Vedic Science -- The Solar System and Where Modern Astronomy is Wrong
tahr4801
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJQbXTeuauI
- I
- Dialogue (will be followed by comments on video not contested and directed to specific moments, and then by a summing up).
- Godinci
- hmmm...Newton's law of Gravity would not longer hold true if the Earth was stationary and all other celestial were orbiting around it. It's not just a matter of relative movement!
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- What you mean is that Newton's law of gravity would not be the only or main cause of how Earth and Solar System relate. Which is another thing than these laws not being true. However, we have little real direct confirmation even of Newton's concepts of gravity compared to Aristotle's apart from space missions which just possibly could be fake.
Things on Earth could work equally if heavy objects fell to the middle of the universe, centre of Earth. Mostly.
But suppose Newton was right on how gravity works, Geocentrism would basically mean something is overriding gravity. Not that it isn't there.
- Godinci
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl I think you're overlooking the whole point. Only,and solely, because we came to accept that the Earth, and the solar planets, were orbiting around the Sun could we derive the inverse square law, which, by the way, allow us to probe deepspace. The inverse square law, as matter of fact, could never be derived by your concept of space. The postulated vedic concept of space is factual wrong...if you're dealing with conceptual things than say so, however, truths should deal with facts.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- First off, Newton who was a Keplerian derived the inverse square law, as far as I know the history of science.
He might not have done it if he hadn't been Keplerian. This does not mean his deriving a correct law actually proves the occasion for his doing so was correct.
If the inverse square law has no proof at all except Heliocentrism being true, well, so much the worse for the inverse square law. If spatial exploration has proven it, well, that may have been a lucky fluke.
I do not exactly know how you mean the inverse square law has helped us explore deepspace, since I do not know what exact region you call deepspace. If you mean inverse square law has been helpful for the spatial sonds, so much the better for it. If we could all be totally sure these sonds existed, no hankypanky on the side of NASA and so on, well, the inverse square law is/were then proven.
If you mean explore in theory the regions well beyond those called Solar System, I do not know one can say we have explored them.
Second, sorry I had no time to comment more fully on it, I do think the Vedic concept of space is flawed. Yesterday I mean. You see, I am not a Hindoo, but a Catholic. Get a grip on what Dante and Thomas Aquinas thought and taught and get a grip on how Tycho Brahe and Riccioli changed that concept (remaining epicycles getting Sun as epicentre, but orbits getting elliptic so as to do away with lots of epicycles). That is how I see space, and your theory may call it "'factually wrong", but that is not as obvious as with Hindoo cosmology where Sun has a lower height than Moon, DESPITE being further off (a distance from centre of earth is not "horizontal" in Dante even) or where an extra planet Rahu is causing eclipses.
- Godinci
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl you are professing the physics of perception not of fact. Do you claim that the Sun and the solar planets are orbiting Earth?
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- I am taking perception as fact until the contrary is proven.
I believe that directly around Earth go Moon, Sun, Stars, while indirectly around Earth, directly around Sun, go Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and a few more, and the comets too, while some bodies orbit Earth only at third hand, like Io orbitting Jupiter.
This is perceived.
However, you say this is not fact, so, apart from perception, how do you tell what is fact?
- Godinci
- Again, Newton's law of gravity could only be derived by accepting that the solar planets orbit around the sun. Only by using these laws can we safely land satellites and rockets on other celestial. If you relay solely on perception than you have understood nothing why we need our commonsense!
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Well, I was NOT relying solely on perception.
I was saying I take it as preliminary fact until the contrary is proven.
Two vertical poles 30 metres distant are perceived as parallel, by senses. In reality they are nearly so, since we know the circumference of Earth, and their angle is one arc second down in the centre of Earth.
Here the senses are slightly wrong and proven so.
That the laws of Newton are in fact used while landing rockets is very possible. That Newton derived his laws while or after accepting Heliocentrism is historically certain.
This does not, neither in itself nor in commonsense mean that our landing on the Moon proves Newton was right to accept Heliocentrism.
- Godinci
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl Hmm...let me stress again that the inverse square law demonstrate and validate irrefutably, for once and for all, that all planets orbit their Sun.
Your preliminary notion of the movements of our celestial has therefore by fact been proven as false.
If you can figure out that the Earth is spherical, hence parallel lines can not been drawn upon Her surface, then you'll also understand that the orbits of planets around the SUN is accounted for by the inverse square law.
I really don't understand why you keep insisting!
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- "the inverse square law demonstrate and validate irrefutably, for once and for all, that all planets orbit their Sun."
Wrong.
You see, for one thing you have not demonstrated that movements in question are due mainly to inertia and inverse square law.
If they were, a planet might arbit the sun about fifteen times before getting drawn in - or not.
But even if it would work as a mechanism, you have not demonstrated that that is the mechanism.
That is why I keep insisting. What is your reason?
"If you can figure out that the Earth is spherical, hence parallel lines can not been drawn upon Her surface, then you'll also understand that the orbits of planets around the SUN is accounted for by the inverse square law."
In one case we deal with the observable - though very partially at a time - form of an object.
In the other case we deal with the question what makes remote objects move and whether the non-remote object is itself moving. In appearace it is not. The proposition that it is, because such and such a mechanism, which would not be able to leave it in stilllness, is the mechanism that makes the objects move, is a proposition not demonstrated. It is even refuted by observations of cases when two forces (like inertia and an attractive force) end up causing orbits. I had proposed a magnet with one loose on an ice rink, I have not seen that, but there is a video of water droplets where a knitting needle charged with electricity is causing attraction (in space, where gravity is not disrupting). Some droplets made it ten and others tewnty times around the needle before getting stuck to it. None made it anywhere like 4.5 billion times.
- Godinci
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl For the record, Inertia has nothing to do with the inverse square law.
Furthermore, please note, that even though one might not demonstrate, or have no clue, by which mechanisms something operate (such as gravity), doesn’t exclude that we can have a very, very good notion of the behavior that is produced when objects are subjected to that phenomena. The inverse law of gravity allows us to model the behavior of objects subject to gravity very accurately in the non extreme conditions.
The reason why your orbital model fails is that you cannot make any prediction based on it, however, Nature is not from Herself, hence, subject to laws. Thus, the behavior of physical phenomenon, till some extent, can always be predicted when all variables are known.
We can observe that matter attracts matter, and that this attraction is proportional with the product of the masses of the bodies and inverse proportional with their distance relative to each other squared. The observations of Tycho Brahe and Johannes Keppler allowed Newton to describe the orbits of planets very precisely with this mathematical model.
Again your question, I quote: “…what makes remote objects move and whether the non-remote object is itself moving”, is completely of no relevance here, because, whatever the answer to these question might be, it doesn't take away the ‘fact’ that they,under non-extreme conditions, can produce behavior that can in full be predicted and described with Newton’s formulated inverse square law
You seem somehow to be inclined to make-up your own reality, but why should we do so if reality, although we’re part of it, is independent of our being.
You also say that you have seen some video’s claiming certain things. Of course, video’s are often very entertaining; yet, I myself have seen once a video that claimed that the movement of planets was produced by the release of toxic gasses that where produced somehow deep within (similar to the human ventral) and where then released through the nozzles of some giant volcano.
But OK…although we might not exclude such model, we can safely say that our solar planets do not move as such.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- You miss that Newton's model for planetary movements (or any celestial body movements) involves TWO forces, namely gravitation as centripetal and inertia as centrifugal force.
So, you are very much less knowledgeable on subject than you pretend to be.
Hence shooting hockey pucks loaded with magnets onto a rink with a larger and stronger magnet (magnetism=gravitation, inertia=inertia) or squirting water droplets on MIR around knitting needles loaded with static electricity (static electricity=gravitation, inertia=inertia) is a fair model.
The video with the water droplets was not CLAIMING, but SHOWING A FOOTAGE.
- Godinci
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl you really don't want to get my point. Again, it's not important to know about inertia, or other related things, to be able to use Newton's law of gravity. Objects will behave in accordance to that law! This is what the whole discussion is about. Furthermore, the masses, as used in Newton's law of gravity, take into account the inertial and gravitational mass. Newton's law includes knowledge of centripetal and centrifugal forces, but this is not of importance here to make my point.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- The inverse square law (whether correct or otherwise) is only about the supposed centripetal force.
You really do not want to get that point.
The important part of it is, when you rotate a stone on a string, you are not dealing immediately and only and obviously with two forces, centripetal and centrifugal. You are dealing with a centrifugal force and a paracentric string length resulting in a pericentric movement.
The inverse square law is thus about the centripetal force, or supposed such, in your model. Magnetism and for light non-metallic objects (like water droplets) static electricity are also attractive forces. In MIR one has tested this, there are only ten to twenty orbits.
Zero Gravity - Water Droplets Orbit Knitting Needle
SpaceWatch99's channel
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNpXOb0xl6o
One more thing.
If I drop a pen to the floor, it will fall obeying - at least according to Newton's assumtions, Einstein and Aristotle are known for other models - the inverse square law.
But if I hold my pen in the hand, it is not the inverse square law which determines what letters I write. And the fact that someone seeing me write and presuming my action is voluntary cannot from there predict what letter or pattern I will write (but he might predict next turn if observing a pattern correctly), does not mean the theory of voluntary causes is out of court when a pen is writing.
Neither is it so when planets are revolving.
- Godinci
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl ohhh...again, what I say is this: if you have understanding of Newton's law of gravity then it's easy to understand why planets orbit in certain fashion, and how celestial will move under the infleunce of gravity for non extreme conditions.
If two celestials are in interaction with each other and orbit each other than the biggest circumference will always be described by the celestial containing the lesser mass - thus producing the smallest gravitational attraction upon the other.
This is simply a fact...please give me one example that shows this not to be true. Because of that we can know that your model of orbitals is wrong. So again, leaving all the reasons 'why objects attract each others and what mechanism lay at their base' isn't of relavance here to show thst your model is wrong.
Using Newton physics allows us to model the movement of planets very accurately.
By the way, I never said that planets move and orbit things because of Newton's law...what I say is that their behaviour can be modelled by means of it.
- Hans Georg Lundahl
- "if you have understanding of Newton's law of gravity then it's easy to understand why planets orbit in certain fashion"
Yes, one planet at a time about fifteen orbits before it falls into the Sun, if it is [the] most massive.
Not the kind of orbit we actually do see, is it?
"If two celestials are in interaction with each other and orbit each other than the biggest circumference will always be described by the celestial containing the lesser mass - thus producing the smallest gravitational attraction upon the other."
That is presuming the gravitation & inertia explanation for orbits is the true one.
I have already given a pen writing letters because of a will guiding it as an example this is not the only explanation for movements of bodies.
You could of course say things like "God can't be big enough to circle Heaven around us" or "angels can't be strong enough to guide the movements of planetary bodies".
That is how atheism and angel denial proves your point to your satisfaction. Since I believe in God and that He created angels, it does not prove the point to me.
Will you please stop acting as if I had misunderstood anything, while it is you who avoid getting to the points that I bring up?
"Because of that we can know that your model of orbitals is wrong."
No. You have not proven every movement in the universe is due to the inverse square law.
So, you have not proven being due to the inverse square law is true about movements of celestial bodies. Did you even watch the video?
"By the way, I never said that planets move and orbit things because of Newton's law...what I say is that their behaviour can be modelled by means of it."
In that case, other means can be used for other models and you are not proving them invalid.
- Godinci
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl OK, I see where you are aiming at...pure denial by playing 'the proving card'. However, although we might never proof the absolute validity of certain things we can however weigh the best evidence and observation at hand, and based thereupon take a justified stand for our commonsense derived conclusions.
Please give me one model, besides the inverse square law, that models the movement of celestial accurately.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Best evidence and observation at hand?
As to causality of movements of celestial bodies that is not what we have at all.
Now, accurate movements of celestial bodies = Tychonian map of movements through the near circularity of the daily movement.
Angels have accurately been told by God how to do the movements with their planets and they accurately execute it.
How about YOU taking a look at the video I linked to and ACCURATELY describe why the water droplets are drawn to the charged knitting needle after about 15 orbits around it while planets are supposed to orbit the Sun (or "gravitational centre of Solar System, within the Sun but not its centre") billions of times and still neither gravity nor inertia, neither centrifugal nor centripetal force taking upper hand?
Note that every wobble ascribed by Heliocentrics to Earth can be accurately ascribed by a sufficiently astronomically wellread Geocentric to the aether continuum of all the Universe, reaching from that stars down to Earth.
- Godinci
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl please, as asked before, give me one model that can model the movement of celestials accuratly and explains, based on observable and knowable things, why your model of planetary movement holds true. I'm still waiting.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- "explains" and "explains why x holds true" are two different things.
[The latter is usually called "proves" and not "explains".]
Angels are knowable. Not so much whether they are the cause of the movements of celestial bodies.
Whatever makes "heavy" objects (like solids and liquids) fall to the ground is knowable ... but not in its nature, nor whether it contributes to planetary movements.
We are not in a position to tell an angel "go away from the Sun and see if it moves around us anyway". So, we cannot do any experiment to find out.
Whatever makes bodies fall to the ground is knowable that such a factor exists. Whatever makes us able to move things according to our will is also a factor knowable as to it existing.
If it is a complexity of the brain it is unlikely that it has a parallel involved in planetary movements. But if it is, as I think a correct analysis will have to admit, spirit, then it is very much more likely it is involved in celestial movements.
I have already given you one model, I have now explained it is neither more nor less observable than yours.
- Godinci
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl you just gave me an example of a phenomena that produces attraction that is different from Nature than that of gravity. However, this phenomena is not that what attracts our solar planets and can easily be shown as such. Thus, you still have to come up with a model, that based on knowable things and observable facts, is able of modelling the movement of our solar planets accuratly. You have too much adhoc assumptions.
Do you believe that angels push and keep the planets in their orbit?
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Your last question first:
I at least think they direct the planets, including sun so as not to derail from their orbits. Whether or not they are sole producers of them.
But the daily orbit is by God.
I have two assumptions, God and angels. Neither of them is purely ad hoc, both of them are things I believed in well before applying their capacities to the astronomic problem. So, no, I do not have too many ad hoc assumptions.
You deliberately missed a point that our dear readers are apt to see. My point was not that magnetism or static electricity might be doing the work rather than gravity (though Kepler famously thought magnetism was at work and Chuck Missler is kind of reviving that with "electric universe"). My point was that using magnetism or static electricity instead of a string would be a fairer down to earth parallel test of the model you are giving. And that tested by the test of water droplets, see video, your model would last fifteen orbits, give or take five before Earth was drawn into the Sun. Not what we see, is it?
I was challenging you and do so again : can you give a mathematical or logic reason why if the model tested with electricity and water droplets in space works only fifteen orbits, the parallel model you give should last billions of them, even more if complicated by many planets orbitting the Sun at the same time and their gravities and speeds interfering with each other about what happens to exact position of the Sun?
- Godinci
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl I see, Angels are responsible?
Hans, all the effort that you're puting in this conversation is trying to convince me that gravity, as we understand it today, cannot explain in true principle why planets don't crash down on their Sun, and moons on their planets. Of course I could postulate that this happens because energy and momentum are conserved in a closed system, but this, for all practical considerations could in principle not explain why, over long periods of time, planets and/or moons should not crash, or fly away, from their bigger companion.
But Again, this isn't of discussion here, what is of discussion is your geometrical model of planetary orbitals.
So, let me stress out again, that what I'm saying is that planetary orbitals can be modeled and verified for accuracy by means of Newtonian principles and use of knowledge of the inverse square law.
For example, It would have been very hard for us to drop the spacecraft "Rosetta' upon the comet. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-17/images-show-philaes-historic-comet-bounce/5895924
Also important to note is that Le Verrier pinpointed down Neptune by application of Newton’s mathematical law of gravity to the observed irregularities in Uranus orbit.
In other words: the movement of celestial for non extreme conditions, can for neglectable electromagnetic forces, very precisely been modeled and understood with Newtonian physics, and that orbitals obey the inverse square law!
Furthermore, its a observational fact, as said before, that when two bodies are in orbital interaction with each other that the objects containing lesser amount of matter, always describe the bigger orbital.
For your model to hold true - i.e. Sun mainly orbiting around certain solar-planets - you should at least give us one observable fact that shows us otherwise, because your model requires this!
As long you don't do this than all other discussions in this regard are useless.
Please don't deviate and be to the point!
Give me such planetary observable that indicates otherwise.
Thanks in advance!
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Before answering any, I do not think it is your privilege to tell me what is of discussion or what I should not deviate from.
Bad manners don't impress me - unless they are so backed up as to actually frighten me.
"what is of discussion is your geometrical model of planetary orbitals."
The geometric model is actually based strictly on observation. Such as they are, they defy any non-living, non-intelligent and non-voluntary causal explanation.
Especially any one where inverse square law is the main factor with inertia
That is, if we accept appearances as long as they are not disproven, astronomy proves God and angels.
Now, you may say that my model IS disproven and therefore cannot prove angels of God.
But how do you propose to disprove the explanation without first assuming there is no God, without first assuming there are no angels?
Your planetary discovery of Neptune is unique and countered by another unique example. You may consider the example of Mercury as explained by "extreme conditions".
But then I could as easily say that Tychonian orbits are explained by the "extreme" (but usual) condition of being moved by God and angels. I do in fact.
As to your argument about sending space craft onto heavenly bodies. It has two logical forms. I will use quotation marks to "quote" 2 arguers whom I invent for the sake of their being more precise than you.
Quoth A: "Look here:
- We have predicted orbits through gravitational model of celestial movements.
- We have sent spacecraft which have hit celestial bodies as predicted.
- Therefore the predictions were true and so is the gravitational model behind them."
I disagree on the last bit. And on unsaid part of first premiss. The predictions were true, yes. But they were based on the observed orbits, and not exclusively on the gravitational model. Therefore they validate observation of orbits, but not the gravitational model.
Quoth B: "Look here:
- We have predicted orbits in the reference frame around Sun.
- But the spacecraft arrived.
- Therefore the reference frame around Sun is universally valid and the reference frame Sun around Earth is invalid."
Well, would have worked better as an argument if Ptolemaic model were only available Geocentric one. Not.
[Added:]You have attributed to me a model that is not mine, that Sun orbits mainly terrestrial planets - mine is that Sun is directly going around Earth, not around any other terrestrial planet along with it.
You are trying to challenge me on an exception to a supposedly observed exceptionless "rule" namely that "more massive celestial bodies are always inside the orbits of less massive celestial bodies".
The observation has two problems.
Mass is not directly given in any observation. We have volumes from observed apparent size and calculated distance. But mass is volume times density.
So, you "calculate density from observed orbits", you calculate orbits (intended to equal the ones you observe and failing at Mercury up to Einstein) from densities. I e you are proving both from each other and nothing else. It is a vicious circle in probando.
Other problem is Sun certainly has very much greater volume than Earth and still orbits around us according to the observations we make from our standpoint.
So you try an inductive proof, the material for the induction has a glaring exception, you require the induction to prove a rule in spite of it in order to declare the exception illusory from the rule.
That is as bad logic as the vicious circle about masses.
You have still not given any coherent answer to my challenge how if gravitation balanced by inertia were all that moved celestial bodies the more massive ones would not after some very few orbits swallow up the less massive ones.
Angels either performing orbital movements or ultimately guiding the balance of graviation and inertia (like a biker guides a bike so it stays upright and moving forward) are both clearly options you haven't bothered to argue against.
- We have predicted orbits through gravitational model of celestial movements.
- Godinci (who posted this before last words of mine)
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl You say, I quote: “You may consider the example of Mercury as explained by "extreme conditions"’, man, if this is the best you can do to wave this argument away then I feel sad for you. First of all this has nothing to do with an extreme condition, this happens when other celestial influence other orbital in such that they deviate from their normal assumed path! Just bold Newtonian physics and some knowledge in perturbation theories!
There is nothing extreme here!
Extreme only refers in case where normal Newtonian physics, as formulated by Newton, doesn’t longer hold true and the conditions become as such that they call them relativistic.
Concerning your two argues that you invented, as you say, for the sake of argument.
Sorry, I mean no offence, but it seems to me that you have specialized yourself in inventing arguments for the sake of argument ‘without more’.
Your arguments don’t reflect the way how I proceeded! What I say, is that orbitals can be very accurately be described with Newtonian physics and are subject to the inverse square law!
Furthermore I said:
- the movement of celestial for non extreme conditions, can for neglectable electromagnetic forces, very precisely been modeled and understood with Newtonian physics, and that orbitals obey the inverse square law!
- its a observational fact, as said before, that when two bodies are in orbital interaction with each other that the objects containing lesser amount of matter, always describe the bigger orbital.
- It’s an observational fact, as said before, that when two bodies are in orbital interaction with each other that the objects containing lesser amount of matter, always describe the bigger orbital.
Afterwards, I gave you some indications, such as Rosetta landing and discovery of Uranus to name a few, that give serious weight to the truth potential of Newton’s law formalism of Gravity. (What the precise gravitational mechanisms are is not of importance here to make my point).
I therefore stress again, if you want to give some weight to your orbital model [look what he attributes to me:]
- i.e. Sun mainly orbiting around certain solar-planets - [sic!]
you should at least give us one observable fact that shows us otherwise, because your model requires this!
Therefore, 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!
If not then I’ll end this discussion, since that was what the discussion was all about, showing the plausibility or implausibility of your model.
- 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.
- Here
- I break off for the readers, since I feel they might be getting tired of Godinci. If you want to get directly to continuation, it is here:
Back to Godinci
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2014/11/back-to-godinci.html
The rest of you may now enjoy a little exchange with my observations on the video outside this dialogue, and further continue through two other dialogues before getting back to Godinci.
- II 7:15 (and first one earlier)
- "the zodiak encompasses all of the sky"
no, unless by "encompass" you refer to acting as a belt - there are lots of costellations between polar star and zodiak, lots of constellations between Southern Cross and zodiak (not meaning Zodiak coincides with celestial equator, rather with plane of ecliptic).
"the zodiak completes a 360° circle every 24 hour period"
- not exact, it completes a 360° circle in a period that is a few minutes shorter
- Sun uses in medium exactly 24 hours to make 360° around earth - why? because 24 hours are 12 day hours and 12 night hours, twice a year the distance between two sunsets or two sunrises will be exactly 24 hours and all year round the distance between consecutive two middays is exactly 24 hours, because first one divided the days and the nights each into twelve parts and called them hours, then the term was scientifically reserved for day/night hours when day and night have same length, so called equinoctial hours, a k a twentyfour equal parts between two consecutive midnights or - as astronomers use it - two consecutive middays
- the 360° of the zodiak around earth are a few minutes behind, since the Sun is lagging behind. In one year the Sun has lagged one full circle around the Zodiak behind, so is in same sign as one year before.
St Thomas Aquinas explains this phenomenon like this:
- God - and only God - moves the First Moveable thing, which is either the sphere of stars or a sphere to which the stars (including the zodiak) is attached, this movement is Westward compared to stationary Earth, and to the Heavens of the blessed souls above it;
- angels whom He has created and who serve Him guide the "moveable stars" = planets (including Sun and Moon) in periodic orbits Eastward along the heavens as they move westward and so the composite movements of these will be slower than the Westward movement of the First Moveable. The Sun makes one eastward orbit along Zodiak each year, the Moon is close to making it each lunar month, but not spot on, since Month depends not only on position of Moon in Zodiak but also how this corresponds to position of Sun therein.
- not exact, it completes a 360° circle in a period that is a few minutes shorter
- III 8:05
- "this is also called retrograde motion"
Not in usual astronomic parlance.
Zodiak moves Westward. Sun and Moon move only Eastward in relation to it, but concretely Westward along with it. Planets other than Sun and Moon have retrogrades in which they move Westward through the Zodiak in shorter periods, things that thus modify their general over all Eastward movement through it.
Sun and Moon have no retrogrades. Other planets have retrogrades as often as they move Westward instead of Eastward through the ecliptic plane. That is how "retrograde" is usually used.
- IV 8:54
- - I think you got the heights wrong.
Sun is not lower/closer to Earth than Moon is.
Oh, you took horizontal distance as distinct from height. Sorry.
- V Summing up of errors
- Two things that Vedic astronomy gets wrong.
- a) when it comes to distance from Earth, once you accept Earth is round and every side of Earth has its up away from centre, all distance away from Earth is vertical.
You cannot say that Moon is higher but Sun has a greater horizontal distance, unless you are really thinking of Earth as a flat disc, above which we walk, on which we put our feet, and up and down are same direction parallel for every man.
- b) introducing Rahu for eclipses.
If you accept Earth is round, Earth by itself is enough for a Lunar Eclipse. And so Moon is enough for a Solar Eclipse.
Only by flat Earth do you have a need for Rahu for Lunar Eclipse, and so you use it for Solar Eclipse too.
The Medieval - Early Modern Geocentric Cosmology of Catholics like Dante or Riccioli is a real advance on Vedic astronomy, by really integrating roundness of Earth, which unlike Heliocentrism has been thoroughly proven. Travellers have looked at every side of the object - on its outside. Hell is another matter. It's inside.
- a) when it comes to distance from Earth, once you accept Earth is round and every side of Earth has its up away from centre, all distance away from Earth is vertical.
No comments:
Post a Comment