A Video with Danny Faulkner, a Debate with YouToobeism

What is the Light-Travel Time Proble? And what about the Big Bang? Dr. Danny Faulkner
25th Apr. 2020 | Is Genesis History?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8of30xglU4w

I

debate.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

3:31 If all the fix stars are either 1 light day away, or between 1 and 2 light days, Adam and Eve could see all the stars except those that are too small. They were created 2 days earlier.

If Geocentrism holds true, then parallax is not rightly so named and so the star distances are falsely based and 1 light day up is feasible.

YouToobeism

@Hans-Georg Lundahl said "If all the fix stars [are within 2 light days].....". And if pigs could fly. Just because you have a dream, does not make it a reality. The nearest star our solar system is Proxima Centauri at about 4.24 light years distant. Astronomers never frame distances in light-days, but rather billions of miles. You are wasting your time when you introduce angels to move celestial objects to fit your personal needs.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@YouToobeism As in astronomers are God omniscient, and disagreeing with them is disagreeing with God?

Or what are you talking about?

We can observe pigs at very close range, they don't fly. We can't observe fix stars at very close range or from different angles and we can't observe angels at all, so how do you manage to rule it out?

How about arguing instead of giving a bad comparison and an ad hominem disguised as psychoanalysis (your final five words)?

+ @YouToobeism I'll be back tomorrow, God willing and circumstances permitting, so take your time to find an actual argument!

YouToobeism

@Hans-Georg Lundahl , the point being made is that by saying "I think angels move the celestial canopy" or that all stars visible in the celestial doom are less than 2 light-days away does not make it so. First you have to provide proof more convincing than that in place from the community of astronomers of a movable celestial dome, including its stars, proof that they are no more than 2 light-days away and then you have to prove the existence of angels capable of moving those stars in that dome. Your posts seem to imply "I think, therefore it is so". And without any reason why it is so other than wild hypotheses. Light on facts and heavy on conjecture leaves me unconvinced of your premises.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@YouToobeism "the point being made is that by saying "I think angels move the celestial canopy""

Did not say those words nor write those words. I think God moves the aether (from fix stars down to oceans) from East to West each day - and that angels move individual celestial bodies, as for all planets, including Sun and Moon, from West to East in slower movement.

"or that all stars visible in the celestial doom are less than 2 light-days away does not make it so."

Fine, my thinking so doesn't make it so, your thinking the opposite doesn't make it the opposite.

"First you have to provide proof more convincing than that in place from the community of astronomers"

The community of astronomers are NOT providing any convincing proof. How I argue that? Instead of citing the proof they provide, you prefer citing their social prestige as "community of astronomers".

"of a movable celestial dome, including its stars, proof that they are no more than 2 light-days away and then you have to prove the existence of angels capable of moving those stars in that dome."

Observation -> Geocentrism is true -> Orbits are too complex to exist without voluntary movers.
Biblical history (based on observation) -> Adam saw the stars, which were created two days before -> the stars were one or two light days away.

You seem to prefer the opposite:

Angels don't exist -> Geocentric orbits are impossibly complex -> Heliocentrism is true -> "Parallax" is really parallactic -> Gives us distances like four light years -> Give us a distance / apparent size relation -> Give us more distances -> Give us distances beyond Biblical history.

Now, I think observation and Biblical history are very much saner starting points than an a priori negative like "angels don't exist" and that one is certainly a position limited to non-Christians, as here I would have taken an internal discussion with Christians.

"You posts seem to imply "I think, therefore it is so"."

No, it doesn't.

"And without any reason why it is so other than wild hypotheses. Light on facts and heavy on conjecture leaves me unconvinced of your premises."

Observation = facts, "angels don't exist" = conjecture. You are projecting. BY THE WAY .... just in case you are a shrink based on France who uses an umpteenth screen name to harrass me with what sounds to outsiders like debate but where I detect the assumption that YOU are the judge of how reasonable I am, YOU are the one person (with your little cotterie of peers) whom I should try to convince, chuck it!

+ @YouToobeism Other reason for my suspicion, you didn't cite my position from my actual words, but from what seems to be the resumés internal to a cotterie discussing me - and there is a certain profession which would do precisely that.

YouToobeism

@Hans-Georg Lundahl said "Fine, my thinking so doesn't make it so, your thinking the opposite doesn't make it the opposite." I understand that your desire is to make the world you see around you fit the origin story of the bible. That's fine, as it is your faith. But for men trained in scientific methods (state a premise, give a hypothesis, try to disprove that hypothesis, failing that state a theory of how things work), such as Dr. Danny Faulkner, to abandon that rigor and substitute "because that is how I read the bible", is counter-productive to thousands of years of scientific discovery and advancement. (The PC or smartphone you are using right now did not come about through faith, but rather scientific discovery not even remotely alluded to in the bible).

My thinking that the only star within 4 light years (23,000,000,000 miles) of us is the Sun and that not since Kepler (a very religious man as well as insightful thinker) proved 500 years ago through careful observation and smart thinking that the known planets of our solar system revolve around the sun in elliptical orbits, have learned men considered the complex contradictions of geocentrism to be a viable alternative to heliocentrism. So I am not trying to have it my way because of my interpretation of my bible....er, brain. I am merely agreeing with the general consensus among astronomers with professional training and tools that we live in a solar system ruled by Newtonian physics and informed by Einstein's theory of general relativity. I think I stand on much firmer ground than saying angels move the planets. For example, does a generous reading of the bible predict solar eclipses, as the community of astronomers have predicted will occur on Dec 4th in South Africa? Did you have an opportunity to see the total solar eclipse cast its shadow across the breadth of the U.S. in 2017? Who predicted that event; astronomers or biblical scholars?

It seems that the retired "scientists" appearing in the "Is Genesis History" series have abandoned the training that earned them advanced degrees. And they fail to prove their new theories of "rapid sedimentation", "super-rapid radioactive decay" and super, super, super, super, super fast speed of light (that went back to normal in the second week after creation) using any scientific rigor. They state a few facts, being careful to not mention the millions of years (or light-years) related to those facts and then let Del Tackett interject, "Gee this must be due to the wonder of creation week (or Noah's flood) or some other biblical note. Very disingenuous.

Just as Kepler's theories have born the test of time, Hubble's discovery of the red-shift of the galaxies in the late 1920s, indicating an ever-expanding universe, filled with billions of galaxies (not just one), have shown that scientific discovery has taken us to an understanding and an advancement that the writers of the bible could not have comprehended (or cared about). For those of us living in the 21st century we are better served to believe in the god of our heart as we see fit, but to not abandon the scientific rigor that brought us the nice things we enjoy. We must nurture and applaud the thirst for more discovery as it leads to better understanding of how our world works and improves the lot of humanity.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@YouToobeism "I understand that your desire is to make the world you see around you fit the origin story of the bible. That's fine, as it is your faith."

Right off the bat you skirt away from my success in promoting my "desire" by actually arguing.

"But for men trained in scientific methods (state a premise, give a hypothesis, try to disprove that hypothesis, failing that state a theory of how things work),"

Next, you give another version of an ad hominem, where the question is of someone else being so superior to me in science. AND you still don't show you have one even minimal glimpse of how proofs go in astronomy.

"such as Dr. Danny Faulkner, to abandon that rigor and substitute "because that is how I read the bible", is counter-productive to thousands of years of scientific discovery and advancement."

Most of these millennia were prior to Popper coming up with scientific method being // state a premise, give a hypothesis, try to disprove that hypothesis, failing that state a theory of how things work // except he arguably didn't start with "state a premiss" as that is part of syllogism, not his scientific method.

"(The PC or smartphone you are using right now did not come about through faith, but rather scientific discovery not even remotely alluded to in the bible)."

a n d
another example of skirting away from the actual issues ... the PC I am using didn't come about through faith in light years either as to stellar distances. It came about by science concerned with there here (as opposed to up in the sky) and now (as opposed to when Neanderthals lived).

"My thinking that the only star within 4 light years (23,000,000,000 miles) of us is the Sun and that not since Kepler (a very religious man as well as insightful thinker) proved 500 years ago through careful observation and smart thinking that the known planets of our solar system revolve around the sun in elliptical orbits, have learned men considered the complex contradictions of geocentrism to be a viable alternative to heliocentrism."

You are actually wrong on history of ideas. First, Kepler didn't prove the earth moved in an elliptical orbit around the sun, he presumed it. Second, Riccioli accepts his elliptic orbits - as an emendation of Tychonian Geocentrism. Kepler died in 1630 and Riccioli wrote in the 1650's. Third, it took reference to Newtonian mechanistic ideology and to the supposition Selenites and Martians would as much feel Moon and Mars as immobile centre of the universe as we do with earth, and this was a propaganda still ongoing in the time of Euler when he wrote to a Prussian Princess on mathematical issues.

"So I am not trying to have it my way because of my interpretation of my bible....er, brain. I am merely agreeing with the general consensus among astronomers with professional training and tools"

Their tools are great when it comes to make observations. Their training however involves a trap as to ideological closemindedness.

"that we live in a solar system ruled by Newtonian physics and informed by Einstein's theory of general relativity."

But the Newtonian physics cannot be observed directly; only from its results. Dito for Einstein's relativity.

"I think I stand on much firmer ground than saying angels move the planets."

Actually not. Angels cannot be observed (usually) any more than Newtonian vectors.
However, with angels our direct observations are possible as they stand, with Newtonian / Einsteinian only, apart from Sungenis, most of those who understand that math better than I do agree that it would doom us to reinterpret our sense data as basically the inverse of the real movements.

"For example, does a generous reading of the bible predict solar eclipses, as the community of astronomers have predicted will occur on Dec 4th in South Africa? Did you have an opportunity to see the total solar eclipse cast its shadow across the breadth of the U.S. in 2017? Who predicted that event; astronomers or biblical scholars?"

To predict that kind of thing, you might have an advantage as an astronomer. Since astronomers make tables for Sun and Moon along the ecliptic (popularily known as zodiac). However, the astronomer who believes Newton-Einstein only is at not advantage over the astronomer who believes in angelic movers.

"It seems that the retired "scientists" appearing in the "Is Genesis History" series have abandoned the training that earned them advanced degrees."

They have certainly abandoned some parts of it - like anti-theistic and anti-Biblical bias.

"And they fail to prove their new theories of "rapid sedimentation","

What was the name of that French physicist who had shown rapid layering into wharves in flume experiments ... it seems his work has become lots less accessible now, I can't find it.

""super-rapid radioactive decay" "

Heard of Chernobyl? Or of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

"and super, super, super, super, super fast speed of light (that went back to normal in the second week after creation) using any scientific rigor."

But this fast speed of light is exactly what I disagree on : if the fix stars are one, max two light days up, each of them could be seen by Adam (at least if he had had a telescope) from day six, with our normal speed of light.

"They state a few facts, being careful to not mention the millions of years (or light-years) related to those facts and then let Del Tackett interject, "Gee this must be due to the wonder of creation week (or Noah's flood) or some other biblical note. Very disingenuous."

They do in fact talk of the millions of years, and debunk them. And if they don't debunk the millions of light years in this video, I do so.

"Just as Kepler's theories have born the test of time,"

... among gentle, civilised scientists who argue rationally and have no connection to any religious conflicts in the world around them ...? Do you believe Jules Verne gives a sociologically correct view of engineers too?

Come on! Newtonianism was heavily promoted from the Free Mason Desaguyliers, who on top of that was the son of a persecuted Huguenot. Partiality to own nearly-brothers and animosity to the men who condemned Galileo could have nothing to do with this supposed "test of time"?

"Hubble's discovery of the red-shift ... in the late 1920s,"

Yes

"red-shift ... of the galaxies"

This is no longer his observation, but part of his conclusion.

"indicating an ever-expanding universe, filled with billions of galaxies (not just one),"

Again, parts of his conclusion, and having good instruments doesn't make your logic infallible.

"have shown that scientific discovery has taken us to an understanding and an advancement"

Not really. Yet another exotic theory, with tenuous relation to the observations it is supposed to come from.

"that the writers of the bible could not have comprehended (or cared about)."

Hydrogen and water molecules have been fairly arguably observed by spectrography. In space. And Moses wrote of "waters above the firmament" and with his terminology, hydrogen would qualify as water.

"For those of us living in the 21st century"

I have a nostalgia for life in the Renaissance and Middle Ages ... and detect an unattractive whiff of chronological snobbery.

"we are better served to believe in the god of our heart as we see fit, but to not abandon the scientific rigor that brought us the nice things we enjoy."

Both nice and nasty things we enjoy or suffer from come from observable tests - sth which cannot be applied to science at a distance in either space or time.

"We must nurture and applaud the thirst for more discovery as it leads to better understanding of how our world works and improves the lot of humanity."

Observably, it doesn't. Ask teens trapped in school and blocked from marriage for five more years legally and ten more years socially. Or victims of child welfare or of psychiatry.

YouToobeism

@Hans-Georg Lundahl said "Actually not. Angels cannot be observed (usually) any more than Newtonian vectors." in response to my statement that the current astronomical picture of the solar system stands on firmer ground than your personal belief that angels are responsible for the movement of planets. I will again affirm that the scientific discoveries about our solar system, which have accumulated over at least the last 500 years, give even the non-trained, but naturally inquisitive, among us a better understanding of how the solar system works than is currently offered by any of the "Is Genesis History" productions.

When you say that there is no direct proof of the Newtonian theory, you discount out-of-hand Newtonian laws of gravity. At the same time you say there is no proof of the existence of angels, but hold out belief that such failing does not mean that we should not trust your opinion that angels move planets. Sounds to me like a double standard.

If I can show by dropping two similar steel balls into soft clay; one from twice the height of the other, and measure that the ball traveling the longer distance before impacting the soft clay creates an impact cavity that is 4 times the volume of the other ball, then one can rightfully infer from that observation that Newton is likely to be right that acceleration is the square of the time traveled and not just a doubling. (As was demonstrated in the time of Desaguyliers in France). Can you point to any experiments from which we can logically infer or deduce that angels move planets or that the earth is the center of our solar system?

More generally, the text book of Christianity is so under-nurished in scientifically-provable facts, that for the faithful to believe it will stand the test when compared to scientific discovery in the secular world, is truly a miracle of faith that thinking adults would suggest such a comparison will favor the bible. And why the need to put biblical faith on the same foundation as scientific discovery? Do you think it to be a binary choice; one or the other? Kepler didn't. No, they are not overlapping magisteria. And silly are those connected to the "Is Genesis History" productions who use pseudo-science to claim they are.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@YouToobeism "in response to my statement that the current astronomical picture of the solar system stands on firmer ground than your personal belief that angels are responsible for the movement of planets."

What you call "my personal belief" is actually the standard model of Riccioli during the 1650's - with exception of my aether going East to West like St. Thomas' concentric globe shells in which the planets were supposedly encased. And hence, like St. Thomas, I don't have angels moving each heavenly body East to West along the day, with some delays, as per Riccioli, but I have them move slower the opposite direction, like 30 times slower for the angel of the Moon and 366 times slower for that of the Sun. None of my beliefs are in this respect personal, except for replacing St. Thomas concentric shells with one single aether.

"I will again affirm that the scientific discoveries about our solar system, which have accumulated over at least the last 500 years, give even the non-trained, but naturally inquisitive, among us a better understanding of how the solar system works than is currently offered by any of the "Is Genesis History" productions."

Oh, you wish. My Geocentrism is not representative of them, for one, and for another, I think I have a better overview over proofs than you have ....

"When you say that there is no direct proof of the Newtonian theory,"

I think you misrepresent the actual words "Newtonian vectors cannot be directly observed" ...

"you discount out-of-hand Newtonian laws of gravity."

A law of gravity is not a directly observed body or movement of a body.

"At the same time you say there is no proof of the existence of angels,"

Oh, there is. You misrepresent my words again. There is!

Both astronomic and historic. I said there is no direct observation of them - the historic proof being exceptional, and the astronomic proof being without actually seeing them.

"but hold out belief that such failing does not mean that we should not trust your opinion that angels move planets. Sounds to me like a double standard."

I am not asking anyone to trust, as normal meaning of trust, my belief, as my belief, because it happens to be mine. I note I had not actually mentioned them in the comment at 3:31. If I mentioned them previously here, I gave my actual full wording of what I believe at 7:02. The context here was not asking Faulker to trust my opinion, but to show that while I was more naturalistic than he on light speed, I was far from a complete naturalist ... and I also mentioned, where you are answering without first making an actual quote, that angelic movers have the epistemological advantage of allowing our observations to stand as they are, instead of reinterpreting them as the inverse of what is going on.

"If I can show by dropping two similar steel balls into soft clay; one from twice the height of the other, and measure that the ball traveling the longer distance before impacting the soft clay creates an impact cavity that is 4 times the volume of the other ball, then one can rightfully infer from that observation that Newton is likely to be right that acceleration is the square of the time traveled and not just a doubling."

It was actually mentioned by Buridan.

"(As was demonstrated in the time of Desaguyliers in France). Can you point to any experiments from which we can logically infer or deduce that angels move planets or that the earth is the center of our solar system?"

You haven't shown one from which we can logically infer that Newtonian factors like gravity are alone at moving planets. Earth being centre is obvious, as per senses, unless you positively disprove it, which you can't.

"More generally, the text book of Christianity is so under-nurished in scientifically-provable facts, that for the faithful to believe it will stand the test when compared to scientific discovery in the secular world, is truly a miracle of faith that thinking adults would suggest such a comparison will favor the bible."

I have actually made a test in favour of Biblical chronology. For C14 to give 40 000 BP for the year of the Flood, the fastest production of C14 in the atmosphere is only c. 10 - 11 times as fast as now. Meaning, we need not worry the radioactivity would have put the cosmic radiation up from the normal 0.34 milliSievert per year to actually lethal levels. Unlike what some had pretended.

"And why the need to put biblical faith on the same foundation as scientific discovery? Do you think it to be a binary choice; one or the other? Kepler didn't."

Kepler was a Lutheran heretic.

"No, they are not overlapping magisteria."

They are - except insofar as science actually has very little to say on chronology, and the conflict in dating is mainly a question of scientists going beyond the limit of their magisterium. But yes, the Bible is concerned very much with material fact and therefore with things overlapping with science, history, or both.

"And silly are those connected to the "Is Genesis History" productions who use pseudo-science to claim they are."

As you gave an Anglo-Saxon inversion in the sentence, I am reminded that silly in AS was saelig - same word as German seelig = blessed.

YouToobeism

@Hans-Georg Lundahl said "[angels moving planets] is actually the standard model of Riccioli during the 1650's". Well, thanks to scientists and scientific method, we have more reasonable and testable hypotheses for why the eight planets (including Earth) have elliptical orbits about our local star, the Sun. (And please don't reply that it can't be proved.... it has been proven in many times and in many ways..... the most obvious is the bi-annual retrograde of the path of Mars relative to an observer on Earth..... or does the angel in charge of Mars get turned around once every other year, like clockwork, and have to be set on the right path by a higher power?)

So, if it was Buridan that "mentioned" the effect of two balls dropping into clay from two heights (one twice the other), do you then acknowledge that Newtonian gravity and the acceleration of bodies in gravity are proven, observable facts, not in any fashion dependent upon biblical interpretation?

As an aside, you say Kepler was a Lutheran heretic. Are you using a redundancy of terms or do you believe that he was a heretic within the Lutheran branch of Christianity? If not, then are YECs heretics, or at least all that were born into non-Catholic households, as I suspect most of the "scientists" selling their degrees to the "Is Genesis History" production team are?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@YouToobeism "Well, thanks to scientists and scientific method, we have more reasonable and testable hypotheses for why the eight planets (including Earth) have elliptical orbits about our local star, the Sun."

Can't be ... tested. Hence not testable. Note what word, out of pure courtesy, I avoided.

"(And please don't reply that it can't be proved.... it has been proved in many times and in many ways..... the most obvious is the bi-annual retrograde of the path of Mars relative to an observer on Earth"

Was taken into account by both Tycho and Riccioli. You didn't know your stuff.

"..... or does the angel in charge of Mars get turned around once per every other year, like clockwork, and have to be set on the right path by a higher power?)"

More like, he enjoys dancing.

"So, if it was Buridan that "mentioned" the effect of two balls dropping into clay from two heights (one twice the other), do you then acknowledge that Newtonian gravity and the acceleration of bodies in gravity is a proven fact,"

Acceleration of bodies certainly is a proven and directly observed fact.* Newtonian gravitation is one theory about it. AND whether it is or isn't responsible for the movement of planets around stars is neither observed, nor a proven fact. There are Christians who would agree with me angels are a proven fact, but will not consider it proven that they move planets or fix stars. So, I can consider Newtonian gravitation as, at least close to a proven fact, and still not consider it proven it is responsable for movements of stellar bodies. And especially not proven as sole responsible.

"not in any fashion dependent upon biblical interpretation? As an aside, you say Kepler was a Lutheran heretic. Are you using a redundancy of terms or do you believe that he was a heretic within the Lutheran branch of Christianity?"

Redundant. I am an ex-Lutheran myself, but as I didn't hold on to it, I cannot be considered to have remained obstinate in it, which is part of the guilt of heresy.

"If not, then are YECs heretics, or at least all that were born into Lutheran households?"

The YECs who are currently Protestant, any branch (Lutheran, Calvinist, Anglican ...) can be at least suspected of heresy and those who die without converting can be considered to have died heretics, at least on a general level. I am willing to use a Lutheran's contribution to Creation science, as I am willing to use a Lutheran's contribution to Biblical Greek or Hebrew.

* Footnote

I am not sure what test Buridan used, perhaps accurate rhythm keeping and watching balls fall from heights previously measured. The clay test could be from the time of Desaguyliers.

YouToobeism

@Hans-Georg Lundahl said "Can't be ... tested. Hence not testable." in regards to the elliptical orbits of our solar system's eight planets (including Earth). Dismissing this assertion out-of-hand, without any justification does not help our conversation. I have given you two concrete testable (and tested) examples that confirm that Newtonian gravity controls the movements of the planets around the Sun; Kepler's ground-breaking analysis of their motion in the early 17th century and the bi-annual retrograde of Mars' motion relative to an observer on Earth. I can add to these the discovery of the planet Neptune based on the observation of the perturbations of the orbit of planet Uranus in the 19th century and the precession (wobble) of Earth on its axis, which in 8000 years will point not to Polaris as the North Star, but to the bright star Deneb.

You can easily confirm these observations using google searches. If you care not to then it will be hard to move the conversation forward.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@YouToobeism I'll start from the end.

"You can easily confirm these observations using google searches. If you care not to then it will be hard to move the conversation forward."

I am not disputing even one of the actual observations. And I also don't depend on conversing absolutely with you. (Unless you are someone I know ... if so I'd prefer your real name - and even then make clear it is not a conversation where you act as psychologist and I as consulting you).

"in regards to the elliptical orbits of our solar system's eight planets (including Earth). Dismissing this assertion out-of-hand, without any justification does not help our conversation."

The one thing that cannot be tested about ellipses is, whether Earth is another one with Sun in one of the foci, or Sun has an ellipse with Earth in one focus. The observations are exactly the same. If you don't realise that, you are simply not very good at geometry

"I have given you two concrete testable (and tested) examples that confirm that Newtonian gravity controls the movements of the planets around the Sun; Kepler's ground-breaking analysis of their motion in the early 17th century and the bi-annual retrograde of Mars' motion relative to an observer on Earth."

No, they don't confirm it.

"I can add to these the discovery of the planet Neptune based on the observation of the perturbations of the orbit of planet Uranus in the 19th century"

And a similar discovery about Pluto turned out to be a fluke, since Pluto as observed would not have the required mass for it to influence Neptune that much.

"and the precession (wobble) of Earth on its axis, which in 8000 years will point not to Polaris as the North Star, but to the bright star Deneb."

I'm not sure whether the precession has been tested or not, but another wobble is observable : Chandler's wobble. Again : angels moving stars and planets like to dance. And are very good and well coordinated dancers.

YouToobeism

@Hans-Georg Lundahl said " The observations are exactly the same." That seems to be just a restatement of your original "theory" that, in your mind, their is no observable difference between a condition where the Sun revolves around the Earth and one that the Earth revolves around the Sun. It may be hard to nail down this dichotomy if it were not for the other seven planets observed to be revolving around the Sun (not the Earth). I don't think you can have it both ways; seven planets revolving around the sun, while the sun revolves around Earth, given the masses of the Sun and the gaseous planets. But hey, I'm not an astrophysicist, I just observe what they say. (And your appeal to authority, two 17th century philosophers whose theories have been discounted in subsequent years by better arguments (Occam's razor and all that), is also stretching my credulity.)

On a minor point about your injection of the discovery of Pluto; I'm not familiar with a fluke about its discovery, but that does not negate the fact that Neptune's orbit was calculated before it was observed, adding confidence that the astronomers of the 18th century well understood Kepler's theories on the motions of the planets in the solar system. The perturbation of Ceres was also found to be the cause of previously unexplained motions of Mercury.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@YouToobeism "I don't think you can have it both ways; seven planets revolving around the sun, while the sun revolves around Earth,"

Yes, that's what I can.

"given the masses of the Sun and the gaseous planets."

Your point would stand if you could prove no angelic movers change the outcome of brute gravity and inertia.

"But hey, I'm not an astrophysicist, I just observe what they say."

Thanks for admitting, unlike me, you didn't care to actually look up their arguments with any degree of analysis.

"(And your appeal to authority, two 17th century philosophers whose theories have been discounted in subsequent years by better arguments (Occam's razor and all that), is also stretching my credulity.)"

I suppose your would apply the famous razor on difference between Earth and planets - I apply it (or a similar one) on epistemology. We don't need to make figuring the universe out more complicated than it is, and that is an argument for Tycho and Riccioli, and not depending on their authority (Tycho was an astronomer, the master whose disciple was Kepler, Riccioli was an astronomer, and Tycho died 1601, so he was mostly 16th C.)

"On a minor point about your injection of the discovery of Pluto; I'm not familiar with a fluke about its discovery, but that does not negate the fact that Neptune's orbit was calculated before it was observed, adding confidence that the astronomers of the 18th century well understood Kepler's theories on the motions of the planets in the solar system. The perturbation of Ceres was also found to be the cause of previously unexplained motions of Mercury."

I don't think Ceres is a Moon of Mercury. It is in the asteroid belt, I checked.

Neptune : Pluto = 1:1 to mechanistic theory predicting accurately.

YouToobeism

@Hans-Georg Lundahl , while I now see that Tycho's spheres within spheres allowed for some of the known planets to revolve around the Sun and all to revolve around the Earth, his student Kepler proposed a simpler, more geometric scheme where all the known planets revolved around the Sun. I also see that Tycho died 8 years before the first telescope was pointed into the night's sky, so he never had a chance to see the light. I also see that most debate among astronomers about which system is true ended in the early 18th century with James Bradley's discovery of star aberration, where a star's apparent position is offset from its true position by the motion of Earth. (As an aside, I never said that Ceres was a moon of Mercury, did I? nor did I use the word philosophers in the modern context; not until the 1830s was the term scientist coined for those trained in the philosophies of science.)

What flimsy point about a "mechanistic theory" ratio between Pluto and Neptune are you making? How does it negate the discovery of Neptune based on the perturbations of Uranus? Are you suggesting the calculations were wrong and the discovery was unrelated to them?

I am going to circle back to my original point; a solar system as is generally accepted by the scientific community, that is well understood, and from which space flights to distant planets and asteroids have taken place. These discoveries would not be possible if the Tychonian system was the ruling philosophy. Given that, I will again state that leaving the motions of planets, including Earth to "angels" is without a single provable or observational fact. (Epistemologically-speaking, it is no more than opinion). If you are convinced of the robustness of such claim, write letters to SpaceX and NASA, correcting their understanding of orbital mechanics. I would love to read their replies.

Take care of your faith but leave gravity and Newtonian motions to the scientists, please.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@YouToobeism "while I now see that Tycho's spheres within spheres allowed for some of the known planets to revolve around the Sun"

All of the known planets, Earth not being one, obviously except Sun which cannot revolve in an orbit around itself and Moon.

"and all to revolve around the Earth, his student Kepler proposed a simpler, more geometric scheme where all the known planets revolved around the Sun."

Correct. Plus Earth.

"I also see that Tycho died 8 years before the first telescope was pointed into the night's sky, so he never had a chance to see the light."

In fact, none of the discoveries with a telescope were decisive for the change in opinion.

"I also see that most debate among astronomers about which system is true ended in the early 18th century with James Bradley's discovery of star aberration, where a star's apparent position is offset from its true position by the motion of Earth."

And if that is so, that is a weakness in the mental make-up of that corps. What if the so-called aberration was a dance of the moving angels?

"(As an aside, I never said that Ceres was a moon of Mercury, did I?"

No, but you did imply it had some effect on Mercury.

"nor did I use the word philosophers in the modern context; not until the 1830s was the term scientist coined for those trained in the philosophies of science.)"

F i n e, in that case be consistent and call their modern counterparts in astronomy philosophers as well.

"What flimsy point about a "mechanistic theory" ratio between Pluto and Neptune are you making? How does it negate the discovery of Neptune based on the perturbations of Uranus?"

Both Neptune and Pluto were discovered following calculations about perturbations of an already known planet. Both used gravitation to understand the perturbation compared to predicted orbit.

"Are suggesting the calculations were wrong and the discovery was unrelated to them?"

For Pluto : definite yes, we know have reason to believe Pluto is too small and has too little mass to have the effect it was presumed to be having when it was discovered.

"I am going to circle back to my original point; a solar system as is generally accepted by the scientific community, that is well understood, from which space flights to distant planets and asteroids have taken place that would not be possible if the Tychonian system was the ruling philosophy."

First, the point about only Heliocentrism being a possible basis for spaceflight was so far not made by you, and was definitely not your original point, unless you changed the comment after I answered it. Changing what has already been said by someone is actually counterproductive when it is written on internet and can be checked. Now, second, would it be possible with Tychonianism being true?

It would with the aether. The one really fine point in that type of argument is, if earth doesn't rotate, why does the rocket or spaceship circle around earth, and with God moving an aether around earth each stellar day (c. 4 minutes shorter than a day), the answer is, because it remains in constant trajectory through a rotating aether. Same explanation as with the Eötvös effect of geostationary orbits, or as with the Foucault's pendulum and other Coriolis effects.

"Given that, I will again state that leaving the motions of planets, including Earth to "angels" is without a single provable or observational fact."

Except the observable fact that we stay where we are and the universe circles around us. Note, while prima facie doesn't give any prohibition of other fact overruling it, as long as there are no other facts overruling it, prima facie holds.

"If you are convinced of the robustness of such claim, write letters to SpaceX and NASA, correcting their understanding of orbital mechanics. I would love to read their replies."

You get me a scientist willing to engage in a debate per mails, both of us having a right to republish the debate on blogs, and him sending his initial comments to hgl@dr.com which is my public correspondence mail, and you get me your mail so I can send the post to you, I will. I will not give it a try and then have you laugh when I say they don't answer.

"Take care of your faith but leave gravity and Newtonian motions to the scientists, please."

It so happens, I am leaving gravity and Newtonian motion insofar as they are at all checkable (like, when studying objects falling to or twards the ground) to scientists. What is going on with planets and fix stars is however not checkable in a scientific sense, and the most scientific approach is : since we have prima facie evidence (that's how it looks) for Tychonian-Ricciolian geometry up to the fix stars, and for fix stars going faster than the Sun around earth, and since we have no certain proof to the contrary, and since the best approach to such a thing again and again comes down to appealing to an a priori negative about angels, we hold the Tychonian-Ricciolian geometry and from then also angelic movers of heavenly bodies, which also suffice to explain without Heliocentrism the phenomena attributed to aberration, parallax and wobble.

+ @YouToobeism Btw, ask Phil Plait, of the Bad Astronomy blog, at NASA, if he's ready for another round with me!

YouToobeism

@Hans-Georg Lundahl , I will look up Phil Plait's blog and pass on your greetings. In the meantime, here's a Clemens quote; "One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact." Sounds positively angelic.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@YouToobeism Clemens as in Langhorn?

Sounds more like modern materialistic astronomy ...

Hours

later:

YouToobeism

@Hans-Georg Lundahl , are you trying to goad me into white-washing your "theory" of orbital mechanics? That's a poor deFense of your position.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@YouToobeism My point is, the modern astronomy for an input of fact from the angle of earth only will give conjecture on :

1) heliocentrism,
2) aberration being aberration
3) parallax being parallactic
4) a relation btw apparent size and distance for "main series"
5) further distances from apparent size
6) and a few more leading to "distance in billions of light years"
7) and hence the supposed distant starlight problem

just to mention a few of their conjectures!

Have you reached Phil Plait yet?

YouToobeism

@Hans-Georg Lundahl said "...and hence the supposed distant starlight problem." That does not seem to be one of the conundrums that the astronomical community is grappling with. I think that cepheid stars provide the benchmarks for determining stellar distances. Nor is "aberration being aberration" one of their conjectures.... it is your empty counter.

You list what you think are viable counter points to orbital mechanics and astronomical scale without references; concluding due to a lack of understanding of the "conjectures", the alternative of "angels move planets" is a reasonable conclusion. I don't think I have much else to say on the topic of angels.

"will only give conjecture...." may correctly, given the body of proofs and practical applications of orbital mechanics, be re-stated as "indicates proof of....". Take a look at the video of SpaceX's launch of the DART satellite last Tuesday. Between 44 and 56 minutes into the flight, the satellite is boosted out of Earth orbit. Two of the three cameras on board clearly show the satellite moving away from global Earth. Take care.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@YouToobeism "That does not seem to be one of the conundrums that the astronomical community is grappling with. I think that cepheid stars provide the benchmarks for determining stellar distances."

Yes, but only one of them, coming after stellar distances determined by apparent size of main series, coming after main series getting it's reputation of solar sized stars from conferring apparent sizes with distances which, themselves, had first been determined by parallax. So, if parallax is not parallactic, the rest of the stellar distances, including those got by cepheids, fall down as well as the first ones.

"Nor is "aberration being aberration" one of their conjectures.... it is your empty counter."

Not the least. The aberration that is is a phenomenon of fix stars travelling in time with the Sun a distance of 20 arc seconds or 25 arc seconds (forget which) over the year. The other phenomenon called parallax is a very minor variation on this phenomenon.

However, while the phenomena get their names from the supposal they are aberration and parallax, this supposal is - unlike the observed phenomenon - a conjecture. Certainly a conjecture sufficiently common to give the phenomena their standard names in astronomy text books, but still a conjecture.

"You list what you think are viable counter points to orbital mechanics and astronomical scale without references;"

I already gave Riccioli and St. Thomas, right? But more importantly, no number of references to well reputed modern scholars is a substitute for them giving an actual argument for preferring Newton over not only purely angelic, but even mixed Newtonian and angelic mechanics. And arguing they have omitted that argument is an argument that doesn't need a reference, even if I gave one.

"concluding due to a lack of understanding"

I understand perfectly well that the exclusion of angelic movers is by now in great measure a question of materialistic philosophy and in the case of astronomers not sharing that (for instance Christians like Faulkner) a question of habit.

"of the "conjectures", the alternative of "angels move planets" is a reasonable conclusion."

It remains an explanation, and you have not argued against it.

"I don't think I have much else to say on the topic of angels."

Well, don't. Our debate is already somewhat long, if you want to finish it, fair enough ... you still haven't heard of Phil Plait? Or are you just repeating his points for him?

""will only give conjecture...." may correctly, given the body of proofs and practical applications of orbital mechanics, be re-stated as "indicates proof of...."."

I object to that remark very strongly.

"Take a look at the video of SpaceX's launch of the DART satellite last Tuesday. Between 44 and 56 minutes into the flight, the satellite is boosted out of Earth orbit."

Meaning, I suppose, its orbit around Earth?

"Two of the three cameras on board clearly show the satellite moving away from global Earth."

Yeah - I never argued DART couldn't move away from Earth and also never argued Earth was flat. What is your point?

"Take care."

On what account?

YouToobeism

@Hans-Georg Lundahl said "Yeah - I never argued DART couldn't move away from Earth and also never argued Earth was flat. What is your point?" The point being that the physicists at SpaceX, using the known mass of the Earth and its location in its orbit around the Sun, calculated using Newtonian Laws of Motion and orbital mechanics, how much thrust would be needed in which direction to launch a satellite and its second stage into low earth orbit, and then how long to wait until a second burn from the engine of the second stage would fire for just the right amount of time to put the satellite onto a new trajectory; a geocentric, elliptical orbit around the sun. This new orbit will in 10 months allow the satellite to meet a pair of asteroids millions of miles from Earth. All of this accomplished without the aid of angels or the incorporation of your 17th century conjecture (no, dream, really) that the Sun revolves around an "immoveable" Earth. If you are still confident of your conjecture, please direct your calculations to the physicists at NASA's DART program, letting them know their mistake and how to correct it before 10 months pass.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@YouToobeism "The point being that the physicists at SpaceX, using the known mass of the Earth and its location in its orbit around the Sun, calculated using Newtonian Law of Motion and orbital mechanics, how much thrust would be needed in which direction to launch a satellite and its second stage into low earth orbit, and then how long to wait until a second burn from the engine of the second stage would fire for just the right amount of time to put the satellite onto a new trajectory; a geocentric, elliptical orbit around the sun. This new orbit will in 10 months allow the satellite to meet a pair of asteroids millions of miles from Earth."

OK ... the "location in orbit around the Sun" is a thing which lends itself to Tychonian equivalence.

The "known mass" may have used experience of launching different things from Earth, like into geostationary orbits.

And the directions are mainly important and would be equivalent in either Heliocentric or Tychonian.

"All of this accomplished without the aid of angels"

More than you know whether or not they cooperated, but the angels not being taken into account is noted. And irrelevant.

"or the incorporation of your 17th century conjecture (no, dream, really) that the Sun revolves around the Earth which is "immoveable"."

It so happens, what you call "conjecture" or even "dream" happens to be what normal, everyday experience tells us in an experiment ongoing since creation day IV.

"If you are still confident of your conjecture, please direct your calculations to the physicists at NASA's DART program, letting them know their mistake and how to correct it before 10 months pass."

I consider their theoretical error in all probability irrelevant to their success. If you want to contact them, I'll take a debate with them if you persuade them, but as with Phil Plait, I'll not take their refusal to respond to me as a judgement. At least not one I care about.

+ @YouToobeism PS, now that our debate is re-published on Assorted Retorts blog, I have been able to at least tell him where he can find our debate.

a

YouToobeism

@Hans-Georg Lundahl said "I have been able to at least tell him where he can find our debate." I am sure that the unspecified person you are referring to will be so pleased. However, you are mistaken if you think we are having a debate. This exchange is barely more than your monologue entitled "I think, therefore it is as I think."

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@YouToobeism I have not conducted a monologue. I have conducted a series of answers to any and all of your attacks on my position.

If my lines are longer than yours, it is because I consistently quote all of yours in small pieces and reply to mostly each.

From context it should be clear the "unspecified person" is Phil Plait.

As to the charge "I think, therefore it is as I think" you are nearly taking that very thing from NASA, with the twist "I think and work, therefore it is as I think" - that something works doesn't in the least mean the one working needs to understand what's happening. No one among men has gone the four light years and checked that alpha Centauri isn't moving itself in the annual movement considered as aberration and parallax by those who think and therefore you think it is as they think.

b

YouToobeism

@Hans-Georg Lundahl said "I consider their [SpaceX] theoretical error in all probability irrelevant to their success." A plain-English version of your statement is; "I think they got lucky". With nothing but your late 16th century Tychonian theory to work with would the plot to asteroids millions of miles from Earth be remotely lucky? Which outcome will be seen in 10 months? I'm betting on a modern understanding of orbital mechanics, one that takes into account the Earth's orbit around the Sun, as the most likely path to success, as it most closely is consistent with observable reality. Check back in 10 months.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@YouToobeism "With nothing but your late 16th century Tychonian theory to work with would the plot to asteroids millions of miles from Earth be remotely lucky?"

Observations are more to the point than basic theory. So, not lucky but observant overall, but the theory is lucky - like theories of magnetism were before Maxwell. Obviously, inventing the compass took more than just the theory element earth plus influence of Mars and then of Venus => a magnet.

"I'm betting on a modern understanding of orbital mechanics, one that takes into account the Earth's orbit around the Sun, as the most likely path to success, as it most closely is consistent with observable reality."

They don't go out of their way to make it inconsistent with observations. You have failed to show where the Tychonian position is so.

II

3:52 I wrestled with it for less than 24 hours.

On August 23 2001, I came across the problem as an objection to recent creation loaded with novas in distant stars.

On August 24, day of St. Bartholomew, I offered the solution, I regard it as a gift of God, during intervening night, of Geocentrism => Parallax isn't such => Stars aren't distant. Or all that distant.

III

6:04 Starlight created in transit? The problem of supernovas.

6:36 I believe the Andromeda Nebula is one or two light days up, and that light has travelled for one or two days.

IV

7:02 Now, I am scientific on the question of light travel.

But on the question of stellar movements or planetary orbits (Tychonian with ellipses as per Riccioli) or universe turning around the earth each day, I consider most of these as direct acts of angels on single bodies, and one of these, the last, as an act by God on the universe as a whole.

The Sun moves around us in 24 hours because:

• God moves the universe around us East to West, just a little faster, a stellar day per rotation around the axis;
• the angel of the Sun moves around the universe along ecliptic, West to East, c. 366 times slower than that.

V

7:55 The sustaining as such is, on astronomic levels, also a miracle.

VI

9:07 The water turned to wine at Cana, like the confusion of languages at Babel, are one time events.

Us now seeing the light from Andromeda Spiral Nebula is however a regularly occurring part of God sustaining His creation.

Hence the interest that a natural speed of light accounts for that light being emitted within the Biblical timeline.

When I say "the sustaining is also a miracle" I do not mean natural causes cause in non-natural ways, but that they are themselves caused in their, for instance places, by not physical and not natural causes, like God and like his angels.

VII

9:08 sth to 13:00 sth - excellent work Danny, no quibbles about this one.

After 15:10 up to 19:35, no quibbles except the distance to Orion just mentioned as if certain.

VIII

15:10 What you didn't mention is, it was rejected in two ways : by Heliocentrics, but also by Tychonian Heliocentrism.

Tycho's disciple Kepler changed two things : 1) he was Heliocentric, 2) he considered the orbits more or less elliptic.

Now, what the last main Geocentric did - his name was Giovanni Battista Riccioli - was to keep Kepler's ellipses, but revert to Tychonian overall geometry.

Once all epicycles (except those of minor bodies like Io or Phobos) had the Sun as epicentre of one elliptic focus, it works (except for the quirks of Mercury, discussed by Einstein).