Thursday, July 25, 2013

... on Geocentrism with God and Angelic Movers, versus New Age, versus Newton

video commented on:
Leo Souto : TRUTH! The Earth does not revolve around the Sun - The exposure of hiding - April 2012
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbK34NaMnQ4
Couleur D'amour
Nice musicvideo! I really liked high notes.
Un Disclosed
We don't live in the center of the universe you dumbass.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
I believe we do.

However the point of this video was not that, I also thught it was Geocentric at first, it is not.

It is New Age.
Un Disclosed (parallel comment to following)
First of all, yes, we do. He extrapolated the fact that there are multiple orbits that affect the motion of the Earth to make a ludicrous claim that somehow all the planets achieved a revolution around a central point without the help of the sun, which we orbit. We orbit the sun, and the sun orbits the center of the universe. It's a very simple to understand if viewed as if we were sitting on the blanket that is space-time but is not easy to understand if you're an uneducated plebeian.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
I am not agreeing with the video, except about one thing:

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.
Un Disclosed
But that's not true. That's impossible. What your describing is a binary orbit which technically, is the state of any orbit. Our gravity as well as the other planets gravity pull on the sun and "wobble" it but not enough give our orbit a center of mass outside of the sun. This wobble is how we can tell if there are planets revolving around other stars.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
What you presuppose is that all movements of heavenly bodies (excepting collisions) are explained correctly by a combination of previous momentum and gravitational pulls.

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.
Un Disclosed
While I am religious I don't think God is a great way to argue anything scientific because it's a deus ex machina that can explain anything without us producing a proper explanation using what we know of the world he created. If earth retrograded enough to cancel out any movement we had in orbit, we would have no centrifugal force keeping us from being captured by gravity and centripetal force would drag us into another space body. Orbit is achieved by matching the centripetal force with speed.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
"using what we know"

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.
Un Disclosed
We would always be in movement if another body is near us. I'm not going to continue if you ignore gravity.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Hold it:


  • 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."
momentaiwaikien
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)

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.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
orbist for orbits, noted when I had already posted, alas

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?
momentaiwaikien (1/3 parts, divided by me)
Relativity (i.e. Local)

1) Because there is no such thing as "Stopped Still". That is a localized concept.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
1 - and if universe is localised?
momentaiwaikien
1) It is. Much like galaxies are localized and the solar systems in them. "Relativity", "Localized Systems", "Towns", "Continents", etc. These systems are all governed by the same rules, but are affected individually by their own situations.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
1) I meant in a smaller way. However, I answered your point that stopped still is a localised concept. Since you admit Universe is localised, earth can be localised stopped still in it.
momentaiwaikien (2/3)
2) A large mass attracts small masses, the earth attracts your pen. If you hold it, you are applying force, so for your localized space, the pen is still. Mass doesn't change, but is a calculable variable of the attracting force (i.e. gravity).
Hans-Georg Lundahl
2 - and if angels are applying force to the planets (not mentioning that the concept of universal gravity might be wrong), including the Sun?
momentaiwaikien
2) Then you'd get perfect orbits of which all orbits are not. Or are you trying to surmise that the wobbles are created by Angels are having a giant game of football with planets in order to keep them in orbit?
Hans-Georg Lundahl
2) What exact kind of orbital perfection are you saying would be the only predictable kind of consequence angelic movers could have?

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].
momentaiwaikien (3/3)
3) "Localized areas".Gravity get's weaker with distance, so higher mass mass in a local area holds the planets in the solar system in place.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
3 - to take out Sungenis' view (not mine, but I honour fellow Geocentrics) - could not the daily rotation of those masses make something about "interlocking gravitational forces" (of Sun and planets daily orbitting earth too) holding earth in place?

Un Disclosed (parallel comment to previous)
"I believe we do"

Are you daft? 
Hans-Georg Lundahl
What question is that?

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.
Tribersman
What is the point of this video ? Subtly attracting people to a new-age sect by claiming everything we learn is half-false ?

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...
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Which theory of gravity was now the latest again ... Newton or Einstein? Does Quantum Mechanics have another one?

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?
Tribersman
Please don't send me link to your geocentric blog "for god sake" that's been proven wrong and stupid for century.

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.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
I feel a public response is due on one item: you confound scientific method with modern scientif world view.

As to sending you blog link, it was to notify you that your comments here had been copied to it.
Stuart Hamilton
What the hell was this supposed to be about?
Hans-Georg Lundahl
1) whether the total motion of earth was circular or spiralling, in favour of second

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
gr1mmr34pr
Get a dictionary and look for gravity, in g
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Newton explained circular or rather elliptic supposed movement of earth around sun by gravity and inertia, which on his view included uniformity of motion. The orbit would be a compromise between gravity pulling inward to sun and inertia making previous movement continue outwards.

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.
Christopher M
The facts are true, but the interpretation is not.

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.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Well, get to a look at Tycho Brahe again.

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: