W
wildleafblower
Guest
Interesting!
- Status
N
neophyte
Guest
Sorry, I can’t possibly take seriously the continued claims that heliocentrism is a heresy. I’m familiar with the issue, I’ve read much of what Sungenis has said about it and have spent hours studying the documentation he cites. His argument, though voluminous, is not convincing and his conclusion is not demanded by the texts.
It’s quite simply a bunch of rubbish, and in any case NO ONE today believes that the sun is the center of the universe. You might as well be railing against the heretics who hold to spontaneous generation.
H
hecd2
Guest
Yes there are a few. I am aware of about ten or twelve websites. The same people, Marshall Hall, van der Kamp, Bouw, Sungenis, Bowden, Brauer, Jones, Elmendorf (we’ve met him on this thread), Marinov go round and round them.
They all tend to be Young Earth Creationists and they often reject much modern science such as GR. There is a disturbing degree of anti-semitism from a few of them. Many are cranky like Marinov who claimed to have invented a perpetual motion machine, or hold other downright bizarre views.
Alec
C
cassini
Guest
OK boys, I can only reply one at a time. Today i will begin with the so-called proof of the oblateness of the earth. soory hecd2, this so-called proof is another BIG lie. Are you aware of the history of its measurement? Well if you were then you will find the same ideology dominating this science as with all the others used to support H.
For the last word read this:
in 1988. In the Journal of Surveying Engineering, commenting on the current state of Astronomy and Space Geodesy, we find the following:
COORDINATE SYSTEMS USED IN GEODESY
BASIC DEFINITIONS AND CONCEPTS
By Tomás Soler and Larry D. Hothem, Member, ASCE
‘INTRODUCTION
The principal problem of geodesy may be stated as follows (Hirvonen 1960): “Find the space coordinates at any point P at the physical surface S of the earth when a sufficient number of geodetic operations have been carried out along S.” Therefore, in order to know the position P, the definition of an appropriate frame to which these spatial coordinates refer is of primary importance. Due to the nature of the rotational motions of the earth and to other geodynamic phenomena, a rigorously defined, earth-fixing coordinates system at the degree of accuracy of our current observational capabilities is not presently available.’
This of course, means that in 1988, long after Newton’s bulge is confirmed as a heliocentric ‘fact’, here are geodesists attempting to convey meetings, colloquiums and workshops organised jointly by the International Association of Geodesy and the International astronomical Union attempting to coordinate the work of different groups in the international scientific community for the future definition and selection of reliable reference frames so that they can measure the combined shape of the earth? It seems with so much movement of cosmic bodies it is impossible to coordinate multiple reference frames necessary for an accurate measurement of the earth’s supposed bulge. In other words, here we have the modern experts in this field telling us that no accurate shape for the earth has ever been achieved. Maybe now we can see just how far the they will go to assure the world that Newton was correct, that his ‘laws’ prove the earth spins and orbits the sun in a heliocentric solar system.
I’ll get back to other comments later.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Wow – 1988 cutting edge research!
B
buffalo
Guest
Is this an argument from popularity?
H
hecd2
Guest
What absolute balderdash.
It is worse than disingenuous to take a real problem which is to provide a reference frame for the mapping of the of the earth’s surface to accuracies of a few millimetres, using for example VLBI, and pretend that that makes the oblateness of the earth uncertain. You say you care about truth - well given the following tell me how in your post you think you were serving the truth.
The truth is that the magnitude of the oblateness of the earth is immensely bigger than the accuracy with which it can be measured, which makes its existence certain. The dimensions are measured using techniques such as GPS, VLBI, and laser ranging to accuracies of less than a metre. The difference between the major and minor axes of the terrestrial ellipsoid is 21,385m or 21.385km. Furthermore, since 1988, GPS satellites have fixed a geocentric reference frame for the earth, thereby addressing the issue described in the quote above.There is no doubt about the oblateness of the earth, it cannot be a matter for debate and no quantity of irrelevant quote mining will change that fact. To claim, as you have done, that the flattening of the terrestrial ellipsoid is not known is to build one’s position on a blatant untruth.
Alec
evolutionpages.com/pink_unicorn.htm
C
cassini
Guest
Good man hecd2, go claim your place in history then. Here is more who thought an oblate earth proves newton correct.
In 1909 the geophysicist Hayford presented the world with ‘the most accurate’ measurements, since adopted internationally for use in all data concerning the form of the earth.’ He gave an oblateness of 1/297 based on figures of an equatorial radius of 6,378,388 metres (3,963 miles) and a polar radius of 6,356,912 metres (3,950 miles), giving an oblateness of 21,474 metres (13.42 miles).
‘So that settled it?’ I can hear you ask. Well not really, for we then find them having to admit:
‘Finally one more point must be noted. Although the above data refer to an ellipsoid of revolution, this may not be the actual shape of the Earth. Accordingly to Helmert, we could postulate an ellipsoid with three unequal axes, two situated equatorially and nearer to each other than to the polar axis. It will be the task of future geophysicists to decide whether this is so.’
Next, in 1991, we find Isaac Asimov, scientist and science-fictionist, or is it the other way round, reinstating Newton’s hope, but note now the bulge is getting smaller:
‘Newton proved to be right. Earth had an equatorial bulge, though not much of a one. The Earth’s equatorial diameter is 12,756 kilometres (7,926 miles), while its polar diameter is 13,713 kilometres (7,900 miles). The difference is 43 kilometres (26 miles). In other words, the Earth is almost a perfect sphere, but not quite.’
From an Orange to a Pear?
Asimov then admits to a contradiction. He says that in 1959 another measurement for the earth was achieved, this time using a satellite called Vanguard. It found Newton’s ‘bulge’ was 25 feet (7.6 meters) - yes a mere 25 feet - higher south of the equator, and announced the earth was shaped like a pear, that is, it has a bulgier bulge in the southern hemisphere.
Seeking a few more details of this curious revelation we find that according to this latest measurement the South Pole is flatter by 50 feet and the North Pole higher (pointed) by 50 feet, as their illustration shows here:
‘A SMALL BUT IMPORTANT BULGE’
We read that the pear was found as a result of Vanguard’s ‘erratic’ orbit, indicating a change of gravitational strength – ‘which in turn, indicates an irregularity in the earth’s mass, for it is mass that determines gravity. O’Keefe decided that Vanguard’s strange course indicated an odd-shaped earth – and from the satellite’s route he worked out earth’s new look. It has since been confirmed by other satellites.’
So, we are asked to believe, 25-50 feet of extra and missing earth below it caused changes of gravity that sent a satellite into a wobble. Goodness knows what sort of a wobble the satellite made as it passed over Mt Everest or any such high mountain worl dwide? Anyway, this novel form of geodesy seems to have turned Newton’s orange into a pear shaped orange. Now if this is true, no matter how it was reasoned out, does it or does it not confirm the Cassini measurements of 1720 that found the northern hemisphere was narrower at the hips and higher at the Pole, a measurement that was rejected on principle?
Given the history and importance of the measurement, wouldn’t you think the whole scientific world would have shook with excitement and intrigue at what is undoubtedly a complete falsification of Newton’s prediction of a uniform bulge (and its resulting precession) with his theory of gravitation? You would of course, but alas, to these people such conclusions are only a nuisance. Accordingly, as Asimov writes, with a sign of relief, by careful management, of course:
‘Fortunately, the use of the expression quickly died.’ —Isaac Asimov: op. cit., p.79.
C
cassini
Guest
Bet you haven’t met a saint among them either.
C
cassini
Guest
it did you know.
C
cassini
Guest
NASA scientists use the geocentric mathematics and the newspapers show us heliocentric pictures. Can you imaging any idiot using heliocentric maths when sending men into space?
C
cassini
Guest
Here we have the classic Heliocentricist, no Copernican (the difference is that the Copernican prefers to interpret the Bible contrary to the Church decree of 1616) using theoretical heliocentric physics to dismiss G. You are correct, I reject all heliocentric theoretical physics on the ground that God has revealed the universe is G. My faith in God and the Church is stronger than any heretic’s theories. Now we humans may have problems with God’s physics as Pope urban viii said, but that is no reason to deny His word. Again I reiterate, you have no proofs because proofs are impossible. Accordingly I prefer the word of God and you can try to ridicule such a faith all you like. you guys sound like the atheists.
O
Orogeny
Guest
Cassini,
Why is the measured value of g (acceration of gravity) a larger number at the poles than it is at the equator?
Peace
Tim
Why is the measured value of g (acceration of gravity) a larger number at the poles than it is at the equator?
Peace
Tim
W
wildleafblower
Guest
So no one but you and a few others belong to the “true Church”? (I know lots of bishops and archbishops, and have yet to meet a single geocentrist among them.)
That’s because wherever I have lived over the years, Roman Catholics including youth and adults (scientists, philosophers, theologians (priests), and professional working adults) were taught decades ago that we aren’t creationists. I think locality, public and Catholic education, and affluence played a significant role early on in child development.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Sorry, you haven’t shown a thing with this.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Yes.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Alec and Barbarian, you have been around CAF a while, so perhaps you can answer this. Has YEC increased or diminished as a phenomenon over the past decade? I have never met the belief among Catholics outside of this particular forum. I wonder whether Catholics YECs carry on their project mainly in the sphere of cyberspace, since they have no access to academic institutions. Do they publish journals or hold conferences? Do they endow chairs in colleges? Do they conduct on-going research programs?
Curiously yours,
StAnastasia
E
edwest2
Guest
To StAnastasia,
May I point out that the Catholic Church does allow Catholics to believe in a young earth. Second, Cardinal Schoenborn has clearly stated there is design in nature (see Finding Design in Nature at the New York Times web site). Finally, the Cardinal has identified, and warned Catholics, about an ideology called Scientism which has affected modern science.
Catholic centers of higher education have too many non-Catholics in leadership positions. This is changing. Such individuals do not have something authentically Catholic to give to their students. The increasing noise being created by Atheists who back their claims by the same "mountains of evidence’ for evolutionary theory are active here as well. As Pope Benedict stated, “Evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.”
Peace,
Ed
May I point out that the Catholic Church does allow Catholics to believe in a young earth. Second, Cardinal Schoenborn has clearly stated there is design in nature (see Finding Design in Nature at the New York Times web site). Finally, the Cardinal has identified, and warned Catholics, about an ideology called Scientism which has affected modern science.
Catholic centers of higher education have too many non-Catholics in leadership positions. This is changing. Such individuals do not have something authentically Catholic to give to their students. The increasing noise being created by Atheists who back their claims by the same "mountains of evidence’ for evolutionary theory are active here as well. As Pope Benedict stated, “Evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.”
Peace,
Ed
N
neophyte
Guest
It bears no resemblance to an argument from popularity, so I’d say that it’s not.
I’m merely pointing out that it’s a waste of time to argue against a position that no one holds.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Ed,
(1) I was asking about changes in the frequency of holding YEC. I think it’s nonsense; I’m merely wondering whether belief in it is increasing, decreasing, or remaining static. This might be a measure of how well educated Catholics are in science.
(2) What is a “complete, scientifically proven theory”? This sounds like a naive or amateurish way of talking about science. I’ve never heard scientists talking about complete theories.
StAnastasia
- Status