Back with MagnificentXXBastard

Five Ways, Especially First Way · Found an Answer Unpostable · Back with MagnificentXXBastard

Added, and now the answers could be posted:

MagnificentXXBastard

@Hans-Georg Lundahl > Seem so to YOUR type?

No, to every type. Which is why as we gather more and more knowledge about nature, this ha become the prominent and basically universally agreed model of our solar system. Cause it's the only one that makes sense and is completely consistent with the laws of nature and our observations, and it requires no suspension of disbelief in angels, magic etc. which you claim move everything, but do it so that it is literally undetectable by any means and still makes it look like only the laws of physics are at work since they describe the system perfectly, which SHOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE if there are "angelic forces" at work, influencing the system.

>That all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity.

Fucking LMAO, nice God, making everything look like it's just gravity using his magic to fool pretty much everyone, and then when people don't believe it's actually invisible angels moving the planets he "judges" them. Wow.

Sorry, we are never going back to geocentrism unless you find some proof for your angels, lol.

>If "parallax" isn't parallax, no trigonometry to prove those 4 light years.

There are other ways to prove distance like supernovae which blows your entire argument out of the water, but still funny. ANOTHER case of God using magic to make it look exactly like we have parallax be moving all stars JUST SO haha. I bet you are just going to say he makes the supernovae look like they are really far away too, huh?
Convenient!

>St. Thomas Aquinas had a better education than any of us

For his time maybe. By todays standards?
Doubtful. Pretty sure a highschool graduate knows more about how the world works, math, science, etc. than this guy.

>I don't hold to the idea of "predict observations" as sole test for theories

Yeah, then you're not doing science my buddy. If your theories and models DO NOT predict anything, they are useless. If they are unfalsifiable also, they are useless and unscientific. This is ridiculous if this is supposed to be your scientific foundation for contesting the heliocentric model of our solar system that is
1) supported by immense quantities of evidence
2) has perfect predictive quality
3) neatly ties into and uses other scientific theories and laws of anture.
4) Is completely falsifiable, yet has never been falsified.

> You are in practise excluding a claim you haven't falsified.

Because it is literally UNFALSIFIABLE. Propose an experiment to disprove angel magic please?
Unfalsifiable statements are not science and not to be taken seriously. What can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. Sorry.

>The evidence for an explanation is:
* presence of one or more observations needing explanation;
* absence of any observation radically incompatible with it.


????
What does that even mean?
Of course nothing is imcompatible with your claim, it is an UNFALSIFIABLE claim. I can right now say that a magical blue teacup named jerry living in the center of the sun makes everything move in crazy zigzag lines all over the universe, but he just manipulates the light and gravity to make it SEEM like everything is normal, and he stops when we get close to check.

Unfalsifiable. No evidence. No predictions -> useless
ust like your angel claim. Now, would you dismiss my explanation?

MagnificentXXBastard

@Hans-Georg Lundahl No, it has all the evidence needed

If by "all the evidence it needs" you mean "no evidence", then yes. If not, no.
Simply saying all observations we make of parallax are illusions caused by angel magic is not proof in any wy that angel magic exists and moves planets.
Do you not see how ridiculous you sound? Honestly? You use fancy words and latin, but what you are saying is ridiculous drivel to the bone. How can you not see that? There is a reason nobody takes geocentists seriously anymore, you know?
Have you ever critically evaluated your beliefs and thought about how everybody laughs at your ideas and if all this is not just wishfull thinking?

>you would have to know not just periodicity, but also position at a given earlier or later point

Exactly, you got it. All we need is an initial position and some data, and from that we can use all our entirely scientific, non magic containing formulas to predict it's movement completely, which fits observation.
This, btw, should not be possible if there were angelic forces affecting it's orbit in addition to natural forces. Except of course magical illusion or whatever.

A geocentrist can do no such thing. You have no equations, no predictions. Orbital mechanics work, my man. Our equations and understanding of orbital mechanics allows us to launch sattelites, gravity-slingshot off planets, send probes out of the solar system looking back etc.

> it is also a problem for Solar System staying together without special design to do so.

Why would any of this be a problem for the solar system staying together. It's not "pretended" predictive power btw, it is actual predictive power. Because, you know, it accurately predicts reality? Which is what spacefaring relies upon?

> I take that as "unfalsifiable by means of physical calculations".

No, unfalsifiable by ANY means. If it is falsifiable, name me a way to falsify it. Go ahead. I'm waiting.

>For that matter, there are plenty of things that theoretically could falsify geocentrism

No, there aren't, at least not your version of it.
You could always chalk it up to illusion and angel magic. As you did with everything i brought up so far. Nothing magic can't do after all.

>That's a far cry from a theory being so intricate all falsification venues are countered

Doesn't have to be intricate. Just say "it's a miracle" to every counterargument. Thats what you have been doing.

>"stars move with too irregular orbits, though very rhythmically, to be a simple question of inertia and gravitation"

This is not true, stars movements are perfectly explained with gravity and inertia.

>When two options are available, and one cannot be excluded, the other cannot be confirmed.

Yeah sorry, but you simply have no idea how science works, because this is not it. I can think of infinite unfalsifiable and ridiculous theories about how planets move, doesn't mean they have to be all falsified until we accept the real explanation as true.

>and God and angels are to most of mankind historically and geographically more intuitive than materialism.

No longer bro, sorry. "Historically people believe in God and angel magic so this is more likely correct" is also not a scientific argument my man.

>God moves the aether around us each day. Coriolis, dito.

There is no aether, this is an antiquated idea about electromagnetic waves. You are a couple years to late for the discovery of the photon. Moreover, even the historical theory of aether does not explain foucaults pendulum, because the aether does not interact with gravity, mass, inertia etc. but with electromagnetic waves as their medium.

So no, even the aether does not explain this. The only explanation is us siting on a spinning ball. Or you can just use "angel magic" to once again dismiss anything contradicting your system.

>Another case of your mistaking your culture for mankind's general condition

Yeah sorry, not many people left who believe the earth isn't spinning. Especially in the christian countries. Guess we all going to hell, huh? God really tricked us on that one, making foucalts pendulum work making it seem like earth is spinning, but instead actually spinning some invisible, intangible, magical aether around it that casues everything to look like Earth is in fact spinning.

This is what i mean by unfalsifiable, no matter how damning the evidence, you just make up a magic explanation up.

> 6.28 times speed of light.

Yeah sorry, but no. Another case of magic making faster than lightspeed possible to save your failing model? You're like a guy with a bathtub full of holes smacking your magic tape over every single one lol.

>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.

And they are CORRECT every time. Completely correct. What are you waiting for, lmao. Don't hold your breath for one not being what we expected.

>Yes, that they are able to make spirograph patterns of Tychonic orbit

Anyone can draw a line following the movement. A kid can do it. I am talking about calculations here. Just using some data like mass etc. on the celestial body and an initial position, and then go, calculate the orbits. Predict the position. Launch a probe there and gravity-slingshot off the planet.
Can't do that with your model. Cause you got no math.

>any purely physical movement could be mimicked with a willed movement.

What does that even mean? Another magical "just so" story about how angel magic makes it look "just so" as if only physcial forces were at work?

>angels don't move matter by vectors. But by will.

That statement does not make sense. Any movement through space contains a vector. That's what movement is. If the angel is adding something or overriding some of the natural forces governing the movement of a celestial body, THE CALCULATIONS WOULD NO LONGER BE CORRECT.

I don't know what "quirks" you mean but the movement of all celestial bodies is perfectly explained by natural forces with no need for angels to be quirky.

>is apparent to ALL of mankind from direct observation.

Maybe a couple thousand years ago. No longer though, sorry. When we started building better and better telescopes that worldview crumbled, it shattered when we discovered gravity and is long dead as we launch sattelites to space and slingshot probes of distant planets using gravity.

> Mathematics can be misapplied.

It is not here. Explain what you mean and how that invalidates the statement i made earlier.

> Illusion, no. Manipulation, yes, but not of maths, but of orbits.

Again, simple logic:

If God was manipulating orbits, he has to do that by changing the laws governing those planets, or add momentum to them, or some other way to change their behaviour to be different from purely physical causes.

Now, that means the orbit could NOT be calculated using purely physical methods. It simply could not. The theory of gravity and relativity would neither be able to correctly explain the movement of the planets nor predict it.

Do you understand that?

>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.

Still does not make sense. For one, the changes would not be minimal, they would be massive. A huge amount of force or manipulation is needed to supercede gravity and make the sun rotate around the earth.

> We can observe too. And extrapolate from observations.

You can't do the last part though. Merely showing you an initial position and some data about mass would not enable you to make any predictions and extrapolations. An astrophycisist though, no problem.

See the difference?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@MagnificentXXBastard Thematically rearranged.

Discussion of possibility of an angelic explanation:

"Because it is literally UNFALSIFIABLE. Propose an experiment to disprove angel magic please?"
"No, unfalsifiable by ANY means. If it is falsifiable, name me a way to falsify it. Go ahead. I'm waiting."

No angels, no magic, etc would be verified in a world with no mind, including yours and mine. With no language either. There would be no one to conclude the falsification had taken place, but it would have.

"Doesn't have to be intricate. Just say "it's a miracle" to every counterargument. Thats what you have been doing."

Not exactly. Intentionality and miraculousness are not the same.

Angels are involved in miracles proper, like parting of the Red Sea, but they are also involved in the ordinary operations of nature. Including the very regular astronomic ones, and - perhaps mostly fallen angels - the atmospheric ones as well.

"No longer bro, sorry. "Historically people believe in God and angel magic so this is more likely correct" is also not a scientific argument my man."

You are missing that mankind today does not consist of 7 billion Westerners and Westerners do not consist of the 600 million No Religion. The position I take is, science belief cannot philosophically banish as non-sense something most of mankind considers as sensible.

"What does that even mean? Another magical "just so" story about how angel magic makes it look "just so" as if only physcial forces were at work?"

No. The thing is, there is nothing that spontaneously looks to all of mankind like only physical forces are at work. However, supposing you can explain observations that way, this is, for named reason, no refutation of willed movements.

"That statement does not make sense. Any movement through space contains a vector."

Any movement through the aether.

"That's what movement is."

Movements of objects with masses through the aether certainly do contain vectors. My point is, angels don't have to use such to cause such.

"If the angel is adding something or overriding some of the natural forces governing the movement of a celestial body, THE CALCULATIONS WOULD NO LONGER BE CORRECT."

Shout a little louder will you? It's the same proposition by which energy at disposition for the body has been proposed as ruling out that the mind moves anything even a little bit other than as an alias of purely material causalities. While movements done by persons of human nature don't normally (excepting miraculous exceptions) exceed calories available in a body, we must assume something is moved apart from by vectors to explain how free will moves our either fingers on a key board or tongues in speech.

"I don't know what "quirks" you mean but the movement of all celestial bodies is perfectly explained by natural forces with no need for angels to be quirky."

First heliocentric prediction : earth moves, stars don't. Stars will show parallax if observed with a sufficiently good resolution.

First quirk : hey, the phenomenon of alpha Draconis is so evenly distributed, it's probably aberration of light instead.
Second quirk : proper movements have been observed.
Third quirk : pulsars.
Fourth quirk : Chambler's wobble.
Fifth quirk : the other wobble.
Sixth quirk : redshift. Different from red-filtering.

All of above have modified the initial prediction and some still won't get "hey, perhaps there someone alive out there!"

"If God was manipulating orbits, he has to do that by changing the laws governing those planets,"

No. He would have made the laws and He would also have made the non-physical parts of them.

"or add momentum to them, or some other way to change their behaviour to be different from purely physical causes."

Or turn the aether in which they move around earth. Without that adding any momentum, since it is in the aether momentum occurs.

"Now, that means the orbit could NOT be calculated using purely physical methods. It simply could not. The theory of gravity and relativity would neither be able to correctly explain the movement of the planets nor predict it. Do you understand that?"

I understand perfectly that that is your half learned view of it. The kind of half learning I'd expect from a shrink, as well as the bad manners I'd expect of him. It is bad manners to adress the words "[d]o you understand that?" to an adult.

"You can't do the last part though. ... See the difference?"

What I can do personally is irrelevant. I am not called Riccioli.

"Still does not make sense. For one, the changes would not be minimal, they would be massive. A huge amount of force or manipulation is needed to supercede gravity and make the sun rotate around the earth."

Earth staying still might be the one example. For a Tychonian orbit of say Jupiter, minimal changes would be adequate.

Sun is not constrained by gravity from moving around the Zodiac if so moved by an angel, as we see the Sun so move.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@MagnificentXXBastard and:

Discussion of proof:

"What does that even mean?"

I'll examplify:

The evidence for an explanation like blood circulation (see Harvey) is:
* presence of one or more observations needing explanation, like pushing on veins stems blood flow;
* absence of any observation radically incompatible with it, like opening veins releasing air would have proven the pre-Harvey theory.

Discussion of the proof status of geocentrism:

"I can right now say that a magical blue teacup named jerry living in the center of the sun makes everything move in crazy zigzag lines all over the universe, but he just manipulates the light and gravity to make it SEEM like everything is normal, and he stops when we get close to check."

Unlike geocentrism, not born out by observations, as they directly seem to apply. Unlike God moving aether and angelic movers moving stars, not born out indirectly, via heliocentrism either. [I meant geocentrism]

It is heliocentrism that makes claims about things being very other than the normal they seem.

"Simply saying all observations we make of parallax are illusions caused by angel magic is not proof in any wy that angel magic exists and moves planets."
"Yeah sorry, not many people left who believe the earth isn't spinning. Especially in the christian countries. Guess we all going to hell, huh? God really tricked us on that one, making foucalts pendulum work making it seem like earth is spinning, but instead actually spinning some invisible, intangible, magical aether around it that casues everything to look like Earth is in fact spinning."

You don't know the subject. It's calling it a parallax that makes it an optic illusion, like the one that makes trees seem to fly past the train you are in. Angelic movers = the movements happen precisely where they seem to happen. No illusion.

"Maybe a couple thousand years ago. No longer though, sorry. When we started building better and better telescopes that worldview crumbled, it shattered when we discovered gravity and is long dead as we launch sattelites to space and slingshot probes of distant planets using gravity."

You are misconstruing what in the "current" world view of your "we" is observation and what is world view. To this date, every observation is geocentric, except a few luno-centric, marto-centric, soho-centric, mir-centric and a few very narrow, no longer available views from Voyager (their cameras are turned off). Plus a few close views on planets.

Riccioli is also not a couple thousand years ago. Nor is baron René le Roy.

You show the level of Dunning Kruger on the subject that I would expect from a shrink.

"Exactly, you got it. All we need is an initial position and some data, and from that we can use all our entirely scientific, non magic containing formulas to predict it's movement completely, which fits observation."

Thank you, but the initial position was not among the things you proposed. It is also available to geocentrism. And since previous positions form a pattern, it is applicable for predicting future observations. As to "completely" that is imagining there will be no new discoveries which will prompt heliocentrics to new proposed models to account for movements observed somewhat mismatching predictions.

"There is no aether, this is an antiquated idea about electromagnetic waves."

Saying "the idea is antiquated" is neither scientifically nor philosophically a refutation.

"You are a couple years to late for the discovery of the photon."

Photons and electrons could be ripples in the aether.

"Moreover, even the historical theory of aether does not explain foucaults pendulum, because the aether does not interact with gravity, mass, inertia etc. but with electromagnetic waves as their medium."

To me it would also be the medium of Newtonian vectors.

"So no, even the aether does not explain this."

Except with my extension.

"The only explanation is us siting on a spinning ball. Or you can just use "angel magic" to once again dismiss anything contradicting your system."

Nothing contradicting it, and aether isn't moved around earth by angels, but by God (recall : it reaches up to sphere of fix stars).

"Yeah sorry, but no. Another case of magic making faster than lightspeed possible to save your failing model? You're like a guy with a bathtub full of holes smacking your magic tape over every single one lol."

With "speed of light" being in relation to aether the speed limit, and with aether not being limited, no problem. Rename aether "space time" and there are Einsteinians who will jump to that hope of a future faster than light space travel (I don't).

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@MagnificentXXBastard Forgot one:

"There are other ways to prove distance like supernovae which blows your entire argument out of the water, but still funny. ANOTHER case of God using magic to make it look exactly like we have parallax be moving all stars JUST SO haha. I bet you are just going to say he makes the supernovae look like they are really far away too, huh?"

No, supernovae are not another way independent of parallax, but the distance proofs from supernovae depend on supposedly proven distances supposedly so by parallax.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@MagnificentXXBastard And one more:

"This is not true, stars movements are perfectly explained with gravity and inertia."

Not if we include all of the movements actually observed. Like the ones you put down to an illusion called "parallax" - same type as with trees moving outside train window.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@MagnificentXXBastard And one more:

"Doubtful. Pretty sure a highschool graduate knows more about how the world works, math, science, etc. than this guy."

In terms of number of facts, including merely supposed so, probably. Unless you include subjects outside "natural science" as now delimited.

In terms of how to evaluate proof - no way!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

added later

@MagnificentXXBastard AND two more.

First a retraction. I said supernovas used to calculate distances depend on parallax. Might not be true, though many other non-parallax do. The basis is, one presumes one knows the real speed for the spread of a corona around the area of the previous star. Then the apparent speed is used to calculate distance.

It still involves presuming one knows something which one cannot know, and here again, angelic movers will do : it's a very pretty firework, and why deny them artistry?

Second, I was a bit flustered by your use of "do you understand this" so I missed the weakness of your argument.

An angel has no mass. An angel may produce vectors indirectly through moving an object, but moves it himself by will and not by vectors. This means the presence of the angel is in no way a permanent extra needing physical accounting for.

Your idea, if an angel adds something ever, we don't get what we calculate, guess what - it might exactly precisely be the difference between what a heliocentric Newtonian calculates and what we geocentrically observe, the exact thing needed to make for instance a retrograde literally occur in the aether rather than be a parallactic illusion in empty space coordinates, as claimed.