Problems with Heliocentrism

[JohnMartin]

Dumbo,

What does this sermon have to do with Heliocentrism?

Showing Roy's atheism is a moral problem. He is not worthy of trust.

JM

[klaus54]

Showing Roy's atheism is a moral problem. He is not worthy of trust.

JM

Which, true or not, has nothing to do with this thread or science in general.

Physical evidence plus the fairness of scientific method drive the foray into exploration of nature.

[JohnMartin]

Which, true or not, has nothing to do with this thread or science in general.

Physical evidence plus the fairness of scientific method drive the foray into exploration of nature.

This sounds good on paper, but in practice, the principle of the scientific method is routinely lost due to preconceived world views. Atheism causes Roy to prejudge any theory that does not align with the standard physics models. The false prejudgment is based at least in part upon a false world view. Here is an example. Roy thinks relativity theory is part of modern science. Relativity theory says there is no preferred reference frame. Yet when the stationary earth is discussed, he routinely ignores the fact that most geostationary claims work quite well in an earth centered reference frame. Relativity permits this approach, but Roy forbids it. Roy also rejects creation over abiogenesis and evolutionary theory. Abiogenesis has virtually no evidence and evolutionary theory is increasingly under pressure from critics. He is forced to do embrace an untenable theory because of his atheism which prohibits a creation event.

Roy embraces atheism, which is an untenable world view. Why untenable? Atheism cannot account for being. What cannot account for being, cannot account for anything that exists at all. Therefore atheism cannot account for any science, or any science experiment, or any human thought. Everything exists within atheism as a brute fact. The phrase "brute fact" really means all of reality within atheism is a mindless superstition simply because things exist, which should not exist. Things exist for no reason whatsoever, hence they have a power in them that is unreasonable. However, this unreasonable power that permeates all things is merely a projection into reality by atheism, because atheism itself is unreasonable and therefore superstitious. For things do exist, and the existence of things is only reasonable in the theistic worldview, which says God is the universal cause of being. Such is rejected by atheism.

Roy embraces abiogenesis and evolution, which concludes to pantheism and not atheism. Abiogenesis, evolution, pantheism and atheism are all untenable parts of his world view.

Roy most probably embraces materialism, which cannot account for any abstract thought or human language, nor any published papers.

Roy rejects theism and the body-soul anthropology found in the major world religions. The theistic world view and the body-soul anthropology are eminently reasonable understandings of the world which he rejects. Roy has no good reason to reject either, making his world view anti-intellectual.

Roy is conundrum. He is both an educated intellectual and someone who has chosen a world view that is thoroughly intellectually indefensible.


JM

[lilpixieofterror]

You still haven't answered the rebuttal post, nor the problem. And your foul mouth persists. The second coin will have the same flight path as the first. The only difference is the table moves underneath the coin 2. Same problem with the satellite and the moving earth.

Interesting that I haven't said anything any worse than anybody else here, but somehow I am singled out for being 'foul mouthed'. Why is that nutcase? Do you not like it when ladies show you up? Anyway, you're entire 'experiment' is based on your ignorance and misunderstanding of gravity. Seriously, Newton wrote about this 250 years ago; do you really believe that for all that time, that nobody noticed your little simple 'experiment' invalidated newton mechanics? If so, you're even crazier than I first thought and beyond all reason. It's rather simple nutcase, your experiment is based on your own ignorance and misunderstandings of gravity and how it actually works. That's the answer, you're a nut job that hasn't got a clue what he's talking about.

Helio has been invalidated.

Only in nutcase land.

[oxmixmudd]

This would be the mirror version of the Helio seat belt gravity. Try not to laugh at a mirror version of your own model.

JM

Sigh - a force that can be measured and demonstrated experimentally is not the same as little lamps inside the moon just to avoid the conclusion the Sun is 93million miles away and the Earth and Moon orbit each other and the Sun because of this same measurable and demonstratable force - gravity.

Like I said, you're a troll or your mind is broken, either way, this 'persona' of John Martin has not the slightest clue how to connect using logic the data which can be observed into a reasoned explanation of what we see.


Jim

[klaus54]

This sounds good on paper, but in practice, the principle of the scientific method is routinely lost due to preconceived world views. Atheism causes Roy to prejudge any theory that does not align with the standard physics models. The false prejudgment is based at least in part upon a false world view. Here is an example. Roy thinks relativity theory is part of modern science. Relativity theory says there is no preferred reference frame. Yet when the stationary earth is discussed, he routinely ignores the fact that most geostationary claims work quite well in an earth centered reference frame. Relativity permits this approach, but Roy forbids it. Roy also rejects creation over abiogenesis and evolutionary theory. Abiogenesis has virtually no evidence and evolutionary theory is increasingly under pressure from critics. He is forced to do embrace an untenable theory because of his atheism which prohibits a creation event.

Roy embraces atheism, which is an untenable world view. Why untenable? Atheism cannot account for being. What cannot account for being, cannot account for anything that exists at all. Therefore atheism cannot account for any science, or any science experiment, or any human thought. Everything exists within atheism as a brute fact. The phrase "brute fact" really means all of reality within atheism is a mindless superstition simply because things exist, which should not exist. Things exist for no reason whatsoever, hence they have a power in them that is unreasonable. However, this unreasonable power that permeates all things is merely a projection into reality by atheism, because atheism itself is unreasonable and therefore superstitious. For things do exist, and the existence of things is only reasonable in the theistic worldview, which says God is the universal cause of being. Such is rejected by atheism.

Roy embraces abiogenesis and evolution, which concludes to pantheism and not atheism. Abiogenesis, evolution, pantheism and atheism are all untenable parts of his world view.

Roy most probably embraces materialism, which cannot account for any abstract thought or human language, nor any published papers.

Roy rejects theism and the body-soul anthropology found in the major world religions. The theistic world view and the body-soul anthropology are eminently reasonable understandings of the world which he rejects. Roy has no good reason to reject either, making his world view anti-intellectual.

Roy is conundrum. He is both an educated intellectual and someone who has chosen a world view that is thoroughly intellectually indefensible.


JM

Oy! The projection...

The main philosophy of science is that what we're able to observe in the physical world is objective reality. Theologically, for a Christian, that philosophy obviates a trickster deceitful liar god.

Thus, if the solar system appears and still appears to be heliocentric after a myriad of consilient observations, then it IS heliocentric.

If Earth's geology indicates deep time and deep history after a myriad of consilient observations, then deep time and deep history IS true.

Etc., etc.

Now, for this explanation I'm ASSUMING "your" not a despicable troll, which I highly doubt.

If you really believe the crap you spew, then you really, Really, REALLY need psychological help.

[klaus54]

JohnnyMartin might be interested in how gravity can be measured very precisely, so precise in fact that geologists use gravimeters to detect dense ore deposits.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravimetry

[JohnMartin]

Interesting that I haven't said anything any worse than anybody else here, but somehow I am singled out for being 'foul mouthed'. Why is that nutcase? Do you not like it when ladies show you up? Anyway, you're entire 'experiment' is based on your ignorance and misunderstanding of gravity. Seriously, Newton wrote about this 250 years ago; do you really believe that for all that time, that nobody noticed your little simple 'experiment' invalidated newton mechanics? If so, you're even crazier than I first thought and beyond all reason. It's rather simple nutcase, your experiment is based on your own ignorance and misunderstandings of gravity and how it actually works. That's the answer, you're a nut job that hasn't got a clue what he's talking about.



Only in nutcase land.

Apparently a butterfly in a car turns left when the car turns left, because the cars gravity causes the butterfly to move with the car. Same principle applies to the satellites. The objection that the gravity force of the earth is larger avoids the problems already discussed and never answered. The earth simply cannot provide the force required to keep those butterfly satellites orbiting with the earth's velocity changes.

JM

[JohnMartin]

Oy! The projection...

The main philosophy of science is that what we're able to observe in the physical world is objective reality. Theologically, for a Christian, that philosophy obviates a trickster deceitful liar god.

Thus, if the solar system appears and still appears to be heliocentric after a myriad of consilient observations, then it IS heliocentric.

If Earth's geology indicates deep time and deep history after a myriad of consilient observations, then deep time and deep history IS true.

Etc., etc.

Now, for this explanation I'm ASSUMING "your" not a despicable troll, which I highly doubt.

If you really believe the crap you spew, then you really, Really, REALLY need psychological help.

Appears and indicates do not necessitate the conclusion you have stated - "is true". If it has been revealed by God, then "is true" is necessary. Hence Helio is false and Geo is true. You think otherwise because you are an unbeliever, and you think you have science on your side. Yet, you do not have observational proof that the earth moves in space. If you think so, then prove it.

JM

[klaus54]

Apparently a butterfly in a car turns left when the car turns left, because the cars gravity causes the butterfly to move with the car. Same principle applies to the satellites. The objection that the gravity force of the earth is larger avoids the problems already discussed and never answered. The earth simply cannot provide the force required to keep those butterfly satellites orbiting with the earth's velocity changes.

JM

The car-butterfly gravity is negligible compared with the Earth-butterfly gravity.

Same explanation as for your risible coin-table example.

You don't read so "good", eh?

[klaus54]

Appears and indicates do not necessitate the conclusion you have stated - "is true". If it has been revealed by God, then "is true" is necessary. Hence Helio is false and Geo is true. You think otherwise because you are an unbeliever, and you think you have science on your side. Yet, you do not have observational proof that the earth moves in space. If you think so, then prove it.

JM

If YOU think God is a deceiver, then that's between you and him.

"Appears" and "indicates" via copious consilient evidence is what lead to the scientific conclusions of heliocentrism, rotating Earth, deep time and history. Reality being completely different than is evident would make God an infinitely worse trickster than an imp who rearranges the furniture daily in Helen Keller's house.

P.S. Geo and FE are demolished. Admit you are wrong and accept the truth.

[JohnMartin]

If YOU think God is a deceiver, then that's between you and him.

"Appears" and "indicates" via copious consilient evidence is what lead to the scientific conclusions of heliocentrism, rotating Earth, deep time and history. Reality being completely different than is evident would make God an infinitely worse trickster than an imp who rearranges the furniture daily in Helen Keller's house.

P.S. Geo and FE are demolished. Admit you are wrong and accept the truth.

No proof for the moving earth presented. Present the proof or admit you don't have proof.

I am agnostic about the flat earth.

JM

[JohnMartin]

The car-butterfly gravity is negligible compared with the Earth-butterfly gravity.

Same explanation as for your risible coin-table example.

You don't read so "good", eh?

Apparently the butterfly moves along with the ever changing earth's velocity as well. No matter which direction the butterfly is moving when the earth begins to accelerate, or decelerate, or move towards, or away from the sun. It's the magic world of earth gravity, which is never felt by the butterfly in addition to the gravity force prior to the earth's acceleration, or deceleration.

Of course the earth's additional force on the butterfly acting in whatever direction to keep the insect at pace with the earth does not exist. Same problem with the satellites around the earth. The force is a fabrication.

JM

[Sparko]

No proof for the moving earth presented. Present the proof or admit you don't have proof.

I am agnostic about the flat earth.

JM

foucault's pendulum and gyroscope. observation. videos from space, eclipses, precession, parallax, and on and on and on.... the proof is there, you just ignore it. you are a troll or a complete moron.

[klaus54]

No proof for the moving earth presented. Present the proof or admit you don't have proof.

I am agnostic about the flat earth.

JM

Plenty of SIMPLE proof ("evidence" is the proper term in science) has been provided, but your repetitive stubborn incredulity is a sign of mental illness.

Geo and stationary Earth is a long-failed concept (five centuries).

Flat Earth is a long-failed concept (Twenty-five centuries).

{ETA: Are you agnostic on the alchemy/chemistry controversy too?}