Response to Keating Critique of Geocentrism

[Wampa]

ISABUS, thanks for the welcome and the explanation. I appreciate seeing the reasoning behind your statement. I am not entirely sure that Mr. Sungenis meant to use the Matthew quote in the way that you have interpreted it, but since he is not here to explain, that is a moot point. Thanks

 

[Nate]

Markjwyatt:

Nate Says:
Obviously you did not read through it very well. The stars are not moving faster than the speed of light relative to the aether (or “space” if you prefer). The aether matrix is rotating. current physics is clear that space can move (stretch, expand) much faster than light (I showed an instance where big bangers believe space expanded at 3 x10^22 X the speed of light). I think Robert Sungenis explained it quite well.

That explanation makes no sense to me. If the Ether is rotating at some great speed (presumably with an axis of rotation coincident with the earths apparent axis of rotation) then the people on the surface are rotating with it. The earth is either stationary or rotating. If stationary with respect to the ether then the fact that the stars appear to be moving means that they are moving faster than the speed of light **with respect to the ether. **If rotating with respect to the either then that is what everyone else believes.

 

[Markjwyatt]

Nate says:

The earth is either stationary or rotating. If stationary with respect to the ether then the fact that the stars appear to be moving means that they are moving faster than the speed of light with respect to the ether.

The theory works like this: aether (or ether) is the matrix of space. It is rotating. The earth is stationary in the center (i.e., eye of a hurricane, gyroscope, etc.). The celestial objects are embedded in the aether (matrix). In a sense, they do not “know” they are rotating (space is rotating). Light travelling between objects travels realtive to the aether. The local speed of light within the aether matrix is not > c. From earth, we see a constant angular velocity in the movement of stars. Light travels radially downward from the stars through the aether matrix to the earth. Some heavy shell (for example per Lense-Thirring) perhaps at the outer portion of the universe is rotating to create gravitational pull outward and centrifugal force inward. Alternately, the aether itself is the heavy shell (or part of it).

 

[All4lifetoo]

Markjwyatt:

Nate says:

The theory works like this: aether (or ether) is the matrix of space. It is rotating. The earth is stationary in the center (i.e., eye of a hurricane, gyroscope, etc.). The celestial objects are embedded in the aether (matrix). In a sense, they do not “know” they are rotating (space is rotating). Light travelling between objects travels realtive to the aether. The local speed of light within the aether matrix is not > c. From earth, we see a constant angular velocity in the movement of stars. Light travels radially downward from the stars through the aether matrix to the earth. Some heavy shell (for example per Lense-Thirring) perhaps at the outer portion of the universe is rotating to create gravitational pull outward and centrifugal force inward. Alternately, the aether itself is the heavy shell (or part of it).

The hurricane analogy is flawed. The eye of the hurricane is a low pressure center that is the cause of the wind blowing toward it. It is not simply a “fixed object” in the equation. If the aether is rotating and if that rotation is strong enough to cause the coriolis effect on Earth, then why isn’t the Earth rotated with the aether? How is it that the surface of the Earth is affected by the rotating aether, but the Earth itself is not?

Also, why is it that all other planets, moons etc. are rotating on their axis within a rotating aether and the Earth is not?

 

[Markjwyatt]

All4lifetoo says:

The hurricane analogy is flawed. The eye of the hurricane is a low pressure center that is the cause of the wind blowing toward it. It is not simply a “fixed object” in the equation. If the aether is rotating and if that rotation is strong enough to cause the coriolis effect on Earth, then why isn’t the Earth rotated with the aether? How is it that the surface of the Earth is affected by the rotating aether, but the Earth itself is not?

Also, why is it that all other planets, moons etc. are rotating on their axis within a rotating aether and the Earth is not?

The hurricane analogy is more visual, but related. The universe is seen as gyroscopically stabilized. Robert Sungenis points to Thorne and Wheeler, GRAVITATION (pp. 1117-1119) who have shown that, using Mach’s principle, a gyroscopic effect is produced in a rotating star frame against a geostatic earth, so much so, that it would not allow the earth to be moved, whether rotationally or angularly.

The rotation orbiting of planets, etc. is part of the mechanism of conservation of angular momentum in the universe. The motion of the gyroscopically stabilized universe contains at least one precession to create the annual motion of the sun. This also explains abberation and parallax.

Mark Wyatt

 

[All4lifetoo]

Markjwyatt:

All4lifetoo says:

The hurricane analogy is more visual, but related. The universe is seen as gyroscopically stabilized. Robert Sungenis points to Thorne and Wheeler, GRAVITATION (pp. 1117-1119) who have shown that, using Mach’s principle, a gyroscopic effect is produced in a rotating star frame against a geostatic earth, so much so, that it would not allow the earth to be moved, whether rotationally or angularly.

The rotation orbiting of planets, etc. is part of the mechanism of conservation of angular momentum in the universe. The motion of the gyroscopically stabilized universe contains at least one precession to create the annual motion of the sun. This also explains abberation and parallax.

Mark Wyatt

This answer does not satisfy me. A gryoscope does not have a stationary center. The entire gryoscope spins. If space-time is a gryoscope then all of it must spin. One cannot leave out the center of the gryoscope as if it were not connect to the whole. Gravation locks the Earth to the rest of space-time. If space-time spins then so must the Earth spin with it. Mach’s principle cannot explain how a rotating aether would fail to impart to a central core (Earth) its rotational torque.

If you set a basketball on the floor and grip it with two hands and then walk yourself around in a circle with the basketball as the axis, the ball will be moved with you. There is friction between your hands and the surface of the ball. Likewise there is gravitational friction between the Earth and the aether. If the aether is rotating around the Earth then the Earth must be moved with the rotation as the basketball is.

 

[Markjwyatt]

All4Lifettoo says:

This answer does not satisfy me. A gryoscope does not have a stationary center. The entire gryoscope spins. If space-time is a gryoscope then all of it must spin. One cannot leave out the center of the gryoscope as if it were not connect to the whole.

I am not an expert in gyroscope design. If a gyroscope were attached to a shaft with a bearing, the shaft would not have force applied to it (excepting a torque if you tried to upset the gyroscope’s motion). This is basically what Thorne and Wheeler have shown.

Gravation locks the Earth to the rest of space-time. If space-time spins then so must the Earth spin with it. Mach’s principle cannot explain how a rotating aether would fail to impart to a central core (Earth) its rotational torque.

I don’t know if that is true. The dyanmics of the situation determine what is locked to what, even in GR. A torque is only applied if the gyroscope is upset. This is also part of the stabilization mechanism determined by Thorne and Wheeler. The torques tends to stabilize the center from a pertubation. This is the basic idea of a gyroscope.

If you set a basketball on the floor and grip it with two hands and then walk yourself around in a circle with the basketball as the axis, the ball will be moved with you. There is friction between your hands and the surface of the ball. Likewise there is gravitational friction between the Earth and the aether.

Gravitation force does not directly apply centripital force. The aether can slip. This is the argument about aether convection (i.e., Frensel drag, etc.).

If the aether is rotating around the Earth then the Earth must be moved with the rotation as the basketball is.

Not per Thorne and Wheeler. Note that Michelson Morley, and every experiment of this type since then has detected a small positve result (of aether wind). It is rejected as a “null” result because the expected aether wind needs to be at the speed of the *a priori *assumed speed of the earth through the aether. Since it was much less of that, it was called a null result.

 

[neophyte]

Mikejwyatt,
Back in Posts #92-93 I posed some questions for Bob, he never answered them. Perhaps you could go back and take a look, but I’m particularly interested in these two:

1. Bob claims that field dragging is what makes satellites drift. Since such an effect acts equally on every element of mass in the field, I’d expect that the mass of the earth would be dragged along as well. How is it, then, that the earth is immune to the dragging, and objects are dragged only after they are not in contact with the earth?

Pressure gradients in fluids result in flow, and if there is no pressure gradient there should be no fluid flow. If frame dragging is a reality in the way Bob proposes, then we should be able to measure fluid flow in a fluid in the absense of any pressure gradient, and the experiment can be done anywhere. Based on the magnitude of orbital drift, the effect should be well within the limitations of common laboratory instrumentation. We observe no such effect. Why?

Thoughts?

 

[oriel36]

All4lifetoo:

There is friction between your hands and the surface of the ball. Likewise there is gravitational friction between the Earth and the aether. If the aether is rotating around the Earth then the Earth must be moved with the rotation as the basketball is.

On this side of the Atlantic we have to suffer yet another rendition of the century old relativistic concept on the ‘Horizon’ documentary on BBC.

I wonder how many viewers of that program know that by the time of the Principia ( 1687) Newton had dropped notions of an aether and rejected it outright in his Opticks treatise in 1704 -

1704

Opticks

“The fictitious matter which is imagined as filling the whole of space is of no use for explaining the phenomena of Nature, since the motions of the planets and comets are better explained without it, by means of gravity; and it has never yet been explained how this matter accounts for gravity. The only thing which matter of this sort could do, would be to interfere with and slow down the motions of those large celestial bodies, and weaken the order of Nature; and in the microscopic pores of bodies, it would put a stop to the vibrations of their parts which their heat and all their active force consists in. Further, since matter of this sort is not only completely useless, but
would actually interfere with the operations of Nature, and [314]
weaken them, there is no solid reason why we should believe in any such matter at all. Consequently, it is to be utterly rejected.”

Opticks 1704

Basically Newton did not consider an ‘aether’ in the Principia therefore there is no aether to drop or as relativists have it - ‘absolute space’. Normally it would take a person of reasonable curiosity a few minutes to digest what Newton was saying and then conclude that associating aether with Newton is a really silly thing to do yet that is exactly what was done back in 1905.

So,after a century of abstractions or conceptual nightmares (bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2001/paralleluni.shtml) perhaps it would be profitable to review just exactly what was accomplished and at what price.

My Catholic Church has done absolutely nothing to counter the dangerous tendency to mix abstractions with tangible existence which constitutes the workings of the relativistic cartoon theories.

Nobody wishes to go back to the foundation of these concepts and review just exactly where the absolute/relative terms were reforged to turn a Newtonian quasi-geocentric concept into a fully fledged homocentric concept.It requires a heavy dose of indoctrination to swallow the relativistic concept but considering that no corrective measures exist,it is no surprise that creation/evolution and science/religion debates flourish for while all appear to be perfectly reasonable,both sides are perfectly wrong.

 

[All4lifetoo]

Markjwyatt:

All4Lifettoo says:

I am not an expert in gyroscope design. If a gyroscope were attached to a shaft with a bearing, the shaft would not have force applied to it (excepting a torque if you tried to upset the gyroscope’s motion). This is basically what Thorne and Wheeler have shown.

There is friction between any bearing and the surfaces that it bears against. Take for example a bicycle wheel with its axle in place. Hold that bicycle wheel in your hands and walk around in a circle using the axle as an imaginary center. You will note that the axle turns with you. Only when the axle is fixed in place does the torque that you apply by walking around in a circle cause the wheel bearings to overcome the friction between them and the axle thus rotating around the axle. The Earth, if compared to an axle as you have done, is not fixed to anything to cause the rotating aether to overcome the friction between it and the Earth. The Earth must rotate as the axle did when you walked the bicycle wheel around in a circle. Even if there is some slippage or lag due to Earth’s inertia (ignoring Mach’s principle for the moment), it will still rotate with the aether.

I don’t know if that is true. The dyanmics of the situation determine what is locked to what, even in GR. A torque is only applied if the gyroscope is upset. This is also part of the stabilization mechanism determined by Thorne and Wheeler. The torques tends to stabilize the center from a pertubation. This is the basic idea of a gyroscope.

If gravitation does not lock the planets, stars, etc. to each other and to space, then the rotating aether theory falls apart. It is gravity that makes the bodies rotate with space. If this is not true then space could rotate PAST stationary bodies. If gravity locks all other bodies together, then it must also lock the Earth with it. There must be a consistency with the theory.

Gravitation force does not directly apply centripital force. The aether can slip. This is the argument about aether convection (i.e., Frensel drag, etc.).

See above.

Not per Thorne and Wheeler. Note that Michelson Morley, and every experiment of this type since then has detected a small positve result (of aether wind). It is rejected as a “null” result because the expected aether wind needs to be at the speed of the *a priori *assumed speed of the earth through the aether. Since it was much less of that, it was called a null result.

Beyond me. The geocentric theory has the Earth fixed at the center of the aether and the aether rotating around the Earth. How then does the Earth move through the aether? The Earth doesn’t move at all in this theory.

 

[All4lifetoo]

oriel36:

On this side of the Atlantic we have to suffer yet another rendition of the century old relativistic concept on the ‘Horizon’ documentary on BBC.

I wonder how many viewers of that program know that by the time of the Principia ( 1687) Newton had dropped notions of an aether and rejected it outright in his Opticks treatise in 1704 -

1704

Opticks

“The fictitious matter which is imagined as filling the whole of space is of no use for explaining the phenomena of Nature, since the motions of the planets and comets are better explained without it, by means of gravity; and it has never yet been explained how this matter accounts for gravity. The only thing which matter of this sort could do, would be to interfere with and slow down the motions of those large celestial bodies, and weaken the order of Nature; and in the microscopic pores of bodies, it would put a stop to the vibrations of their parts which their heat and all their active force consists in. Further, since matter of this sort is not only completely useless, but
would actually interfere with the operations of Nature, and [314]
weaken them, there is no solid reason why we should believe in any such matter at all. Consequently, it is to be utterly rejected.”

Opticks 1704

Basically Newton did not consider an ‘aether’ in the Principia therefore there is no aether to drop or as relativists have it - ‘absolute space’. Normally it would take a person of reasonable curiosity a few minutes to digest what Newton was saying and then conclude that associating aether with Newton is a really silly thing to do yet that is exactly what was done back in 1905.

So,after a century of abstractions or conceptual nightmares (bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2001/paralleluni.shtml) perhaps it would be profitable to review just exactly what was accomplished and at what price.

My Catholic Church has done absolutely nothing to counter the dangerous tendency to mix abstractions with tangible existence which constitutes the workings of the relativistic cartoon theories.

Nobody wishes to go back to the foundation of these concepts and review just exactly where the absolute/relative terms were reforged to turn a Newtonian quasi-geocentric concept into a fully fledged homocentric concept.It requires a heavy dose of indoctrination to swallow the relativistic concept but considering that no corrective measures exist,it is no surprise that creation/evolution and science/religion debates flourish for while all appear to be perfectly reasonable,both sides are perfectly wrong.

I do not use the term “aether” to mean a fictitious matter that fills space, but as a synonym for space-time itself. That seems to be how others have used it in this forum.

As far as your link to the parallel universe page goes, I have to say that that kind of thinking seems to approach what the Church teaches about God. That is, God is eternal, He is outside of time. To God, yesterday, today, and tomorrow are always present. I am present to God right now as a new born child, as an adult, as an old person, and everything in between. All of matter is present to God in the same way. In a sense, to us these could be considered parallel universes, but they are really just eternity, a state outside of time. Perhaps science will discover God after all.

 

[Markjwyatt]

I wrote:
I am not an expert in gyroscope design. If a gyroscope were attached to a shaft with a bearing, the shaft would not have force applied to it (excepting a torque if you tried to upset the gyroscope’s motion). This is basically what Thorne and Wheeler have shown.

All4Lifetoo responded:

There is friction between any bearing and the surfaces that it bears against. Take for example a bicycle wheel with its axle in place…Only when the axle is fixed in place does the torque that you apply by walking around in a circle cause the wheel bearings to overcome the friction between them and the axle thus rotating around the axle. The Earth, if compared to an axle as you have done, is not fixed to anything to cause the rotating aether to overcome the friction between it and the Earth. The Earth must rotate as the axle did when you walked the bicycle wheel around in a circle.

Again Misner, Thorne and Wheeler have shown that a gyroscopic effect is produced in a rotating star frame against a geostatic earth. The effect is such that it would NOT allow the earth to be moved. The gyroscopic effect basically “pins” the earth. I understand your arguments about friction, but a gyroscope in its nature tends to stabilize its center of mass. The earth is the center of mass of the Geocentric universe. If you have more detailed questions on this, I would recommend you ask Robert Sungenis.

Even if there is some slippage or lag due to Earth’s inertia (ignoring Mach’s principle for the moment), it will still rotate with the aether.

Again, here you are reffering to aether convection. This was a hot topic 100-200 years ago. Michelson Morley, Michelson Gale Pierce, Dayton Miller, Sagnac, etc. all doid experiments which showed there was an “aether” wind at the earth’s surface. The wind was << less than needed to describe the earth’s postulated movevment through space (around the sun), so the results are generally reported as “null”.

If gravitation does not lock the planets, stars, etc. to each other and to space, then the rotating aether theory falls apart. It is gravity that makes the bodies rotate with space.

This is true in a Newtonian universe, but necassarily in an aether filled one.

If this is not true then space could rotate PAST stationary bodies. If gravity locks all other bodies together, then it must also lock the Earth with it. There must be a consistency with the theory.

The celestial objects are “embedded” in the aether. The aether is a matrix. The aether rotates. The celestial objects do not really “know” they are rotating. Relative to one another they are fixed in space. Only at the earth, or close to it is a rotation apparent, since earth (the center of God’s creation) is at the center of the gryscopically stabilized universe. It is in a “special” position.
I said:
Not per Thorne and Wheeler. Note that Michelson Morley, and every experiment of this type since then has detected a small positve result (of aether wind). It is rejected as a “null” result because the expected aether wind needs to be at the speed of the *a priori *assumed speed of the earth through the aether. Since it was much less of that, it was called a null result.
All4Lifetoo replied:

Beyond me. The geocentric theory has the Earth fixed at the center of the aether and the aether rotating around the Earth. How then does the Earth move through the aether? The Earth doesn’t move at all in this theory.

The earth does not move through the aether! It is staionary (geostatism). It, as God placed it, is at the cener of all creation (the universe).

CONTINUED

 

[Markjwyatt]

I wrote:
I am not an expert in gyroscope design. If a gyroscope were attached to a shaft with a bearing, the shaft would not have force applied to it (excepting a torque if you tried to upset the gyroscope’s motion). This is basically what Thorne and Wheeler have shown.

All4Lifetoo responded:

There is friction between any bearing and the surfaces that it bears against. Take for example a bicycle wheel with its axle in place…Only when the axle is fixed in place does the torque that you apply by walking around in a circle cause the wheel bearings to overcome the friction between them and the axle thus rotating around the axle. The Earth, if compared to an axle as you have done, is not fixed to anything to cause the rotating aether to overcome the friction between it and the Earth. The Earth must rotate as the axle did when you walked the bicycle wheel around in a circle.

Again Misner, Thorne and Wheeler have shown that a gyroscopic effect is produced in a rotating star frame against a geostatic earth. The effect is such that it would NOT allow the earth to be moved. The gyroscopic effect basically “pins” the earth. I understand your arguments about friction, but a gyroscope in its nature tends to stabilize its center of mass. The earth is the center of mass of the Geocentric universe. If you have more detailed quaestions on this, I would recommend you ask them to Robert Sungenis.

Even if there is some slippage or lag due to Earth’s inertia (ignoring Mach’s principle for the moment), it will still rotate with the aether.

Again, here you are reffering to aether convection. This was a hot topic 100-200 years ago. Michelson Morley, Michelson Gale Pierce, Dayton Miller, Sagnac, etc. all doid experiments which showed there was an “aether” wind at the earth’s surface. The wind was << less than needed to describe the earth’s postulated movevment through space (around the sun), so the results are generally reported as “null”.

If gravitation does not lock the planets, stars, etc. to each other and to space, then the rotating aether theory falls apart. It is gravity that makes the bodies rotate with space.

This is true in a Newtonian universe, but not in an necassarily in an aether filled one.

If this is not true then space could rotate PAST stationary bodies. If gravity locks all other bodies together, then it must also lock the Earth with it. There must be a consistency with the theory.

The celestial objects are “embedded” in the aether. The aether is a matrix. The aether rotates. The celestial objects do not really “know” they are rotating. Relative to one another they are fixed in space. Only at the earth, or close to it is a rotation apparent, since earth (the center of God’s creation) is at the center of the gryscopically stabilized universe. It is in a “special” position.
I said:

Not per Thorne and Wheeler. Note that Michelson Morley, and every experiment of this type since then has detected a small positve result (of aether wind). It is rejected as a “null” result because the expected aether wind needs to be at the speed of the *a priori *assumed speed of the earth through the aether. Since it was much less of that, it was called a null result.
All4Lifetoo replied:

Beyond me. The geocentric theory has the Earth fixed at the center of the aether and the aether rotating around the Earth. How then does the Earth move through the aether? The Earth doesn’t move at all in this theory.

The earth does not move through the aether! It is staionary (geostatism). It, as God placed it, is at the cener of all creation (the universe).

CONTINUED

 

[Markjwyatt]

All4Lifetoo:

You seem to have an intelligent approach to this. I am an engineer, ,and was very skeptical about it too, until I studied it. I strongly suggest you go to Robert Sungenis’ website and read some of the material there.

www.catholicintl.com

I have been discussing this with a number of cosmologists, relativists, etc. Here is what I can say:

1. The only possible systems in conflict today are relativistic acentrism and Geocentrism. Heliocentrism was basically abandoned over 100 years ago.
2. Per acentrism, there is no “correct” solar system. Most relativists will say, due to simplicity arguments ONLY, that the heliocentric model is preferred. It is just as “correct” to say that my left little toe is the center of the universe as to say the sun, or nothing. What they are really saying is that there is NO center of anything anywhere.
3. If I choose my left little toe as the center of the universe, per GR (general relativity), I can (though complicated) accurately describe all the observations and forces in the universe from that vantage point.

4.GR cannot prove the heliocentric solar system as correct, since any-center of the solar system is just as correct, and none will describe observations and forces any more accurately.

1. If I am launching a tour from the Sun through the planets, I may CHOOSE a heliocentric system. If I am launching a satellite for earth orbit I may choose a geostaionary one (as NASA does).
2. Even if I create a model of a geocentric solar system and say, “see how simple it is”, GR must reject it, since a model implies an absolute reference point, which is not permitted.
3. Therefor if I want ot say something absolute about the universe, I must accept an absolute reference.
4. 100-200 years ago, the heliocentrist (neo-Corpenicans) chose the “fixed” aether as this absolute, as a substitute for the “unacceptable” earth reference.
5. The experiments of Michelson-Morley, Fizaeu, Airy, Sagnac, and others created conflicts which ultimately created havoc in the heliocentric theory. I cannot go into details here, see the little book:

“***De Labore Solis, ****Airy’s Failure Reconsidered”, *Walter van der Kamp, 1988. Available for free at:

users2.ev1.net/~origins/menu-helio.htm

Download “Labor of the Sun”.

1. All the evidence kept pointing back to Geocentrism, which was unacceptable (to the heliocentrists).
2. Einstein, developed the acentric Special, then General Theory of Relativity to account for all the conflicts and remove the earth as an absolute. In doing so he jettisoned the heliocentrist’s absolute reference frame, aether. Even he had second thoughts about that.
3. For > 100 years we have been laboring under an aetheistic, relativistic science which is based on the idea that we are a speck of nothing in a nowhere universe, rather than at the center of God’s creation.
4. Observation after observation keep pointing back to Geocentrism, but get brushed aside as impossible. This includes finding quantization of redshifts for quasars, galaxies, etc.

I strongly suggest you study up on this issue. See Robert Sungenis’ site, and read some of the geocentric challenge posts. I have read most of them (he used to have many more posted), and he has adressed most of what you are asking and much more. Some of his earlier challenges are available on the same page as The Labor of the Sun under the title: Challenges Against Geocentricity & Their Responses - 2003, 222 pages.

His upcoming book. “Galileo was wrong”, will undoubtably contain a lot of detailed material, and updated theories for Geocentrism. As in his challenge, I am sure he will cover Biblical, Church, and the Fathers on Geocentrism.

Once you study this you will see that modern science is in a straight-jacket of acentric relativism. Either we are nothing (acentric relativism) or we are everything (Geocentrism) to God. Heliocentrism is dead. No serious cosmologist works in this system. Engineers do, but not cosmologists. This is the biggest misconception- that it’s between helio and Geocentrism. Once you realize that the science created to keep Geocentrism from being considered annihalated heliocentrism, and that we have absolutely not one observation or shred of evidence supporting even the sun as the center of the solar system, then this is the seed to seek furhter information.

Think about what our Bible, the Fathers, and the Church have told us about who we are. Compare this to what scientism tells us. Realize the history and motives behind scientism, then make your choice.

In Jesus,

Mark Wyatt

 

[oriel36]

All4lifetoo:

I do not use the term “aether” to mean a fictitious matter that fills space, but as a synonym for space-time itself. That seems to be how others have used it in this forum.

As far as your link to the parallel universe page goes, I have to say that that kind of thinking seems to approach what the Church teaches about God. That is, God is eternal, He is outside of time. To God, yesterday, today, and tomorrow are always present. I am present to God right now as a new born child, as an adult, as an old person, and everything in between. All of matter is present to God in the same way. In a sense, to us these could be considered parallel universes, but they are really just eternity, a state outside of time. Perhaps science will discover God after all.

The link I posted was to demonstrate just how absurd the whole exercise has become,paralell universes are just as much fiction as spacetime or variations of that nightmarish concept.

I have offered to make this topic as interesting as possible to those who are unfamiliar with the material and specifically how to evaluate the illusions we see from our standpoint on Earth and how to translate the motion we see with our eyes into the actual motions of planets and stars.

Only ONE thing is necessary to start untangling the mess,it is a simple matter of going outside and experiencing the insight of Copernicus rather than just hearing of it as a ‘fact’.The insight is that the Earth spin’s on its axis rather than any perceived motion of the Sun.I assure you that it is well worth the effort to recognise that there is no such thing as sunrise and sunset.

Here is an image of the Earth emerging from its own orbital shadow -

atpm.com/8.11/bimini/images/sunrise.jpg

Anyone who takes a childlike joy in this can then move on to orbital differences and how axial rotation is constant while orbital motion varies over the course of an annual orbit.

Get that far and a person will be good enough to conclude that Newton took a giant step backwards in determining that the Sun around the Earth is the same as the Earth around the Sun in terms of Keplerian motion.

“Cor. 2. And since these stars are liable to no sensible parallax from the annual motion of the earth, they can have no force, because of their immense distance, to produce any sensible effect in our system. Not to mention that the fixed stars, every where promiscuously dispersed in the heavens, by their contrary actions destroy their mutual actions, by Prop. LXX, Book I.” Newton

All I can do is appeal to Catholics who are capable of recognising that something has gone wildly astray with wild speculation and dilution of noble traditions such as geology ,astronomy and even geometry.I do not condescend to anyone,I can’t afford to given that I presently handle these concepts as Ciopernicus,Kepler and Roemer handled them back before the emergence of Newtonian mechanics and all its bull.

The real benefit for everyone in giving the whole thing a thorough review will be incorporating the solar system’s galactic orbital motion in influencing planetary heliocentric motion and the cyclical variations that stretch the orbit from circular to more elliptical and back again for geological and climatological purposes and free and clear of exotic nonsense such as spacetime and parallel universes

 

[neophyte]

Markjwyatt:

…Again Misner, Thorne and Wheeler have shown that a gyroscopic effect is produced in a rotating star frame against a geostatic earth. The effect is such that it would NOT allow the earth to be moved. The gyroscopic effect basically “pins” the earth…

This is a truly unique gyroscope. All other gyroscopes resist only moments that act perpendicular to the axis of rotation. This one is claimed to not only resist moments acting parallel to the axis, but is also claimed to resist forces that act through the axis.

Markjwyatt:

…Only at the earth, or close to it is a rotation apparent, since earth (the center of God’s creation) is at the center of the gryscopically stabilized universe. It is in a “special” position…

Same questions as before: why only the earth and objects attached to it? Why does the air enjoy this special position? How is it that only some objects in free-fall are affected by frame-dragging, but the air at the same altitude is not?

Markjwyatt:

…Note that Michelson Morley, and every experiment of this type since then has detected a small positve result (of aether wind). It is rejected as a “null” result because the expected aether wind needs to be at the speed of the *a priori *assumed speed of the earth through the aether. Since it was much less of that, it was called a null result…

I’ve always understood that the reason for the null result was that all nonzero velocities measured were within the margin of error of the equipment used. Where is there an experimental report that includes an error analysis showing a different result? Does every experiment of this type yield a nonzero vector pointing due west?

I’ll download “Labor of the Sun” and try to read it tonight.

 

[All4lifetoo]

Markjwyatt,

Two experiments have been proposed in this thread which would be capable of determining whether the Earth is rotating. Both experiments aim at measuring the actual rotation of the Moon on its axis using the given that the Moon’s rotation must be equal to its revolution to present the same face to the Earth at all times. One was dismissed rashly, the other has not been commented on to any extent. Read posts 51 and 123. Fifty-one has responses that dismiss it. NASA is willing to launch experiments to test GR (ie. Gravity Probe), they should be willing to launch experiments to test the “fact” that the Earth is rotating.

I will read the Labor of the Sun.

 

[ISABUS]

Wampa:

ISABUS, thanks for the welcome and the explanation. I appreciate seeing the reasoning behind your statement. I am not entirely sure that Mr. Sungenis meant to use the Matthew quote in the way that you have interpreted it, but since he is not here to explain, that is a moot point. Thanks

Wampa, are you willing to bet your life that Mr. Sungenis isn’t here with us? Are you 100% sure I have interpreted scripture Matthew 12:26 that was presented by Mr. Sungenis?

 

[neophyte]

neophyte:

…I’ll download “Labor of the Sun” and try to read it tonight.

This will take a lot more than one night to read…

 

[ISABUS]

oriel36:

[snip]

My Catholic Church has done absolutely nothing to counter the dangerous tendency to mix abstractions with tangible existence which constitutes the workings of the relativistic cartoon theories.

Oriel36, “your” Catholic Church is comprised of approximately one billion people world-wide. “I” favor Vatican Astrophysicist Vera C. Rubin from the Department of Terrestrail Magnetism scientific article that I presented in message #178 to this board. Please review her article by clicking on the following or the pdf:

4 pagesCONTENTS
%between%
vatican.mondosearch.com/img/pdf.gif

ciw.edu/rubin/

Your comments would be appreciated. Thank you.