Back to Godinci

1) Assorted retorts: ... on Not Believing Vedic Astronomy Apart from Geocentrism, on Believing Scholastic Astronomy Including Geocentrism, 2) ... on Nicole d'Oresme refusing to apply relativity perfectly understood to Geocentric appearances, 3) ... on Black Holes and Geocentrism, 4) Back to Godinci, 5) HGL's F.B. writings: A "Biblical" Heliocentric Misciting Holy Scripture, 6) Vy considers I accused him falsely of mis-citing the Bible, Rod invokes relativity, 7) Vy makes his point more clearly - so do I, 8) New blog on the kid : Columbus and Joshua (Imagine Christopher Columbus had worked a miracle)

First

a reminder of our last exchange (see first and indeed main part of part one of series):

Godinci

+Hans-Georg Lundahl OK hans, I see your point which is no point at all. You propose a model but have nothing to back it up by observational facts. You try to hammer on the mechanism, but we don't have to know the mechanism as such to see that they behave in Newtonian fashion!!!!

Your model (the geometrical description of solar orbitals) predicts nothing at all. If I have not given any answer to your so called challenge how gravity balances inertia (you forgot to include other disturbance, such as friction and interaction with other celestial) then this is simply because I don't need to know this to make my points.

Of course, you can always say that as long you didn't bite in the SUN that you can't proof irrevocably that the sun isn't made of cheese!

However, in the meantime we have to go where all the evidence leads to, and as far we can tell the strength of the gravitational force is determined by the amount of matter (which could be cheese) it contains!

I therefore stress again, if you want to give some weight to your orbital model - i.e. Sun mainly orbiting around planet Earth - you should at least give us one observable fact that shows us otherwise, because your model requires this!

Therefore, I repeat, be so kind to give us your best arguments that are based on observable facts, known things and related commonsense reasoning that can sustain your model, and make predictions!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"You try to hammer on the mechanism, but we don't have to know the mechanism as such to see that they behave in Newtonian fashion!!!!"

Ah, then your argument boils down to:

• Mechanism X predicts pattern Y.
• I don't care about Mechanism but Y is verified.
• Therefore mechanism X is true.

No, that is not a full argument at all.

"I therefore stress again, if you want to give some weight to your orbital model - i.e. Sun mainly orbiting around planet Earth - you should at least give us one observable fact that shows us otherwise, because your model requires this!"

All observations from earth tell us it does. Not just mainly, but every day totally. Not irrefutably - but you have given no refutation.

You have given a scientific formalism which does not constitute an argument.

There is some ugly duplicity in the wording you make for your final challenge:

"Therefore, I repeat, be so kind to give us your best arguments that are based on observable facts, known things and related commonsense reasoning that can sustain your model,and make predictions!"

• 1) "observable facts" - observations taken at face value until disproven or observations except those you take to not directly disclose facts?
  
  We both know seven billion people are making observations every day which look geocentric, i e which are geocentric observations.
  
  Shall we count these until formally disproven? Or shall we not count the face value of them since you do not count it as a fact?
  
  I think the commonsense approach is to count each observation as a fact until not only it is explained how it could be mistaken, but also the opposite is proven.
  
  One could explain how every dimension of length was twice as big yesterday all over the universe which was shrinking and by the fact that all other parameters adapt we would not know. I feel it is commonsense not to believe the universe is shrinking until there is proof for that.
  
  
• 2) "known things" - we disagree on what things are known.
  
  
• 3) "and related commonsense reasoning" - since we disagree on what is commonsense (I suppose your usage covers atheistic and uniformitarian assumptions, and it does not cover what I have considered very commonsense) what remains between us is formal logic.
  
  
• 4) "and make predictions!" - here there is no total duplicity, just a trap.
  
  Supposing my mechanic and geometric model to be true, predictions can be made by observing the orbits. And supposing they will continue same way.
  
  You claim the same predictions can be made by working out the logical conclusions of the inverse square law (except for the water droplets attaching to knitting needle - electric attraction works according to inverse square law too? Or? - too fast) or what you take to be such. I claim any angel having access to the choreography God is giving the angels could make same predictions. About, nota bene, relative positions. Those being the ones we agree about.

Godinci

+Hans-Georg Lundahl Hans, Concerning your argument that ends with “Therefore mechanism X is true” demonstrate again that you didn't understand my point.

What I say is that the movements of celestial in gravitational interaction with each other are perfectly described by Newton’s mathematical formulations (Newton has no mechanism at hand); YET, without knowing the mechanisms his mathematical model allows for a precise description of their movements and allows us to predict outcomes and orbital of things in gravitational interaction.

Since Newton had no mechanism at hand, implies that when orbital behavior of celestials, and other things in gravitational interaction with each other can be perfectly modeled and predicted by Newtonian mathematical formalism, this in no way can validate a mechanism, because no such mechanism has been proposed by him, and is certainly not contained in this mathematical formalism!!!

We don’t have to know the operational mechanism of a thing to know that it behaves in certain ways!!!

As a response to my request of your best argument you say, I quote: “All observations from earth tell us it does. Not just mainly, but every day totally. Not irrefutably - but you have given no refutation.

You further say, I quote: “We both know seven billion people are making observations every day which look geocentric, i e which are geocentric observations. Shall we count these until formally disproven? Or shall we not count the face value of them since you do not count it as a fact?”

You then conclude I quote: I think the commonsense approach is to count each observation as a fact until not only it is explained how it could be mistaken, but also the opposite is proven.

Man Hans, wake-up!

You seem confused . You speak of commonsense, yet in your example you deal only with one sense, which is perception. For clarity, commonsense, according to merriam-webster dictionary, refers to the ability to think and behave in a reasonable way and to make good decisions.

Now, good decisions, is based on weighing all evidence; the more different, yet related pointers, the better the decision will be. Therefore, using only one observational will often push us in the wrong direction!

Even though, perception seemingly indicates us that the Sun is orbiting the Earth, and that the Sun rises and falls; yet, the Foucoult pendulum and the Coriolis effect all give substantial weight to the plausibility that the Earth is spinning around Her axis. So, even though there can be given no conclusive proof (this can only be done in mathematics), there are many pointers indicating to the commonsense that the Earth does as such, and doesn't support at all the idea that the Sun is orbiting Earth.

In other words all observable facts give weight to the potential of the truthfulness of this conclusion.

Latter on you say, I quote: “since we disagree on what is commonsense (I suppose your usage covers atheistic and uniformitarian assumptions, and it does not cover what I have considered very commonsense) what remains between us is formal logic.”

Hmm…now you are getting emotional and try to classify me as an atheist.

Never-mind. I’m still waiting for your best arguments that is based on observable facts, known things and commonsense related reasoning to give weight to your non commonsense model of our solar-planetary orbits.

We can explain all kind of things, however, giving explanations doesn’t mean that the assumptions and the conclusions following therefrom are truth related and conform the phenomena we try to describe. Furthermore, logic, in all it forms, means nothing at all, a logical statement doesn't mean that the conclusion that follows here from is truth related. The logic is as good as the hypothesis included in them, when the hypotheses are wrong than we can still come to a valid conclusion; yet, valid and truth are two different things!

Hans, you’re really deviating! Start first of all to give your best arguments that can sustain your orbital model…all the rest is of no meaning now for me. You claim that your model is true, so back-up with pointers!!!

Hans Georg Lundahl

"Concerning your argument that ends with “Therefore mechanism X is true” demonstrate again that you didn't understand my point."

I schematised your reasoning and it boils down to:

• If A then B
• B
• Therefore A.

It is bad logic.

"We don’t have to know the operational mechanism of a thing to know that it behaves in certain ways!!!"

What we DO in fact really know without smuggling in a theory about the mechanism is totally compatible with Geocentrism and with God moving day and night and aiwth angels moving single celestial bodies in relation to that.

"You seem confused . You speak of commonsense, yet in your example you deal only with one sense, which is perception."

Confusion is yours.

Perception is through two senses : sight and equilibriosensation.

"For clarity, commonsense, according to merriam-webster dictionary, refers to the ability to think and behave in a reasonable way and to make good decisions."

For clarity, your objection seems to indicate Geocentrics lack that ability.

Very little of the civilisation you enjoy was founded by Heliocentrics.

"Now, good decisions, is based on weighing all evidence; the more different, yet related pointers, the better the decision will be. Therefore, using only one observational will often push us in the wrong direction!"

I agree on the principle.

I do not agree this points to Heliocentrism. You have not yet refuted the Geocentric option. Which, due to perception is the main first one.

"Even though, perception seemingly indicates us that the Sun is orbiting the Earth, and that the Sun rises and falls; yet, the Foucoult pendulum and the Coriolis effect all give substantial weight to the plausibility that the Earth is spinning around Her axis."

Or, equally, that the Universe spinning around earth each day has a cohesion and is not just a collection of celestial bodies.

St Augustine wondered whether heaven moves with the fix stars attached to it or only all the fix stars move. Your pieces of evidence have lent a credibility to the former option.

"In other words all observable facts give weight to the potential of the truthfulness of this conclusion."

Once again, "all observable facts" leaves out the main and most obvious one.

"So, even though there can be given no conclusive proof (this can only be done in mathematics), there are many pointers indicating to the commonsense that the Earth does as such, and doesn't support at all the idea that the Sun is orbiting Earth."

Sorry, you are confused in thought - probably because of your modernist culture.

Each one you mentioned is compatible with Geocentrism. Fully.

"Hmm…now you are getting emotional and try to classify me as an atheist."

I was not emotional, and I was not classifying you as believing in atheism in all aspects, I was classifying your assumptions in this question as atheistic ones.

You have not even once taken the proposition seriously:

• God moves the Heaven around us each day.
• Angels move each celestial body in relation to Heaven.

The former explains Coriolis and Passage Winds and Foucault's Pendulum, if we add that Heaven has a material or quasimaterial cohesion - aether - reaching down to Earth. The latter explains the Seasons.

If you are not able to take this proposition seriously as a serious alternative to your model, then your assumptions are atheistic and nonangelistic.

If you were to take it seriously one moment, you would have to admit it explains all of our direct observations quite as well as the Newtonian model. And so there is no observation to decide with unequivocal necessity, but the daily observation of seven billion people has a vast prima facie probability.

"Furthermore, logic, in all it forms, means nothing at all," etc.

There are two ways to show a thing:

• observe it
• prove it by logic from observations.

You have tried to replace logic with "scientific method" and you have proven nothing at all.

Godinci

+Hans-Georg Lundahl Wow, this is something new! You say' I quote: If you are not able to take this proposition seriously as a serious alternative to your model, then your assumptions are atheistic and nonangelistic."

What kind of nonsense is that?

I don't see how not believing that GOD or angels are pushing and holding planets in their orbit would make by default someone atheistic. Furthermore, there are many people that believe in the factuality of angels, yet few believe that angels are doing planetary pushing. should we call them therefore atheistic or nonangelistic.

Of course, angels could explain all things, even the nonsense people come-up with; yet, explaining things is one thing, facts are something else.

Your argument of seven billion people has properly been addressed in earlier post!

OK, Hans, it was nice talking to you. Keep the spirit high and try to weigh all available evidence before you come to hasty conclusions.

I leave you the last word; so go for it!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"I don't see how not believing that GOD or angels are pushing and holding planets in their orbit would make by default someone atheistic."

Not believing it is a fact is not necessarily being an atheist.

Not even considering it as a possibility - and that you have not done - is showing you count on God not to act visibly in His Creation and showing you do not count on His angels to act visibly. By visibly I mean here that the effects are visible - and regular.

"Of course, angels could explain all things, even the nonsense people come-up with; yet, explaining things is one thing, facts are something else."

We have two kinds of facts: direct observations and their theoretical explanations.

Heliocentrism is not in the nature of a direct observation. Is is used to explain some things - which can also be explained by angels.

In fact, Heliocentrism as such works better with angels for the reason I have explained, with parallel of water droplets. Did you bother to see the video?

But if we accept angels as an explanation and God, we do not need Newtonian mechanism and therefore not Heliocentrism either. And that is why we can stay with the observation of seven billion people.

Geocentrism or geostasis is not a nonsense one comes up with - it is rather the commonsense default position of most of mankind when we study it through history and geography.

Angels "can explain all sort of things" - and they have been used by astronomer Riccioli as well as by Philosopher and Theologist St Thomas Aquinas to explain planetary orbits.

Thank you for the discussion and also for ending it!

Sources for my claim about history of ideas:

hanslundahl - Neglected Angelology in the Angelic Doctor
http://hanslundahl.livejournal.com/964.html

I have since then found more places where St Thomas makes same statement.

And as for Riccioli:

New blog on the kid : What Opinion did Riccioli call the Fourth and Most Common One?
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2014/08/what-opinion-did-riccioli-call-fourth.html

... following Thomas E. Woods Jr. from Bacon to Boscovich

1) ... on Historical Capacity of Understanding, 2) ... Some Notes on Dr Thomas Woods' Debunking of Flat Earth Myth, 3) ... Some Notes on Thomas Woods' Orderly Universe Argument, 4) ... to Thomas Woods on the School of Chartres, Mainly, 5) ... following Thomas E. Woods Jr. from Bacon to Boscovich

Continued from previous parts, same video.

I 51:35

"early Church Fathers"?

Well, St Augustine actually did take it for granted that space has a numeric reflection of Holy Trinity - it has three dimensions because God is Three Persons and wanted this to be hinted at by space, when He created it.

I left Palmarianism after hearing their Catechism includes the statement that "Antichrist sees the world from the fourth dimension, but the Very Pure Virgin from the eighth dimension." Fourth? Eighth? There are three!

II 54:58

Roger Bacon quote:

"Without experiment, nothing can be adequately known. An argument proves theoretically, but does not give the certitude to remove all doubt; nor will the mind repose in the clear view of truth, unless it finds its way by experimentation."

As given in translation, "experiment" and "experimentation" can be taken to mean "experience of arranged experiments" rather than experience in general, including the one that the argument is based on.

He is wrong. [If this interpretation is correct.]

Argument must be based on sound principle and on sound experience. But the latter is not always best available by arranging experiments.

Arranged experiments about the brain tell us significantly less about the nature of the mind than the general experience of reasoning, the general experience of moralising do.

Miracles by CSL (1947) gives us a metaphysics if the mind which Baconian experiments on brain matter do not give us, and cannot give us. He is basing it on general and exceptionless experience. Like Aristotle did.

III 55:56

Bacon called uninstructed popular opinion an obstacle to transmitting truth.

He differs from Aristotle. And he was not quite backed up by the Church.

IV Before continuing around 56:00,

two observations. Or three.

1) Roger Bacon was very inimical to St Albert, whose feast day is today. The latter was a Sorbonne Aristotelian (excluding Averroists). St Albert is a Saint. Roger Bacon is not. Sir Francis Bacon of Verulam who repeated him was an enemy of the Catholic Church.

2) Still Roger Bacon was right to a limited extent that arranged experiment can supply lacunae in general experience. He applied this in optics, and he got the making of eye glasses going, thanks to that. I suppose you owe him one, and sooner or later so might I. When Newton got a new optic theory about the nature of colour, he did in fact arrange an experiment to exclude an obvious alternative explanation.

However, when Newton proposed a new theory about movements of celestial bodies (inluding on his view also Earth) he made no experiment to exclude the then common and pretty obvious alternative explanation of a God moving the Universe on a daily basis and angels moving single celestial bodies on slower periodic bases.

So the Newtonian theory lacks a real experimental basis of the kind Roger Bacon was looking for.

3) Unlike Bacon of Verulam and Roger Bacon, Aristotle and such disciples (or part disciples) of his as St Albert and St Thomas, did not consider "untutored opinion of the masses" or whatever the wording as an obstacle to knowledge acquisition.

On the contrary. Untutored masses all believing a thing is prima facie an argument for it. Not a very strong one, but at least not one against it.

The learned believing a thing is also a prima facie, but incomplete argument for what they believe.

Argument becomes much stronger when both untutored masses and the learned believe a thing.

And of course, stronger the better basis you have of this being the case in diverse cultures.

The idea of all mankind previous to oneself being wrong and oneself discovering the truth by ignoring all of it (as the both Bacons proposed one ignore it) is a bit megalomaniac.

However, that masses and learned should each give independently a witness to the truths that are the most obvious, has been lately tampered with by compulsory school putting certain portions and schools among the learned as a kind of intellectual tutors to the masses. That a PhD scientist and a lumberjack today are both likely to be evolutionist is no real argument for evolution, since the days when teaching of evolution became not only licit but compulsory.

V 56:29

Too bad Pius XII did not study St Albert and St Thomas more than he did. He might have avoided the "reconciliation with science" or "premature capitulation to science" on November 22 1951!

But alas, he had already, it would seem, as canonic lawyer advising Pope Benedict XV, gone against them and against Council of Vienne on the issue of taking interest on monetary loans. Too bad.

When it comes to verifying for oneself, modern scientists are very much less likely than St Albert to approve of the attempt, unless you agree with established opinion.

VI 57:11

Monsignor Nicolas Steno (he died as a bishop, as I recall!) was indeed a founder of Geology (after St Albert). He was also, as his colleague Tas Walker has remarked (colleague in geology, not in ecclesiastic office) a Young Earth Creationist, and a Flood Geologist.

Thanks for bringing him up!

VII 58:50

plus and minus signs in Italian book keeping is as far as I know a Franciscan achievement, done previous to St Ignatius.

The + for the credit sign alludes to the creed and the sign of the Cross.

The - for the debit side looks like a line striking out something. It alludes to "dimitte nobis debita nostra, sicut et nos dimittimus debitoribus nostris" in the Lord's Prayer.

[It is possible a Jesuit later took it from book keeping to mathematical operations, previously marked "a.=adde" or "s.=subtrahe".]

VIII 1:00:13

Giambattista Riccioli, SJ, was also a believer in angelic movers of the Heavenly Bodies.

Unlike St Thomas and like Hebrew Astronomical theory, he seems to have not believed God moved the globality of Heaven. [But in that case, the coordination of angels carrying celestial bodies point to them following a common command.] I have it from his own book.

IX Before continuing past 1:00:13,

references for Steno and Riccioli.

"Upon request of Duke Johann Friedrich of Hanover, Pope Innocent XI made him Vicar Apostolic for the Nordic Missions on 21 August 1677. He was consecrated titular bishop of Titiopolis on 19 September by Cardinal Barbarigo and moved to the Lutheran North.

In the year after he was made bishop, he was probably involved in the banning of publications by Spinoza, There he had talks with Gottfried Leibniz, the librarian; the two argued about Spinoza and his letter to Albert Burgh, then Steno's pupil. Leibniz recommended a reunification of the churches. Steno worked at the city of Hannover until 1680.

After John Frederick death's, Prince-Bishop of Paderborn Ferdinand of Fürstenberg appointed him as Auxiliary Bishop of Münster (Church Saint Liudger) on 7 October 1680. The new prince-elector Ernest Augustus, Elector of Hanover was a Protestant. Earlier, Augustus' wife, Sophia of Hanover, had made fun of Steno's piousness; he had sold his bishop's ring and cross to help the needy. He continued zealously the work of counter reform begun by Bernhard von Galen."

English Wiki : Nicolas Steno
section Religious studies
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Steno#Religious_studies

So he was successor of one von Galen and remoter predecessor of another one, Clemens August von Galen who opposed Hitler on Euthanasia!

Now for Riccioli and angelic movers ...

New blog on the kid : What Opinion did Riccioli call the Fourth and Most Common One?
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2014/08/what-opinion-did-riccioli-call-fourth.html

I give the quote, a resumé of nonquoted name dropping, and link to the pages of the scanned work itself.

X 1:04:47,

Father Roger Boskovich ... I think I looked him up on logarithmic tables one day ...

His theory of Natural Philosophy was before the Settele case and before dissolution of Jesuit order, will have a look.

CDL : Roger Boscovich : A theory of natural philosophy
Author/translator: Boscovich, Ruggero Giuseppe, 1711-1787; Child, J. M. (James Mark)
https://archive.org/details/theoryofnaturalp00boscrich

... on Black Holes and Geocentrism

1) Assorted retorts: ... on Not Believing Vedic Astronomy Apart from Geocentrism, on Believing Scholastic Astronomy Including Geocentrism, 2) ... on Nicole d'Oresme refusing to apply relativity perfectly understood to Geocentric appearances, 3) ... on Black Holes and Geocentrism, 4) Back to Godinci, 5) HGL's F.B. writings: A "Biblical" Heliocentric Misciting Holy Scripture, 6) Vy considers I accused him falsely of mis-citing the Bible, Rod invokes relativity, 7) Vy makes his point more clearly - so do I, 8) New blog on the kid : Columbus and Joshua (Imagine Christopher Columbus had worked a miracle)

Largest star ever discovered, compared to our Sun
Nebuchadnezzar
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4iD-9GSW-0

Norm Johnson

At what mass does a star become a black hole?

NWViewer1

They say it'll take a star about 10 times the mass of our sun to become a black hole. The super-nova it creates will eject all but about 4 solar masses. That remaining 4 should be compressed into a black hole during that same process. If the star starts out with less than that 10 masses it'll only (Only?) get down to a neutron star.

Johnathan Murphy

it doesnt

Anna Elise

Black holes do not exist. It is impossible. I think you have been watching to much sci fi lol!

PacifistKraut

+Anna Elise

I think you're the one who's been watching too much sci fi and not enough actual science

Anna Elise

+PacifistKraut ???????????? No that is not true I don't think you know what you are talking about!

PacifistKraut

+Anna Elise

Oh? Then please cite a source showing me that black holes aren't real. News articles won't do it, I want science journals.

Anna Elise

It is against all the laws of science. but god could do it cuz he created the laws of science.

PacifistKraut

+Anna Elise

Get this religious shit out of here, this is science.

What law? You haven't provided any evidence whatsoever to support your argument, so I'll give you one last chance.

Anna Elise

UH how about we are all created! There is plenty proof of the flood the bible said the earth was round many thousand years before columbus sailed the ocean blue. there is so much I don't know were to start and you give me some evidence for evolution! You believe nothing exploded into every thing and that rock can turn into life! Talk about some fairy tales!

PacifistKraut

+Anna Elise

You blew your last chance. Good bye and fuck off, you scientifically illiterate retard

Anna Elise

+PacifistKraut See you will give me no proof cuz you don't have any.

JeffersonDinedAlone

+Anna Elise You are a useless imbecile.

[Impressed by his gallantry, aren't we all?] 

Anna Elise

+JeffersonDinedAlone I am not useless and I am not an imbecile! Do you know what that means!?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

+Anna Elise - check out his pseudonym.

Jefferson Dined Alone.

He might prefer to dine alone in imitation of Jefferson. And thus trying to be deliberately rude to ladies.

Seriously, back to topic.

IF a star with ten times the mass of the Sun becomes a black hole THEN WHY hasn't Betelgeuse become one?

• Black holes don't exist?
  
  
• Betelgeuse isn't that far off from the Sun and thus not that much more massive?
  
  
• Both of above?

Anna Elise

+Hans-Georg Lundahl Betelgeuse is not even close to our sun. And it is a lot bigger. And I think he only called me an imbecile cuz he just wanted to say something but couldn't think of anything to say scientific so he started calling names.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

The latter is a very good observation, I was actually joking.

Scientifically speaking, how do you prove Betelgeuse is bigger than the Sun?

David Keir

Anna Elise

Obvious troll. No one is that stupid.

Anna Elise

+David Keir A troll is someone who posts non stop hate comments.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I am afraid his definition of troll differs from yours and is used partly to stop debate.

My question stands.

Anna Elise

????????????????????

Norm Johnson

Our sun = white dwarf, 4-25 solar masses = neutron star, 40-90 solar masses = black hole and oddly enough 140 - 250 solar masses = no remnant.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

In other words, according to that theory of astrophysics, and according to usual acceptance of stellar distances and sizes, Betelgeuse should not exist?

sargentnbawesome

+Hans-Georg Lundahl nonononono. I will try and explain this very simply because you seem to actually want to learn something. A star doesn't just 'form' into a black hole at any time it feels like it. It takes the star's fuel source running out to finally kick it into motion. Right now, our sun fuses hydrogen with hydrogen to form helium. This process is the most energy releasing process ever. Enough energy is released to keep all that matter in the star from collapsing in on itself due to its massive gravity. When all the hydrogen runs out in a star, it must start fusing all the leftover helium. This process is so much less energy producing than the previous process, which is why a star's photosphere expands. It starts losing the battle to gravity. That is where giants like Betelgeuse and VY Can. Maj. Come from. After the fusion of helium into heavy elements like carbon, the star can no longer provide sufficient energy to battle against gravity. At this point, the stars photosphere s ejected, and all that remains is the core. At that point, if the core is of sufficient mass, its gravity will compress the core into a single point with such high gravity that nothing can escape its influence. Anything below this mass will have high enough gravity compression to start fusing heavy elements from the carbon left over. So do you understand now?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Yes, I understand the theory as an explanation.

[In a v e r y general and nontechnical way ...]

I also consider it very ad hoc.

Plus, mass and volume are different. The process you describe will produce inflated volume, not greater mass:

"This process is so much less energy producing than the previous process, which is why a star's photosphere expands. It starts losing the battle to gravity. That is where giants like Betelgeuse and VY Can. Maj. Come from."

And one more thing, where I do not even understand the theory as an explanation - why would loosing to gravity result in expansion rather than contraction?

LifeOfASmiley

+Hans-Georg Lundahl "I also consider it very ad hoc."

Yes, we describe how things work with science, we don't prescribe them.

"Plus, mass and volume are different. The process you describe will produce inflated volume, not greater mass:"

Yes, the star expands, it doesn't gain anything "new" in the process. The new fusion process causes the energy produced to expand the star, which causes it to actually lose mass when the envelope is lost.

"And one more thing, where I do not even understand the theory as an explanation - why would loosing [sic] to gravity result in expansion rather than contraction?"

It loses to gravity after the fusion has stopped. The envelope escapes and the core is contracted, thus starting the fusion of the next cycle if possible.

You seem like you actually want to learn something here, not just dismiss everything explained, so I'll refer you to this basic explanation here:

The Life of a Star
http://www.astro.keele.ac.uk/workx/starlife/StarpageS_26M.html

If you actually want to study this in-depth, a course on astronomy from your local college/ university would be much more satisfactory. I could answer a few more of your questions, if you only want a basic explanation.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

If you describe how things work, rather than prescribing, I suppose you go as far as possible by perception (enhanced by telescopes and by probes getting closer and sending images, but still perception).

If so, where is the proof of this very ingenious explanation?

LifeOfASmiley

+Hans-Georg Lundahl "I suppose you go as far as possible by perception "

This isn't a coherent sentence. If we didn't use perception, we wouldn't know anything.

[Here he uses coherent as referring to coherent about content, I take it.]

"If so, where is the proof of this very ingenious explanation?"

Proof of which explanation?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"If we didn't use perception, we wouldn't know anything."

Which was not my point. I will give you my sentence again, one addition to clarify:

If you describe how things work, rather than prescribing, I suppose you go as far as possible by perception (enhanced by telescopes and by probes getting closer and sending images, but still perception), before declaring not directly perceived concepts true, before declaring anything directly perceived an illusion.

You need to practise your reading skills if you didn't find the original readable and coherent!

"Proof of which explanation?"

The long one which you both offered and linked to.

Norm Johnson

A star of 140 to 250 solar masses with low meatallicity will go hypernova with possible gama ray bursts and leave no remnant. No black hole, just nothing. WTF is up with that?

Omitting

one commenter who was just being rude to someone. Rudeness is not totally absent, but I have already given the setting and will in the following disclose some rudeness to myself.

LifeOfASmiley

+Norm Johnson Essentially, the effects of pair production and annihilation and the collapse of the core. As the core collapses, the energy involved in the production/ annihilation increases as well. This doesn't produce enough thermal pressure to counteract the increase in gravitational pressure due to the collapse. As the core collapses further, the energy involved increases. The reactions eventually absorb and release so much energy that it causes a nuclear explosion that blows the star apart, leaving nothing behind.

Not exactly a perfect explanation, but the best I could manage.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

and this has been observed when?

Norm Johnson

English Wikipedia : SN 2006gy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SN_2006gy

Googled it, observed in 2006, Happened a long time ago in a galaxy far far away.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"SN 2006gy occurred in a distant galaxy (NGC 1260), approximately 238 million light years (73 megaparsecs) away. Therefore, due to the time it took light from the supernova to reach Earth, the event occurred about 238 million years ago."

Footnote reference: Fast Facts for SN2006gy". Retrieved 2014-04-30.

SN 2006gy: NASA's Chandra Sees Brightest Supernova Ever
http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2007/sn2006gy/

Now, 73 megaparsec sounds awfully hard to measure even if you believe in Heliocentrism (which I don't).

A parsec = a distance (theoretically) of a star making an apparent journey (parallactical journey, parallax), due to earth's supposed real journey of one arcsecond. Parsec is portmeanteau word for "PAR-allax of an arc-SEC-ond".

The supposedly closest star apart from Sun (which in modern Heliocentric theory is one of the stars) is supposed to be about 4 lightears away, and its supposed distance is more than one parsec meaning less than one arc-second's angle of its annual supposedly parallactic voyage.

So to get a distance of 73 parsec you need to get an angle about 73 times smaller than an arcsecond (it does not work quite that directly in trigonometry which I do not master, but it will give you an idea). Putting mega between number and the word parsec multiplies the distance by exactly, was it a million?, and divides observed angle by about a million too.

Now, what exact angle is ONE arc second?

Two poles standing apart anywhere on earth, both exactly vertical, have prolongations meeting in the centre of earth. That meeting point has an angle of 1 arcsecond if the poles are about 30 metres apart on the surface of the earth.

And you supposed an angle by which that distance has been calculated can by any chance at all have been accurately observed? Yo' kiddin'?

So, I will take the 238 million light years away with a big pinch of salt. In other words, no challenge at all to Biblical chronology, and especially not unless you make some Heliocentric (= Geokinetic) and Astrophysical assumptions.

LifeOfASmiley

+Hans-Georg Lundahl "Biblical chronology"

Just don't bother with science then, it's obviously be too hard for you to understand.

"Now, 73 megaparsec sounds awfully hard to measure even if you believe in Heliocentrism (which I don't)."

You believe that the Earth is the center of the Universe? Why even bother with astronomy, everything contradicts your archaic beliefs.

"The supposedly closest star apart from Sun (which in modern Heliocentric theory is one of the stars)"

No, the Sun being a star is not a part of Heliocentric theory.

"And you supposed an angle by which that distance has been calculated can by any chance at all have been accurately observed? Yo' kiddin'?"

Incoherent sentence. Is english your first language? Please, don't tell me it is.

[Here he seems to refer to grammatic incoherence.]

"So to get a distance of 73 parsec you need to get an angle about 73 times smaller than an arcsecond (it does not work quite that directly in trigonometry which I do not master, but it will give you an idea). Putting mega between number and the word parsec multiplies the distance by exactly, was it a million?, and divides observed angle by about a million too."

You do not "master" in trigonometry? No surprise there, and don't bother "mastering" it either as it would be useless in this scenario. Astronomers don't use Stellar Parallax to reliably measure objects at anything over ~100pc, because (surprise, surprise!) the angle cannot be measured accurately. If you actually studied basic astronomy, you would know this, but we all know you didn't. To see actual methods used to calculate distances further than that, this is a nice chart http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~afrank/A105/LectureXV/images/FG24_010.JPG .

"Now, what exact angle is ONE arc second?

Two poles standing apart anywhere on earth, both exactly vertical, have prolongations meeting in the centre of earth. That meeting point has an angle of 1 arcsecond if the poles are about 30 metres apart on the surface of the earth."

No need to give such a stupid explanation for an arc second. A simple google search could have spared you the trouble. 1 arcsec is 1⁄60 of an arcminute or 1⁄3,600 of a degree.

I don't know why you even bother searching for these supposed answers. You don't believe anything unless it fits your biblical nonsense.

Cognitive dissonance perfected.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Incoherent sentence. Is english your first language? Please, don't tell me it is."

It's not, but if you took the sentence to be incoherent, your English is worse than mine.

"And you supposed" = main clause "[that] an angle by which that distance has been calculated can by any chance at all have been accurately observed?" = subordinate clause with inserted such, though interrogation mark belongs to main clause.

Let me parse that too:

"[that] an angle ..." = subject of main subordinate clause "by which that distance has been calculated" = relative subordinate clause with correlate in subject of the main subordinate clause "that" is an emphatic qualification to distance, and refers back to 73 megaparsec " ... can by any chance at all have been accurately observed?" = predicate of main subordinate clause.

"Astronomers don't use Stellar Parallax to reliably measure objects at anything over ~100pc, because (surprise, surprise!) the angle cannot be measured accurately."

Thank you very much for this admission.

"No need to give such a stupid explanation for an arc second. A simple google search could have spared you the trouble. 1 arcsec is 1⁄60 of an arcminute or 1⁄3,600 of a degree."

Exactly. And if you take circumference of equator as 360° around centre of earth, you get about 30 metres [at surface of Earth] for one arcsecond, if angle is in centre of earth.

Thank you for making my point.

Actually, if astronomers use stellar parallax to even about 100 parsec, I think they overestimate the accuracy of their angular measurements.

I might as well spell out for you how one arcsecond corresponds to 30 m apart vertical poles on the ground.

Two vertical poles on opposite parts of earth would be 180° apart. If you had four equidistant ones around equator, they would be 90° in angle to each other. In so big parts of equator, no need to get metres, distances are geographical, not architectural.

Vertical poles at WHAT exact distance apart would have prolongations meeting in centre of earth at the angle of ONE arcsecond?

Here is how I go about it:

• equatorial circumference (360°) = 40 075.017 km = 40 075 017 m
• one degree = 40075017 m / 360 = 111 319.4916 m
• one arcsecond = 111 319.4916 m / 3600 = 30 m 922 mm

So vertical poles 30 metres and 922 millimetres apart are not parallel, they have an angle.

If I only saw them 30 metres and 922 millimetres apart without any idea of how huge the earth was, how would I non-mathematically, merely visually, go about measuring the angle between the two poles that are 30 metres 922 millimetres apart?

You are basically saying astronomers can visually measure angles like the ones between two vertical poles that are only zero metres and 309 millimetres apart?

ONLY AFTER WHICH they find the stellar parallax method unreliable?

By "non-mathematically, merely visually", I am not even excluding use of instruments. I saw how a right angle was measured by the protractor to 88 / 89° in a geometric contruction that I saw on a video.

One more thing: The supposedly closest star apart from Sun (which in modern Heliocentric theory is one of the stars)

"No, the Sun being a star is not a part of Heliocentric theory."

If radius from Earth to where the fix stars are is much smaller than astronomy supposes, the stars, not just planets but fix stars too, are so much smaller than the sun that calling sun "one of the stars" becomes idiotic and one would have to say (with a sufficiently small universe, let's say arbitrarily one light day from earth to periphery) that sun is rather "like a star but hugely much huger".

LifeOfASmiley

+Hans-Georg Lundahl A tip, maybe look up the definition of incoherent.

Full Definition of INCOHERENT : lacking coherence: as a : lacking cohesion : loose b : lacking orderly continuity, arrangement, or relevance : inconsistent c : lacking normal clarity or intelligibility in speech or thought

[Here he seems to forget on which level he used the word "incoherent".]

"Thank you very much for this admission."

No problem, at least I know the limits of our current knowledge regarding stellar parallax.

"Exactly. And if you take circumference of equator as 360° around centre of earth, you get about 30 metres for one arcsecond, if angle is in centre of earth.

Thank you for making my point."

You weren't making a point, just rambling on for no reason. I wanted to cut it down for something called coherency.

[Of which, unlike astronomy, he is no master.]

"Actually, if astronomers use stellar parallax to even about 100 parsec, I think they overestimate the accuracy of their angular measurements."

I think you either don't understand how we do stellar parallax measurements, or underestimate the accuracy of the telescopes used.

"I might as well spell out for you how one arcsecond corresponds to 30 m apart vertical poles on the ground.

(.....)

ONLY AFTER WHICH they find the stellar parallax method unreliable?"

Irrelevant, all the irrelevance you could ever ask for. You think the Sun orbits around us, so of course you don't understand how we measure stellar parallax. Hint: We don't measure it from each pole

[I was not saying that. I was saying the angle of the greatest observed positive parallax is like the real visually undetectable angle between two apparently perfectly parallel vertical poles at 30 meters' distance the prolongations of which meet in the centre of the earth at the angle of ... 1 arc second.]

"By "non-mathematically, merely visually", I am not even excluding use of instruments. I saw how a right angle was measured by the protractor to 88 / 89° in a geometric contruction [sic] that I saw on a video."

Oh no, a geometric construction that you saw in a video? THAT HAS TO BE HOW SCIENTISTS DO IT

[That would be a correct example of detecting it visually with an instrument, rather than mathematically by counting from observations not directly measuring the angle as such.]

"If radius from Earth to where the fix stars are is much smaller than astronomy supposes, the stars, not just planets but fix stars too, are so much smaller than the sun that calling sun "one of the stars" becomes idiotic and one would have to say (with a sufficiently small universe, let's say arbitrarily one light day from earth to periphery) that sun is rather 'like a star but hugely much huger'"

Fix stars? You mean fixed stars? I hope you know they aren't actually fixed in space. They just appear to be fixed due to their distance from us. Unfortunately, the universe isn't an arbitrarily small distance. Also, the stars that you see in the sky are much bigger than how they appear, but you should know this already, right? I mean, no one could be so stupid as to suggest that the Sun is the biggest star because it appears the biggest to us, right? Oh wait, you did. I guess you really are that stupid. Basically, I am trying to pad out this comment to call you stupid. Call me out on my ad hominem, but it wouldn't really do anything.

You haven't said anything worth any salt in this discussion. All you have done is display just how much you can lie to yourself so that everything fits your naive biblical delusion.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"I think you either don't understand how we do stellar parallax measurements, or underestimate the accuracy of the telescopes used."

A telescope, by itself, is not a measure instrument of angles.

"Oh no, a geometric construction that you saw in a video? THAT HAS TO BE HOW SCIENTISTS DO IT"

I was not saying Scientists do it the same way. I was saying instruments of measuring angles have an imprecision necessarily inherent in the case.

"Fix stars? You mean fixed stars?"

Sure. Since "fixus, fixa, fixum" is already a passive perfect participle in Latin, it is synonymous to "fixed stars" where the Latin participle has been basis for an Anglo-French verb (fixer/to fix) the English participle of which is "fixed".

[He knows one way of saying it in English, I know two, and he thinks my English is bad ...]

"I hope you know they aren't actually fixed in space. They just appear to be fixed due to their distance from us."

That they are not actually totally fixed is part of my case against taking the observed parallaxes (even supposing angles one hundredth of an arcsecond could be accurately observed in themselves) as merely parallactic movement, i e as illusory movement in them due to real movement in us.

The greatest proper movement (admittedly such according to Heliocentric astronomers) is 10 arcseconds per year - no back and forth observed as yet. I e like the angle of two poles at 309 metres 22 centimetres distance both poles vertical.

So, how should one know the supposed parallax is not a proper movement? If angels can move stars, as we Christians certainly think they can, or used to think up to some of us feeling subdued by modernity, we have no guarantee of the 0.76 arcseconds back and forth yearly of proxima Centauri being really parallactic. Which, quite as much as the problem of measuring the angle accurately, rules out using parallax as a reliable distance measure AT ALL.

[Wow, this time I actually said "proxima" and not α for this parallax angle! As I should!]

"Unfortunately, the universe isn't an arbitrarily small distance."

Admittedly, it has to be huger than the largest distances accurately measured that one cannot doubt. And that means I am not doubting distances to Sun and Moon. Stars would be beyond Pluto.

"Also, the stars that you see in the sky are much bigger than how they appear, but you should know this already, right? I mean, no one could be so stupid as to suggest that the Sun is the biggest star because it appears the biggest to us, right?"

No, not quite just because of that, no. As you suggest, the distances could theoretically be such that stars very much bigger appeared very much smaller.

Or, with certain smaller distances, like as I somewhat arbitrarily suggested one light day's radius around earth, stars could be smaller than Sun, but not so much smaller than Sun as they appear. I mean, one lightday is further away than 8 lightminutes, which is, if I recall correctly, the accepted distance to Sun.

"You haven't said anything worth any salt in this discussion. All you have done is display just how much you can lie to yourself so that everything fits your naive biblical delusion."

You have shown how much you can lie to yourself to fit your naive faith in "science" - as if astrophysics were science in the same way as the cell biology used in medicine, as if studying things through the telescope were science in the same way as studying them through the microscoipe (where we know the distance in cm between probe and objective).

Any argument I have attacked as insufficiently proven, you have supported not by further proof but only by ... ad hominem.

I'll return one.

If you meant that my sentence was grammatically speaking "lacking orderly continuity, arrangement, or relevance : inconsistent" I have already called out your lack of grammatic expertise if that is how you subjectively feel with it. I parsed it coherently, and revealed its orderly arrangement.

If you are instead shifting your ground so as to mean it was incoherent in content, you have first of all contradicted your earlier statement when you ascribed it to my English, and on top of that shown a lack of grasping logic of discourse ... excepting of course when the discourse belongs to yourself or those you admire. You are not an excellent debater, now smoke that in your pipe for an ad hominem!

My distance of 1 lightday is btw not quite arbitrary.

It has to do with following aspects:

• veracity of creator is better served if we can rely on stars showing in the spot where they were 24 h earlier (or any exact number of days, or possibly of stellar days) and coinciding with where they are today. If they were say 3 lighthours away, we would have the real position of a star at another angle than where we see it;
  
  
• one or two lightdays is ideal maximum distance, since created on day four, they had to show already on day six, so Adam could see them;
  
  
• one lightday radius = two lightdays diameter = 6.28 lightdays being the distance they run during our days, referring to creation week having six days of work and one day of rest, all of it accomplished artitsically speaking in one day of orbitting around us.

In other words, there is an artistic reason, if not a strictly logic proof, for this distance.

As to your far greater distance "to even the nearest stars", it dethrones Sun among the stars, it implies speeds for objects distant in the universe around earth, that some call impossible speeds, and so it helps atheism to dethrone God by denying His pushing the universe around us each day and night. It serves a purpose more than obeys a logic proof.

LifeOfASmiley

+Hans-Georg Lundahl I have never said this is a debate. Calling this a debate would consider anything you have said a coherent argument. Unfortunately, I cannot grace your rambling with such an award.

You're "rebuttal" against my "poor english" is so laughable. You consider my grammar skills inadequate, when you cannot even understand a simple definition? You should ramble in your native language instead of trying to so in a language which is, obviously, too difficult for you to understand.

You want to use ad hominem against me? I only did it to extend my reply because your rambling is so inane and incoherent. If you want to use ad hominem, at least have some substance to your replies. If you don't, you're just going to undermine your own position.

Now, after sifting through the words you sent back to me, there is one part which I cannot just ignore. It offends reality to such a degree I cannot describe. Thus, I shall ignore and forgive the rest of your rambling, to focus on it.

"You have shown how much you can lie to yourself to fit your naive faith in 'science' - as if astrophysics were science in the same way as the cell biology used in medicine, as if studying things through the telescope were science in the same way as studying them through the microscoipe [sic] (where we know the distance in cm between probe and objective).

Any argument I have attacked as insufficiently proven, you have supported not by further proof but only by ... ad hominem."

Where have I lied? Citations are required, with relevant scientific sources that show that I am lying. [Breaking off:

Is he naive or is he tongue in cheek about my accusation of him being a naive believer in science?

Resuming his text:] Of course, you don't consider astrophysics a scientific field, as I can presume evolutionary biology as well, as it doesn't agree with your naive biblical scripture. I don't see why you consider yourself an authority in deciding, with some arbitrary line, what is and isn't a science. Unfortunately, science is unconcerned about your beliefs and arbitrary presumptions and is only concerns itself with the natural world and it's quest to understand it. Even worse is when you compare microscopes and telescopes, not fully understanding the "uncertainty" associated with them both. Every disagreement you have with the methods of astronomers using telescopes to study space, can be quite ironically, used to question the biologists and their use of microscopes. [Actually not ...] The main disagreement, being this arbitrary "perception" that you keep bringing up, but not fully forming a point with. [I did, but not the one he was expecting ...]

Also, "any argument I have attacked as insufficiently proven" [sic] would be giving you too much credit. The best I could say is that you disagree, but only on the basis that it doesn't agree with literal biblical scripture. [No, I gave scientific/logic/epistemological reasons which consistently stand even without the Bible.] You have never asked for any sort of evidence [oh yes, I have specified what types I asked for, in order to have the pleasure of ripping it apart], and have never given any evidence either [technically, logical observations aren't pieces of evidence], only dismissed elementary school concepts about space (such as the heliocentric model of our solar system). Of course, I would be happy to provide relevant scientific studies or some aid to help you understand basic scientific facts. An aid would be more relevant in this case, as your poor understanding of english and science would hinder your ability to understand an english scientific paper.

Anyways, I am growing increasingly tired of devoting 10-15 precious minutes of my day to reply to you. My impression of you has changed from the first time I replied, and it obvious you don't want to learn and change your "beliefs". So, unless you actually want to learn and catch up to modern science from your outdated scientific understanding, please don't bother wasting my time.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Where have I lied? Citations are required, with relevant scientific sources that show that I am lying."

If I were accusing you of lying ... wait, you mean you can not take it that I accuse you of being wrong - lying to yourself as I put it - without relevant scientific sources?

My relevant scientific sources for your being wrong are so elementary as to be wikipedia level. Now, that is indeed calling this - in a backhanded way - a debate.

[My sources - as distinct from the usage I make of them!]

"Anyways, I am growing increasingly tired of devoting 10-15 precious minutes of my day to reply to you."

Then don't. I prefer arguing with people who want to argue about the issues to quarrelling with people who attack my person.

Hans-Georg Lundahl/added later

Since +LifeOfASmiley seems to have taken me at the word, I will comment further for the profit of others.

I actually led him on a bit on the issue of how astronomers "measure the angle of parallax".

I am pretty certain it is not a direct measure of the angle as such. It is - since he measured mentioned telescopes - probable to my imagination that they do it like this:

Between "top and bottom" of Orion how much of a circle going through celestial poles in terms of angle on earth (as observation point is on earth) can be accurately known.

And precisely so for space between "shoulders" or between jewels in the Belt in terms of celestial longitudes.

It is a matter of degrees and not just minutes or seconds. Then they can pinpoint a smaller area within that and by tracking the picture on a screen not visually measure angle as such, but measure part of the screen and from there also part of the known angle. This stage might already get us to where centimetres on a screen correspond to minutes rather than degrees on the celestial curvature.

Then they can take an even smaller bit of that and concentrate and they can "measure" arc seconds of Heaven via the screen's subdivisions of length. That is, they cna calculate it so.

BUT, when it comes to taking this method of "measuring angle of parallax" of say α Centauri ... bbl ... [continued:]

... the method presupposes that the overall scheme of stars around the one studied stays still, has as such "zero parallax."

If instead all of Centaurus collectively has a parallax - supposing it to be such - of say 0.90 arc seconds, the measuring of 0.76 arc seconds against that background really amounts to a parallax of 1.66 arc seconds.

[My bad: "the 0.76 arc seconds of α Centauri", really the 0.76 for Proxima and the 0.74 for α Centauri, see Life of a Smiley's correction later on.]

Now, why would all of the stars collectively have a parallax of 0.90 arcseconds? Doesn't make sense, does it? So one can rely on the stars in Centaurus not having collectively a parallax, can't one?

Well, negative parallax to up to -0.90 arc seconds (i e 0.90 arc seconds other way round as compared to usual parallax) do not make sense in Heliocentrism, which attributes parallax (and indeed calls it so for this reason) to Earth observing virtually fixed stars in a way which parallactically makes it look as if they were moving, like being in a train parallactically makes it look as if trees are moving.

If parallactic misattribution of movement in observation were then the true explanation of "parallax," the fact that negative parallax has been "measured" (same methods as above), indicates that or would indicate that stars have a standard parallax of about at least 0.90 arc seconds. That would imply that most stars were in a kind of shell about 4 light years or closer to the Sun. And that alpha Centauri would have at least 1.66 arc seconds parallax and be far nearer than four light years, more like two light years.

But this supposes that maximal measuring of negative parallax corresponds to zero parallax. Probably it would correspond to a positive one.

So, with Earth moving, we have NO clue as to how far away stars really are.

Neither with Earth standing still, unless one would say that such and such a distance would be a reasonable speed for God to give the outermost parts of the Universe.

Because with Earth standing still the 0.76 arc seconds of α Centauri would not really be parallax, it would be a proper movement (probably to be explained as a dancelike aesthetic exercise of the angel holding it) and this interpretation leaves us with only one known (?) angle at earth and no known distance. The known distance between Earth and Sun would not be involved, unlike the facts pertaining to Heliocentric interpretation of the observations.

[My bad: "the 0.76 arc seconds of α Centauri", really the 0.76 for Proxima and the 0.74 for α Centauri, see Life of a Smiley's correction later on.]

As to the original ideological background for accepting parallax measures like 0.76 for α Centauri at all, it goes a bit like this:

Newton / Kant and a few more had theorised that stars exactly like the Sun (yes, back then they were not speculating in some stars half as big and some stars ten times huger than the Sun) spangle the universe uniformly (or pretty much so, like in a disc formed dimension) to an infinity every way you look (ok, perhaps the infinity was just in the disc shape of Milky Way and more sparesely spangled stars in other directions might just be finite either way). Some even that stars had existed from all eternity, so that however far away it was, even with a limited speed of light, that part going back to Roemer, before Heliocentrism was accepted, light from all stars must be reaching earth, and infinite improvement of telescopes would result in infinite new discoveries of stars.

With THAT mindset it was reasonable to assume that the standard parallax would be zero parallax so that only the closest stars had a parallax.

And thus one had no suspicions about considering the 0.76 arcseconds of α Centauri [later one has distinguished α from proxima, if I recall correctly, it is Proxima which has 0.76 arcseconds, α only 0.74]as its very own parallax, absolute as such, relative to only one movement, the individual movement of Earth around Sun.

And therefore as a reliable distance measure.

It can be noted that this parallax was not like the one discussed in the Galileo trial.

To all involved back then, "sphere of fixed stars" was a concept not to be lightly fiddled with. St Robert Bellarmine had been among the judges of Giordano Bruno who had done so. The parallax he was talking about as a non-seen corrolary of Heliocentrism and the parallax Galileo affirmed as "we will perhaps see it when telescopes get better" would have been a collective parallax of all stars. Like Virgo getting a bigger part of sky in Mars than early August/Late September (in late August and early September Virgo is anyway hidden by the Sun!) and same for Pisces getting a bigger part of the sky in September (when in opposition to the Sun).

If anyone wonders why I usually take Virgo and Pisces, it is because they are the only astrological signs I am really sure of - would Capricorn and Cancer be the signs of the solstices? I am not an astrologer and not even an astronomer.

So, the parallax foreseen as a corrollary of Heliocentrism has not been observed.

What has been observed and classified as parallax contradicts it whether you consider the real value for alpha Centauri as 0.76 arc seconds, as 1.66 arc seconds (the 0.76 arc seconds plus the 0.90 it shares with all surrounding stars) or more than 1.66 arc seconds (if the negative parallax of 0.90 is not zero parallax either, but also a positive parallax of an unknown size, though below what is directly and visually detectable).

The perhaps most economic explanation is that Heliocentrism is wrong and that parallax values are like "measured", either positive or negative or zero, but not parallactic but rather proper movements of the stars.

Life of a Smiley

+Hans-Georg Lundahl My apologies that I didn't reply to you with the swiftness you demand (sarcasm by the way, since you probably can't tell). I wasn't aware that I had a duty to reply to your rambling within a certain time frame.

"My relevant scientific sources for your being wrong are so elementary as to be wikipedia level. Now, that is indeed calling this - in a backhanded way - a debate."

Yet you didn't provide any and I'm not going to do your homework for you. Maybe this is why you are so bad at learning, you expect everyone else to learn it then teach it to you. Also, not a debate when your arguments are so bad and incoherent. Try harder or, more preferably, don't try at all.

"I actually led him on a bit on the issue of how astronomers 'measure the angle of parallax'."

You didn't lead me on about any "issue". You don't know any issues in astronomy to actually lead me on about.

"I am pretty certain it is not a direct measure of the angle as such."

You are not qualified in any relevant fields to say the phrase "pretty certain" with regards to this subject. Please refrain from doing so.

The rest of your rambling is so irrelevant and has no context with our previous discussion. I really have to ask you this first, do you know the difference between parallax and proper motion and how we measure them? Just tell me yes or no, with a brief explanation should suffice. If it is too hard for you, you could just tell me to "wikipedia" it which would lead me to conclude you don't actually know.

Why are you talking about Newton and Kant and their theories? You do know we have new observations and new theories which have been further developed, right? Why are you talking about astrology? It is a pseudoscience and completely irrelevant in this discussion.

Did you get the parallax angle for Alpha C confused with the value for Proxima C? 0.7678 +/- 0.0003 arcsec is the value for PC, while 0.7471 +/- 0.0012 arcsec is the value for AC from wikipedia. So I'd like to see your source for that. Positive parallax? Zero Parallax? Negative Parallax? You think that space is like a stereoscopic 3D TV? Please, define what you mean by each these terms and how they, in any way, relate to astronomy with regards to our current discussion. Another thing, 0.90 arcsec parallax it shares with other stars? You better provide a source for this.

I don't know why I bother. You failed at high school level physics and aren't even grasping even the most basic subjects in astronomy. If this goes on for much longer, I would expect some sort of monetary compensation for exerting so much energy. Not exerting really much energy, but the amount I am exerting is much more than I should be.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

My relevant scientific sources are as said wikipedia level. Most of them.

I have some lacunae though, yes I meant Proxima Centauri very probably.

0.76 for Proxima, 0.74 for α. If you say so.

Either way, model our observation point as centre of Earth (to the millimetre), model the positions of either - as observed, not as deduced - as points on Earth surface, they will be closer together than 30 metres. To give you an idea of what the angle means, as an angle.

Now, as to negative parallax, for once my scientific sources are not wikipedia level.

The term means that the positions are not just indistinguishable but along the year opposite directions of those expected from current explanation of what parallax is.

My ultimate scientific source is Hipparcus catalogue, via this thread:

Negative Stellar Parallax - Proof of Geocentrism and a smaller universe
[Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Apologetics]
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=462165&page=1

The highest level of negative parallax is thus a -0.90 arc seconds or so parallax, whence my reasoning stands.

Btw, I did not fail High School Physics.

... on Nicole d'Oresme refusing to apply relativity perfectly understood to Geocentric appearances

Or rather, on my refusing to decline from his example. He gave the "heavens would look as if moving" explanation too, for possibility of Earth turning. But he refused to accept this explanation as actually true, because he saw no proof of Earth turning. As you will see from the debate that follows: neither do I.

For those of you who do not know him, he was a Sorbonne professor and later Bishop of Lisieux. He is cited by scholars in history of science field and history of ideas field and Middle Age culture field. He understood imaginatively Heliocentrism - and rejected it.

1) Assorted retorts: ... on Not Believing Vedic Astronomy Apart from Geocentrism, on Believing Scholastic Astronomy Including Geocentrism, 2) ... on Nicole d'Oresme refusing to apply relativity perfectly understood to Geocentric appearances, 3) ... on Black Holes and Geocentrism, 4) Back to Godinci, 5) HGL's F.B. writings: A "Biblical" Heliocentric Misciting Holy Scripture, 6) Vy considers I accused him falsely of mis-citing the Bible, Rod invokes relativity, 7) Vy makes his point more clearly - so do I, 8) New blog on the kid : Columbus and Joshua (Imagine Christopher Columbus had worked a miracle)

Teth47

+Hans-Georg Lundahl If I had a week I couldn't explain all the reasons you're wrong...

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Teth47 - take a month!

Teth47

+Hans-Georg Lundahl I will if you're willing to learn. If nothing will sway you, then there's no point. 

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I will give you just a little hint. I have probably heard most or all of your reasons. You have probably not heard all of or even most of my answers. I am willing to debate, either for your sake, or for that of the audience.

Our debate may well land here, on this blog (I have others for my strictly own posts):

Assorted Retorts from Yahooboards and elsewhere
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com

[Ha, I warned him!]

Teth47

+Hans-Georg Lundahl If you've heard them, then you either misunderstand them or reject them without reason. Here's the thing, you don't even understand how evolution works according to comments you've given. You also don't understand physics of any kind apparently, or you wouldn't be a geocentrist as literally nothing regarding geocentrism makes any sense at all, and any "explanations" offered only further complicate an already overcomplicated and untestable hypothesis.

How about this, you provide evidence for geocentrism that isn't "Just look around you", because you don't understand relativity, and I will tell you why it's invalid, or barring that, I will become a geocentrist.

We'll start with that, then we will move into evolutionary biology.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"If you've heard them, then you either misunderstand them or reject them without reason."

Not very specific as to examples, are you?

"Here's the thing, you don't even understand how evolution works according to comments you've given."

I understand why it cannot work as it is supposed to work.

"You also don't understand physics of any kind apparently, or you wouldn't be a geocentrist as literally nothing regarding geocentrism makes any sense at all, and any "explanations" offered only further complicate an already overcomplicated and untestable hypothesis."

Oh, boy ... have I ever said "Earth has enough mass to keep all of the universe in orbit around itself"?

No, I have said that factors not depending on mass at all are overriding what influence masses could have on orbits, basically.

Namely spirits.

Saying these exist, saying these are capable of overriding physical factors is something other than not understanding how physics work.

"How about this, you provide evidence for geocentrism that isn't "Just look around you", because you don't understand relativity,"

I understand relativity so well that I am using it against the supposed argument for modern astronomy "we saw earth turn when we looked from space".

Thing is, I don't only want to know if reality COULD look like it does if Geocentrism was wrong, I would like to have solid proof it is wrong before I apply relativity to it.

Teth47

+Hans-Georg Lundahl You cannot understand how something can't work if you don't know the mechanisms by which it would/does. You do not know these things.

You clearly do not understand relativity either, you think you do, but you don't, and you're misapplying it.

Stating that spirits exist is at best pointless, and at worst idiotic. Saying that they completely override the laws of physics in order to explain an insane hypothesis that would cause existence itself to break were it true is utterly moronic.

I'm not going to give you evidence, because you've made your intentions clear. Any evidence I give, you're going to respond with "But spirits!". You will not learn, because you're either a con artist or an idiot, and I don't care to find out which is the case.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"You cannot understand how something can't work if you don't know the mechanisms by which it would/does."

Correct.

"You do not know these things."

You prefer claiming that to proving me wrong on any item.

"You clearly do not understand relativity either, you think you do, but you don't, and you're misapplying it."

Relativity per definition applies as possibly to earth seem from space as it does to space seen from earth, and we disagree on where the application would not just be possible but also correct.

I am of course talking of relativity in the general sense, independently of Einstein's theories about it.

It is more natural to take the position that the eyes of 7 billion people, along with their inner ears, all of their lives is to be believed without applying relativity than taking the position that the eyes of Armstrong and a few more is to be believed without relativity, even if it involves applying relativity to the experience of everyone else.

"Stating that spirits exist is at best pointless, and at worst idiotic."

That is not spoken as a scientist, but as a materialist.

"Saying that they completely override the laws of physics ... is utterly moronic."

Not what I was saying. I said they override the merely physical factors. No breach of any direct law involved here. Neither is there any total contradiction to any direct observation. (Earth seen from space is not totally contradicted, just explained by relativity).

"... in order to explain ..."

So, to you it is moronic to use explanations other than matter and energy? Again, that is not the word of a man of science, it is the word of a materialistic philosopher.

" ... an insane hypothesis ..."

Which at least retains the elementary sanity of believing the common witness of the senses, without explaining it away by relativity.

In other words, the hypothesis is directly confirmed by our senses, unless we treat them as policemen treat suspects.

"that would cause existence itself to break were it true"

Not if one of the spirits involved is God and e created existence to stand the strain of this movement.

Try again, but logical arguments this time, not rhetoric about how moronic you feel the opponent is!

"I'm not going to give you evidence, because you've made your intentions clear. Any evidence I give, you're going to respond with 'But spirits!'."

I think this made your intentions clear. Any evidence you intended to give - or rather its interpreation - was subject to the criticism of being interpreted by your materialism.

Teth47

+Hans-Georg Lundahl So your entire argument is an ad populum fallacy. Good to know. So now that we've established that your argument is invalid, would you like to try again? I don't even need to address any specific points yet, you haven't made any valid ones. You really, really don't understand relativity if you think that you can apply it without applying Einstein's version of it because they are the same thing you dolt.

If you think the fact that we don't feel like we're moving means we're not moving, how do you explain driving in a car and not feeling like you're moving quickly? Sit in the passenger seat and have someone drive down a perfectly flat road at high speed. Is it the clouds moving over you, or you moving under the clouds?

Inertial frames of reference are a thing, if you're moving at a constant speed, you won't feel a force on you, even though you're moving relative to a fixed point in space. How do you not get that? It's basic logic.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"So now that we've established that your argument is invalid,"

We have nothing of the sort. You pretend that "ad populum" is a fallacy, I do not.

The rest of your comment is relativity as I have understood it during my grown life, including the past more than ten years that I have been debating this issue.

Your car ride is a very good example of relativity.

However, it does not quite reveal which of the two observations it is a good parallel of - observation from Earth, by six - seven billion plus people or observation from MIR or even Moon.

In the case of the clouds, we have been still and we know about how fast clouds move across the sky (different speeds under different weather conditions, buit for each weather condition we know). Hence we can also tell that the speed at which we see clouds pass when in a car ride is not their speed, and we might conclude with some small probability it is ours.

Other indicators are even better : we know from direct experience while still or walking that telegraph poles do not move at all, so any speed we see in them must be our own speed projected on them by relativity.

When two trains are in a station, I am in one and I see the other move, I cannot know which is moving until I either see something certainly still moving, like a house, or feel the movement.

So, yes, you have an explanation, and I have already stated which of the two observations I consider it fits better.

But if you have any observation from Earth about space that you consider the equivalent of "seeing telegraph posts moving", go ahead ... be advised I might disagree about the assessment.

Teth47

+Hans-Georg Lundahl It is a fallacy. You assume your conclusion because you can't see how many people could be wrong. There was a time when everyone thought the world was flat and that lightning was caused by Thor. Most people thought that, it does not make it true. Ad populum is a fallacy because what people think does not necessarily correlate with the way reality behaves.

[Notice he gave no example of what he thinks corresponds to telegraph poles giving away that the car is moving.]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"You assume your conclusion because you can't see how many people could be wrong. "

That was not the point. Misconstruing my argument is not bettering yours.

My point was not seeing why the many observers should be wrong and the few right before their rightness was proven on other grounds.

"There was a time when everyone thought the world was flat"

Unproven, historically.

"and that lightning was caused by Thor."

Definitely not correct, historically.

"Ad populum is a fallacy because what people think does not necessarily correlate with the way reality behaves."

We were not here concerned with what the majority think, but with what they observe.

[Actually it is not so much a majority as a quasi totality. I managed to forget Teth had actually attributed to a totality past the proposition "earth is flat" and not just to a majority which may well be true of parts of Old Testament times. But visual observation of heavens moving and sensorial observation as well as visual - that is totality of seven billions. Even Armstrong and the crew of MIR spend - spent - most of their lives observing space from Earth, rather than the reverse.]

And we were not concerned with, as far as I am concerned, any prejudice it MUST be right whatever the evidence to the contrary, but rather a preliminary supposition that on a given issue they would probably be right, SO FAR AS the contrary is not proven.

Saying the seven billion COULD be wrong is banal. Proving they ARE wrong you have not done. Where they could even NOT be wrong is in the fact they observe what they observe/we observe what we observe.

Plus the most natural interpretation of WHAT we observe in this question remains stillness of earth and daily movement of "heaven" (whether that means an extent to which heavenly bodies are attached or just a collective name for moving heavenly bodies).

Note, I did not say "only possible", only "most natural". And as long as contrary is not proven, I am sticking with that.

I gave you a chance to provide a proof to the contrary, by the comparison with telegraph poles seen from a train window. What exact thing do you consider as comparable to known fixity of telegraph poles?

You cannot just throw "all of reality" in doubt and require everyone to accept your doubt. You cannot say I have to disprove things like "every day every dimension of every body in the universe shrinks to half of what it was previous day", [instead,]before doubting fixity of most or at least biggest sizes and recurrence of other sizes, please to recall you gave no reason for it.

Precisely so, when you apply relativity to what we see daily and when some (not you yourself perhaps) provide as evidence of our supposed daily rotation that earth has been seen to rotate from space, how come you do not apply relativity to that observation first?

Teth47

+Hans-Georg Lundahl It's like talking to a brick wall... Relative inertial frames of reference perfectly explain why we don't feel like we're moving, your model accounts for absolutely nothing that we observe about the nature of reality, and simply using "spirits" as an explanation without defining them or giving them properties that don't cause more problems than they solve while also disobeying the laws of nature does not cut it as evidence. You have yet to make an argument at all, you have yet to provide evidence, and you are not making correct statements.

If geocentrism is correct, it would be impossible for something to orbit another planet, anything further out than Neptune would have to be moving faster than light and the Sun would have to move up, stop, and move back down over the course of a ear with no energy input whatsoever. Why is it so hard to believe that the Earth rotates and orbits the Sun? How does that make less sense than a tiny rock being the centre of existence just because a bunch of complex chemical reactions are taking place on it? Your model holds no predictive power and cannot accurately account for anything we observe in reality.

And you are STILL misapplying relativity. If we go out to space without increasing our forward momentum relative to the rotation of the Earth, we will observe said rotation because we are orbiting slower than the Earth is rotating. Our velocity has changed, the Earth's has not, this means that the Earth had to have been rotating in the first place. Relativity dictates that unless there is a change in velocity, there will be no inertial effects experienced by an observer, regardless of velocity. We could be moving at the speed of light and it wouldn't matter so long as out velocity remains the same. Nobody would "feel" how fast we're moving.

If you come back at me with the same shit again, we're done. Make a fucking argument. Give evidence, give me a model with predictive power, show me the math, give me a diagram of the orbits of other celestial bodies, explain how Saturn has rings, and Jupiter has moons, explain how everything outside of Neptune is moving faster than light, explain where all that energy came from, and why such velocities don't generate gravitational waves of such density that they form roaming singularities. Only if you can explain every single one of these things will anyone even consider thinking about geocentrism seriously. Until then it doesn't even qualify as a hypothesis.

[He has given some argument in a thrown off manner, after complaining it was no use to give any at all, but it still lacks the direct parallel to telegraph poles - the known fixed observed as if moving by a moving observer. I'll be answering his arguments in the following:]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"If geocentrism is correct, it would be impossible for something to orbit another planet,"

No.

Perhaps you mean "if Ptolemaic geocentrism" etc. But I support Tycho Brahe and Riccioli.

"anything further out than Neptune would have to be moving faster than light"

Actually I checked. Neptune at its furthest away from Earth (if for instance beyond Sun, in January, in aphelium) gets a speed of about 1/3 generally supposed speed of light.

[If my calculation was wrong, he did not tell. Did I forget the π multiplication or sth?]

But not believing Einstein, I see no problem with stars moving faster around Earth each day (say 2π lightdays during one day) than their light takes to reach earth.

"and the Sun would have to move up, stop, and move back down over the course of a ear with no energy input whatsoever."

My point about spirits is that this solves the problem of energy input for changed direction.

When I strike one key on the keyboard rather than another, even if the food I ate is "energy input", it certainly did not dictate the choices I made about what to write.

"How does that make less sense than a tiny rock being the centre of existence just because a bunch of complex chemical reactions are taking place on it?"

That point is a synonym to denial of humanity being spiritual, and thus it is not credible.

"Your model holds no predictive power and cannot accurately account for anything we observe in reality."

Predictive is overrated. Accurate accounting I consider I am making, and your considering this inaccurate does not make it so.

"If we go out to space without increasing our forward momentum relative to the rotation of the Earth, we will observe said rotation because we are orbiting slower than the Earth is rotating. Our velocity has changed, the Earth's has not, this means that the Earth had to have been rotating in the first place."

This is the Heliocentric reason for not applying relativity to Earth's movement as observed from space.

I would say the spacecraft is actually circling Earth, and thus relativity applies.

What is your proof of the contrary?

"Give evidence,"

Seven billion's sense experience is a priori evidence. It is not unoverturnable. There might be relativity overturning it. But this has to be proven, not assumed just because you can explain how relativity works. So, until otherwise is proven (like Geocentrism being impossible, or Heliocentrism confirmed from angles where one can really rule out observation point is moving instead of earth) the seven billion people and their sense experience is evidence.

[A priori evidence - I meant of course prima facie evidence!]

"give me a model with predictive power"

I am a philosopher considering credibility, not an astronomer trying to prove I can do astronomy with my theory. I can't because I can't do astronomy, like predictions of planetary positions on exact dates, at all.

"show me the math"

Same objection as previous.

"give me a diagram of the orbits of other celestial bodies"

Look up Tychonian model, enjoy the diagrams' floridity, correct for elliptic instead of circular movements (which means updating to Riccioli, who took that from Kepler).

"explain how Saturn has rings, and Jupiter has moons,"

Or how they even orbit Sun, while Sun orbits Earth, spirits, in Christian Theology angels, are guiding each celestial body.

Each. Not just the straightforward elliptic ones.

"explain how everything outside of Neptune is moving faster than light"

How without the distortions foreseen by Einstein? He was wrong.

How as in what makes it? God provides the daily movement of the Universe. That is His main provision of proving to most men (not necessarily brick wall types like you are making yourself) that He exists.

"explain where all that energy came from"

God.

"and why such velocities don't generate gravitational waves of such density that they form roaming singularities."

God did not want gravity to work in a way that disrupted the universe.

Sungenis has btw concluded that Earth is caught in a non-roaming singularity, if you like. Yes, I mean him with "The Principle".

Teth47

+Hans-Georg Lundahl Yup, you're either a troll, insane or an idiot. I'm out. So done with our ilk.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Thanks!

That way I might get a debate with someone, perhaps as knowledgeable as you and not as numb to what I am saying.

With some real luck he might not even take "this is our explanation, it works" as incontestable proof.

[Added next day:]

For other takers if any.

I forgot to answer the point of +Teth47 when he called my theory "overcomplicated and untestable".

In the geometry of resulting movements, Geocentrism of Tycho-Riccioli model is indeed more complicated than Heliocentrism. But that does not make it over complicated. Since spirits, God Himself or created spirits, can perform these complex movements no problem, assuming they exist.

Indeed, it is Heliocentrism which is getting more complicated by the day in the order of explanatory models assumed.

As to untestable, he never answered my point that applying relativity (as commonly understood) to observations from Earth rather than to observations from space is untestable as to veracity.

That is why Nicole d'Oresme, after understanding relativity exactly as with the car ride parable, rejected the idea of applying it to observations from Earth as their correct explanation - because it was untestable in his time and still is.