OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 16, 2014, 11:41:11 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Heliocentrism/Geocentrism Issue  (Read 3265 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
OrthoNoob
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,005



« Reply #45 on: March 24, 2014, 12:33:40 AM »

Unless you're claiming that there is a global Jewish conspiracy to deceive us about how cell phones work...?

Oy, did you have to say that?  Tongue Tongue

Well, PneumaPsucheSoma has already claimed heliocentrism is a fraud propounded by 'Kabbalist atheists' so I'm not really the one who brought up the Jewish Question.
Logged

http://avengingredhand.wordpress.com -- My blog

'These words I, Leo, have set down for love and as a safeguard of the Orthodox Faith'
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #46 on: March 24, 2014, 02:45:14 AM »

The problem with geocentrism is that it does not take into account the gravitational forces involved.
Logged
OrthoNoob
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,005



« Reply #47 on: March 24, 2014, 02:51:42 AM »

The problem with geocentrism is that it does not take into account the gravitational forces involved.

Yes, that is one of the issues. Also, this bit about 'luminiferous æther' is slightly troubling.
Logged

http://avengingredhand.wordpress.com -- My blog

'These words I, Leo, have set down for love and as a safeguard of the Orthodox Faith'
PneumaPsucheSoma
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Antiochian
Posts: 49


« Reply #48 on: March 24, 2014, 07:11:01 AM »

Tfw people try to use relativity to defend geocentrism because they overlooked (or didn't understand) the word 'inertial'.

What is Tfw? Just curious.

I think if people took my stand there will be much less wasted time discussing this non-issue.



'Tfw' stands for 'that feel[feeling] when'. It's used similarly to 'that awkward moment'.

To further explicate my statement above, special relativity does not assert the equality of all reference frames. It asserts the equality of all inertial reference frames. However, any time an object is in orbit, it's constantly accelerating (by the definition of circular or elliptical motion) and therefore is not in an inertial reference frame. The earth orbits the sun. Period. Relativity doesn't change that.

You actually can't know that.  And relativity is bunk.

What cant I actually know? And LOL OK.

You can't know which orbits which of the earth and the sun.

Um...yes, I can. The earth orbits the sun. This is a fact. If this fact were not true, nothing that depends on satellites would work.

Unless you're claiming that there is a global Jewish conspiracy to deceive us about how cell phones work...?

Bare assertion, which is always the alleged "proof".  Perhaps you should explore the Neo-Tychonian view.  I doubt you have, preferring conceptual inference, etc.
Logged
PneumaPsucheSoma
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Antiochian
Posts: 49


« Reply #49 on: March 24, 2014, 07:12:27 AM »

The problem with geocentrism is that it does not take into account the gravitational forces involved.

Kinematics and dynamics must be considered separately.

And which Geocentricity model are you referring to?  Likely the obsolete Ptolemaic.
« Last Edit: March 24, 2014, 07:22:04 AM by PneumaPsucheSoma » Logged
PneumaPsucheSoma
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Antiochian
Posts: 49


« Reply #50 on: March 24, 2014, 07:15:36 AM »

The problem with geocentrism is that it does not take into account the gravitational forces involved.

Yes, that is one of the issues. Also, this bit about 'luminiferous æther' is slightly troubling.

I can see you haven't spent any time actually exploring the Neo-Tychonian Geocentric model.  And you've not presented any evidence whatsoever, just speculative inference and conceptual declaration.

You or anyone else is free to present actual empirical evidence that addresses the kinematic and dynamics to prove heliocentricity.  Until then, I am unconvinced.  It's a coin flip, and scripture more than makes the call for me.  You may choose to take a lower level of inspiration for scripture, but I do not.
Logged
PneumaPsucheSoma
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Antiochian
Posts: 49


« Reply #51 on: March 24, 2014, 07:20:16 AM »

Unless you're claiming that there is a global Jewish conspiracy to deceive us about how cell phones work...?

Oy, did you have to say that?  Tongue Tongue

Well, PneumaPsucheSoma has already claimed heliocentrism is a fraud propounded by 'Kabbalist atheists' so I'm not really the one who brought up the Jewish Question.

One needn't be a Kabbalist to embrace the infused foundation of such for the religion of Humanism through Empiricism, etc.  And it doesn't take much to wager you're likely a Theistic Evolutionist as well.
Logged
PneumaPsucheSoma
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Antiochian
Posts: 49


« Reply #52 on: March 24, 2014, 07:38:35 AM »

Let me clarify briefly.

There is no means of determining whether the earth is orbiting the sun or the sun is orbiting the earth.  It's a point of reference issue.  Kinematics (movements) and dynamics (forces) must be considered separately.  THAT there is movement doesn't determine HOW there is movement.

After spending much time examining the pitiful alleged proofs (Foucault's Pendulum, Michelson-Morley, etc.) for heliocentricity and reading a thorough series of treatments of the Neo-Tychonian model of geocentricity by modern scientists opposed to Copernicanism; I see it's a coin-flip that isn't empirically resolvable without bias.

So... I consider the passages in the God-breathed text to be more than enough as the tie-breaker for such an impasse, though most just accept what the high priests of science (falsely so called) have adamantly postulated and hypothesized into theory.  And which has already been referenced in this thread as "fact".

Fact is not necessarily nor inherently truth. So all someone will have to do to convince me of heliocentricity is provide empirical truth from any actual empiricism.  Foucault's Pendulum is a joke.  Michelson-Morley is no better.  Airy's Failure is an inverse proof, as are the others.  There ARE no other empirical proofs.  Heliocentrism was declared, not proven.  The kinematics are identical between helio and Tychonian.  Forces have been applied based upon perceived kinematics.

It's one giant tail-chasing endeavore of inference and adamance from indoctrination as cognitive dissonance.  To say it's anything more than a coin flip is Humanistic religious dogma.  But that's how pervasive the deceit and delusion has become.  It's just another sub-cognitive limbic lie sown into cultures as children to invert reasoning and cognition itself.

God didn't need billions of years of chaos finding order all by itself.  God created all decently and in order, and He didn't need created time to assist Him with His handiwork.

My faith is in the living God and the High Priest forever, not the high priests of gnosis.  My faith did not come from hearing the false rhema of Humanists.
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #53 on: March 25, 2014, 12:03:54 AM »

Let me clarify briefly.

There is no means of determining whether the earth is orbiting the sun or the sun is orbiting the earth.  It's a point of reference issue.  Kinematics (movements) and dynamics (forces) must be considered separately.  THAT there is movement doesn't determine HOW there is movement.

After spending much time examining the pitiful alleged proofs (Foucault's Pendulum, Michelson-Morley, etc.) for heliocentricity and reading a thorough series of treatments of the Neo-Tychonian model of geocentricity by modern scientists opposed to Copernicanism; I see it's a coin-flip that isn't empirically resolvable without bias.

So... I consider the passages in the God-breathed text to be more than enough as the tie-breaker for such an impasse, though most just accept what the high priests of science (falsely so called) have adamantly postulated and hypothesized into theory.  And which has already been referenced in this thread as "fact".

Fact is not necessarily nor inherently truth. So all someone will have to do to convince me of heliocentricity is provide empirical truth from any actual empiricism.  Foucault's Pendulum is a joke.  Michelson-Morley is no better.  Airy's Failure is an inverse proof, as are the others.  There ARE no other empirical proofs.  Heliocentrism was declared, not proven.  The kinematics are identical between helio and Tychonian.  Forces have been applied based upon perceived kinematics.

It's one giant tail-chasing endeavore of inference and adamance from indoctrination as cognitive dissonance.  To say it's anything more than a coin flip is Humanistic religious dogma.  But that's how pervasive the deceit and delusion has become.  It's just another sub-cognitive limbic lie sown into cultures as children to invert reasoning and cognition itself.

God didn't need billions of years of chaos finding order all by itself.  God created all decently and in order, and He didn't need created time to assist Him with His handiwork.

My faith is in the living God and the High Priest forever, not the high priests of gnosis.  My faith did not come from hearing the false rhema of Humanists.
Before giving the reasons to support heliocentrism and reject geocentrism, it is useful to know whether you argue geocentrism from the POV of Newtonian mechanics or General Relativity or neither?
Logged
PneumaPsucheSoma
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Antiochian
Posts: 49


« Reply #54 on: March 25, 2014, 12:24:56 AM »

Let me clarify briefly.

There is no means of determining whether the earth is orbiting the sun or the sun is orbiting the earth.  It's a point of reference issue.  Kinematics (movements) and dynamics (forces) must be considered separately.  THAT there is movement doesn't determine HOW there is movement.

After spending much time examining the pitiful alleged proofs (Foucault's Pendulum, Michelson-Morley, etc.) for heliocentricity and reading a thorough series of treatments of the Neo-Tychonian model of geocentricity by modern scientists opposed to Copernicanism; I see it's a coin-flip that isn't empirically resolvable without bias.

So... I consider the passages in the God-breathed text to be more than enough as the tie-breaker for such an impasse, though most just accept what the high priests of science (falsely so called) have adamantly postulated and hypothesized into theory.  And which has already been referenced in this thread as "fact".

Fact is not necessarily nor inherently truth. So all someone will have to do to convince me of heliocentricity is provide empirical truth from any actual empiricism.  Foucault's Pendulum is a joke.  Michelson-Morley is no better.  Airy's Failure is an inverse proof, as are the others.  There ARE no other empirical proofs.  Heliocentrism was declared, not proven.  The kinematics are identical between helio and Tychonian.  Forces have been applied based upon perceived kinematics.

It's one giant tail-chasing endeavore of inference and adamance from indoctrination as cognitive dissonance.  To say it's anything more than a coin flip is Humanistic religious dogma.  But that's how pervasive the deceit and delusion has become.  It's just another sub-cognitive limbic lie sown into cultures as children to invert reasoning and cognition itself.

God didn't need billions of years of chaos finding order all by itself.  God created all decently and in order, and He didn't need created time to assist Him with His handiwork.

My faith is in the living God and the High Priest forever, not the high priests of gnosis.  My faith did not come from hearing the false rhema of Humanists.
Before giving the reasons to support heliocentrism and reject geocentrism, it is useful to know whether you argue geocentrism from the POV of Newtonian mechanics or General Relativity or neither?

Neither.  And I'm not looking for "reasons".  I'm wanting absolute empirical proof of heliocentricity with data, AND a specific refutation of the Neo-Tychonian model.  It would also mean determining what gravity "is" and substantiating Newtonian and Einsteinian postulates.

If you understand what I'm referring to, you'll know that it's impossible.  Geocentricity has never been, and cannot be, disproven empirically.  Kinematics are identical, and dynamics are unproven and unprovable.
Logged
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,411



« Reply #55 on: March 25, 2014, 01:50:32 PM »

Neither.  And I'm not looking for "reasons".  I'm wanting absolute empirical proof of heliocentricity with data, AND a specific refutation of the Neo-Tychonian model.  It would also mean determining what gravity "is" and substantiating Newtonian and Einsteinian postulates.

I'm utterly confident that there is no Neo-Tychonian model. There's Tycho's old idea of the sun revolving around earth and the other planets revolving around the sun, but that's not a model that's capable of the kind of mechanical predictions that the Newtonian model produces. Tycho didn't even begin to contemplate how the local galaxy moves (he had no idea it was there) and the kind of mental hacks needed to imagine the universe moving around the earth rapidly become too belabored to take seriously.
Logged
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,502



« Reply #56 on: March 25, 2014, 03:56:38 PM »

What's with this place lately? At least the post count won't the least ever in two years. Without Shiny, this place has devolved into a near abyss of anything of interest. TBF, Tri and JMichael moving their affair offline has hurt the post count just as much.

What thread will * start tomorrow? Shucks, The Sermon on the Mount? Now What?
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
DeniseDenise
Tiredness personified
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catechumen no more!
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 2,911



« Reply #57 on: March 25, 2014, 04:42:39 PM »

What's with this place lately? At least the post count won't the least ever in two years. Without Shiny, this place has devolved into a near abyss of anything of interest. TBF, Tri and JMichael moving their affair offline has hurt the post count just as much.

What thread will * start tomorrow? Shucks, The Sermon on the Mount? Now What?


So start a thread of interest.  It's not as if this place exists just to entertain you....
Logged

Please secure your own oxygen mask before assisting other passengers.
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,502



« Reply #58 on: March 25, 2014, 04:48:14 PM »

What's with this place lately? At least the post count won't the least ever in two years. Without Shiny, this place has devolved into a near abyss of anything of interest. TBF, Tri and JMichael moving their affair offline has hurt the post count just as much.

What thread will * start tomorrow? Shucks, The Sermon on the Mount? Now What?


So start a thread of interest.  It's not as if this place exists just to entertain you....

Perhaps, but if it not entertaining me it isn't living up to its purpose.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
DeniseDenise
Tiredness personified
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catechumen no more!
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 2,911



« Reply #59 on: March 25, 2014, 04:51:08 PM »

What's with this place lately? At least the post count won't the least ever in two years. Without Shiny, this place has devolved into a near abyss of anything of interest. TBF, Tri and JMichael moving their affair offline has hurt the post count just as much.

What thread will * start tomorrow? Shucks, The Sermon on the Mount? Now What?


So start a thread of interest.  It's not as if this place exists just to entertain you....

Perhaps, but if it not entertaining me it isn't living up to its purpose.


To be clear, this site exists as an Orthodox Forum where people who identify themselves as Orthodox are given a place to discuss things pertinent to the Orthodox Faith.  In practicality, this means that there is a broad approach to allowing people from the Eastern Orthodox "Majority", the Eastern Orthodox "Traditionalists", and the Oriental Orthodox "Non-Chalcedonians" to post on topics relating to Orthodoxy.  It should be emphasized that it is the policy of this site that no one is required to affirm that any of the other groups are canonical or Orthodox, but rather the purpose of the broad approach is to allow broad discussion on topics that in academic discourse are labeled "Orthodox studies."




I guess your version of the 'Purpose and Rules' has an added line that mine lacks...


'At all times, these topics must conform to the Orthonorm standards of Entertainment Value.'


Logged

Please secure your own oxygen mask before assisting other passengers.
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,502



« Reply #60 on: March 25, 2014, 04:57:36 PM »

What's with this place lately? At least the post count won't the least ever in two years. Without Shiny, this place has devolved into a near abyss of anything of interest. TBF, Tri and JMichael moving their affair offline has hurt the post count just as much.

What thread will * start tomorrow? Shucks, The Sermon on the Mount? Now What?


So start a thread of interest.  It's not as if this place exists just to entertain you....

Perhaps, but if it not entertaining me it isn't living up to its purpose.


To be clear, this site exists as an Orthodox Forum where people who identify themselves as Orthodox are given a place to discuss things pertinent to the Orthodox Faith.


Statements of purpose are hardly ever true. And this one is as off as any. Look at what is discussed here. Hang around a bit. Near my post count and time here and knowledge of the folks who post and who just lurk here, then get back to me.

This place like any other serves primarily as a means of entertainment for those who visit. Look at all the top posters, the top 15 or so make up a lot of the posts here. Every one of them is posting for kicks.

Some of us are more open about it. And some of us are able to be truly serious when the need arises, the rest live in a netherworld never posting anything of either interest or import.

Boardz are as boardz do and this one is more than a little bored lately. But hey, new folks stirring up a threads, so there's that.
« Last Edit: March 25, 2014, 04:58:11 PM by orthonorm » Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
DeniseDenise
Tiredness personified
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catechumen no more!
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 2,911



« Reply #61 on: March 25, 2014, 05:03:11 PM »

What's with this place lately? At least the post count won't the least ever in two years. Without Shiny, this place has devolved into a near abyss of anything of interest. TBF, Tri and JMichael moving their affair offline has hurt the post count just as much.

What thread will * start tomorrow? Shucks, The Sermon on the Mount? Now What?


So start a thread of interest.  It's not as if this place exists just to entertain you....

Perhaps, but if it not entertaining me it isn't living up to its purpose.


To be clear, this site exists as an Orthodox Forum where people who identify themselves as Orthodox are given a place to discuss things pertinent to the Orthodox Faith.


Statements of purpose are hardly ever true. And this one is as off as any. Look at what is discussed here. Hang around a bit. Near my post count and time here and knowledge of the folks who post and who just lurk here, then get back to me.

This place like any other serves primarily as a means of entertainment for those who visit. Look at all the top posters, the top 15 or so make up a lot of the posts here. Every one of them is posting for kicks.

Some of us are more open about it. And some of us are able to be truly serious when the need arises, the rest live in a netherworld never posting anything of either interest or import.

Boardz are as boardz do and this one is more than a little bored lately. But hey, new folks stirring up a threads, so there's that.


Just because the top posters are posting for kicks...as you put it...does not mean the main purpose of the board is not being fufilled in other folks, perhaps less prolific that answer questions, discuss things (that obviously just bore the pants off you)....and so forth.

I am fairly sure that what most people value as important or interesting, are things that you do not share....your loss.
Logged

Please secure your own oxygen mask before assisting other passengers.
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #62 on: March 25, 2014, 05:53:35 PM »

Let me clarify briefly.

There is no means of determining whether the earth is orbiting the sun or the sun is orbiting the earth.  It's a point of reference issue.  Kinematics (movements) and dynamics (forces) must be considered separately.  THAT there is movement doesn't determine HOW there is movement.

After spending much time examining the pitiful alleged proofs (Foucault's Pendulum, Michelson-Morley, etc.) for heliocentricity and reading a thorough series of treatments of the Neo-Tychonian model of geocentricity by modern scientists opposed to Copernicanism; I see it's a coin-flip that isn't empirically resolvable without bias.

So... I consider the passages in the God-breathed text to be more than enough as the tie-breaker for such an impasse, though most just accept what the high priests of science (falsely so called) have adamantly postulated and hypothesized into theory.  And which has already been referenced in this thread as "fact".

Fact is not necessarily nor inherently truth. So all someone will have to do to convince me of heliocentricity is provide empirical truth from any actual empiricism.  Foucault's Pendulum is a joke.  Michelson-Morley is no better.  Airy's Failure is an inverse proof, as are the others.  There ARE no other empirical proofs.  Heliocentrism was declared, not proven.  The kinematics are identical between helio and Tychonian.  Forces have been applied based upon perceived kinematics.

It's one giant tail-chasing endeavore of inference and adamance from indoctrination as cognitive dissonance.  To say it's anything more than a coin flip is Humanistic religious dogma.  But that's how pervasive the deceit and delusion has become.  It's just another sub-cognitive limbic lie sown into cultures as children to invert reasoning and cognition itself.

God didn't need billions of years of chaos finding order all by itself.  God created all decently and in order, and He didn't need created time to assist Him with His handiwork.

My faith is in the living God and the High Priest forever, not the high priests of gnosis.  My faith did not come from hearing the false rhema of Humanists.
Before giving the reasons to support heliocentrism and reject geocentrism, it is useful to know whether you argue geocentrism from the POV of Newtonian mechanics or General Relativity or neither?

Neither.  And I'm not looking for "reasons".  I'm wanting absolute empirical proof of heliocentricity with data, AND a specific refutation of the Neo-Tychonian model.  It would also mean determining what gravity "is" and substantiating Newtonian and Einsteinian postulates.

If you understand what I'm referring to, you'll know that it's impossible.  Geocentricity has never been, and cannot be, disproven empirically.  Kinematics are identical, and dynamics are unproven and unprovable.
You can draw a curve (kinematics) to model geocentrism. But you won't be able to account for the forces involved. The heliocentric model does that nicely. Kepler's three laws of motion can be mathematically  deduced from Newton's laws.
Logged
Sinful Hypocrite
Everyday I am critical of others. Every day I make similar mistakes. Every day I am a hypocrite.
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: "The Orthodox Church" by Bishop Kallistos Ware: "We know where the Church is but we cannot be sure where it is not; and so we must refrain from passing judgment on non-Orthodox Christians."
Posts: 1,681


Great googly moogly!


« Reply #63 on: March 25, 2014, 06:03:42 PM »

I had no idea people questioned heliocentrism.

Yeah, and there are some who say we did not land on the moon Roll Eyes.

Galileo said it well, "The Bible teaches how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go."
« Last Edit: March 25, 2014, 06:05:07 PM by Sinful Hypocrite » Logged

The Lord gathers his sheep, I fear I am a goat. Lord have mercy.

"A Christian is someone who follows and worships a perfectly good God who revealed his true face through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.“
PneumaPsucheSoma
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Antiochian
Posts: 49


« Reply #64 on: March 25, 2014, 10:36:42 PM »

Neither.  And I'm not looking for "reasons".  I'm wanting absolute empirical proof of heliocentricity with data, AND a specific refutation of the Neo-Tychonian model.  It would also mean determining what gravity "is" and substantiating Newtonian and Einsteinian postulates.

I'm utterly confident that there is no Neo-Tychonian model. There's Tycho's old idea of the sun revolving around earth and the other planets revolving around the sun, but that's not a model that's capable of the kind of mechanical predictions that the Newtonian model produces. Tycho didn't even begin to contemplate how the local galaxy moves (he had no idea it was there) and the kind of mental hacks needed to imagine the universe moving around the earth rapidly become too belabored to take seriously.

Then it should be quite simple for you to produce the thorough and absolute empirical data that refutes whatever you'd like to call any form of the Tychonian model of geocentricity.  Start with kinematics and move to dynamics, with all the data references.  I'd like to access all the evidence from the scientific community.

Remember... It also means a lower view of inspiration of scripture.  It reduces the text to men's authorship rather than the Holy Spirit.
Logged
PneumaPsucheSoma
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Antiochian
Posts: 49


« Reply #65 on: March 25, 2014, 10:47:30 PM »

Let me clarify briefly.

There is no means of determining whether the earth is orbiting the sun or the sun is orbiting the earth.  It's a point of reference issue.  Kinematics (movements) and dynamics (forces) must be considered separately.  THAT there is movement doesn't determine HOW there is movement.

After spending much time examining the pitiful alleged proofs (Foucault's Pendulum, Michelson-Morley, etc.) for heliocentricity and reading a thorough series of treatments of the Neo-Tychonian model of geocentricity by modern scientists opposed to Copernicanism; I see it's a coin-flip that isn't empirically resolvable without bias.

So... I consider the passages in the God-breathed text to be more than enough as the tie-breaker for such an impasse, though most just accept what the high priests of science (falsely so called) have adamantly postulated and hypothesized into theory.  And which has already been referenced in this thread as "fact".

Fact is not necessarily nor inherently truth. So all someone will have to do to convince me of heliocentricity is provide empirical truth from any actual empiricism.  Foucault's Pendulum is a joke.  Michelson-Morley is no better.  Airy's Failure is an inverse proof, as are the others.  There ARE no other empirical proofs.  Heliocentrism was declared, not proven.  The kinematics are identical between helio and Tychonian.  Forces have been applied based upon perceived kinematics.

It's one giant tail-chasing endeavore of inference and adamance from indoctrination as cognitive dissonance.  To say it's anything more than a coin flip is Humanistic religious dogma.  But that's how pervasive the deceit and delusion has become.  It's just another sub-cognitive limbic lie sown into cultures as children to invert reasoning and cognition itself.

God didn't need billions of years of chaos finding order all by itself.  God created all decently and in order, and He didn't need created time to assist Him with His handiwork.

My faith is in the living God and the High Priest forever, not the high priests of gnosis.  My faith did not come from hearing the false rhema of Humanists.
Before giving the reasons to support heliocentrism and reject geocentrism, it is useful to know whether you argue geocentrism from the POV of Newtonian mechanics or General Relativity or neither?

Neither.  And I'm not looking for "reasons".  I'm wanting absolute empirical proof of heliocentricity with data, AND a specific refutation of the Neo-Tychonian model.  It would also mean determining what gravity "is" and substantiating Newtonian and Einsteinian postulates.

If you understand what I'm referring to, you'll know that it's impossible.  Geocentricity has never been, and cannot be, disproven empirically.  Kinematics are identical, and dynamics are unproven and unprovable.
You can draw a curve (kinematics) to model geocentrism. But you won't be able to account for the forces involved. The heliocentric model does that nicely. Kepler's three laws of motion can be mathematically  deduced from Newton's laws.

I'm really more interested in whatever sound and absolute refutation there is for Tychonian geocentricity with literal data.

All the conceptualizing in the world won't replace absolute fundamental empirical proofs from actual experiments that aren't just formulations and projections.  I've spent a good deal of time investigating this topic rather than just migrating to the cultural norm of bare assertion.

Modern geocentrists aren't just delusional idiots.  There's quite a bulk of information that legitimately challenges the now-status quo.  There isn't even a reasonable overall explanation and understanding of what gravity IS, and Newtonian precepts are far from universal.

I'll have to see the experiments, both for and against geocentricity, with falsifications.
Logged
PneumaPsucheSoma
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Antiochian
Posts: 49


« Reply #66 on: March 25, 2014, 10:51:09 PM »

I had no idea people questioned heliocentrism.

Yeah, and there are some who say we did not land on the moon Roll Eyes.

Galileo said it well, "The Bible teaches how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go."

And Joshua said, "Sun stand still."  (My paraphrase.)  Scripture is supposed to be God-breathed.  I, for one, take that quite seriously.  Galileo, on the other hand, has no bearing on inspired truth.  I don't quote him.
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #67 on: March 26, 2014, 12:00:08 AM »


I'll have to see the experiments, both for and against geocentricity, with falsifications.
An apple falling from a tree is a basic experiment which supports Newton's laws of motion. From there you can easily derive Kepler's laws.
It is inconsistent with any physical theory of gravity to have the stars and galaxies with a radius of 14 billion light years and a mass of 10^27 times the earth rotating about the earth every 24 hours.
Logged
OrthoNoob
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,005



« Reply #68 on: March 26, 2014, 12:54:24 AM »

I had no idea people questioned heliocentrism.

Yeah, and there are some who say we did not land on the moon Roll Eyes.

Galileo said it well, "The Bible teaches how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go."

And Joshua said, "Sun stand still."  (My paraphrase.)  Scripture is supposed to be God-breathed.  I, for one, take that quite seriously.  Galileo, on the other hand, has no bearing on inspired truth.  I don't quote him.

You know the Psalms make reference to 'the four corners of the earth', right? Do you take that in the most idiotically literal way possible as well?
Logged

http://avengingredhand.wordpress.com -- My blog

'These words I, Leo, have set down for love and as a safeguard of the Orthodox Faith'
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,411



« Reply #69 on: March 26, 2014, 05:30:07 AM »

Neither.  And I'm not looking for "reasons".  I'm wanting absolute empirical proof of heliocentricity with data, AND a specific refutation of the Neo-Tychonian model.  It would also mean determining what gravity "is" and substantiating Newtonian and Einsteinian postulates.

I'm utterly confident that there is no Neo-Tychonian model. There's Tycho's old idea of the sun revolving around earth and the other planets revolving around the sun, but that's not a model that's capable of the kind of mechanical predictions that the Newtonian model produces. Tycho didn't even begin to contemplate how the local galaxy moves (he had no idea it was there) and the kind of mental hacks needed to imagine the universe moving around the earth rapidly become too belabored to take seriously.

Then it should be quite simple for you to produce the thorough and absolute empirical data that refutes whatever you'd like to call any form of the Tychonian model of geocentricity.  Start with kinematics and move to dynamics, with all the data references.  I'd like to access all the evidence from the scientific community.

Anyone who isn't a crank or a dolt can read the material for themselves in innumerable textbooks and popular scientific works; I feel no obligation to you as a judge on this. That the man-made satellites that my father worked on can be chucked all over the solar system is of itself sufficient proof for me. Besides, that still leaves you without a model.

Quote
Remember... It also means a lower view of inspiration of scripture.  It reduces the text to men's authorship rather than the Holy Spirit.

I also do not give you weight as an interpreter of scripture.
Logged
Sinful Hypocrite
Everyday I am critical of others. Every day I make similar mistakes. Every day I am a hypocrite.
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: "The Orthodox Church" by Bishop Kallistos Ware: "We know where the Church is but we cannot be sure where it is not; and so we must refrain from passing judgment on non-Orthodox Christians."
Posts: 1,681


Great googly moogly!


« Reply #70 on: March 26, 2014, 05:03:49 PM »

I had no idea people questioned heliocentrism.

Yeah, and there are some who say we did not land on the moon Roll Eyes.

Galileo said it well, "The Bible teaches how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go."

And Joshua said, "Sun stand still."  (My paraphrase.)  Scripture is supposed to be God-breathed.  I, for one, take that quite seriously.  Galileo, on the other hand, has no bearing on inspired truth.  I don't quote him.
Yes , and the Church said much the same when they branded him a heretic, and it took over 500 years before admitting their mistake, but some people never learn.
« Last Edit: March 26, 2014, 05:04:21 PM by Sinful Hypocrite » Logged

The Lord gathers his sheep, I fear I am a goat. Lord have mercy.

"A Christian is someone who follows and worships a perfectly good God who revealed his true face through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.“
PneumaPsucheSoma
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Antiochian
Posts: 49


« Reply #71 on: March 27, 2014, 01:58:34 AM »


I'll have to see the experiments, both for and against geocentricity, with falsifications.
An apple falling from a tree is a basic experiment which supports Newton's laws of motion. From there you can easily derive Kepler's laws.

Then you'll be providing the actual empirical application of a falling apple extrapolated to be valid for the entire universe?  And you'll be referencing some actual falsifiable experimentation that disproves geocentricity and proves heliocentricity?

The reason you can't and won't, you see, is because it has never happened.  And anyone who actually knows anything about this field recognizes it's a coin-toss with preferences and no allowances for any other consideration.  That's why there's only a much smaller group of scientists focusing on geocentricity and other answers to the various paradoxes and band-aids of the biased mainstream views.

Quote
It is inconsistent with any physical theory of gravity to have the stars and galaxies with a radius of 14 billion light years and a mass of 10^27 times the earth rotating about the earth every 24 hours.

They're not rotating about the earth every 24 hours.  Space is, as it carries them in its postulated Planck density of 10^93.  You'll need to tell us what gravity IS, then, too.  Newton didn't know.  Nobody knows.

What this always does is escalate with condescension, etc. for anyone who dares oppose a view that has never been truly established in the same empirical manner as demanded of virtually everything else.  And I'm always the idiot moron whatever, just because I have actually examined the lack of evidence after being duped by heliocentricity most of my own life.

It's sad to endure this from professing believers from the Orthodox and Latin traditions, when most have never even considered the topic or have any idea who Tycho Brahe even is.  Most initially think I'm advocating the Ptolemaic model.
Logged
PneumaPsucheSoma
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Antiochian
Posts: 49


« Reply #72 on: March 27, 2014, 02:05:50 AM »

I had no idea people questioned heliocentrism.

Yeah, and there are some who say we did not land on the moon Roll Eyes.

Galileo said it well, "The Bible teaches how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go."

And Joshua said, "Sun stand still."  (My paraphrase.)  Scripture is supposed to be God-breathed.  I, for one, take that quite seriously.  Galileo, on the other hand, has no bearing on inspired truth.  I don't quote him.

You know the Psalms make reference to 'the four corners of the earth', right? Do you take that in the most idiotically literal way possible as well?

No.  Considering the Hebrew semantics and grammar, and figurative language mechanisms, there's no need to do so.  I suppose everything needs to be allegorized into non-reality so we'll have to embrace Hegelian Dialectic about every truth of the faith instead of scripture and holy tradition.  Not for me.

Notice how quickly this degenerates to veiled name-calling, and yet there is no direct and falsifiable empirical evidence to provide.  Just conceptualization and inference from a lifetime of regurgitating a biased status quo from Atheists who foundationally give no quarter to any possiblity of creationism.
Logged
PneumaPsucheSoma
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Antiochian
Posts: 49


« Reply #73 on: March 27, 2014, 02:15:42 AM »

Neither.  And I'm not looking for "reasons".  I'm wanting absolute empirical proof of heliocentricity with data, AND a specific refutation of the Neo-Tychonian model.  It would also mean determining what gravity "is" and substantiating Newtonian and Einsteinian postulates.

I'm utterly confident that there is no Neo-Tychonian model. There's Tycho's old idea of the sun revolving around earth and the other planets revolving around the sun, but that's not a model that's capable of the kind of mechanical predictions that the Newtonian model produces. Tycho didn't even begin to contemplate how the local galaxy moves (he had no idea it was there) and the kind of mental hacks needed to imagine the universe moving around the earth rapidly become too belabored to take seriously.

Then it should be quite simple for you to produce the thorough and absolute empirical data that refutes whatever you'd like to call any form of the Tychonian model of geocentricity.  Start with kinematics and move to dynamics, with all the data references.  I'd like to access all the evidence from the scientific community.

Anyone who isn't a crank or a dolt can read the material for themselves in innumerable textbooks and popular scientific works; I feel no obligation to you as a judge on this. That the man-made satellites that my father worked on can be chucked all over the solar system is of itself sufficient proof for me. Besides, that still leaves you without a model.

Quote
Remember... It also means a lower view of inspiration of scripture.  It reduces the text to men's authorship rather than the Holy Spirit.

I also do not give you weight as an interpreter of scripture.


And there you have it.  Agitated insolence and aggression, just because I challenge the failed status quo that has indoctrinated every modern culture with Scientific Naturalism.

I know how you feel.  It was my first reaction a few years ago before having the sense to explore the topic for myself.

I see you're content to let every breathing Atheist interpret scripture, but can't abide a fellow believer suggesting they're wrong based upon the inspired text and an extended look at the lack of evidence.

I don't really care what you think, in the end.  I feel no obligation to you as the judge on this matter, either.  You merely believe the same 4th-grade lie you always did without bothering to question the foundations.

IOW... You won't be actually providing any established and falsifiable empirical proofs, but will resort to calling me names in the stead of said evidence.  I'm accustomed to that.  Cognitive dissonance is a cruel master for heliocentrists.
Logged
PneumaPsucheSoma
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Antiochian
Posts: 49


« Reply #74 on: March 27, 2014, 02:23:48 AM »

I had no idea people questioned heliocentrism.

Yeah, and there are some who say we did not land on the moon Roll Eyes.

Galileo said it well, "The Bible teaches how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go."

And Joshua said, "Sun stand still."  (My paraphrase.)  Scripture is supposed to be God-breathed.  I, for one, take that quite seriously.  Galileo, on the other hand, has no bearing on inspired truth.  I don't quote him.
Yes , and the Church said much the same when they branded him a heretic, and it took over 500 years before admitting their mistake, but some people never learn.

I see.  So you won't and can't provide any actual falsifiable empirical evidence FOR heliocentricity and AGAINST geocentricity.  Rhetoric is irrelevant.  Let's see the extensive data.

You're right.  Some people never learn.  The rest of the few of us examine such things instead of placing our trust in intentional deception such as heliocentricity.

Have you ever bothered to do some modern open-minded research?  Highly doubtful.

The Pied Piper would be proud.  (Cue melody.)
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #75 on: March 27, 2014, 02:37:15 AM »


I'll have to see the experiments, both for and against geocentricity, with falsifications.
An apple falling from a tree is a basic experiment which supports Newton's laws of motion. From there you can easily derive Kepler's laws.

Then you'll be providing the actual empirical application of a falling apple extrapolated to be valid for the entire universe?  And you'll be referencing some actual falsifiable experimentation that disproves geocentricity and proves heliocentricity?

The reason you can't and won't, you see, is because it has never happened.  And anyone who actually knows anything about this field recognizes it's a coin-toss with preferences and no allowances for any other consideration.  That's why there's only a much smaller group of scientists focusing on geocentricity and other answers to the various paradoxes and band-aids of the biased mainstream views.

Quote
It is inconsistent with any physical theory of gravity to have the stars and galaxies with a radius of 14 billion light years and a mass of 10^27 times the earth rotating about the earth every 24 hours.

They're not rotating about the earth every 24 hours.  Space is, as it carries them in its postulated Planck density of 10^93.  You'll need to tell us what gravity IS, then, too.  Newton didn't know.  Nobody knows.

What this always does is escalate with condescension, etc. for anyone who dares oppose a view that has never been truly established in the same empirical manner as demanded of virtually everything else.  And I'm always the idiot moron whatever, just because I have actually examined the lack of evidence after being duped by heliocentricity most of my own life.

It's sad to endure this from professing believers from the Orthodox and Latin traditions, when most have never even considered the topic or have any idea who Tycho Brahe even is.  Most initially think I'm advocating the Ptolemaic model.
At the non-relativistic scales of measurement that we are familiar with, Newton's laws of motion have been verified by experiment and observation for over 200 years.
Logged
PneumaPsucheSoma
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Antiochian
Posts: 49


« Reply #76 on: March 27, 2014, 10:06:16 AM »


I'll have to see the experiments, both for and against geocentricity, with falsifications.
An apple falling from a tree is a basic experiment which supports Newton's laws of motion. From there you can easily derive Kepler's laws.

Then you'll be providing the actual empirical application of a falling apple extrapolated to be valid for the entire universe?  And you'll be referencing some actual falsifiable experimentation that disproves geocentricity and proves heliocentricity?

The reason you can't and won't, you see, is because it has never happened.  And anyone who actually knows anything about this field recognizes it's a coin-toss with preferences and no allowances for any other consideration.  That's why there's only a much smaller group of scientists focusing on geocentricity and other answers to the various paradoxes and band-aids of the biased mainstream views.

Quote
It is inconsistent with any physical theory of gravity to have the stars and galaxies with a radius of 14 billion light years and a mass of 10^27 times the earth rotating about the earth every 24 hours.

They're not rotating about the earth every 24 hours.  Space is, as it carries them in its postulated Planck density of 10^93.  You'll need to tell us what gravity IS, then, too.  Newton didn't know.  Nobody knows.

What this always does is escalate with condescension, etc. for anyone who dares oppose a view that has never been truly established in the same empirical manner as demanded of virtually everything else.  And I'm always the idiot moron whatever, just because I have actually examined the lack of evidence after being duped by heliocentricity most of my own life.

It's sad to endure this from professing believers from the Orthodox and Latin traditions, when most have never even considered the topic or have any idea who Tycho Brahe even is.  Most initially think I'm advocating the Ptolemaic model.
At the non-relativistic scales of measurement that we are familiar with, Newton's laws of motion have been verified by experiment and observation for over 200 years.

Then instead of generalization and conceptualization as speculation, there should be plenty of falsifiable empirical experimentation and data to scrutinize and make a clear and unequivocal determination.  Yet there isn't.

Kinematics (movements) and dynamics (forces) must be considered separately.  The kinematics are identical with inverted frames of reference for sun and earth, if you'll access or construct an orery to observe them.  So dynamics then bear the burden of proof without all the gesticulations about satellites and other movement-related observations.

This isn't the easy simple declaration it's been made out to be.  It's just taboo to dare challenge the high priesthood of Empiricism and Rationalism.  This blatant prelest shouldn't be allowed to be a foundational part of anyone's faith.  But that part is above my paygrade.  I'm only responsible for me in this regard.

Again... I'd invite anyone to present actual and irrefutable falsifiable empirical data contrasting heliocentricity and (Tychonian) geocentricity.  It would also be interesting to see how many know about a non-Ptolemaic model to begin with.  I haven't met anyone yet who knew anything about the historical process except what they were indoctrinated to believe from childhood out of secular textbooks propagandizing biased lies of an earth spinning at +/- 800mph while hurtling through the (alleged) nothingness of space in orbit at... wait for it... 67,000mph.

Projection, conceptualization, extrapolation, and speculation are no more valid than the arrogant condescension, denegration, and obfuscation that always accompany this topic instead of cogent and undeniable empiricism.

Those who worship at the altar of the religion of Scientific Naturalism are of no concern to my living faith in the God of ALL creation and the Church.  I'd just like to see the empirical results of the alleged Empiricism.
« Last Edit: March 27, 2014, 10:08:21 AM by PneumaPsucheSoma » Logged
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,411



« Reply #77 on: March 27, 2014, 11:49:32 AM »

Look, if you want to hold as some metaphysical tenet that the earth doesn't move, I don't care. If you don't understand how Foucault's pendulum demonstrates the rotation of the earth, I probably can't fix that. But if you can't produce a model which explains the pendulum's behavior, you have nothing.
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #78 on: March 27, 2014, 01:57:35 PM »


I'll have to see the experiments, both for and against geocentricity, with falsifications.
An apple falling from a tree is a basic experiment which supports Newton's laws of motion. From there you can easily derive Kepler's laws.

Then you'll be providing the actual empirical application of a falling apple extrapolated to be valid for the entire universe?  And you'll be referencing some actual falsifiable experimentation that disproves geocentricity and proves heliocentricity?

The reason you can't and won't, you see, is because it has never happened.  And anyone who actually knows anything about this field recognizes it's a coin-toss with preferences and no allowances for any other consideration.  That's why there's only a much smaller group of scientists focusing on geocentricity and other answers to the various paradoxes and band-aids of the biased mainstream views.

Quote
It is inconsistent with any physical theory of gravity to have the stars and galaxies with a radius of 14 billion light years and a mass of 10^27 times the earth rotating about the earth every 24 hours.

They're not rotating about the earth every 24 hours.  Space is, as it carries them in its postulated Planck density of 10^93.  You'll need to tell us what gravity IS, then, too.  Newton didn't know.  Nobody knows.

What this always does is escalate with condescension, etc. for anyone who dares oppose a view that has never been truly established in the same empirical manner as demanded of virtually everything else.  And I'm always the idiot moron whatever, just because I have actually examined the lack of evidence after being duped by heliocentricity most of my own life.

It's sad to endure this from professing believers from the Orthodox and Latin traditions, when most have never even considered the topic or have any idea who Tycho Brahe even is.  Most initially think I'm advocating the Ptolemaic model.
At the non-relativistic scales of measurement that we are familiar with, Newton's laws of motion have been verified by experiment and observation for over 200 years.

Then instead of generalization and conceptualization as speculation, there should be plenty of falsifiable empirical experimentation and data to scrutinize and make a clear and unequivocal determination.  Yet there isn't.

Kinematics (movements) and dynamics (forces) must be considered separately.  The kinematics are identical with inverted frames of reference for sun and earth, if you'll access or construct an orery to observe them.  So dynamics then bear the burden of proof without all the gesticulations about satellites and other movement-related observations.

This isn't the easy simple declaration it's been made out to be.  It's just taboo to dare challenge the high priesthood of Empiricism and Rationalism.  This blatant prelest shouldn't be allowed to be a foundational part of anyone's faith.  But that part is above my paygrade.  I'm only responsible for me in this regard.

Again... I'd invite anyone to present actual and irrefutable falsifiable empirical data contrasting heliocentricity and (Tychonian) geocentricity.  It would also be interesting to see how many know about a non-Ptolemaic model to begin with.  I haven't met anyone yet who knew anything about the historical process except what they were indoctrinated to believe from childhood out of secular textbooks propagandizing biased lies of an earth spinning at +/- 800mph while hurtling through the (alleged) nothingness of space in orbit at... wait for it... 67,000mph.

Projection, conceptualization, extrapolation, and speculation are no more valid than the arrogant condescension, denegration, and obfuscation that always accompany this topic instead of cogent and undeniable empiricism.

Those who worship at the altar of the religion of Scientific Naturalism are of no concern to my living faith in the God of ALL creation and the Church.  I'd just like to see the empirical results of the alleged Empiricism.
Weather systems always rotate counter clockwise in the northern hemisphere and clockwise  in the southern hemisphere. This would not happen in a geostationary earth. 
Logged
PneumaPsucheSoma
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Antiochian
Posts: 49


« Reply #79 on: March 28, 2014, 01:34:48 PM »

Look, if you want to hold as some metaphysical tenet that the earth doesn't move, I don't care. If you don't understand how Foucault's pendulum demonstrates the rotation of the earth, I probably can't fix that. But if you can't produce a model which explains the pendulum's behavior, you have nothing.

It's already been done.  Foucault's Pendulum doesn't inherently demonstrate rotation or heliocentricity.  Maybe you should research more than the one biased view of a nominal and rudimentary "experiment".  If you don't, and you want to adhere to humanistic dogma, I probably can't fix that.

Just be honest.  You've never once even remotely considered this topic without complete bias from a lifetime of indoctrination into Scientific Naturalism.
Logged
PneumaPsucheSoma
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Antiochian
Posts: 49


« Reply #80 on: March 28, 2014, 01:36:00 PM »


I'll have to see the experiments, both for and against geocentricity, with falsifications.
An apple falling from a tree is a basic experiment which supports Newton's laws of motion. From there you can easily derive Kepler's laws.

Then you'll be providing the actual empirical application of a falling apple extrapolated to be valid for the entire universe?  And you'll be referencing some actual falsifiable experimentation that disproves geocentricity and proves heliocentricity?

The reason you can't and won't, you see, is because it has never happened.  And anyone who actually knows anything about this field recognizes it's a coin-toss with preferences and no allowances for any other consideration.  That's why there's only a much smaller group of scientists focusing on geocentricity and other answers to the various paradoxes and band-aids of the biased mainstream views.

Quote
It is inconsistent with any physical theory of gravity to have the stars and galaxies with a radius of 14 billion light years and a mass of 10^27 times the earth rotating about the earth every 24 hours.

They're not rotating about the earth every 24 hours.  Space is, as it carries them in its postulated Planck density of 10^93.  You'll need to tell us what gravity IS, then, too.  Newton didn't know.  Nobody knows.

What this always does is escalate with condescension, etc. for anyone who dares oppose a view that has never been truly established in the same empirical manner as demanded of virtually everything else.  And I'm always the idiot moron whatever, just because I have actually examined the lack of evidence after being duped by heliocentricity most of my own life.

It's sad to endure this from professing believers from the Orthodox and Latin traditions, when most have never even considered the topic or have any idea who Tycho Brahe even is.  Most initially think I'm advocating the Ptolemaic model.
At the non-relativistic scales of measurement that we are familiar with, Newton's laws of motion have been verified by experiment and observation for over 200 years.

Then instead of generalization and conceptualization as speculation, there should be plenty of falsifiable empirical experimentation and data to scrutinize and make a clear and unequivocal determination.  Yet there isn't.

Kinematics (movements) and dynamics (forces) must be considered separately.  The kinematics are identical with inverted frames of reference for sun and earth, if you'll access or construct an orery to observe them.  So dynamics then bear the burden of proof without all the gesticulations about satellites and other movement-related observations.

This isn't the easy simple declaration it's been made out to be.  It's just taboo to dare challenge the high priesthood of Empiricism and Rationalism.  This blatant prelest shouldn't be allowed to be a foundational part of anyone's faith.  But that part is above my paygrade.  I'm only responsible for me in this regard.

Again... I'd invite anyone to present actual and irrefutable falsifiable empirical data contrasting heliocentricity and (Tychonian) geocentricity.  It would also be interesting to see how many know about a non-Ptolemaic model to begin with.  I haven't met anyone yet who knew anything about the historical process except what they were indoctrinated to believe from childhood out of secular textbooks propagandizing biased lies of an earth spinning at +/- 800mph while hurtling through the (alleged) nothingness of space in orbit at... wait for it... 67,000mph.

Projection, conceptualization, extrapolation, and speculation are no more valid than the arrogant condescension, denegration, and obfuscation that always accompany this topic instead of cogent and undeniable empiricism.

Those who worship at the altar of the religion of Scientific Naturalism are of no concern to my living faith in the God of ALL creation and the Church.  I'd just like to see the empirical results of the alleged Empiricism.
Weather systems always rotate counter clockwise in the northern hemisphere and clockwise  in the southern hemisphere. This would not happen in a geostationary earth.  

Conceptual inference and accompanying bare assertion.  Kinematics driving perception of forces.  Is there any empirical data you'd like to introduce?

And only "hard" geocentrism demands a fixed earth.  A "soft" geocentrism allows or posits a rotating earth.  Neither requires heliocentricity.  And kinematics and dynamics are still two distinct considerations, even though interrelated.  One does not determine the other.
« Last Edit: March 28, 2014, 01:39:57 PM by PneumaPsucheSoma » Logged
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,411



« Reply #81 on: March 28, 2014, 03:59:16 PM »

Look, if you want to hold as some metaphysical tenet that the earth doesn't move, I don't care. If you don't understand how Foucault's pendulum demonstrates the rotation of the earth, I probably can't fix that. But if you can't produce a model which explains the pendulum's behavior, you have nothing.

It's already been done.  Foucault's Pendulum doesn't inherently demonstrate rotation or heliocentricity.  Maybe you should research more than the one biased view of a nominal and rudimentary "experiment".  If you don't, and you want to adhere to humanistic dogma, I probably can't fix that.

Look, it's your crackpot idea. You present the other explanation for how the pendulum works, and I will consider it. The rotation of the earth serves as an explanation for the pendulum's behavior, and an immobile earth, lacking something else to move the pendulum, does not.

And that is hardly the only thing out there. As I said earlier, my father worked on many artificial satellites, which have orbited the earth, gone to the moon, flown by other planets, landed on asteroids, and left the solar system. Newtonian/relativistic mechanics in a non-fixed-frame cosmology were used successfully to set their courses.  If you ever produce something that works as well, I could begin to take you seriously. Come up with an explanation of why it's impossible for something in a polar orbit to always pass over the same spot on the equator, and we can talk further.

Quote
Just be honest.  You've never once even remotely considered this topic without complete bias from a lifetime of indoctrination into Scientific Naturalism.

It's a lifetime of reading books on science and taking calculus and physics and thus understanding all the math and theory behind that "scientific naturalism". I haven't "remotely considered" a Tychonian system beyond reading about it (in Scientific American, of all places something like forty years ago because beyond Tycho's diagrams, there's nothing to consider. I am not compelled to take seriously the vague statements of everyone who comes along. You are ducking the issue, over and over, that you don't seem to have a system to present.
Logged
Opus118
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,522



« Reply #82 on: March 28, 2014, 04:10:50 PM »

While pondering this thread (I do a lot of pondering and rarely come up with answers), I started thinking about Dark Energy and whether a geocentric model would negate its need. It turns out there were models which were refuted recently in regard that they eliminated the need for Dark Energy (my take).

One model is here:

How close can an inhomogeneous universe mimic the concordance model?
Peter Dunsby, Naureen Goheer, Bob Osano and Jean-Philippe Uzan (2010)
Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics
http://iopscience.iop.org/1475-7516/2010/06/017/

Abstract:
Recently, spatially inhomogeneous cosmological models have been proposed as an alternative to the ΛCDM model, with the aim of reproducing the late time dynamics of the Universe without introducing a cosmological constant or dark energy. This paper investigates the possibility of distinguishing such models from the standard ΛCDM using background or large scale structure data. It also illustrates and emphasizes the necessity of testing the Copernican principle in order to confront the tests of general relativity with the large scale structure.

The refutation is here
Spectral distortion in a radially inhomogeneous cosmology
R. R. Caldwell and N. A. Maksimova (2013)
Phys. Rev. D 88, 103502
http://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.88.103502

Abstract:
The spectral distortion of the cosmic microwave background blackbody spectrum in a radially inhomogeneous space-time, designed to exactly reproduce a ΛCDM expansion history along the past light cone, is shown to exceed the upper bound established by COBE-FIRAS by a factor of approximately 3700. This simple observational test helps uncover a slew of pathological features that lie hidden inside the past light cone, including a radially contracting phase at decoupling and, if followed to its logical extreme, a naked singularity at the radially inhomogeneous big bang.

A likely hyped-up University Press release is easy to read here:
http://thedartmouth.com/2013/11/15/news/dartmouth-researchers-refute-geocentric-model

Quote:
     "The only mathematical model to date that has been able to fully explain the accelerating expansion of the universe is one that does not account for dark energy and, as a result, places Earth near the center of the universe.

     Caldwell and Maksimova’s paper debunks this hypothesis. Using data from the NASA-owned Cosmic Background Explorer satellite, Caldwell and Maksimova proved that the actual spectrum of thermal radiation left over from the Big Bang, known as cosmic microwave background, is inconsistent with the model that requires that Earth be in the middle of the universe."



« Last Edit: March 28, 2014, 04:11:24 PM by Opus118 » Logged
Sinful Hypocrite
Everyday I am critical of others. Every day I make similar mistakes. Every day I am a hypocrite.
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: "The Orthodox Church" by Bishop Kallistos Ware: "We know where the Church is but we cannot be sure where it is not; and so we must refrain from passing judgment on non-Orthodox Christians."
Posts: 1,681


Great googly moogly!


« Reply #83 on: March 28, 2014, 04:35:27 PM »

How could Earth be at the center of the Universe when we are located on the outskirts of a Galaxy with billions of other stars. The fact is that maybe those issues could argue the milky way at the center, but not Earth.
Logged

The Lord gathers his sheep, I fear I am a goat. Lord have mercy.

"A Christian is someone who follows and worships a perfectly good God who revealed his true face through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.“
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 13,387


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #84 on: March 28, 2014, 04:51:09 PM »

Where is the center of the universe?

There isn't one.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/centre.html
Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
Opus118
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,522



« Reply #85 on: March 28, 2014, 05:33:34 PM »

How could Earth be at the center of the Universe when we are located on the outskirts of a Galaxy with billions of other stars. The fact is that maybe those issues could argue the milky way at the center, but not Earth.

I think that this issue comes up because we do not know where the center of what comprises all the mass, energy, dark mass, dark energy (and who knows what else) is. It could be far away from any galaxy. At this point I do not know what "near earth" means.

Thinking about this kind of stuff can give you a headache. But to continue....

This is a statement in the PhysRevD refutation paper cited above:

"That is, a post-decoupling cosmos containing just dark matter and baryons obeying the laws of general relativity can satisfy many of the classical tests of cosmology. The price to pay seems philosophical, since for this to work we must be located at the center of a radially inhomogeneous space- time, contrary to the Copernican and Cosmological principles."

And the refutation at this point is not conclusive. Referring to the PhyRevD paper again in regard to geocentric models:

"Is there any future for such models? It is conceivable that a more realistic treatment of decoupling and the radiation-dominated epoch could weaken the level of spectral distortion that we calculate. We have made the simplifying assumption of tight coupling of the radiation with baryonic and dark matter until decoupling, and adapted the Gamow criterion in order to identify the origin of the CMB with a critical value of the matter density (e.g. Refs. [28,33]). We implicitly assumed that any slip that develops between the matter species and radiation leads to a negligible source of temperature anisotropy in our calculation of the spectral distortion. That this assumption may not be wholly justified has been argued in Ref. [60]. We leave a more sophisticated treatment of the CMB for future work."

Logged
PneumaPsucheSoma
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Antiochian
Posts: 49


« Reply #86 on: March 28, 2014, 05:37:44 PM »

Look, it's your crackpot idea.

LOL.  Ummm... Thanks for the kudos, but... no.  It's not my idea at all.  And your ad hominem isn't impressive, especially as a professing Christian.  You've obviously never accessed one shred of information on Tychonian geocentricity.  So don't blame me for your bias of cognitive dissonance.

Quote
You present the other explanation for how the pendulum works, and I will consider it.

Go do the research.  It's not that difficult.  I've expressed my position and the general reasons for it.  It's not my responsibility to convince you of something you haven't ever considered while implicitly trusting the Atheistic priesthood of the religion of Empiricism exponentially more than you trust the inspired canon of scripture.

You hold an adamant view and haven't bothered to contrast anything else.

Quote
The rotation of the earth serves as an explanation for the pendulum's behavior, and an immobile earth, lacking something else to move the pendulum, does not.

You might want to check the contrary evidence, along with the refutations for Michelson-Morley and taking a look at Airy's Failure.

Quote
And that is hardly the only thing out there. As I said earlier, my father worked on many artificial satellites, which have orbited the earth, gone to the moon, flown by other planets, landed on asteroids, and left the solar system.

Firstly, geocentric coordinates are used for such things; and you very likely have no idea about the movement of the aether of space (the firmament) with a theorized Planck density of 10^93.  Secondly, I have little confidence in the actuality of many such alleged events other than orbiting objects which would require the same exact inverse application of forces for geocentricity as for heliocentricity.  Space is moving, not earth.  Same-same in relativistic terms.

Quote
Newtonian/relativistic mechanics in a non-fixed-frame cosmology were used successfully to set their courses.

You might want to check again.  NASA uses geocentric coordinates for their launches.

Quote
If you ever produce something that works as well, I could begin to take you seriously.

I'm not concerned whether an anonymous Kabbalah-indoctrinated alleged Christian takes me seriously or not.  I have my faith to God, and Him alone.  And I've accessed enough research to be convinced it's a coin-toss at the very least.

I'm not even advocating for geocentricity in any adamant sense, just opposing the ridiculous assertions of heliocentricity from those who haven't bothered to find out it IS a coin-flip rather than being able to determine for certain between geocentricity and heliocentricity.

Quote
Come up with an explanation of why it's impossible for something in a polar orbit to always pass over the same spot on the equator, and we can talk further.

I doubt it.  Your mind has been made up for a very long time.  And if you truly want to examine the evidence without bias, there is plenty of searchable material all over the internet.

Quote
It's a lifetime of reading books on science and taking calculus and physics and thus understanding all the math and theory behind that "scientific naturalism".

Exactly.  Indoctrination.  Your implicit trust in Euclid, Pythagoras, Kepler, Copernicus, and others is not impressive.  One of the Brothers in my Parish is a Physics professor for grad students at the local state university.  In conversations with him, he has acquiesced to the fact that it's a coin-toss, and says he struggles with the foundations of many things in modern Physics.

Quote
I haven't "remotely considered" a Tychonian system beyond reading about it (in Scientific American, of all places something like forty years ago because beyond Tycho's diagrams, there's nothing to consider.

LOL.  And there you have it.  You just don't realize the source and degree of prelest in the modern religion of Empiricism.

Quote
I am not compelled to take seriously the vague statements of everyone who comes along. You are ducking the issue, over and over, that you don't seem to have a system to present.

I'm not ducking anything.  I just refuse to undertake the futility of presenting research you haven't bothered to do on the way to your blind adamance in compliance with science falsely so called as an alleged believer.

At the very least, you must take a much lower view of inspiration of the canon of scripture.  The Holy Spirit would not mispeak in such misleading ways, and men had to have been a much stronger impetus in the writings from their limited human perspective.  You must allegorize and minimize scripture.  I can't take anyone seriously who does THAT.

But you seem to think others should be concerned about whether you take them seriously while disregarding that to be a mutual concern.  If YOU want to be taken seriously, then at least access the research on geocentricity and admit it's a coin-toss depending upon chosen frame of reference.

As far as I'm concerned... the Earth spinning at +/- 800mph while hurtling through space at 67,000mph is the crackpot idea.
« Last Edit: March 28, 2014, 05:41:26 PM by PneumaPsucheSoma » Logged
Sinful Hypocrite
Everyday I am critical of others. Every day I make similar mistakes. Every day I am a hypocrite.
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: "The Orthodox Church" by Bishop Kallistos Ware: "We know where the Church is but we cannot be sure where it is not; and so we must refrain from passing judgment on non-Orthodox Christians."
Posts: 1,681


Great googly moogly!


« Reply #87 on: March 28, 2014, 05:42:34 PM »

How could Earth be at the center of the Universe when we are located on the outskirts of a Galaxy with billions of other stars. The fact is that maybe those issues could argue the milky way at the center, but not Earth.

I think that this issue comes up because we do not know where the center of what comprises all the mass, energy, dark mass, dark energy (and who knows what else) is. It could be far away from any galaxy. At this point I do not know what "near earth" means.

Thinking about this kind of stuff can give you a headache. But to continue....

This is a statement in the PhysRevD refutation paper cited above:

"That is, a post-decoupling cosmos containing just dark matter and baryons obeying the laws of general relativity can satisfy many of the classical tests of cosmology. The price to pay seems philosophical, since for this to work we must be located at the center of a radially inhomogeneous space- time, contrary to the Copernican and Cosmological principles."

And the refutation at this point is not conclusive. Referring to the PhyRevD paper again in regard to geocentric models:

"Is there any future for such models? It is conceivable that a more realistic treatment of decoupling and the radiation-dominated epoch could weaken the level of spectral distortion that we calculate. We have made the simplifying assumption of tight coupling of the radiation with baryonic and dark matter until decoupling, and adapted the Gamow criterion in order to identify the origin of the CMB with a critical value of the matter density (e.g. Refs. [28,33]). We implicitly assumed that any slip that develops between the matter species and radiation leads to a negligible source of temperature anisotropy in our calculation of the spectral distortion. That this assumption may not be wholly justified has been argued in Ref. [60]. We leave a more sophisticated treatment of the CMB for future work."



Dark mass \ energy is not understood in the same way that we know that where Earth is. Dark energy\mass will never change that.
Logged

The Lord gathers his sheep, I fear I am a goat. Lord have mercy.

"A Christian is someone who follows and worships a perfectly good God who revealed his true face through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.“
Opus118
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,522



« Reply #88 on: March 28, 2014, 06:11:38 PM »

How could Earth be at the center of the Universe when we are located on the outskirts of a Galaxy with billions of other stars. The fact is that maybe those issues could argue the milky way at the center, but not Earth.

I think that this issue comes up because we do not know where the center of what comprises all the mass, energy, dark mass, dark energy (and who knows what else) is. It could be far away from any galaxy. At this point I do not know what "near earth" means.

Thinking about this kind of stuff can give you a headache. But to continue....

This is a statement in the PhysRevD refutation paper cited above:

"That is, a post-decoupling cosmos containing just dark matter and baryons obeying the laws of general relativity can satisfy many of the classical tests of cosmology. The price to pay seems philosophical, since for this to work we must be located at the center of a radially inhomogeneous space- time, contrary to the Copernican and Cosmological principles."

And the refutation at this point is not conclusive. Referring to the PhyRevD paper again in regard to geocentric models:

"Is there any future for such models? It is conceivable that a more realistic treatment of decoupling and the radiation-dominated epoch could weaken the level of spectral distortion that we calculate. We have made the simplifying assumption of tight coupling of the radiation with baryonic and dark matter until decoupling, and adapted the Gamow criterion in order to identify the origin of the CMB with a critical value of the matter density (e.g. Refs. [28,33]). We implicitly assumed that any slip that develops between the matter species and radiation leads to a negligible source of temperature anisotropy in our calculation of the spectral distortion. That this assumption may not be wholly justified has been argued in Ref. [60]. We leave a more sophisticated treatment of the CMB for future work."



Dark mass \ energy is not understood in the same way that we know that where Earth is. Dark energy\mass will never change that.

I am not sure what you mean by this. We know where earth is locally (on a cosmological scale; in terms of what we can see and what we can infer from instruments). My post above is about dark energy and it is certainly not understood as you say, the term didn't exist until 1998. The Cosmological constant also had to be reintroduced into the lexicon at the same time (My opinion: it is a kind of fudge factor that may or may not be necessary at this point.).


Logged
Opus118
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,522



« Reply #89 on: March 28, 2014, 06:17:50 PM »

Where is the center of the universe?

There isn't one.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/centre.html

I didn't notice this when I posted Biro (at my rate of typing, I have more or less given up on trying to keep up). Thanks.
Logged
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.195 seconds with 71 queries.