Is the Stationary Earth the Heaviest Object in the Universe?

[Yttrium]

But they are missing each sortie down through the aether by moving tangentially to a circle larger than and concentric to Earth, through the aether.

And they miss tangentiality by always falling down on this circle.

Thanks for the clarification. I'm just going to consider this version of aether to be a Lovecraftian eldritch abomination, due to the strange and inconsistent geometries. But if it works for you, great. I'm not interested in changing your mind on the subject, I've just been interested in learning your point of view, because it's so unusual.

[hansgeorg]

Thanks for the clarification.

You are welcome.

I'm just going to consider this version of aether to be a Lovecraftian eldritch abomination, due to the strange and inconsistent geometries.

I don't think I made any inconsistencies geometrically?

But if it works for you, great. I'm not interested in changing your mind on the subject, I've just been interested in learning your point of view, because it's so unusual.

Not about changing my mind, but if I missed a consistency in geometry to get or an inconsistency of my own to eliminate, draw a diagram please!

[Yttrium]

Not about changing my mind, but if I missed a consistency in geometry to get or an inconsistency of my own to eliminate, draw a diagram please!

By inconsistent, I meant that the aether is going to have to affect different types of satellites differently. There are satellites at a wide range of orbits, from a couple hundred miles up to over 20,000. There are satellites with polar and retrograde orbits. There are satellites with highly elliptical orbits. There are satellites with geostationary and geosynchronous orbits. There's the Moon. And yet the aether manages to move them all around in just the right way... matching our orbital calculations as if the Earth were rotating.

[HMS_Beagle]

You would seem to be supposing aether as only vector. No.

Aether isn't a vector. Aether is moving so that still over Earth becomes a vector in it. The other vector is gravity.

Those two vectors, satellite moving through aether and gravity, are sufficient to explain that too.

I see. It's Moonbat Martins's MAGIC AETHER^tm. It slices, it dices, it chops. It's a floor wax and a dessert topping! It moves in any direction you need it to, applies any force you need it to. How convenient.

9535865378_9fbfa86856_o.jpg

[HMS_Beagle]

Why bother with angelic spirits when little green pixies do the same exact thing?

The angels work cheaper than the little green pixies.

[oxmixmudd]

By inconsistent, I meant that the aether is going to have to affect different types of satellites differently. There are satellites at a wide range of orbits, from a couple hundred miles up to over 20,000. There are satellites with polar and retrograde orbits. There are satellites with highly elliptical orbits. There are satellites with geostationary and geosynchronous orbits. There's the Moon. And yet the aether manages to move them all around in just the right way... matching our orbital calculations as if the Earth were rotating.

The entire things is just silly. A gravitational force proportional to mass and revolving bodies accounts for almost all that we observe in the solar system motions. Factor in relativity and all but the smallest residual remains. An Aether theory that does not resolve to these two(or three) elements (just some 'other' source definition) is a useless monster. Such a theory would be too complex to be understood or to be verified, and would explain nothing that is not already explained by the existing theories.

And to top it off, the motivating factor for this Quixotic search for this monster is itself a horrendous misunderstanding of Church doctrine and the Bible.


Jim

[Sparko]

I see. It's Moonbat Martins's MAGIC AETHER^tm. It slices, it dices, it chops. It's a floor wax and a dessert topping! It moves in any direction you need it to, applies any force you need it to. How convenient.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]19844[/ATTACH]

well, now that we know Aether is really Angels moving things around, that explains how it can do anything it needs to at any time!

[Leonhard]

That is not the same thing as accidents.

I fail to see the point you're making. The only way I can get your 'we've never observed an electron' to make sense, in the sense of never having seen one with the naked eye. But that's trivially true of all microscopic things, that can only be seen through various instruments. Even more so for the structure of DNA, which was can be detected only through (first through crystallography, and today we can do it by NMR spectroscopy).

I would say that aether surrounds nuclei (not rotating around Earth on this level), is thicker just around each and gets actual qualities from a code in nuclei. I would also say it is negatively charged just around nucleus.

You need to get a lot more precise about what you're saying. Is it evenly distributed? Does it, or can it move?

Electrons moving through a magnetic field would be another thing.

If originating in aether around nucleus at all, they would be a particularisation.

I'm not sure your sentence here makes sense. Are we back to talking about electrons bound to nuclei, or are we talking about freely moving electrons?

Like what? I saw no link.

I can give you a link to those retrograde satellites that we have. But you don't need to know of their existence in order to answer a simple question about how something like that would work in your view. After all you consider all the other satelites to sit still in the aether, but here you have a satellite moving against it at eight kilometers per second (or so).

I don't think any satellite is hovering around Earth along with stars in same speed. Any other speed implies movement through aether and thus fits my model.

Again, this sentence appears slightly broken. I'm not quite sure whether you're saying that you think think satellites hover around Earth (as in... they simple don't exist). Or whether you're talking about satellites that move. In the latter case, I don't see how you explain a retrograde orbit.

For the planets, the most well presented evidence is a consideration:

1) we do not know;

But we do. Newtonian mechanics adequately explains the motions, and General Relativity even accounts for anomalous precession. You'd have to have good reason to introduce something new.

be is ruled out because unfitting nobility of celestial bodies

'b' is spelled 'b' not 'bee'

Also that's a nonsensical argument. It presumes a geocentric view, whereas instead we know that the the motions of the planets are governed by simple physics.

If God is moving aether and aether is doing the daily job of moving a celestial body around Earth each approx day (exactly for Sun, faster for stars, slower for moon), if this happens at star speed, this leaves the slower movements to angels, and if you know anything about Tychonian orbits, it is quite an aesthetic pattern.

Oh yes I remember in the history of science department they had many posters of these hanging. Its aesthetical, beautiful, pleasing to look at, but it's wrong.

Except when he was, as with his conclusions about the Blessed Sacrament being confirmed by a vision.

That does not make him an oracle. The blessed mother herself could have appeared by his bed side and told everyone that what he had said was true, and even then it would have no binding force on believers, except perhaps for the few present in that moment. St. Thomas Aquinas was the grandmaster of doctrinal theology. However he got things wrong. Even by our reckoning, serious things. The question of the moment of conception was one of the things he got wrong. Though to defend St. Thomas, he would have been just as strongly against abortion regardless.

Yes, sure. ... Great observation, but what is the point?

That its not enough to cite Aquinas. Tell me why he believed what he did. Outside of that, the reasons he employ, his opinion doesn't carry any lasting weight. Especially not when it comes to matters of natural philosophy. Its not that part of his writings that has stood the test of time.

In this case he was very much not just tsuck with Aristotle. ... In effect, Aristotle is not a great genius on female dignity.

There is no doubt that St. Thomas Aquinas relied heavily on Aristotle and the commentaries of him at his time. It was his source of what was science. He didn't do any himself. He wrote about those who had done so. As such when writing about natural philosophy he should be treated first and foremost as a philosopher, and you should look at the strengths of the arguments he makes, and what knowledge he bases his conclusions on.

Taking his words as truth, because it's said by St. Thomas Aquinas is naive, as much respect of the angelic doctor as I have.

[JohnMartin]

Not so. There have been (incorrect) astronomy models proposed in which the Earth rotates but does not orbit the sun.

But thanks for ensuring that we don't need to even read a whole sentence before rejecting what you write.

You have misquoted me. You have once again provided further evidence that you are immature.

JM

[shunyadragon]

You've cancelled out the eastward movement (with an inconsistent handwave), and so you've guaranteed that the satellite will fall straight down. A satellite stays in orbit by having enough velocity parallel to the surface of the Earth that it keeps falling around the Earth and never hitting the ground. If it's not moving around the Earth, it's falling down to the ground.

. . . like canon ball falling from the tower of Pisa.

[JonF]

be is ruled out because unfitting nobility of celestial bodies

'b' is spelled 'b' not 'bee'

He might have meant "be". Moonbat JM often used it as a noun. I could never figure out what he meant by it.

[Roy]

You have misquoted me.

I have not.

If you wish to continue to claim I have, then provide
(i) your actual text,
(ii) my misquote.

You have once again provided further evidence that you are immature.

You haven't provided any evidence of anything.

[hansgeorg]

I fail to see the point you're making. The only way I can get your 'we've never observed an electron' to make sense, in the sense of never having seen one with the naked eye. But that's trivially true of all microscopic things, that can only be seen through various instruments. Even more so for the structure of DNA, which was can be detected only through (first through crystallography, and today we can do it by NMR spectroscopy).

And we can add that parallax is only viewed through a telescope.

What I am saying though is that there is a difference, not quite trivial, between seing an object itself, even if only with "enhanced eyes", that is eyes enhanced by instruments, and detecting an object with more indirect methods.

You need to get a lot more precise about what you're saying. Is it evenly distributed? Does it, or can it move?

I'm not sure your sentence here makes sense. Are we back to talking about electrons bound to nuclei, or are we talking about freely moving electrons?

I was saying that the "electron moving" through a magnetic field originates, by "particularisation" in part of aether and electric charge of the surrounding of a nucleus.

I can give you a link to those retrograde satellites that we have. But you don't need to know of their existence in order to answer a simple question about how something like that would work in your view. After all you consider all the other satelites to sit still in the aether, but here you have a satellite moving against it at eight kilometers per second (or so).

Again, this sentence appears slightly broken. I'm not quite sure whether you're saying that you think think satellites hover around Earth (as in... they simple don't exist). Or whether you're talking about satellites that move. In the latter case, I don't see how you explain a retrograde orbit.

But we do. Newtonian mechanics adequately explains the motions, and General Relativity even accounts for anomalous precession. You'd have to have good reason to introduce something new.

You are saying "because a adequately explains known phenomenon we know a is true" and at same time "even though b adequately explains known phenomenon, b is not true, simply because a is". That is a paralogism, a fallacy.

I am giving the reasoning of Riccioli and reaffirming that at the most basic, we do not know.

What you call adequate explanation is not proof.

'b' is spelled 'b' not 'bee'

Typo or hacking?

Also that's a nonsensical argument. It presumes a geocentric view, whereas instead we know that the the motions of the planets are governed by simple physics.

No, we don't know it, you think you know it.

Oh yes I remember in the history of science department they had many posters of these hanging. Its aesthetical, beautiful, pleasing to look at, but it's wrong.

So, you know it is wrong exactly how?

That does not make him an oracle. The blessed mother herself could have appeared by his bed side and told everyone that what he had said was true, and even then it would have no binding force on believers, except perhaps for the few present in that moment. St. Thomas Aquinas was the grandmaster of doctrinal theology. However he got things wrong. Even by our reckoning, serious things. The question of the moment of conception was one of the things he got wrong. Though to defend St. Thomas, he would have been just as strongly against abortion regardless.

His getting that wrong doesn't mean he was wrong on the astronomic issue.

That its not enough to cite Aquinas. Tell me why he believed what he did. Outside of that, the reasons he employ, his opinion doesn't carry any lasting weight. Especially not when it comes to matters of natural philosophy. Its not that part of his writings that has stood the test of time.

Time can test a physical object. Time's fashion does not test a theory, only refutations do.

As to why, I was giving you the argument of Riccioli.

There is no doubt that St. Thomas Aquinas relied heavily on Aristotle and the commentaries of him at his time. It was his source of what was science. He didn't do any himself. He wrote about those who had done so. As such when writing about natural philosophy he should be treated first and foremost as a philosopher, and you should look at the strengths of the arguments he makes, and what knowledge he bases his conclusions on.

He had other sources for science, too, like Avicenna.

Taking his words as truth, because it's said by St. Thomas Aquinas is naive, as much respect of the angelic doctor as I have.

But I take it as truth because it makes sense.

[hansgeorg]

. . . like canon ball falling from the tower of Pisa.

[hansgeorg]

He might have meant "be". Moonbat JM often used it as a noun. I could never figure out what he meant by it.

I meant b, because I was giving first an overview, with a, b, c, d, then ruling out all except d.