Deny geocentricism - deny the Virgin Birth

[warpspeedpetey]

This thread is more and more becoming an excellent proof showing how Radical Traditionalists have no credibility.

yup, im starting to think its more about being a martyr than about truth.

 

[hecd2]

Back to square one again. If this is the progress we have made on this thread I give up.

Perhaps you should give up, since you have not advanced a single credible scientific argument in support of your position and therefore, from a scientific point of view, your endeavour has been fruitless.

Now the Copernicans are denying the relativity - call it WHAT YOU LIKE - that makes it impossible for a man on the earth (or the sun) to say which of these two bodies moves RELATIVE to the other.

I am not denying anything. I am simply asking whether you are relying on Galilean, Special or General relativity to explain the Coriolis force, the equatorial bulge etc in a putatively stationary earth, and to explain in detail, how that particular relativistic theory can explain the phenomena. I am not denying anything - I just want to know which theory of relativity you are relying on and exactly how it explains what we observe if the earth is static. How does Galilean relativity, which you seem to be relying on above, explain the Coriolis force if the earth is stationary? How does it explain an easterly launch from the equator as the preferred launch configuration for satellites? In science, it’s not good enough to wave your arms and wink your eyes and say “It’s because of relativity”. You need to explain exactly how the specific theory of relativity explains the observed phenomena. So how does relativity explain these things if the earth is static?

If you are still holding out against this universal understanding, then I are debating with an alien, if I believed in aliens, which I dont.

I am not holding out against anything. I am merely asking you to show how any version of relativity you choose explains the measured Coriolis forces on the earth’s surface if the earth is static.

Alec
evolutionpages.com/pink_unicorn.htm

 

[1holycatholic]

The ultimate truth is that there is no Ultimate Truth.

:doh2:
You do realize that this statement is a contradiction, don’t you?

 

[mich2]

pics are outside the frame of reference.

Do you understand what “outside the frame of reference” means?

because we have pictures

I have pictures too…of my relatives. Although it doesn’t means that they’re the only relatives in the world…other people have relatives too…

no, because we have pics from outside the frame of reference

…explain what you mean by “frame of reference”…

learn your physics, the voyager photos are like a birds eye view of the whole event.

Explain your understanding of physics
in claiming your “birds eye view” as not being on the same frame of reference as the sun?

yep, he wrote that long before the photos were taken.

…so your claiming these photos destroyed the theory of General Relativity…did you win a Nobel prize in discovering this?

i understood, i am saying that you dont understand what geocentrism means, they could choose any locus, earth is just the most convenient.

How convenient would it be in using a false and erronious frame of reference unless the frame isn’t really erronious nor false?

only problem is that the geocentric model is falsified by the pictures, all the talk in the world wont change that.

…so we keep on deceiving ourselves in using such a deceiving frame as long as no one asks us why…right?

noi you dont you are ttrying to tell mme that i cant see what i can obviously see.

No…truly, if you would look through my posts, I do respect other peoples’'s belief…although I am also able to use a little sarcasm towards those who seem to ridicule my personal way of thinking…

Having God’s permission to rewrite scriptures; how would you have discribed the “sun as standing still for Joshua”?

1. i didnt rewrite scriptures, please show me any scripture i rewrote.

This whole thread, if I’m not mistaken is specifically about whether Galileo was wrong or right in identifying the “sun standing still for Joshua” as being erromious towards the Copernicus model of the Universe…If it’s not, then I apologize in replying to an unrelated thread…

Andre

 

[mich2]

Neither of the above.

The heliocentric model appears to be a closer fit to the external reality. Though with either Special or General relativity it is not possible to define “static” in any meaningful way - only “static with respect to X”, where X is some other object in the universe.

rossum

ok…but as a Buddhist, would the external realities be “more real” than other forms of realities?

Andre

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Do you understand what “outside the frame of reference” means?

yes, i have pictures of it. it avoids the relative motion of the planets by viewing them all with multiple pics just like the goodyear blimp seeing the relative motions of the players at a baseball game. that is why these pics disprove geocentrism.

Explain your understanding of physics
in claiming your “birds eye view” as not being on the same frame of reference as the sun?

my version of physics is the one i have found described by my physics professors, as to frame of reference see above

…so your claiming these photos destroyed the theory of General Relativity…did you win a Nobel prize in discovering this?

i claim no such thing, though i wonder how you believe that these photos would would destroy general relativity. from that question i think you may not know what general relativity is.

How convenient would it be in using a false and erronious frame of reference unless the frame isn’t really erronious nor false?

you dont seem to know the difference between geocentrism as a stationary earth orbited by the sun, and using the earth as a locus for the location of other bodies.

…so we keep on deceiving ourselves in using such a deceiving frame as long as no one asks us why…right?

what deception, we could just as effectively use any locus within the light horizon.

No…truly, if you would look through my posts, I do respect other peoples’'s belief…although I am also able to use a little sarcasm towards those who seem to ridicule my personal way of thinking…

we have pics that cant be denied, its not even a matter of opinion.

 

[rossum]

ok…but as a Buddhist, would the external realities be “more real” than other forms of realities?

How would we know if it was or not? Everything we sense can be reduced to electrical impulses in our sensory nerves. All we can know directly is the model of the world we carry inside our heads. Other knowledge is indirect.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Correct rossum, I deplore what they do to such peaceful men.

Thank you.

The rest is very informative. I was told Buddah was your God, I stand corrected.

The Buddha was not a god, he was a man who became enlightened. Because we are also men we can do what he did and become enlightened ourselves.

So, do you have a God, or is God just God?

There are tens of thousands of gods in Buddhist scriptures and none of them are of any importance. All of them are caught in the round of rebirths, (gods are long lived but not immortal), and in need of enlightenment to escape.

rossum

 

[rossum]

You do realize that this statement is a contradiction, don’t you?

You are not the first to notice my sig. The original source is Mark Siderits, “Thinking on Empty: Madhyamika Anti-Realism and Canons of Rationality” in S Biderman and B.A. Schaufstein, eds, Rationality In Question (1989). Dordrecht: Brill.

I have not read Siderits but saw the quote in a piece on Nagarjuna. The “Madhyamika” in Siderits’ title refers to the religious and philosophical school that Nagarjuna founded. I have seen the same quote again in other places in reference to the Madhyamika and Nagarjuna - it seems quite popular. The quote is intentionally paradoxical; paradox is necessary to remind us that words are insufficient when trying to describe the fundamental nature of reality.

For a philosophical discussion of Nagarjuna and reality see the web article “Nagarjuna and the Limits of Thought”. The Siderits quote is at the end of section four of the article:

There is, then, no escape. Nagarjuna’s view is contradictory. The contradiction is, clearly a paradox of expressibility. Nagarjuna succeeds in saying the unsayable, just as much as the Wittgenstein of the Tractatus. We can think (and characterize) reality only subject to language, which is conventional, so the ontology of that reality is all conventional. It follows that the conventional objects of reality do not ultimately (non-conventionally) exist. It also follows that nothing we say of them is ultimately true. That is, all things are empty of ultimate existence; and this is their ultimate nature, and is an ultimate truth about them. They hence cannot be thought to have that nature; nor can we say that they do. But we have just done so. As Mark Siderits (1989) has put it, “the ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth.”

rossum

 

[thistle]

Thank you.

The Buddha was not a god, he was a man who became enlightened. Because we are also men we can do what he did and become enlightened ourselves.

There are tens of thousands of gods in Buddhist scriptures and none of them are of any importance. All of them are caught in the round of rebirths, (gods are long lived but not immortal), and in need of enlightenment to escape.

rossum

As Pope John Paul II said: Buddhism is a form of atheism because it is a religion without God.

 

[rossum]

As Pope John Paul II said: Buddhism is a form of atheism because it is a religion without God.

“Buddhism, in its various forms, realizes the radical insufficiency of this changeable world; it teaches a way by which men, in a devout and confident spirit, may be able either to acquire the state of perfect liberation, or attain, by their own efforts or through higher help, supreme illumination.” - Nostra Aetate.

rossum

 

[thistle]

“Buddhism, in its various forms, realizes the radical insufficiency of this changeable world; it teaches a way by which men, in a devout and confident spirit, may be able either to acquire the state of perfect liberation, or attain, by their own efforts or through higher help, supreme illumination.” - Nostra Aetate.

rossum

How ever you describe it it is still a false religion. Christianity is the only true religion.

 

[1holycatholic]

You are not the first to notice my sig. The original source is Mark Siderits, “Thinking on Empty: Madhyamika Anti-Realism and Canons of Rationality” in S Biderman and B.A. Schaufstein, eds, Rationality In Question (1989). Dordrecht: Brill.

I have not read Siderits but saw the quote in a piece on Nagarjuna. The “Madhyamika” in Siderits’ title refers to the religious and philosophical school that Nagarjuna founded. I have seen the same quote again in other places in reference to the Madhyamika and Nagarjuna - it seems quite popular. The quote is intentionally paradoxical; paradox is necessary to remind us that words are insufficient when trying to describe the fundamental nature of reality.

For a philosophical discussion of Nagarjuna and reality see the web article “Nagarjuna and the Limits of Thought”. The Siderits quote is at the end of section four of the article:

There is, then, no escape. Nagarjuna’s view is contradictory. The contradiction is, clearly a paradox of expressibility. Nagarjuna succeeds in saying the unsayable, just as much as the Wittgenstein of the Tractatus. We can think (and characterize) reality only subject to language, which is conventional, so the ontology of that reality is all conventional. It follows that the conventional objects of reality do not ultimately (non-conventionally) exist. It also follows that nothing we say of them is ultimately true. That is, all things are empty of ultimate existence; and this is their ultimate nature, and is an ultimate truth about them. They hence cannot be thought to have that nature; nor can we say that they do. But we have just done so. As Mark Siderits (1989) has put it, “the ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth.”

rossum

The statement “The ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth.” negates itself. If right, the statement is incomprehensible, and meaningless. Conversely, if it is understandable, then it’s wrong and meaningless. In any case, the statement is of no value.
Q.E.D.

 

[mich2]

First, warpspeed, I’d like to apologize for the sarcasm. We’re all here to learn so, I should not have responded in such a way.

yes, i have pictures of it. it avoids the relative motion of the planets by viewing them all with multiple pics just like the goodyear blimp seeing the relative motions of the players at a baseball game. that is why these pics disprove geocentrism.

My problem with this is due to the fact that when we do this, that is, isolate a system as such, we neglect the effect of what the rest of the universe is putting on the planet’s, solar system or even the galaxies motion all having great influence on the motion of the earth itself . In other words, if heliocentrism works for the movement of the planets as a reality and not simply a model, then, we ought to be able to do the same for the earth and moon. The geocentric model should work perfectly for the moon’s orbit, especially since it (orbit) is almost circular. But it doesn’t work. This very simple orbital system gave headaches to Newton. But why, since we are speaking of only one satellite orbting one planet in an almost perfect circular orbit?Because the influence of the sun as well as the other planets need to be taken into account. Even to this day, astromomers are hypothizing that there might be some dark matter very close to the earth in order to allow for such discrepancies not only for the moon’s orbit but also for other satelites. For this reason, to make any system stationnary to a point of reference will have it’s problem if we do not account for everything in the universe, something that is basically impossible to do. Therefore, certainly science will try to understand the laws of nature by using a specific model. However, in using such a non- selfcentered model, we need to change our coordinate frame of reference from our observer point of view to another one. Since such a coordinate transform does not alter any of the physical laws of nature, it can be done, however, not without great difficulties. Copernicus never was able to prove his model because of the extreme complications involved in calculating this new frame of reference. Now, since no laws of physics change when changing refrence frames, any one of such frames become valid; and the most obviously prefered frame is that of the observer.

my version of physics is the one i have found described by my physics professors, as to frame of reference see above

My problem was with your assumption that the birds eye view lay outside the sun’s frame of reference. If the sun remains stationnary, then the sameframe of reference is chosen. Notice that one could move away from the earth allowing for the earth to remain stationnary,(relative to the x,y axis) and then you will observer the sun as moving…the movement will seem more chaotic than the sun centered model, which is why the scientists prefer the heliocentric model to work with. My “personal” opinion would be that just because a less chaotic view of the universe can be observed, does not promise us that it is more “real” than another frame, in that another frame, which could lie somewhere in free space, could be taken to understand more the laws of gravity.

i claim no such thing, though i wonder how you believe that these photos would would destroy general relativity. from that question i think you may not know what general relativity is.

The reason why I mentioned this was because Dr. Hoyle refered to a geocentric view as being valid due to the laws involved inGeneral Relativity. Your response, " that’s because he did not see the pictures" seems, in my opinion, a clear refutation of the GR theory as such. Sorry if what I implied was wrong.

you dont seem to know the difference between geocentrism as a stationary earth orbited by the sun, and using the earth as a locus for the location of other bodies.

My problem is that if the geocentric model is wrong, then we could not use it as a locus, for such a view would be erronious. I never claimed that we should use the geocentric view in attempting to discover the scientific laws of nature.
I mearly claimed that, by chosing the geocentric view for skywatching, it must mean that such a frame is superior to the heliocentric one for this particular purpose, or else we would not use it at all.

what deception, we could just as effectively use any locus within the light horizon.

…and by doing so, you are claiming these different frames of references as being equivalant, would you not?

we have pics that cant be denied, its not even a matter of opinion.

It’s a matter of different interpretation of what we observe. For example: why are the planets orbiting the sun and not simply moving towards the sun in an attempt to collide with it? Is it a coincidence that all of the planets orbit around the sun in the same direction?

Andre

 

[mich2]

How would we know if it was or not? Everything we sense can be reduced to electrical impulses in our sensory nerves. All we can know directly is the model of the world we carry inside our heads. Other knowledge is indirect.

rossum

ok…I agree.

Andre

 

[warpspeedpetey]

My problem with this is due to the fact that when we do this, that is, isolate a system as such, we neglect the effect of what the rest of the universe is putting on the planet’s, solar system or even the galaxies motion all having great influence on the motion of the earth itself . In other words, if heliocentrism works for the movement of the planets as a reality and not simply a model, then, we ought to be able to do the same for the earth and moon. The geocentric model should work perfectly for the moon’s orbit, especially since it (orbit) is almost circular. But it doesn’t work. This very simple orbital system gave headaches to Newton. But why, since we are speaking of only one satellite orbting one planet in an almost perfect circular orbit?Because the influence of the sun as well as the other planets need to be taken into account. Even to this day, astromomers are hypothizing that there might be some dark matter very close to the earth in order to allow for such discrepancies not only for the moon’s orbit but also for other satelites. For this reason, to make any system stationnary to a point of reference will have it’s problem if we do not account for everything in the universe, something that is basically impossible to do. Therefore, certainly science will try to understand the laws of nature by using a specific model. However, in using such a non- selfcentered model, we need to change our coordinate frame of reference from our observer point of view to another one. Since such a coordinate transform does not alter any of the physical laws of nature, it can be done, however, not without great difficulties. Copernicus never was able to prove his model because of the extreme complications involved in calculating this new frame of reference. Now, since no laws of physics change when changing refrence frames, any one of such frames become valid; and the most obviously prefered frame is that of the observer.

all this talk does not change the fact tht we have pictures disproving geocentrism. the pictures cant be denied, and anyone with a modicum of knowledge of physics sees right through these arguments. either you never took physics 101 or you are purposely ignoring what you learned

My problem was with your assumption that the birds eye view lay outside the sun’s frame of reference. If the sun remains stationnary, then the sameframe of reference is chosen. Notice that one could move away from the earth allowing for the earth to remain stationnary,(relative to the x,y axis) and then you will observer the sun as moving…the movement will seem more chaotic than the sun centered model, which is why the scientists prefer the heliocentric model to work with. My “personal” opinion would be that just because a less chaotic view of the universe can be observed, does not promise us that it is more “real” than another frame, in that another frame, which could lie somewhere in free space, could be taken to understand more the laws of gravity.

the suns position relative to the galactic center has zip to do with it. the pictures plot the path of the sun to.

The reason why I mentioned this was because Dr. Hoyle refered to a geocentric view as being valid due to the laws involved inGeneral Relativity. Your response, " that’s because he did not see the pictures" seems, in my opinion, a clear refutation of the GR theory as such. Sorry if what I implied was wrong.

i have no clue who hoyle was but if his basis for geocentrism was eindteins relativity. the people who granted him a doctorate should be beaten with a stick. they have nothing to do with one another.

My problem is that if the geocentric model is wrong, then we could not use it as a locus,

how so?, any point in space could be used equally well. the location of the locus does not matter, it could just as well be my toe, a rock in mongolia, or an asteroid traveling through the alpha centauri system

for such a view would be erronious. I never claimed that we should use the geocentric view in attempting to discover the scientific laws of nature.
I mearly claimed that, by chosing the geocentric view for skywatching, it must mean that such a frame is superior to the heliocentric one for this particular purpose, or else we would not use it at all.

no, it is simply a chioce that could be random with the exact same effects.

…and by doing so, you are claiming these different frames of references as being equivalant, would you not?

no, i am saying that the same system could be used from any loci

It’s a matter of different interpretation of what we observe. For example: why are the planets orbiting the sun and not simply moving towards the sun in an attempt to collide with it? Is it a coincidence that all of the planets orbit around the sun in the same direction?

you may choose to say that, but there is only one possible interpretation of these photos, and every time i hear or see geocentrists heaping scorn on the Church, i will cut it to pieces with these photos. good day

 

[thistle]

Actually the bottom line is that it doesn’t matter if geocentricism is true or false. The Church does not teach anything on it. We are free to believe whatever we wish because this is a matter of science, not faith and our salvation does not depend on this one way or the other.

 

[pnewton]

In either case, the basic premise of the OP is obviously false. I and almost all Catholics deny geocentrism, yet accept the virgin birth. So it is surely possible. If the OP views this as illogical, who cares. He thinks the Earth is the center of the universe.

 

[cassini]

you may choose to say that, but there is only one possible interpretation of these photos, and every time i hear or see geocentrists heaping scorn on the Church, i will cut it to pieces with these photos. good day

Warp, I for one, and I dare say there are many more, PhDs too, who know your photos do not prove H . As another poster said, soory pal, but you haven’t falsified relativity as your false conclusion should do if it were true. They are proof for you, as Newton provided proof for others, as Stellar Aberration proved for others, as stellar parallax proved for more, as the discovery of the Coriolis effect proved for even more, as Foucault’s pendulum proved for any left overs.

However, in world created by GOD, cosmic movements are relative for man’s science. Only the other day I heard a radio presenter who was convinced like yourself, being corrected by a Professor of Mathematics from Cork University in Ireland. In his opinion the world is BOTH G and H, which for me is an impossibility but for scientists adhering to the lower levels of knowledge is all they have.

As for ’ geocentrists heaping scorn on the Church’, don’t tell me after all this debate you haven’t understood the difference between the Church and ‘Churchmen’. What do you say to those who condemn ‘the Church’ for all the paedophiles in 'IT?

 

[cassini]

Actually the bottom line is that it doesn’t matter if geocentricism is true or false. The Church does not teach anything on it. We are free to believe whatever we wish because this is a matter of science, not faith and our salvation does not depend on this one way or the other.

The ‘bottom line’ for you thistle, but not for others interested in the history of the Church, in the history of the world, in the great battle of Principalities and powers that the likes of you and others love to fob off as ‘conspiracy theories’.

Over 8,000 books and lenghty thesis have been written on the Galileo case all unsuccessfully trying to solve a ‘puzzle’ of that long affair, all written by Copernicans like yourself of course. Had they all taken your advice they could have saved themselves the bother.

Well now its our turn to speak up for the Church of 1616 and 1633 that has been ridiculed and ignored by the same Copernican heretics. Our position is that no one has ever falsified the Church’s interpretation of the Scriptures as geocentric, not even warp with his beloved ‘photos’ of H. What you lot prove to me is that there is little grace out there as the love for truth has been lost. Nay more, you are the Devil’s advocats, doing your best to stop the flow of truth getting to anyone else. Indeed the heresy is one of the most successful of them all. Even when informed of it, intellectual pride blinds you all.