S
sidbrown
Guest
Why do you suppose the planets, much smaller than the sun, revolve about the sun?
- Status
C
cassini
Guest
James, here’s a problem with Occam’s razor and the example you show above.
The ‘simplicity’ of Copernicus’s scheme is usually presented in the following way: ‘Of course the motion of a planet around the sun is not strictly circular, and so Copernicus added epicycles to his [circles]. Nevertheless, he was able to reduce the number of circles required from seventy-seven to thirty-four to “explain the whole dance of the planets.” ’ (Morris Kline: Mathematics and the Search for Knowledge, p.71). Koestler however, shows that there is always something fishy about the supposed simplicity of Copernicus’s model. In his Commentariolus, written before De revolutionibus, Copernicus had indeed stated his system required only thirty-four circles compared with Ptolemy’s eighty. But a proper count, according to Koestler, shows Copernicus needed forty-eight epicycles to Ptolemy’s forty. Elsewhere we read Copernicus needed ‘46 circles to explain the ballet of the planets compared to 27 for Ptolemy.’ Was Copernicus’s model ‘simpler’ then? Of course not, and to prove this I suggest you do the counting yourself.
We will now consider heliocentricism as a ‘simpler’ functional system. By this we mean its usefulness for the astronomical needs of man as opposed to its employment for ideological purposes. Arthur Koestler, in his Sleepwalkers, shows us that Copernicus’s model was anything but simple. One of the reasons for this is because Copernicus used circular orbits he had to use deferents, epicycles and eccentrics to plot movements, just like Ptolemy. As for accuracy, well his method is admitted by all to have been inaccurate, falling short by as much as 10 degrees (the moon takes up one-half a degree in the sky) in predicting angular positions of planets. So here again we find the assertion of simplicity for the Copernican system as he proposed it to be a fraudulent claim.
Again let us bring things up to date. The heliocentric proposal on offer above is now the Copernican/Newtonian/Einsteinian model. Were we to point out the complexities of the updated heliocentric model here, the idea that their heliocentric tool is ‘simpler’ than the geocentric reality would be quickly seen for what it is, unmitigated nonsense; believe me.
Let us now move on to Copernicus’s system for as a simpler way to predict eclipses, conjunctions or whatever. Most folk fully accept without investigating that the heliocentric system is the one used for all astronomical predictions and calculations. Well most folk are wrong then. When it comes to working out eclipses etc., it is the geocentric reality mathematics that is used. But watch how they play mind-games when admitting this:
‘For this purpose [making calculations] it is convenient first to consider the earth as fixed and to suppose the observer looking out from its centre…’— Encyclopedia Britannica (Eclipse, p.869).
As for the fossils and the Devil, this is the evolutionary ‘flat earth’ nonsense they throw at any who prefer the G model as their reality.
S
sidbrown
Guest
I don;t disagree, but how would that be a response to a question which is whether or not time had a beginning. Of course, in a sense, this question may not be decidable in our world, however, it is found that entropy increases with time in a closed system. If there were a time when there was close to zero entropy, then I suppose that this would mark the beginning of time.
C
cassini
Guest
Welcome aboard fcs, so far you are 100% correct. Keep up the good work.
I
Image_of_God
Guest
This brings a new idea into the argument. A very sound observation.
C
cassini
Guest
All we (mankind) know is that they do. Why they do will remain God’s secret.
‘Dost thou know the order of heaven, and canst thou
set down the reason thereof on the earth? Who can
declare the order of the heavens or who can make
the harmony of heaven to sleep?’ — (Job. 38:33-37).
‘Give me but one firm point on which to stand, and I will move the earth’ wrote Archimedes (287-212BC); unwittingly coining for posterity the problem asked of Job (man) above. Let me explain. In the Bible, God occasionally makes important statements by way of questions. In the Book of Job, the Creator tells pride-prone man that we are intellectual inferiors when compared to the great mystery that is Him and His creation. Here above we find Job being asked if he knows the order of the cosmos, by what means it is so ordered and reminding him that it is He alone who created it, fully understands it, and maintains it.
No doubt most believe modern science has, or will, figured out the full nature of the universe, its origins and laws and that its movements are caused by ‘gravity’. The truth of course is that the above challenge is as valid today as it was in Job’s time and will remain so if man thinks he can reason it all out by himself. One of the problems for man’s science is the phenomenon of space. The simple fact is that in space there is no ‘empirical’ way of knowing the true order of the universe and therefore its laws, for the simple reason that unless we know for certain of a body in it that is fixed, ‘a firm point’ against which all celestial movements can be identified, then it is impossible to prove if it is geocentric or heliocentric. This insurmountable problem is called relative movement in space, and this simple relativity was once, and has become again, an accepted fact by all of sane and sound reason. Only if we could position ourselves outside the universe and look back at it would it be possible for us to see the true order and harmony of its many movements. But because we are confined within our place and are never likely to reach beyond the stars for the purpose of observation and communication, our view of the order for universe will always be little more than guesswork. — This concept can be recognised by modern academics through Kurt Gödel’s second incompleteness theorem, that full validity of a system, including a scientific one, cannot be demonstrated within that system itself.
S
sidbrown
Guest
Really? So it has nothing to do with the gravitational forces and the fact that the mass of the sun is much larger than the masses of the planets?
P
Plato34
Guest
I see what your getting at now, but the fact is that the man still perceives that he moved somewhere. In his eyes he did move and that is the most important thing since all logic and concepts that I can think of are simply perceptions of experiences.
A
AlbertBall
Guest
What you see here is a clear case of someone unwilling to address the evidence. Like i explained we have NEVER EVER EVER observed a case of a greater massed object orbiting a lesser massed one, we have literally millions of not billions of observations of lesser massed orbiting greater massed. This is what i showed you. Your theory goes against every observation ever carried out by man, that is why no intellectually honest person will ever take it seriously.
So no, the universe would LOOK A LOT different if greater massed objects could orbit lesser massed ones. A LOT DIFFERENT!!!
Also here we see that cassini does not understand science…
“All we (mankind) know is that they do. Why they do will remain God’s secret.”
One need NOT know the origin of a phenomena to observe the phenomena. We have excellent understanding of how gravity works. So good that we can send objects into orbit and keep them there indefinitely. We can send objects to other planets, land them, and return them. We can use planets to sling shot objects into deep space.
Oh went we sends objects into space and return them to earth this is 100% proof that the earth orbits that sun!!! THESE CALCULATIONS WOULD NOT WORK IF THE EARTH WAS STATIC.
I cannot believe in this day and age people can still believe such an absurd theory.
A
AlbertBall
Guest
EDIT, i should have said above we have an excellent understanding of how gravity effects objects.
J
James_S_Saint
Guest
But interestingly, they have yet to tell anyone why gravity works. Perhaps something is going on they ignore, which by the way constitutes a “superstitious force”.
C
cassini
Guest
see Sid, you too like all for the last 400 years show your mental indoctrination. From the time we are 4 years old they implant newtonianism into our brains. Heliocentrism is a mind view. Its reality exists in the mind only, not in the senses, can you force yourself to understand that Sid. Thus you put Newton’s universal Gravitation theory and base your truth on its being true.
The answer is maybe it has for the H model. But that does not disprove -say an electromagnetic force for a G model.
A
AlbertBall
Guest
That has zero bearing on the evidence supporting the earth orbiting the sun. Also you are being dishonest when you claim nobody has tried to explain gravity, but like i said the cause of gravity is utterly irrelevant to the discussion.But interestingly, they have yet to tell anyone why gravity works. Perhaps something is going on they ignore, which by the way constitutes a “superstitious force”.
What we are talking about is consistency. When every observation ever made by humans shows smaller masses orbit larger masses, it is absurd to claim the earth is the exception to this rule based on absolutely nothing.
C
cassini
Guest
Albert - NEVER EVER EVER does not constitute anything other than the words NEVER EVER EVER . Stephen Hawking would tell you MAYBE IN 10,000 years man WILL WILL FIND a contradiction. Your truth is mixed up with PROBABILITIES and PLAUSABILITIES. Besises you mix up MASS with BIG. As for me knowing nothing about science:
**Gravity and Mass **
Having postulated that particles of matter attract one another, Newton then added a second principle to his theory; that particles attract ‘with a force that is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the squares of the distance between them.’ i.e., the ‘distance-dilution inverse square law’, (the pull would be a quarter as strong at twice the distance, and one hundredth at ten times the distance etc.). According to Newton, the earth pulls or attracts a falling apple, and, wait for it, the apple pulls or attracts the earth. You see the centre of gravity lays at the centre of the two masses. But then Newton went into space. The earth and moon, he said, with the mass of their entire particle-attracting properties, are pulling at each other through space. This ‘pull’, while, thankfully, not strong enough to fully drag the moon down to the earth’s surface, is just strong enough to hold the moon orbiting the earth rather than having it fly off into space in a straight line as its first movement should have it doing (First Law of Motion). In other words, the combination of the distant attractions of the two masses finds equilibrium and the moon accordingly orbits the earth in natural perpetuity. Similarly, such an attraction between the sun and the planets results in the sun’s hold on the planets (which they say includes the earth) through millions of miles of space, keeping them in orbit around it. Given that the gravity on the surface of the earth for a known ‘mass’ (an apple for instance) can be measured in feet/seconds², they say the earth’s ‘mass’ can then be calculated relative to the apple. Following from this, all the masses of their solar system could be found and calculated. Thus Newton set up a brilliant theory for heliocentricism and as history shows, one that was good enough to see off geocentricism. Dig a little deeper however, and find Newton’s mass related law had big problems.
‘Mass is a tricky concept. No doubt about it. It is not only difficult to understand, but, until Einstein, it was horribly ambiguous.’–J.P. McEvoy and Oscar Zarate: Introducing Hawking, Icon Books, 1997, p.26.
And I can assure you Albert, after Einstein, mass is an even trickier concept, even ‘more horribly ambiguous’, a greased pig, designed to be so. These problems arose when Newton’s universal law is taken to its natural conclusion. In isolation the gravity caused ellipse curved heliocentric solar system looks Newtonian enough, but when extended to every particle of the known and outer universe two questions demanded an answer. Why doesn’t the whole universe solidify through attraction to its centre? To solve this question Newton declared an infinite universe, i.e., all is held in equilibrium. The next big difficulty for Newtonianism is that if the total mass of the cosmos results in gravitational equilibrium, then the centre of it all cannot be determined using human physics and its mathematics. Thus geocentricism comes right back into the picture, for it suggests that the earth could be that centre. Under Einstein’s version of it mentioned above, they did admit this. So in fact Newton’s theory of universal gravity could also be claimed as the physics for geocentricism, hilarious, yes?
Perhaps the biggest problem for Newton’s Universal Law of Gravitation lay in the question ‘how does this attraction work through space?’ Here is a Newtonian asking the question:
‘If space is really empty how is it that the sun and moon exercise influence over the earth? “Technical action at a distance is impossible. A body can only act immediately on what it is in contact with; it must be by the action of contiguous particles – that is, practically, through a continuous medium, that force can be transmitted across space. Radiation is not the only thing the earth feels from the sun; there is in addition its gigantic gravitative pull, a force or tension more than what a million million steel rods, each seventeen feet in diameter, could stand. What mechanism transmits this gigantic force?–Sir Bertram Windle: The Church and Science, p.59.–
C
cassini
Guest
Here is more science that I know nothing about Albert, so I got others to say it for me.:
Koestler presented this inconsistency like so:
‘Newton’s concept of a ‘gravitational force’ has always lain as an undigested lump in the stomach of science…He in fact could only get around the “absurdity” of his own concept by invoking either ubiquitous ether (whose attributes are equally paradoxical) and/or God in person. The whole notion of a ‘force’ which acts instantly at a distance without an intermediary agent, which traverses the vastest distances in seconds, and pulls at immense stellar objects with ubiquitous ghost fingers -the whole idea is so mystical and unscientific, that modern minds like Kepler, Galileo and Descar¬tes, who were fighting to break loose from Aristotelian animism, would instinctively reject it as a relapse into the past… What made Newton postulate nevertheless a modern law of nature, was his mathematical formulation of the mysterious entity to which it referred.’ — The Sleepwalkers, p.344.
‘A rather wild theory of universal gravity was put forward by Le Sage…Professor de Sitter has tested the idea by examining whether there is any weakening in the Sun’s attraction on the Moon at a time when the Moon is in the Earth’s shadow. He does actually find some evidence of such a weakening, but it is too minute to be certain about. The fantastic nature of Le Sage’s theory is evidence of the extreme difficulty of the problem. It is curious to reflect that we are still as ignorant of the nature of the force that draws a stone to the Earth as men were in the dawn of history.’ —Dr. A.C.D. Crommelin: Diamonds in the Sky, Collins, London, 1940, p.49.
Koestler presented this inconsistency like so:
‘Newton’s concept of a ‘gravitational force’ has always lain as an undigested lump in the stomach of science…He in fact could only get around the “absurdity” of his own concept by invoking either ubiquitous ether (whose attributes are equally paradoxical) and/or God in person. The whole notion of a ‘force’ which acts instantly at a distance without an intermediary agent, which traverses the vastest distances in seconds, and pulls at immense stellar objects with ubiquitous ghost fingers -the whole idea is so mystical and unscientific, that modern minds like Kepler, Galileo and Descar¬tes, who were fighting to break loose from Aristotelian animism, would instinctively reject it as a relapse into the past… What made Newton postulate nevertheless a modern law of nature, was his mathematical formulation of the mysterious entity to which it referred.’ — The Sleepwalkers, p.344.
‘A rather wild theory of universal gravity was put forward by Le Sage…Professor de Sitter has tested the idea by examining whether there is any weakening in the Sun’s attraction on the Moon at a time when the Moon is in the Earth’s shadow. He does actually find some evidence of such a weakening, but it is too minute to be certain about. The fantastic nature of Le Sage’s theory is evidence of the extreme difficulty of the problem. It is curious to reflect that we are still as ignorant of the nature of the force that draws a stone to the Earth as men were in the dawn of history.’ —Dr. A.C.D. Crommelin: Diamonds in the Sky, Collins, London, 1940, p.49.
C
cassini
Guest
Spot on James and I hope I have demonstrated your wisdom by way of quotes above.But interestingly, they have yet to tell anyone why gravity works. Perhaps something is going on they ignore, which by the way constitutes a “superstitious force”.
A
AlbertBall
Guest
Again you totally fail to address the point. Ok lets make this simple, please provide me with** ONE**, yes JUST ONE observation that shows an object orbiting an other object that has a lower mass than it.
Oh and science goes on the best AVAILABLE evidence, and given at this point we have never seen an object orbiting an other object that has a lower mass than it and all we see it objects orbiting other objects with greater mass, i put it to you that your claim is absurd.
C
cassini
Guest
OK, you want simple Albert, well if you can tell me simply how I distinguish MASS maybe I can answer your question. For the sake of argument only, for this theory too is probably as speculative as Newtons, If you can show me that God did not create the earth with a MASS (whatever that is) sufficient to do the G trick according to your Newtonian thinking then I would concede/ Like I said MASS is MAGIC, it is a clever as the devil WORD that was used to fool the world into thinking Bigger is more MASSIVE. But as any BALOONIST will tell you, BIG is not a good guide as to what is the most massive…
But the problem with you Albert is that you are a Noner, you do not believe in God or that He created the world, or that He keeps the world in order and in existence by divine concursus. I say this with respect albert as I find Noners fascinating to talk to. Well I do believe in the Triune God, and I have presented HIS created time on this thread. Some chose to dismiss this concept based on what you people believe is proof that a geocentric world does not exist so we can all dismiss GOD’S creation of universal time. I have retorted with the philosophical case against any human being knowing if H or G is the reality. Therefore, be it by Faith, or by choice of two philosophical positions, I choose the G position having studied the Galileo affair and the Church’s decree that the fixed earth revelation is of GOD. the measurement of God’s TIME for me then, is one turn per day of the whole universe, plus the turns of the sun around the earth once a year.
Now how in anyone’s name can a Catholic and a Noner agree on much to do with this subject of H and G. What it does for me is PROVE that the dismissal of geocentrism from the MINDS of man - to be replaced with Newtonianism - HAD TO BE OF THE DEVIL HIMSELF. But that is another story Albert.
A
AlbertBall
Guest
I will tell you how we know we are correct about the mass of these objects…
http://www.xyberlog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/spy-satellite.jpg
If we did not know the mass of planets, moons, etc then we could not put objects into orbits round them.
For example we KNOW the mass of the Moon = 7.36 × 1022 kilograms
We know this is correct because…
Again please provide me with ONE, yes JUST ONE observation that shows an object orbiting an other object that has a lower mass than it.
J
James_S_Saint
Guest
This is fun. 
- Status