C
cassini
Guest
It just does pal, and if you think you know why then you are a better man than Gunga Din as they say over here. No doubt you have a theory that you think is a fact because the Heliocentric heretics all agree to it.
- Status
O
Orogeny
Guest
It just does. Boy, that is an intellectual argument if I have ever heard one.
So, you don’t understand why the gravity meter will measure what it does, yet you told hecd2 that measurements that show the earth is thicker at the equator than it is at the poles were bogus and that the shape of the earth cannot be determined. I find it hard to believe that you don’t understand that the different values for g is a huge blow for a geocentrist viewpoint. You fought the idea, so you must understand the implications.
Now, back to the gravity meter that “just reads”. What could possibly cause the instrument to record a higher value for g at the poles? Could it be that the meter is closer to the center of mass of the earth there than it is when placed at the equator? What, in geocentric thinking, would cause that phenomenon?
Peace
Tim
E
edwest2
Guest
Father Coyne does not represent Church teaching about God and science:
C
cassini
Guest
As I thought, the same old H rhetoric. Tell me then, what is MASS?It just does. Boy, that is an intellectual argument if I have ever heard one.
So, you don’t understand why the gravity meter will measure what it does, yet you told hecd2 that measurements that show the earth is thicker at the equator than it is at the poles were bogus and that the shape of the earth cannot be determined. I find it hard to believe that you don’t understand that the different values for g is a huge blow for a geocentrist viewpoint. You fought the idea, so you must understand the implications.
Now, back to the gravity meter that “just reads”. What could possibly cause the instrument to record a higher value for g at the poles? Could it be that the meter is closer to the center of mass of the earth there than it is when placed at the equator? What, in geocentric thinking, would cause that phenomenon?
Peace
Tim
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
ok, Catholicism isnt strictly held to those who defend 500 year
old orthodoxy. i am just as catholic as you.
further you damage the credibility of the faith with statements like these,that the meter reads different simply because it reads different
the fact is gravity decreases as a square of distance, if the earth were perfectly round than it would read the same at all points.
i am the first to jump on many of the people you are debating, but if you wish to prove geocentrism than offer some physical,
mathematical verifiable evidence.
you make us all look bad with such things, how does that make true Catholicism look good.
the more you make such arguments the more ammunition you give to those who would see us undone.
you are not helping us
R
ricmat
Guest
I’m not a geocentrist, but I’m wondering what your answer is to your own question above.
C
cassini
Guest
I have heard all this before. I could write your script for you. You never stop presenting your ‘proofs’ for something that cannot be proven. I DO NOT PRESENT ANY PROOFS FOR G. But you take a fact, put a H reasoning to it, present it as a true fact of science, and think you have a proof for H. God, when will you ever learn. If there cannot be any proof for the relative movements of the sun and earth, then there IS no proof that can be gained from gravitational effects. Truly there are none as THICK as Copernicans, it comes with the heresy.
Oh and by the way, everything you aim at me you aim at the CHURCH of 1616 and 1633. Don’t forget that.
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
you disagree with the Church here, if you have heard all these things then why do you continue?
heliocentrism is proven, mathematically. observationally, and by by pictures, what more proof do you need? we have less proof that you exist sitting at a computer somewhere than we do of heliocentricity
because there are none, period. and havent been for hundreds of years
thats because they are true facts, they conform to all the other observational and mathematical facts
blasphemy is unacceptable
one does not follow the other, and the proof is from multiple sources.
why are you fighting 400 year old battles that were lost long ago?
but not the Church today, they were wrong then, the validity of their ideas hasnt changed since, and the error has been admitted
so once again why do you think it is ok to disagree with the current state of the church?
O
Orogeny
Guest
Can’t (or won’t) answer the question. Noted.
Mass is the volume of matter in a body. Tell me, does mass exist in a geocentric world? How about gravity?
For anyone reading these threads who might not understand what we are discussing, this is significant and cassini knows it. The bulge at the equator is caused by the rotation of the earth. In fact, not only is the value of g different (smaller) at the equator because of the increased distance from the center of the earth, it is also different (smaller) because the centripetal force caused by the rotation of the earth.
That is not possible in a geocentric world.
Peace
Tim
B
buffalo
Guest
O
Orogeny
Guest
If you are referring to the bolded text, that is the answer to the question. Gravity falls off with the square of the distance from the center of mass. The measured g at the poles is higher than at the equator because the earth bulges at the equator (not to mention the centripetal force at the equator) and a mass placed at the pole is closer to the center of the earth’s mass than one placed at the equator.
Peace
Tim
R
ricmat
Guest
Again, as I mentioned, I’m not a geocentrist and I really don’t care about that aspect of the discussion, but your statement above caught my eye.
Are you sure of the bolded statement above? Certainly, at the center of the earth, distance = 0, you will not get a greater g reading than you do at either the poles or the equator. What reading would you get?
And I’d like to also follow up on a previous totally legitimate question from cassini that asked “what is mass?” The traditional response is of course that it is “a property of matter.” The underlying causes of mass and gravity remain HUGE puzzles to the scientific world (yes, there are dozens of hypotheses). Until we get answers to those puzzles, it would seem to me that most of cosmology (which depends so much on gravity) is open to significant future revisions.
IMHO.
O
Orogeny
Guest
Yes.
Correct, because once you penetrate the surface of the earth, the mass of the material above you will have a gravitational pull on you just as the material below you would. Eventually, you get to the center where all gravitational forces balance out.
Zero.What reading would you get?
Well, the causes may be unknown, but there is mass and gravity, wouldn’t you agree? We can measure them. Except for very large or very small conditions, Newton’s laws work pretty well, wouldn’t you say?
Peace
Tim
R
ricmat
Guest
So we disagree. Per your statement, above, if you go to the center of the earth, you should have the highest reading.
Oh wait, now we agree.
Yes.
Yes, they work pretty well at describing the motions of the planets, etc. Of course gravitational computations involving more than 3 objects are virtually impossible to figure out with precision. And the longer you go out in time, the motions become chaotic.
And the effect of gravity over LONG distances is not yet quite determined.
So, does gravity act “at the speed of light”, or slower, or faster? I wonder what the cosmological implications are? If gravity acts instantly, what are the implications to Newton’s laws (in which t plays no role)? What are the implications to Einstein’s theory of relativity?
I mention these things only to make the point that there is a lot we don’t know.
On a (very) side note: theologically, the Jewish temple in Jerusalem sits on a “rock” that blocks the passageway to hell. That spot was believed to be the center of the cosmos, the junction between heaven and hell. So not only is the earth the center of the universe, Jerusalem is. Of course, we have our rock (the pope) and the new Israel/Jerusalem is the Church. So perhaps the Church is now the center of the cosmos. The only reason I mention this is that it just came up in a bible study class last week Mt:16:18. With this background, I have to ask why the heck it is really important if the sun goes around the earth or vice versa.
C
cassini
Guest
but not the Church today, they were wrong then, the validity of their ideas hasnt changed since, and the error has been admittedyou disagree with the Church here, if you have heard all these things then why do you continue?
heliocentrism is proven, mathematically. observationally, and by by pictures, what more proof do you need? we have less proof that you exist sitting at a computer somewhere than we do of heliocentricity
because there are none, period. and havent been for hundreds of years
thats because they are true facts, they conform to all the other observational and mathematical facts
blasphemy is unacceptable
one does not follow the other, and the proof is from multiple sources.
why are you fighting 400 year old battles that were lost long ago?
so once again why do you think it is ok to disagree with the current state of the church?
All h rhetoric. Again I TELL you, no sane scientist or philosopher today will deny the RELATIVITY that exists between the movements of the sun and earth. If you find one treasure him for you need one badly. Accordingly, there is no scientific proof for H. Lots and lots of CONSENSUS that you have proofs, but consensus is not the result of science but of a belief system.
The Church of 1616 then was NEVER proven or shown to be wrong by the scientific method, only by the illusion of the DEVIL’s tricks.
Now I see H even warps the concept of Catholic. Catholic is now described as one that belioeves the Copernican churchmen, the heretics, and not the Church of Pope Paul V, urban VIII and St Robert Bellarmine.
C
cassini
Guest
For anyone reading this thread if the earth is oblate, as Newton predicted, it does not prove the earth is rotating. It only proves the earth is oblate. If a man is oblate it does not prove he is spinning, it means he is probably eating too much.
The ‘proof for H’ merchants think they understand Gravity, how it works and that it works in space as well as on earth and other cosmic bodies to some extent. So let us learn something about Gravity that heliocentricists think they have figured out:
Understanding Gravity (From the Latin gravitás, meaning heavy.)
That anyone would say Newton solved the mystery of gravity is beyond belief for no one other than God ‘understands’ gravity. We know the need for and effects of what we call gravity on earth, and indeed probably on the surface of every other cosmic body, but can mere human reason really comprehend the mystery of gravity? Given, for example, that if we view the earth in space - as man can do now – we find it simply hangs in nothing; its surface covered with ‘unattached’ things, half ‘upside-down’ relative to the other half. This being so, we can ask, how is it that on this same globe everybody on its surface has the sky above and the earth below. Is such a phenomenon not beyond human understanding? Let me put it this way. Here we are in the space shuttle, heading for global earth. The first thing the spacemen should notice is that it does not move and that they do not have to chase after it at 70,000mph. Now, no matter where they head for, even if it is a place right on the bottom of the globe as they head towards it, somehow, by the time they land, they end up the same way, the sky is always overhead, and the earth is always below. When does the ‘twist’ happen, I ask myself? If a fly landed on the same place on a light bulb, it would find itself ‘upside down’, yet the same does not occur when the bulbs are cosmic bodies in space. How does this happen? ‘Its all because of gravity’ we are told. Well, thank God for it I say, because without it we would all be in one terrible incoherent, placeless mess.
‘But’, we hear you say, ‘surely scientists throughout the last 300 years eventually confirmed Newton’s law of gravitation - with that instant attraction inherent in every particle of matter and manifested in the movements of the solar system - to be correct? Well actually to begin with, before we come to findings of science after Newton, even he could not come to terms with his own idea, let alone the many universities in Catholic Europe as Andrew White showed us, for who could take seriously a man that would promulgate a theory as a law that he himself knew had no possible empirical justification. Let us now see what he said 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.’
If Newton couldn’t come to terms with his own paradox, how then could the Earthmovers say his ‘laws’ provided ample evidence in the search for proof of the earth’s supposed motion?
But this ‘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.
C
cassini
Guest
I continue:
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.’ — Robert V. Gentry (DSc. Hon.), op. cit., pp.13-14.
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.
C
cassini
Guest
finally:
And, we can assure you dear reader, 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
but not the Church today, they were wrong then, the validity of their ideas hasnt changed since, and the error has been admittedyou disagree with the Church here, if you have heard all these things then why do you continue?
heliocentrism is proven, mathematically. observationally, and by by pictures, what more proof do you need? we have less proof that you exist sitting at a computer somewhere than we do of heliocentricity
because there are none, period. and havent been for hundreds of years
thats because they are true facts, they conform to all the other observational and mathematical facts
blasphemy is unacceptable
one does not follow the other, and the proof is from multiple sources.
why are you fighting 400 year old battles that were lost long ago?
so once again why do you think it is ok to disagree with the current state of the church?
Before I go to bed, one last heliocentric illusion conjured up by the Copernicans. Here they portray the CHURCH as an institution that makes serious mistakes, defining and declaring a truth as formal heresy by papal decree. They portray the CHURCH as having admitted this ‘error’ as if the CHURCH is an institution that changes from this to that when ‘proven’ to be wrong.
Well if anybody can show me an admission of error, an abrogation of the 1616 decree, for that is the only way such a papal decree can be reversed, I will become a Muslim. The fact is that the CHURCH is divine, does not make mistakes, and never has to admit errors. CHURCHMEN on the other hand, can pretend to admit to an error, but they are not THE CHURCH.
G
grannymh
Guest
Re: Post 182
From my view in the trenches, it is very important to discuss issues surrounding Faith and Science.
Then maybe others besides myself will see how the trickledown effect of the supposition --Faith and Science are at odds-- is actually affecting our society in a negative way. One example: on another thread, there was a discussion concerning some kind of survey about stealing/cheating by students. Some posters expressed a kind of shock. Others pointed out that this type of behavior took place when they were in school, etc. What was really shocking to me as a reader was that it took a number of posts before anyone expressed concern that the interviewed students thought that they themselves were basically or generally good and some better than average. (This is written from memory and my own reaction of “What’s wrong with this picture?”)
I bet the guys on Wall Street and financial street etc., think of themselves as good. – What was that on a recent news program about some executive asking for at $10 something bonus?
No matter how one words faith and science , faith and reason, spiritual and material, creationist and evolutionist, you and me or me and you whichever – there is a need to raise our
consciousness to the fact that it is the relationship between faith and science which is breaking apart.
For some reason or reasons we are told that we should break free of the vice of religion which covers a multitude of sins or we should break free of science because its base of materialism interferes with our spiritual insights or we should skip both and be good for goodness’ sake.
How do I know that the current range wars between some factions of the religious communities and some factions of the science communities are partly responsible for corroding moral, or religious or ethical or humanist behaviors? It is the same type of inductive reasoning I used when, as a mother of 6, I found broken glass in the trash and could figure out which kid was the cause.
Blessings,
grannymh
- Status