Back to Godinci

1) Assorted retorts: ... on Not Believing Vedic Astronomy Apart from Geocentrism, on Believing Scholastic Astronomy Including Geocentrism, 2) ... on Nicole d'Oresme refusing to apply relativity perfectly understood to Geocentric appearances, 3) ... on Black Holes and Geocentrism, 4) Back to Godinci, 5) HGL's F.B. writings: A "Biblical" Heliocentric Misciting Holy Scripture, 6) Vy considers I accused him falsely of mis-citing the Bible, Rod invokes relativity, 7) Vy makes his point more clearly - so do I, 8) New blog on the kid : Columbus and Joshua (Imagine Christopher Columbus had worked a miracle)

First

a reminder of our last exchange (see first and indeed main part of part one of series):

Godinci

+Hans-Georg Lundahl OK hans, I see your point which is no point at all. You propose a model but have nothing to back it up by observational facts. You try to hammer on the mechanism, but we don't have to know the mechanism as such to see that they behave in Newtonian fashion!!!!

Your model (the geometrical description of solar orbitals) predicts nothing at all. If I have not given any answer to your so called challenge how gravity balances inertia (you forgot to include other disturbance, such as friction and interaction with other celestial) then this is simply because I don't need to know this to make my points.

Of course, you can always say that as long you didn't bite in the SUN that you can't proof irrevocably that the sun isn't made of cheese!

However, in the meantime we have to go where all the evidence leads to, and as far we can tell the strength of the gravitational force is determined by the amount of matter (which could be cheese) it contains!

I therefore stress again, if you want to give some weight to your orbital model - i.e. Sun mainly orbiting around planet Earth - you should at least give us one observable fact that shows us otherwise, because your model requires this!

Therefore, I repeat, be so kind to give us your best arguments that are based on observable facts, known things and related commonsense reasoning that can sustain your model, and make predictions!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"You try to hammer on the mechanism, but we don't have to know the mechanism as such to see that they behave in Newtonian fashion!!!!"

Ah, then your argument boils down to:

• Mechanism X predicts pattern Y.
• I don't care about Mechanism but Y is verified.
• Therefore mechanism X is true.

No, that is not a full argument at all.

"I therefore stress again, if you want to give some weight to your orbital model - i.e. Sun mainly orbiting around planet Earth - you should at least give us one observable fact that shows us otherwise, because your model requires this!"

All observations from earth tell us it does. Not just mainly, but every day totally. Not irrefutably - but you have given no refutation.

You have given a scientific formalism which does not constitute an argument.

There is some ugly duplicity in the wording you make for your final challenge:

"Therefore, I repeat, be so kind to give us your best arguments that are based on observable facts, known things and related commonsense reasoning that can sustain your model,and make predictions!"

• 1) "observable facts" - observations taken at face value until disproven or observations except those you take to not directly disclose facts?
  
  We both know seven billion people are making observations every day which look geocentric, i e which are geocentric observations.
  
  Shall we count these until formally disproven? Or shall we not count the face value of them since you do not count it as a fact?
  
  I think the commonsense approach is to count each observation as a fact until not only it is explained how it could be mistaken, but also the opposite is proven.
  
  One could explain how every dimension of length was twice as big yesterday all over the universe which was shrinking and by the fact that all other parameters adapt we would not know. I feel it is commonsense not to believe the universe is shrinking until there is proof for that.
  
  
• 2) "known things" - we disagree on what things are known.
  
  
• 3) "and related commonsense reasoning" - since we disagree on what is commonsense (I suppose your usage covers atheistic and uniformitarian assumptions, and it does not cover what I have considered very commonsense) what remains between us is formal logic.
  
  
• 4) "and make predictions!" - here there is no total duplicity, just a trap.
  
  Supposing my mechanic and geometric model to be true, predictions can be made by observing the orbits. And supposing they will continue same way.
  
  You claim the same predictions can be made by working out the logical conclusions of the inverse square law (except for the water droplets attaching to knitting needle - electric attraction works according to inverse square law too? Or? - too fast) or what you take to be such. I claim any angel having access to the choreography God is giving the angels could make same predictions. About, nota bene, relative positions. Those being the ones we agree about.

Godinci

+Hans-Georg Lundahl Hans, Concerning your argument that ends with “Therefore mechanism X is true” demonstrate again that you didn't understand my point.

What I say is that the movements of celestial in gravitational interaction with each other are perfectly described by Newton’s mathematical formulations (Newton has no mechanism at hand); YET, without knowing the mechanisms his mathematical model allows for a precise description of their movements and allows us to predict outcomes and orbital of things in gravitational interaction.

Since Newton had no mechanism at hand, implies that when orbital behavior of celestials, and other things in gravitational interaction with each other can be perfectly modeled and predicted by Newtonian mathematical formalism, this in no way can validate a mechanism, because no such mechanism has been proposed by him, and is certainly not contained in this mathematical formalism!!!

We don’t have to know the operational mechanism of a thing to know that it behaves in certain ways!!!

As a response to my request of your best argument you say, I quote: “All observations from earth tell us it does. Not just mainly, but every day totally. Not irrefutably - but you have given no refutation.

You further say, I quote: “We both know seven billion people are making observations every day which look geocentric, i e which are geocentric observations. Shall we count these until formally disproven? Or shall we not count the face value of them since you do not count it as a fact?”

You then conclude I quote: I think the commonsense approach is to count each observation as a fact until not only it is explained how it could be mistaken, but also the opposite is proven.

Man Hans, wake-up!

You seem confused . You speak of commonsense, yet in your example you deal only with one sense, which is perception. For clarity, commonsense, according to merriam-webster dictionary, refers to the ability to think and behave in a reasonable way and to make good decisions.

Now, good decisions, is based on weighing all evidence; the more different, yet related pointers, the better the decision will be. Therefore, using only one observational will often push us in the wrong direction!

Even though, perception seemingly indicates us that the Sun is orbiting the Earth, and that the Sun rises and falls; yet, the Foucoult pendulum and the Coriolis effect all give substantial weight to the plausibility that the Earth is spinning around Her axis. So, even though there can be given no conclusive proof (this can only be done in mathematics), there are many pointers indicating to the commonsense that the Earth does as such, and doesn't support at all the idea that the Sun is orbiting Earth.

In other words all observable facts give weight to the potential of the truthfulness of this conclusion.

Latter on you say, I quote: “since we disagree on what is commonsense (I suppose your usage covers atheistic and uniformitarian assumptions, and it does not cover what I have considered very commonsense) what remains between us is formal logic.”

Hmm…now you are getting emotional and try to classify me as an atheist.

Never-mind. I’m still waiting for your best arguments that is based on observable facts, known things and commonsense related reasoning to give weight to your non commonsense model of our solar-planetary orbits.

We can explain all kind of things, however, giving explanations doesn’t mean that the assumptions and the conclusions following therefrom are truth related and conform the phenomena we try to describe. Furthermore, logic, in all it forms, means nothing at all, a logical statement doesn't mean that the conclusion that follows here from is truth related. The logic is as good as the hypothesis included in them, when the hypotheses are wrong than we can still come to a valid conclusion; yet, valid and truth are two different things!

Hans, you’re really deviating! Start first of all to give your best arguments that can sustain your orbital model…all the rest is of no meaning now for me. You claim that your model is true, so back-up with pointers!!!

Hans Georg Lundahl

"Concerning your argument that ends with “Therefore mechanism X is true” demonstrate again that you didn't understand my point."

I schematised your reasoning and it boils down to:

• If A then B
• B
• Therefore A.

It is bad logic.

"We don’t have to know the operational mechanism of a thing to know that it behaves in certain ways!!!"

What we DO in fact really know without smuggling in a theory about the mechanism is totally compatible with Geocentrism and with God moving day and night and aiwth angels moving single celestial bodies in relation to that.

"You seem confused . You speak of commonsense, yet in your example you deal only with one sense, which is perception."

Confusion is yours.

Perception is through two senses : sight and equilibriosensation.

"For clarity, commonsense, according to merriam-webster dictionary, refers to the ability to think and behave in a reasonable way and to make good decisions."

For clarity, your objection seems to indicate Geocentrics lack that ability.

Very little of the civilisation you enjoy was founded by Heliocentrics.

"Now, good decisions, is based on weighing all evidence; the more different, yet related pointers, the better the decision will be. Therefore, using only one observational will often push us in the wrong direction!"

I agree on the principle.

I do not agree this points to Heliocentrism. You have not yet refuted the Geocentric option. Which, due to perception is the main first one.

"Even though, perception seemingly indicates us that the Sun is orbiting the Earth, and that the Sun rises and falls; yet, the Foucoult pendulum and the Coriolis effect all give substantial weight to the plausibility that the Earth is spinning around Her axis."

Or, equally, that the Universe spinning around earth each day has a cohesion and is not just a collection of celestial bodies.

St Augustine wondered whether heaven moves with the fix stars attached to it or only all the fix stars move. Your pieces of evidence have lent a credibility to the former option.

"In other words all observable facts give weight to the potential of the truthfulness of this conclusion."

Once again, "all observable facts" leaves out the main and most obvious one.

"So, even though there can be given no conclusive proof (this can only be done in mathematics), there are many pointers indicating to the commonsense that the Earth does as such, and doesn't support at all the idea that the Sun is orbiting Earth."

Sorry, you are confused in thought - probably because of your modernist culture.

Each one you mentioned is compatible with Geocentrism. Fully.

"Hmm…now you are getting emotional and try to classify me as an atheist."

I was not emotional, and I was not classifying you as believing in atheism in all aspects, I was classifying your assumptions in this question as atheistic ones.

You have not even once taken the proposition seriously:

• God moves the Heaven around us each day.
• Angels move each celestial body in relation to Heaven.

The former explains Coriolis and Passage Winds and Foucault's Pendulum, if we add that Heaven has a material or quasimaterial cohesion - aether - reaching down to Earth. The latter explains the Seasons.

If you are not able to take this proposition seriously as a serious alternative to your model, then your assumptions are atheistic and nonangelistic.

If you were to take it seriously one moment, you would have to admit it explains all of our direct observations quite as well as the Newtonian model. And so there is no observation to decide with unequivocal necessity, but the daily observation of seven billion people has a vast prima facie probability.

"Furthermore, logic, in all it forms, means nothing at all," etc.

There are two ways to show a thing:

• observe it
• prove it by logic from observations.

You have tried to replace logic with "scientific method" and you have proven nothing at all.

Godinci

+Hans-Georg Lundahl Wow, this is something new! You say' I quote: If you are not able to take this proposition seriously as a serious alternative to your model, then your assumptions are atheistic and nonangelistic."

What kind of nonsense is that?

I don't see how not believing that GOD or angels are pushing and holding planets in their orbit would make by default someone atheistic. Furthermore, there are many people that believe in the factuality of angels, yet few believe that angels are doing planetary pushing. should we call them therefore atheistic or nonangelistic.

Of course, angels could explain all things, even the nonsense people come-up with; yet, explaining things is one thing, facts are something else.

Your argument of seven billion people has properly been addressed in earlier post!

OK, Hans, it was nice talking to you. Keep the spirit high and try to weigh all available evidence before you come to hasty conclusions.

I leave you the last word; so go for it!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"I don't see how not believing that GOD or angels are pushing and holding planets in their orbit would make by default someone atheistic."

Not believing it is a fact is not necessarily being an atheist.

Not even considering it as a possibility - and that you have not done - is showing you count on God not to act visibly in His Creation and showing you do not count on His angels to act visibly. By visibly I mean here that the effects are visible - and regular.

"Of course, angels could explain all things, even the nonsense people come-up with; yet, explaining things is one thing, facts are something else."

We have two kinds of facts: direct observations and their theoretical explanations.

Heliocentrism is not in the nature of a direct observation. Is is used to explain some things - which can also be explained by angels.

In fact, Heliocentrism as such works better with angels for the reason I have explained, with parallel of water droplets. Did you bother to see the video?

But if we accept angels as an explanation and God, we do not need Newtonian mechanism and therefore not Heliocentrism either. And that is why we can stay with the observation of seven billion people.

Geocentrism or geostasis is not a nonsense one comes up with - it is rather the commonsense default position of most of mankind when we study it through history and geography.

Angels "can explain all sort of things" - and they have been used by astronomer Riccioli as well as by Philosopher and Theologist St Thomas Aquinas to explain planetary orbits.

Thank you for the discussion and also for ending it!

Sources for my claim about history of ideas:

hanslundahl - Neglected Angelology in the Angelic Doctor
http://hanslundahl.livejournal.com/964.html

I have since then found more places where St Thomas makes same statement.

And as for Riccioli:

New blog on the kid : What Opinion did Riccioli call the Fourth and Most Common One?
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2014/08/what-opinion-did-riccioli-call-fourth.html