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
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- 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 cospired 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?
- Bel-Shamharoth
- Before anything else, I feel I should ask for citations.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Good idea! I give them, along with links, quotes and translation of quotes, some resumé of non-quoted, in this message:
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
- Bel-Shamharoth
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl Ah...sorry...but that doesn't exactly look like a reliable source...
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- For Riccioli's position?
Did you look so short a moment on it you did not notice I did give links to the pages in Riccioli's book (old edition, scanned by a library) in Latin?
Or is it my translations from Latin you mistrust?
Or is it a book exemplar from Riccioli's own lifetime which you don't consider a reliable source for Riccioli's position, when he is on the title page as author?
C'mon, be a little serious!
- Bel-Shamharoth
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl No, it's the fact that there is a masonic symbol with a circle-and-slash on the top that makes me question it's reliability. Not only that, but I see the Latin phrases, but I don't see any translations. Plus, it seems that English is not your first language, as reading that page is somewhat difficult with the wording of it. Like the first sentence: "I mean on the reason why heavenly bodies and the heavens as such do move?" is gibberish. I can make out what you are trying to say, but this is far from decent English. not only that, but citing yourself is not an acceptable source either. You're basically saying "I am rught because I say so". I hope you see my issue here.
I don't need all that crap anyway, I just need a page that says, in plain English, "Riccoli came up with and published these ideas first".
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- « No, it's the fact that there is a masonic symbol with a circle-and-slash on the top that makes me question it's reliability. »
It’s my way of stating I thing Freemasonry should be forbidden.
So, does every anti-Masonic writer over the internet seem suspect to you ?
« Not only that, but I see the Latin phrases, but I don't see any translations. »
I seem to have forgotten that detail or to have preferred giving a service to Catholics who either know Latin or know priests who do. I wrote it after a debate with Sungenis and DeLano (who prefer a somewhat convoluted gravitational model over angelic movers, despite being Catholics and Geocentrics.
« Plus, it seems that English is not your first language, as reading that page is somewhat difficult with the wording of it. Like the first sentence: "I mean on the reason why heavenly bodies and the heavens as such do move?" is gibberish. »
NOT SO if taken as continuing the rhetoric question in the title.
It means, with appropriate insertions from title, which is previous sentence, this :
I mean [What Opinion ]on the reason why heavenly bodies and the heavens as such do move [did Riccioli call the Fourth and Most Common One]?
Writing that out in full would have been tedious after a title « What Opinion did Riccioli call the Fourth and Most Common One? »
I can only conclude that writing or reading texts meant for other purposes than technological or scientific or whatever instruction is not YOUR first SUBJECT.
I mean from when you studied on university.
[Do I need to make insertions or have I made my point ?]
« I can make out what you are trying to say, but this is far from decent English. »
So « I mean [What Opinion ]on the reason why heavenly bodies and the heavens as such do move [did Riccioli call the Fourth and Most Common One]? » would have been better English on your view ? Discredits you as a judge of English or of any language.
« not only that, but citing yourself is not an acceptable source either. You're basically saying "I am rught because I say so". I hope you see my issue here. »
I see your duplicity.
I did NOT give my own blog post as the reference for Riccioli’s view per se, but because it included links to Riccioli.
So, I gave Riccioli as reference to Riccioli’s opinion. At least for those familiar with Latin.
« I don't need all that crap anyway, I just need a page that says, in plain English, "Riccoli came up with and published these ideas first". »
Oh, Riccioli’s Latin (on pages I linked to and transcribed to my post) is « crap » to you ?
And why should the page say Riccioli « came up with and published these ideas first » when he claimed absolutely the opposite, namely to be completely traditional by adhering to the opinion of men like St Thomas Aquinas, Nicolas of Cusa and I forget how long his namedropping list was when it came to prove he had predecessors ?
You have just proven beyond any shadow of a doubt you are incompetent to judge about older erudition, because you are incompetent in reading it.
- Bel-Shamharoth
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl And why is that? They believe in the same God you do. Why are they so bad?
What would have been better English? I'm not even sure what you were trying to say, so I couldn't tell you. I think you mean something along the lines of "My hypothesis is that the mechanism by which the planets and other heavenly bodies move is the same as that which Riccoli suggested to be the Fourth and Most Common opinion". Whatever the "fourth and most common opinion" means.
How am I being duplicitous? I am saying you can't cite yourself as a source, because that completely defeats the purpose of citing a source. The reason I asked for citations was so that I could get accepted scientific literature that has been tested and reviewed and tested some more by academic authorities. I don't trust some guy on the internet who just says "angels dun did it" as if that explains everything (which it does not). And yes, you did use your own blog as a source. The link you gave me was to your blog. Like I said, there are no translations, no peer-reviewed literature (which is what I am really looking for), and nothing that really posits anything that can be shown to be true, basically just your own opinions. If anything, it is YOU who is being duplicitous by claiming your opinions to be facts without citing any sources. Setting aside you angels hypothesis, I asked for proof that Riccoli gave more accurate measurements than Tycho, who was considered one of the best astronomers of his time. You have failed to show me where his measurements are, only where his hypotheses about angels are. That is not what I asked for.
I am done talking about this. It seems you completely missed what I was originally asking for, to the point where I got distracted and off-topic. All I will say is that your angels hypothesis does not really explain anything, just pushes the question away to be dealt with later.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- // I think you mean something along the lines of "My hypothesis is that the mechanism by which the planets and other heavenly bodies move is the same as that which Riccoli suggested to be the Fourth and Most Common opinion". //
That is NOT my language.
I meant to make a rhetorical question about what HE called "the fourth and most common opinion" on the precise matter of what caused celestial bodies to move.
I divided this into two questions:
- 1) the title asking "what opinion did Riccioli call the fourth and most common one"
- 2) line after title, clarifying on what subject Riccioli enumerated four opinions.
Only AFTER this do I clarify what the four opinions are and answer myself which one he called the fourth and most common one.
And I did so by quoting and linking to his work, scanned pages of a 17th C. printed book.
That my own opinion is the same as his is not "my hypothesis", it is incontestable historic fact.
[At least Bel-Shamharoth has done nothing to suggest any real contestation of it.]
// I am saying you can't cite yourself as a source, because that completely defeats the purpose of citing a source //
And I already clarified first time over that I was NOT citing myself as a source. I linked to a post of mine which links to Riccioli as a source.
// The reason I asked for citations was so that I could get accepted scientific literature that has been tested and reviewed and tested some more by academic authorities. //
You don't need that crap in order to know what four opinions Riccioli was talking about and which of them he considered the most common one and therefore enumerated as fourth and last of them.
// I don't trust some guy on the internet who just says "angels dun did it" as if that explains everything (which it does not). //
That was not the point. My point was to answer where I got it from, I answered [among others] Riccioli and gave good reason for so answering.
// And yes, you did use your own blog as a source. The link you gave me was to your blog. //
And it contained links to the pages of Riccioli, namely first to title page and then to the page where he was talking about it.
[Giving one link of mine which links to two or more of an author relevant is economising links.]
// Like I said, there are no translations,//
I probably reckoned on Sungenis having access to a Latinist.
// no peer-reviewed literature (which is what I am really looking for),//
The point is: did Riccioli or did he not think angels moved the orbits which (that you can look up elsewhere) he accepted as Tychonic ones, with the Keplerian modification of adding ellipses instead of perfact circles.
The need is not for peer reviewed articles, the need is for a page of Riccioli. And I gave exactly that.
// and nothing that really posits anything that can be shown to be true, basically just your own opinions. //
About what Riccioli opined?
You are trying to be funny!
"Setting aside you angels hypothesis, I asked for proof that Riccoli gave more accurate measurements than Tycho, who was considered one of the best astronomers of his time."
Tycho was contradicted on two items by his disciple Kepler:
- 1) the latter was a Heliocentric
- 2) the latter was also considering orbits to be elliptic rather than perfectly circular.
Riccioli accepted the latter as a valid correction.
If you know some geometry, you will realise that this means Riccioli was as accurate as Kepler.
That was my point in the first paragraph, first sentence.
On that one, I will gladly refer to Sungenis, who has done lots more than I on the history of the matter. The post I linked to was just my correction of his rash opinion "angelic movers" had been a fringe theory.
And do google Riccioli.
"You have failed to show me where his measurements are, only where his hypotheses about angels are. That is not what I asked for."
Your question as given was in that case imprecisely worded.
I did respond first with asking for a clarification whether I was being asked about a reference for Riccioli's position (on this matter) and you did not contradict this.
So I gave you Riccioli's position. Linking TO him THROUGH myself.
Where he discusses Kepler's elliptic orbits is another matter, I haven't looked that up.
"It seems you completely missed what I was originally asking for, to the point where I got distracted and off-topic."
Because your view of how to use language is inept, you mean to ask about one thing and ask in terms which could also mean another.
"All I will say is that your angels hypothesis does not really explain anything, just pushes the question away to be dealt with later."
Namely?
I would be fine to deal with that too. As long as your criterium for my responses is not that I cite modern peer reviewed academia on angels moving celestial bodies. We both know there is not any, or at least little and not very well known.
Btw, your theory of gravitation would explain lots, if it weren't for the detail (you could call it crap if you like) that its precise terms are two opposing forces, inertia and gravitation, both involving physical property of mass of whatever solid, liquid, gas or plasma is involved and NEITHER of which involved a solid body in between like a string in the stone and string experiment.
How about giving experimental validation for the theory that stone and string experiment works as well without any string (or tub of death experiment without any tub)?
- Bel-Shamharoth
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl I mentioned tihis elsewhere, but my time is far more valuable to me than convincing you that you are wrong, which is never going to happen. I have dealt with your type before, and I don't want to waste my time here anymore. But you should probably try to understand the opposing viewpoint before you go and say that it is false. You clearly do not understand what gravitiation is, nor the evidence that backs it up. Not everything in the Universe is a solid, liquid, or gas, only matter, and gravity and inertia are not matter, therefore they do not need a solid, liquid, or gas to operate. That is like saying your bedroom lamp cannot work because you do not have a toaster in your room; they simply don't correlate that way. I suggest you actually do research before you give a BS explanation like "angels dun did it". But you and I both know that you won't do any research, and I don't have the patience to supervise you anymore. So good day, and happy 4th of July.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- "But you should probably try to understand the opposing viewpoint before you go and say that it is false."
I was actually an adherent of the opposing viewpoint for quite a long time.
As an adult.
You should perhaps try to check things up before you tell someone he's not understanding your viewpoint. Since it is VERY common, most people who oppose it know about it, and many of them would perhaps have had an opportunity to get an understanding of it.
"You clearly do not understand what gravitiation is, nor the evidence that backs it up."
Here we go again ... "you clearly do not understand ..." ... have I heard sth like that before?
I have made very detailed investigations into the question, by debates. And by checking out tides.
"Not everything in the Universe is a solid, liquid, or gas, only matter, and gravity and inertia are not matter, therefore they do not need a solid, liquid, or gas to operate."
I was not saying that in your model gravitation would have a need for a solid in order to be a gravitation.
I was saying that your model is on that precise ground not a real parallel to "stone on string experiment" where there is a solid.
"That is like saying your bedroom lamp cannot work because you do not have a toaster in your room; they simply don't correlate that way."
Not so.
As said, my point was NOT as if gravitation had a need of a solid between the points to be a gravitation between them.
"I suggest you actually do research before you give a BS explanation like "angels dun did it". But you and I both know that you won't do any research,"
In my case because I know I already did it.
As I already told Aleksandr Sokolnik, here is a video of an experiment which only deals with force of attraction + inertia, no solid in between:
[ISS] Don Petit, Science Off The Sphere - Water Droplets Orbiting Charged Knitting Needle
SpaceVids.tv
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyRv8bNDvq4
As I observed to him:
I think this video is the one with slow motion, count how few orbits each droplet makes before it clings to the knitting needle because its gravitation takes upper hand over inertia.
You claim Earth has been orbitting Sun about 4 . 5 billion times. In the video, where electromagnetic attraction takes the place of gravitation, the water droplets come out of an orbitting balance after 5 to 20 orbits.
"and I don't have the patience to supervise you anymore."
I was not asking for your supervision, I was giving you a debate.
"So good day, and happy 4th of July."
Thanks. I am not US Citizen, but thanks anyway. I suppose you are?
On to:
Where Bel-Shamharoth Says Hello to kathleen - and Good Bye to me
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2016/07/where-bel-shamharoth-says-hello-to.html
As mentioned under part a, it is his response to my notification on that thread.
No comments:
Post a Comment