be: "that is not what my teacher taught me" and "I don't know how he knows."
2) There are other causes for differences in mass without resulting to deities like the build-up of planets. The mass known from orbits is a calculated approximation. So if you want to be anal, it is wrong by 1 x e-25.
3) No. Space Vacuum, Constant Movement and the fact that orbiting(pulling) works both ways.
Please spell-check.
If I drop a pen, it will fall to the ground. If I hold it, I will write whatever I want with it and it will not drop on the ground - barring my clumsiness. That has nothing to do with reducing its mass so it is not attracted to earth.
And angels guiding planets have nothing to do with changing their masses either.
It has something to do with whether their masses can be checked from their orbits, though, since angels = other explanation.
Details:
- how massive must such a body be to keep us in movement (according to Newton)?
1) Earth is in the vacuum of space. We are always moving. We are in motion even if we collide with something and "stop dead". Your question makes no sense (YQMNS)
1) My question was how massive a body must be to keep us in movement even if we had stopped still. Not whether we had so or not.
- could masses supposedly known from orbits be wrong, since orbist have other causes (like, immediately, under God, angels)?
2) There are other causes for differences in mass without resulting to deities like the build-up of planets. The mass known from orbits is a calculated approximation. So if you want to be anal, it is wrong by 1 x e-25.
2) Already answered as main point.
- and to honour Sungenis: could a greater gravity in greater masses in uninterrupted rotation around us keep us in place, despite bodies larger than us pulling?
3) No. Space Vacuum, Constant Movement and the fact that orbiting(pulling) works both ways.
3) Your answer is too compact to be understandable.
Several stars are thought to have greater masses than sun. If not true, they are closer than thought. How do you prove their cumulated constant equal tug in all directions is not stronger than that of any body in solar system including sun?
1) Because there is no such thing as "Stopped Still". That is a localized concept.
I do think wobbles are also created by angels. More specifically, "wobbles of earth" [are] created by God 4 all stars/[or by] angels [for] many [of them].
Are you daft?
With observations and granting distances within Solar System as correct, Geocentrism gives exactly the system of Tycho Brahe or perhaps rather ellipses (though not very oblong ones) rather than circles.
The exact problem with this is the spiralling flowery motion of Mars and Venus and the rest. A problem not there in Newton's alternative, with sun as literally a *fixed* star, except for moons of planets and supposedly our moon too.
Sun moves / galaxy? Problem back 1930.
Have this "non-profit educational project" never heard about the last *cough cough* theory about GRAVITY which explain this "invisible energy" ?
ps : their website is about UFO and crop circle...
1) Gravity is a force
2) forces, gravity, angels, God are all of them invisible
3) even if he thought it was gravity, he would not have been lying about "invisible" only misnaming "force" as "energy".
Still bad he cannot deal with God or angels invisibly causing the visible movement of Heaven around earth, of stars and planets around their places in Heaven ... can you?
Go back to school and learn about the scientific method.
"Damnit !" I knew I shouldn't comment stupid video.
AND DON'T TALK TO ME AGAIN, please.
As to sending you blog link, it was to notify you that your comments here had been copied to it.
2) whether spiralling motion could be explained like Newton did, in disfavour thereof
3) whether the spiralling motion comes from some kind of vitalistic principle seen also in other spirals, like DNA or cyclones or galaxies or hair spirals on top of human head, in favour thereof
That is because Newton believed stars to be more or less static and equidistant in an infinite universe.
The modern view of galaxies, since 1930's, means sun moves around in the galaxy. He [man who made video] draws a conclusion of that.
The planets and such rotate in a spiral from the perspective outside the galaxy, but rotate around the sun from the Sun's perspective.
The "invisible" energy is called Kinetic, or momentum; nuclear power has nothing to do with it.
Sorry, folks, you need to go back to physics class, and actually pay attention this time.
According to him Venus or Jupiter spiral from our perspective, while also rotating around the Sun from its perspective, while Sun rotates yearly in an orbit which changes its position in the zodiak, and daily with the zodiak.
The video said nothing about "nuclear power" being the invisible energy. It made the point the energy is invisible - and maybe not Sun's gravity since concretely planets do not orbit the Sun.
Whatever true explanation is unseen.
Happy Name's Day, by the Way!
No comments:
Post a Comment