Saturday, August 30, 2014

Continuing Previous

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

34:28 Sir Isaac Newton indeed wrote on Daniel and Revelation.

As said, he was an Arian. It seems he carried some ire against the Council of Nice, (or of Nicaea, with a more Classical form), since it was Roman. And he was very anti-Catholic. Probably he carried the Reformers' ire against Papal Rome to the point of both misreading history and prophesy to demonise it and becoming an Arian as a consequence thereof.

39:40 I suppose the extreme magnitudes will involve astronomical estimates of distances of stars etc.

Here are some guys who heckled me so intensely - some of them together and some not on the discussion here - I had to leave the group, and first one gives an answer to my complaint which is somewhat of a give-away:

HGL's F.B. writings : At Leaving the Group Creationism [the discussion]

Here is one guy who was nearly civil, but had a slow comprehension on one issue, or two:

Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : Can Someone Help the Bewildered Man Out?

One of them being that angels push stars and planets about, and here is part of what Riccioli - a Jesuit astronomer - had to say on the matter:

New blog on the kid : What Opinion did Riccioli call the Fourth and Most Common One?

And this has an obvious implication about non-necessity of taking parallax as parallax, possibility of taking so called parallax as proper movements induced by angels dancing in time with the Sun. And therefore not showing any clear indication of distance at all (it could be very much smaller than the distance along zodiak covered by the Sun at six months distance). And that means the universe could be vastly smaller than thought. Just as certain observations about unreliability of dating methods means it can be lots younger than thought outside Creationist community.

Million, billion, trillion. Two systems around, US and French (both used in UK, I think).

Million = 106
Billion = 109
Trillion = 1012


Million = 106 Milliard = 109
Billion = 1012 Billiard = 1015 (word also means Snooker, I know)
Trillion = 1018

Actually Snooker is Billard - a derivative of Bille, marble. But it is pronounced nearly as Billiard.

44:32 Nearest star 4.5 lightyears (I had recalled 4 lightyears) away.

This depends on considering Earth rather than that star as changing position.

And its being the size of the sun depends on two kinds of observation:

  • direct observation of apparent size (or as direct as compensating for Airy effect allows);

  • supposed indirect obervation of distance: which depends on Earth rather than star changing positions between June and December. Despite us seeing the contrary.

So, stellar sizes are a moot point to Geocentrics.


According to Heliocentrics (or those of them who do not interpret Negative Parallax as positive parallax but less of it than medium parallax which is if so wrongly registered as zero parallax), indeed the stars start appearing four and a half miles outside the three and a half foot radius of Pluto.

IF you take proper account of Negative parallax (which Heliocentrics usually do not do), and are still Heliocentric, the -0.9 arcseconds parallax would really be +x parallax. The zero parallax would be x + 0.9 arcseconds parallax. The alpha Centauri parallax would be x + 1.66 arcseconds parallax, thus perhaps half the distance you cited or even nearer.

IF on the other hand all supposed parallax (negative and positive) is actually proper movements of stars, if angels are moving them about (the Classical theory of Celestial Movements), the only indication for how near the nearest star can be (at least in direction of Pluto/Kuiper Belt) is beyond Pluto and Kuiper Belt.

All fixed stars could be between "two and three metres away from the centre" - which would be Earth, "an inch away" from the centre of Solar System, inside which Earth is, but of which Earth is not.


Universe being finite was a XXth C. discovery?

It was on the contrary a commonplace before Kant and some other guy (who considered universe was a disc of finite thickness, but infinite radius).

And since it was a commonplace, there was a reason to attack it.

Now, to Kant the Universe having a beginning was "a paradox". His "reason" was against the revelation, and he concluded in favour of a double standard of truth. A beginning and creator being a moral postulate, but a non-beginning and non-ending being more in tune with observations and rational considerations of them.

So, between Sun and alpha Centauri, the gravity is negligible? Even negligibles add up to something if there is an eternity for them to do so. Therefore, I would analyse Kant's rejection of Universe having no boundaries as partly an attempt to expose each star to opposing gravities from other stars.

Partly it was probably simply a difficulty in visualisation.

But Universe being Finite was a commonplace with Geocentrics and pre-Newtonians.

Before 49:18

Nucleus volume to atomic volume ration 1015.

"Mostly empty space".

Two caveats:

  • a) Nobody has seen a nucleus. Even atoms can only be seen as bulbs in electronic microscopy (using electron rays that have no wave width, as one supposes).

  • b) Is the space between nucleus and electron shells really empty? Or is it for instance full of aether, a continuous rather than a particle based matter?

    How come empty space can transmit forces between masses and charges?

    Is lightness absence of nucleus matter or presence of aether?

    Are the qualities considered as "subjective" ones by modern science situated in the aether?

I am not buying for undisputable fact that we are mostly empty space along with all around us. That is one model and I do not think the other options have been rejected for failing a real test.

"It seems very solid, but it is an illusion. A very effective illusion. We are the victims of an electrical simulation, a digital simulation." 49:18

God is truthful.

Your conclusion depends on atomic models to be correct (though noone has seen a nucleus) and complete (as if aether were disproven). And it contradicts God's truthfulness.

Note, even if what was the solid barrier was really more electric forces than solid nuclei, it would still be solid as per the fact it was often impenetrable. That would not be an illusion. But even so, could electric forces really exist so far outside nuclei while being suspended on no aether?

A Heliocentric might have to grant it as per Michelson Morley. To Geocentrics another interpretation of Michelson Morley is open. And if I didn't already mention I have that one from Robert Sungenis, I take the opportunity to do so now.

50:25 Quantum Theory, three stages:

  • Atomistic aspect of Epicurus (insofar as it means atomistic approach to visible world rather than negation of the invisible world, the latter also being an Epicurean tenet, but irrelevant)

  • St Isidor of Sevilla promotes it as one valid or probably valid concept (obviously when it comes to the material world, a Catholic Bishop is not denying the spiritual one)

  • Niels Bohr.

Another question is whether the atomistic quantum theory is really true or not.

If you cut a length of 1 cm by 10-33 (was it?) in half, instead of getting two halves, it looses locality.

With such smallness, it would perhaps be dubious and even highly so, if the experiment has ever been made. What kind of knife would you use to cut? What kind of pincers would you use so the "lost locality" is not simply lost pieces?

50:54 "there is a smallness beyond which we cannot reduce, and we discover we are in a digital simulation"

The parallel with pixels is obvious. In any picture, you can chose how many pixels it has and whatever your choice, say 300 pixels in width, you cannot squeeze detail for 301 pixels in width anywhere.

There are two problems with such a solution:

  • 1) have we really validly discovered that smallness or is it a problem with measuring apparatus as to smaller smallnesses?

  • 2) if our reality is indeed quantic, like pixels, how does this make our reality a simulation, unless you also postulate that the real world despite this must have an Aristotelic Continuum?

I would consider two solutions more probable than your conclusion.

  • A) Either God created the real world in which we do live (though it gets more real above the stars) as an Aristotelic Continuum and the Planck length reflects a limit in our measuring apparatus, which is different from the world as such being pixellated.

  • B) Or God actually did create the real world, at least the material one, in quanta, and this as such is not an indication of its being unreal or a simulation.

No comments: