Tuesday, June 14, 2016
Testing Geocentrism, Part 2
1) [comments on] Testing Geocentrism, Part 2 · 2) Debate under one of my comments to previous · 3) Debate under three other of my remarks on previous to previous, part a · part b · part c · 4) Where Bel-Shamharoth Says Hello to kathleen - and Good Bye to me · 5) Where Booth the Grey Continues the Debate · 6) Where Tolland Proves Himself a Jerk
Testing Geocentrism - Part 2
1:19 There is "no sensible mechanism" - except of course, angelic movers.
2:20 "if that were so, seasons on the other planets must also have a one year cycle" ... does not follow, if angelic movers are moving them the ways needed.
3:08 "is the same as for earth" - except that in earth's case, earth is standing still and sun adapting to her. In the case of Mars or Jupiter, the planets are by their angels moved so as to adapt to the sun. The great artists are also producing the beautiful or horrifying (depending on taste) Tychonic orbits.
4:08 planets circling the ecliptic are very old news and Riccioli had no problem being Geocentric in face of that.
He believed in Angelic movers.
Here I cited relevant section of his Almagestum Novum:
New blog on the kid : What Opinion did Riccioli call the Fourth and Most Common One?
Thursday, 28 August 2014, Posted by Hans Georg Lundahl
And here is the link to the pages I am quoting:
Liber nonus. De Mundi Systemate Sectio secunda de motibus caelorum
CAPVT I. An Caeli aut Sidera Moueantur ab Intelligentijs,
An verò ab intrinsecò à propria Forma vel Natura. P. 247
Next page : 248
4:46 Yes, you are right that an ATHEIST and ANANGELICIST cannot explain Geocentrism like Epicure did. In order to explain not just these changes of direction, but also those when the spirograph pattern requires it, we will need angelic movers, and they will have to be obeying a great choregos, director or dancemaster, which we may conveniently call God.
5:22 Whenever you write, Sir, your choice of letters also cannot be explained by any physics. Except, of course, whenever you have a seizure and are not really choosing what letters you write. Then the non-choice is explained by the physics of the seizure.
However, as human souls normally direct their own bodies to which they were created, angels direct any body, just as long as it's one at a time.
Here is a nice little quote from St Augustine for you:
"Nec sicut cogitantur angeli mundi spiritus caelestia corpora inspirantes atque ad arbitrium quo seruiunt deo mutantes atque uersantes neque si omnes, cum sint milia millium, in unum conlati unus fiant, nec tale aliquid deus est."
And my own translation:
"Neither the angels as they ARE thought of as clean spirits" [clean as opposed to unclean, blessed angels as opposed to demons] "and as inspiring the celestial bodies" [whatever inspiring means] " and as changing and turning them around at their will, a will bny which they serve" [the real] "God, nor all of them if they WERE to be put together and to become one, neither of these is God."
The context is of course (as St Augustine is writing De Trinitate and not a treatise on angels or astronomy) an enumeration of things that are not God. Book VIII chapter 2. Here is where I quote it:
HGL's F.B. writings : Update with Craig Crawford
jeudi 9 juin 2016, Publié par Hans Georg Lundahl
And here is where I got it from:
Vicifons : De trinitate (Aurelius Augustinus)/Liber VIII
And here is where you can get a more professional translation:
On the Trinity (Book VIII)
Home > Fathers of the Church > On the Trinity > Book VIII
[Scroll down to chapter 2]
Neither as we think of the pure angels as spirits animating celestial bodies, and changing and dealing with them after the will by which they serve God; not even if all, and there are thousands of thousands, were brought together into one, and became one; neither is any such thing God.
6:38 How about you making formulas for feet movements of dancers dancing reel?
I mean, reels are very regular therefore very predictable dances. And even so, they are so complex, I bet you would have some difficulty describing the feet of anyone dancing reel using formulas.
But if you succeed, feel free to try your hand at the planets again, only if you really and truly succeed, recall that God used that formula first when giving the angel of each planet instructions for its APPOINTED path or orbit.
And if you recall how many small planets there are (planetary satellites, dwarf planets, asteroids, comets ....) consider how much God did as a creative genius on day Four.
6:51, 5th condition, changing distances of Earth are TWO motions in the abstract: Sun's yearly shifting distance from Earth being mimicked by angel doing the planet + his adding an own periodical shifting distance from Sun.
7:56 You have a recipe for a roller coster, and since angels can't get sick or get scared (not the blessed angels at any rate, of any created thing at any rate), you consider the angels ought to thoroughly enjoy it.
Btw, have you tried selling your graph to someone making roller coasters for amusement parks?
8:10 or a little before:
What "childish claims of conspiracy"?
Am I giving claim that God and angels "conspire" for anything? Like being useful to us, by seasons and lunar phases, bemusing Heliocentrics and finally amusing your viewers and my readers?
I mean, conspiracy claims are usually about lower deeds, like Bilderbergers conspiring to impose "population control" or things like that.
I do believe that too, but am not entertaining that belief each time I give a Geocentric explanation, Sir!
F=? = F=spirit rules matter, God's wisdom rules smaller spirits. Not very mathematical, but who says metaphysics has to be?! That was at 8:57, btw!
9:23 Riccioli integrated all accuracy related detail where Kepler had been superior to Tycho. Namely adding elliptic shapes to orbits around orbits around solar anual orbit. So, either you lie about history, or you are mistaken.
Let's suppose you are mistaken. The error has been pointed out a few times by now, for instance by Sungenis.
So, why have you not heard of it? Has someone conspired to withhold that information from you?
Or, have you heard of it (before doing this video)? If so, how is your behaviour different from conspiring yourself to hide this fact from others?
9:34 Unlike Kepler's laws, those of Newton do involve some fudge factors.
How? Well, never did anyone "measure" the mass of any body independently of how Newton's laws work out with the orbits.
9:42 I am not sure whether it was General or Special Relativity which was counterintuitive.
Either way, when appealing to something which is (not sure if you did that here), you are saying accuracy is achieved by being counterintuitive.
I don't give much for that if that was what you were doing.
Whether it was or not, same fudge factor as with Newton applies here too. Circular reasoning.
9:47 - Compliments for the nice music, anyway!
11:46 "in the educated world, we understand and predict" ... what exact kind of "education" are you talking about?
C P Snow's second civilisation?
That is NOT what education has meant over centuries and millennia. It's an upstart within education, not a definition of it.
11:55 "and what we don't see is planets moving about as if they were playing on invisible seesaws"
You mean, what you do not believe theoretically. It happens, after all, to be what you actually SEE with all observations conducted from Earth.
On to next.