They said the movie was going to premiere in the springtime. However, I have found no information regarding the exact date it will be released. Can anyone help me out? One additional question: will this movie be shown in theaters throughout the country, or in isolated locations?
Thanks for your help.
They're still negotiating it as far as I can tell.
I think it'll release just before summer because they've been saying Spring 2014 release.
Quote from: Geremia on April 29, 2014, 12:29:46 PM
They're still negotiating it as far as I can tell.
I think it'll release just before summer because they've been saying Spring 2014 release.
Bob Sungenis told me yesterday that it'll be fall 2014.
I saw The Principle yesterday, and it was very well-done. It covered quite a lot of ground in 1½ hours. And it sets a pretty high bar for pop sci movies; that's it's only "flaw" (for dumbed-down America, at least). :)
The writer—another trad Catholic, Rick Delano—is very much pro-academic freedom (scientific democracy) in the true sense (not the American Association of University Professor's definition that TAC's founding document quotes and attacks (http://www.thomasaquinas.edu/about/founding-document-2)). Just as political democracy only works best when under the yoke of Catholicism (cf. Orestes Browson (http://www.orestesbrownson.com/108.html)), so does scientific democracy.
Quote from: Geremia on May 01, 2014, 12:20:44 PM
I saw The Principle yesterday, and it was very well-done. It covered quite a lot of ground in 1½ hours. And it sets a pretty high bar for pop sci movies; that's it's only "flaw" (for dumbed-down America, at least). :)
The writer—another trad Catholic, Rick Delano—is very much pro-academic freedom (scientific democracy) in the true sense (not the American Association of University Professor's definition that TAC's founding document quotes and attacks (http://www.thomasaquinas.edu/about/founding-document-2)). Just as political democracy only works best when under the yoke of Catholicism (cf. Orestes Browson (http://www.orestesbrownson.com/108.html)), so does scientific democracy.
How did you get to see it if it hasn't been released yet?
Quote from: Sbyvl36 on May 01, 2014, 12:53:46 PMHow did you get to see it if it hasn't been released yet?
It was a pre-screening at the U. of Arizona. PM me if you're interested in hosting a pre-screening in your area, and I can give you their contact info.
Quote from: Geremia on May 01, 2014, 08:47:13 AM
Quote from: Geremia on April 29, 2014, 12:29:46 PM
They're still negotiating it as far as I can tell.
I think it'll release just before summer because they've been saying Spring 2014 release.
Bob Sungenis told me yesterday that it'll be fall 2014.
Since the earth is stationary what's the difference?
Quote from: Greg on May 01, 2014, 01:13:31 PM
Quote from: Geremia on May 01, 2014, 08:47:13 AM
Quote from: Geremia on April 29, 2014, 12:29:46 PM
They're still negotiating it as far as I can tell.
I think it'll release just before summer because they've been saying Spring 2014 release.
Bob Sungenis told me yesterday that it'll be fall 2014.
Since the earth is stationary what's the difference?
I know the earth is stationary, but I'm interested in seeing it nonetheless.
Quote from: Sbyvl36 on May 01, 2014, 02:30:51 PMI know the earth is stationary, but I'm interested in seeing it nonetheless.
The film is actually quite balanced. It's not like they gave geocentrism all the spotlight to the exclusion of anything else. Of course, to those close-minded academics who didn't show up to the screening to debate Sungenis and Delano face-to-face, the mere mention of the
possibility of geocentrism
ipso facto somehow makes the film
all about geocentrism!
Quote from: Geremia on May 01, 2014, 02:41:59 PM
Quote from: Sbyvl36 on May 01, 2014, 02:30:51 PMI know the earth is stationary, but I'm interested in seeing it nonetheless.
The film is actually quite balanced. It's not like they gave geocentrism all the spotlight to the exclusion of anything else. Of course, to those close-minded academics who didn't show up to the screening to debate Sungenis and Delano face-to-face, the mere mention of the possibility of geocentrism ipso facto somehow makes the film all about geocentrism!
It's quite ironic how "scientists" dismiss Catholicism as close minded, yet they refuse to even acknowledge the possibility of a geocentric universe.
Quote from: Sbyvl36 on May 01, 2014, 02:57:39 PM
Quote from: Geremia on May 01, 2014, 02:41:59 PM
Quote from: Sbyvl36 on May 01, 2014, 02:30:51 PMI know the earth is stationary, but I'm interested in seeing it nonetheless.
The film is actually quite balanced. It's not like they gave geocentrism all the spotlight to the exclusion of anything else. Of course, to those close-minded academics who didn't show up to the screening to debate Sungenis and Delano face-to-face, the mere mention of the possibility of geocentrism ipso facto somehow makes the film all about geocentrism!
It's quite ironic how "scientists" dismiss Catholicism as close minded, yet they refuse to even acknowledge the possibility of a geocentric universe.
Speaking of liberty of conscience, Pope Gregory XVI writes in
Mirari Vos ¶14 (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Greg16/g16mirar.htm#par14):
Quote from: Pope Gregory XVIWhen all restraints are removed by which men are kept on the narrow path of truth, their nature, which is already inclined to evil, propels them to ruin.
Unrestrained academic freedom is ruin, not true freedom.
Quote from: Geremia on May 01, 2014, 03:44:23 PM
Quote from: Sbyvl36 on May 01, 2014, 02:57:39 PM
Quote from: Geremia on May 01, 2014, 02:41:59 PM
Quote from: Sbyvl36 on May 01, 2014, 02:30:51 PMI know the earth is stationary, but I'm interested in seeing it nonetheless.
The film is actually quite balanced. It's not like they gave geocentrism all the spotlight to the exclusion of anything else. Of course, to those close-minded academics who didn't show up to the screening to debate Sungenis and Delano face-to-face, the mere mention of the possibility of geocentrism ipso facto somehow makes the film all about geocentrism!
It's quite ironic how "scientists" dismiss Catholicism as close minded, yet they refuse to even acknowledge the possibility of a geocentric universe.
Speaking of liberty of conscience, Pope Gregory XVI writes in Mirari Vos ¶14 (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Greg16/g16mirar.htm#par14):Quote from: Pope Gregory XVIWhen all restraints are removed by which men are kept on the narrow path of truth, their nature, which is already inclined to evil, propels them to ruin.
Unrestrained academic freedom is ruin, not true freedom.
A sort of "spiritual anarchy".
Quote from: Sbyvl36 on May 01, 2014, 03:54:49 PM
Quote from: Geremia on May 01, 2014, 03:44:23 PM
Quote from: Sbyvl36 on May 01, 2014, 02:57:39 PM
Quote from: Geremia on May 01, 2014, 02:41:59 PM
Quote from: Sbyvl36 on May 01, 2014, 02:30:51 PMI know the earth is stationary, but I'm interested in seeing it nonetheless.
The film is actually quite balanced. It's not like they gave geocentrism all the spotlight to the exclusion of anything else. Of course, to those close-minded academics who didn't show up to the screening to debate Sungenis and Delano face-to-face, the mere mention of the possibility of geocentrism ipso facto somehow makes the film all about geocentrism!
It's quite ironic how "scientists" dismiss Catholicism as close minded, yet they refuse to even acknowledge the possibility of a geocentric universe.
Speaking of liberty of conscience, Pope Gregory XVI writes in Mirari Vos ¶14 (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Greg16/g16mirar.htm#par14):Quote from: Pope Gregory XVIWhen all restraints are removed by which men are kept on the narrow path of truth, their nature, which is already inclined to evil, propels them to ruin.
Unrestrained academic freedom is ruin, not true freedom.
A sort of "spiritual anarchy".
Yoked to the Church, the universities and science were born.
Watch this; they tell when it's going to be released:
[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvR7pMqAEso[/yt]
That episode of Mic'd Up was worth watching. I don't know how Mark Shea can even attempt to excuse himself for acting so deviously. His first reaction was to stir up atheists to come out against this film? And he slithered around in the background just so he could cause this uproar. What a class act.
Don't worry about Mark Shea. The idiot just put about a million bucks in Sungenis's pocket. I'm loving it.
There's no such thing as bad publicity. What the idiot guaranteed is that this film just got a lot more famous, and a lot more people will go to see it. Thanks Mark, we do appreciate it.
I watched the video above. The fellow with Sungenis handles himself well.
Quote from: Pheo on May 30, 2014, 06:00:22 PM
That episode of Mic'd Up was worth watching. I don't know how Mark Shea can even attempt to excuse himself for acting so deviously. His first reaction was to stir up atheists to come out against this film? And he slithered around in the background just so he could cause this uproar. What a class act.
I also didn't know the U.S. bishops convened a special meeting to vote on whether to retain or delete the dual-covenant heresy Sungenis identified in the USCCB's catechism. Apparently 14 bishops voted to retain it!
Quote from: Geremia on May 31, 2014, 12:17:50 AM
Quote from: Pheo on May 30, 2014, 06:00:22 PM
That episode of Mic'd Up was worth watching. I don't know how Mark Shea can even attempt to excuse himself for acting so deviously. His first reaction was to stir up atheists to come out against this film? And he slithered around in the background just so he could cause this uproar. What a class act.
I also didn't know the U.S. bishops convened a special meeting to vote on whether to retain or delete the dual-covenant heresy Sungenis identified in the USCCB's catechism. Apparently 14 bishops voted to retain it!
You mean 14 apostates?
Quote from: VeraeFidei on June 01, 2014, 01:23:12 PMYou mean 14 apostates?
Yes, I suppose they would be, unless the voting was anonymous and thus they wouldn't've publicly proclaimed the heresy.
CNS actually ran a story:
Quote from: CNSBishops vote to revise U.S. catechism on Jewish covenant with God
By Nancy Frazier O'Brien
Catholic News Service
WASHINGTON (CNS) -- The U.S. bishops have voted to ask the Vatican to approve a small change in the U.S. Catholic Catechism for Adults to clarify church teaching on God's covenant with the Jewish people.
The proposed change -- which would replace one sentence in the catechism -- was discussed by the bishops in executive session at their June meeting in Orlando, Fla., but did not receive the needed two-thirds majority of all members of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops at that time.
After mail balloting, the final vote of 231-14, with one abstention, was announced Aug. 5 in a letter to bishops from Msgr. David Malloy, USCCB general secretary.
The change, which must be confirmed by the Vatican Congregation for Clergy, would remove from the catechism a sentence that reads: "Thus the covenant that God made with the Jewish people through Moses remains eternally valid for them."
Replacing it would be this sentence: "To the Jewish people, whom God first chose to hear his word, 'belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ'" (Rom 9:4-5; cf. CCC, No. 839).
"Talking points" distributed to the bishops along with Msgr. Malloy's letter said the proposed revision "is not a change in the church's teaching."
"Catholics understand that all previous covenants that God made with the Jewish people have been fulfilled in Jesus Christ through the new covenant established through his sacrificial death on the cross," the talking points say.
"The prior version of the text," they continue, "might be understood to imply that one of the former covenants imparts salvation without the mediation of Christ, whom Christians believe to be the universal savior of all people."
Father James Massa, executive director of the USCCB Secretariat of Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs, told Catholic News Service Aug. 11 that he did not "anticipate any tensions in the relationship" between Catholics and Jews as long as the proposed change is properly understood as arising from a need to "remove ambiguity" in the catechism.
"The catechism is not the place where you work out difficult theological problems," he said. "That's what scholars are charged to do."
Father Massa said the status of the Jewish covenant has been "a very fertile area for theological investigation" in recent years, although church teaching has been clear on two related points:
The Jewish people "are in a real relationship with God based on a covenant that has never been revoked."
"All covenants with Israel find fulfillment in Christ, who is the savior of all."
Father Massa added that the current wording in the catechism "was not flat-out wrong" but "was ambiguous and needed to be qualified." But because the catechism is an educational tool and not a theological textbook, the bishops decided not to expand that section to provide a fuller consideration of the issue, he said.
He also stressed the Catholic teaching that it is "never permissible to impose our faith on others."
Although some Jews as individuals may choose to become Christians, "it is also the church's understanding that the full incorporation of Israel into the saving covenant of Christ may be the fruit of the end times, may not happen until the end of history," Father Massa said.
In his letter to bishops, Msgr. Malloy said that if the Congregation for Clergy grants "recognitio," or approval, to the revised passage it will be incorporated into the next printing of the U.S. Catholic Catechism for Adults.
"The next printing will not occur until the remaining volumes from the latest printing are exhausted," he added.
Adopted by the U.S. bishops in November 2004 and later approved by the Vatican, the 664-page adult catechism is the first official catechism produced by the nation's bishops since the creation of the Baltimore Catechism, first published in 1885 and revised in 1941.
In the first two weeks after its July 31, 2006, publication, it sold more than 25,000 copies, according to USCCB Publishing.
Therese Brown, associate director for marketing, sales and service at USCCB Publishing, said about 190,000 copies of the adult catechism had been sold to date. Another printing of 50,000 copies took place in May and those copies are expected to run out around the middle of next year, she said.
08/12/2008 11:33 AM ET
(source (https://web.archive.org/web/20080828051818/http://www.usccb.org/stories/bishops_vote_catec.shtml))
Quote from: Pheo on May 30, 2014, 06:00:22 PM
That episode of Mic'd Up was worth watching. I don't know how Mark Shea can even attempt to excuse himself for acting so deviously. His first reaction was to stir up atheists to come out against this film? And he slithered around in the background just so he could cause this uproar. What a class act.
I don't have the time/energy/desire to watch the full thing. Can someone who watched it please tell me when the release date is? Also, is the movie going to be shown in theaters across the country or in just isolated areas?
Great video. Thanks for posting it. I'm very happy to hear about all the publicity the movie is receiving. Sungenis and DeLano seem to be doing an excellent job dealing with the criticism they have received.
Quote from: Sbyvl36 on June 01, 2014, 05:27:27 PMI don't have the time/energy/desire to watch the full thing. Can someone who watched it please tell me when the release date is? Also, is the movie going to be shown in theaters across the country or in just isolated areas?
It's debuting September 19, I think they said, and Rocky Mountain Pictures is distributing it. Rocky Mountain Pictures distributed
Expelled and
Obama 2016. Apparently
Obama 2016 was initially a little-known film, but more and more theaters picked it up. Hopefully the same or better will occur for
The Principle.
Quote from: Pheo on May 30, 2014, 06:00:22 PMThat episode of Mic'd Up was worth watching. I don't know how Mark Shea can even attempt to excuse himself for acting so deviously. His first reaction was to stir up atheists to come out against this film? And he slithered around in the background just so he could cause this uproar. What a class act.
Shea has made an apology or welcome gesture (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2014/06/for-steve-skojec-hilary-white-michael-voris-rick-delano-bob-sungenis.html),
Deo gratias.
There are a lot of problems with Sungenis' and DeLano's theories. This website has good information refuting their pseudo-scientific theories:
http://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/
http://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/geocentrism-and-science/
Quote from: Geremia on June 06, 2014, 07:03:52 PM
Quote from: Pheo on May 30, 2014, 06:00:22 PMThat episode of Mic'd Up was worth watching. I don't know how Mark Shea can even attempt to excuse himself for acting so deviously. His first reaction was to stir up atheists to come out against this film? And he slithered around in the background just so he could cause this uproar. What a class act.
Shea has made an apology or welcome gesture (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2014/06/for-steve-skojec-hilary-white-michael-voris-rick-delano-bob-sungenis.html), Deo gratias.
He always makes an 'apology' after he's been an a**.
http://beforeitsnews.com/science-and-technology/2014/06/top-scientists-freak-out-over-new-documentary-questioning-copernican-principle-which-they-appeared-in-2699776.html
Quote from: Aquila on June 08, 2014, 11:31:06 AM
There are a lot of problems with Sungenis' and DeLano's theories. This website has good information refuting their pseudo-scientific theories:
http://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/
http://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/geocentrism-and-science/
Why don't you bullet point some of the main ones and we can get busy ?
Quote from: Habitual_Ritual on June 09, 2014, 06:25:18 AM
Quote from: Aquila on June 08, 2014, 11:31:06 AM
There are a lot of problems with Sungenis' and DeLano's theories. This website has good information refuting their pseudo-scientific theories:
http://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/
http://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/geocentrism-and-science/
Why don't you bullet point some of the main ones and we can get busy ?
Unlike most of you, I don't have countless hours to waste on internet forums. I work 60+ hours a week. You're the one who is trying to disprove what science has shown to be true; namely, that the earth orbits the sun, that smaller bodies orbit the lesser, and that little things like the laws of gravity actually exist. It is incumbent upon you to provide evidence to support your claims. If you actually care about learning the truth (unlike most of the geocentrists I've talked to) then you will read the ample material provided in the links that I posted. If you find something you don't understand, or disagree with, then I will certainly do my best to discuss it with you.
However, I'm not going to handhold your way through the material. Nor am I going to post some simplified bullet points for you to take down with strawman arguments or shallow reasoning. Calculus, mechanics, and physics are not political talking points. They require a good amount of intensive study and application to grasp, and much more to master. You can't simply dismiss it by hand-waving and making shallow, misleading statements, as both Sungenis and Delano have done repeatedly.
Quote from: Aquila on June 09, 2014, 09:04:42 PM
Unlike most of you, I don't have countless hours to waste on internet forums.
Start off by insulting your correspondents. Always a tried-and-true debating tactic. What amounts of time it saves! Especially for those very busy geniuses who are always in such high demand that they never have a free moment. It's perfectly understandable why someone who has done such "intensive study" of science wouldn't have time for studying grammar lessons which might have informed him that the plural of "forum" is "fora." Let those lesser breeds who have "countless hours to waste" worry about such things.
Quote from: Aquila on June 09, 2014, 09:04:42 PM
I work 60+ hours a week.
Like the other losers, slackers and shirkers here on SD, I can only dream of employment like that. Please, Aquila, when you are able to spare a moment from your busy schedule -- one that must find time not only for 60+ (don't forget the plus!) hours of employment but also for that spare minute here and there spent demonstrating your intellectual superiority in comparison with the morons who should be prohibited by law from posting their idiocies on the internet -- start a thread to let us know what it is like to have a job. That way the rest of us who lack the stimulation and excitement of employment can live vicariously through you. It might not be much for us, but it's better than the bleak, jobless existence we experience currently.
Quote from: Aquila on June 09, 2014, 09:04:42 PM
You're the one who is trying to disprove what science has shown to be true;
Yes, Stephen Hawking and Richard Dawkins have conclusively proven that the movie "The Principle" will NOT open on September 19th, and any illiterate cretin from the 15th century who tries to say otherwise should be vigorously denounced for their uninformed audacity.
Quote from: Aquila on June 09, 2014, 09:04:42 PM
If you find something you don't understand, or disagree with, then I will certainly do my best to discuss it with you.
Your generosity calls to mind the compliment that Mr. Collins paid to Lady Catherine de Bourgh, "I have rarely in my life witnessed such behaviour in a person of rank -- such affability and condescension."
Quote from: Aquila on June 09, 2014, 09:04:42 PM
However, I'm not going to handhold your way through the material. Nor am I going to post some simplified bullet points for you to take down with strawman arguments or shallow reasoning. Calculus, mechanics, and physics are not political talking points. They require a good amount of intensive study and application to grasp, and much more to master. You can't simply dismiss it by hand-waving and making shallow, misleading statements, as both Sungenis and Delano have done repeatedly.
Yes, good advice -- Be firm! Grant those lesser minions even and inch, and soon they will take a mile. Keep them firmly in their place, beneath the educated like yourself, those who are so educated that it would be entirely superfluous for them to have any idea what is contained in a video they are denouncing. When someone has mastered BOTH calculus AND physics, they have earned the right to pronounce anathema on the ravings of others without being forced to waste time listening to those ravings first.
Quote from: Maximilian on June 09, 2014, 10:49:14 PM
Quote from: Aquila on June 09, 2014, 09:04:42 PM
Unlike most of you, I don't have countless hours to waste on internet forums.
Start off by insulting your correspondents. Always a tried-and-true debating tactic. What amounts of time it saves! Especially for those very busy geniuses who are always in such high demand that they never have a free moment. It's perfectly understandable why someone who has done such "intensive study" of science wouldn't have time for studying grammar lessons which might have informed him that the plural of "forum" is "fora." Let those lesser breeds who have "countless hours to waste" worry about such things.
Quote from: Aquila on June 09, 2014, 09:04:42 PM
I work 60+ hours a week.
Like the other losers, slackers and shirkers here on SD, I can only dream of employment like that. Please, Aquila, when you are able to spare a moment from your busy schedule -- one that must find time not only for 60+ (don't forget the plus!) hours of employment but also for that spare minute here and there spent demonstrating your intellectual superiority in comparison with the morons who should be prohibited by law from posting their idiocies on the internet -- start a thread to let us know what it is like to have a job. That way the rest of us who lack the stimulation and excitement of employment can live vicariously through you. It might not be much for us, but it's better than the bleak, jobless existence we experience currently.
Quote from: Aquila on June 09, 2014, 09:04:42 PM
You're the one who is trying to disprove what science has shown to be true;
Yes, Stephen Hawking and Richard Dawkins have conclusively proven that the movie "The Principle" will NOT open on September 19th, and any illiterate cretin from the 15th century who tries to say otherwise should be vigorously denounced for their uninformed audacity.
Quote from: Aquila on June 09, 2014, 09:04:42 PM
If you find something you don't understand, or disagree with, then I will certainly do my best to discuss it with you.
Your generosity calls to mind the compliment that Mr. Collins paid to Lady Catherine de Bourgh, "I have rarely in my life witnessed such behaviour in a person of rank -- such affability and condescension."
Quote from: Aquila on June 09, 2014, 09:04:42 PM
However, I'm not going to handhold your way through the material. Nor am I going to post some simplified bullet points for you to take down with strawman arguments or shallow reasoning. Calculus, mechanics, and physics are not political talking points. They require a good amount of intensive study and application to grasp, and much more to master. You can't simply dismiss it by hand-waving and making shallow, misleading statements, as both Sungenis and Delano have done repeatedly.
Yes, good advice -- Be firm! Grant those lesser minions even and inch, and soon they will take a mile. Keep them firmly in their place, beneath the educated like yourself, those who are so educated that it would be entirely superfluous for them to have any idea what is contained in a video they are denouncing. When someone has mastered BOTH calculus AND physics, they have earned the right to pronounce anathema on the ravings of others without being forced to waste time listening to those ravings first.
Thanks for proving my point. Just try actually reading some other material on the subject instead of blindly following Sungenis, et al, just because they're counter-cultural and anti-establishment. You might learn something.
Also, my point was that those without a basic grasp of even the fundamentals of the natural sciences-i.e. Sungenis, DeLano-don't have any ability to say they can prove geocentrism. It would be like asking someone who doesn't know English to produce a sonnet. It's not that they are dumb, they simply don't have the intellectual tools to accomplish such a task.
Quote from: Aquila on June 10, 2014, 06:50:50 AM
Also, my point was that those without a basic grasp of even the fundamentals of the natural sciences-i.e. Sungenis, DeLano-don't have any ability to say they can prove geocentrism.
You do release the Copernican principle is a 400+ year old ideological theory right?
So with regard the Planck probe discoveries related to the spread of cosmological heat, why don't you just hit us up with one of your own scientific thoughts? Just one.
It is interesting to note that the Copernican principle has to be dropped by scientists when evaluating
observed scientific results:
QuoteSome cosmologists and theoretical physicists design models lacking the Cosmological or Copernican principles, to constrain the valid values of observational results, to address specific known issues.
A prominent example in this context is the observed accelerating universe and the cosmological constant issue. An alternative proposal to dark energy is that the universe is much more inhomogeneous than currently assumed, and specifically that we are in an extremely large low-density void.[32] To match observations we would have to be very close to the centre of this void, immediately contradicting the Copernican principle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copernican_principle#Modern_tests
Quote from: Aquila on June 10, 2014, 06:50:50 AM
they simply don't have the intellectual tools to accomplish such a task.
Can you qualify this statement with empirical evidence indicating their intellectual inferiority and lack of comprehension skills ?
Quote from: Habitual_Ritual on June 10, 2014, 07:51:48 AM
Quote from: Aquila on June 10, 2014, 06:50:50 AM
they simply don't have the intellectual tools to accomplish such a task.
Can you qualify this statement with empirical evidence indicating their intellectual inferiority and lack of comprehension skills ?
Simple, they've never studied physics. That they've never studied even the basics of the field shows that they are incapable of proposing their own pseudoscientific theories contrary to all empirical evidence.
Furthermore, geocentrism violates basic Newtonian Mechanics. The gravitational force experienced in a two-body system (Earth and Sun) is defined by F=[G(Ms)(Me)]/(r^2). We likewise know that F=(mass)(accel). Thus the acceleration of the Sun caused by the gravitational force is G*Me/r^2, while that experienced by the Earth is G*Ms/r^2. Since the mass of the Sun, Ms, far exceeds that of Earth, Me, the acceleration of the Earth is far greater than that of the Sun. Now, acceleration can be defined as a change in direction for a moving objects, such as when an object moves in a circular path. Consequently it is the Earth that experiences the greater movement, not the Sun.
Not only that, but geocentrism is completely incapable of explaining stellar parallax, nor can it explain the natural cause of epicycles.
Quote from: GloriaPatri on June 10, 2014, 10:45:19 AM
Simple, they've never studied physics.
Which accredited body furnished you with a structural engineering degree?
The 'Theory' of the Copernican principle rests on two unproven assumptions, namely the homogeneity and isotropic nature of the universe. It is perfectly valid to propose new theories considering the old ones are unprovable.
Also, as I mentioned earlier, various observed aspects of the universe require the Copernican principle to abandoned. How do you square this?
Hint: Lagrange points.
http://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/dr-tom-bridgman-debunks-geocentrism/
DeLano and Sungenis can't explain why the measured locations of Lagrange points are right where heliocentrism and Newtonian mechanics predicts them to be.....Their complete failure to provide the calculations of L points based on a geocentric system exposes Sungenis and DeLano as the frauds that they are.
http://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/as-the-universe-turns/
Quote from: Habitual_Ritual on June 10, 2014, 07:51:48 AM
Quote from: Aquila on June 10, 2014, 06:50:50 AM
they simply don't have the intellectual tools to accomplish such a task.
Can you qualify this statement with empirical evidence indicating their intellectual inferiority and lack of comprehension skills ?
They have absolutely no training in physics or math. Sungenis is a religion major, while Delano is a high school dropout.
Quote from: Habitual_Ritual on June 10, 2014, 07:22:17 AM
Quote from: Aquila on June 10, 2014, 06:50:50 AM
Also, my point was that those without a basic grasp of even the fundamentals of the natural sciences-i.e. Sungenis, DeLano-don't have any ability to say they can prove geocentrism.
You do release the Copernican principle is a 400+ year old ideological theory right?
So with regard the Planck probe discoveries related to the spread of cosmological heat, why don't you just hit us up with one of your own scientific thoughts? Just one.
It is interesting to note that the Copernican principle has to be dropped by scientists when evaluating observed scientific results:
QuoteSome cosmologists and theoretical physicists design models lacking the Cosmological or Copernican principles, to constrain the valid values of observational results, to address specific known issues.
A prominent example in this context is the observed accelerating universe and the cosmological constant issue. An alternative proposal to dark energy is that the universe is much more inhomogeneous than currently assumed, and specifically that we are in an extremely large low-density void.[32] To match observations we would have to be very close to the centre of this void, immediately contradicting the Copernican principle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copernican_principle#Modern_tests
I assume you are referring to CMB. CMB poses problems for the BBT, but doesn't really pose a threat to heliocentrism.
As for Copernicanism being "ideological"....Measurements of the Lagrange points, as well as other proofs, have consistently agreed with a heliocentric system. Sungenis and Delano can't even produce basic mathematical calculations of Lagrange points, or explain how the gravitational effects of distant star somehow "cancel" out the massively larger gravitational mass of the sun. It is in fact Geocentrism, which has no scientific basis, that is ideological.
Personally I believe that Geocentrism is being used to discredit attacks on non-mainstream science that actually have a scientific basis, like intelligent design. Sungenis and Delano specifically tie Geocentrism to ID. The difference is that ID actually has a scientific basis (as well as a theological one) while Geocentrism does not. Ergo, when someone tries to bring up ID, he/she can be smeared with "Oh, and I'll bet you're a Geocentrist too!". Sungenis and Delano are muddying the water with their pseudoscientific fantasies.
Quote from: Aquila on June 10, 2014, 11:42:08 AMThey have absolutely no training in physics or math. Sungenis is a religion major, while Delano is a high school dropout.
Sungenis has an undergraduate degree in physics.
Quote from: Geremia on June 10, 2014, 12:29:55 PM
Quote from: GloriaPatri on June 10, 2014, 10:45:19 AMthey've never studied physics.
That's a lie.
It's not a lie. Sungenis hold's no degree in physics. He's never studied it at either the undergrad or graduate level. Here's his About section on his website. No mention of a degree in physics. http://catholicintl.com/about/
So please, Geremia, do a bit of basic research before you start clinging to this pseudoscientific claptrap.
And you say you're majoring in physics. ::)
Edit: Though this is not directly related to the discussion at hand, I always find it funny when geocentrists state that it seems absurd for the Earth to move in an orbit of ~108,000 km/hr, but they have no problem believing the Sun, an object whose mass is 333,000x that of Earth, does the same thing. And let us not forget that the Sun is approx. 99.86% of the mass of the Solar System, but it inexplicably orbits an object that is only 0.0003% of that mass, if the geocentrist is to be believed. ::)
Quote from: GloriaPatri on June 10, 2014, 12:52:38 PM
Quote from: Geremia on June 10, 2014, 12:29:55 PM
Quote from: GloriaPatri on June 10, 2014, 10:45:19 AMthey've never studied physics.
That's a lie.
It's not a lie. Sungenis hold's no degree in physics. He's never studied it at either the undergrad or graduate level. Here's his About section on his website. No mention of a degree in physics. http://catholicintl.com/about/
So please, Geremia, do a bit of basic research before you start clinging to this pseudoscientific claptrap.
And you say you're majoring in physics. ::)
Edit: Though this is not directly related to the discussion at hand, I always find it funny when geocentrists state that it seems absurd for the Earth to move in an orbit of ~108,000 km/hr, but they have no problem believing the Sun, an object whose mass is 333,000x that of Earth, does the same thing. And let us not forget that the Sun is approx. 99.86% of the mass of the Solar System, but it inexplicably orbits an object that is only 0.0003% of that mass, if the geocentrist is to be believed. ::)
It's absurd. Then they use theory of relativity to talk about how the Earth could be a frame of reference...while simultaneously denying relativistic concepts, such as the constant speed of light. It's hilarious.
Quote from: GloriaPatri on June 10, 2014, 12:52:38 PM
Quote from: Geremia on June 10, 2014, 12:29:55 PM
Quote from: GloriaPatri on June 10, 2014, 10:45:19 AMthey've never studied physics.
That's a lie.
It's not a lie. Sungenis hold's no degree in physics. He's never studied it at either the undergrad or graduate level. Here's his About section on his website. No mention of a degree in physics. http://catholicintl.com/about/
So please, Geremia, do a bit of basic research before you start clinging to this pseudoscientific claptrap.
And you say you're majoring in physics. ::)
Edit: Though this is not directly related to the discussion at hand, I always find it funny when geocentrists state that it seems absurd for the Earth to move in an orbit of ~108,000 km/hr, but they have no problem believing the Sun, an object whose mass is 333,000x that of Earth, does the same thing. And let us not forget that the Sun is approx. 99.86% of the mass of the Solar System, but it inexplicably orbits an object that is only 0.0003% of that mass, if the geocentrist is to be believed. ::)
You assume those measurements are correct. The Sun is closer and smaller than the scientists believe.
Those measurements are correct Sbyvl. Eratosthenes determined the distance of the Sun from the Earth to be 804,000,000 million stadia, or 149 million km. Which is what the Earth's orbit is. From there it's easy enough to determine the radius of the Sun.
Here's a concise explanation for the laymen amongst us: http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=400
And of course Sbyvl all you offer is your unsubstantiated conjecture. Please, by all means provide your method for proving the Sun to be so much closer and smaller than empirical evidence has lead us to believe. I'm sure you could win a Nobel prize for proving 22 centuries of measurement wrong ::)
Edit: Note that the remarks about Eratosthenes comes from Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea's Praeparatio evangelica written in the early third century.
Quote from: GloriaPatri on June 10, 2014, 12:52:38 PM
Quote from: Geremia on June 10, 2014, 12:29:55 PM
Quote from: GloriaPatri on June 10, 2014, 10:45:19 AMthey've never studied physics.
That's a lie.
It's not a lie. Sungenis hold's no degree in physics. He's never studied it at either the undergrad or graduate level. Here's his About section on his website. No mention of a degree in physics. http://catholicintl.com/about/
Just because he doesn't mention it there doesn't mean he doesn't have such a degree. He personally told me he was a physics major.
Quote from: GloriaPatri on June 10, 2014, 12:52:38 PMSo please, Geremia, do a bit of basic research before you start clinging to this pseudoscientific claptrap.
And you say you're majoring in physics. ::)
Yes, I have a degree in physics.
"O foolish, and slow of heart to believe in all things which the prophets have spoken." —St. Luke 24:25
Quote from: GloriaPatri on June 10, 2014, 12:52:38 PMI always find it funny when geocentrists state that it seems absurd for the Earth to move in an orbit of ~108,000 km/hr, but they have no problem believing the Sun, an object whose mass is 333,000x that of Earth, does the same thing.
They believe this not because it seems absurd, but because it is a possibility that can agree with experiments and observations.
Quote from: GloriaPatri on June 10, 2014, 12:52:38 PMAnd let us not forget that the Sun is approx. 99.86% of the mass of the Solar System, but it inexplicably orbits an object that is only 0.0003% of that mass, if the geocentrist is to be believed.
Not only the sun but the entire universe.
Quote from: Geremia on June 11, 2014, 04:04:09 PM
Quote from: GloriaPatri on June 10, 2014, 12:52:38 PM
Quote from: Geremia on June 10, 2014, 12:29:55 PM
Quote from: GloriaPatri on June 10, 2014, 10:45:19 AMthey've never studied physics.
That's a lie.
It's not a lie. Sungenis hold's no degree in physics. He's never studied it at either the undergrad or graduate level. Here's his About section on his website. No mention of a degree in physics. http://catholicintl.com/about/
Just because he doesn't mention it there doesn't mean he doesn't have such a degree. He personally told me he was a physics major.Quote from: GloriaPatri on June 10, 2014, 12:52:38 PMSo please, Geremia, do a bit of basic research before you start clinging to this pseudoscientific claptrap.
And you say you're majoring in physics. ::)
Yes, I have a degree in physics.
"O foolish, and slow of heart to believe in all things which the prophets have spoken." —St. Luke 24:25
Sungenis holds degrees solely in theology and religious studies. Whatever "physics" he may have studied in Uni, he did not stick with it and did not earn a degree in it. He is in no position to make such a ludicrous claim as geocentrism and claim that professional physicists have had it wrong for centuries. And I must wonder where you have earned your degree from. You should a lack of understanding for basic principles of physics.
Quote from: GloriaPatri on June 11, 2014, 04:09:36 PMSungenis holds degrees solely in theology and religious studies. Whatever "physics" he may have studied in Uni, he did not stick with it and did not earn a degree in it. He is in no position to make such a ludicrous claim as geocentrism and claim that professional physicists have had it wrong for centuries. And I must wonder where you have earned your degree from.
I earned my degree in physics and astronomy from the University of Arizona in 2008, if it really matters to you.
Quote from: GloriaPatri on June 11, 2014, 04:09:36 PMYou should a lack of understanding for basic principles of physics.
I never claimed he had a degree in physics, but that he was a physics major. Don't you need to study physics to be a physics major?
Quote from: Geremia on June 11, 2014, 04:07:43 PM
Quote from: GloriaPatri on June 10, 2014, 12:52:38 PMI always find it funny when geocentrists state that it seems absurd for the Earth to move in an orbit of ~108,000 km/hr, but they have no problem believing the Sun, an object whose mass is 333,000x that of Earth, does the same thing.
They believe this not because it seems absurd, but because it is a possibility that can agree with experiments and observations.Quote from: GloriaPatri on June 10, 2014, 12:52:38 PMAnd let us not forget that the Sun is approx. 99.86% of the mass of the Solar System, but it inexplicably orbits an object that is only 0.0003% of that mass, if the geocentrist is to be believed.
Not only the sun but the entire universe.
On the contrary the Sun moving about the Earth does not agree with experimental evidence. Stellar parallax requires that the Earth move, not the Sun. And the Earth is by no means at the gravitational center of the Universe. In the purely physical scheme of things the Earth is an insignificant speck of dust, orbiting an average star, in a galaxy of 100 billion stars, in an observable portion of the universe with +100 billion such galaxies. We hold no physically central place in the Universe.
And as far as Sunegis goes: I majored in engineering for a year, but then switched to physics. I would by no means claim that I'm an engineer. One year of study does not make me an expert on a topic. Sungenis, if he "majored" in physics, quickly left and became a religious studies major. He is no expert in physics, just as I and my friends who switched from engineering to other majors are not experts in engineering.
And thank you for informing me as to what University you graduated from. I take back my coarse statements concerning you and physics.
Sites that show, from basic principles of physics, that Geocentrism is false:
http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/GeocentrismDisproved.htm
http://thedartmouth.com/2013/11/15/news/dartmouth-researchers-refute-geocentric-model
http://www.geocentrismdebunked.org
And of course just Google "geocentrism refutation" and you'll find plenty of sites that show how and why geocentrism is wrong.
Quote from: Geremia on June 11, 2014, 04:04:09 PM
Quote from: GloriaPatri on June 10, 2014, 12:52:38 PM
Quote from: Geremia on June 10, 2014, 12:29:55 PM
Quote from: GloriaPatri on June 10, 2014, 10:45:19 AMthey've never studied physics.
That's a lie.
It's not a lie. Sungenis hold's no degree in physics. He's never studied it at either the undergrad or graduate level. Here's his About section on his website. No mention of a degree in physics. http://catholicintl.com/about/
Just because he doesn't mention it there doesn't mean he doesn't have such a degree. He personally told me he was a physics major.Quote from: GloriaPatri on June 10, 2014, 12:52:38 PMSo please, Geremia, do a bit of basic research before you start clinging to this pseudoscientific claptrap.
And you say you're majoring in physics. ::)
Yes, I have a degree in physics.
"O foolish, and slow of heart to believe in all things which the prophets have spoken." —St. Luke 24:25
He's lying. Sungenis was a Physics major before switching to religious studies. His undergrad degree is religion. So is his master's degree.
http://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/a-new-geocentrist-to-catholic-answers-get-some-science-education/
I have a friend who spent a year in Chemistry before switching to Economics. He is no more a Chemistry major than Sungenis is a Physics major.
May I ask where you are studying Physics? And have you actually discussed geocentrism with any of the professors at this institution? I will disclose that I am completing my undergrad in electrical engineering at Kansas State University.
Quote from: Geremia on June 11, 2014, 04:07:43 PM
Quote from: GloriaPatri on June 10, 2014, 12:52:38 PMI always find it funny when geocentrists state that it seems absurd for the Earth to move in an orbit of ~108,000 km/hr, but they have no problem believing the Sun, an object whose mass is 333,000x that of Earth, does the same thing.
They believe this not because it seems absurd, but because it is a possibility that can agree with experiments and observations.Quote from: GloriaPatri on June 10, 2014, 12:52:38 PMAnd let us not forget that the Sun is approx. 99.86% of the mass of the Solar System, but it inexplicably orbits an object that is only 0.0003% of that mass, if the geocentrist is to be believed.
Not only the sun but the entire universe.
So....Newton's laws of gravitation are wrong? Does gravity even exist for you?
Geremia how do geocentrists calculate the Lagrange points? Still haven't answered that one.
Quote from: Aquila on June 11, 2014, 04:55:00 PMGeremia how do geocentrists calculate the Lagrange points? Still haven't answered that one.
Read Popov's papers (http://moerwiki.us.to/misc/Physics%20papers%20and%20books/Cosmology/Copernican%20principle/Popov/).
Quote from: Geremia on June 11, 2014, 05:49:14 PM
Quote from: Aquila on June 11, 2014, 04:55:00 PMGeremia how do geocentrists calculate the Lagrange points? Still haven't answered that one.
Read Popov's papers (http://moerwiki.us.to/misc/Physics%20papers%20and%20books/Cosmology/Copernican%20principle/Popov/).
My computer is blocking this site as "Questionable/Suspicious." Which Popov would you be referring to, Geremia?
Quote from: GloriaPatri on June 11, 2014, 05:56:03 PM
Quote from: Geremia on June 11, 2014, 05:49:14 PM
Quote from: Aquila on June 11, 2014, 04:55:00 PMGeremia how do geocentrists calculate the Lagrange points? Still haven't answered that one.
Read Popov's papers (http://moerwiki.us.to/misc/Physics%20papers%20and%20books/Cosmology/Copernican%20principle/Popov/).
My computer is blocking this site as "Questionable/Suspicious." Which Popov would you be referring to, Geremia?
Oh, that's probably because I only have a self-signed cert...
Luka Popov
https://iopscience.iop.org/0143-0807/34/2/383
http://arxiv.org/abs/1302.7129
http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.7290
The problem with attempting to explain stellar parallax for more distant stars/nebulae/galaxies is that their apparent motions throughout the year would require them to move at speeds faster than light. And again, there is no explanation as to what physical bodies are exerting the gravitational forces required to generate these circular movements, nor is it explained why only celestial objects perpendicular to the plane of the Earth's orbit about the Sun experience stellar parallax. If stellar parallax occurs in a geocentric system then both the relativistic violations that occur, and the physical reason why parallax is only observed in objects perpendicular to the plane of orbit, must be given adequate explanations.
Quote from: Geremia on June 11, 2014, 05:49:14 PM
Quote from: Aquila on June 11, 2014, 04:55:00 PMGeremia how do geocentrists calculate the Lagrange points? Still haven't answered that one.
Read Popov's papers (http://moerwiki.us.to/misc/Physics%20papers%20and%20books/Cosmology/Copernican%20principle/Popov/).
You mean the one that Sungenis was caught plagiarizing? And that doesn't actually prove anything?
From http://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Here-Comes-the-Sun-Alec-MacAndrew.pdf
Quote
But we already know that the one-body analysis using the properly calculated reduced
mass will yield an orbit for the Sun in the rest frame of the Earth that looks identical to the Earth's orbit
in the rest frame of the Sun – the one body reduction yields relative orbits referred to the other body.
So, the entire paper is trivial and does nothing more than derive the orbit of the Sun (and Mars) in the
rest frame of the Earth – a pure kinematic co-ordinate transformation.
Search the document for "Popov" and enjoy.
I tried quoting the entire relevant section but it didn't format well.
Link: http://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/physicist-alec-macandrew-debunks-the-new-geocentrists/
Physicist Alec MacAndrew Debunks the New Geocentrists
by Dr. Alec MacAndrew (edited from postings in the Catholic Answers Forum, here, here and here.)
I'd like to make a couple of points – one about the position of modern geocentrists with respect to the Church and the other about the science.
It seems to me, as a neutral observer outside the Church, that the stance of modern geocentrists, like excubitor, hansgeorg, cassini and Sungenis, who insist that geocentrism is a matter of faith, that Catholics apprised of the view of the geocentrists are bound to concur and that the teaching Magisterium of the Church has been in error for two hundred and fifty years or more, is incompatible with the obedience to the Church's teaching that is demanded of good Catholics. It seems to me that to claim that one's personal interpretation of Scripture and Tradition should take precedence over the teaching of the Magisterium seems to be more in the Protestant than the Catholic tradition. Moreover, if the Magisterium of the Church has been so far in error, so delinquent, on this matter of the earth's physical relationship to the rest of the universe which the geocentrists would have us believe so important an article of faith, then what can we say about the validity, truth and force of the rest of the teaching of the Magisterium for the last 250 years? Once Catholics accept that the Magisterium is astray on one article of faith, how can they put any confidence in the teaching on other matters? David Palm has argued similar points with far more scholarship and nuance than I have, but I thought it worth putting the case bluntly.
I am astonished at the claim that the minute band of geocentrists within the Church are able to discern the truth of this matter more clearly than the popes and the rest of the Magisterium of the last 250 years, that the Church has effectively been in the grip of heresy for 250 years and that they and they alone are preserving the true teaching of the Church for the future (in the manner of the laity during the Arian debates – although I think that excubitor's reading of that history is badly garbled) – what breathtaking hubris. . . .
Turning now to the scientific aspects of geocentrism, the first thing that is apparent is that modern geocentrists are not content to rely on their interpretation of Scripture and Tradition to inform their beliefs, but also put forward arguments based on observations of the natural world – ie scientific arguments. Even individuals who ultimately rely on the intervention of the supernatural (eg angels pushing the stars and planets in their courses), advance scientific arguments and quote scientists in support of their position. The two approaches are, of course, fundamentally incompatible. Scientific arguments only carry weight if one accepts the intelligibility of the natural world – that it behaves in a consistent way that is discernible by observation and reason. (Indeed the intelligibility of Nature is for me the single most powerful argument for the existence of God). Once you give up that idea, once you propose that the behaviour of the world lies beyond discovery, discernment and reason, then one might as well abandon all scientific endeavour because the only consistent explanation of any phenomenon is God, or God through His angels, acting arbitrarily and unpredictably. And that perspective is far from the Catholic tradition which, far from denying natural philosophy, lies at the root and foundation of modern science.
So let's look at a couple of specific scientific errors made by the geocentrists.The first is to confuse kinematics and dynamics. The argument is sometimes made that the "maths" works equally well in both geocentric and any-other-centric systems. It is true that one can make a kinematic transformation (ironically, the Galilean transformation for non-relativistic cases, otherwise the Lorentz transformation) between any two frames of reference to describe the motion of any body as seen from any arbitrary frame of reference. However, what this fails to do is to describe the forces which lead to accelerations – it fails to explain the orbits of bodies around one another which Newtonian mechanics (or to be precise Newtonian mechanics as refined by GR) does. As I have explained elsewhere, if a flea jumps off the earth, it is not dynamically equivalent to claim that the earth jumped off the flea, because the absolutely measurable accelerations in the rest frame of the earth and the flea are different.
This brings us to the question of the equivalence of frames of reference. Geocentrists claim that all frames are equivalent, but this is not so – even in GR. All inertial frames of reference are equivalent, but accelerating frames, including rotating frames can absolutely be distinguished by the forces in those frames. It is true that constant motion is relative – the concept of absolute uniform motion (or as far as GR goes, absolute motion following space-like geodesics) is meaningless because there is not an absolute rest frame (by the way, there is an argument that the rest frame of the CMB can be interpreted as the rest frame of the universe – ie the frame in which the sum of linear and angular momentum of all mass/energy in the universe is zero – but by that definition the earth is definitely not motionless). We look at another galaxy and we see that we are getting closer, but there is no way to distinguish between the case that we are moving towards it or it is moving towards us. However, the concept of absolute acceleration is not meaningless – indeed accelerations can be measured in absolute terms by the forces that arise in the rest frames of accelerating bodies. Wherever a body can be shown to be accelerating or if it can be shown that its velocity is varying over time, it cannot be also permanently at rest (accepting for the sake of argument that the concept of absolute rest is meaningful). . . .
Kinematics and dynamics are not the same. The behaviour of systems can be predicted and explained by the forces acting on bodies. In such a dynamical system accelerations and orbits are caused by forces acting between and on bodies – this is an insightful and meaningful way to look at the orbital mechanics of celestial bodies by considering the forces and accelerations to be gravitational in origin. For a dynamical orbital system the bodies orbit the centre of mass the system – in the case of the solar system, a point near the sun's surface or inside the sun depending on the position of the planets. The earth's annual orbit around this point with a semimajor axis of 149.5 million kilometers and an eccentricity of 0.017 is consistent with all the other orbital systems that we observe – to say that the earth is stationary and that the sun orbits it requires one to indulge in special pleading for the earth's situation and to abandon the principles of orbital mechanics for this one case. (Some geocentrists claim that the rest of the universe exactly balances the gravitational attraction of the sun thus keeping the earth motionless – but the largest gravitational field of an external body at the earth is the sun's by many orders of magnitude – to the first order the earth's orbit is not affected by the rest of the universe – although the moon and planets do cause some tiny perturbations in the earth's orbit. The Hill sphere of a body is the region in which it dominates the gravitational influence of satellites against the perturbation of other bodies. The Hill sphere of the sun extends 230,000 times further than the distance from the earth to the sun. Since the sun completely dominates the gravitational field of external bodies at the earth then it is valid to describe the the earth as orbiting the centre of mass of the solar system annually.)
So observations of the behaviour of dynamical systems support the notion that the earth is in orbit and not at rest. Are there any other observations that are consistent with this? The answer is that stellar aberration (the effect of apparent changes in position of the stars as the earth orbits the sun) is not only utterly consistent with the parameters of earth's orbit as derived from orbital mechanics (period, semi-major axis, velocity of earth and so on) but can only be explained by the motion of the earth. Note that stellar aberration follows the principle that we cannot measure absolute uniform motion, but that changes in motion are observable – it is the fact that the vector of the earth's velocity varies over its orbit with respect to the vector of light propagation from the stars that causes the effect of stellar aberration. Earth cannot simultaneously have a varying velocity and yet be permanently at rest. No geocentrist has ever put forward a credible explanation for stellar aberration with a stationary fixed earth – nor can explain how the parameters of earth's orbit derived from orbital mechanics exactly matches the observation or earth's velocity as observed by stellar aberration.
Quote from: Aquila on June 11, 2014, 08:53:13 PMYou mean the one that Sungenis was caught plagiarizing?
He didn't plagiarize it. He got an advance copy from the author for
GWW.
Quote from: Aquila on June 11, 2014, 08:53:13 PMAnd that doesn't actually prove anything?
From http://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Here-Comes-the-Sun-Alec-MacAndrew.pdf
QuoteBut we already know that the one-body analysis using the properly calculated reduced
mass will yield an orbit for the Sun in the rest frame of the Earth that looks identical to the Earth's orbit
in the rest frame of the Sun – the one body reduction yields relative orbits referred to the other body.
So, the entire paper is trivial and does nothing more than derive the orbit of the Sun (and Mars) in the
rest frame of the Earth – a pure kinematic co-ordinate transformation.
exactly, which shows the two views are equivalent from the physico-mathematical perspective
Physics makes observations and measurements. Theories are classifications of the experimental laws or patterns. Physics is not metaphysics. (http://books.google.com/books?id=UofBybolmREC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA29#v=onepage&q&f=false)
Thank you, Aquila, for providing a wonderful refutation of geocentrism and Sungenis' support of it.
And Geremia, you have still not explained what masses exert a gravitational force to cause the purported stellar parallax seen in a geocentric universe, nor have you explained why such parallax is only seen in stars perpendicular to the orbital plane. Please, attempt to do so. I'm listening.
Quote from: Geremia on June 11, 2014, 09:16:56 PM
Quote from: Aquila on June 11, 2014, 08:53:13 PMYou mean the one that Sungenis was caught plagiarizing?
He didn't plagiarize it. He got an advance copy from the author for GWW.Quote from: Aquila on June 11, 2014, 08:53:13 PMAnd that doesn't actually prove anything?
From http://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Here-Comes-the-Sun-Alec-MacAndrew.pdf
QuoteBut we already know that the one-body analysis using the properly calculated reduced
mass will yield an orbit for the Sun in the rest frame of the Earth that looks identical to the Earth's orbit
in the rest frame of the Sun – the one body reduction yields relative orbits referred to the other body.
So, the entire paper is trivial and does nothing more than derive the orbit of the Sun (and Mars) in the
rest frame of the Earth – a pure kinematic co-ordinate transformation.
exactly, which shows the two views are equivalent from the physico-mathematical perspective
Physics makes observations and measurements. Theories are classifications of the experimental laws or patterns. Physics is not metaphysics. (http://books.google.com/books?id=UofBybolmREC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA29#v=onepage&q&f=false)
Oh my goodness.
Did you actually read MacAndrew's explanation of the Popov paper?
They are only equivalent because Popov decided to call the X variable Y and call the Y variable X. That's basic math...it doesn't prove anything!
"But we already know that the one-body analysis using the properly calculated reduced
mass will yield an orbit for the Sun in the rest frame of the Earth that looks identical to the Earth's orbit
in the rest frame of the Sun –
the one body reduction yields relative orbits referred to the other body.
So, the entire paper is trivial and does nothing more than derive the orbit of the Sun (and Mars) in the
rest frame of the Earth – a pure kinematic co-ordinate transformation"
Quote from: Aquila on June 12, 2014, 06:12:14 AMThey are only equivalent because Popov decided to call the X variable Y and call the Y variable X. That's basic math...it doesn't prove anything!
exactly
Quote from: GloriaPatri on June 11, 2014, 09:27:08 PMyou have still not explained what masses exert a gravitational force to cause the purported stellar parallax seen in a geocentric universe, nor have you explained why such parallax is only seen in stars perpendicular to the orbital plane. Please, attempt to do so. I'm listening.
Is there anything different about the physics by merely changing reference frames? Unless you don't believe in relativity theory and think there is a preferred reference frame.
Quote from: Geremia on June 12, 2014, 04:24:16 PM
Quote from: GloriaPatri on June 11, 2014, 09:27:08 PMyou have still not explained what masses exert a gravitational force to cause the purported stellar parallax seen in a geocentric universe, nor have you explained why such parallax is only seen in stars perpendicular to the orbital plane. Please, attempt to do so. I'm listening.
Is there anything different about the physics by merely changing reference frames? Unless you don't believe in relativity theory and think there is a preferred reference frame.
Consider those geocentrists who hold that the Earth does not rotate on its axis, but instead hold that the Universe rotates around the Earth every 24 hours. The apparent motion of the celestial objects is the same in either situation, but in the situation where the Earth does not rotate the postulate that no object can travel faster than light is violated. Thus they are not truly equivalent.
And you have still failed to produce a mechanism to explain stellar parallax and identify the gravitational sources that causes them (note that some of those distant objects are entire galaxies, and not just stars). You have also failed to explain why parallax is only observed in objects perpendicular to the plane of orbit. Both of these are easily explainable in a heliocentric model of the solar system, but not in a geocentric one.
Furthermore I again remind you that according to Newton's Laws of Gravitation the Earth must experience a greater acceleration than the Sun. You have not yet resolved that either.
Contacted my buddy over in the Kurd region. He said it is quiet where they are at, and the Sunnis aren't going to mess with the Kurds anytime soon. Kurdistan is a serious country with a serious army. And Russia is drilling for oil in the region. In fact, he works for the Russkies.
If the US would back out, we could get Iran and Iraq fighting again, and let the moslems kill each other.
Quote from: GloriaPatri on June 12, 2014, 05:22:49 PM
Quote from: Geremia on June 12, 2014, 04:24:16 PM
Quote from: GloriaPatri on June 11, 2014, 09:27:08 PMyou have still not explained what masses exert a gravitational force to cause the purported stellar parallax seen in a geocentric universe, nor have you explained why such parallax is only seen in stars perpendicular to the orbital plane. Please, attempt to do so. I'm listening.
Is there anything different about the physics by merely changing reference frames? Unless you don't believe in relativity theory and think there is a preferred reference frame.
Consider those geocentrists who hold that the Earth does not rotate on its axis, but instead hold that the Universe rotates around the Earth every 24 hours. The apparent motion of the celestial objects is the same in either situation, but in the situation where the Earth does not rotate the postulate that no object can travel faster than light is violated. Thus they are not truly equivalent.
And you have still failed to produce a mechanism to explain stellar parallax and identify the gravitational sources that causes them (note that some of those distant objects are entire galaxies, and not just stars). You have also failed to explain why parallax is only observed in objects perpendicular to the plane of orbit. Both of these are easily explainable in a heliocentric model of the solar system, but not in a geocentric one.
Furthermore I again remind you that according to Newton's Laws of Gravitation the Earth must experience a greater acceleration than the Sun. You have not yet resolved that either.
I believe that the Earth rotates on its axis once per day, the Sun orbits the Earth once per year, and the Stars orbit the Sun in the same period of time. This would explain stellar parallex.
Quote from: Sbyvl36 on June 12, 2014, 08:04:03 PM
Quote from: GloriaPatri on June 12, 2014, 05:22:49 PM
Quote from: Geremia on June 12, 2014, 04:24:16 PM
Quote from: GloriaPatri on June 11, 2014, 09:27:08 PMyou have still not explained what masses exert a gravitational force to cause the purported stellar parallax seen in a geocentric universe, nor have you explained why such parallax is only seen in stars perpendicular to the orbital plane. Please, attempt to do so. I'm listening.
Is there anything different about the physics by merely changing reference frames? Unless you don't believe in relativity theory and think there is a preferred reference frame.
Consider those geocentrists who hold that the Earth does not rotate on its axis, but instead hold that the Universe rotates around the Earth every 24 hours. The apparent motion of the celestial objects is the same in either situation, but in the situation where the Earth does not rotate the postulate that no object can travel faster than light is violated. Thus they are not truly equivalent.
And you have still failed to produce a mechanism to explain stellar parallax and identify the gravitational sources that causes them (note that some of those distant objects are entire galaxies, and not just stars). You have also failed to explain why parallax is only observed in objects perpendicular to the plane of orbit. Both of these are easily explainable in a heliocentric model of the solar system, but not in a geocentric one.
Furthermore I again remind you that according to Newton's Laws of Gravitation the Earth must experience a greater acceleration than the Sun. You have not yet resolved that either.
I believe that the Earth rotates on its axis once per day, the Sun orbits the Earth once per year, and the Stars orbit the Sun in the same period of time. This would explain stellar parallex.
The gravitational attraction between even the closest stellar object and the Sun is nearly zero. It is not possible for the starts to "orbit" the Sun, just as it it is not possible for the Sun to orbit nearby stars. Truly, the majority of you here don't even understand basic Newtonian mechanics.
Case in point: Alpha Centauri, nearest star. Mass: 2.2e30Kg. Sun's mass: 2e30kg. Distance: 4.0e16 meters. Gravitational Constant G = 6.67e11 N·(m/kg)^2. The gravitational force is G(M1)(M2)/(r^2) or (6.67e-11 N·(m/kg)^2)(2.2e30kg)(2.0e30kg)/(4e16m)^2 or 1.8e17 newtons. In comparison, the gravitational attraction between the Sun and Earth is 3.510 x 10^22 N, or nearly 200,000 times stronger.
Quote from: Sbyvl36 on June 12, 2014, 08:04:03 PM
Quote from: GloriaPatri on June 12, 2014, 05:22:49 PM
Quote from: Geremia on June 12, 2014, 04:24:16 PM
Quote from: GloriaPatri on June 11, 2014, 09:27:08 PMyou have still not explained what masses exert a gravitational force to cause the purported stellar parallax seen in a geocentric universe, nor have you explained why such parallax is only seen in stars perpendicular to the orbital plane. Please, attempt to do so. I'm listening.
Is there anything different about the physics by merely changing reference frames? Unless you don't believe in relativity theory and think there is a preferred reference frame.
Consider those geocentrists who hold that the Earth does not rotate on its axis, but instead hold that the Universe rotates around the Earth every 24 hours. The apparent motion of the celestial objects is the same in either situation, but in the situation where the Earth does not rotate the postulate that no object can travel faster than light is violated. Thus they are not truly equivalent.
And you have still failed to produce a mechanism to explain stellar parallax and identify the gravitational sources that causes them (note that some of those distant objects are entire galaxies, and not just stars). You have also failed to explain why parallax is only observed in objects perpendicular to the plane of orbit. Both of these are easily explainable in a heliocentric model of the solar system, but not in a geocentric one.
Furthermore I again remind you that according to Newton's Laws of Gravitation the Earth must experience a greater acceleration than the Sun. You have not yet resolved that either.
I believe that the Earth rotates on its axis once per day, the Sun orbits the Earth once per year, and the Stars orbit the Sun in the same period of time. This would explain stellar parallex.
And why do you believe that? What observational evidence? Experimental proof? What???
Geocentrists think that they are some kind of badass revolutionaries standing up to the scientific establishment. Read anything by Delano; he positively reeks of this attitude. It's not about the truth for the seriously committed geocentrist. It's about feeling rebellious.
As GP pointed out...stuff doesn't orbit other stuff because it feels like it. There are various very well-tested laws of gravitational attraction that describe orbital mechanics. These laws-grounded in observed fact and thousands of experiments-show that it is not possible for the universe to rotate around the earth, the sun, or any similarly tiny cosmic body. In short: small stuff orbits big stuff. Period.
They are eccentrists.
Quote from: GloriaPatri on June 12, 2014, 05:22:49 PMAnd you have still failed to produce a mechanism to explain stellar parallax and identify the gravitational sources that causes them (note that some of those distant objects are entire galaxies, and not just stars). You have also failed to explain why parallax is only observed in objects perpendicular to the plane of orbit. Both of these are easily explainable in a heliocentric model of the solar system, but not in a geocentric one.
But not in a Tychonian geocentric model.
Quote from: GloriaPatri on June 12, 2014, 05:22:49 PMFurthermore I again remind you that according to Newton's Laws of Gravitation the Earth must experience a greater acceleration than the Sun. You have not yet resolved that either.
What is there to "resolve"?
Given enough epicycles, Ptolemy's theory can "save the appearances" (notice: for clarity, I don't say "explain") just as well as the more recent theories.
Summa Theologica, I, q. 32, a. 1 (http://dhspriory.org/thomas/summa/FP/FP032.html#FPQ32A1THEP1) ad 2 (which Duhem discusses in
Aim & Structure pg. 41 (http://books.google.com/books?id=5mVPK7QBdTkC&pg=PA41)):
QuoteReason is employed in two ways to establish a point:- for the purpose of furnishing sufficient proof of some principle, as in natural science,1 (#post_sdfootnote1sym) where sufficient proof can be brought to show that the movement of the heavens is always of uniform velocity.2 (#post_sdfootnote2sym)
- Reason is employed in another way, not as furnishing a sufficient proof of a principle, but as confirming already established principles, by showing the congruity of their results, as in astronomy3 (#post_sdfootnote3sym) the theory of eccentrics and epicycles is considered as established because thereby the sensible appearances of the heavenly [e.g., planetary] movements can be explained;4 (#post_sdfootnote4sym) not, however, as if this proof were sufficient, forasmuch as some other theory5 (#post_sdfootnote5sym) might explain them.
Notes1 (#post_sdfootnote1anc) This is what we moderns would call "natural philosophy," corresponding to the first degree of abstraction that deals with what is material and in motion (
ens mobile). See
Super Boethium De Trinitate q. 5 a. 2 (Aquinas,
The Division and Methods of the Sciences: Questions V and VI of His Commentary on the De Trinitate of Boethius, 25–31.). That the subject of natural philosophy is
ens mobile, see: Tommaso de Vio Cajetan and Charles de Koninck,
Tractatus de subjecto naturalis philosophiae: unica quaestione contentus, vol. 1 (Québec: Éditions Laval, 1939).
2 (#post_sdfootnote2anc) Assuming the principles from which this "sufficient proof" derive are self-evident, as they were for the most part among scholars in St. Thomas's and Aristotle's eras. A better example might be that sufficient proof the earth is round is that it casts a curved shadow on the moon.
3 (#post_sdfootnote3anc) Astronomy was the science of the ancient Greeks and Medievals most similar to what after Galileo and Newton has been termed "modern science."
4 (#post_sdfootnote4anc) In fact, "the theory of eccentrics and epicycles" can establish "the sensible appearances" of
any continuous movement of an object in the sky, given a sufficient number of eccentrics and epicycles. This is because the theory can be re-expressed in modern mathematical idiom as a complex Fourier series; and Fourier series, given a sufficient number of terms, can approximate to arbitrary accuracy any algebraic function, such as the function corresponding to the position of a planet in the sky over time. See: Norwood Russell Hanson, "The Mathematical Power of Epicyclical Astronomy,"
Isis 51, no. 2 (June 1960): 150–8, http://www.jstor.org/stable/226846 (http://www.jstor.org/stable/226846). For a humorous yet insightful understanding of this, watch:
Ptolemy and Homer (Simpson), 2008, http://youtu.be/QVuU2YCwHjw (http://youtu.be/QVuU2YCwHjw). Technical background of the video: Christián C. Carman, "La refutabilidad del sistema de epiciclos y deferentes de Ptolomeo,"
Principia: an international journal of epistemology 14, no. 2 (June 22, 2011): sec. 3, doi:10.5007/1808-1711.2010v14n2p211.
5 (#post_sdfootnote5anc) e.g., that of Copernicus or Galileo
Here is the video mentioned in footnote 4:
[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVuU2YCwHjw[/yt]
A Tychonian system can only account for stellar parallax if it asserts that the other stars in the Universe are gravitationally bound to the Sun in such a way that if the Sun moves, they too must move in a corresponding manner. But as I have already shown the gravitational force that exists between the Sun and sen the nearest star is negligible. Furthermore, Ptolemy's system may mathematically explain the motion of the planets, but it can not do so physically. It can not give an account of the gravitational forces that cause epicycles to occur. It posits movement without identifying what causes that movement.
Again, read my earlier posts corning Newton's Law of Gravity and the definition of force as mass*accel. From both of these it can be deduced that the Earth experiences a far greater acceleration than the Sun does. Since acceleration is both a change in speed or a change in direction, the Earth has a far larger orbit than the Sun does around their shared center of mass. Since that center of mass is located within the volume of the Sun, quite close to its own center, it is correct to say that the Earth orbits the Sun. It is not correct to say that the Sun orbits the Earth.
Quote from: GloriaPatri on June 17, 2014, 01:26:34 PMA Tychonian system can only account for stellar parallax if it asserts that the other stars in the Universe are gravitationally bound to the Sun in such a way that if the Sun moves, they too must move in a corresponding manner. But as I have already shown the gravitational force that exists between the Sun and sen the nearest star is negligible.
But nonzero
Quote from: GloriaPatri on June 17, 2014, 01:26:34 PMFurthermore, Ptolemy's system may mathematically explain the motion of the planets, but it can not do so physically. It can not give an account of the gravitational forces that cause epicycles to occur. It posits movement without identifying what causes that movement.
Again, read my earlier posts corning Newton's Law of Gravity and the definition of force as mass*accel. From both of these it can be deduced that the Earth experiences a far greater acceleration than the Sun does. Since acceleration is both a change in speed or a change in direction, the Earth has a far larger orbit than the Sun does around their shared center of mass. Since that center of mass is located within the volume of the Sun, quite close to its own center, it is correct to say that the Earth orbits the Sun. It is not correct to say that the Sun orbits the Earth.
So, why is the Earth-Sun center of mass frame so special that, without it, I could not use Newtonian physics?
Quote from: Geremia on June 17, 2014, 05:56:15 PM
Quote from: GloriaPatri on June 17, 2014, 01:26:34 PMA Tychonian system can only account for stellar parallax if it asserts that the other stars in the Universe are gravitationally bound to the Sun in such a way that if the Sun moves, they too must move in a corresponding manner. But as I have already shown the gravitational force that exists between the Sun and sen the nearest star is negligible.
But nonzeroQuote from: GloriaPatri on June 17, 2014, 01:26:34 PMquote]]Furthermore, Ptolemy's system may mathematically explain the motion of the planets, but it can not do so physically. It can not give an account of the gravitational forces that cause epicycles to occur. It posits movement without identifying what causes that movement.
Again, read my earlier posts corning Newton's Law of Gravity and the definition of force as mass*accel. From both of these it can be deduced that the Earth experiences a far greater acceleration than the Sun does. Since acceleration is both a change in speed or a change in direction, the Earth has a far larger orbit than the Sun does around their shared center of mass. Since that center of mass is located within the volume of the Sun, quite close to its own center, it is correct to say that the Earth orbits the Sun. It is not correct to say that the Sun orbits the Earth
.
So how does newtons law of gravity and the laws of physics in general make your case for heliocentrism while at the same time you ignore them in the case of...?:
[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVCDpL4Ax7I[/yt]
As far as Im concerned you have no scientific credibility when you deny the impossibility of the govt claims vis vis the GOVT's conspiracy theory of 911 causes of building collapses-------which you support. -------At least I can refer to the Bible for evidence of Geo Centrism
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on June 17, 2014, 07:12:14 PM[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVCDpL4Ax7I[/yt]
That's neat he was able to calculate the acceleration due to gravity based on the video of the WTC7 collapse, to within 1%.
Also, he says the NIST report confuses constant acceleration with constant velocity?
Ger...all Im pointing out is that GPs faith in hard science is a faith of conveinience.
Quote from: Geremia on June 17, 2014, 05:56:15 PM
Quote from: GloriaPatri on June 17, 2014, 01:26:34 PMA Tychonian system can only account for stellar parallax if it asserts that the other stars in the Universe are gravitationally bound to the Sun in such a way that if the Sun moves, they too must move in a corresponding manner. But as I have already shown the gravitational force that exists between the Sun and sen the nearest star is negligible.
But nonzeroQuote from: GloriaPatri on June 17, 2014, 01:26:34 PMFurthermore, Ptolemy's system may mathematically explain the motion of the planets, but it can not do so physically. It can not give an account of the gravitational forces that cause epicycles to occur. It posits movement without identifying what causes that movement.
Again, read my earlier posts corning Newton's Law of Gravity and the definition of force as mass*accel. From both of these it can be deduced that the Earth experiences a far greater acceleration than the Sun does. Since acceleration is both a change in speed or a change in direction, the Earth has a far larger orbit than the Sun does around their shared center of mass. Since that center of mass is located within the volume of the Sun, quite close to its own center, it is correct to say that the Earth orbits the Sun. It is not correct to say that the Sun orbits the Earth.
So, why is the Earth-Sun center of mass frame so special that, without it, I could not use Newtonian physics?
Again, Geremia, the gravitational attraction between the Sun and even the nearest star is so utterly negligible that it is effectively nonexistent. It is impossible to posit that all the stars of the Universe orbit the Sun. There is no meaningful gravitational attraction. The center of mass is that point around which a 2 or more body system orbits. Since the Sun is 99.9% of the Solar System's mass, the center of mass is nearly at the center of the Sun itself. Face it Geremia, geocentrism is a dead hypothesis. If you insist on holding it then I'm forced to conclude that you didn't pay much attention while getting your B.S. degree. This is elementary stuff that you're misunderstanding.
And Vox, this thread is not about your inane conspiracy theories. Keep it in the appropriate threads.
Quote from: GloriaPatri on June 18, 2014, 02:26:46 PMAgain, Geremia, the gravitational attraction between the Sun and even the nearest star is so utterly negligible that it is effectively nonexistent. It is impossible to posit that all the stars of the Universe orbit the Sun. There is no meaningful gravitational attraction. The center of mass is that point around which a 2 or more body system orbits. Since the Sun is 99.9% of the Solar System's mass, the center of mass is nearly at the center of the Sun itself. Face it Geremia, geocentrism is a dead hypothesis. If you insist on holding it then I'm forced to conclude that you didn't pay much attention while getting your B.S. degree. This is elementary stuff that you're misunderstanding.
Sure, the center of mass of the solar system is inside the sun, but that doesn't imply the center of mass of the universe cannot be at the earth.
It is about this thread. You play the scientist to discredit geocentrists...then you tjrow science out the window on 911. The theoey YOU support....the Govt conspiracy theory...
is more inane than Geocentrism. The principle movie is about how you psudoscientists discredit the faith. Your boooogus.
GloriaPatri, what do you think of this recent paper contra Popov?:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1406.5434
Quote from: Geremia on June 23, 2014, 07:48:39 PM
GloriaPatri, what do you think of this recent paper contra Popov?:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1406.5434
Mmm. Interesting.
Gentlemen, my family (i.e. my mom and I) have just moved into a new home, and I have family on my dad's side visiting with me next week. I'll try to get to the paper in good time, but I make no promises. Geremia, you could also try messaging Aquila to see what he thinks of the paper.
Quote from: Habitual_Ritual on June 24, 2014, 04:22:11 AM
Quote from: Geremia on June 23, 2014, 07:48:39 PM
GloriaPatri, what do you think of this recent paper contra Popov?:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1406.5434
Mmm. Interesting.
The abstract is interesting. I'll try to read the paper itself on Saturday.
Quote from: Aquila on June 26, 2014, 04:16:40 PM
Quote from: Habitual_Ritual on June 24, 2014, 04:22:11 AM
Quote from: Geremia on June 23, 2014, 07:48:39 PM
GloriaPatri, what do you think of this recent paper contra Popov?:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1406.5434
Mmm. Interesting.
The abstract is interesting. I'll try to read the paper itself on Saturday.
The discussion of centripetal force is interesting. Hartmann and Nissim-Sabat explains pretty well how one can use the famous bucket of water experiment to falsify the notion that gravity can be caused by a rotating universe. They also bring up Doppler shifts:
"Finally, for Mach, the case of the universe and a co-axial bucket co-rotating with an
arbitrary angular velocity is indistinguishable from the case where the two are at rest. Yet the
two cases are distinguishable by the magnetic fields produced if the universe and the bucket are
electrically charged as well as by the presence of transverse Doppler shifts."
"Arguing that linear accelerations are relative, Mach would have maintained that if
(CASE 2) the tub is initially at rest with respect to the earth but these stars are then accelerated
westward with acceleration – a with respect to the tub, the water in the tub would presumably
rise to the same height h at the west end of the tub [to match the result in CASE 1], but with the
water thus moving here in the same direction as the stars' acceleration. [The opposite was
obtained in Mach's hypothetical case where the stars revolved around a fixed bucket and the
water rose in the direction opposite to the stars' centripetal acceleration.] But, should not the
same force that causes the water's westward motion when the stars accelerate make the tub
accelerate west as well, so that there is no net acceleration of the tub with respect to the stars?
6
Also, if the tub is accelerated by the acceleration of the stars, shouldn't the Earth be accelerated
as well?
Thus, the consequences of acceleration of a tub with respect to the fixed stars cannot be
duplicated by acceleration of the fixed stars with respect to a tub at rest. (Using different
reasoning, we have shown [4] that one cannot have a fixed bucket in a rotating universe and
thus one cannot duplicate with a rotating universe what is observed when the bucket is rotated
in a fixed universe.)"
Even more interesting:
"Furthermore, as we have shown, observers on Earth having a relative angular velocity
with respect to the universe can determine whether the Earth or the universe is rotating. First,
observations with artificial satellites cannot be explained with a stationary non-rotating Earth,
most dramatically so in the case of a geosynchronous satellite in an equatorial orbit, which, for a
stationary non-rotating Earth, Popov would have it hovering above, say, Singapore, seemingly
totally unaffected by gravity, but at only one specific altitude (42,164 km from the Earth's
center) while, with a rotating Earth, one observes blue-shifted stellar spectra in the East and redshifted stellar spectra in the West, both on Earth and on the satellite; [4] Also, SR predicts the
8
observation of stellar transverse Doppler shifts in a rotating universe and, obviously, one has
superluminal velocities for most celestial objects. [5] Finally, almost a century ago, it was shown
GR predicts a gravito-magnetic centripetal axial force in a rotating universe. [6] Thus gravitomagnetism in a rotating universe is not compatible with Mach's expectations.
3. Flaws in the Mach/Popov Geocentric system."
Also, a rather hilarious comment on Popov's "Fundamental Postulate":
"Thus the Fundamental Postulate does not represent Mach's views and, if it were true, a
child twirling a rock at the end of a string would often see herself flying through the air as she
orbits the rock."
The whole paper is worth reading; I merely extracted some of the best bits.
QuotePopov would have it hovering above, say, Singapore, seemingly
totally unaffected by gravity, but at only one specific altitude (42,164 km from the Earth's
center) while,
This is a good point. If the Earth was not rotating, how could you have a geosynchronous satellite? It would fall back towards Earth.
Quote from: Geremia on June 23, 2014, 07:48:39 PM
GloriaPatri, what do you think of this recent paper contra Popov?:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1406.5434
Popov's brief response is this:
QuoteI've already been in touch with profs. Herbert I. Hartman, Charles Nissim-Sabat. We could only agree that we disagree. In my opinion, they take lots of things for granted ("laws of phyiscs"). They are also one of the rare and loud opponents to Mach's principle. I wouldn't give them much attention, they have the right of their opinion.
Also, Delano said about it:
QuoteI can say right off the bat that the authors have incorrectly stated:
"The annual asymmetry in the Cosmic Microwave Background falsifies all geocentric (Ptolemaic or 'Tychonic/Brahean) systems."
And they then proceeded to publish a paper that does not even contain a reference to the CMB, despite this unsupported assertion in the abstract!
Quote from: Geremia on June 30, 2014, 10:30:56 AM
Quote from: Geremia on June 23, 2014, 07:48:39 PM
GloriaPatri, what do you think of this recent paper contra Popov?:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1406.5434
Popov's brief response is this:QuoteI've already been in touch with profs. Herbert I. Hartman, Charles Nissim-Sabat. We could only agree that we disagree. In my opinion, they take lots of things for granted ("laws of phyiscs"). They are also one of the rare and loud opponents to Mach's principle. I wouldn't give them much attention, they have the right of their opinion.
Also, Delano said about it:QuoteI can say right off the bat that the authors have incorrectly stated:
"The annual asymmetry in the Cosmic Microwave Background falsifies all geocentric (Ptolemaic or 'Tychonic/Brahean) systems."
And they then proceeded to publish a paper that does not even contain a reference to the CMB, despite this unsupported assertion in the abstract!
And true to form, Delano completely ignores everything else said in the paper. Assuming he even understands it.
Quote from: Aquila on June 30, 2014, 09:05:42 PMAnd true to form, Delano completely ignores everything else said in the paper. Assuming he even understands it.
As if most scientists generally read anything more than the abstract, and
maybe the conclusion, anyways...
(This is coming from a PhD in astronomy I worked for in 2007, who lamented that scientists don't completely read papers anymore, although they cite them copiously.)
Quote from: Geremia on July 01, 2014, 12:14:56 PM
Quote from: Aquila on June 30, 2014, 09:05:42 PMAnd true to form, Delano completely ignores everything else said in the paper. Assuming he even understands it.
As if most scientists generally read anything more than the abstract, and maybe the conclusion, anyways...
(This is coming from a PhD in astronomy I worked for in 2007, who lamented that scientists don't completely read papers anymore, although they cite them copiously.)
So Delano is not only not a scientist, but he also imitates bad scientists?
Quote from: Aquila on July 01, 2014, 08:51:06 PM
Quote from: Geremia on July 01, 2014, 12:14:56 PM
Quote from: Aquila on June 30, 2014, 09:05:42 PMAnd true to form, Delano completely ignores everything else said in the paper. Assuming he even understands it.
As if most scientists generally read anything more than the abstract, and maybe the conclusion, anyways...
(This is coming from a PhD in astronomy I worked for in 2007, who lamented that scientists don't completely read papers anymore, although they cite them copiously.)
So Delano is not only not a scientist, but he also imitates bad scientists?
Just because he commented only on the abstract doesn't mean he hasn't read the whole paper.
Quote from: Geremia on July 02, 2014, 01:00:18 PM
Quote from: Aquila on July 01, 2014, 08:51:06 PM
Quote from: Geremia on July 01, 2014, 12:14:56 PM
Quote from: Aquila on June 30, 2014, 09:05:42 PMAnd true to form, Delano completely ignores everything else said in the paper. Assuming he even understands it.
As if most scientists generally read anything more than the abstract, and maybe the conclusion, anyways...
(This is coming from a PhD in astronomy I worked for in 2007, who lamented that scientists don't completely read papers anymore, although they cite them copiously.)
So Delano is not only not a scientist, but he also imitates bad scientists?
Just because he commented only on the abstract doesn't mean he hasn't read the whole paper.
If he didn't read the whole paper...then how does he know that it did " not even contain a reference to the CMB" ?
Face it, Delano is full of crap.
For all those who think modern science proves Copernicus's model and disproves Ptolemy's, here's what Ernst Mach (http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Ernst_Mach.aspx#1) has to say in his book that highly influenced Einstein,
The Science of Mechanics p. 232 (https://archive.org/stream/scienceofmechani005860mbp#page/n255/mode/2up):
Quote from: Ernst MachRelatively, not considering the unknown and neglected medium of space, the motions of the universe are the same whether we adopt the Ptolemaic or the Copernican mode of view. Both views are, indeed, equally correct; only the latter is more simple and more practical.
Quote from: Geremia on July 05, 2014, 05:27:18 PM
For all those who think modern science proves Copernicus's model and disproves Ptolemy's, here's what Ernst Mach (http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Ernst_Mach.aspx#1) has to say in his book that highly influenced Einstein, The Science of Mechanics p. 232 (https://archive.org/stream/scienceofmechani005860mbp#page/n255/mode/2up):Quote from: Ernst MachRelatively, not considering the unknown and neglected medium of space, the motions of the universe are the same whether we adopt the Ptolemaic or the Copernican mode of view. Both views are, indeed, equally correct; only the latter is more simple and more practical.
If you actually read the paper, you would understand why the authors say that Mach and Popov are wrong about that.
Why did Sungenis think is was justified to deceive people like Mulgrew and Kaku into participating in the film?
Does the end justify the means now?
Is what the producers did here not dishonest?
Quote from: Greg on July 08, 2014, 01:03:09 AM
Why did Sungenis think is was justified to deceive people like Mulgrew and Kaku into participating in the film?
Does the end justify the means now?
Is what the producers did here not dishonest?
Already posted here on SD was an entire video in which Sungenis and Delano proved how false that allegation is. They had copies of their contracts, and outtakes from the interviews in which they make it totally clear that they knew what they were doing. It was only when the backlash started that people like Mulgrew ran for cover. Backlash that was started, interestingly, by some neo-Catholic N.O. blogger.
"Totally Clear" eh???
Can you provide a Link to that?
I'm not sure why Mulgew and Kaku would co-operate with this film if they knew what it was about. It would be like Pope Francis suddenly admitting that Vatican II was a utter disaster for the Church, a performing a puppet mass next day.
--
I think that Lawrence Krauss was only told that the film was about the "non-Copernican implications" of recent discoveries?
No, Angelotti said. Krauss was only given a document to sign that told him he'd be asked about the implications about recent discoveries, not that they had "non-Copernican" outcomes.
In other words, they asked him about Cosmic Background Raditation then edited his comments to fit what they wanted it say and support. Let's ignore Mulgrew as she is just some dim-witted actress who would do anything for money. If either Lawrence Krauss or Michio Kaku had been asked to participate in a documentary that examines the idea that the universe revolves around the earth they would no more have agreed than Pope Francis would say an old Mass and canonize Archbishop Lefebvre.
Quote from: Greg on July 08, 2014, 12:40:58 PM
"Totally Clear" eh???
Can you provide a Link to that?
A link isn't necessary.
The video was posted earlier
in this very thread.
You mean this one. And their comments around 12-13mins?
[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvR7pMqAEso#t=207[/yt]
Quote from: Greg on July 08, 2014, 01:36:48 PM
You mean this one. And their comments around 12-13mins?
[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvR7pMqAEso#t=207[/yt]
Yes, that's the video.
No, it's not just their comments around the 12-13 minute mark. The entire hour-long video deals with addressing the false allegations which are you have repeated.
I watched it and came to the conclusion that they were not "entirely honest". They suggested that they were making a documentary exploring controversial science and cosmology.
Let's get real here. If they had explained who they were and their cosmological ideas NONE of these scientists would have made comments to them on or off camera.
Did Bob Sungenis interview any of them or was his name on any of the contracts or documents?
By all means, you're welcome to suggest that we have to fight dirty or be as "wise as serpents", because the athiests are fighting dirty but don't suggest to me that some "economy with the truth" was not engaged with here because it clearly was.
QuoteBy all means, you're welcome to suggest that we have to fight dirty or be as "wise as serpents", because the athiests are fighting dirty but don't suggest to me that some "economy with the truth" was not engaged with here because it clearly was.
yeah, they tricked them. Good for them. The scientists got to discuss their particular topic, and that is what was shown.
Quote from: james03 on July 08, 2014, 07:48:36 PM
QuoteBy all means, you're welcome to suggest that we have to fight dirty or be as "wise as serpents", because the athiests are fighting dirty but don't suggest to me that some "economy with the truth" was not engaged with here because it clearly was.
yeah, they tricked them. Good for them. The scientists got to discuss their particular topic, and that is what was shown.
Precisely. I don't see the fuss. Those scientists got to air their views and defend their positions. There really is no problem here.
The only problem would be selective editing.
People soon complain here when other posters do that to them, take their postings out of context or twist the meaning or otherwise use their posts to advance their agenda.
Perhaps paying them for their time justifies this. Perhaps those are the "rules of the game"
Quote from: Greg on July 09, 2014, 07:02:38 AM
The only problem would be selective editing.
All editing, by it's nature, is selective. I'm sure if scientists feel they have had their views twisted (a completely separate proposition), than that question will be answered.
Quote from: Aquila on July 05, 2014, 10:25:55 PM
Quote from: Geremia on July 05, 2014, 05:27:18 PM
For all those who think modern science proves Copernicus's model and disproves Ptolemy's, here's what Ernst Mach (http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Ernst_Mach.aspx#1) has to say in his book that highly influenced Einstein, The Science of Mechanics p. 232 (https://archive.org/stream/scienceofmechani005860mbp#page/n255/mode/2up):Quote from: Ernst MachRelatively, not considering the unknown and neglected medium of space, the motions of the universe are the same whether we adopt the Ptolemaic or the Copernican mode of view. Both views are, indeed, equally correct; only the latter is more simple and more practical.
If you actually read the paper, you would understand why the authors say that Mach and Popov are wrong about that.
The paper's main claim is that Mach did not account for relative accelerations just because accelerometers, according to Newtonian physics, measure accelerations due to their inertia and without reference to the "fixed" stars ("fixed" with respect to what, anyways?). Yet, in Machian physics, inertia is
due to the influence of the stars. The paper's authors confuse Machian and Newtonian physics.
Ladies and gentlemen, let us settle this once and for all. It is true that, mathematically at least, the Helio- and geocentric models of our solar system are equivalent insomuch as both of them can correctly predict the movements of the planets and other objects as observed empirically. However, the geocentric model is unnecessarily complicated , requiring the presence of epicycles and explaining parallax by positing that the stars make their own periodic circular movements in the dome of the sky. Such a system gives no account of how this is possible gravitationally, and furthermore it stands in contradiction to Occam's Razor. Also, it is a universal principle that the universe tends to use the least energy and do the least work when accomplishing something. There are no exceptions to this. It requires less work for the Earth to orbit the Sun than vice versa. Consequently, within our solar neighborhood, it is the Earth that orbits the Sun, not the other way around.
Quote from: GloriaPatri on July 09, 2014, 04:00:13 PM
Ladies and gentlemen, let us settle this once and for all. It is true that, mathematically at least, the Helio- and geocentric models of our solar system are equivalent insomuch as both of them can correctly predict the movements of the planets and other objects as observed empirically. However, the geocentric model is unnecessarily complicated
SAYS WHO?!
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on July 09, 2014, 05:36:19 PM
Quote from: GloriaPatri on July 09, 2014, 04:00:13 PM
Ladies and gentlemen, let us settle this once and for all. It is true that, mathematically at least, the Helio- and geocentric models of our solar system are equivalent insomuch as both of them can correctly predict the movements of the planets and other objects as observed empirically. However, the geocentric model is unnecessarily complicated
SAYS WHO?!
Have you seen a comparison of the geocentric and heliocentric models?
The Complete Geocentric Model
http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&docid=dc9Ukc_yoFlP9M&tbnid=I4eIFkVTSBKn0M:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.harding.edu%2Flmurray%2F113_files%2Fhtml%2Fb_historical%2520development%2Fsld036.htm&ei=Mty9U5TcJM-OyASNn4CICQ&bvm=bv.70138588,d.aWw&psig=AFQjCNHm7FXTdamajhVK86ZPN9cyodOjNg&ust=1405037996183957
The Complete Heliocentric Model
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/files/2010/09/Copernicus_solar_system.gif
A Comparison of the Two
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/files/2010/09/Geoz_wb_en.14181025_std.jpeg
And a number of reasons why geocentrism is ultimately wrong:
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2010/09/13/geocentrism-was-galileo-wrong/
Quote from: GloriaPatri on July 09, 2014, 04:00:13 PMthe geocentric model is unnecessarily complicated , requiring the presence of epicycles and explaining parallax by positing that the stars make their own periodic circular movements in the dome of the sky.
Well, Copernicus's formulation
was slightly more complicated. Newton greatly simplified things, yes.
Quote from: GloriaPatri on July 09, 2014, 04:00:13 PMit is a universal principle that the universe tends to use the least energy and do the least work when accomplishing something. There are no exceptions to this. It requires less work for the Earth to orbit the Sun than vice versa. Consequently, within our solar neighborhood, it is the Earth that orbits the Sun, not the other way around.
Are you referring to Hamilton's least action principle (i.e., ??L dt = 0)?
Also, let me see if I am understanding you correctly:
For
- mass of earth = M? = 5.9723×10²? m
- mass of sun = M? = 1.98844×10³? m
- astronomical unit (mean earth-sun distance) = r = 149597870660 m
- sidereal year (time with respect to the stars that the earth takes to orbit the sun once) = t = 31558149.8 sec.
- universal gravitational constant G = 6.6742×10¯¹¹ m³ kg¯¹ s¯²
speed of sun relative to earth = speed of earth relative to sun = v = 2?r/t = 29.78 km/s
gravitational potential energy of sun-earth system = U = - G M? M? / r = -2.512×10³? J
"Geocentric" scenario:kinetic energy of sun relative to stationary earth = T? = ½ M? v² = 8.820×10³? J
kinetic energy of earth relative to stationary earth = T? = 0 J
total energy E
geo = U + (T? + T?) = 8.569×10³? J
"Heliocentric" scenario:kinetic energy of earth relative to stationary sun = T? = ½ M? v² = 2.649×10³³ J
kinetic energy of sun relative to stationary sun = 0 J
total energy E
helio = U + (T? + T?) = -2.511×10³? J
Center of Mass (CoM) scenario:distance of CoM from sun's center R
com? = (r?M? + r?M?)/(M? + M?) = 449.3 km
(where r? = 0 m and r? = r)
distance of CoM from earth's center R
com? = (r?M? + r?M?)/(M? + M?) = 1.496×10¹¹ m
(where r? = 0 m and r? = r)
(Note: R
com? + R
com? = r, as it shoud.)
speed of sun relative to CoM = 2? R
com?/t = v? = 0.0895 m/s
speed of earth relative to CoM = 2? R
com?/t = v? = 29.78 km/s (in reality, it's a slight amount smaller than the v above, but we can't tell from the precision of these numbers)
kinetic energy of earth relative to CoM = T? = ½ M? v?² = 2.649×10³³ J
kinetic energy of sun relative to CoM = T? = ½ M? v?² = 8.820×10³? J
total energy E
CoM = U + (T? + T?) = -2.511×10³? J (this value is a tiny, tiny amount greater, or less negative, than E
helio above)
So, since Ehelio < ECoM < Egeo, would you also say this means one can't consider the earth and sun as revolving about their center of mass either, just because the total energy isn't as small as possible?
But remember: We're talking about the same earth-sun system here. Just because we can measure energies in different ways doesn't imply that one of those ways proves the way things "really are". These energy comparisons only make sense when, for example, assessing the stability of one type of orbit relative to another.
Geremia, read the article I last posted in this thread. It gives an irrefutable piece of evidence that shows the superiority of heliocentrism over geocentrism.
Quote from: GloriaPatri on July 09, 2014, 06:25:47 PM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on July 09, 2014, 05:36:19 PM
Quote from: GloriaPatri on July 09, 2014, 04:00:13 PM
Ladies and gentlemen, let us settle this once and for all. It is true that, mathematically at least, the Helio- and geocentric models of our solar system are equivalent insomuch as both of them can correctly predict the movements of the planets and other objects as observed empirically. However, the geocentric model is unnecessarily complicated
SAYS WHO?!
Have you seen a comparison of the geocentric and heliocentric models?
The Complete Geocentric Model
http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&docid=dc9Ukc_yoFlP9M&tbnid=I4eIFkVTSBKn0M:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.harding.edu%2Flmurray%2F113_files%2Fhtml%2Fb_historical%2520development%2Fsld036.htm&ei=Mty9U5TcJM-OyASNn4CICQ&bvm=bv.70138588,d.aWw&psig=AFQjCNHm7FXTdamajhVK86ZPN9cyodOjNg&ust=1405037996183957
The Complete Heliocentric Model
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/files/2010/09/Copernicus_solar_system.gif
A Comparison of the Two
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/files/2010/09/Geoz_wb_en.14181025_std.jpeg
And a number of reasons why geocentrism is ultimately wrong:
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2010/09/13/geocentrism-was-galileo-wrong/
This is simply scientific egotism. What seems complex to us is quite simple to God. For science to assert that some complexity is UNNECESSERY is the hight of hubris...you have no complete cosmological knowledge to make the assertion except your own preconceptions.
By way of example lets consider science fiction and reality in space travel:
(https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstartupguide.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F04%2FUSS_Ent.jpg&hash=568dab5bb0effbb2c264c3b65c58f040fd2c9419)
reality:
(https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.desktopzilla.info%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fwallpapers%2FComputer%2FInside-Space-Shuttle-Hd-Desktop-Wallpaper.jpg&hash=36f584a76cac34bbdde8ff46b3a4c5d78791c31e)
which of the 2 seems "unnecessarily complicated"
You are comparing an artificial, man-made system to a natural one? Really? And in reality, if the Enterprise were real it would be far more complex than current vessels. Just because it appears simpler doesn't mean it is. The Heliocentric model, however, doesn't appear simple. It is simple. Furthermore, read the article I posted, in full. It gives a single observation that geocentrism cannot explain in any way, shape, or form. But it can easily be explained in a heliocentric system. Hiny: It has to do with Venus.
But please, continue with your fallacies and your side-stepping of the argument.
The lower picture was designed by a hetrosexual man.
The deck of the enterprise was designed by some IKEA loving faggot.
Quote from: Greg on July 10, 2014, 04:44:56 AM
The lower picture was designed by a hetrosexual man.
The deck of the enterprise was designed by some IKEA loving faggot.
lol
Quote from: GloriaPatri on July 09, 2014, 08:46:02 PM
You are comparing an artificial, man-made system to a natural one? Really? And in reality, if the Enterprise were real it would be far more complex than current vessels. Just because it appears simpler doesn't mean it is. The Heliocentric model, however, doesn't appear simple. It is simple. Furthermore, read the article I posted, in full. It gives a single observation that geocentrism cannot explain in any way, shape, or form. But it can easily be explained in a heliocentric system. Hiny: It has to do with Venus.
But please, continue with your fallacies and your side-stepping of the argument.
sure why not you do all the time....explain how somehow simplicity is a necessity or more "necessary"?
Consider this altar:
(https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F-_WE8ruiSzs0%2FUcFcfEBpWeI%2FAAAAAAAA2vc%2FZsgkj371QLs%2Fs1600%2Fornate%2Baltar%2B.jpg&hash=5e5a4b9567dd4a5355f26789151206ec1015577a)
or is this altar the necessary state:
(https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.leicestershirechurches.co.uk%2Fwp-content%2Fgallery%2Foadbypauls%2Foadby-st-pauls.jpg&hash=efbae9d1b641b2bdcbc8f125f49da16dfc56d7b5)
Again, you are comparing an artificial construct with a natural construct. The Universe is observed to always follow the path of least energy usage. The Sun revolving around the Earth requires ~330,000x more energy than the Earth revolving around the Sun. But the Universe will naturally tend to that system that requires the least energy and does the least work. It is a matter of efficiency.
And please Voxx, stop comparing apples to oranges. Either address the Venus argument presented in the article I posted, or leave. At this point you can't even constructively defend your view.
Excuse me but it is you who catorized the complexity of the geocentric model as UNNECESSESARY...as if you were God or his judge. You need to back up that claim...and my examoles are perfectly illustrative of my argument against yours. God has artistic license ...to make the universe operate as simply or complex as he wants. And dont tell me to step away from any thread...if you dont like my posts ignore them
Again, address the Venusian evidence from the article I posted previously. That alone is the death knell for geocentrism, let alone Occam's Razor.
Look.....YOU called the complexity unecessary...thats all Im addressing...you wish to change the subject...and BTW where is all this concern for occams razor when you support slime to human evolution?
The gradual changes seen in evolution are hardly complex, but this is not an evolution thread. I'm "changing the subject" because you fail to understand that the universe works on a principle of efficiency. It does things that require the least work and consume the least energy. Geocentrism does not fulfill this condition.
Quote from: GloriaPatri on July 11, 2014, 11:49:23 AM
The gradual changes seen in evolution are hardly complex,
Your not wrong. 'Non-existent' could be another word used to describe these imaginary changes
Quote from: GloriaPatri on July 11, 2014, 11:49:23 AM
. It does things that require the least work and consume the least energy. Geocentrism does not fulfill this condition.
How does geography impact energy efficiency ?
Quote from: GloriaPatri on July 11, 2014, 11:49:23 AM
The gradual changes seen in evolution are hardly complex, but this is not an evolution thread. I'm "changing the subject" because you fail to understand that the universe works on a principle of efficiency. It does things that require the least work and consume the least energy. Geocentrism does not fulfill this condition.
There is no law of nature that requires systems to consume the least energy...it may be the norm AS FAR AS YOU KNOW but it is not a law....in fact all systems use more energy then they create so on their face they are all inefficient. And as I said God has artistic license to make a universe any way God wants to...if he wants to have a complex geocentric system (a system YOU now have acknowledged can be observed as mathematically possible...but not probable) then who the hell are you to deem it unnecessary? Science worship has turned you into a dull and unimpressed materialist IMO
Quote from: GloriaPatri on July 11, 2014, 11:49:23 AM
The gradual changes seen in evolution are hardly complex,
Plus any imagined evolutionary changes, regardless of how small they might appear to naked eye, would in fact be bio-chemically and genetically very complicated indeed, in terms of the requisite cascade effect and bio chemical processing needed to initiate even minor biological changes.And of course these changes all need to stem from non-detrimental (almost impossible) changes to the genetic code which then need to expressed and translated by the cell.
True. We can breed various strains of corn. But we can't breed corn into blueberries.
This was actually my reply to a PM from GloriaPatri, but I thought I'd post it here and watch some heads explode.
"I'm probably not the best astrophysicist. I've got three semesters left for my B.S.E.E. I'm much better at understanding stuff like electromagnetism and semiconductor physics, since it more directly relates to my chosen field.
Unfortunately, having had discussions in RL with geocentrism proponents, most arguments are fruitless. These people rarely have the knowledge-and in some cases, intellectual capacity-to understand scientific arguments.
Instead, they have a reflexive countercultural reaction, that often leads them to embrace dumb crap like homeopathy and geocentrism. Instead of researching and critically thinking about modern science or medicine, they start with the assumption "If all of those sinners believe this is true, then it must be false!". Then they congratulate themselves for "not being sheeple". They replace thought with emotion. While the emotion is not always misplaced (for example, a reflexive reaction against modern modes of dress), it can often lead to stupid and false conclusions.
Since the argument is based more on emotion than rational thought, a rational argument is rarely convincing."
Those kind of people you describe remind me of those people who refuse to recycle just to spite libtards who are environmentalists.
Quote from: zork on July 19, 2014, 10:02:31 PM
Those kind of people you describe remind me of those people who refuse to recycle just to spite libtards who are environmentalists.
It's the same concept.
Largely agree. I get why the earth orbits around the sun. I don't get evolution though. I just don't believe that random mutations and environmental conditions can lead to the complexity of life we have on the planet, no matter how many billion years have passed.
So my rejection of evolutionary theory is not emotional but rather intellectual. I've read the explanations and think they are bullshit.
Moreover, if evolution is correct, Christianity as I understand it is dead having lost all credibility.
Quote from: Greg on August 31, 2014, 03:23:52 PM
Largely agree. I get why the earth orbits around the sun. I don't get evolution though. I just don't believe that random mutations and environmental conditions can lead to the complexity of life we have on the planet, no matter how many billion years have passed.
So my rejection of evolutionary theory is not emotional but rather intellectual. I've read the explanations and think they are bullshit.
Moreover, if evolution is correct, Christianity as I understand it is dead having lost all credibility.
I wouldn't call the mutations random. At least, most biologists refuse to call them random. The likelihood of any change in the genetic code occurring is governed by statistical laws, and the propagation of such genes is governed by pressure from the environment.
I also like to view it as potentiality vs actuality. Basic organism (single-celled) contain within themselves the potential to develop into different "more evolved" organisms, a potential which is actualized over time.
Quote from: GloriaPatri on August 31, 2014, 10:48:27 PM
Quote from: Greg on August 31, 2014, 03:23:52 PM
Largely agree. I get why the earth orbits around the sun. I don't get evolution though. I just don't believe that random mutations and environmental conditions can lead to the complexity of life we have on the planet, no matter how many billion years have passed.
So my rejection of evolutionary theory is not emotional but rather intellectual. I've read the explanations and think they are bullshit.
Moreover, if evolution is correct, Christianity as I understand it is dead having lost all credibility.
I wouldn't call the mutations random. At least, most biologists refuse to call them random. The likelihood of any change in the genetic code occurring is governed by statistical laws, and the propagation of such genes is governed by pressure from the environment.
I also like to view it as potentiality vs actuality. Basic organism (single-celled) contain within themselves the potential to develop into different "more evolved" organisms, a potential which is actualized over time.
Your problem comes in the form of the massive biodiversity...and specific interdependent life forms:
A whale fall has been shown by biologists to have unique and specific life forms and bacteria that exist in no other ecosystem....since whales and these life forms are contemporaries of each other they could not have formed at separate times over millions of years to act in such a specific way...in the evolutionary scenarios...which came first? The whale carcass or the ecosystem?
[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQbGk4sHROg[/yt]
[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BppKscns1Rk[/yt]
and this is a frequent video I post as evidence of another topic...but in this debate ....as you can see (maybe not you but others) it poses a specific problem for evolution:
Which came first the parasite or the bird? This parasite can ONLY procreate in the intestinal tracts of birds!
The snail? How did the parasite "know"...this is totally untenable with a millions of accidental changes causing a specific life form theory..there is simply no
reasonable mathematical possibility or timeline
[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Go_LIz7kTok[/yt]
symbiotic mutualism:
[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSmL2F1t81Q[/yt]
Neither would've come first. Bacteria already present in this evolutionary ancestor of the whale would've evolved as its ecosystem (the whale) evolved. You can stretch this back to the earliest ancestor that was in a relationship with the bacteria. There's no real issue here, Voxx.
Quote from: GloriaPatri on September 01, 2014, 07:41:00 AM
Neither would've come first. Bacteria already present in this evolutionary ancestor of the whale would've evolved as its ecosystem (the whale) evolved. You can stretch this back to the earliest ancestor that was in a relationship with the bacteria. There's no real issue here, Voxx.
the bacteria the worms the fish...the specificity of location...are a major problem..the fish didnt live "inside the whale" the crabs and worms didnt live "inside the whale". Your just being optuse. And what of the bird/snail parasite?
Quote from: Aquila on July 19, 2014, 09:54:13 PM
Instead, they have a reflexive countercultural reaction, that often leads them to embrace dumb crap like homeopathy and geocentrism. Instead of researching and critically thinking about modern science or medicine, they start with the assumption
lol. Irony:
QuoteGovernment-mandated health insurance covers up the fact that allopathic medicine is failing. Mike Adams, in his recent article on Natural News, "http://www.naturalnews.com," quotes my Death by Medicine paper, which I personally wrote in 2003, where I inventoried medical iatrogenesis.
My 2005 research found an annual death rate of 783,936 due to medical interventions at a cost of $282 billion. I updated that figure in the 2008 edition of my Kindle/eBook, Death by Modern Medicine: Seeking Safe Solutions and found that the number had actually risen to 895,936 with a price tag of $282.85 billion.
What's interesting is that the cost of iatrogenesis has decreased. When the iatrogenic figures came out in 2005, allopathic medicine tried to deny them but each new study they did uncovered more bodies. And when medicine set out to change the stats, it didn't aim for fewer deaths but for cost containment!
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/038978_death_by_medicine_health_insurance_drug_side_effects.html#ixzz3C4pgS8UQ
How many deaths by Homeopathy can you dredge up?
QuoteNeither would've come first. Bacteria already present in this evolutionary ancestor of the whale would've evolved as its ecosystem (the whale) evolved. You can stretch this back to the earliest ancestor that was in a relationship with the bacteria. There's no real issue here, Voxx.
Actually it is THE issue, so your fait acompli does not work.
You state it is governed by statistics. Fair enough. What is the probability of dead lock being resolved? Zero.
That is the scientific argument against evolution in a nutshell. Like I said, the paradigm shift (which evolutionists have yet to recognize) from bio-chemisty to nanotechnology causes huge problems for evolution.
Quote from: Habitual_Ritual on September 01, 2014, 09:09:33 AM
Quote from: Aquila on July 19, 2014, 09:54:13 PM
Instead, they have a reflexive countercultural reaction, that often leads them to embrace dumb crap like homeopathy and geocentrism. Instead of researching and critically thinking about modern science or medicine, they start with the assumption
lol. Irony:
QuoteGovernment-mandated health insurance covers up the fact that allopathic medicine is failing. Mike Adams, in his recent article on Natural News, "http://www.naturalnews.com," quotes my Death by Medicine paper, which I personally wrote in 2003, where I inventoried medical iatrogenesis.
My 2005 research found an annual death rate of 783,936 due to medical interventions at a cost of $282 billion. I updated that figure in the 2008 edition of my Kindle/eBook, Death by Modern Medicine: Seeking Safe Solutions and found that the number had actually risen to 895,936 with a price tag of $282.85 billion.
What's interesting is that the cost of iatrogenesis has decreased. When the iatrogenic figures came out in 2005, allopathic medicine tried to deny them but each new study they did uncovered more bodies. And when medicine set out to change the stats, it didn't aim for fewer deaths but for cost containment!
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/038978_death_by_medicine_health_insurance_drug_side_effects.html#ixzz3C4pgS8UQ
How many deaths by Homeopathy can you dredge up?
Steve Jobs, for one. He attempted to beat cancer with "natural remedies", instead of chemotherapy. There are other examples. There is also no evidence that homeopathy is effective in any way, shape, or form. All of the principles of homeopathy (e.g. "like cures like", dilution of elements, water memory, etc.) completely contradicts not only everything that we know about chemistry and biology, but also good old common sense.
Quote from: Aquila on September 01, 2014, 12:36:34 PM
Steve Jobs, for one. He attempted to beat cancer
Err...yeah. I think 'Cancer' is the fundamental factor here, and orthodox oncology doesn't have a great track record either.Pancreatic cancer stats are terrible across the board.
http://www.cancer.org/cancer/pancreaticcancer/detailedguide/pancreatic-cancer-survival-rates
Stats are not available for year 6 onward. Oncology won't count past 5 due to the high statistical rates of recurrence after year 5.
Quote from: Aquila on September 01, 2014, 12:36:34 PM
There are other examples.
lol. How many, 4......5 maybe ?
Quote from: Habitual_Ritual on September 01, 2014, 01:07:51 PM
Quote from: Aquila on September 01, 2014, 12:36:34 PM
There are other examples.
lol. How many, 4......5 maybe ?
Irrelevant to the real point which is that homeopathy just means drinking really expensive distilled water...or very pricey sugar pills.
Quote from: Aquila on September 01, 2014, 12:36:34 PMSteve Jobs, for one. He attempted to beat cancer with "natural remedies", instead of chemotherapy. There are other examples. There is also no evidence that homeopathy is effective in any way, shape, or form. All of the principles of homeopathy (e.g. "like cures like", dilution of elements, water memory, etc.) completely contradicts not only everything that we know about chemistry and biology, but also good old common sense.
Radiation therapy and often chemo, too, are homeopathic; they fight likes with likes; they create cancer to kill cancer. (Yes, chemo can be carcinogenic; see this (http://www.cancer.org/treatment/treatmentsandsideeffects/treatmenttypes/chemotherapy/chemotherapyprinciplesanin-depthdiscussionofthetechniquesanditsroleintreatment/chemotherapy-principles-safety-precautions)).
Quote from: Aquila on September 01, 2014, 01:10:36 PM
Irrelevant to the real point which is that homeopathy just means drinking really expensive distilled water...or very pricey sugar pills.
Which is my point precisely. Homeopathy is harmless. Iatrogenic death as a result of 'real' medicine is off the charts.
Quote from: Aquila on September 01, 2014, 01:10:36 PMvery pricey sugar pills.
Glycobiology is cutting-edge (http://bit.ly/1eGaTRS).
Quote from: Geremia on September 01, 2014, 01:12:30 PM
Quote from: Aquila on September 01, 2014, 12:36:34 PMSteve Jobs, for one. He attempted to beat cancer with "natural remedies", instead of chemotherapy. There are other examples. There is also no evidence that homeopathy is effective in any way, shape, or form. All of the principles of homeopathy (e.g. "like cures like", dilution of elements, water memory, etc.) completely contradicts not only everything that we know about chemistry and biology, but also good old common sense.
Radiation therapy and often chemo, too, are homeopathic; they fight likes with likes; they create cancer to kill cancer. (Yes, chemo can be carcinogenic; see this (http://www.cancer.org/treatment/treatmentsandsideeffects/treatmenttypes/chemotherapy/chemotherapyprinciplesanin-depthdiscussionofthetechniquesanditsroleintreatment/chemotherapy-principles-safety-precautions)).
That's not even close to analagous to the "like cures like" axiom of hompathy, first of all. Second of all, chemo *can* can carcinogenic, but it isn't designed to be. Carcinogenic effects can be a side effect of chemotherapy.
Quote from: Geremia on September 01, 2014, 01:19:06 PM
Quote from: Aquila on September 01, 2014, 01:10:36 PMvery pricey sugar pills.
Glycobiology is cutting-edge (http://bit.ly/1eGaTRS).
Completely missing the point again.
The sugar pills I am referring to have nothing to do with glycobiology; they're the sugar pill homeopathic "remedies" that you shell out the big bucks for. They're just sugar pills that have some distilled water dripped on them, then evaporate.
Quote from: Aquila on September 01, 2014, 01:31:59 PM
Quote from: Geremia on September 01, 2014, 01:12:30 PM
Quote from: Aquila on September 01, 2014, 12:36:34 PMSteve Jobs, for one. He attempted to beat cancer with "natural remedies", instead of chemotherapy. There are other examples. There is also no evidence that homeopathy is effective in any way, shape, or form. All of the principles of homeopathy (e.g. "like cures like", dilution of elements, water memory, etc.) completely contradicts not only everything that we know about chemistry and biology, but also good old common sense.
Radiation therapy and often chemo, too, are homeopathic; they fight likes with likes; they create cancer to kill cancer. (Yes, chemo can be carcinogenic; see this (http://www.cancer.org/treatment/treatmentsandsideeffects/treatmenttypes/chemotherapy/chemotherapyprinciplesanin-depthdiscussionofthetechniquesanditsroleintreatment/chemotherapy-principles-safety-precautions)).
That's not even close to analagous to the "like cures like" axiom of hompathy, first of all.
Homeopathy is, as the
OED defines it, "A system of medical practice founded by Hahnemann of Leipsic about 1796, according to which diseases are treated by the administration (usually in very small doses) of drugs which would produce in a healthy person symptoms closely resembling those of the disease treated." If you give radiation or carcinogenic chemo drugs to a healthy person, you are going to give them cancer.
Quote from: Aquila on September 01, 2014, 01:31:59 PMSecond of all, chemo *can* can carcinogenic
That's what I said
Quote from: Aquila on September 01, 2014, 01:31:59 PM, but it isn't designed to be. Carcinogenic effects can be a side effect of chemotherapy.
Quote from: Geremia on September 01, 2014, 05:09:33 PM
Quote from: Aquila on September 01, 2014, 01:31:59 PM
Quote from: Geremia on September 01, 2014, 01:12:30 PM
Quote from: Aquila on September 01, 2014, 12:36:34 PMSteve Jobs, for one. He attempted to beat cancer with "natural remedies", instead of chemotherapy. There are other examples. There is also no evidence that homeopathy is effective in any way, shape, or form. All of the principles of homeopathy (e.g. "like cures like", dilution of elements, water memory, etc.) completely contradicts not only everything that we know about chemistry and biology, but also good old common sense.
Radiation therapy and often chemo, too, are homeopathic; they fight likes with likes; they create cancer to kill cancer. (Yes, chemo can be carcinogenic; see this (http://www.cancer.org/treatment/treatmentsandsideeffects/treatmenttypes/chemotherapy/chemotherapyprinciplesanin-depthdiscussionofthetechniquesanditsroleintreatment/chemotherapy-principles-safety-precautions)).
That's not even close to analagous to the "like cures like" axiom of hompathy, first of all.
Homeopathy is, as the OED defines it, "A system of medical practice founded by Hahnemann of Leipsic about 1796, according to which diseases are treated by the administration (usually in very small doses) of drugs which would produce in a healthy person symptoms closely resembling those of the disease treated." If you give radiation or carcinogenic chemo drugs to a healthy person, you are going to give them cancer.Quote from: Aquila on September 01, 2014, 01:31:59 PMSecond of all, chemo *can* can carcinogenic
That's what I saidQuote from: Aquila on September 01, 2014, 01:31:59 PM, but it isn't designed to be. Carcinogenic effects can be a side effect of chemotherapy.
Homepathic snake oil is diluted so much that there is usually not a single molecule of the actual curing substance in the "remedy". You have more chance of winning the lottery than of finding a single molecule of, say, arsenic in arsenicum album. All it is is overpriced distilled water. Not bad for you, but also completely non-curative.
(https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwhale.to%2Fa%2Fmoss_b20.jpg&hash=1c78598f0839e486b74af3499c294924c3cf7a7f)
Apparently now the release date is October 10th (source (http://www.theprinciplemovie.com/blog/category/press/)).
Quote from: Geremia on September 05, 2014, 10:43:43 PM
Apparently now the release date is October 10th (source (http://www.theprinciplemovie.com/blog/category/press/)).
Apparently that's only a tentative date, too. Here's what the writer wrote:
Quote
We signed our contract with the distributor on Saturday.
We will be making a final decision on the opening date (two are possible) this week.
Both are in October.
This time around, the announcement will be official, and in the form of a press release from our distributor.
We open in Chicago.
(source (http://magisterialfundies.blogspot.com/2014/09/smoking-gun-lawrence-krauss-admits.html?showComment=1410226831597&m=1#c1632004792357284807))
Now the release date is Oct. 24:
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2014/09/prweb12193474.htm
That date is probably set in stone ? their distributor, Rocky Mountain Pictures, picked it.
yay!
The Principle (http://theprinciplemovie.com/) debuts in Chicago today. Here's the sound track's music video:
[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikOaq4BhCaI[/yt]
I look forward to this!
There's now a poll: http://www.theprinciplemovie.com/see-movie/demand-it-individuals/
I voted for Philadelphia, PA.
So basically it is not being shown anywhere?
It's currently playing in Chicago (that is, if it's still playing in Chicago), and then in early 2015 they are releasing it in "selected theatrical outlets" (which I guess will be determined by the demand... there's the poll I linked to, and there's also this page (http://www.theprinciplemovie.com/see-movie/demand-it-organizations/) where groups of 50, 200, or 500 people can demand it in their city). And after the theatrical run they plan on releasing it on DVD and digital download.
Quote from: Daniel on December 20, 2014, 08:00:40 PM
It's currently playing in Chicago (that is, if it's still playing in Chicago), and then in early 2015 they are releasing it in "selected theatrical outlets" (which I guess will be determined by the demand... there's the poll I linked to, and there's also this page (http://www.theprinciplemovie.com/see-movie/demand-it-organizations/) where groups of 50, 200, or 500 people can demand it in their city). And after the theatrical run they plan on releasing it on DVD and digital download.
Thanks for that link
I filled it out.
Quote from: Daniel on December 20, 2014, 08:00:40 PM
And after the theatrical run they plan on releasing it on DVD and digital download.
Why delay the inevitable?
The theatrical run is over. I am sure 10,000 people want to see this but they are distributed all over the country. Attempting to put it in cinemas makes no sense to me. Seems like vanity. Just distribute it on line and have people pay a dollar or two to watch it.
It did well in Chicago. I don't see why they shouldn't bring it to other theaters before releasing it online. I believe that was their plan all along (it was never intended to be a "straight-to-video" movie...).
Define "did well?"
Quote from: Greg on December 21, 2014, 06:15:51 PM
Define "did well?"
Well this article's pretty old, but this is what I'm talking about: http://www.theprinciplemovie.com/opening-weekend-moving-forward-update/
I believe that they later began showing it in a second theatre in Chicago. I'm not sure how well it went there, but I'm assuming it didn't do poorly.
Regardless, I don't see any harm in delaying the online release another few months.
If it did "well", it would be in a third cinema somewhere else.
All kinds of cinematic crap gets shown in small independent cinemas and mid week even in larger cinemas.
If there was any real interest in this film as opposed to a tiny clique following, then it would get shown more. The movie theatres will show anything that sells tickets. Look at the Passion of the Christ.
2 cinemas for a few days in a population of 300 million people can hardly be described as "doing well". It is only 1 more cinema than 1 cinema, which is the entry level qualification of doing anything at all. I imagine that just about every film ever shown in the history of cinema has shown in at least 1 or 2 movie houses.
If the Principle has "done well" then Plan 9 from Outer Space was a "Hollywood Blockbuster".
Quote from: Greg on December 22, 2014, 04:39:37 AM
If it did "well", it would be in a third cinema somewhere else.
All kinds of cinematic crap gets shown in small independent cinemas and mid week even in larger cinemas.
If there was any real interest in this film as opposed to a tiny clique following, then it would get shown more. The movie theatres will show anything that sells tickets. Look at the Passion of the Christ.
2 cinemas for a few days in a population of 300 million people can hardly be described as "doing well". It is only 1 more cinema than 1 cinema, which is the entry level qualification of doing anything at all. I imagine that just about every film ever shown in the history of cinema has shown in at least 1 or 2 movie houses.
If the Principle has "done well" then Plan 9 from Outer Space was a "Hollywood Blockbuster".
Oremus. :)
FYI:
The movie is being shown during the month of April in: Cincinnati, Ohio; Omaha, Nebraska; NewCastle, Pennsylvania. See link for details: http://www.theprinciplemovie.com/see-movie/april2015/
It actually did better than a list of Hollywood movies you probably never heard of; for good reason.
One movie famously made 30 dollars in box office
Zyzzyx Road
Quote from: Lydia Purpuraria on April 14, 2015, 08:43:06 AM
FYI:
The movie is being shown during the month of April in: Cincinnati, Ohio; Omaha, Nebraska; NewCastle, Pennsylvania. See link for details: http://www.theprinciplemovie.com/see-movie/april2015/
are there concentrations of trads in these areas
Yes to cincy and probably Omaha
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
i have heard good things about the bishop of omaha
The following book, written by a priest and Ph.D. in physics from Temple University, is a more erudite presentation of what amounts to the central theses of Sungenis's Galileo Was Wrong:
Fr. Victor Philip Warkulwiz, MSS, PhD, Universe without Space and Time: An Essay on Principles for Relational Cosmology Drawn from Catholic Tradition and Empirical Science (http://garrigou.us.to/browse/book/5028) (Bensalem, PA: Albertus Magnus Apostolate for Religion and Science, Missionary Priests of the Blessed Sacrament, 2013).
DVD now available:
https://screeningnow.com/public/product/5600c06409f6108a096a2dff/
main site link here (http://www.theprinciplemovie.com/)