S
StAnastasia
Guest
Arctic ice is thinning – that’s why the Arctic Ocean may be ice free in summer before long, putting polar bears at risk of extinction.
- Status
R
ricmat
Guest
…hook, line, and sinker. Let me know when the polar bears are gone
. Besides, natural selection will just evolve them to accommodate the lack of ice and warmer weather 
Actually, I meant to say Antarctic ice was increasing (which is contrary to the apocalyptic prophecy of the man-made-global warming alarmists.)
A question for you - do you think that mankind is responsible for the decreasing ice, or the increasing ice? Or does it happen anyway?
Try this simple quiz.
And this one. (page 21 is interesting regarding the above).
O
Orogeny
Guest
Too bad. I really like the petrified battery. How about the spark plug? Find any petrified spark plugs?
What exactly is evolution of life from rocks?
Publish them. You keep talking about these stunning finds you have, but you don’t publish. Why not? Submit to ASA.
And you know that they are dinosaurs exactly how?
You know, Hugh, I really love it when you come around. I always get a really good chuckle reading your posts.
Publish or perish, pal. Piece of cake if your evidence is so slam dunk.
What, the concept of geologic time has changed (dare I say evolved?) in 90 years? Since before we had good radiometric dating techniques? I’m shocked! Next thing you will tell me is that we no longer use steam engines to power riverboats!
So you admit that it is all about faith and not science. At least you are honest about that, even if your notion of faith is flawed.Blessed are they who believe and have not seen, such as our church fathers. Meanwhile Moses sizzles while Darwin fizzles.
Peace
Tim
H
hecd2
Guest
Well, Luke, you have a choice. You can either join cassini in his silliness about “heliocentric physics” and “geocentric physics” (of course there are no such things, any more than there is Catholic physics or Muslim physics or feminist physics - there’s just physics), or you can discuss the physics of the observations in a rational way (but in that case you have to be prepared to be persuaded by the fact that the data that you have cited is *not *evidence for geocentrism). Which is it to be?
Alec
evolutionpages.com/pink_unicorn.htm
L
Luke65
Guest
Alec, I think you misunderstand Cassini - he’s being metaphorical! He knows, as do I, but you won’t acknowledge, that under relativistic physics alone its impossible to falsify Geocentrism. Because whether the earth is rotating in space, or space is rotating around the earth, the effects, and therefore the results will be the same. So what he is talking about is the assumption that we are not in a “special place” in the universe, as the Cosmological Principle says. He knows, for example, that Sungenis and Bennett use Relativity in their geocentric model, and that it works just fine. In fact, as you alluded to, you can have a Big Bang universe, under Relativity, with a center and an edge, that rotates on an axis (you’ll just need a bunch more “epicycles” than you already have! - inflation, dark matter, dark energy, more inflation, etc.) But that is not what the standard cosmology says. Mainstream science teaches, as a matter of fact, that the universe has no center or edge, and thus no axis that it rotates on. But that is actually an unproven assumption, which is obviously being called into doubt here. But if a rotating Big Bang universe became the standard, scientists would have to approach cosmology very differently. And in a similar way, Geocentrism would require a very different approach. So Cassini is not talking about actual physics, but how physics is used, or not used in the case of Geocentrism:
“True physics, that is a study of physics of all possible orders for the universe, ceased when the world of science went Newton’s way and then after the 1887 M&M experiment went Einstein’s way, that is, 100% trying to explain a heliocentric physics for the universe.”
Now, Alec, you’re not going to be able to persuade me that the universe doesn’t rotate around the earth - I thought you knew this about me. But I would like to understand these studies a little better, and perhaps you may be able to persuade (or edify!) others.
So its up to you how much time you want to spend on this, but I’ll be responding to what you said, and have much more on this tomorrow.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Granny, I’m intrigued by your position. Do you mean that no empirically observable or testable (e.g., scienitific) phenomena are part of the Catholic faith?
StAnastasia
B
buffalo
Guest
Are you using the word rational in an atheist way?
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Evolution doesn’t operate fast enough to save the polar bears if the Arctic becomes ice free in summers.
B
buffalo
Guest
But epigenetics and adaptation do.
R
ricmat
Guest
You believe in evolution. And you believe (so far as I know) that there have been significant changes in climate - say, over the last few hundred thousand years (during which time polar bears have been around and are still here) - so how can you say that evolution doesn’t operate fast enough?
Is 4 billion years long enough for single cell to man? [And please please please don’t say that “since we’re actually here, that proves that it is long enough.”]
H
hecd2
Guest
No, I don’t misunderstand him; and no, he is not being metaphorical. Cassini really does think there is such a thing as geocentric physics which is different from heliocentric physics. I quote him directly:
cassini said:
Neither of you can “know” this, because neither of you understands physics (and certainly not General Relativity) - your misinterpretation of the papers you cited is enough to show this.
Really? How do you know that? Perhaps you would post your derivation of the equations that show that identical centrifugal and Coriolis forces would be experienced at the earth’s surface if the earth was static and the universe rotating around it. Your first step will be to define what you mean by a static earth - ie, if you say the earth is static, you have to say static with respect to what reference, and you’ll have to define that in mathematical terms with respect to whatever 3-manifold for space you choose.
Except that Sungenis and Bennett do not have a geocentric “model” in the sense of a proper mathematical solution to the Einstein field equations - which Sungenis is completely incompetent to understand or derive (and Bennett apparently as well, for although he appears to have some training in physics, he makes many elementary howlers in their book). Furthermore, Sungenis completely rejects General Relativity, so he can’t base his argument on it.
Indeed there are many universal models to consider including both Friedmann (homogeneous and isotropc) and Bianchi (homogeneous and anisotropic, and in some models rotating). However, observation constrains the observable universe to be close to isotropic, and essentially non-rotating as angular alignment between the CMBA and galactic clusters, and analysis of the Sachs-Wolfe effect in an FRLW model shows. Furthermore, the universe does not have the signature of a bounded, non-compact manifold, but either an unbounded Euclidean R3 space or a compact 3-manifold of radius much greater than the observable universe (for example hyperspherical or Poincare dodecahedron or 3-torus); in other words a simply connected compact manifold - none of these have an “edge” or a “centre”.
You are wrong - the universe topology is a matter for experimental investigation, and the data shows that the space manifold is close to flat and that there is no or very little rotation.
Of course he’s talking about actual physics, as I’ve shown above (you can align yourself with someone who says the sun has no gravitational attraction in “geocentric physics” if you like, but I think you’re better than that); and of course, being completely ignorant of physics, he has no idea what universe models are considered and tested, and why some are rejected by the observational data (including significantly anisotropic and rotating ones)
In other words, you are prepared to cite papers that you have misunderstood in the hope of persuading the naive, but when someone comes along who knows what they are talking about and points out your errors, you admit that no evidence will persuade you to change your mind. That’s hypocritical and does not show that respect for the truth that you were lecturing me about.
Alec
evolutionpages.com/big_bang_no_myth.htm
G
grannymh
Guest
Not really.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
I thought not.
L
Luke65
Guest
Well that was a bit of nastiness. Unfortunately, I won’t have a full response until tomorrow, but let me just give you a quote from Longo to demonstrate what I have said:
Of course, if the universe is geocentric this is not “highly unlikely”!
S
StAnastasia
Guest
I hardly call urging you to respect truth “nastiness”!
L
Luke65
Guest
He accused me of trying to deceive “the naive”. That would have been uncharitable even if I was wrong. But as you just saw, I was not wrong - I spoke the truth. I didn’t say this was evidence for Geocentrism, Longo did. He is the one who said it was “related to the direction of the Earth’s spin axis”. I just brought it to the attention of readers here. And you ain’t seen nothing yet! Gird your loins!
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Are you sure the earth is not flat? It doesn’t look curved to me.
L
Luke65
Guest
Okay, so axis doesn’t necessarily mean rotation (can’t they come up with another word?), but we’re not just talking about one axis here but several, and they’re bunched together. So what other reasonable explanation could there be for that? Don’t answer that. First let’s look at this:
Is it me, or did that simple fact take a ridiculously long time for mainstream science to figure out? So, now we have all these similar axes and “a center for the expansion of the universe”. At what point does it get ridiculous to say the universe is not rotating around a center on an axis? Will you say we need proof? Well, mainstream science certainly didn’t need proof to declare that the universe has no center or edge, and thus no axis.
And what does he mean by “a cmb dipole has been observed for the solar system”? Our solar system has its own cmb dipole? No, there’s only one universal (cosmological) cmb dipole. So what is the cosmological cmb dipole doing in our solar system? What in the world is the universe’s cmb dipole doing in our solar system?! Oh, I see you guys have an “explanation” for that; and that Dr. Bennett has responded:
Soon.
L
Luke65
Guest
Cont.
And then there are those quantized redshifts which seem to indicate we are at or near the center of the universe:
Stars are symbolic for angels (and bishops).
And there is much more scientific evidence for a geocentric universe - numerous lines of evidence. I haven’t read very much of Sungenis’ “Galileo Was Wrong”, yet, but it looks like he covers it all (in Vol. I), for all who sincerely seek the truth.
“Seek and you will find.” (Luke 11:9)
“Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” (John 8:32)
The Electric Universe! You really should look into that, Alec. How do you explain the existence of the massive electro(?)-magnetic fields that envelope whole galaxies and clusters of galaxies? Unless there are ginormous electrical outlets for them to plug into, they should be decaying at an exponential rate. So how can they still be there after billions of years? The Electric Universe theory posits that all the stars in the universe are on an “electrical grid”. Of course, they would still need one hellacious energy source! But their theory certainly fits in well with a universal magnetic field that “would naturally orient the spiral galaxies”. And have you seen their experiments showing that an electrical current in plasma will cause it to naturally form into what look like mini-spiral galaxies? Put that together with Arp’s work and you’ll really have something. Anyhow, this “corkscrew around the axis” looks like more evidence for rotation around an axis. In fact, there was a similar study (studies?) from the 90’s, I believe, that Humphreys cited for his rotating universe.
And then there are those quantized redshifts which seem to indicate we are at or near the center of the universe:
Blessed Sr. Anne Catherine Emmerich: (Creation) “I saw spreading out before me a boundless, resplendent space, above which floated a globe of light shining like a sun. I felt that It was the Unity of the Trinity. In my own mind, I named It the ONE VOICE, and I watched It producing Its effects. Below the globe of light arose concentric circles of radiant choirs of spirits, wondrously bright and strong and beautiful. This second world of light floated like a sun under that higher Sun.”
Stars are symbolic for angels (and bishops).
And there is much more scientific evidence for a geocentric universe - numerous lines of evidence. I haven’t read very much of Sungenis’ “Galileo Was Wrong”, yet, but it looks like he covers it all (in Vol. I), for all who sincerely seek the truth.
“Seek and you will find.” (Luke 11:9)
“Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” (John 8:32)
C
cassini
Guest
Why is it that some people who post reams of ‘scientific’ rhetoric, have problems when one tries to simplify the subject matter for readers who just might not be familiar with the HvG debate?
First '(of course there are no such things, any more than there is Catholic physics or Muslim physics or feminist physics - there’s just physics), By this hecd2 means the following:
Newton’s First Law states:
‘Every body continues in its state of rest, or uniform motion in a straight line, unless it is compelled to change that state
by forces impressed on it.
Newton’s Second Law:
Force equals mass times acceleration.
Finally, Newton’s Third Law that states:
To every action force there is an equal and opposite reaction force.
No, not the fact that if one kicks a dog it will immediately make a run for it, but if one hits a cricket ball with a bat it will fly off in another direction. Great stuff this physics, yes?
This is PHYSICS, yes, absolutely, accepted by Catholics and Muslims, even me.
But here’s how heliocentric physics emerged, invented to explain earth movement around a fixed sun:
Every particle of matter in the universe attracts every other particle with a force that is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the squares of the distance between them.
In other words, matter moves itself physics, HELIOCENTRIC PHYSICS.
This incredible theory was indeed one of the most diabolical ‘ideas’ in history, for it offered man a way in which the cosmos might operate independently under its own natural power, supposedly explaining why apples fall to the ground, why the moon orbits the earth and why other moving cosmic bodies move as they do around the universe, providing an equilibrium with God Himself.
Now let us see what Newton said of his HELIOCENTRIC PHYSICS in some letters on gravitation sent to the Rev. Richard Bentley soon after his Principia was published:
‘You sometimes speak on gravity as essential and inherent to matter. Pray do not ascribe that notion to me…’
‘It is inconceivable that inanimate brute matter should, without the mediation of something else which is not material, operate upon and effect the matter without mutual contact…is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man who, in philosophical matters, has a competent faculty of thinking can ever fall into it. Gravity must be caused by an agent acting constantly according to certain laws; but whether the agent be material or immaterial I have left to the consideration of my readers.’ Newton’s Correspondence, Royal Society Edition, 1693
If Newton couldn’t come to terms with his own paradoxical HELIOCENTRIC PHYSICS, how then can the Easrthmovers say his ‘laws’ provide ample evidence in the search for proof of the earth’s supposed motion?
But this HELIOCENTRIC PHYSICS ‘law’ of Newton’s was very clever, how clever depends where you stand on such things and how well you have been indoctrinated to cope with its strange paradoxes. In the first place, the particle-attracting-particle postulation is nothing more than pure invention. In other words Newton had not one iota of evidence if ‘particles’ attract one another. The way they portray Newton ‘the scientific genius’ you would think he established this ‘law of attraction’ in a laboratory in Cambridge. Well we can all think again for this ‘law’ arrived out of thin air, out of necessity, out of the minds of Halley, Wren and Hooke and nowhere else, well, maybe hell. In the real world, experience shows no such attraction exists, for if it did, all things would, given the chance, attract one another. Why even dust particles in the air, as can be seen in a sunlit room, do not attract, accumulate nor cement together in any ‘gravitational’ way, but remain separate until they lie together on the ground. Nor do particles and things attract in space, as we also see clearly from pictures of stuff floating in every direction in those NASA space shuttles.
Nevertheless, not for nothing do we refer to Newton’s theory of gravity as the ‘crown jewel’ of rationalism’s equilibrium, for as well as becoming the premise upon which a heliocentric solar system was founded, it also acted as the basis for the supposed origin and history of the universe, the Big Bang particles -to stars -to more bangs -to suns -to planets -to moons -to a cell -to plants and animals -to man, that imbecilic theory of evolution being taught as fact in every physics and biology class today. But, as any first-year science students should be able to figure out if they were allowed to think for themselves in today’s universities:
‘The problem is that fragments of an ordinary explosion don’t re-accumulate. Then why would matter formed in the greatest of all possible explosions ever reunite to form stars?
In this scenario [Big Bang], how did supernova remnants from throughout the vast reaches of interstellar space re-accumulate to become the raw matter for the solar system? My [physics and] cosmology course never explained this any more than it explained how stars could develop from the Big Bang.’ Roberet Gentry, PhD nuclear physics.
Continued:
- Status