Galileo Was Wrong, Volume II released

[trth_skr]

And I and many others in this thread have provide ample evidence for heliocentrism. You overlook this and don’t respond to it. I’m comfortable with the facts of science I was taught in school.

No, I have responded to it. That is the nature of the discussion.

What is your evidence?

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[goofyjim]

No, I have responded to it. That is the nature of the discussion.

What is your evidence?

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

The earth has something called gravity. It only has a hold on objects of smaller mass. The sun which is greater in mass also has gravity which operates on the earth. So therefore the sun keeps the planets going around it. Each individual planet keeps its own moons going around it. It is not so hard to grasp. And it has been observed time and time again. So I won’t ignore my senses of sight.

BTW, I never used name calling. I just simply don’t want to read something. That’s my prerogative.

 

[trth_skr]

The earth has something called gravity. It only has a hold on objects of smaller mass. The sun which is greater in mass also has gravity which operates on the earth. So therefore the sun keeps the planets going around it. Each individual planet keeps its own moons going around it. It is not so hard to grasp. And it has been observed time and time again. So I won’t ignore my senses of sight.

…

Here is a quip from Galileo Was Wrong (references left out- Newton’s Principia, and Misner, Thorne and Wheeler, Gravitation), First entry in Chapter 3, “Answering COmmon Objections”:
Galileo Was Wrong:

Doesn’t the Smaller Body Always Revolve Around the Larger Body?

One of the more common objections to
geocentrism is the claim that Isaac Newton’s laws of
motion prove that the Earth, because it is smaller,
must revolve around the sun, which is larger. In
reality, Newton proved no such thing. A close
examination of his laws reveals that he merely stated,
of two or more bodies in a rotating system, all bodies
will revolve around the center of mass. As Newton
himself put it: "That the center of the system of the
world is immovable. This is acknowledged by all,
although some contend that the Earth, others that the
sun, is fixed in that center.

Granted, in a closed system where the only two
bodies existent are a massive sun and a small Earth,
the center of mass will be much closer to the sun than
the Earth, and thus, in that systemthe Earth would,
indeed, revolve around the sun. But this is precisely
the problem with the appeal to Newtonian mechanics:
the appeal invariably limits the system to two bodies,
the sun and the Earth, while it ignores the rest of the
universe. When the rest of the universe is incorporated
into the system, we now have a center of mass that is
dependent on far more than the local forces we
experience in our tiny solar system. On that basis, as
we shall see, even Newton could not object to the
Earth being the center of mass for the universe. The
grand summation of his three laws of motion (namely,
in a closed system the acceleration of the center of
mass equals zero), will allow an immobile Earth to be
the center, that is, if the universe is included in
Newton’s integral calculus.

…even if there is only one star to take into account, its mass and
gravitational force must be added into the formula for
determining the universe’s center of mass (or
barycenter). In short, our sun, Earth and planets are
not an isolated system. Advocates of heliocentrism
can mount no opposition to this logic since they
believe that our solar system is revolving around the
Milky Way, which, of course, it cannot do unless it is
experiencing a strong gravitational attraction from the
center of the Milky Way. Using that same principle,
when we add to our galaxy the billions of other
galaxies present in the universe, we can certainly
conclude that they will have a substantial effect on
determining the universe’s barycenter. As all modern
physicists agree (even if they don’t prefer the
geocentric model): “Mass there governs inertia
here.”…These distinguished authors are referring to
the total mass of the galaxies and other objects in the
universe that have a direct effect on the inertia we
experience on Earth.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[goofyjim]

Here is a quip from Galileo Was Wrong (references left out- Newton’s Principia, and Misner, Thorne and Wheeler, Gravitation), First entry in Chapter 3, “Answering COmmon Objections”:

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

We’ll just have to agree to disagree. You’ll never convince me.

 

[psteichen]

There are a couple of points I’d like to make. First of all, those who are disparaging Mark and Sungenis and the other Geocentrists without taking the time to research their arguments and refute them logically are being extremely uncharitable. I admit I was tempted to do the same when I first saw this thread, but honestly, what does this say of you if you adamantly insist you are right without knowing how to refute the opposing argument? As someone said earlier, this smacks of the arrogance demonstrated by the atheists and anti-Catholics who we often have to deal with.

Mark, I would like to know from you, do you really believe that geocentrism is true? Or are you just trying to show that the other theories could be equally in error? Not that it matters to the arguments, I’m just curious.

Also, Mark, you state that the Church has taught officially that geocentrism is true and imply that this lends credence to the hypothesis. And the Church teaches that it teaches infallibly only in matters of faith and morals. So are you claiming that geocentrism falls into the category of faith and morals, and thus was infallibly taught? Or would it be fair to say that geocentrism is not a matter of faith and has no moral implications and thus the Church’s teaching would be of no help in determining the truth of the matter? If you disagree, how specifically does belief in geocentrism relate to morality, or faith in God?

Another question: I’m trying to visualize in my mind how a heavier body could orbit a fixed lighter body. First of all what would fix a lighter body in place and thus prevent the gravitation of the heavier from displacing it. But lets just say that somehow it is nailed in place and cannot move. The heavier body would not orbit unless its inertia was extremely low. Performing simple mathematics shows us that it is impossible for the sun to orbit the earth at the rate we observe unless we allow the earth to move. If you do allow for the earth to move you can then describe the sun as orbiting the earth, just as you could describe the earth as orbiting a GPS satellite, but this would of course negate the geocentric/geostationary idea you are trying to prove.

Mark: Your post a few posts up seems to address this question at first glance, but upon closer reading it breaks down. It comes down to determining orbital velocities. I think you would agree that we can use the same formulas to determine the orbital velocity for a communications satellite as we would for planets, just plug in the correct mass and walla…the formula will tell you how fast an object must move at a given distance from the center of mass in order to maintain orbit. Now these formulas do give valid data when we allow both objects to move, but as soon as you force one to remain stationary the formulas now give invalid data, especially when you try to get a heavy object like the sun to orbit the earth.

 

[psteichen]

Just for fun I estimated that the sun would have to be 100 billion times lighter than currently accepted calculations in order to allow it to orbit the earth at the rate that it is observed to (assuming a stationary earth). Assuming this, all the other planets would also have to be 100 billion times lighter to maintain their observed orbits around the sun. This of course we know not to be true, because we have sent satellites out to orbit these bodies and they act as they should based on the accepted masses.

 

[trth_skr]

There are a couple of points I’d like to make. First of all, those who are disparaging Mark and Sungenis and the other Geocentrists without taking the time to research their arguments and refute them logically are being extremely uncharitable. I admit I was tempted to do the same when I first saw this thread, but honestly, what does this say of you if you adamantly insist you are right without knowing how to refute the opposing argument? As someone said earlier, this smacks of the arrogance demonstrated by the atheists and anti-Catholics who we often have to deal with.

Thanks, psteichen. I do understand how hard this is to consider. But once you get over that, and really start to study it, the conclusions are pretty suprising.

Mark, I would like to know from you, do you really believe that geocentrism is true? Or are you just trying to show that the other theories could be equally in error? Not that it matters to the arguments, I’m just curious.

I see it as very possible. In fact, based on the evidence, I see no reason not to consider it the most likely scenario (after throwing in the Church’s case).

Also, Mark, you state that the Church has taught officially that geocentrism is true and imply that this lends credence to the hypothesis. And the Church teaches that it teaches infallibly only in matters of faith and morals. So are you claiming that geocentrism falls into the category of faith and morals, and thus was infallibly taught? Or would it be fair to say that geocentrism is not a matter of faith and has no moral implications and thus the Church’s teaching would be of no help in determining the truth of the matter? If you disagree, how specifically does belief in geocentrism relate to morality, or faith in God?

It does not have to be “infallible” OR “not faith and morals”. I see it as a highly trustworthy theological opinion at the least. It has been recognized as a matter of faith by the Church during the 17th century. See my blog series parts III and the supplement.

I will answer your scientific question seperately.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[trth_skr]

…Another question: I’m trying to visualize in my mind how a heavier body could orbit a fixed lighter body. First of all what would fix a lighter body in place and thus prevent the gravitation of the heavier from displacing it. But lets just say that somehow it is nailed in place and cannot move. The heavier body would not orbit unless its inertia was extremely low. Performing simple mathematics shows us that it is impossible for the sun to orbit the earth at the rate we observe unless we allow the earth to move. If you do allow for the earth to move you can then describe the sun as orbiting the earth, just as you could describe the earth as orbiting a GPS satellite, but this would of course negate the geocentric/geostationary idea you are trying to prove.

You are thinking in terms of the universe being gravitationally bound to the earth- well of course, this is not the case. Basically, the universe is rotating. Now, how do we describe the earth being stationary at the center? One way is to think of the earth as being at the center of mass of the universe. In Galileo Was Wrong, a concept of geolock is described. It has to do with locally rotating (actually “dragged”) inertial reference frames. Martin Selbrede explains it with the help of Misner ,Thorne, and Wheeler:
Galileo Was Wrong:

It is often objected that if geocentricity were
true, and the rotating heavens were dragging
Foucault pendula and weather systems
around, why doesn’t that force pull on the
Earth itself and drag it along, causing it to
eventually rotate in sync with the heavens?
It appears that this straightforward
application of torque to the Earth should
cause it to rotate in turn, but this turns out to
be an oversimplification. As the heavens
rotate, and the firmament rotates on an axis
through the Earth’s poles, each firmament
particle…also rotates with the same angular
velocity. Ironically, this is precisely the
reason the Earth can’t be moved.

Selbrede goes on to explain the validity of
above proposition by appealing to an illustration of
the same principle crafted by L. I. Schiff and
reintroduced by Misner, Thorne and Wheeler. The
authors state:

The gyroscope is rotationally at rest
relative to the inertial frames in its
neighborhood. It and the local inertial
frames rotate relative to the distant
galaxies with the angular velocity Ω
because the Earth’s rotation “drags” the
local inertial frames along with it. Notice
that near the north and south poles the
local inertial frames rotate in the same
direction as the Earth does (Ω parallel to
J), but near the equator they rotate in the
opposite direction (Ω antiparallel to J;
compare Ω with the magnetic field of the
Earth!).

…[skipping another section from Misner, et. al for brevity]…

Following the analogy to its logical conclusion,
Selbrede then comments how it confirms the
geocentric model:

Now reverse the situation. If we want to
cause the sphere to rotate clockwise, we
would need to turn the rods at the poles
clockwise, and the ones at the equators
counter-clockwise….This picture is clear
then: to turn the sphere, the rotation of the
particles (MTW’s “rods”) at the poles must
be the opposite of that at the
equator…However, in the case of a rotating
firmament, all the particles are rotating in
the same direction, with the angular velocity
common to the entire firmament. The
equatorial inertial drag is in the opposite
direction as that acting near the poles. Using
calculus, one integrates the effect from the
center of the Earth outward in infinitesimal
shells, showing that the Earth is in fact
locked in place, the resulting inertial shear
being distributed throughout the Earth’s
internal volume. It could be demonstrated
that were the Earth to be pushed out of its
“station keeping” position, the uneven force
distribution would return it to its equilibrium state.

Mark Wyatt

www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[trth_skr]

…Another question: I’m trying to visualize in my mind how a heavier body could orbit a fixed lighter body. First of all what would fix a lighter body in place and thus prevent the gravitation of the heavier from displacing it. But lets just say that somehow it is nailed in place and cannot move. The heavier body would not orbit unless its inertia was extremely low. Performing simple mathematics shows us that it is impossible for the sun to orbit the earth at the rate we observe unless we allow the earth to move. If you do allow for the earth to move you can then describe the sun as orbiting the earth, just as you could describe the earth as orbiting a GPS satellite, but this would of course negate the geocentric/geostationary idea you are trying to prove.

Mark: Your post a few posts up seems to address this question at first glance, but upon closer reading it breaks down. It comes down to determining orbital velocities. I think you would agree that we can use the same formulas to determine the orbital velocity for a communications satellite as we would for planets, just plug in the correct mass and walla…the formula will tell you how fast an object must move at a given distance from the center of mass in order to maintain orbit. Now these formulas do give valid data when we allow both objects to move, but as soon as you force one to remain stationary the formulas now give invalid data, especially when you try to get a heavy object like the sun to orbit the earth.

Just for fun I estimated that the sun would have to be 100 billion times lighter than currently accepted calculations in order to allow it to orbit the earth at the rate that it is observed to (assuming a stationary earth). Assuming this, all the other planets would also have to be 100 billion times lighter to maintain their observed orbits around the sun. This of course we know not to be true, because we have sent satellites out to orbit these bodies and they act as they should based on the accepted masses.

Again, this involves the rotation of the entire universe, not the gravitational pull of the earth holding the uninverse in place.

See this related debate I had with Gary Hoge a couple of years ago.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[Stefan100]

Wait wait wait, just let me get this straight. You actually believe that the SUN revolves around the EARTH, and thus all astronomy during the last hundreds of years is false?

::

Do you believe the earth is 6000 years old too?