Geo or Helio Centrism??

[Catholic2003]

oriel36:

Again,Newton showed his peevish side that borders on dishonesty,I know,I have been through the whole documented mess .

It doesn’t matter to me if Newton was a serial killer who stole all his thoeries from the people he killed. The scientific method is based on validating the theory through experimentation, not whether the discoverer was peevish or not.

oriel36:

Did you ever bother to read that Newton dropped his 1670 consideration of a medium from the Principia (1687) where the definitions and terminolgy of absolute/relative are found HENCE it is impossible to associate aether with absolute space.

In my 20-plus credit hours in university physics, I only once read a physics book written before 1960, and that was Dirac’s 1930 QM text. Going back to original sources is not important in physics.

I’m very unclear as to your position. You clearly don’t agree with relativity, but you don’t seem to think much of Newton either. What theory of physics do you think is correct?

 

[Reformed_Rob]

Catholic2003:

This effect has been verified experimentally, by placing a sensitive measuring device within a heavy cylinder, and then watching the change in gravitational force when the cylinder is set to rotate at a high speed.

Thank you for that.

I assume that the earth and the “universe” would have to have have opposite rotational directions? Just trying to get what you’re explaining. Or would the center device not have to spin at all? I’m trying to picture the experiment you’re describing.

 

[oriel36]

Catholic2003:

It doesn’t matter to me if Newton was a serial killer who stole all his thoeries from the people he killed. The scientific method is based on validating the theory through experimentation, not whether the discoverer was peevish or not.

?

Sir

The ‘Scientific method’ is for those who forgot or never knew what astronomy and the astronomical method is all about.

The insight of Copernicus of the Earth turning on its axis and simultaneously orbiting the Sun is not a theory nor are experiments required to validate it.It is not a fact,it is an experience that can be affirmed each dawn as the Earth rotates out of its orbital shadow.

ram.org/pictures/sights/lava_beds/sunrise.gif

Under the Newtonian scheme which recognises that ‘sunrise’ is valid,the insight of Copernicus and subsequently the insights of Kepler and Roemer are diluted or lost completely.

"PHÆNOMENON IV.
That the fixed stars being at rest, the periodic times of the five
primary planets, and (whether of the sun about the earth, or) of the
earth about the sun, are in the sesquiplicate proportion of their mean distances from the sun.

This proportion, first observed by Kepler, is now received by all
astronomers; for the periodic times are the same, and the dimensions of the orbits are the same, whether the sun revolves about the earth, or the earth about the sun. And as to the measures of the periodic times, all astronomers are agreed about them. But for the dimensions of the orbits, Kepler and Bullialdus, above all others, have determined them from observations with the greatest accuracy; and the mean distances corresponding to the periodic times differ but insensibly from those which they have assigned, and for the most part fall in between them; as we may see from the following table."

members.tripod.com/~gravitee/phaenomena.htm

I thought that Newtonian terrestial ballistics applied to planetary motion was a good shot for its era given the limited astronomical data at the end of the 17th century but Newton cooked the astronomical books to get his gravitational agenda to fly and his method prohibits incorporating the influence of a great axis of rotation (i.e. the solar system’s galactic orbital motion).

Did you ever stop to consider that you can get Keplerian motion by incorporating the influence of the solar system’s galactic orbital motion on planetary heliocentric motion as the planets move with and against the direction of the solar system’s motion around the Milky Way axis.

Kepler calculated elliptical motion from a line drawn through the center of the planet’s orbital motion about the axis of the Sun, Newton calcultated it as mean Sun/Earth distances and I assure you there is a hugh difference between the two methods.

If you believe that the Sun around the Earth is a valid statement we have little to discuss,astronomically,geometrically and bottom line.

 

[Catholic2003]

Reformed Rob:

Thank you for that.

I assume that the earth and the “universe” would have to have have opposite rotational directions? Just trying to get what you’re explaining. Or would the center device not have to spin at all? I’m trying to picture the experiment you’re describing.

The center device would not have to spin at all. This would correspond to a stationary Earth inside a rotating universe.

However, I do have to apolgize. I tried to look up the experiment to be sure, and I found a website that says the experiments to verify this directly have not been performed yet. So I’m guessing I was recalling a “thought experiment” instead. Sorry. (General relativity was the last physics class I took, when I could see that physics was just getting too hard for me to follow.)

 

[Catholic2003]

oriel36:

Did you ever stop to consider that you can get Keplerian motion by incorporating the influence of the solar system’s galactic orbital motion on planetary heliocentric motion as the planets move with and against the direction of the solar system’s motion around the Milky Way axis.

No, I did the usual first-year physics vector calculus calculations that Kepler’s law of equal areas corresponds to conservation of angular momentum, and that this follows from gravity being a centripetal force.

oriel36:

Kepler calculated elliptical motion from a line drawn through the center of the planet’s orbital motion about the axis of the Sun, Newton calcultated it as mean Sun/Earth distances and I assure you there is a hugh difference between the two methods.

Yes, there are hugh differences. Mean Sun/planet distances don’t take the eccentricity of the ellipse into account. But so what?

oriel36:

If you believe that the Sun around the Earth is a valid statement we have little to discuss,astronomically,geometrically and bottom line.

Okay, then.

 

[RobbyS]

An historic point is that until more than a hundred years after the death of Copernicus, the data still gave an edge to Ptolomey’s model of the universe. It was about the time that Newton’s work was publsihed that the paradign shifted.

 

[oriel36]

Catholic2003:

Yes, there are hugh differences. Mean Sun/planet distances don’t take the eccentricity of the ellipse into account. But so what?

.

So what !!!, have you any idea just what damage that does to astronomy ?.

Look at the graphic again -

astrosun2.astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses//astro201/sidereal.htm

The .986 deg orbital displacement determines mean Sun/Earth distances via the sidereal value for axial rotation.If I may draw your attension to the animated graphic on Kepler’s second law comparing circular and elliptical orbital motions.

kepler.arc.nasa.gov/johannes.html

Now ANYONE can do this with a little effort.If you put the sidereal graphic (which Newton adopted ) into an elliptical framework,the Earth would travel faster at the aphelion in June and slower at the perihelion around December.

Do you see the problem or not ?.

 

[Catholic2003]

oriel36:

Do you see the problem or not ?.

I understand the difference between a solar day and a sidereal day. But I’m still very in the dark as to what point you are trying to make. It would help me a lot if you were to give me a one or two sentence “high concept” of what you believe. For example:

• Newton made a mistake in his astronomical calculations done several centuries ago. He wasn’t as smart as people think.
• Astronomers, starting with Newton and continuing to the present day, are making a mistake in their astronomical calculcations. If this mistake is fixed, then the theory of relativity is disproven.
• …

Thanks!

 

[oriel36]

Catholic2003:

I understand the difference between a solar day and a sidereal day. But I’m still very in the dark as to what point you are trying to make. It would help me a lot if you were to give me a one or two sentence “high concept” of what you believe. For example:

• Newton made a mistake in his astronomical calculations done several centuries ago. He wasn’t as smart as people think.
• Astronomers, starting with Newton and continuing to the present day, are making a mistake in their astronomical calculcations. If this mistake is fixed, then the theory of relativity is disproven.
• …

Thanks!

Sir

I really do not think that you realise just how serious this is.If Catholics fall prey to intellectual dishonesty on matters which are fairly straightforward and easy to check,how can Catholics handle matters of Faith which are experienced intuitively and are far more valid than tangible natural phenomena such as geometry,astronomy,geology ect.

I do not have the luxury which Newton gave himself in shifting his concepts of time from the Equation of Time format to the sidereal format.You already said that you did not read the original manuscript of the Principia to see where Newton switches from one format to the other but I assure you and everyone else,it is a BIG mistake.

“Absolute time, in astronomy, is distinguished from relative, by the equation or correlation of the vulgar time. For the natural days are truly unequal, though they are commonly considered as equal and used for a measure of time; astronomers correct this inequality for their more accurate deducing of the celestial motions.”

members.tripod.com/~gravitee/definitions.htm#time

The Equation of Time is a set of values in minutes and seconds which were applied at noon when a location on Earth rotates to face the Sun directly to equalise the variations in the natural day and facilitate the seamless transition from one 24 hour day to the next 24 hour day,Monday into Tuesday,Tuesday into Wed…

“The log was kept in ship’s time, that is, the local apparent time, adjusted at intervals to the change of longitude: and by old practice an adjustment was made at noon, when the officer taking the latitude sight called “Twelve o’clock, Sir,” and the Captain said “Make it so,” (though the actual observations for local time were necessarily made morning and afternoon). If it were necessary to establish the accurate time of an event we should have to enquire more particularly whether the time of the nautical day was on that ship carried on from the noon on which it began, or adjusted to the noon on which it ended, or perhaps altered during the night from one to the other, as is more or less the present practice in merchant ships, though H.M. Navy keeps Standard Time. In default of better information we may without serious error (in days of sail) take the recorded hour as in the apparent time of the meridian of longitude mentioned in the account, and for form’s sake apply the equation of time to reduce to civil time of the meridian.”

aandc.org/research/nautical_time_and_date.html

I have shown you where Newton constructs a geocentric/heliocentric orbital equivalency based on the sidereal value for axial rotation through 360 deg as 23 hours 56 min 04 sec whereas he comfortably uses the Equation of Time format of rotation through 360 deg in 24 hours as a basis for his definitions and distinctions of time.

Is it that bad that contemporaries don’t even know the correct value for the rotation of the Earth on its axis and why it is that way ?.

 

[PhilVaz]

All right, who are the wise guys who voted for geocentrism, besides M. Forrest and R. Sungenis or members of the Kolbe Center, ICR, AnswersInGenesis, or the Flat Earth Society. I was hoping for a goose egg but somebody just had to vote.

Phil P

 

[oriel36]

RobbyS:

An historic point is that until more than a hundred years after the death of Copernicus, the data still gave an edge to Ptolomey’s model of the universe. It was about the time that Newton’s work was publsihed that the paradign shifted.

Probably the most useful and accurate commentary on the historical trajectory after Copernicus is found in the marginalia of De Revolutionibus by the great astronomers Maestlin,Kepler,Brahe ect .

You can take or leave the hagliography surrounding Isaac,the relativistic freaks tend to set Newton up as a stool pidgeon and tear him down without actually going to the heart of the matter.I am fortunate that I do not have to go into that murky area but if you must, you can get a good and unbiased view of the correspondence Newton had and how he became basically a tyrant.

ucl.ac.uk/sts/nk/newton-gravity.htm

No wonder the area of astronomy is now inhabited by multiple -universes- dozens -of -dimensions -time-slowing-space-warping -freaks.How much cartoon novelty is humanity supposed to take before it calls a halt ?.

 

[serendipity]

With all of the studies done about space in space, and growing dependency of statllites, I think that if everything revolved around the earth, than scientist would have noticed long before the article by Sungenis.

It’s too bad, because I have been thinking about purchasing Not by Faith Alone, for a while, but this debate came up (or maybe I only learend of it) and now I question his credibility in anything as a source. I know that attitude is wrong. It’s apples and oranges, but still all I can think of is that I’m not so sure the arguments proposed by anyone who believes that the world revolves around the sun would be entirely credible in any realm.

 

[PhilVaz]

<< It’s too bad, because I have been thinking about purchasing Not by Faith Alone, for a while >>

Get it, it’s still a great book. No science required to write on and understand that topic.

Phil P

 

[JamesD]

neophyte:

Is it alright if I still believe the universe revolves around my navel? I think I solved the lint problem…

Ooooh! So thats why they call it the Navel Observatory!