Five Ways, Especially First Way · Found an Answer Unpostable · Back with MagnificentXXBastard
On youtube, perhaps due to length. Also first half was unpostable, though that would on my estimate have been about equal length to the whole I was answering. But this answer is not unpostable here. Btw, it's under II in previous post.
- MagnificentXXBastard
- @Hans-Georg Lundahl
>God moves the universe, or rather what's between solid earth and empyraean heaven, full circle around earth each stellar day.
Not only this spinning motion, but also motions that explain the parallax of stars? How convenient. Kinda looks like God is putting a lot of effort in to make it seem exactly like we are in fact orbiting the sun. Why?
>if fix stars are one light day up
They aren't. The closes stars are more than 4 light YEARS away.
>If your "us" means mainstream astronomers
No, I mean basically almost everyone with any kind of education. You are the first geocentrist I've ever seen lul. Really got us fooled as a species. Making it look EXACTLY like we are spinning around the sun.
>But the more usual reason is, the angels have sth to do
lol.
>If your exclusion of angelic movers is unfalisfiable, it is unscientific?
That is not how it works, lol. First you postulate a theory/hypothesis that is falsifiable before anyone can exclude anything. I don't even know what "exclude" means in this context. I am merely dismissing your unfalsifiable claim you made without any evidence. Because what can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. Nothing unscientific about that. Otherwise literally anyone could make up any unfalsifiable magic explanation he wants and then call people "unscientific" for dismissing it. This is not how science works my man...
Your theory is unfalsifiable. Yes?
Your theory is without any evidence. Yes?
That means it is unscientific and academically worthless. On top of that, it does not even make any predictions that are useful.
>By "unfalsifiable" you do not here mean "unfalsifiable by any means" but "unfalsifiable by means of physical calculations".
No, by "unfalsifiable" i mean "unfalsifiable", as in the scientific definition.
Unable to be shown false. No one can think of any experiment or course of action that could disprove it.
That is the first thing scientists do when they come up with a new hypothesis or theory. They think of how you could disprove it. I see no possibility for your claim to be disproven, maybe you can think of one and show me that it is not unfalsifiable?
>Either the article was sabotaged, or it used a paper by someone who hadn't read Riccioli through.
It's in the description of the front page where there is an image showing it.
>Not the least.
You don't believe Earth is spinning? What about all the experiments that prove it does? Foucalts pendulum? Eötvös effect? Coriolis? Time dilation from relativity?
Another case of God trying to trick us into believing it's spinning through some angel magic and illusion?
Also, how is the rest of the universe spinning so fast? That breaks the speed of light a million times, and would produce completely crazy observations and time dilation.
>I would have added, with more time, that angelic movers do not exclude masses contributing very much to orbits.
The thing is, not contributing to, but entirely determining them.
A heliocentrist can correctly calculate Plutos orbit, velocity, etc. completely correctly by JUST using gravity. That means gravity is the only major force at play here. No angelic movers needed to explain the orbit AT ALL.
Meanwhile, a geocentrist can do none of these calculations, because the model is without predictions and basically useless. There are no calculations for "Angelic movers" in your model, are there?
>And you can calculate the speed and mass of a bike with biker, but not next pedal move or wheel turn.
Sorry, but merely showing that in the heliocentric model where interactions are solely governed by graviation and reelativity all the calcualtions work and produce correct, observation fitting results by using physical laws and universal constants kinda proves that the model is correct. Because how else could this be? If the interactions were governed by some additional angelic force not present in the calculations, we would not get correct results at all and be scratching our heads on what is going on.
Do you understand? So what is your explanation for that? Again God using his mystical powers to once more make it seem like heliocentrism is true and the calcualtions work and planets orbits are merely governed by gravitation and relativity while IN REALITY something COMPLETELY different is going on?
Again, why?
>You have been so far lucky when it comes to Pluto, Mars and Moon. But the masses could also be right.
What are you talking about, lucky? This is not luck, this is mathematics my friend. The gravitation of the planets we observe matches the mass we calculoate from the orbit because the *calculations are correct*. This means that either heliocentrists are correct and the orbits of these planets are merely governed by gravitation/relativity, or some huge illusion or manipulation of math itself is going on here by God.
>Does a biker actually defy the inertial movements of his bike?
??????
This biker example is completely irrelevant and does not make sense at all in this context. A more fitting analogy would be a biker who thinks he is riding a bike along the coast because he sees the sea and his bike, he feels the bike pedals and his muscles, hears the wind, all his senses tell ihm this. Meanwhile in reality he is actually riding an elephant in the jungle and all his senses merely tell him completely different things than whats actually going on.
Absurd.
>That will give you a rough overview, of periodicity
It will literally explain everything and model everything. Not a rough overview. Completely accurate modelling to the minute with merely the numbers for mass and distance as input.
Completely impossible for geocentrists.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Impossible to add
- _"Not only this spinning motion, but also motions that explain the parallax of stars? How convenient. Kinda looks like God is putting a lot of effort in to make it seem exactly like we are in fact orbiting the sun. Why?"_
Seem so to YOUR type?
*And in all seduction of iniquity to them that perish; because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying: That all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity.* II Thess 2:10-11
_"They aren't. The closes stars are more than 4 light YEARS away."_
You missed I had already heard that fake news. If "parallax" isn't parallax, no trigonometry to prove those 4 light years.
_"No, I mean basically almost everyone with any kind of education. You are the first geocentrist I've ever seen lul. Really got us fooled as a species. Making it look EXACTLY like we are spinning around the sun."_
Your experience of "any kind of education" is far from exhaustive. St. Thomas Aquinas had a better education than any of us, and he was a Geocentric.
_"That is not how it works, lol. First you postulate a theory/hypothesis that is falsifiable before anyone can exclude anything."_
According to the science theory of Popper. I am sorry, but I don't hold to the idea of "predict observations" as sole test for theories, I hold to observations already made galore being at least equally relevant. And obviously, the acceptance of Heliocentrism never happened the way you think science should work. St. Robert Bellarmine gave a criterium that was verifiable or falsifiable : if the stars / sphere of fix stars showed or didn't show annual parallax. Note, both he and Galileo were thinking of fix stars as in a thin layer, like the rubber in a balloon.
The parallax implication would then have been for a uniform parallax, Virgo getting as much smaller in Mars as Pisces get smaller in September. That uniform parallax was falsified by Bessel. The observation he made allowed either parallax as real parallax but of stars at different distances, or "parallax" as proper movements, done by angels. He jumped to the conclusion of the former, because Heliocentrism was already the craze and angelic movers already outmoded. There has never since then been any kind of test proposed to see which of the possibilities was right, it has just been assumed Heliocentrism was. Or, rather, on a few occasions, some very few and obscure tests have been proposed which did not prove Heliocentrism as foreseen. Michelson Morley, Airey. And Sagnac related to Michelson Morley - hat tip to Robert Sungenis for this aspect.
_"I don't even know what "exclude" means in this context."_
Exclude as in modus tollendo ponens. "A is either B or C, but A is not B, therefore A is C". As long as you haven't excluded A (as in _B_ essel phenomonen) being B (as in _a_ ngels moving), you haven't proven A is C (as in centrality of sun).
_"I am merely dismissing your unfalsifiable claim you made without any evidence."_
You are in practise excluding a claim you haven't falsified.
_"Because what can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. Nothing unscientific about that."_
The evidence for an explanation is:
* presence of one or more observations needing explanation;
* absence of any observation radically incompatible with it.
_"Otherwise literally anyone could make up any unfalsifiable magic explanation he wants and then call people "unscientific" for dismissing it."_
If you call supernatural explanations "unfalsifiable" you admit not falsifying them, and that is a poor case for dismissing them.
_"This is not how science works my man..."_
I am not impressed of how "science" works overall these days.
_"Your theory is unfalsifiable. Yes?"_
Unless you can prove materialism. A proof for materialism would immediately falsify both God or angels. In fact you haven't got one, hence it's convenient to play the Popper game.
_"Your theory is without any evidence. Yes?"_
No, it has all the evidence needed, until the prima facie appearance of observations is dismissed as a parallactic type optic illusion plus a train ride type illusion of the inner ear sense of balance. And you cannot prove that dismissal without proving Heliocentrism first. Note, it's not whether these types of illusions are possible. They are. I have ridden the train. But you haven't proven Earth is on a train ride.
_"That means it is unscientific and academically worthless. On top of that, it does not even make any predictions that are useful."_
Name one _practical_ use of Heliocentrism?
Oh, you meant useful for the "ivory tower" pursuit of predicting orbits? In fact, mass and distance from the sun is less useful for that than observing them and extrapolating. Let's assume you could _know_ Jupiter's mass is 1/1047 Sun mass. As far as I know no Newton meter has been weighing a kg weight on the surface of Jupiter, unlike Moon or Mars, but let's suppose so. Then observations will give semi major axis 5.2044 AU. _Suppose_ you could easily from that calculate that the periodicity is 11.862 yr and that the excentricity is 0.0489. I doubt it, I think Pluto's excentricity was unforeseen, and I am not sure one could calculate the periodicity without the excentricity. At least, even with known periodicity, a high excentricity would put angles off a bit on observations. But waver that doubt too. Even so, you could not conclude that Jupiter was in Virgo in early September 1968. Because to know that, you would have to know not just periodicity, but also position at a given earlier or later point, and since the observation means a straight line going Virgo, Jupiter, Sun, Earth, you would also have to know Earth's periodicity. But not only that. The two body problem has been solved, with Sun for Earth, for Jupiter and for other givens. With solar system depending on several bodies, you have a many body problem which has not been calculated. It has recently been submitted to computer simulations in China, though I forget the reference.
In fact, this is not just a problem for the pretended predictive power, it is also a problem for Solar System staying together without special design to do so.
_"No, by "unfalsifiable" i mean "unfalsifiable", as in the scientific definition."_
An alternative is not adequately answered by a "no". I take that as "unfalsifiable by means of physical calculations".
_"Unable to be shown false. No one can think of any experiment or course of action that could disprove it."_
Neither means it's wrong, nor that there is no evidence for it.
_"That is the first thing scientists do when they come up with a new hypothesis or theory. They think of how you could disprove it. I see no possibility for your claim to be disproven, maybe you can think of one and show me that it is not unfalsifiable?"_
As said, prove materialism.
For that matter, there are plenty of things that theoretically could falsify geocentrism, if they weren't already falsfied by observations, like finding Sun and Earth on the soil of the ecliptic plane (no such thing) and Sun directly on it (no such thing) and Earth on wheels on trails around Sun (also no such thing). Or observing Earth moving around the Sun through a telescope on Tatooine (apart from that being made up, if actual there is no access to such observations).
That's a far cry from a theory being so intricate all falsification venues are countered. Your heliocentrism is however like that. Observation after observation turns up and instead of reevaluating and saying "stars move with too irregular orbits, though very rhythmically, to be a simple question of inertia and gravitation" you come up with physical explanations after physical explanations to avoid admitting angelic movers.
When two options are available, and one cannot be excluded, the other cannot be confirmed. When no fool proof conclusion can definitely rule out one, the more intuitive one holds. Things moving as we see them move is more intuitive than things seeming to move by a train ride illusion (unless one has other indications one's on a train), and God and angels are to most of mankind historically and geographically more intuitive than materialism.
_"It's in the description of the front page where there is an image showing it."_
Oh, a bad reading of a simplified diagram. Here is how wikipedians now describe that frontispiece of first edition:
// Frontispiece of Riccioli's 1651 New Almagest. Mythological figures observe the heavens with a telescope and weigh the heliocentric theory of Copernicus in a balance against his modified version of Tycho Brahe's geo-heliocentric system, in which the Sun, Moon, Jupiter, and Saturn orbit the Earth while Mercury, Venus, and Mars orbit the Sun. The old Ptolemaic geocentric theory lies discarded on the ground, made obsolete by the telescope's discoveries. These are illustrated at top and include phases of Venus and Mercury and a surface feature on Mars (left), moons of Jupiter, rings of Saturn, and features on the Moon (right). The balance tips in favor of Riccioli's "Tychonic" system. //
_"You don't believe Earth is spinning?"_
We don't see it spin, nor do we see a place which we could pin down as certainly not spinning around us and from which our impression of non-spin could be corrected to parallactic perception of spin by those on spinning object.
_"What about all the experiments that prove it does? Foucalts pendulum? Eötvös effect? Coriolis? Time dilation from relativity?"_
Foucault's pendulum : God moves the aether around us each day. Coriolis, dito.
Eötvös - arguably how aether accounts for Geostationary satellites.
Time dilation - not sure if observed, and if given observations seem to confirm it, it could be about the clocks.
_"Another case of God trying to trick us into believing it's spinning through some angel magic and illusion?"_
Another case of your mistaking your culture for mankind's general condition. God owes mankind truth, not to people who arbitrarily erect false criteria and misjudge observations by them.
_"Also, how is the rest of the universe spinning so fast? That breaks the speed of light a million times, and would produce completely crazy observations and time dilation."_
No earth orbitting - no real parallax - no such stellar distances. All is compatible with stars being one light day up. This makes the local movement of a star through the day 6.28 light days per day = 6.28 times speed of light. However, most of that would be star moving with aether and it is only star moving through aether that counts with respect to this time limit.
[I could add, if he meant causality of spin, it is God turning it around us. This is a classic aspect of First Way of St. Thomas, and understood as such by Riccioli, who, not believing an aether but only individual celestial bodies moving west, moved by angels, dismissed it.]
_"The thing is, not contributing to, but entirely determining them."_
At least not independently on initial conditions on how different bodies line up. But even with that minimalising, this exclusion of angelic movers is unknowable and only possible at the price of heliocentrism, ie of inverting the observations.
_"A heliocentrist can correctly calculate Plutos orbit, velocity, etc. completely correctly by JUST using gravity. That means gravity is the only major force at play here. No angelic movers needed to explain the orbit AT ALL."_
You again forget, however many or few of the planets have had their mass checked, the masses were calculated from observed orbits before any checks.
_"Meanwhile, a geocentrist can do none of these calculations, because the model is without predictions and basically useless. There are no calculations for "Angelic movers" in your model, are there?"_
Yes, that they are able to make spirograph patterns of Tychonic orbits in an acrobatic way which would be beyond purely Newtonian factors. And those spirograph patterns are what we observe.
_"Sorry, but merely showing that in the heliocentric model where interactions are solely governed by graviation and reelativity all the calcualtions work and produce correct, observation fitting results by using physical laws and universal constants kinda proves that the model is correct. Because how else could this be?"_
I perhaps already mentioned, any purely physical movement could be mimicked with a willed movement.
_"If the interactions were governed by some additional angelic force not present in the calculations, we would not get correct results at all and be scratching our heads on what is going on."_
How so? First of all, angels don't move matter by vectors. But by will. Second, the thing I posit is the small quirks that make strictly Tychonian or rather Ricciolian orbits possible (with the acrobatic spirograph patterns, you know).
_"Do you understand?"_
I understand that you misanalyse angelic movers as additional vector.
_"So what is your explanation for that?"_
That you misanalyse it/
_"Again God using his mystical powers to once more make it seem like heliocentrism is true and the calcualtions work and planets orbits are merely governed by gravitation and relativity while IN REALITY something COMPLETELY different is going on? / Again, why?"_
That geocentrism is going on (and that this requires supernatural movers) is apparent to ALL of mankind from direct observation. A certain portion of it has been brainwashed by modern school to dismiss this direct appearance as a "train ride illusion".
_"What are you talking about, lucky? This is not luck, this is mathematics my friend."_
Mathematics can be misapplied.
_"The gravitation of the planets we observe matches the mass we calculoate from the orbit because the *calculations are correct*."_
I didn't claim anyone bungled their arithmetic.
_"This means"_
No, it doesn't.
_"that either heliocentrists are correct and the orbits of these planets are merely governed by gravitation/relativity, or some huge illusion or manipulation of math itself is going on here by God."_
Illusion, no. Manipulation, yes, but not of maths, but of orbits.
[To those we see, not to those we do not see.]
_"?????? This biker example is completely irrelevant and does not make sense at all in this context."_
In the context of a planet having its inertia and its gravitation into the sun and getting _some corners_ of Tychonian orbits _correctly turned_ due to regulation of these factors by an angelic mover, the biker whose ride is _mostly_ determined by mass of himself and bike and velocity already obtained, as well as inclination of surface and smoothness and wind, but where _some_ things are regulated to keep him from falling by his twitching a pedal or turning a wheel slightly when needed is a fairly perfect fit.
_"A more fitting analogy would be a biker who thinks he is riding a bike along the coast because he sees the sea and his bike, he feels the bike pedals and his muscles, hears the wind, all his senses tell ihm this. Meanwhile in reality he is actually riding an elephant in the jungle and all his senses merely tell him completely different things than whats actually going on."_
You are misinterpreting "angels" as referring to "men". We are the observers, I am talking of what can produce the effects.
_"It will literally explain everything and model everything. Not a rough overview. Completely accurate modelling to the minute with merely the numbers for mass and distance as input."_
You can't have a complete accurate modelling to the minute without knowing WHERE at a given number of minutes earlier or later a planet actually was. Impossible. But that knowledge does not depend on mass and distance from sun, therefore it has to be taken from, you get it, observations.
_"Completely impossible for geocentrists."_
We can observe too. And extrapolate from observations.
