Originally posted by Yttrium
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Natural Science 301 Guidelines
This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.
As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.
Forum Rules: Here
As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Is the Stationary Earth the Heaviest Object in the Universe?
Collapse
X
-
NoJorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.
MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.
seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...
Comment
-
Originally posted by Yttrium View PostThat's a pretty small volume, all right. Well, that would blow out current theories of how stars burn, because it's just not big enough for that.http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html
Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!
Comment
-
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostMost geocentrists think the entire universe is less than one light year across.
I do.http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html
Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!
Comment
-
Originally posted by hansgeorg View PostI consider, as you might conceive, astrophysics a very moot "science".
By the way, there's a thought problem you should consider. We've discussed it with JohnMartin here before. We have quite a few geostationary satellites up there, doing all sorts of useful things, such as communications and television transmission. They're put in orbit about 22,300 miles above the Earth. Their orbits are designed to keep them above a single spot on the Earth. The idea is that they move at just the right speed so they match the rotation of the Earth. If the Earth is stationary, then the geostationary satellites wouldn't be able to move. They'd just be hovering in place up there, and they should fall straight down due to gravity. So if the Earth is stationary, how do they stay up? Or are they some elaborate hoax, and there are no geostationary satellites?Middle-of-the-road swing voter. Feel free to sway my opinion.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Yttrium View PostIf the Earth is stationary, then the geostationary satellites wouldn't be able to move. They'd just be hovering in place up there, and they should fall straight down due to gravity. So if the Earth is stationary, how do they stay up? Or are they some elaborate hoax, and there are no geostationary satellites?
Here are six posts mostly between me and Tom Trinko on that one, linking to the first:
http://correspondentia-ioannis-georg...hysics-of.htmlhttp://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html
Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!
Comment
-
Originally posted by hansgeorg View PostEther moving relative to them is as good as them moving relative to aether.
Here are six posts mostly between me and Tom Trinko on that one, linking to the first:
http://correspondentia-ioannis-georg...hysics-of.htmlMiddle-of-the-road swing voter. Feel free to sway my opinion.
Comment
-
They would s t i l l be in movement in relation to the aether, as I t r i e d to explain to Tom Trinko.
Could you read it first before I have to take same debate again?
Back to small stars.
The real issue for astrophysicists about stars needing a minimum mass in order to burn is really about them needing a mass superior to that of Jupiter to self ignite.
Theory of self ignition would imply Jupiter self ignited, if it could. Right material, but too small?
O r self ignition is wrong and ignition by act of God in day IV is right.http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html
Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!
Comment
-
Originally posted by hansgeorg View PostThey would s t i l l be in movement in relation to the aether, as I t r i e d to explain to Tom Trinko.
The real issue for astrophysicists about stars needing a minimum mass in order to burn is really about them needing a mass superior to that of Jupiter to self ignite.
Theory of self ignition would imply Jupiter self ignited, if it could. Right material, but too small?Middle-of-the-road swing voter. Feel free to sway my opinion.
Comment
-
Originally posted by hansgeorg View PostEther moving relative to them is as good as them moving relative to aether.
Here are six posts mostly between me and Tom Trinko on that one, linking to the first:
http://correspondentia-ioannis-georg...hysics-of.html
Basics of Geostationary Orbits
For your aether to be causing this motion it would have to be sloshing back and forth and up and down every 24 hours. In addition it would have to be sloshing back and forth a different amount and different direction for every geo satellite at every point on the 0 deg. inclination equatorial plane.
Bottom line: There is no aether, the Earth is rotating.
Comment
-
Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View PostSorry but that's not going to work. Because the Earth is not a perfect sphere satellites put in a geostationary orbit tend to drift slightly in orbital inclination over time. As they do so their position as seen from the ground begins to trace a figure-8 shape in the sky over a 24 hour period. This pattern is called an analemma.
Basics of Geostationary Orbits
For your aether to be causing this motion it would have to be sloshing back and forth and up and down every 24 hours. In addition it would have to be sloshing back and forth a different amount and different direction for every geo satellite at every point on the 0 deg. inclination equatorial plane.
Bottom line: There is no aether, the Earth is rotating.
A paper by Ernst Mach explains how the distant masses of the stars cause forces on the planets. The paper entitled Machs approach is used by some Geocentrists to explain the forces experienced on earth caused by the rotating star masses. Such forces would also explain how satellties move relative to a stationary Earth.
The problem of satellites invalidates the heliocentric model and can be explained within the geocentric model.
JM
Comment
-
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostI'm still sad to see Sungenis becoming obsessed with geocentrism and anti-zionism. He was actually a very good apologist, as many of the evangelical converts to the Catholic Church have been. However the stuff he engages in now is a dry desert. Nothing of substance grows in it. He flounders around in topics he clearly doesn't understand, and presents his findings with the a self-assurance you wouldn't find even among an ecumenical gathering of bishops.
As for the argument. He's correct that any object with mass can be ascribed a compton wavelength, though he doesn't seem to understand what it means, falling unfortunately into the trap of mistaking an error found in popular science descriptions, that tend to give sizes to these point particles by their compton wavelengths, with their size. As such this would have been fine enough, if Sungenis was honest with himself and his readers that he was an amateur who's clueless about the subject. At least then he could approach the subject with humility and learn.
Instead he takes the size of the universe as the wavelength, using it to calculate what mass an object would have to make such a huge wavelength. Gets a tiny nonsensically small mass, and call it a day.
He doesn't ask why a compton wavelength is much smaller than the baseball's physical size. What it actually relates to. Instead of understanding the big picture of the physics he's using to argue in his defense, he narrows in on a factoid he thinks he understands, plugs in numbers, sees that nonsense comes out and assumes it proves his point.
Its the sad sight of what used to be a good, if a bit aggressive, evangelical Catholic apologist, then turned eccentric, and now turned irreversible into a crank.
Are you intending to answer any of my recent questions in post 14 on this thread?
1) How do you account for the above sources saying the Earth is stationary if the Earth is moving?
2) If the Earth is stationary, why not defend that truth as Robert is doing?
3) If the Earth is moving, how are we to know from science alone if Relativity theory says we cannot be sure of what body is moving past what body?
4) If the Earth is moving, how are we to know with certitude when Geocentrists claim modern Geocentric models account for all the phenomena that is classically presented as evidence for Heliocentrism? For example the existence of parallax, and aberration of star light is classically presented as strong evidence for the Earth's motion, but the new Geo models account for such motion with a stationary earth.
5) If there is no proof from science that the earth is moving, why not consider the earth to be stationary and let the sources of revelation speak for themselves on the matter location and motion of the Earth?
6) If there is proof from science that the Earth is moving, what then is the proof?
7) If there is proof for the stationary Earth from science, how do you explain the fact that geocentrists go to science and show there are several science experiments that provide evidence for a stationary Earth? For example, the Michelson Morely interferometer experiment is used as evidence for a motionless Earth, and WMAP is used to show the Earth is in a special place in the universe.
8) Why dismiss the investigation of a motionless Earth, when as a creationist, you beleive that God can create any universe He desires, which includes the creation of a universe with one or more stationary bodies within the universe?
9) It seems to me that the belief in the Earth's motion is only a belief based upon assumed principles with are said to hold tre throughout the universe. One such principle is the Copernican principle, which says there is no special place in the universe. If such principles underly the commonly held opinion that the Earth moves, why have any strong attachment to such an opinion when at least one of the underlying principles associates with the motion of the Earth in the Copernican principle, now has strong evidence against it in modern science?
10) The Jesuits for some time had to be edcated in astronomy as part of their formation. The Jesuits believed the Earth was stationary, and promoted such to cultures such as the Chinese as part of the evangelisation process. Where historically did the Jesuits get the idea that the Earth is stationary from? Scripture, science, or human opinion?
11) What is your position concerning the 1633 Papal condemnation of Galileo's moving Earth theory, which has never been rescinded?
12) Why should any Catholic take your opinion over that of a currently binding decree of a Pope, if your opinion contradicts that of a Pope?
Comment
-
Originally posted by JohnMartin View PostIf the earth is rotating, then it is also orbiting the sun, as inferred through the Heliocentric model. The Earth's orbit around the sun is not taken into account in the Geostationary orbits.
JM
The stationary Earth wingnuts still can't explain satellite analemma.
Comment
-
Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View PostIt doesn't have to be. The local effects of Earth's gravity completely swamp the minuscule perturbations on the satellite orbit the sun's gravity induces. Of course the barycenter of the Earth / satellite system still orbits the Sun according to standard gravitational theory.
The stationary Earth wingnuts still can't explain satellite analemma.
The distance from the sun to the earth changes about 5,000,000 km/182.5 = 27,397 km/month. The distance values are also not miniscule.
The Helio problem just will not go away.
JM
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by rogue06, 05-03-2024, 02:47 PM
|
3 responses
32 views
1 like
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
05-07-2024, 08:07 PM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 05-03-2024, 12:33 PM
|
5 responses
52 views
2 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
05-14-2024, 11:35 AM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 04-27-2024, 09:38 AM
|
0 responses
14 views
1 like
|
Last Post
by rogue06
04-27-2024, 09:38 AM
|
||
Started by shunyadragon, 04-26-2024, 10:10 PM
|
5 responses
26 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
04-28-2024, 08:10 AM
|
||
Started by shunyadragon, 04-25-2024, 08:37 PM
|
2 responses
14 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
04-25-2024, 10:21 PM
|
Comment