- Video commented on:
- potholer54 : The Immoveable Earth (more Golden Crocoduck nominees)
- You compared gravity to magnets.
Now, anyone tried shooting a little magnet past a big one to see if it gets caught in an orbit?
- I would think Geocentrism requires a continuous miracle.
Sure. That is why it proves there is a God. Unless Heliocentrism can be shown to be true and to not require such a miracle.
So, how about shooting a little magnet past a big one (say on ice) and see if you can start an orbit from intertia of little one plus attraction of big one.
God ahead, a few months hence hockey rinks will be aplenty in certain lands ... I've not seen it done. And gravity is more like a magnet than a string.
- The hammer thrower is more like holding a stone on a string than magnets, right?
And gravity is more like magnets, right?
- That won't happen.
[i e a larger object even starting off as orbitting a smaller one]
Well, no, not as long as:
a) neither object is moved or held in place by voluntary forces (God, angels)
b) and the smaller one is not being held in place (remember the old man's example of a wound up thing which will rotate around key if that is held).
I support Geocentrism according to a, God holds earth in lace and an angel keeps the sun moving.
Sungenis supports Geocentrism on version b. Earth is held in place by gravitational forces of rotating universe.
- Summing up
- Science has not shown Heliocentrism right and Bible wrong.
Science has not showed Heliocentrism equals a two body problem between sun and earth. Slightly complicated by another smaller one between earth and moon.
It has not shown the two body problem would continue for billions of rotations arond barycentre if not stopped like a perpetuum mobile.
It is not same thing as a thing moving with constant velocity staying in it, since curved movement = other velocity (Newtonian definition).
I am not sure whether a two body problem between two magnets on ice has been tested even.
And I am sure the model with voluntary movers/keep-in-placers has not been logicaly refuted either.
I have not seen any complete and reasoned proof of Heliocentrism being true apart from the example with the hammer thrower either.
co-authors are other participants quoted. I haven't changed content of thr replies, but quoted it part by part in my replies, interspersing each reply after relevant part. Sometimes I have also changed the order of replies with my retorts, so as to prioritate logical/topical over temporal/chronological connexions. That has also involved conflating more than one message. I have also left out mere insults.
- Other blogs, same writer
- A thread from Catholic.com (more may be added)
- Answering Steve Rudd
- Have these dialogues taken place? Yes.
- Copyright issues on blogposts with shared copyright
- I think I wrote a mistaken word somewhere on youtube - or perhaps not
- What is Expertise? Some Things It is Not.
- It Seems Apocalypse is Explained in a Very Relevant Part
- Dialoguing Mainly with Adversaries
- Why do my Posts Right Here Not Answer YOUR Questio...
Saturday, October 12, 2013
Geocentrism still not disproven ...
Posted by Hans Georg Lundahl at 6:43 AM
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Post a Comment