Sunday, August 24, 2014

Challenging Chuck Missler on Geocentrism Issue

1) Challenging Chuck Missler on Geocentrism Issue, 2) Continuing Previous, 3) Chuck Missler starts making sense on an electrical issue

The Myths of Science - Challenging the Myths of Astronomy - Chuck Missler in The Electric Universe
J.W. Blankenship

Raising my hand at 6:48 (metaphorically). I was an amateur astronomer at age 8.

7:34 "they talked about the Flat Earth which they had no excuse ..."

Chuck Missler, is YOUR idea of Medieval Learning based on Washington Irving's highly misinformed novel about Christopher Columbus?

7:47 "everything revolved around the Sun" - you mean the Earth, right?

Perhaps God is paying you back because you have been praying for me to make ridiculous miswordings?

If you haven't, someone has.

7:54 [Ptolemy] "was eclipsed of course by Copernicus with his" [Heliocentric theory].

OK, if you really mean what you say, Geocentrism (and specifically Ptolemy's version, I would not go that far) is sunlight and Heliocentrism (or at least Copernicus' version) is Lunar induced Darkness?

Thank you, if you really mean that. But probably you do not, alas.

There is no 4th orthogonal situation.

Saint Augustine confirms it from Theology's side, God created three dimensions to hint at the Blessed Trinity.

Jews who have intellectualised more dimensions than three have mixed dimensions properly speaking with categories. Time is another category than space (or place) with its three dimensions. They have obviously called unnecessarily many concepts dimensions in order to get away from the hint from the Creator He is one God in three Persons.

8:46 Aether, you mentioned Michelson Morley refuting its existence.

You forget that Michelson Morley has an alternative interpretation: Geostasis, Earth not moving.

12:46 Wonder how many have been encouraged to believe even such a thing as Heliocentrism because of Swedenborg's seances?

He's a countryman of mine btw. And before anyone concludes I get my ideas same way he got his, no, I read St Thomas Aquinas - as if he were relevant today. He is.

20:04 Gravitons were predicted by Einstein, but never actually observed.

What about photons? If we agree light is a physical phenomenon, there are two theories that are possible: photons, which have never been actually observed and - aether. With Geostatic interpretation of Michelson Morley, aether in which light is a wavemovement (just as sound is/is related to* in matter: gas, liquid or solid), becomes and option.

21:20 or just before.

Dark matter necessary to explain why such and such a galaxy holds together? Since gravity wouldn't suffice otherwise?

And you to conclude "well maybe sth other than gravity is involved here?"

Indeed! The wisest word you said so far, I would say!

Well, Geocentrism also seems to be true until you say that gravity cannot explain a Geocentric solar system according to Tycho Brahe's model.

Maybe sth other than gravity is invoved here. Like angels moving planets around sun itself moved by an angel around Earth. And all of it moved westward each day by God turning the aether around.

Not saying this due to any interviews with men on Saturn, me no Swedenborg, only a Swede. Saying this because it makes sense. Better sense than dark matter and better sense than Heliocentrism. Also read it in St Thomas Aquinas.

24:44 I disagree with a theory never being totally proven, because I disagree with Popper's definition of the method.

State that "everything everywhere is every day only half as big as it was the day before, and every natural law and force and mass is adpated so it evens out".

That can go on defying being disproven forever. So can solipsism. The problem is they are absurd and have no positive shred of evidence for either one of them.

Geocentrism is not absurd (except to one brainwashed in the modern theories and told all arguments for them and none for Geocentrism) and there is a definite though provisory evidence for it: sense evidence.

If one agrees there is a God and there are angels, Geocentrism can go on being disproven on the physical ground. Also parallax is not necessarily such.

If you look for optical evidence to challenge geocentrism it would be sth like "confirm distances gathered from parallax by observing the parallax on Mars." One discrepancy heliocentrism fails. No discrepancies after many tries, geocentrism might not be disproven but starts looking a bit fishy. No tries have so far been made as far as we know.

Or do the space missions to outside solar system show the apparent zig zag that Heliocentrism would predict if Earth was moving in and out of Origo of the trajectories?

Hard to find out actually.

One man gave me a source, I tried to look it up, it was not verified and not even answered at my request for confirmation.

25:32 Shannon's non-verifiable statement is not meaningless. It is absurd, but not meaningless.

Spirit not being matter cannot be verified apart from the obvious arguments for it. Like spirit has as positive definition conscience and will, we know that we are both that and body and we know there are bodies that show no conscience or will, ergo, spirit is in us conjoined with body somehow, but is not body as such. Therefore, as bodies are capable of not being spirit, spirits are capable of not being body. APART FROM this obvious argument there is no verification of this, except spirits moving bodies without a human body intervening, an occurrence which is rare and can be denied if you have not witnessed it.

So, Shannon's law would be a subreptitious attack on things spiritual.

Not meaning it applies to them properly understood.

Now, IF you admit there is spirit, THEN there is no way to verify heliocentrism from astrophysical considerations, apart from optic ones. That would make Shannon's law call Heliocentrism meaningless. BUT we know it has a meaning because we are aware of it. So, Heliocentrism being absurd is better terminology than Heliocentrism being meaningless.

27:59 Deductive and Mathematical

1) Deductive logic is exactly the same logic you need to use when falsifying anything.

Armstrong and Butler go into a room, shut the doors, you hear some very queer sounds. Butler comes out, has no blood on his hands or clothes or anything, no shot was heard, he points inside and you see Armstrong lying there in gore splattered all over the place.

Hypothesis: Butler did it.

Falsification: If Butler had done it, it would have been at short range since there was no shot, and killing a man at short range, by cutting up his stomach will certainly splatter on oneself. BUT Butler is clean, SO Butler didn't do it.

This is a modus tollens (If A then B. Not B. Therefore not A.) and Modus Tollens is a method of deduction. If it doesn't work for the universe, why would it work for the violent death of Armstrong.

2) Mathematics is not just a man made model. Some of it is, as when test results are regularly approximated (and very off results perhaps ignored) to make it look neater.

But basic mathematics as such, things like whole numbers or pi, are not man made. They are there even without our doing.


1) Planets in elliptical orbits, with the Sun at one of the foci.

Obviously, as Riccioli pointed out, that could be excepting the planet Sun, which also has an elliptical orbit, with a stationary Earth at one of its foci.

2) Sun's radius vector sweeps equal areas in equal times.

As obviously for the planet Sun, that would be Earth's radius vector.

3) Square of periods as cubes of mean distances.

Also quite possible in Geocentric terms.

34:15 Isaac Newton** was hardly a more serious Christian than Swedenborg (not a fan of either, btw). Isaac was an Arian, did not believe Divinity of Christ, and an Anticatholic. He was also a soothsayer - astrologer at least, but I think he dabbled in other things too.

His optics are one thing, but as to Classical Mechanics, in its relevance for the question, well, the thing is the standard theory then was that angels were moving the celestial bodies about (since 1277 when the theory celestial bodies had souls of angelic spirit type was forbidden by Tempier in Paris and much abandoned). So, he gave an alternative explanation. But he did nothing to refute that one.


* Marin Mersenne, a Catholic friar, was wisely not deciding on whether sound was the wave movement which gave a subjective by product of a hearable quality, or whether sound actually objectively was a hearable quality accompanied by the wave movements. He's the father of the science of acoustics, for those that do not know.

** Mathematics, certain things man made ... sure. Differential and integral calculus is man made.

No comments: