## Sunday, March 11, 2018

### With Zarrella et al. on Geocentrism

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Galileo and the Church (quora) · ... on Whether Geocentrism is Obliging? Debate with Anthony Zarrella · With Zarrella et al. on Geocentrism · Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : With Anthony Zarrella on Metaphysics of Science

Q
What evidence can prove the Earth actually orbits the sun? It seems very unrealistic.

Richard Muller
Prof. Physics UC Berkeley, author "Physics for Future Presidents"
According to the general theory of relativity, the Sun does orbit the Earth. And the Earth orbits the Sun. And they both orbit together around a place in between. And both the Sun and the Earth are orbiting the Moon.

General relativity allows the use of any coordinate system, and it is really a coordinate system question you are asking. Pick a system in which the center of the Earth is fixed; indeed, it can be a system in which the Earth is not even rotating about its axis. Then you can derive all the equations of motion in this system. In this system, the Sun is moving, not the Earth.

Of course, that is a very ponderous approach, and although the equations will work, in principle, they will be very awkward and tricky. So scientists never use them.

Why do we use a system in which the Sun is at rest (or in uniform motion)? Because then the equations are simple, intuitive, and (relatively) easy to solve. That is often the trick in physics: find a coordinate system in which the equations of motion are so simple that you can guess the right answer.

There is an irony here. The old Ptolemaic system in which the planets orbit the Earth in cycles and epicyles was actually a valid approach. We say that the orbits are elliptical, but an ellipse is an epicycle; it can be generated by moving a circle around another circle. So the revolution of Copernicus was actually a revolution in finding a simpler way to depict the motion, not a more correct way. But the Copernican approach allowed Newton to derive a very simple law of gravity. The glory of physics (as Feynman once said) is that we can describe a phenomenon in such a way that the answer is evident. (Feynman failed only with the connection between spin and statistics.)

So it is not wrong to say that the Sun orbits the Earth. It just leads to much more complicated equations that give you no good intuition for the behavior of gravity.

Look up α, β and γ

&lpha;
Anthony Zarrella
15h ago · 1 upvote
Quick question, Prof. Muller:

You say the mechanics work out even for a non-rotating Earth. I believe you of course, but while I can intuitively imagine how that works for orbits, is there also a self-consistent system that can explain the “equatorial bulge” without positing a spinning Earth?

A and B, given in inverted order.

B
Rūdolfs Treilis
2h ago ·
1 upvote from Anthony Zarrella
Yup, the equatorial bulge and any other effect arising from non inertial forces can also be explained. In the reference frame where the Earth is stationary it is the rest of the universe that is spinning around the polar axis. It turns out that in general relativity such a configuration generates a gravitational dipole (similar to the electric analogue), which would be responsible for the bulging of the Earth in that coordinate system :)

Anthony Zarrella
1h ago
Huh, OK, cool!

Thanks for explaining.

A
Hans-Georg Lundahl
7h ago
Aether moving around Earth explains coriolis, equatorial bulge (unless it was a preadaption by God), and geostationary satellites.

Anthony Zarrella
1h ago
Apparently no aether required, according to the other commenter.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
1h ago
I mistrust the idea of gravitation from stars doing it.

Anthony Zarrella
1h ago
Why?

If the scientific result is fully compatible with all Scripture and alleged doctrine (I say “alleged” because I know there are certain historical pronouncements that you regard as doctrinal and I do not), then why not trust the science?

I can see the reason you might reject the scientific explanation if it appears to conflict with anything doctrinal, but I fail to see any valid reason for attempting to preserve the validity of mere assumptions of prior generations.

I, II and III

I
Hans-Georg Lundahl
1h ago
Gravitation from stars I mistrust for scientific reasons.

You know the formula for gravitation?

(constant*)M*m : d^2

If stars are as far away as described, the inverse proportionality to squared distance will make stellar gravitation insignificant.

If on the other hand the stars are near, they are also smaller and have less mass.

And as to the former, one more problem is, I came to geocentric over distant starlight problem.

While I acknowledge Joshua 10:12 strongly argues geocentrism, I think it is more important as making the 7200 year old universe mathematically possible.

Also, there is no scientific impossibility in aether, both as luminiferous and for other purposes, unless you start out pretending Earth is moving through space, in which case Michelson Morley would have disproven luminiferous aether.

Michelson–Morley experiment - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson–Morley_experiment

Anthony Zarrella
41m ago
Yes, the gravitation of distant stars as a cause of the equatorial bulge is not viable. But I don’t think that’s what Mr. Treilis meant by a “gravitational dipole”.

As to Michelson-Morley… the whole point here is that it doesn’t matter whether Earth is moving through space or whether space is moving around Earth—the observations should be equivalent.

Think about it: Imagine standing in a room and spinning in place. Now imagine that you are standing still, but the whole room (including the air within it) and the whole rest of the observable world is rotating around you.

The point is that from your perspective, there will be absolutely no difference. Every possible observation or measurement you could make will be identical in both cases.

So, if Michelson-Morley proves no aether in a moving-Earth paradigm, it also proves no aether in a paradigm in which the whole of the universe moves about a fixed Earth. It only allows for aether if we presume a fixed Earth and fixed surrounding space, with other bodies moving through that fixed space.

In other words, if you assume you’re standing still while the room spins, but the air is standing still along with you. Then you’d notice a difference.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
5m ago
"But I don’t think that’s what Mr. Treilis meant by a “gravitational dipole”."

Oh, I thought you referred to the one given by Sungenis some time ago.

"As to Michelson-Morley… the whole point here is that it doesn’t matter whether Earth is moving through space or whether space is moving around Earth—the observations should be equivalent."

Not really. For daily motion, they are, and it seems light speed influenced by aether has been observed on that account.

For yearly motion it does matter - and this is the one where no aether influencing the light speed was observed - whether Earth is inside or outside what is moving yearly. If the Sun is what is moving yearly and not the Earth, then Earth is outside it.

"Think about it: Imagine standing in a room and spinning in place. Now imagine that you are standing still, but the whole room (including the air within it) and the whole rest of the observable world is rotating around you"

That is an exact parallel to the daily motion, on which light speed influenced by aether was observed.

Aether was denied due to lack of observation of supposed yearly motion.

"So, if Michelson-Morley proves no aether in a moving-Earth paradigm, it also proves no aether in a paradigm in which the whole of the universe moves about a fixed Earth."

You got wrong what part it was that was suppose to infirm aether.

Get the facts from Sungenis on that one.

II
Hans-Georg Lundahl
1h ago
“If the scientific result”

Why were you presuming in the first place that the idea I am rejecting is THE scientific result and mine isn’t?

God has not promised scientists even collectively the infallibility that bishops have.

Science is not dogma. That means, there can and should be alternative science positions. You were treating mine, gratuitously, as if it were a “science heresy” by that remark.

Anthony Zarrella
39m ago
I’m saying that all the scientific evidence supports the present scientific paradigm. I’m not saying scientists are infallible—but when all the evidence goes one way, it is unreasonable to assign equal credibility to a contradictory hypothesis.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
10m ago
"I’m saying that all the scientific evidence supports the present scientific paradigm."

Then do the logical moves about it.

Evidence A supports aspect a of the scientific paradigm, because ... evidence B supports aspect b of it because etc.

What you are doing instead is in practise treating scientists as infallible guides to what the evidence or, even worse all the evidence supports.

The one being unreasonable is you. You pretend on the one hand to study the evidence and on the other hand you allow scientists to do it for you.

Anthony Zarrella
1m ago
I’m not about to attempt to reconstruct the entire scientific paradigm from scratch, nor is it any argument that I’m unwilling to do so. It’s simply too much data for any single person to process.

But the greatest proof of the validity of the scientific paradigm is that it works.

When the scientific paradigm leads someone to conclude that this particular method will allow them to launch a rocket into space, and then they do that particular method… the rocket does launch into space. Can I explain to you every bit of scientific reasoning that went into it? Heck no. But I can point to the fact that it worked.

And when scientific observations predict that an eclipse will happen on such and such a day, at such and such a time, the eclipse does happen at that exact time—right down to the minute, and even down to the second. Can I personally reconstruct a system that allows me to predict the next eclipse? Not a chance. But I can point to dozens of past eclipses and the fact that all of them happened exactly on schedule.

It’s second-order evidence—evidence of the reliability of the scientific sources that I rely upon to interpret the first-order evidence for me.

a and b

a
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Just now
“I’m not about to attempt to reconstruct the entire scientific paradigm from scratch, nor is it any argument that I’m unwilling to do so. It’s simply too much data for any single person to process.”

If that were the case, it would be too much data for any single person to know if it is true.

Unlike Christianity.

The rest is saying “if A, then B” + “B” = “therefore A”

Are there other things than A for which we can say “if X then B”?

Anthony Zarrella
14m ago
“If that were the case, it would be too much data for any single person to know if it is true.

Unlike Christianity.”

You’re the only one of us who is making this a contest between science and Christianity. I’m not.

And no—I trust people, so there are a great many things I can “know” without independently verifying.

I know that my great-grandparents immigrated from Naples and Sicily in the 20s—but I’ve never seen any records, I just trust that my grandparents are telling me the truth.

I know that if I drink hemlock, I’ll die—but I’ve never tested it, on myself or anyone else. I just trust that the information I’ve been given is true.

And the entire genesis of Christianity itself is based on trusting the reports of others. Recall, e.g., the crucifixion account in John:

But one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once there came out blood and water. He who saw it has borne witness—his testimony is true, and he knows that he tells the truth—that you also may believe.

Or the logic of patristic theology, for that matter: “There are teachings the Apostles taught that were not written down—but we have the writings of men who learned them from the Apostles, or from other men who were trustworthy and had themselves learned from the Apostles, and therefore we believe that these are valid apostolic teachings.”

“The rest is saying “if A, then B” + “B” = “therefore A”

Are there other things than A for which we can say “if X then B”?”

No, I’m saying that a reliable correlation between the predictions of a paradigm and observed reality demonstrates a high likelihood that the paradigm is accurate.

If just one prediction of science were demonstrated to be accurate, or even just a few, then that would be very weak evidence. But when the scientific method (and the human scientific community) consistently yields verifiable results in a variety of diverse instances, then there is no plausible reason to conclude that it is invalid.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Just now
"You’re the only one of us who is making this a contest between science and Christianity. I’m not."

Neither am I.

I consider in both cases, a system of doctrine is credible or discardable according to a mass of data which is available to a single person in overviewable fashion.

"And no—I trust people, so there are a great many things I can “know” without independently verifying."

I trust - usually - the raw data of scientists. If a linguist says "Latin vespa, English wasp, Lithuanian vapsva mean the same thing and come from PIE wospwa, which is also the case for Polish osa, I trust very certainly that all forms of attested languages are what the linguist says they are (in this case I am the linguist saying they are so, since I verified on online dictionaries). But that all came from PIE, that osa necessarily came from PIE wopswa and so on is in the order of conclusions. Not even of classification of data or resuming of them, but conclusions, and in this case going beyond the evidence.

"I know that my great-grandparents immigrated from Naples and Sicily in the 20s—but I’ve never seen any records, I just trust that my grandparents are telling me the truth."

So would I.

But they did not claim to conclude cumbrously to have lived in Naples and Sicily from very indirect evidence gathered in America of the 20's. They claimed to have seen that by direct observation, or a lot of them.

"I know that if I drink hemlock, I’ll die—but I’ve never tested it, on myself or anyone else. I just trust that the information I’ve been given is true."

This is called trusting tradition. The executioners of Socrates could observe it.

"And the entire genesis of Christianity itself is based on trusting the reports of others."

Key word : reports.

I also trust (most of) the scientists on (most of) their direct observations. That is a question of trusting reports.

I do not trust them for conclusions from these, since as philosophers they could be seeing it "with the wrong lenses."

"Or the logic of patristic theology, for that matter: “There are teachings the Apostles taught that were not written down—but we have the writings of men who learned them from the Apostles, or from other men who were trustworthy and had themselves learned from the Apostles, and therefore we believe that these are valid apostolic teachings.”"

And anything in this going beyond directly observable facts are mediated by Christ.

Not as one concluding as a human philosopher, especially not one asking us to take His logic on trust, but as one having observed, as God from eternity.

"No, I’m saying that a reliable correlation between the predictions of a paradigm and observed reality demonstrates a high likelihood that the paradigm is accurate."

That is one way of saying “if A, then B” + “B” = “therefore A”

"If just one prediction of science were demonstrated to be accurate, or even just a few, then that would be very weak evidence."

No, the side from which the demonstrations of accuracy come may be other than the side from which there is inaccuracy of theoreme.

"But when the scientific method (and the human scientific community) consistently yields verifiable results in a variety of diverse instances, then there is no plausible reason to conclude that it is invalid."

Big words. You are talking of "scientific method" when I am talking of angels and God reduced to executing what science would have predicted in absence of them. That part of scientific method has a name : atheistic methodology. It is not that part which gives reliable results.

You are acting like the peasants trusting the priest of Ceres.

[See other part of dialogue in the following:]

b
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Just now
“But I can point to the fact that it worked.”

Space craft have been launched. For you it is a certainty, since you are pretending that conspiracy tgheories are ridiculous. For me it is at least probable.

But have space craft been launched thanks to Heliocentrism, or would Tychonian orbits have worked as well?

A priest of Ceres says “I first sacrifice a goat to Ceres, than pour some blood on wheat grains, then you sow it”

Next few months the peasants saw a harvest. “It worked”

Well, perhaps the part of pouring a goat sacrificed to Ceres was not what worked even if the priest of Ceres wanted them to believe it.

Anthony Zarrella
8m ago
Due to heliocentrism? Probably not, no.

But due to an understanding of Newtonian physics, gravitation, combustion, materials science, aerodynamics, and a dizzying array of other scientific realms of knowledge? Yes. Without those, it wouldn’t have worked.

How can I be sure? Because we have plenty of records of all the failed attempts, plus analysis of what went wrong and what was changed in subsequent attempts to fix those problems.

(And yes, any conspiracy theory that requires more co-conspirators than could fit in an average-sized conference room is utterly implausible. And theory that requires more co-conspirators than could fit in a mid-sized sedan is highly unlikely.)

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Just now
"But due to an understanding of Newtonian physics, gravitation, combustion, materials science, aerodynamics, and a dizzying array of other scientific realms of knowledge? Yes. Without those, it wouldn’t have worked."

Would certainly show some plus for Newtonian version of gravitation over Aritstotelic.

None of gravitation only over angelic actions trump gravitation.

Also none of void over aether.

"any conspiracy theory that requires more co-conspirators than could fit in an average-sized conference room is utterly implausible."

Supposing a very passive co-conspirator had much choice.

See, it is always a question of how many do we need to bribe and how many can't keep silent if bribed. In a government conspiracy in a time with so much psychiatry there is also the option of enforcing silence by declaring someone insane.*

Anthony Zarrella
7m ago
“Would certainly show some plus for Newtonian version of gravitation over Aritstotelic.

None of gravitation only over angelic actions trump gravitation.

Also none of void over aether.”

First, I didn’t claim that that single example would prove every issue in dispute between us.

Second, again, I acknowledge that angels have more than sufficient power to override gravitation. My dispute is whether or not they regularly do so.

As an analogous example: God most assuredly has the power to curse someone with some noxious disease. But most of the time, if I get a cold, it’s because I was exposed to microbes from someone who was already sick—not because God decided I deserved a cold and exercised his immediate (or angelically mediated) divine will to give me one ex nihilo.

“See, it is always a question of how many do we need to bribe and how many can't keep silent if bribed. In a government conspiracy in a time with so much psychiatry there is also the option of enforcing silence by declaring someone insane.”

Leaving aside our continuing disagreement over psychiatry in general… that could be a plausible explanation, if you have some list that I’m unaware of containing all of the hundreds or even thousands of NASA scientists and staff who were suddenly whisked away to involuntary psychiatric treatment facilities in the months or years following the shuttle launches.

Plus all the Russians and Chinese who never disputed that we did actually launch rockets, even though they had both the capabilities to verify and plenty of motive to publicly catch us in a lie.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Just now
"First, I didn’t claim that that single example would prove every issue in dispute between us."

You confused (deliberately?) what was so.

"Second, again, I acknowledge that angels have more than sufficient power to override gravitation. My dispute is whether or not they regularly do so."

You do so regularly when you lift your feet.

"As an analogous example: God most assuredly has the power to curse someone with some noxious disease. But most of the time, if I get a cold, it’s because I was exposed to microbes from someone who was already sick—not because God decided I deserved a cold and exercised his immediate (or angelically mediated) divine will to give me one ex nihilo."

Not analogous at all, since having a cold is something occurring irregularly and with different frequencies.

Stars are moving all the time, our dispute is whether angels doing what gravitation can't is all the time the reason for their movement or whether their movements are all the time motivated by gravitation with angels just executing just that.

Hint : if I am right, the angel guiding the Sun was as miraculous - he did sth the observers had not at all expected - but a lot less mysterious to reason than if you are right.

"Leaving aside our continuing disagreement over psychiatry in general… that could be a plausible explanation, if you have some list that I’m unaware of containing all of the hundreds or even thousands of NASA scientists and staff who were suddenly whisked away to involuntary psychiatric treatment facilities in the months or years following the shuttle launches."

One getting in would be enough to scare the rest.

Plus most employees would not have had to be in the know in the first place.

"Plus all the Russians and Chinese who never disputed that we did actually launch rockets, even though they had both the capabilities to verify and plenty of motive to publicly catch us in a lie."

And no motive across scientists to disprove Aristotle?

Come on, scientific community are suckers for international cooperation. Mir and all that.

Also, did they really have the capability to verify rockets reached Moon with men?

As far as I know, no conspiracy theorist is even saying - and neither am I when entertaining this theory - that no rocket was launched up to higher layers of atmosphere and perhaps even some beyond.

My main reason for not entertaining this so much is, I have in a way abandoned Aristotle and Newtonian version of gravitation is quite enough for Geocentrism, even with angelic movers doing more than gravitation would have done.

III
Hans-Georg Lundahl
1h ago
“ I fail to see any valid reason for attempting to preserve the validity of mere assumptions of prior generations.”

I fail to see any valid reason to preserve the mere assumptions of this generation.

A Young Earth Creationism which did nothing beyond denying billions of years, but accepted each and every assumption behind them would be a truncated Young Earth Creationism - that is why I am a Geocentric.

And a Geocentrism …

Anthony Zarrella
38m ago
We’re not talking about “mere assumptions” of this generation—we’re talking about meticulously-gathered evidence.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
13m ago
The evidence may be meticulously gathered, but it is interpreted through mere assumptions.

How come you think prior generations had any mere assumptions without meticulously gathered evidence?

β
Fergus Hancock
Kepler’s genius centred on his mathematical interpretation of the meticulous planetary observations of Tycho Brahe; finding a regular variation in Mars motion in the sky (once every 1.88 Earth years) was a convincing argument that Mars orbited the Sun, and not the Earth.

Brahe, by the way, was the very last high profile geocentrist astronomer. His argument was that stellar parallax (a very slight apparent motion of nearby stars compared to the galactic background caused by the Earth’s 300 000 000 km displacement to either side of the sun) could not be observed, so the Earth could not orbit the Sun.

Two predictions from two solar system arrangements! Giuseppe Calandrelli was the first to successfully observe the predicted parallactic shift in Alpha Lyrae, then Friedrich Bessell carefully observed and confirmed stellar parallax of ‘nearby’ 61 Cygni in 1838.

Success in science comes from forming experiments and models in order that they will provide for testable predictions. Once those predictions are confirmed or ruled out, it guides scientists into ways of thinking that tests the possible against the observable. In that way, Isaac Newton based his derivation of gravity from Kepler’s equal area law of elliptical planetary orbits.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Just now
Except, you know, the parallax discussed in the 16th C was one which would have shown is approaching or receding from diverse parts of a inner surface of a globe, the sphere of the fix stars.

The actual result is open to two interpretations : parallax in a universe with vastly different distances between the stars - as per current interpretation OR angels moving stars in a way having nothing to do with parallax.

γ
Lots of more comments on original answer. Look them up. On site.

However, I was today, 10.III.2018 wanting to log in again to verify if Zarella had answered more and if Fergus Hancock had answered. I saw a ban, not just on French quora where I had been baited to a Bunny-Bear infraction, but on English at same time. So, today I could not see if debate had gone on to another level or not.