B
buffalo
Guest
It doesn’t.
- Status
B
buffalo
Guest
R
rossum
Guest
No. The quasar is a long long long way away from us. The lens is between us and the quasar.Should have been.
It doesn’t?
A telescope may make something appear to be closer, it does not actually move the object closer to your eye. The lenses in the telescope just affect the path light takes. Similarly with a gravitational lens. It is a neat confirmation of Einsteinian gravity over Newtonian gravity. Newtonian gravity does not affect light while Einstein’s gravity does.
rossum
B
buffalo
Guest
And if the light has to “go around” it takes a longer path and perhaps microseconds longer to reach us. What about multiple lenses and lenses that are no longer there?
R
rossum
Guest
No. Light takes the fastest path. Remember that a sufficient mass will ‘curve’ space and light will follow a geodesic in that curved space.
Could you expand you question here please. It is not clear to me what you are asking.
rossum
D
DavidPalm
Guest
So buffalo, on the one hand the mainstream view is that the earth rotates on its axis, just like the other massive bodies in our solar system and other parts of the universe. And of course we would expect it to have some variations in its rotational velocity due to such factors as tidal drag, atmospheric dynamics, and other terrestrial phenomena. We would also expect it to have some polar “wobble”. This is all just ordinary, expected behavior based on ordinary laws of motion and the numerous other physical examples we observe all around us in our own solar system and other parts of the universe. So we set up to measure these phenomenon and, sure enough, we observe what we expect. We have predictions and we have experimental evidence confirming those predictions.
On the other hand you seem to be proposing that, on the contrary, the radio waves from multiple quasars, coming to us along independent paths, are simultaneously “lensed” by unknown gravitational sources, some of which you hint might be “no longer there”. This “lensing” just happens to effect all of the quasars in exactly the same way, even though their signals come to us along these multiple independent paths. And the lensing just happens to occur so that it looks just like what we would expect from polar wobble and tides, or just happens to look like the effect of (i.e. it follows) various terrestrial events.
I’m going to ask the question again. Could you tell us why we should see that second scenario as the “most likely” explanation of what we observe, rather than as an elaborate exercise in special pleading?
B
buffalo
Guest
Yup. Even looking at several quasars here on earth in scales of distance it is essentially one point. Say there is a Mass x distance away. The effect can be large enough to distort our view of all three. And then what if there are several masses? And what if they are biased to one side or the other.
The observations of the rotation being affected by earthquake is withing the normal daily fluctuations. And if you look at my earlier link, they say the Chilean earthquake had no effect at all.
B
buffalo
Guest
Since light from the quasar takes so long to get here, we do not know what could have disturbed it along the way.
D
DavidPalm
Guest
And now, for the dozenth or so time, you consider this to be the “most likely” explanation because [fill in this blank]? Why won’t you answer this question?
B
buffalo
Guest
Just keep asking…And now, for the dozenth or so time, you consider this to be the “most likely” explanation because [fill in this blank]? Why won’t you answer this question?
Hello! What do you think all the references are for? :banghead:
R
rossum
Guest
We know enough to know that the light will have followed a geodesic curve in space. Since masses can be observed moving in space, then the curvature of space will have varied over time for the billions of years the light has been travelling to reach us.
You do accept a universe that is billions of years old, don’t you buffalo?
None of this has anything to do with geocentrism. Light does not cause earthquakes. It is possible for gravity to cause earthquakes, but we can measure the strength of gravity and we know that the gravitational effect of quasars on the Earth is negligible.
rossum
B
buffalo
Guest
I believe it was kbachler that used the rotation of the earth after an earthquake as a proof. I am simply challenging that proof.
Light does not cause earthquakes. Duh… follow the thread.
I do not know how old the earth or universe are.
We could start exploring entanglement and its effects on the earth.
D
DavidPalm
Guest
I’m sorry, I’m just thick I guess. I don’t see where anything you have presented here makes your alternative view plausible, let alone “most likely”. Also, I’m wondering whether you would claim that any of what we’re seeing would be predicted on your model? Because if what you are proposing is just ad hoc, after-the-fact salvage work then to me, at least, it certainly makes it less and not more likely.
Above I’ve presented in a few sentences the reasons that I believe the mainstream view is most likely. Could you just take a few sentences to tell us why, on the contrary, what you are proposing is the “most likely” interpretation of the polar, tidal, and rotational fluctuations in the VLBI data?
H
hansgeorg
Guest
The most likely explanation of exactly what?And now, for the dozenth or so time, you consider this to be the “most likely” explanation because [fill in this blank]? Why won’t you answer this question?
I heard or read rather the earth axis moved 13 cm/4 inches and that the nychthemeron slowed down 1.3 microseconds.
Before explaining either, I find it nice if you try to prove this really happened. When it comes to binoculars we know what exactitude we look with, since we know when it looks fudgy. Here we are talking about an exactitude that cannot be really tested.
One hour is when sun moves 15° over earth from east to west (heliocentrics claiming it be 15° that earth rotates from west to east). One minute of time thus equals 15 minutes of a circle, one second of time = 15 seconds of a circle.
Now ONE second of a circle is like two lines from centre of earth surfacing at 30 metre’s distance.
One point three microseconds of time - correct my maths, and I did rounding, but that corresponds to a part of the daily movement that removes the sun by 0.6 millimetres from previous spot on earth.
So, before explaining why earth slowed down, or alternatively universe slowed down, I simply ask: DID it really?
Now, second observation: Geocentrism as concretely believed by thomists of earlier centuries does not say that some blind mechanical cause keeps the universe rotating around earth each day, but that God almighty does. If so, slowing down the movement over a time imperceptible to us but possibly perceived indirectly via very exact instruments, might be a nudge to scientists as much as the disaster itself was a nudge to Japan and all of the West (I think particularly of France right now) as in “take your time, don’t jump to conclusions or decisions”.
Speeking of divine nudges, Japan has right now cause of joy in a granny and her 16 year old grandson surviving in kitchen under débris, on yoghurt. Congratulations!
Getting back to Geocentrism debate, I indulge in a Geocentric Close Sphere of Fixed Stars Scenario, and, as said earlier, the Cassini sond has not taken pains to refute it, although such a refutation would be within its possibilities if telescopes had been taken along: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=525105&page=6 - for details of my argument look back at top two messages on page linked to.
D
DavidPalm
Guest
You can read more about the principles behind VLBI here. I accept that there may be some disagreement as to whether a given terrestrial event, like a given earthquake, creates a measurable change. There does not appear to be disagreement that things like regular tide motion, polar wobble, rotational slow-down, and variations induced by at least some terrestrial events can be measured. So the question is, is it more likely that these measurements are pointing to changes in the earth’s rotation on its axis and wobble at its poles–which would be what we would expect based on observations of other bodies in our solar system–or is it more likely that these are measurements of alleged gravitational perturbations between us at multiple independent quasars that just happen to come in looking like tidal action, polar wobble, etc.?
I think I have supported my contention, made earlier in this thread, that the only way to uphold neo-geocentrism is to engage in a massive exercise in special pleading. Note that we have focused on only one aspect of this, VLBI measurements. What about the stellar parallax we discussed earlier? It should not exist at all in in a geocentric model, it would never have been predicted by that model, and requires stellar movements centered on the sun, not the earth, to make it work. Is this really “most likely” or is it special pleading?
How is it that the earth happens to have an equatorial bulge, as we would expect for a body rotating on its axis and as we observe in other celestial bodies rotating on their axes, but theirs is from axial rotation while the earth’s is from the whole universe revolving around the earth? What makes that claim the “most likely” explanation of the earth’s equatorial bulge?
We calculate and utilize the rotation of other bodies on their axes to “slingshot” spacecraft into different trajectories. How is it that when we do the same with the earth’s rotation on its axis to launch spacecraft, suddenly it’s “most likely” the case that this slingshot effect is really due to the entire universe revolving around the earth, instead of the earth rotating on its axis like those other moons and planets? Is the neo-geo explanation really “most likely” or is it special pleading?
The correct positions for geostationary satellites and the sun-earth Lagrangian points cannot be calculated in a neo-geocentrist model working from first principles. But they can be and are calculated and utilized in the mainstream model–we place physical objects at these positions. It’s hardly credible that the magical aether just happens to push when it needs to push and relax when it needs to relax so that these work out just the same in the neo-geo model. Most likely, or more special pleading?
D
DavidPalm
Guest
I haven’t yet mentioned Gary Hoge’s here, here, and here] and Ken Cole’s [Geocentrism Disproved: How Newton's Laws Prove the Earth Orbits the Sun -- Ken Cole and Robert Sungenis]](Geocentrism Disproved: How Newton's Laws Prove the Earth Orbits the Sun -- Ken Cole and Robert Sungenis]) excellent presentations of why the earth cannot be seen as the stationary center of mass of the whole dynamic universe (the gist of the argument is that, while the earth could theoretically be the center of mass of the whole universe for one instant of time, it would not stay there based on the motions of the universe that we observe. And if it does not stay put, then it moves.) After finally being convinced that they really had not addressed the heart of the Hoge/Cole argument, the answer comes back from the neo-geos that if only the aether holds the earth rigidly in place then it can remain the fixed center of mass of the universe while everything whirls around it. So again, the system can be upheld as long as one can invoke the aether and give it whatever properties are necessary at the moment. Most likely explanation, or special pleading?
This could go on and on, with examples multiplied.
Mention was made of Thomism above. But it is false to claim, as at least one neo-geocentrist has, that St. Thomas was “an avowed” geocentrist. There is absolutely no evidence that St. Thomas (or any of the Fathers, to whose supposed unanimous consent neo-geocentrists are wont to appeal) considered geocentrism to be a matter of faith. Here’s a nice summary from elsewhere on CAF:
“But providing quotes which prove that the Church Fathers personally held geocentrism (which is all John Salza does) is not the same as providing evidence that they held it to be a a revealed truth of the Christian faith. In fact, none of the Church Fathers (much less all of them) ever made such a claim. Again, let me point out that when Saint Thomas argues for geocentrism in the Summa, he argues based on the observations of a natural scientist and a pagan: Ptolemy. Not a single Church Father. Not a single passage of Scripture. Ptolemy. Geocentrism is a question for natural science, not a truth of the Catholic faith.” forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6714246&postcount=135
On the contrary, St. Thomas championed a lawful universe and was certainly open to different theories to explain physical phenomena:
Aquinas insisted that reason prevailed in the universe, and that when Reason and Faith collided, there was something wrong with our understanding of the proposition. The universe is lawful, and when miracles take place – or what seem to be miracles – they are either new data about the universe, or actual miracles: exceptions to the laws of nature. The laws still apply. . . .
The approach to science and theology espoused by Sts. Augustine and Thomas has been officially enshrined in the Catholic Church in the great papal encyclicals Providentissimus Deus and Divino Afflante Spiritu. The Catholic Church does not teach geocentrism as a matter of faith. Every Catholic is free to embrace the view of cosmology that he believes is most likely, based on the physical evidence. But my own view is that Catholics peddling a view of the universe that involves such a level of special pleading harms their personal credibility and, when they claim that it’s the official teaching of the Catholic Church, harms the credibility of our faith:
This could go on and on, with examples multiplied.
Mention was made of Thomism above. But it is false to claim, as at least one neo-geocentrist has, that St. Thomas was “an avowed” geocentrist. There is absolutely no evidence that St. Thomas (or any of the Fathers, to whose supposed unanimous consent neo-geocentrists are wont to appeal) considered geocentrism to be a matter of faith. Here’s a nice summary from elsewhere on CAF:
“But providing quotes which prove that the Church Fathers personally held geocentrism (which is all John Salza does) is not the same as providing evidence that they held it to be a a revealed truth of the Christian faith. In fact, none of the Church Fathers (much less all of them) ever made such a claim. Again, let me point out that when Saint Thomas argues for geocentrism in the Summa, he argues based on the observations of a natural scientist and a pagan: Ptolemy. Not a single Church Father. Not a single passage of Scripture. Ptolemy. Geocentrism is a question for natural science, not a truth of the Catholic faith.” forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6714246&postcount=135
On the contrary, St. Thomas championed a lawful universe and was certainly open to different theories to explain physical phenomena:
Aquinas insisted that reason prevailed in the universe, and that when Reason and Faith collided, there was something wrong with our understanding of the proposition. The universe is lawful, and when miracles take place – or what seem to be miracles – they are either new data about the universe, or actual miracles: exceptions to the laws of nature. The laws still apply. . . .
Code:
Two quotes regarding the Ptolemaic astronomy that tickle.The suppositions that these astronomers have invented need not necessarily be true; for perhaps the phenomena of the stars are explicable on some other plan not yet discovered by men – De coelo, II, lect. 17
Thomas never ceases to remind us that the Universe is lawful, and that we are allowed to discover those laws; and what we now know as scientific method including the notion of falsification is pretty well inherent in Thomistic philosophy. (jerrypournelle.com/view/2010/Q1/view607.html)
Code:
"the theory of eccentrics and epicycles is considered as established, because thereby the sensible appearances of the heavenly movements can be explained; not, however, as if this proof were sufficient, forasmuch as some other theory might explain them." -- Summa theologica, I, q.32, a.1, ad. 2The approach to science and theology espoused by Sts. Augustine and Thomas has been officially enshrined in the Catholic Church in the great papal encyclicals Providentissimus Deus and Divino Afflante Spiritu. The Catholic Church does not teach geocentrism as a matter of faith. Every Catholic is free to embrace the view of cosmology that he believes is most likely, based on the physical evidence. But my own view is that Catholics peddling a view of the universe that involves such a level of special pleading harms their personal credibility and, when they claim that it’s the official teaching of the Catholic Church, harms the credibility of our faith:
B
buffalo
Guest
Everyone of you objections is answered here:
Galileo Was Wrong
Perhaps you could read it and then come back and discuss.
D
DavidPalm
Guest
I think not. I have read it and, as I have pointed out, the “answers” amount to an elaborate exercise in special pleading, with a healthy dose of conspiracy theories to fill in the gaps. Like you, the authors of that book consider coming up with some alternative explanation, no matter how far-fetched, as equivalent to having “answered” all objections. Alas, it’s obviously still sufficient to sway some folks, which I consider very unfortunate.
It appears to me that we’re at an end-point in the discussion, but it’s been my pleasure to participate. Thanks.
H
hansgeorg
Guest
The point on stars centered on sun I have already answered. Top two messages on page six of this discussion. 176 and 177. Go back and read again.
If the sphere of fixed stars is pretty close, the parallax does not at all imply a universe or even sphere of fixed stars centered on sun only that a few of the stars do dance in time with the sun.
I do not take your nagging about “could not be predicted” and “special pleading” seriously, for the reason that there are lots of things Copernicus could not predict (elliptical orbits) and some even Kepler could not predict, which is why we are talking about “relativity”, about “light following geodesic curves” and other things that to me seem just very special pleading to avoid the conclusion that the stars do dance, and that the so called parallax is misnamed and no proof at all against geocentrism. I just read the word quasar around here, who says Newton predicted them occurrences?
Non sunt entia propter necessitatem multiplicanda.
Let’s see:
Geocentrism:
- millions of luminous bodies without non-daily orbits around earth or sun (stars)
- 2 luminous or reflecting bodies with periodic non-daily orbits around earth (sun and moon)
- reflecting bodies with periodic non-daily orbits around sun (planets, asteroids, comets)
- reflecting bodies with periodic non-daily orbits around some of above (satellites, like moons of Jupiter)
- earth without any movement (excepting earthquakes)
- God almighty keeping all of above in a daily rotation around earth
- angels keeping some bodies in special movements apart from that one, under God’s orders
- luminous bodies with diverse movements co-ordinated in galaxies (stars/suns)
- reflecting bodies around our closests luminous one in diverse orbits, including earth (planets)
- reflecting bodies around the first ones, including moon around earth (satellites)
- 21 photographed bodies seemingly parallel to planets but moving around other items of class one bodies (gecentrics can freely count them as stars)
OOPS 2: where did God and angels go in physical causation?
- vortical movement (explaining coherence of gas clouds and galaxies, supposedly explained by gravitation as such)
- an orbiting equilibrium of centrifugal inertia vs gravitation (on many levels, the closest types being earth’s yearly around sun and moon’s monthly around earth)
- a rotation within that orbit (day)
- gravitation from satellites slowing days of planets
- gravitation bending light so it does not correspond exactly to what would have been expected from above
- “infinite” distances to explain why most stars do not show yearly parallax
- relativity, equation of fixed direction and speed moement with inert stillness, equation of parallel motions with relative stillness to compensate for oops 1
- a near promise to make another explanation ad hoc next time an unexpected discovery would be simplest to explain by assuming oops 2 was a real oops.
M
mellestad
Guest
Just had a thought. So the Earth doesn’t move right?
So if we launch one Satellite (A) into geostationary orbit, and another satellite (B) to the same height, but counter to the Earth’s rotation.
So A is going to look down at the Earth and see no movement. B is going to see the Earth moving at, say, 17,000MPH.
So, under a Geocentric view, how would one account for the increased momentum of B?
A simpler way to put it would be, using the same amount of fuel, launching East is going to generate a different orbital speed as seen from the ground than if launched toward the west. How would that be accounted for?
So if we launch one Satellite (A) into geostationary orbit, and another satellite (B) to the same height, but counter to the Earth’s rotation.
So A is going to look down at the Earth and see no movement. B is going to see the Earth moving at, say, 17,000MPH.
So, under a Geocentric view, how would one account for the increased momentum of B?
A simpler way to put it would be, using the same amount of fuel, launching East is going to generate a different orbital speed as seen from the ground than if launched toward the west. How would that be accounted for?
- Status