If God both created the Universe and cares about humans, why did he make it so large?

[MindOverMatter2]

Hi and god bless all of you! S69

This is interesting and fascinating topic and the answers are even more fascinating.

I am amazed at the number of Catholics here deny the literal 6 days of creation; at what point do you begin to believe Scripture? Just wondering and assume the church has not put the Vatican stamp on the issue thus leaving it’s faithful to believe either evolution over millions of years or six days. I wonder how Adam evolved and how Eve became woman from the rib of Adam and breath of God. If one questions the Genesis account, then the entire bible is questionable.

This planet of ours is a disposable planet just as the universe is disposable and will be disposed of and maybe in the not to distant future. Science already knows this, they just don’t know when.

Why would God create anything? What does the Bible say? DISPAYS HIS GLORY to the creation. Also, because HE choose to.

What does Romans tells us? The creation makes known to the creature His invisable attributes.

What an amazing creation and this one is stained; can’t wait to see and be within the unstained Heavens and Earth and I hope all of you are with me in Christ.

The fact that the church hasn’t put its stamp on such a critical issue should tell you that perhaps the whole old and dry idea that evolution is undermining the faith is in itself nothing more than smoke mirrors and paranoia, certainly not worth the time of serious honest intellectuals. If a literal six day creation was a doctrine of the church, the church would have defined the old universe as inherently heretical. Perhaps you never really understood the bible in the first place. Do you not consider that a possibility?

 

[Sonny69]

Hi and god bless all of you! S69

This is interesting and fascinating topic and the answers are even more fascinating.

I am amazed at the number of Catholics here deny the literal 6 days of creation; at what point do you begin to believe Scripture? Just wondering and assume the church has not put the Vatican stamp on the issue thus leaving it’s faithful to believe either evolution over millions of years or six days. I wonder how Adam evolved and how Eve became woman from the rib of Adam and breath of God. If one questions the Genesis account, then the entire bible is questionable.

This planet of ours is a disposable planet just as the universe is disposable and will be disposed of and maybe in the not to distant future. Sciene already knows this, they just don’t know when.

Why would God create anything? What does the Bible say? DISPAYS HIS GLORY to the creation. Also, because HE choose to.

What does Romans tells us? The creation makes known to the creature His invisable attributes.

What an amazing creation and this one is stained; can’t wait to see and be within the unstained Heavens and Earth and I hope all of you are with me in Christ.

 

[hecd2]

What we are witnessing here is the god of science trying to intimidate any who dare challenge their order for the universe. The sheer arrogance above is an attempt to prevent anybody from even thinking about it.

Hmm - it’s a rather delicious irony when someone who declares that the Catholic Church went fundamementally wrong 200 years ago, that the current pope, recent previous popes and the rest of the teaching authority of the church are promulgating heresy and that only he and a tiny handful of like minded geocentrists are true Catholics accuses someone else of arrogance. It’s an equally delicious irony when someone with no scientific education, who declares that science went wrong with Newton and has been in the wilderness ever since and that only he and a tiny handful of geocentrists understand “real science”, accuses someone else of arrogance.

Walter van der Kamp understood the Airy Failure too well,

Walt patently does not understand the consequence of the fact of stellar aberration (which is really excellent evidence for the earth’s orbit), and neither do you nor the anonymous author of the ridiculous website that buffalo posted up-thread.

The very idea that we live in a metaphysical universe (spatial relativity) created by God whose order cannot be determined by man… Only if He, or the angels with His permission, tell us what that order is, we humans WILL NEVER KNOW FOR CERTAIN.

Complete absence of any sort of logical or evidential argument noted (well except for a repeated egregious misrepresentation of the Airy null result which is, in fact, evidence against aether dragging and hence against the existence of the aether, and not evidence in favour of geocentrism - stellar aberration cannot be explained in a geocentric universe).

Note well he uses parallax as a fact: he says ‘Proxima Centauri, whose distance is easily measured accurately by parallax.’ Now Hecd does not know parallax is only a heliocentric way of measuring distances. But as Heliocentrism is only a theory, so is parallax as a way of measuring distances.

I have no idea what you mean by the claim that parallax is only a heliocentric way of measuring distances - that’s just silly because parallax is an established and generic way of measuring distance in both terrestrial and astronomical cases. You have to be getting pretty desperate to claim that “parallax as a way of measuring distances” is ‘only a theory’. (Where have I heard that phrase before?) The annual parallax of Proxima Centauri exists and has been measured rather accurately, which is how we know that it is 24 times further away than van der Kamp’s shell of stars. Perhaps you would like to provide a single consistent explanation for stellar parallax and stellar aberration in a geocentric universe? Good luck. (By the way, I and other scientists are no more heliocentrists than we are geocentrists)

However Hecd thinks that if he writes like he knows it all, and can declare any contradictions to his way of thinking is ‘arrant nonsense’, then the non-informed readers of CAF will think he really knows his stuff. Well you do not convince Buffalo and I hecd.

Well, let’s leave the readers to judge for themselves whether the concept that the entire hundred thousand billion billion stars in the observable universe (oh - apart from the sun) lie on a shell that is 58 light days away, which is 24 times closer than the nearest star, and they can also judge who knows their science and who doesn’t. By the way I think you should talk for yourself when you say you’re not convinced - so far as I know, buffalo hasn’t quite aligned himself fully with the geocentric position and the 58 light day spherical shell universe and my prediction is that he won’t do so now. We’ll see.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[LogisticsBranch]

From: Dr. David P. Stern
Retired September 2001 (continuing as emeritus)
Lab for Particles and Fields,
Emeritus, retired from Lab. Extraterrest. Physics
mail code 695 (currently affiliated with code 670, Heliophysics Science Division)
Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD 20771

The ancients, of course, assumed the Earth was the center of the universe and everything–Sun, Moon and stars–revolved around it. The unnamed authors of the Book of Psalms thought so and wrote so in the bible, causing great grief to poor Galileo 2000 years later. A Greek scientist, Aristarchus of Samos, seemed to support it by estimating the distance of the Moon, a result confirmed by Hipparchus some 150 years later, by a different method.

Aristarchus went on to cleverly estimate the distance and size of the Sun: his conclusion was that the Sun was 20 times more distant than the Moon. He also found the Sun was 10 times bigger (in diameter, a bad underestimate) than Earth, and he then proposed that it, not Earth, was probably the center. However Hipparchus and Ptolemy objected. If the Earth went every year around such an ENORMOUS circle (we now know it is actually 20 times wider than what Aristarchus proposed!) wouldn’t the stars appear shifted when viewed from the opposite side of that circle? Since they did not seem to shift (“exhibit parallax”), they concluded the Earth did not move, and their view prevailed for 1500 years. Their argument was sound–they just did not realize how enormously distant the stars were!

Now except for the motion of the Moon (which Aristarchus essentially explained) there exist two sets of motions in the sky. The planets and the Sun change their position among the stars on the scale of years, and all celestial objects, stars included, rise, set and move across the sky with a period of about 24 hours. Today we explain the first by orbits around the Sun and the second by the rotation of the Earth around its axis, as Copernicus proposed in his book (1543). Yet it took many years to sink in.

The motion of the planets around the Sun was easily reconciled, because the bible made no pronouncements about it and the old method by Hipparchus and Ptolemy, representing the orbits of planets by “circles around circles” in the sky, was cumbersome and inaccurate. But the rotation of the Earth met resistance, because of those verses in Psalms. Tycho de Brahe around 1600 proposed a compromise, that all planets rotated around the Sun, but the Sun rotated around Earth every 24 hours–and the stars every 23 hours 56 minutes, causing the Sun’s position to migrate around them once a year.

Then came Galileo’s telescope, showing that Venus could be a crescent like the Moon, meaning it orbited the Sun, and that Jupiter was the center of a disk of little moons, the way Copernicus visualized all planets, even Earth, to orbit the Sun. That convinced most people. Then came Newton and derived his law of gravitation, using the Moon . His law suggested that if the Sun and other bodies rotated around the Earth, the gravity of the Earth was far too weak to hold them (plus other objections). That was the clincher: the laws of Newton’s mechanics (which we still use) did not allow geocentrism. Since then of course much more evidence arrived–satellites, Earth observations from the Moon, etc.

 

[cassini]

Hmm - it’s a rather delicious irony when someone who declares that the Catholic Church went fundamementally wrong 200 years ago, that the current pope, recent previous popes and the rest of the teaching authority of the church are promulgating heresy and that only he and a tiny handful of like minded geocentrists are true Catholics accuses someone else of arrogance. It’s an equally delicious irony when someone with no scientific education, who declares that science went wrong with Newton and has been in the wilderness ever since and that only he and a tiny handful of geocentrists understand “real science”, accuses someone else of arrogance.

Walt patently does not understand the consequence of the fact of stellar aberration (which is really excellent evidence for the earth’s orbit), and neither do you nor the anonymous author of the ridiculous website that buffalo posted up-thread.

Complete absence of any sort of logical or evidential argument noted (well except for a repeated egregious misrepresentation of the Airy null result which is, in fact, evidence against aether dragging and hence against the existence of the aether, and not evidence in favour of geocentrism - stellar aberration cannot be explained in a geocentric universe).

I have no idea what you mean by the claim that parallax is only a heliocentric way of measuring distances - that’s just silly because parallax is an established and generic way of measuring distance in both terrestrial and astronomical cases. You have to be getting pretty desperate to claim that “parallax as a way of measuring distances” is ‘only a theory’. (Where have I heard that phrase before?) The annual parallax of Proxima Centauri exists and has been measured rather accurately, which is how we know that it is 24 times further away than van der Kamp’s shell of stars. Perhaps you would like to provide a single consistent explanation for stellar parallax and stellar aberration in a geocentric universe? Good luck. (By the way, I and other scientists are no more heliocentrists than we are geocentrists)

Well, let’s leave the readers to judge for themselves whether the concept that the entire hundred thousand billion billion stars in the observable universe (oh - apart from the sun) lie on a shell that is 58 light days away, which is 24 times closer than the nearest star, and they can also judge who knows their science and who doesn’t. By the way I think you should talk for yourself when you say you’re not convinced - so far as I know, buffalo hasn’t quite aligned himself fully with the geocentric position and the 58 light day spherical shell universe and my prediction is that he won’t do so now. We’ll see.
Alec
evolutionpages.com

OK Alec, let me reply to a few points above. You are really good at rhetoric, but devoid of back up. Is it not true that the Church defined heresy and that since at least 1820 popes did a U-turn on that teaching. Does truth depend on the numbers of people who have been brainwashed by Churchmen to ignore this fact? Either it happened that way or it didn’t, no matter how many believe it did or did not.

Do you accept spatial relativity as do all physicists and cosmologists today? If you don’t then it is you who lacks scientific understanding. If you do then to presume a heliocentric order for the earth, sun and planets is proven is bad science. Badly interpreted science is science gone wrong in my book.

Walter van der Kamp (now dead) understood perfectly that stellar aberration was used to claim PROOF for a rotating earth, when all it proved was relative movement between the stars and the earth. That is all that matters, to show non-scientificly minded folk that stellar aberration did not prove an orbiting earth and fixed stars when it could also be as a result of rotating stars around a fixed earth. It is as simple as that and yes, readers are very capable of deciding who is correct.

Again you try to fool us all with your science. ‘The dragging of ether’ is one of the *ad hocs *used to prevent a geocentric reading of the Airy experiment. An ad hoc, for those who would like to know, is a thought up theory, an assumption, not a fact of science. Now you as a Copernican may think it is a fact because it is in your mind as a fact, but ether drag is an UNKNOWN POSSIBILITY, that’s all.
If the stars revolve around the earth one will also experience stellar aberration. Are you not able to understand that hecd?

Now the parallax story you cannot grasp. Parallax is the distance of the stars as calculated from the hypothesis an orbiting earth. The known distances of that earth’s orbit is how distances are calculated. But that is not a fact, because the earth’s proposed orbit is not a fact only a hypothesis. So the distances of the stars using parallax is not a fact, only a hypothesis.
Can you not understand that hecd either. I thought you were a ‘scientist’?

Yes, we will leave readers to decide what is fact and what is faith** IN **science. My faith is in the Catholic faith.

 

[cassini]

From: Dr. David P. Stern
Retired September 2001 (continuing as emeritus)
Lab for Particles and Fields,
Emeritus, retired from Lab. Extraterrest. Physics
mail code 695 (currently affiliated with code 670, Heliophysics Science Division)
Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD 20771

The ancients, of course, assumed the Earth was the center of the universe and everything–Sun, Moon and stars–revolved around it. The unnamed authors of the Book of Psalms thought so and wrote so in the bible, causing great grief to poor Galileo 2000 years later. A Greek scientist, Aristarchus of Samos, seemed to support it by estimating the distance of the Moon, a result confirmed by Hipparchus some 150 years later, by a different method.

removed for space

Then came Galileo’s telescope, showing that Venus could be a crescent like the Moon, meaning it orbited the Sun, and that Jupiter was the center of a disk of little moons, the way Copernicus visualized all planets, even Earth, to orbit the Sun. That convinced most people. Then came Newton and derived his law of gravitation, using the Moon . His law suggested that if the Sun and other bodies rotated around the Earth, the gravity of the Earth was far too weak to hold them (plus other objections). That was the clincher: the laws of Newton’s mechanics (which we still use) did not allow geocentrism. Since then of course much more evidence arrived–satellites, Earth observations from the Moon, etc.

’That was the clincher: the laws of Newton’s mechanics (which we still use) did not allow geocentrism.'

The fact is that Newton’s theory was not that convincing.

‘Even at a date far within our own nineteenth century, the authorities of many universities in Catholic Europe, and especially those in Spain, excluded the Newtonian system. In 1771, the greatest of them all, the University of Salamanca, being urged to teach physical science, refused, making answer as follows: “Newton teaches nothing that would make a good logician or metaphysician; and Gassendi and Descartes do not agree so well with revealed truth as Aristotle does.” ’ — White, A History of the war between Faith and Science , p. 155.

Newtonianism as a Belief System
‘Formal logicians, I believe, would tell us that by their rules the heliocentric system of the solar system is not proved to a demonstr¬ation. Yet no one doubts that explanation anymore than anybody doubts the truth of gravitation, though physicists are still unable to show what causes the results which are described under the name.’ — Sir Bertram Windle, The Church and Science, Catholic Truth Society, p.48.

At the beginning of the eighteenth century then, as Sir Bertram Windle has to admit here, the fact is that there was no empirical nor ‘logical’ proof, ‘demonstration’ or verification of a moving earth or an immobile sun. Windle, and Dr Stern above, as we can read, tries to get us to believe heliocentricism is true because ‘the truth of gravitation’ is true. What he says is that because apples fall to the ground then we must accept heliocentricism is true? Can you believe Newtonianism triumphed on earth on the basis of such a farce? But how well they succeeded in making believers out of us all. Newton proved nothing, this we must understand. Deducing some maths that can measure some earthly gravitation and even get rockets into orbit is a long way off showing that the earth supposedly orbits the sun. Both Catholics and Protestants then, who held out, even for a time, from this ‘demonstration’, as Andrew White called it, were far more discerning of the scientific method than those who hailed Principia as the breakthrough the Freemasons of the Royal Society sought. But truth will out:

‘After Newton’s 1687 masterpiece, the Principia, Copernicanism seemed assured, and I admit; it is difficult not to be taken captive by the harmonious simplicity of a sun at rest with her attendant planets stately circling her. Yet a few level-headed people, like the philosopher George Berkely (1685-1753) and G.W. Leibniz (1646-1716), instinctively refused to consider the Solar System “proven” by setting it off against a background taken to be at rest.’ —Walter van der Kamp: The Cosmos, Einstein and Truth, Private, 1993

Now it is one thing for the Royal Society and its like-minded institutions pushing the non-proofs for heliocentricism as proven facts, another for Churchmen to accept them as the truth, a reality that the Scriptures must adjust to. We must see that? Those ‘laws’ of Newton’s, which settled the matter for so many, never came within an ass’s roar as a threat to the Church’s definitive ruling of 1616 and 1633. If there are any lingering doubts we can quote the words of the late Bertrand Russell (1872-1970), an atheist, lest anyone thinks we have conjured up a traditionalist theist for our cause:

‘Whether the earth rotates once a day from West to East as Copernicus taught, or the Heavens revolve once a day from East to West, as his predecessors believed, the observable phenomena will be exactly the same… and that shows a defect in Newtonian dynamics, since an emp¬irical science ought not to contain a metaphysical assumption which can never be proved or disproved by observation.’ — Quoted by D.W. Sciama: The Unity of the Universe. Doubleday, 1961, pp.103.

‘I have known too, for a long time that we have no argument for the Copernican system, but I shall never dare to be the first to attack it. Don’t rush into the wasps’ nest. You will bring upon yourself the scorn of the thoughtless multitude…to come forth as the first against opinions, which the world has become fond of – I don’t feel the courage.’ — Alexander von Humboldt (1769-1859).

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Yes, we will leave readers to decide what is fact and what is faith** IN **science. My faith is in the Catholic faith.

If you claim that your faith forces you to be an anti-evolutionist and an anti heliocentrist, then i am not aware of your particular faith, since the Catholic church today doesn’t make such a black and white distinction. It seems to me that your faith is based on an outdated, uncritical, scrupulous interpretation which has never become an infallible dogma of the Church, and any attempt to define it as such contradicts recent documents by our Popes. You choose to believe in a world wide noah flood and 7 day creation because you want it to be true, but not because the church today has told you to believe this. This is your own personal subjective belief. Please don’t force your beliefs on our church.

 

[hecd2]

Is it not true that the Church defined heresy and that since at least 1820 popes did a U-turn on that teaching.

I have no idea - church history is not my subject - science is. I try not to pontificate on subjects that I know nothing about. What I do know is that a Catholic who thinks that more or less the entire body of the Church Militant are heretics except him and a handful of others, and that he can discern plain heresy where several popes have been unable to do so is laying himself open to a charge of arrogance and disobedience. I also know that someone who is unable to accurately state a single scientific theory and yet who declares that all science since Newton is wrong cuts a somewhat bizarre figure. When that is the same person, well…

Do you accept spatial relativity as do all physicists and cosmologists today?

I accept that both Special and General Relativity are good models of reality within their domains - as for ‘spatial relativity’, perhaps you’d like to give us a precise scientific definition of what you mean?

If you don’t then it is you who lacks scientific understanding. If you do then to presume a heliocentric order for the earth, sun and planets is proven is bad science.

Presume? It’s not a presumption that in GR the sun and planets form a dynamical system where the earth and the rest of the planets orbit a point very near to the centre of the sun because their worldline, a time-like geodesic, projected on to 3D space, is an ellipse. If you don’t understand what I’m talking about it’s because you don’t understand GR so perhaps you shouldn’t attempt to bamboozle me with it. However, just to be clear about my view, when it comes to the question of the centre of the universe, it’s as silly to claim that the sun is the centre as it is that the earth is the centre. I am not a heliocentrist.

Walter van der Kamp (now dead) understood perfectly that stellar aberration was used to claim PROOF for a rotating earth, when all it proved was relative movement between the stars and the earth.

This illustrates my point exactly - it is your erroneous misunderstanding and that of Walt’s that stellar aberration is caused by relative movement between the stars and the earth - and this erroneous misunderstanding is demonstrated rather starkly here. The fact is that stellar aberration arises as a consequence of the motion of the earth perpendicular to the direction of light propagating from the star and is independent of the motion of the star.

That is all that matters, to show non-scientificly minded folk that stellar aberration did not prove an orbiting earth and fixed stars when it could also be as a result of rotating stars around a fixed earth.

Ah - no it can’t and if you understood stellar aberration you would realise that this misleads the non-scientifically minded. The daily rotation of the earth on its axis (or, as you would have it, the *daily *rotation of the universe around the earth) cannot explain an *annual *effect, can it? Not even you can maintain that, surely?

It is as simple as that and yes, readers are very capable of deciding who is correct.

Indeed they can.

More to come.

 

[hecd2]

Again you try to fool us all with your science.

Fool you? I’m not trying to fool anyone. I am presenting the science as it is - if people want to deny the whole of physics since Newton, that’s their prerogative. My view is that physics over the last 350 years has given us quite good insights into reality and that there are quite a number of physics theories that match what we observe to a remarkable degree. But, hey, if someone is in denial, there’s nothing I can do about that.

The dragging of ether’ is one of the ad hocs used to prevent a geocentric reading of the Airy experiment. …Now you as a Copernican may think it is a fact because it is in your mind as a fact, but ether drag is an UNKNOWN POSSIBILITY, that’s all.

It’s hard to understand what you are getting at in this shambolic paragraph - first, aether dragging was not invented to explain the Airy result - on the contrary, the experiment was designed to *test *the pre-existing aether dragging hypothesis. Secondly, it’s bizarre to claim that I think aether dragging is a fact when, like other physicists, I accept the evidence that there *is *no lumeniferous aether.

If the stars revolve around the earth one will also experience stellar aberration. Are you not able to understand that hecd?

Nope, because your claim is wrong. There is no hypothesis which can explain annual stellar aberration by the rotation of the star field around the earth. Your statement suggests that you don’t even know what stellar aberration is, never mind what causes it.

Now the parallax story you cannot grasp. Parallax is the distance of the stars as calculated from the hypothesis an orbiting earth. The known distances of that earth’s orbit is how distances are calculated. But that is not a fact, because the earth’s proposed orbit is not a fact only a hypothesis. So the distances of the stars using parallax is not a fact, only a hypothesis.

Parallax isn’t a distance. It’s an effect from which distance is deduced. So let’s see - there is an annual effect which is the parallax of closer stars against the distant star field. That’s an observed fact. For the closest star the parallax is 0.78 arcseconds. What you are calling into question is the baseline of the earth’s orbital diameter. So, what would your baseline be for the parallax that we observe, and what physical phenomenon would give rise to that baseline. Your explanation should also be compatible with an annual stellar aberration of 20.5 arcseconds. Make sure the explanations are quantitatively compatible with the measured values. Over to you.

Oh, and by the way, the earth’s annual orbit is not merely a hypothesis but is required in a gravitationally bound dynamical system such as the solar system - but your explanation above will give an alternative explanation that is dynamically viable and which explains the observed values of stellar parallax and stellar aberration, won’t it?

Yes, we will leave readers to decide what is fact and what is faith IN science.

Let’s do that.

My faith is in the Catholic faith.

…except that you think that the leaders of the Church have been active heretics for 190 years - so when you say your faith is in the Catholic faith, you don’t quite mean the same faith as most Catholics hold to, do you?

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[LogisticsBranch]

Cassini is like my new adorable puppy named Grace. They both want a lot of attention! The only difference is my puppy is trainable.

Alec, you have done a remarkable job. Your patience and knowledge is admirable. Thank you so much.

I wish to add a little more to the pot. From the National Earth Science Teachers Association (NESTA):

The Earth’s Orbit
Like all planets in our solar system, the Earth is in an elliptical orbit around our Sun. In Earth’s case, its orbit is nearly circular, so that the difference between Earth’s farthest point from the Sun and its closest point is very small. Earth’s orbit defines a two-dimensional plane which we call the ecliptic.

It takes roughly 365 days for the Earth to go around the Sun once. This means that the Earth is rushing through space around the Sun at a rate of about 67,000 miles per hour! The time it takes for the Earth to go around the Sun one full time is what we call a year.

The combined effect of the Earth’s orbital motion and the tilt of its rotation axis result in the seasons.
windows2universe.org/the_universe/uts/earth3.html

Also, from NASA’s Earth Observatory that peeked my interest:

April 20, 2009

Ice ages are the greatest natural climate changes in recent geological times. Their rise and fall are caused by slight changes in the Earth’s orbit around the Sun due to the influence of the other planets. But we do not know the exact relationship between the changes in the Earth’s orbit and the changes in climate. New research from the Niels Bohr Institute indicates that there can be changes in the CO2 levels in the atmosphere that suddenly reach a critical turning point and with that trigger the dramatic climate changes. The results are published in the American journal Paleoceanography.

The Earth’s climate is essentially controlled by three different cycles (Milankovitch). All three cycles are caused by the pull of the other planets in the solar system on the Earth, and one could say that they control the Earth’s climate by causing changes in the Sun’s radiation.

1: The Earth’s orbit around the sun is not completely circular, but slightly elliptical. The orbit is ‘elastic’ and contracts and expands in a cycle of 100.000 years. And the closer we are to the Sun, the more solar radiation and the more heat we receive.

2: The Earth’s axis has a tilt in relation to the Sun and that is why we have summer and winter. But the tilt is not constant, it swings between 22 degrees and 24 degrees, and the greater the tilt, the greater the difference between summer and winter. This cycle takes 40.000 years.

3: The Earth rotates around on its axis like a top - this gives day and night. But due to the tilt of the Earth and the elliptical orbit the direction changes with a cycle of 20.000 years. This results in variation in to whether the Earth is nearest the Sun during the summer or during the winter. . .
earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=38353

 

[cassini]

. My view is that physics over the last 350 years has given us quite good insights into reality and that there are quite a number of physics theories that match what we observe to a remarkable degree. But, hey, if someone is in denial, there’s nothing I can do about that.It’s hard to understand what you are getting at in this shambolic paragraph - first, aether dragging was not invented to explain the Airy result - on the contrary, the experiment was designed to *test *the pre-existing aether dragging hypothesis. Secondly, it’s bizarre to claim that I think aether dragging is a fact when, like other physicists, I accept the evidence that there *is *no lumeniferous aether.

Insert: I** accept that both Special and General Relativity are good models of reality within their domains - as for ‘spatial relativity’, perhaps you’d like to give us a precise scientific definition of what you mean?**

Let’s do that. …except that you think that the leaders of the Church have been active heretics for 190 years - so when you say your faith is in the Catholic faith, you don’t quite mean the same faith as most Catholics hold to, do you?

Alec
evolutionpages.com

Alas hecd, I fear readers will find our exchange impossible to discern. Unless one is familiar with the history of the scientific sham that caused churchmen to chose heresy over the decrees of their predecessors, trying to follow the exchange above would be like doing an exam in physics. No doubt the fact that you are a believer in Einstein’s Special and General relativity looks impressive. However if readers knew the truth about this ‘science’ they would soon change their mind.

Just for the craic then, let us see some of the stuff written about Einstein and his theories:

‘The third and most important reason [to study this chapter well] is that he [Einstein and his theories of relativity] provides another opportunity to show up the fallacy of the general belief that modern science, in every field but perhaps especially in mathematics and physics, is so complicated that it cannot be understood by the non-specialist, and that the layman has no choice but to rely on the words of experts with superior intelligence and training. Stripped of its disguises, which as with other science and elite professions are mostly jargon and bluff, Relativity, whether Special Theory [STR] or General Theory [GTR], involves no major challenge to the intellect in order to be understood. Einstein’s Relativity is not merely nonsense, it is simple nonsense; and the only difficulty in seeing this lies in bringing oneself to believe it possible that anything so generally accepted by so many intelligent people really can be such obvious nonsense.’ --N. Martin Gwynne: Einstein and Modern Physics, Briton’s Library, 1985.

To begin, let us return to an earth stopped in its tracks by the Airy and M/M experiments. At that time, we are told, we find a man named Albert Einstein brooding over all the ‘inconsistencies’ in the new physics of the time, thinking up, by way of ‘thought experiments’, ways to get out of its numerous paradoxes.

‘Perhaps the strangest feature of all, and the most unfortunate to the development of science, is the use of the thought-experiment. The expression itself is a contradiction in terms, since such an experiment is a search for new knowledge that cannot be confirmed, although it might be predicted, by a process of logical thought. A thought-experiment on the other hand cannot provide new knowledge, and if it gives a result that is contrary to the theoretical knowledge and assumptions on which it is based then a mistake must have been made.’ —N. Martin Gwynne: Einstein and Modern Physics, Briton’s Library, 1985
’

continued-

 

[cassini]

For yet another record of the history of Einstein’s revolution, Gwynne refers us to an article that appeared in 1977 in the London Economist. ‘Surprised though the reader may be to find the theories so comprehensible and even more surprised though he may be at the article’s frankness, all the most important elements are included’:

‘The famous Michelson/Morley experiment in 1887, though designed to establish the velocity of the earth with respect to the luminiferous ether, failed to find any velocity. Such problems were the concern of an outstanding band of physicists at the turn of the century. Poincare and Lorentz both postulated theories of relativity, but Einstein’s was the most revolutionary. Also, it was based on the minimum of both experimental evidence and mathematics.
Einstein began with two assumptions for his special theory. One was that absolute motion and absolute rest could not be detected by any experiment. The other was that light travelled in a vacuum at a constant velocity, regardless of the motion of its source. He then showed that the position and time of an event could only be established relative to an arbitrarily chosen frame of reference. Thus, from the earth, the moon appears to be moving and the earth at rest, but to the man on the moon it appears that the moon is static and the earth moving.
So far, so innocuous. But Einstein drew some surprising conclusions. One is that, as the speed of an object increases, relative to the observer, its length decreases and it gains mass: if you propel a one-foot ruler and a one-pound weight at 163,000 miles a second, the ruler will measure six inches and the weight will have a mass of two pounds. If that sounds nutty, then wait for more. As the speed increases, time slows down. This so-called time dilation can be illustrated by a tale of twins [or two clocks]. One stays on earth, while the other hurtles into space at extraordinary speed: the stay at home twin gets older faster. Furthermore, In Einstein’s relativist universe, space and time are interchangeable. The further an astronomer looks out into space, the further back he is looking at time. He is a Wellsian time-traveller, or, as T.S. Eliot put it, “All time is eternally present.”
The general theory of Relativity, which Einstein published in 1915, proved no less sensational. It is about the gravitational effect of the huge objects that make up the universe. According to Einstein, gravity curves space, which he says is finite but unbounded. The traveller heading off into space would describe a gigantic circle and eventually come back to where he started from.’

‘And that, good reader,’ says Martin Gwynne, ‘is all you need to know. It is all Aristotle would have needed to know… Aristotle would have seen at a glance that the theories had no connection whatever with observation and, if possible, less connection with common sense; and no further time would have been wasted.’

 

[cassini]

Elsewhere, Herbert Dingle records that Lord Rutherford - who himself was proposing the theory that an atom, which is so small that one cannot be seen even to establish proof of their existence, was a miniature solar system – as saying ‘that any Anglo-Saxon would have the sense to see that the theory of relativity is nonsense’, ignoring all Albert Einstein had to say on the matter thereafter.

Dr Arthur Lynch, another distinguished mathematician, in 1932 wrote the self-explanatory The Case Against Einstein. He himself quotes M. Bouasse, Professor of Physics at the University of Toulouse, as speaking of the ‘insanities of the Relativists.’

In 1971, yet another mathematician, Dr Louis Essen, wrote a devastating analysis that included the statement that Einstein’s Relativity theories were not physical theories, but a number of sometimes contradicting assumptions. Be suspicious then, as to how Einstein’s absurdities became the ruling paradigm in a discipline that considers itself in the category of ‘rocket-science’.

Einstein Banishes Ether

Einstein’s relativity postulated that there was nothing at ‘absolute rest’ against which ‘absolute motion’ can be measured. In other words, he was saying there is no stationary ether.

‘In previous editions of this work it was possible to write about ether as a matter on which there was a more than usual amount of general consent, but the writings of Einstein (the present writer is not one of the happy six persons who understand his theory) have upset a good deal of what was but a short time ago looked upon almost as an established fact.’

‘Six persons’, surely Sir Bertram Windle exaggerates? Now when an achiever of a M.A., M.D., Sc.D., I.L.D., Ph.D., F.R.S., K.S.G., cannot understand where ether has gone, then we lay folk must ask why. To admit the existence of ether would of course, have made Einstein’s theories impossible. Ether might provide a standard at rest in space against which motion might be judged absolutely, and that is what Einstein’s relativity totally rejects.

 

[cassini]

Einstein’s Simple Hoax and Elaborate Fraud

Again we could ask; how did Einstein get away with it?

‘Length shrinks, mass increases, time shrinks, straight lines form circles [GRT]. Constants, in fact, cease to be constants and nature is now seen not to act in accordance with nature. But how is all this done? Where is the fallacy in the equation that allows mathematics to prove the impossible? How is the conjuring trick achieved? It is done by simple hoax and elaborate fraud…
No apology is needed for describing Einstein’s achievements as a conjuring trick [alchemic magic actually]. Conjuring tricks are accomplished by illusion, such as sleight-of-hand which, without the assistance of misdirection, would be exposed in an instant; yet hours can be spent staring at them without seeing wherein the fallacy lies. Let us confront ourselves with the problem facing the swindlers. How can we demonstrate to the geniuses in the scientific profession and to the gullible masses that three constants – length, mass and time – are in fact not constants but variables?
The answer is simple and beautiful, even though it could never have served until our own lunatic century. Choose a fourth element, which clearly is a variable, such as the speed of light ; describe it – or rather “postulate” (Einstein’s term) it as a constant; and now crank out some mathematics. And, naturally, we shall find that if the variable is falsely inserted into the calculation as a constant, the mathematics cannot fail to demonstrate that the constants are variables.’

 

[cassini]

**‘There was a young lady named Bright.
Whose speed was far faster than light.
She went out one day,
In a relative way
And returned on the previous night.

— Reginald Butler (1913) quoted by Al Kelly in the introduction to his book Challenging Modern Physics – Questioning Einstein’s Relativity Theories. Brown Walker Press, Boca Raton, Florida, USA, 2005.**

Enough hecd?

 

[cassini]

Cassini is like my new adorable puppy named Grace. They both want a lot of attention! The only difference is my puppy is trainable.

Alec, you have done a remarkable job. Your patience and knowledge is admirable. Thank you so much.

I wish to add a little more to the pot. From the National Earth Science Teachers Association (NESTA):

Also, from NASA’s Earth Observatory that peeked my interest:

The ‘attention’ I get from you guys log, I wouldn’t wish on a dog.
As for your textbook quotes, well, what else would they say.

 

[LogisticsBranch]

Cassini is like my new adorable puppy named Grace. They both want a lot of attention! The only difference is my puppy is trainable.

Also, from NASA’s Earth Observatory that peeked my interest:

April 20, 2009

Ice ages are the greatest natural climate changes in recent geological times. Their rise and fall are caused by slight changes in the Earth’s orbit around the Sun due to the influence of the other planets. But we do not know the exact relationship between the changes in the Earth’s orbit and the changes in climate. New research from the Niels Bohr Institute indicates that there can be changes in the CO2 levels in the atmosphere that suddenly reach a critical turning point and with that trigger the dramatic climate changes. The results are published in the American journal Paleoceanography.

The Earth’s climate is essentially controlled by three different cycles (Milankovitch). All three cycles are caused by the pull of the other planets in the solar system on the Earth, and one could say that they control the Earth’s climate by causing changes in the Sun’s radiation.

1: The Earth’s orbit around the sun is not completely circular, but slightly elliptical. The orbit is ‘elastic’ and contracts and expands in a cycle of 100.000 years. And the closer we are to the Sun, the more solar radiation and the more heat we receive.

2: The Earth’s axis has a tilt in relation to the Sun and that is why we have summer and winter. But the tilt is not constant, it swings between 22 degrees and 24 degrees, and the greater the tilt, the greater the difference between summer and winter. This cycle takes 40.000 years.

3: The Earth rotates around on its axis like a top - this gives day and night. But due to the tilt of the Earth and the elliptical orbit the direction changes with a cycle of 20.000 years. This results in variation in to whether the Earth is nearest the Sun during the summer or during the winter. . .
earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=38353

The ‘attention’ I get from you guys log, I wouldn’t wish on a dog.
As for your textbook quotes, well, what else would they say.

Cassini, you don’t agree with NASA or the National Earth Science Teachers Association (NESTA), whereas I agree with them. Hopefully other viewers will enjoy exploring the websites. As a mature adult Catholic woman, I find it disturbing and silly that you would make this remark:

No, the Catholic faith is fundamentally and thus doctrinally rooted in the traditional interpretation of Scripture, and a fixed earth and moving sun is the traditional interpretation. Once you start to contradict the Fathers and the true meaning of Scripture, you contradict the very basis of the Catholic faith. The destruction of the Catholic Faith is what the DEVIL DOES, 24/7.

Let me please end on this note, your etiquette toward those who disagree with you is rather regretable. I really don’t like the tone of rightousness that your statement entails, which is undoubtedly false. Also, I have two goddaughters that plan on becoming scientists. Everything that I have presented to this topic has been taught to them. One is in a Catholic school and the other in a public school. All I can say to you Cassini is don’t ever threaten my goddaughters with this comment of yours, “No, the Catholic faith is fundamentally and thus doctrinally rooted in the traditional interpretation of Scripture, and a fixed earth and moving sun is the traditional interpretation. Once you start to contradict the Fathers and the true meaning of Scripture, you contradict the very basis of the Catholic faith. The destruction of the Catholic Faith is what the DEVIL DOES, 24/7.” Furthermore, the Catholic Faith is alive and well. I’m more concerned about you. I pray for you. Time for me to move onward to another topic. I’ve left scattered enough stuff throughout this topic. However, I may return.

 

[ricmat]

Cassini…snip… Let me please end on this note, your etiquette toward those who disagree with you is rather regretable.

Perhaps he should put a smiley in his posts, like you did when you compared him to a puppy.

You remind me a lot of StA

 

[ronnie_bonigli]

As a mature adult Catholic woman, I find it disturbing and silly that you would make this remark: Let me please end on this note, your etiquette toward those who disagree with you is rather regretable.

Can I say that I had a back and forth debate with cassini earlier on the thread, and while I disagree with his “cosmology” I found him to be respectful and pretty intelligent. And it was actually pretty interesting, I didn’t know there were any geocentrist Catholics out there.

 

[LogisticsBranch]

Perhaps he should put a smiley in his posts, like you did when you compared him to a puppy.

You remind me a lot of StA

Hi Ricmat, I plainly implied as noted that Cassini likes a lot of attention like my puppy does. I gave him a lot of attention as you can see in my previous post. I’m honest if that puts a frown on your face then truth be it I honestly don’t know why.

You say that I remind you of StA. I assume you mean member StAnastasia. I don’t know much about the person. We have disagreed before on topics that we have both been on. My background is in science. Naturally, I support science and religion. You may wish to review my contributions since I joined by reading through my messages on different topics.

Can I say that I had a back and forth debate with cassini earlier on the thread, and while I disagree with his “cosmology” I found him to be respectful and pretty intelligent. And it was actually pretty interesting, I didn’t know there were any geocentrist Catholics out there.

Hello Ronnie. Nice to met you. I’ve already stated what I wanted to say to Cassini.