For those of you who do not know him, he was a Sorbonne professor and later Bishop of Lisieux. He is cited by scholars in history of science field and history of ideas field and Middle Age culture field. He understood imaginatively Heliocentrism - and rejected it.
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)
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl If I had a week I couldn't explain all the reasons you're wrong...
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Teth47 - take a month!
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl I will if you're willing to learn. If nothing will sway you, then there's no point.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- I will give you just a little hint. I have probably heard most or all of your reasons. You have probably not heard all of or even most of my answers. I am willing to debate, either for your sake, or for that of the audience.
Our debate may well land here, on this blog (I have others for my strictly own posts):
Assorted Retorts from Yahooboards and elsewhere
[Ha, I warned him!]
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl If you've heard them, then you either misunderstand them or reject them without reason. Here's the thing, you don't even understand how evolution works according to comments you've given. You also don't understand physics of any kind apparently, or you wouldn't be a geocentrist as literally nothing regarding geocentrism makes any sense at all, and any "explanations" offered only further complicate an already overcomplicated and untestable hypothesis.
How about this, you provide evidence for geocentrism that isn't "Just look around you", because you don't understand relativity, and I will tell you why it's invalid, or barring that, I will become a geocentrist.
We'll start with that, then we will move into evolutionary biology.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- "If you've heard them, then you either misunderstand them or reject them without reason."
Not very specific as to examples, are you?
"Here's the thing, you don't even understand how evolution works according to comments you've given."
I understand why it cannot work as it is supposed to work.
"You also don't understand physics of any kind apparently, or you wouldn't be a geocentrist as literally nothing regarding geocentrism makes any sense at all, and any "explanations" offered only further complicate an already overcomplicated and untestable hypothesis."
Oh, boy ... have I ever said "Earth has enough mass to keep all of the universe in orbit around itself"?
No, I have said that factors not depending on mass at all are overriding what influence masses could have on orbits, basically.
Saying these exist, saying these are capable of overriding physical factors is something other than not understanding how physics work.
"How about this, you provide evidence for geocentrism that isn't "Just look around you", because you don't understand relativity,"
I understand relativity so well that I am using it against the supposed argument for modern astronomy "we saw earth turn when we looked from space".
Thing is, I don't only want to know if reality COULD look like it does if Geocentrism was wrong, I would like to have solid proof it is wrong before I apply relativity to it.
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl You cannot understand how something can't work if you don't know the mechanisms by which it would/does. You do not know these things.
You clearly do not understand relativity either, you think you do, but you don't, and you're misapplying it.
Stating that spirits exist is at best pointless, and at worst idiotic. Saying that they completely override the laws of physics in order to explain an insane hypothesis that would cause existence itself to break were it true is utterly moronic.
I'm not going to give you evidence, because you've made your intentions clear. Any evidence I give, you're going to respond with "But spirits!". You will not learn, because you're either a con artist or an idiot, and I don't care to find out which is the case.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- "You cannot understand how something can't work if you don't know the mechanisms by which it would/does."
"You do not know these things."
You prefer claiming that to proving me wrong on any item.
"You clearly do not understand relativity either, you think you do, but you don't, and you're misapplying it."
Relativity per definition applies as possibly to earth seem from space as it does to space seen from earth, and we disagree on where the application would not just be possible but also correct.
I am of course talking of relativity in the general sense, independently of Einstein's theories about it.
It is more natural to take the position that the eyes of 7 billion people, along with their inner ears, all of their lives is to be believed without applying relativity than taking the position that the eyes of Armstrong and a few more is to be believed without relativity, even if it involves applying relativity to the experience of everyone else.
"Stating that spirits exist is at best pointless, and at worst idiotic."
That is not spoken as a scientist, but as a materialist.
"Saying that they completely override the laws of physics ... is utterly moronic."
Not what I was saying. I said they override the merely physical factors. No breach of any direct law involved here. Neither is there any total contradiction to any direct observation. (Earth seen from space is not totally contradicted, just explained by relativity).
"... in order to explain ..."
So, to you it is moronic to use explanations other than matter and energy? Again, that is not the word of a man of science, it is the word of a materialistic philosopher.
" ... an insane hypothesis ..."
Which at least retains the elementary sanity of believing the common witness of the senses, without explaining it away by relativity.
In other words, the hypothesis is directly confirmed by our senses, unless we treat them as policemen treat suspects.
"that would cause existence itself to break were it true"
Not if one of the spirits involved is God and e created existence to stand the strain of this movement.
Try again, but logical arguments this time, not rhetoric about how moronic you feel the opponent is!
"I'm not going to give you evidence, because you've made your intentions clear. Any evidence I give, you're going to respond with 'But spirits!'."
I think this made your intentions clear. Any evidence you intended to give - or rather its interpreation - was subject to the criticism of being interpreted by your materialism.
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl So your entire argument is an ad populum fallacy. Good to know. So now that we've established that your argument is invalid, would you like to try again? I don't even need to address any specific points yet, you haven't made any valid ones. You really, really don't understand relativity if you think that you can apply it without applying Einstein's version of it because they are the same thing you dolt.
If you think the fact that we don't feel like we're moving means we're not moving, how do you explain driving in a car and not feeling like you're moving quickly? Sit in the passenger seat and have someone drive down a perfectly flat road at high speed. Is it the clouds moving over you, or you moving under the clouds?
Inertial frames of reference are a thing, if you're moving at a constant speed, you won't feel a force on you, even though you're moving relative to a fixed point in space. How do you not get that? It's basic logic.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- "So now that we've established that your argument is invalid,"
We have nothing of the sort. You pretend that "ad populum" is a fallacy, I do not.
The rest of your comment is relativity as I have understood it during my grown life, including the past more than ten years that I have been debating this issue.
Your car ride is a very good example of relativity.
However, it does not quite reveal which of the two observations it is a good parallel of - observation from Earth, by six - seven billion plus people or observation from MIR or even Moon.
In the case of the clouds, we have been still and we know about how fast clouds move across the sky (different speeds under different weather conditions, buit for each weather condition we know). Hence we can also tell that the speed at which we see clouds pass when in a car ride is not their speed, and we might conclude with some small probability it is ours.
Other indicators are even better : we know from direct experience while still or walking that telegraph poles do not move at all, so any speed we see in them must be our own speed projected on them by relativity.
When two trains are in a station, I am in one and I see the other move, I cannot know which is moving until I either see something certainly still moving, like a house, or feel the movement.
So, yes, you have an explanation, and I have already stated which of the two observations I consider it fits better.
But if you have any observation from Earth about space that you consider the equivalent of "seeing telegraph posts moving", go ahead ... be advised I might disagree about the assessment.
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl It is a fallacy. You assume your conclusion because you can't see how many people could be wrong. There was a time when everyone thought the world was flat and that lightning was caused by Thor. Most people thought that, it does not make it true. Ad populum is a fallacy because what people think does not necessarily correlate with the way reality behaves.
[Notice he gave no example of what he thinks corresponds to telegraph poles giving away that the car is moving.]
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- "You assume your conclusion because you can't see how many people could be wrong. "
That was not the point. Misconstruing my argument is not bettering yours.
My point was not seeing why the many observers should be wrong and the few right before their rightness was proven on other grounds.
"There was a time when everyone thought the world was flat"
"and that lightning was caused by Thor."
Definitely not correct, historically.
"Ad populum is a fallacy because what people think does not necessarily correlate with the way reality behaves."
We were not here concerned with what the majority think, but with what they observe.
[Actually it is not so much a majority as a quasi totality. I managed to forget Teth had actually attributed to a totality past the proposition "earth is flat" and not just to a majority which may well be true of parts of Old Testament times. But visual observation of heavens moving and sensorial observation as well as visual - that is totality of seven billions. Even Armstrong and the crew of MIR spend - spent - most of their lives observing space from Earth, rather than the reverse.]
And we were not concerned with, as far as I am concerned, any prejudice it MUST be right whatever the evidence to the contrary, but rather a preliminary supposition that on a given issue they would probably be right, SO FAR AS the contrary is not proven.
Saying the seven billion COULD be wrong is banal. Proving they ARE wrong you have not done. Where they could even NOT be wrong is in the fact they observe what they observe/we observe what we observe.
Plus the most natural interpretation of WHAT we observe in this question remains stillness of earth and daily movement of "heaven" (whether that means an extent to which heavenly bodies are attached or just a collective name for moving heavenly bodies).
Note, I did not say "only possible", only "most natural". And as long as contrary is not proven, I am sticking with that.
I gave you a chance to provide a proof to the contrary, by the comparison with telegraph poles seen from a train window. What exact thing do you consider as comparable to known fixity of telegraph poles?
You cannot just throw "all of reality" in doubt and require everyone to accept your doubt. You cannot say I have to disprove things like "every day every dimension of every body in the universe shrinks to half of what it was previous day", [instead,]before doubting fixity of most or at least biggest sizes and recurrence of other sizes, please to recall you gave no reason for it.
Precisely so, when you apply relativity to what we see daily and when some (not you yourself perhaps) provide as evidence of our supposed daily rotation that earth has been seen to rotate from space, how come you do not apply relativity to that observation first?
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl It's like talking to a brick wall... Relative inertial frames of reference perfectly explain why we don't feel like we're moving, your model accounts for absolutely nothing that we observe about the nature of reality, and simply using "spirits" as an explanation without defining them or giving them properties that don't cause more problems than they solve while also disobeying the laws of nature does not cut it as evidence. You have yet to make an argument at all, you have yet to provide evidence, and you are not making correct statements.
If geocentrism is correct, it would be impossible for something to orbit another planet, anything further out than Neptune would have to be moving faster than light and the Sun would have to move up, stop, and move back down over the course of a ear with no energy input whatsoever. Why is it so hard to believe that the Earth rotates and orbits the Sun? How does that make less sense than a tiny rock being the centre of existence just because a bunch of complex chemical reactions are taking place on it? Your model holds no predictive power and cannot accurately account for anything we observe in reality.
And you are STILL misapplying relativity. If we go out to space without increasing our forward momentum relative to the rotation of the Earth, we will observe said rotation because we are orbiting slower than the Earth is rotating. Our velocity has changed, the Earth's has not, this means that the Earth had to have been rotating in the first place. Relativity dictates that unless there is a change in velocity, there will be no inertial effects experienced by an observer, regardless of velocity. We could be moving at the speed of light and it wouldn't matter so long as out velocity remains the same. Nobody would "feel" how fast we're moving.
If you come back at me with the same shit again, we're done. Make a fucking argument. Give evidence, give me a model with predictive power, show me the math, give me a diagram of the orbits of other celestial bodies, explain how Saturn has rings, and Jupiter has moons, explain how everything outside of Neptune is moving faster than light, explain where all that energy came from, and why such velocities don't generate gravitational waves of such density that they form roaming singularities. Only if you can explain every single one of these things will anyone even consider thinking about geocentrism seriously. Until then it doesn't even qualify as a hypothesis.
[He has given some argument in a thrown off manner, after complaining it was no use to give any at all, but it still lacks the direct parallel to telegraph poles - the known fixed observed as if moving by a moving observer. I'll be answering his arguments in the following:]
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- "If geocentrism is correct, it would be impossible for something to orbit another planet,"
Perhaps you mean "if Ptolemaic geocentrism" etc. But I support Tycho Brahe and Riccioli.
"anything further out than Neptune would have to be moving faster than light"
Actually I checked. Neptune at its furthest away from Earth (if for instance beyond Sun, in January, in aphelium) gets a speed of about 1/3 generally supposed speed of light.
[If my calculation was wrong, he did not tell. Did I forget the π multiplication or sth?]
But not believing Einstein, I see no problem with stars moving faster around Earth each day (say 2π lightdays during one day) than their light takes to reach earth.
"and the Sun would have to move up, stop, and move back down over the course of a ear with no energy input whatsoever."
My point about spirits is that this solves the problem of energy input for changed direction.
When I strike one key on the keyboard rather than another, even if the food I ate is "energy input", it certainly did not dictate the choices I made about what to write.
"How does that make less sense than a tiny rock being the centre of existence just because a bunch of complex chemical reactions are taking place on it?"
That point is a synonym to denial of humanity being spiritual, and thus it is not credible.
"Your model holds no predictive power and cannot accurately account for anything we observe in reality."
Predictive is overrated. Accurate accounting I consider I am making, and your considering this inaccurate does not make it so.
"If we go out to space without increasing our forward momentum relative to the rotation of the Earth, we will observe said rotation because we are orbiting slower than the Earth is rotating. Our velocity has changed, the Earth's has not, this means that the Earth had to have been rotating in the first place."
This is the Heliocentric reason for not applying relativity to Earth's movement as observed from space.
I would say the spacecraft is actually circling Earth, and thus relativity applies.
What is your proof of the contrary?
Seven billion's sense experience is a priori evidence. It is not unoverturnable. There might be relativity overturning it. But this has to be proven, not assumed just because you can explain how relativity works. So, until otherwise is proven (like Geocentrism being impossible, or Heliocentrism confirmed from angles where one can really rule out observation point is moving instead of earth) the seven billion people and their sense experience is evidence.
[A priori evidence - I meant of course prima facie evidence!]
"give me a model with predictive power"
I am a philosopher considering credibility, not an astronomer trying to prove I can do astronomy with my theory. I can't because I can't do astronomy, like predictions of planetary positions on exact dates, at all.
"show me the math"
Same objection as previous.
"give me a diagram of the orbits of other celestial bodies"
Look up Tychonian model, enjoy the diagrams' floridity, correct for elliptic instead of circular movements (which means updating to Riccioli, who took that from Kepler).
"explain how Saturn has rings, and Jupiter has moons,"
Or how they even orbit Sun, while Sun orbits Earth, spirits, in Christian Theology angels, are guiding each celestial body.
Each. Not just the straightforward elliptic ones.
"explain how everything outside of Neptune is moving faster than light"
How without the distortions foreseen by Einstein? He was wrong.
How as in what makes it? God provides the daily movement of the Universe. That is His main provision of proving to most men (not necessarily brick wall types like you are making yourself) that He exists.
"explain where all that energy came from"
"and why such velocities don't generate gravitational waves of such density that they form roaming singularities."
God did not want gravity to work in a way that disrupted the universe.
Sungenis has btw concluded that Earth is caught in a non-roaming singularity, if you like. Yes, I mean him with "The Principle".
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl Yup, you're either a troll, insane or an idiot. I'm out. So done with our ilk.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
That way I might get a debate with someone, perhaps as knowledgeable as you and not as numb to what I am saying.
With some real luck he might not even take "this is our explanation, it works" as incontestable proof.
- [Added next day:]
- For other takers if any.
I forgot to answer the point of +Teth47 when he called my theory "overcomplicated and untestable".
In the geometry of resulting movements, Geocentrism of Tycho-Riccioli model is indeed more complicated than Heliocentrism. But that does not make it over complicated. Since spirits, God Himself or created spirits, can perform these complex movements no problem, assuming they exist.
Indeed, it is Heliocentrism which is getting more complicated by the day in the order of explanatory models assumed.
As to untestable, he never answered my point that applying relativity (as commonly understood) to observations from Earth rather than to observations from space is untestable as to veracity.
That is why Nicole d'Oresme, after understanding relativity exactly as with the car ride parable, rejected the idea of applying it to observations from Earth as their correct explanation - because it was untestable in his time and still is.