Vatican observatory

[oriel36]

DaveBj:

Well, that’s what it is. Sorry astronomical reality doesn’t agree with the reality you’ve made up for yourself. You’ve never looked at an astronomy textbook, have you? The illustration here en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_day isn’t as good as the one in my astronomy book, but it will do.

I have shown again and again how the value of 23 hours 56 min 04 sec is arrived at through the 24 hour/360 degree equivalency for axial rotation,even if I allow for unfamiliarity it should be obvious without any equivocation that there is no way whatsoever to justify the sidereal value astronomically.

360 Degree =24 hours
1 degree = 4 min
.986 deg = 3 min 56 sec

24 hours minus 3 min 56 sec = 23 hours 56 min 04 sec

The only justification for the following utterly stupid and silly Newtonian view is a cartoon sidereal creation which gives the Earth a constant .986 deg orbital displacement which puts it in direct conflict with Kepler’s second law.

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

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

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

All anyone has to do is fit that sidereal picture into an elliptical frame and they will see immediately that further away from the Sun the distance along the orbital circumference becomes greater at the aphelion,again,in direct conflict with Keplerian motion.

For those who do not wish to bother,Newton is cooking the astronomical books and using the astronomical works and insights of Copernicus,Kepler and Roemer with deviousness and insincerity.

For those who don’t even want to go that far,all this rubbish of space warping and time slowing down is a direct result of a simple error made a few centuries ago and exploited by Newton.

 

[oriel36]

DaveBj:

There’s a name for this logical fallacy–the ad hominem attack. So-and-so (in this case, Newton) is wrong about Subject A (in this case, theology); therefore, he must also be wrong about Subject B (astronomical mechanics). By the same token, because I would be wrong if I tried to expound on the grammar of the Turkish language (a language I do not speak), I should not be listened to if I tried to expound on the grammar of the Russian language (the language I have my degrees in). Again, I would not consult Einstein or Hawkings on matters of theology, but they sure as heck have made the universe a lot more understandable.

DaveBj

I am most certainly a Catholic and a Christian,the most fundamental tenet of my faith is directly from Jesus - " Without me you can do nothing".It may be fine that Newton wished to turn Jesus into God’s moral spokemand leaving him to speak as God’s chosen scientific spokesman but the source of all genius within Western tradition always relied on the Trinity in some shape or form.

The later guys such as Albert are simply Newtonian offshoots who expanded Newtonian conceptions from his odd quasi-geocentric creation to outright homocentricity,the lowest form of existence to which a human being may fall.

What do you think,that humanity will take a mathematicians word on what constitutes genius and human achievement while it is obvious that they can’t even figure out the basic principles behind the equable 24 hour clock day and how it applies to axial rotation as an independent motion.

Newton was incompetent on astronomical matters and especially on the matter of Ole Roemer and finite light distance.This specific insight remains one of the greatest intuitive achievements of humanity but remains buried in Newtonian dross where he mixes it with Keplerian motion.

Then the primary planets, by radii drawn to the earth, describe areas no wise proportional to the times; but that the areas which they describe by radii drawn to the sun are proportional to the times of description.

For to the earth they appear sometimes direct, sometimes stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are always seen direct, and to proceed with a motion nearly uniform, that is to say, a little swifter in the perihelion and a little slower in the aphelion distances, so as to maintain an equality in the description of the areas. This a noted proposition among astronomers, and particularly demonstrable in Jupiter, from the eclipses of his satellites; by the help of which eclipses, as we have said, the heliocentric longitudes of that planet, and its distances from the sun, are determined.

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

I refuse to believe that no Catholic exists who has confidence enough to go back to the original Newtonian conceptions and figure out where he took shortcuts,where he lied and hiow he managed to bluster and bluff his way through real astronomical insights.

 

[puzzleannie]

what on earth (or in the heavens) is this poster talking about? Newton came along long after the Gregorian calendar was proposed so the Church can hardly be faulted for failing to take his mathematics into their calculations of the calendar. Newton was not in any way, shape or form a Catholic apologist so his work and conclusions are irrelevant to anyone bent on using this issue to attack Church authority in any area.

In any case, it has been several centuries since the Church had the authority to determine how the world reckons and measures the passage of time. All they worry about now is the calculation of the date of Easter, by which the liturgical calendar is determined. Poster should aim his barbs at the UN or whoever is in charge.

 

[oriel36]

DaveBj:

My kids are long out of school. Neither of them works in a field that is influenced by terrestrial ballistics. Newton was, in fact, a peevish tyrant, but I can follow him where he was right (planetary motion), while ignoring him where he is wrong (theology).

One thing I am glad about–that you don’t teach in any classes I take.

DaveBj

Planetary motion does not work on terrestial ballistics and you can’t get it to work on terrestial ballistics without a huge fudge.

It should have been taken for granted when the solar system’s motion around the Milky axis was discovered that concepts built on an isolated solar system with ‘fixed stars’ in the background would be obselete up to and including all concepts of the early 20th century (stellar rotation around galactic axis was discovered in the mid 1920’s).

“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.”

Do any of you realise that I am trying to save astronomy from Newtonian insicerity and wrongheadedness or the truly awful cartoon abstractions of the early 20th century.If Catholics support and defend these concepts without testing their accuracy or relying on the testimony of scientists for validity it sure plays into the hands of evil.

Kids rely on our sincerity and our ability to protect them,this being one of the great things about growing up in a Catholic community and indeed it is common to all decent people of all beliefs or none.Newtonian quasi-geocentricity give rise to relativistic homocentricity or the commonly expressed ‘everything is relative’ and no doubt it will be prefaced with “you don’t understand it” I have great faith that beyond the linguistic fireworks Catholics will indeed come to understand the horrible vandalism wrought on the once noble discipline of astronomy and worse still,the passing on of a festering sore of a concept to future generations.

 

[oriel36]

adstrinity:

oriel36, If this is big news, as you are purporting it to be, WHY don’t you go public with this? I mean, take it to the media, influence others because you don’t want our children to grow up ignorant & all. Maybe you’ll be able to get them to change time and such for the sake of accuracy. Why tell us? We’re not going to change it.

The material is public one way or another,everytime you go to study the origins of clocks or the greatest scientific challenge of the 16th,17th and 18th century known as the longitude problem,the correct value is given for the axial rotation of the Earth through 360 degrees as an independent and constant motion.

Use Newtonian mechanics and the value alters to 23 hours 56 min 04 sec for rotation through 360 degrees and Flamsteed’s way of ‘proving’ constant axial rotation.

There is one and only one value for the independent rotation of the Earth on its axis,the fact the scientists pick the wrong value or rather use the original principles for axial rotation as 24 hours/360 deg to determine a calendrial average of 23 hours 56 min should alert participants here that two rates for the independent rotation of the Earth must conceal considerable astronomical damage.

Anyone here want to know how relativistic homocentricity translates into ‘every valid point is the center of the universe’ and people are supposed to celebrate this truly awful empirical excess as some achievement.

 

[oriel36]

Steve Andersen:

Are you sad that the heliocentric model was debunked?

Go ahead and explain yourself,explain how after Copernicus determined that the Earth spins on its axis and orbits the Sun Newton backslid into an odd form of geocentricity where the Earth around the Sun is the same as the Sun around the Earth.

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

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

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

It is obvious you never went outside and experienced the Copernican insight let alone deal with the fiction from Newton above.

Kepler would have calculated the motion of the planet from a line drawn through the center of the planet’s orbit (panis quadragesimalis) rather than mean Sun/Earth distances.Turns out that Albert did to Isaac what Isaac did to Kepler leaving a bigger mess that we unfortunately inherited.

 

[Steve_Andersen]

what on earth (or in the heavens) is this poster talking about?..

I tried to write a concise explanation of orbital mechanics and time

But it was getting out of hand

Suffice it to say that the length of the “day” and the year vary depending on whether you are using the sun for a reference point or the stars

Basically the earth spins, wobbles, and revolves around the sun all at the same time

So when we look at things that aren’t on the earth it is sort of like being on a tilt-a-whirl and trying to keep track of a fixed point is difficult

 

[oriel36]

Steve Andersen:

Suffice it to say that the length of the “day” and the year vary depending on whether you are using the sun for a reference point or the stars

You do not,I repeat you do not have a choice in the matter and the original determination which still is valid is based on a rotation rate of 24 hours exactly with no external reference for that independent rotation,neither the Sun nor the other stars.

You fall for the same mistake over and over again.the pre-Copernican average day via the Equation of Time correction to smooth out the inequality of the natural unequal days translates into constant axial rotation within a heliocentric system.

As axial and orbital motion to the Sun are compound motions independent of each other there can be no external reference for axial rotation as an independent motion.Empirical numbskulls believe there is an external reference for constant axial rotation -

"… our clocks kept so good a correspondence with the Heavens that Idoubt 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

If Catholics can’t be trusted to spot the error in Flamsteed’s thinking insofar as he is using the Equation of Time principle which keeps the Earth’s rotation constant at 24/360 to prove an alternative value of 23 hours 56 min then how are they going to appreceate their Christian heritage which partly relies on majestic reasoning.

Unless you have’nt noticed,the Earth is spinning on its axis and you are spinning with it hence you have no choice in the matter in determing what the value is for axial rotation as an independent motion.You may wish to be a dummy like Flamsteed and calculate axial and orbital motions as a single combined motion but at that stage you already have lost the Copernican/Keplerian insight.

I assure you that the simple matter of the Earth’s rotation can become rapidly complex when more thought is given the the foundation of the connection between geometry,astronomy and clocks.Ultimately Newton’s adoption of the sidereal value skews the astronomical picture from the magnificence of Copernicus/Kepler to a cartoon mechanistic view .

 

[clmowry]

I give. What in the world does this have to do with Catholic appologetics?

What theological truth is based on the number of minutes in a day?

Chuck

 

[oriel36]

clmowry:

I give. What in the world does this have to do with Catholic appologetics?

What theological truth is based on the number of minutes in a day?

Chuck

Newton did not believe in the Trinity yet his empirical tradition or the scientific method applied to planetary motion is celebrated as an achievement in Western Europe, the empirical sensibilities are now seen on the same footing as a Christian faith.

The empirical disciples of Newton created the fiction of the trajectory of discovery from Copernicus- Kepler - Galileo- Newton which remains today and managed to insert the Church as a simpleminded institution condemning what it did not understand but technically or theologically Catholics should know that Galileo backed the Church into a corner and did’nt leave it with much of an option.

Perhaps Western traditions are so indoctrinated into the ‘genius’ of Newton that it may be impossible to think differently but in technical matters applied to planetary motion Newton’s blustering and bluffing is a stomach turning and heartbreaking experience iand especially his vandalism of astronomical methods and insights by the use of technical linguistic fireworks.

Newton’s return to quasi-geocentricity which permits the Sun around the Earth to be as valid as the Earth around the Sun dilutes all notions of human achievement ahead of it and especially the insight of Copernicus.How Catholics allowed this to happen may be understandable to a degree as the major error in principle occured at the intricate means for determining axial rotation as an independent motion but building models of celestial structure and motion on the wrong value as Newton did is unforgivable.

This is what happens when you deny the Trinity so before you say science deals with one thing and religion something else remember that too is a convenient empirical fiction.

I take the same view of the empirical tradition as Copernicus took on those who could not master basic principles or created one to their liking.

Copernicus wrote;

… although they have extracted from them the apparent motions, with numerical agreement, nevertheless . . . . They are just like someone including in a picture hands, feet, head, and other limbs from different places, well painted indeed, but not modeled from the same body, and not in the least matching each other, so that a monster would be produced from them rather than a man. Thus in the process of their demonstrations, which they call their system, they are found either to have missed out something essential, or to have brought in something inappropriate and wholly irrelevant, which would not have happened to
them if they had followed proper principles. For if the hypotheses
which they assumed had not been fallacies, everything which follows from them could be independently verified." De revolutionibus, 1543

 

[oriel36]

puzzleannie:

what on earth (or in the heavens) is this poster talking about? Newton came along long after the Gregorian calendar was proposed so the Church can hardly be faulted for failing to take his mathematics into their calculations of the calendar. Newton was not in any way, shape or form a Catholic apologist so his work and conclusions are irrelevant to anyone bent on using this issue to attack Church authority in any area.

In any case, it has been several centuries since the Church had the authority to determine how the world reckons and measures the passage of time. All they worry about now is the calculation of the date of Easter, by which the liturgical calendar is determined. Poster should aim his barbs at the UN or whoever is in charge.

Strip away everything and I have shown you an amazing error based on a single motion and even in hazy outlines,Catholics will recognise that something has to suffer if you choose principles based on the wrong value for axial rotation.

John Paul II was a great man in so many respects but he had no advisors on matters relating to natural phenomena or at least people pragmatic enough to know that there never was or is something comparable to faith based on love.

There is no dialogue needed between denominational Christianity and science for the investigation of natural phenomena is simply a facet of faith and always will be.

While John Paul II basically accepted the empirical fiction of Newton as the great ‘genius’ he could not have known the arian tendencies behind Newton’s thinking which would disqualify he works as coming as a gift from God.

clavius.as.arizona.edu/vo/R1024/ppt-Message.html

 

[SeekerJen]

??? :ehh:

 

[trth_skr]

Oriel36:

Is it fair to say that your argument rests on the issue of elliptical orbits, which do not have a constant displacement throughout the year? Is your issue only that we are averaging in order to keep things simpler?

What are you proposing as an alternate. Should we have the position of the sun at high noon vary in position throughout the year (it would not be a huge difference in position). Why do it?

Also, you seem to imply that the heliocentric model is destroyred by this issue. In fact, Corpenicus and Galileo’s heliocentric models (sun at center of the universe) do not exist. Once you start talking a heliocentric solar system in an acentric universe, you have no choice but to start considering relativity and other such theories (which you reject outright).

I would argue that your issue is just as valid (or invalid) in a properly developed geocentric model of the universe-i.e., stationary earth, rotating universe (24 hours per revolution) with at least an annual precession (on average the change of .986 deg. daily), planets rotating around the sun (earth is not a “planet”)- i.e., a Tycho Brahe or neo-Tycho Brahe model with Keplerian elliptical orbits (note that the universe is not “orbiting” around the earth, but rather spinning, much like a gyroscope).

The advantage of the geocentric model is that it squares with the Bible (geostaionism) and does not conflict with official pronouncements f the Popes (who condemned Corpenicanism as a reality rather than a mathematical model), and has support of he fathers. Also, you can eliminate much of Einsteinian relativity, by actually having a reference (the earth).

What do you think?

MJW

 

[need_to_know]

Ahem, I think he won the argument when he used this letter:

oriel36:

Æ

 

[oriel36]

trth_skr:

Oriel36:

Is it fair to say that your argument rests on the issue of elliptical orbits, which do not have a constant displacement throughout the year? Is your issue only that we are averaging in order to keep things simpler?

MJW

Absolutely not !,the issues are so numerous that it would almost be impossible to list them all and especially in restoring some semblance of balance to the discipline of astronomy and from there to generate some productive work instead of this exotic relativistic/qm nonsense.

The primary issue has always been quite simple -

The Earth’s axial rotation is a single independent motion with a very specific value - 24 hours exactly.Scientists or rather empiricists get it wrong and attribute the wrong value for that revolution event as 23 hours 56 min 04 sec.

Newton adopted the framework for the sidereal value and built his ballistic concepts on it ,this one -

astrosun2.astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses/astro201/images/sidereal_day.gif

At the very least a Catholic with a little effort should be capable of determining that within an elliptical framework,a .986 degree change in the orbital circumference would generate a different picture than Kepler’s second law for planetary motion.

bridgewater.edu/departments/physics/ISAW/planet-orb-2nd-law.gif

You are indeed averaging axial and orbital motion but this does not make things simpler,it screws up the ability to work on things such as the difference between axial and orbital motion during an ice age or the inability to take into account astronomical influences on the development of surface crustal features such as Earthquakes and long tem crustal motion.

Praise Newton all you like for simplyfying things by combining axial and orbital motions into a single sidereal motion but then you already have destroyed the major part of astronomy and any chance of working in greater rotations and its influence on planetary heliocentric motion.

 

[oriel36]

trth_skr:

Oriel36:

What are you proposing as an alternate. Should we have the position of the sun at high noon vary in position throughout the year (it would not be a huge difference in position). Why do it?

Newton created the idea of framehopping and the myth that geocentric view is as valid as a heliocentric view.The only valid representation of such an equivalency is the sidereal determination but that is little more than a cartoon version of planetary motion.

‘Noon’ in astronomical terms is when a position on Earth along axial longitudes rotates to face the Sun directly,it has nothing to do with the Sun’s apparent motion or motion.

AM and PM are designations which astronomers once used to synchronise their clocks from one 24 hour day to the next 24 hour day by using noon and the Equation of Time correction to equalise the natural inequality from noon to noon that they knew existed.

Empirical freaks on the other hand believe a position on Earth rotates to face the Sun directly every 24 hours exactly,they have no choice as this is how they justify their odd value for constant axial rotation to the stars in 23 hours 56 min 04 sec.

 

[oriel36]

trth_skr:

Oriel36:

Also, you seem to imply that the heliocentric model is destroyred by this issue. In fact, Corpenicus and Galileo’s heliocentric models (sun at center of the universe) do not exist. Once you start talking a heliocentric solar system in an acentric universe, you have no choice but to start considering relativity and other such theories (which you reject outright).

MJW

The heliocentric model for planetary motion is utterly destroyed by the maneuver that seen Newton transfer Flamsteed’s erroeous proof for axial rotation to an external reference (fixed star) to a geocentric/heliocentric orbital equivalency.

This Sir is fraud,it is possible to conceal it through grafting in the name of Galileo beside Copernicus as a point of departure for Newton and hope nobody will know the difference but I assure you I do.When the Church is getting hammered over the treatment of Galileo by contemporary empiricists who conveniently forget or don’t know why the use of hypothesis had a different meaning in astronomical terms and methods in that era that hypothesis as it is understood in ours.

Hypothesis would have reflected the intuitive abilities to seperate observed motions of celestial phenomena with their true motions while hypothesis today is little more than undisciplined guesswork.

 

[oriel36]

trth_skr:

Oriel36:

I would argue that your issue is just as valid (or invalid) in a properly developed geocentric model of the universe-i.e., stationary earth, rotating universe (24 hours per revolution) with at least an annual precession (on average the change of .986 deg. daily), planets rotating around the sun (earth is not a “planet”)- i.e., a Tycho Brahe or neo-Tycho Brahe model with Keplerian elliptical orbits (note that the universe is not “orbiting” around the earth, but rather spinning, much like a gyroscope).

MJW

We are dealing with largescale fraud and perhaps others have time for the shock value of Newtonian or relativistic sensibilities but I do not.The self-correcting mechanism which seen the Tychonian model where the Sun and the orbit of Mars would intersect failed at Newton,it was’nt there or simply Newton concealed his awful maneuvering under a blizzard of lenguistic fireworks that his pronouncement could have meant anything.The idiots in the early 20th century exploited Newtonian ambiguities and set Newton up as a stool pidgeon for the spacetime freaks.

Newton was a peevish tyrant with no attributes in handling astronomical insights and methods and likewise found in his disciples,living or dead.Kepler used the Ptolomeic Equant in deriving the insight on the changes in the Earth’s orbital speed but Newton accuses Ptolemy of fraud when Ptolemy as a geocentrist was doing the best he could without the heliocentric insight.

“This is the story of a scientific crime. … I mean a crime committed by a scientist against fellow scientists and scholars, a betrayal of the ethics and integrity of his profession that has forever deprived mankind of fundamental information about an important area of astronomy and history…
[Ptolemy] developed certain astronomical theories and discovered that they were not consistent with observation. Instead of abandoning the theories, he deliberately fabricated observations from the theories so that he could claim that the observations prove the validity of his theories. In every scientific or scholarly setting known, this practice is called fraud, and it is a crime against science and scholarship.”

www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Ptolemy.html

People admire a rogue when nobody is getting hurt but secularisation through the empirical dominance over belief in Western thinking is wasting away the minds of young people and the point of departure for the empirical or scientific method originates with Newton.

The empiricist says ‘begin in doubt and end in certainties through experimentation’ but faith says ‘Behold,all this is yours just so long as you claim nothing for yourself and God will reveal Himself in man and nature through Christ Divine’.

 

[Ghosty]

Wow, oriel36, you sure hate yourself some Newton.

I have to say that this is, by *far, the *funniest thread I have ever read on the Catholic Answers Forums. I don’t want the mods to ever close it. In fact, I want them to give Oriel36 his own forum. This stuff is brilliant. You and the Timecube guy, timecube.com/, need to get together!

 

[oriel36]

trth_skr:

Oriel36:

The advantage of the geocentric model is that it squares with the Bible (geostaionism) and does not conflict with official pronouncements of the Popes (who condemned Corpenicanism as a reality rather than a mathematical model), and has support of he fathers. Also, you can eliminate much of Einsteinian relativity, by actually having a reference (the earth).

What do you think?

MJW

The Judaeo-Christian authors protected their texts and especially the exquisite means by which they used mathematical facets to subdue their narratives from swamping the primary Spiritual messages within the text.

The pathetic arguments of the empiricists (Catholic or not ) and creationists stand in sharp contrast to the wisdom of the Divine scribes who knew too well how people can behave and think like brutes.

You try and force geocentrism into the vast collection of books called generically as the ‘Bible’ but when it comes to precision in say,looking at the Genesis chronology you may conveniently overlook the mathematical means by which the Hebrew author(s) elegantly hid the means which prebvent the narrative from swamping the Spiritual message.

Only the unimaginative miss the reference of Enoch age of 365 years but then again when have empiricists ever used imagination for anything other than intellectual vandalism.

Genesis 5 Genealogy.

Age of father at birth of son.

Adam 130 years
Seth 105
Enosh 90
Kenan 70
Mahalel 65
Jared 162
Enoch 65
Methusaleh 187
Lamech 182
Noah 600 (age at time of flood Gen 7)

Total years from creation to flood = 1656 years

1656 AT 52.17 per year = 86,393.52 weeks

Gen 7 " in the second month,on the 17th day of the month" where Noah is 600 yrs old at time of flood is anywhere within the 45th day 45.36/7 day week =6.48 weeks).

86,393.52 + 6.48 = 86,400 weeks from creation to destruction. Gen 7 “on the precise day named”

There are 86,400 seconds in a 24 hour cycle.

I know that the equable day and its division into 24 hours is very,very old for it stands to reason that it is needed even before you can construct a calendar system based on 365 and a quarter days with a leap day every four years .Empiricists have fostered the fiction of discovery by beginning with the Greeks for it suits their empirical purposes of natural philosophy from Bacon and Newton as updated versions of Aristotle,Plato ect and that intervening astronomers used the same principles and methods.They did not.