Response to Keating Critique of Geocentrism

  • Thread starter Thread starter Michael_Forrest
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Michael Forrest:
continued from message #110, part 2 of 2:

Forrest writes: Perhaps you can spend some time cajoling Mr. Keating to respond to Mr. Sungenis responses to him and see what kind of success you have, too. My guess is, you won’t get much response to the kind of nonsense that has gone on here. Perhaps he is wiser than I in that regard. This has been a good reminder…

Well, from what I have observed Robert Sungenis likes to post to his website these little games of dialogue. Does he get permission prior to doing that from the participants? Each member’s comments on this website are automatically copyrighted under US law from what I was told by my attorney.

Forrest writes: But, because I really wanted to learn something, and also thought others might be interested, I put up with it. Fortunately, I have found a few useful pieces of information…but that is quickly coming to a close…at least for you and a few others. You’ll have to find another pinata. I know that breaks your heart.

I tell you what breaks my heart. You went to the wake of a friend of yours named William and within a matter of hours you returned to post messages to this board. The furthest thing on my mind would be posting to some message board, yet that was not the case with you. I guess the Internet relieves your grief of lossing a friend better than praying for his soul or consoling his friends or family. Very enlightening to know how you and Mr. Surgenis apparently share the same principles. He was busy writing replies for you to return ASAP to this message board and post as your friend William lay dead. How very very sad.

Forrest writes: This seems to be a diversion for some of you, nothing more. That’s sad. Frankly, I have seen these forums at work on other websites. Unfortunately, they too regularly bring out the worst in people and invite addiction…people stop living real lives and spend all of their time here. That is not a good thing.

Again I repeat. I tell you what breaks my heart. You went to the wake of a friend of yours named William and within a matter of hours you returned to post messages to this board. The furthest thing on my mind would be posting to some message board yet that was not the case with you. I guess the Internet relieves your grief of lossing a friend better than praying for his soul. Very enlightening to know how you and Mr. Surgenis apparently share the same principles. He was busy writing replies for you to return ASAP to the message board and post as your friend William lay dead.

My Lord, give me strength to unveil they who are blind. Be my sheild of armor in times of battle. Let me rest in your heart for I know not when I shall die. Keep me safe within your smile. Flood my mind with your love when I cannot understand the reasons behind men’s actions and words. Amen, it is done saith my Lord. ~ An army of angels are on their way ~
Click to expand...
 
40.png
PhilVaz:
Oriel << I can’t speak for anyone else but the fact that my fellow Christians can’t work out how the principles of the rotation of the Earth on its axis and its connection to astronomy,geometry and clocks or worse still,that nobody objects or questions ‘modern’ science principles based on Flamsteed’s isochronos value based on the calendar system is almost too hard to bear. >>

Um 😃 I’m not sure what the gripe is here, but so long as you accept the earth rotation and revolution around the sun you’re in the modern science camp rather than the 16th century science camp. That’s all I care about. I guess the complaint is about the difference between “sidereal” vs. “solar” day. Had to look that up myself, no big deal. The earth moves. We can now close the thread. :rolleyes:

Phil P
Click to expand...
“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

I realise that you neither know nor care but it should take those interested in planetary motion a few minutes to realise why the motion of the solar system along with the rest of the local stars around the galactic axis changes the Newtonian outlook.

I have already explained why the sidereal format which facilitates the Newtonian geocentric/heliocentric orbital equivalency creates a nightmare if you wish to incorporate the influence of greater motions into smaller motions such as the effect of the solar system’s galactic orbital motion on planetary heliocentric orbital motion.

I will put it this way graphically -

tsunami.mg-soft.com/pic/floods.jpg

Newtonian mechanics adopts a single sidereal motion for the planet and does not recognise an imbalance between constant axial rotation and variable orbital motion.In other words you cannot even begin to consider the astronomical influences on terrestial plate motion (read earthquakes- tsunami) using ‘modern science’.

Catholics cannot feel happy about this,their kids are being influenced by people who are simply not good enough to spot the illegal shortcut that Newton took in getting his gravitational/terrestial ballistics agenda to fly. Do Christians really want to believe in the exotic nonsense of multiple universes,warped space and time slowing that emerges from people who did’nt spot the Newtonian error either but took an even more ridiculous route than Newton.

Again,it is not about whether you care or not,this is about what kids are taught.
 
40.png
neophyte:
The idea that western civilazation is in danger of collapse as a result of recognition of the fact that solar and sidereal days are of different length baffles me as much as some of the stuff Sungenis says. I really don’t understand what the problem is.

And I would like to see this thread continue as well, since I’ve got some substantive questions on the table for Bob to answer.
Click to expand...
The fundamental tenet of Catholic faith is the connection between the temporal and Eternal.What this basically means is that you understand time,your memories are precious for they are made up of people and events which have passed through your existence and with experience you get to treasure the difficult times as well as the good.

Now it apparently does not stand amiss with Catholics that a group of people imagine that if you travel faster you can alter time and this is proposed to the rest of humanity as a profound achievement.

nobelprize.org/physics/educational/relativity/paradox-1.html

The roots of this type of cartoon thinking originate in Newton and the subject material of how and why the Earth’s rotation through 360 degrees was fixed using a particular method.

It probably would not interest you how physicists managed to bottle time up in a clock and create a ‘dimension’ but given that it has lasted for a 100 years without any type of organised objection,it is quite something else.

It takes an inhuman effort to go through the ins and outs of it all but I have shown you exactly where the problem begins and I can do no more.It is up to another person to pick this up and explain it better than I have otherwise the early 20th century rubbish will remain and I assure you it is not an achievement but an embarrasement.

If you ever get bored with evolution/creation check out the Longitude story.To understand how Newton jumped the track via Flamsteed it is the best place to start for this is where men took shortcuts and became greedy.

o4r.org/pf_v3n4/Persistence.htm

Catholics are supposed to be a lot more balanced than their denominational counterparts,astronomy,geometry and clocks is a good place to start.
 
oriel36 said:
"…I realise that you neither know nor care…
I have already explained why the sidereal format …
Catholics are supposed to be a lot more balanced than their denominational counterparts,astronomy,geometry and clocks is a good place to start.
Click to expand...

What in the WORLD are you talking about? What’s the big deal about reference frame transformations and time dilation, and how do they threaten modern civilization? :whacky:

You haven’t explained anything, any more than Sungenis has, you’ve just used a bunch of words. SHOW US WHERE THE ERROR IS IN THE MATH!!! If it goes all the way back to Newton it shouldn’t be too hard. (but please do it in a new thread, this one’s busy).
 
Neophyte << What’s the big deal about reference frame transformations and time dilation, and how do they threaten modern civilization? >>

Yeah dude, Art Bell and George Norry have done way more harm to modern civilization. :o

Phil P
 
Dear Miguel, All4Life, Tom and Alec,

I’m sorry I haven’t posted any replies or forwarded on anything, but I’m sure you understand in light of the circumstances. I had hoped it might provide some diversion/relief, but the cost is not worth it. Honestly, I have no inclination to return.

However, in my “lay” opinion, it seems to me that you each have substantive knowledge about the topic. If you are interested in pursuing it, without the distractions, that would be great. If, for whatever reason, you really only want to discuss the topic on this forum, that’s fine, too.

Some of this is really over my head, but some of it has been informative to me. And so I thank you for that. I think others may benefit from a continuation of it as well, including Mr. Sungenis.

If you like, either contact Mr. Sungenis directly through the website or I can contact him and try to set things up, if he is also interested.

Whatever your decision, I wish you well.

God bless,
Michael Forrest
 
…Just received a private email on this…to be clear, when I wrote that is would “be fine” if you would only continue in this forum, I did not intend to convey that I would also continue…only indicating that I understand you may only want to debate here, for whatever reason.

…Also, as Mr. Keating essentially started this discussion (from a previous thread) and has contributed a couple of other substantive posts on this thread as well, the invitation extends to him as well. It seemed that you were only dropping in a post here and there rather than actually interacting with other information posted to the contrary of your posts…so I didn’t think you were really interested in a discussion. But you are very welcome.

God bless,
Michael
 
40.png
neophyte:
What in the WORLD are you talking about? What’s the big deal about reference frame transformations and time dilation, and how do they threaten modern civilization? :whacky:

You haven’t explained anything, any more than Sungenis has, you’ve just used a bunch of words. SHOW US WHERE THE ERROR IS IN THE MATH!!! If it goes all the way back to Newton it shouldn’t be too hard. (but please do it in a new thread, this one’s busy).
Click to expand...
I am sorry,you are actually WORSE than the geocentrists for you engage in frame hopping,dilation and all the other star trek buzzwords which are more fiction than the da vinci codes.I can judge this stuff comfortably and excuse me if I do not mince words,relativity or homocentricity is a concept of the utterly stupid for the utterly stupid.

There is always the Vatican observatory,they should be capable of explaining why it is not a good idea to tether the Earth’s rotation directly to the sidereal value of 23 hours 56 min 04 sec.
The error is very difficult to spot which is why it has lasted for centuries but ultimately there is only one value for axial rotation of the Earth through 360 degrees as determined by a clock.

The wisdom of our ancestors was to ASSUME constant axial rotation even though it is combined with a variable orbital motion.Even prior to Copernicus and Kepler,they were aware that each rotation of the Earth wrt the Sun was different hence the Equation of Time correction which equalises the variations and facilitates the seamless transition from one day to the next.

Flamsteed came along and took the already existing ASSUMPTION for constant axial rotation and shifted it to stellar circumpolar motion as a means to prove the Earth rotated constantly on its axis.

Flamsteed used the star Sirius as a timekeeper correcting the sidereal time obtained from successive transits of the star into solar time, the difference of course being due to the rotation of the Earth round the Sun. Flamsteed wrote in a letter in 1677:-… our clocks kept so good a correspondence with the Heavens that I doubt it not but they would prove the revolutions of the Earth to be isochronical…

www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/HistTopics/Longitude2.html

Newton then came along and accepted Flamsteed’s bogus proof and subsequently the geocentric/heliocentric orbital equivalency emerged from the sidereal format.From there it took a few centuries to get to relativistic frame hopping.

I assure you the Vatican Observatory will come to the same conclusion.I am correct by way of the wisdom of our ancestors in formatting axial rotation to the Equation of Time correction,you and your relativistic bunch are entirely stupid for not recognising that Newton was the first to tamper with this format making astronomy an entirely useless pursuit.

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

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

So,excuse me if I forego the relativistic buzzwords which never meant anything,it is up to individual Catholics to enjoy where Western science took a wrong turn at Newton who intentionally or unwittingly based his astronomical picture on Flamsteed’s false proof for constant axial rotation.It is all in the math,just like you said -

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

360 deg = 24 hour
15 deg = 1 hour
1 deg = 4 min

.986 deg = 3 min 56 sec

24 hours minus 3 min 56 sec = 23 hours 56 min 04 sec
 
I also just found this thread and have a few observations. I agree with Michael that he and Robert has been the recipients of large amounts of uncharity (ISABUS being the biggest culprit). I also often find that these forums bring out the worst in people; people interact in ways that they would never dream of in doing in person. The science is all way over my head. While I find Alec’s arguments persuasive, I would caution that delivery does matter; the uncharity makes me tend pull back from listening to your facts. Charity is one of my favorite parts of Catholicism; I love this Church 😃

I find the heliocentric argument persausive, yet I keep an open mind, especially on things that even scientists disagree on (how can I ever really KNOW if scientists disagree?). I always remember this cautionary tale:

science-education.nih.gov/Snapshots.nsf/story?openForm&rtn~SB_Hpylori_Marshall

The man who discovered that ulcers were caused by bacteria and not stress was long ridiculed for disputing what was so obvious to the rest of medical science (I’m sure “crank” was used many times). In the end, he overturned all of the medical establishment and is “now celebrated as a pioneer and a scientific visionary”.

Before I became Catholic, I thought anyone against contraception was a crank (society had thought me that it was perfectly naturally), now I understand perfectly why it is so harmful. So, I try to keep an open mind on everything.

Micheal, thanks for taking on a tough job with this thread. I thought you were very clear as to why you started the thread, how you didn’t want to debate it this way, and why Robert is not here. And my thoughts and prayers go out to your friend. God bless.
 
Also, I found Michael to be clear right from the beginning as to his association with Robert. He mentioned his position in their organization in his second post (posts 1-2 was the first and posts 12-13 was the second, where it was mentioned).
 
Gentlemen,
I checked back here to see if any of you were interested in continuing this discussion in a more appropriate forum. I will assume you are not interested as no one has posted otherwise and I have not received any further communication, nor has Mr. Sungenis, at least to my knowledge.
If you should change your mind, Mr. Sungenis can be reached at www.catholicintl.com. My email is also available at the website.

God be with you,
Michael Forrest
Personnel Director
Catholic Apologetics International
www.catholicintl.com
 
Dear Wampa,
Your kind and edifying posts at the end caught my eye, thank you. Also, interesting cite on ulcers, I had forgotten about that case.

God bless you,
Michael Forrest
 
40.png
Wampa:
I also just found this thread and have a few observations. I agree with Michael that he and Robert has been the recipients of large amounts of uncharity (ISABUS being the biggest culprit). I also often find that these forums bring out the worst in people; people interact in ways that they would never dream of in doing in person. The science is all way over my head. While I find Alec’s arguments persuasive, I would caution that delivery does matter; the uncharity makes me tend pull back from listening to your facts. Charity is one of my favorite parts of Catholicism; I love this Church.

I’ve been a Catholic for over 40 plus years and have taught Catholic children for 15 years. I know about charity. Often times, charity also has the face of “tough” love when the truth about a subject is distorted to suit a person’s religious belief system.

Where is the charity in Robert Sungenis reply to Alec?

Alec: Bob’s entire argument relies on the equivalence of a) the earth rotating with respect to the star frame and b) the star frame rotating with respect to the earth. This equivalence occurs only in GR. (Note Lense and Thirring produced solutions to the Einstein field equations) and is not valid in an absolute space. Since Bob rejects GR, and cleaves to an absolute space he is left with a logical dog’s breakfast. He can’t have it both ways.

R. Sungenis: As the proverb says, “a dog returns to his vomit,” so Alec is returning to the excuse that I can’t use GR to disprove his own use of GR because I don’t believe in GR. But as Jesus said to the Pharisees, “A house divided against itself will not stand. If Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself, how then shall his kingdom stand?”(Mt 12:26).

Robert Sungenis uses Jesus as a pawn! Satan to intimidate! Outrageous! He also implies that Alec is as “a dog returns to his vomit.” This isn’t charity.

I’m still waiting for my messages 159 and 160 to be answered by Mr. Sungenis. Ah, it looks like he has taken a SUDDEN leave of absence along with Michael Forrest. I guess all those valid questions will be left here for futrue viewers to wonder why Mr. Sungenis never wanted to answer them. Hum. It’s not like we have been attacking him, as he has Alec.
Click to expand...
 
40.png
ISABUS:
Where is the charity in Robert Sungenis reply to Alec?

R. Sungenis: As the proverb says, “a dog returns to his vomit,” so Alec is returning to the excuse…
Click to expand...
I’ll give you that one. That line was pretty uncalled for in my book. There was some going both directions, yet the majority of it went toward them, in my estimation.
40.png
ISABUS:
Robert Sungenis uses Jesus as a pawn! Satan to intimidate!
Click to expand...
This pretty much illustrates my point.
 
I read through most of this thread and while I was (and am) sympathetic to the view that scientists tend at times to be more dogmatic than the church, I don’t see where Bob’s view that obsevations can be calculated from either a rotating earth centered view or a stationary, rotating universe point of view can be maintained scientifically.

That is because I know how to do caculations and make accurate predictions from a rotating earth frame, but if I try to do so from a rotating universe frame I am immediately confronted with stars moving much faster than the speed of light, and all the physics I am aware of say this is not possible. Relativistically all the masses go to infinity and my calculator does not have that number in it. If I ignore relativity, all the forces from a uniform universe cancel out, and I can’t explain or predict anything.

So while philosophically I agree that we don’t know everything, the little that we do know scientifically demands that we accept the rotating earth as a scientific fact, because there is no logical practical competitor.
 
Nate Says:
I read through most of this thread…if I try to do so from a rotating universe frame I am immediately confronted with stars moving much faster than the speed of light, and all the physics I am aware of say this is not possible.
Click to expand...
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.

You may have missed some of this discussion going on in threads #58 on on Karl Keating’s Dec. 21st e-newaletter topic:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=28444

Mark Wyatt
 
 
Wampa,

I understand you have recently become a Catholic after having been an atheist for over 20 plus years. Let me welcome you, as well as enlighten you to the fact that when anyone who claims to be a Catholic and declares they love the Church, as you have, uses the name of Jesus in a scientific debate and Satan to glorify his case, as is mentioned below, it becomes a religious debate. The Catholic Church has defined science and religion as two separate entities. Furthermore, it is not in good taste to use our precious Lord in the fashion expressed below by Mr. Sungenis. Jesus too was considered somewhat a scientist in his day. I think you may have neglected to look closer at what Mr. Sungenis has written which I have provided once again for your review since you negleted to keep my comment within the necessary text it was applied to.

As you must know as a new Catholic, Jesus is always walking alongside a person. Let’s place Jesus (red), who was a scientist of sorts in his day, next to his friend scientist Alec. Now reread what Mr. Sungenis comment. I hope you can clearly see how offensive it is to Christ and to Alec. A person can’t justify sacrificing Christ for the sake of any argument and in the next breath glorify Satan. It really adds insult to injury.

I have a very personal relationship with Jesus. I can’t allow anyone to use him to their advantage in an argument or debate because Jesus didn’t argue or debate. Christ wouldn’t like it and neither do I. He’s my kind of guy! 😃 If you know what I mean. Anyway, have some fun hunting for that information found in one of the links I’ve provided in my last posted message to this board about Jesus the scientist. It is interesting and gives you a whole new look at the Son of God while he lived on planet Earth.

I’ve placed this quote as a reference for you to review once again, Wampa ~

R. Sungenis: As the proverb says, “a dog returns to his vomit,” so Alec [Jesus] is returning to the excuse that I can’t use GR to disprove his own use of GR because I don’t believe in GR. But as Jesus said to the Pharisees, “A house divided against itself will not stand. If Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself, how then shall his kingdom stand?”(Mt 12:26).

Mary [Jesus]: Robert Sungenis uses Jesus as a pawn! Satan to intimidate! Outrageous! He also implies that Alec is as “a dog returns to his vomit.” This isn’t charity.

You can see I can’t put Jesus] next to Mr. Sungenis in his comment to Alec. Hold that thought! This doesn’t mean that Jesus doesn’t love Mr. Sungenis. Everyone walks away from Christ from time to time. We are human. Anyway, I’ve had the pleasure of teaching children for many years and this is very simple logic that we adults seem to forget from time to time. Myself included…😃
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top