An entertaining debunking of geocentrism - The Principle (2014) Discussion

[–] rocinante-421-313928 10 years ago

You've posted this before. Most of those videos are dealing with ptolemaic geocentrism and pure kinematics and it's absolutely irrelevant for modern geocentrism.

The model it presents on part 10 is not the Neo-Tychonean, but the classical Tychonean. The Neo-Tychonean model is antithetical to the relativistic no-absolute frames allowed model and has the exact same kinematics. Its fundamental claim is simply that the ECI is an actual absolute frame, and you can't refute that on kinematics.

Also, it's ridiculous how the author of this video claims Sungenis gives no explanation other than magic for the z-axis tilt of the spinning universe, while his book actually spends a few pages on chapter 9 detailing how that's due to gyroscopic effects of the spinning universe, pretty much like a gyroscope will wobble if you try to tilt it, or if it has an additional weight at some point of the circumference. Strawman of the year for the video's author.

Frankly, as I said before, it's obvious the author of these videos never actually read the book and is criticizing what he imagines it to be. Add that to the insults and childish language he uses, and it makes up for a nice bluff, but it's still a bluff.

reply

[–] chizzlewit 10 years ago

"The model it presents on part 10 is not the Neo-Tychonean, but the classical Tychonean."

Because, as has been explained even in that video itself, it is an introduction to the history of the Tychonean models.
It still manages to bury a lot of Sungenis' rubbish (like the "oscillating universe" idiocy) as it is. In fact, it does go on to begin to explore the Neo-Tychonean model, and the author has explained that they will explore it further in the coming episodes.

"The Neo-Tychonean model is antithetical to the relativistic no-absolute frames allowed model and has the exact same kinematics. Its fundamental claim is simply that the ECI is an actual absolute frame, and you can't refute that on kinematics."

Wow, relative motion viewed from different frames of reference have kinematic equivalences. Why aren't you queuing up for your nobel prize?
The problem is that an absolute reference frame can't be *established* on kinemtaics, and nobody in the astrophysical world is using kinematics to disprove geocentrism.
Oh you geocentrifrauds and your outright lies and straw men.

"it's ridiculous how the author of this video claims Sungenis gives no explanation other than magic for the z-axis tilt of the spinning universe while his book actually spends a few pages on chapter 9 detailing how that's due to gyroscopic effects of the spinning universe, pretty much like a gyroscope will wobble if you try to tilt it, or if it has an additional weight at some point of the circumference. Strawman of the year for the video's author."

Except he doesn't, because in Sungenis' pretend model, isn't the universe not meant to be "weighted at some point on the circumference"? It's just a uniform shell. He produces no mechanism for it's tilt. He actually contradicts his own model here.
Not a straw man. Sungenis' attempt to get around answering this contradicts everything he states in his model. Kind of like he does when he tries to explain comets and meteorites, when he openly contradicts himself and admits the universe is not geocentric - such as when he gets around the comet problem by stating that the comet crosses the EARTH'S PATH.
Hmmmm. Do tell me how a stationary object can be said to have a "path"....

As I've mentioned elsewhere:
Shame you've produced none of that physics and maths you were asked for.
Why, it's ALMOST like it doesn't exist....

I, however, have seen all the papers that geocentrifrauds like to throw around the place. The funny bit is that they enjoy flaunting the 1977 Barbour and Bertotti paper, "Gravity and Inertia in a Machian Framework". The hilariously tragic fact being that their paper still has the Earth going around the Sun.
Whoops.
Oddly, shortly after I asked Barbour about his involvement in this movie, he made a public statement denouncing it.
I know, I know, you got his permission slip. But I highly doubt he'd have given it if you'd actually been honest with him regarding the subject of the film. Besides, you all just focus on his permission slip and forget the main bulk of what he said in his denouncement - that geocentrifrauds have got his papers completely ass-backwards.

The best you've got is Popov, who completely fails to produce any physics, and the best he can manage is the absolutely shocking notice that relative motion observed from different reference frames have a kinematic equivalence.
WOW.
That's like a 40 year old man coming out with the statement "Dogs have fur!" and expecting everyone to be amazed.

I'm afraid there is, contrary to Sungenis' claims, no physics supporting geocentrism.
Even his idiotic "center of mass argument" is a demonstrable load of crap. The universe just doesn't act like it has any center of mass.
As Alex MacAndrew stated:
"Let us ignore, just for the moment, the fact that the universe is unlikely to be a sphere or any other shape with a spatial boundary, and grant for the sake of argument, over the next few paragraphs, the idea that the universe is spatially finite, flat, Euclidean and spherical with a spatial boundary (i.e., a ball) and therefore in possession of a definable and unique centre of mass.
Let’s also note that Sungenis is attempting a classical (Newtonian) analysis. Then “those stars” will revolve around the Earth only if they are gravitationally bound and the universe as a whole has non-zero angular momentum. Moreover they should revolve in a way that is predictable by the laws of celestial mechanics.
What do we observe?
In the first place, we see that the universe as a whole is not gravitationally bound (the expansion of the universe is accelerating and parts of the universe are moving apart at greater than escape velocity which means they are not gravitationally bound); furthermore we do not measure a non-zero angular momentum for the universe (i.e. it does not measurably rotate) 16; and finally the motion of the galaxies and galaxy clusters looks nothing like they would look if the universe were a gravitationally bound set of free falling bodies revolving around a centre of mass, in which the angular velocity of galaxies should decrease as a function of distance from the centre of mass."

So, it just doesn't even act like it has a center of mass in the first place. But it gets better. Even if it did, and even if the Earth at any point occupied it, it is physically impossible for the Earth to remain at rest at that spot.
Sungenis confuses the center of mass with a point of zero gravity. However, since the universe beyond Earth is nowhere near symmetrical (we have most of the mass of the solar system parked next door to us, in the form of the sun), this isn't the case. Even if it was symmetrical, that still wouldn't matter.
To quote MacAndrew again:
"Sungenis is conflating the centre of mass with a point where the gravitational field is zero. A body at the centre of mass is still subject to the gravitational fields of other bodies – and in general, contrary to Sungenis’s claim, the gravitational field is not zero at the centre of mass....
And the Earth is not near to being in a gravitationally symmetric situation – it is not, even in Sungenis’s “ball universe” model, positioned in the centre of a ball of uniform density and gravitational attraction, because it is relatively close to a massive body (the Sun) with the next equivalently massive body, Proxima Centauri, ~270,000 times further away – and, remember, gravitational field goes as the inverse square of the distance. The Earth is primarily subject to the relatively enormous gravitational field of the Sun; secondarily to the gravitational field of other solar bodies which are about 1,000 (for the moon) – ~30,000 (for Venus and Jupiter) times less than the Sun; and then to the gravity of the entire Milky Way galaxy of a trillion stars which, in spite of its immense mass and because of its vast distance from the Earth, is 31 million times less than that of the Sun....
All of these bodies cause some acceleration of the Earth – in the case of the Sun, its gravity results in the acceleration of the Earth which keeps the Earth in orbit around it; the moon’s gravity causes an acceleration of the Earth that results in a monthly perturbation or wobble on the Earth’s annual orbit (the gravity of the other planets cause further perturbations). The acceleration due to the gravitational field of the Milky Way explains the orbit of the Earth, Sun and other planets of the solar system round the galaxy at a radius of 25,900 light years) and so on. The gravitational fields (and Earth’s resulting accelerations) of the rest of the galaxy are very small compared to the Sun’s field, but are sufficient to explain the orbit of the solar system around the galaxy because of the very large period of the solar system’s galactic motion....
Together with the Sun’s field, the accelerations caused by these bodies, all in constant motion, result in time - changing velocities so that the Earth cannot be stably at rest in an inertial frame. A finite acceleration, which the earth must have because it is in a non-zero gravitational field, is the same as a time-varying velocity – that’s the definition of acceleration – and if a velocity is time-varying it cannot be zero indefinitely, even if it is zero for a moment. Even if at one instant in time the Earth just happens to coincide with the centre of mass, it cannot remain so.

So. Whoops. Not only does the universe not act like it has Sungenis' magical center of mass - but the Earth couldn't remain occupy it indefinitely, even if it did.
And don't get me started on Sungeni's ridiculous "oscilliation" idea - needless to say he utterly fails at simple geometry. He states that the universe oscillates in a 74 million mile arc, but fails to realise that if that were the case, everything that lies on a plane with the Sun and further away from Earth than it from our perspective, would have to travel further than 74 million miles, in order to remain on the same plane as the sun.
The greatest failing though, is that it means absolutely nothing, geometrically, to talk of "oscillating" a sphere in an arc defined by a linear distance - you would talk in ANGLES, not lengths. Sungenis doesn't get this, because he's a mathematically illiterate moron.

"I don't have to bring something pretty special to the table in order for geocentrism to be a viable option"

Yes, you do, because you have ZERO physics. You don't have gravity, we've already gone through that. Classical Newtonian physics and General Relativity is against you.
And if you want to invoke some magical "Aether", you have to account for the fact that every experiment disproves it's existence - the Michelson-Morley, Michelson-Gale-Peterson and Airy's telescope experiments, taken together, cannot be explained with an Aether. In order to invoke it for the Michelson-Gale-Peterson experiment, you have to discount the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment, because the type of Aether they support is completely different.
Geocentrifrauds are hilarious when they try to rewrite scientific history.
And even if we just accept the Aether, despite there being no evidence for its existence and everything pointing against it - you still need to supply the physical mechanism/force that explains the motions of the bodies as they move through it. Yet another important part of the physics that is completely missing from this childish conjecture.

reply

[–] rocinante-421-313928 10 years ago

Wow, relative motion viewed from different frames of reference have kinematic equivalences. Why aren't you queuing up for your nobel prize?

Why the sarcasm? If it's obvious for you, it wasn't for the person who I was answering to.

The problem is that an absolute reference frame can't be *established* on kinemtaics, and nobody in the astrophysical world is using kinematics to disprove geocentrism.

The guy in the video just did. Sure, no serious astrophysicist would use kinematics to disprove geocentrism, which shows the video's author isn't one.

Oh you geocentrifrauds and your outright lies and straw men.

First, your childish epithet shows how you would rather try to ridicule something than understand it. Second, what lie and straw men? I think you got so emotive with your knee-jerk reaction to your own sarcasm that you forgot you were criticizing it for being too obvious, not for being wrong or deceptive. Make up your mind.

Except he doesn't, because in Sungenis' pretend model, isn't the universe not meant to be "weighted at some point on the circumference"? It's just a uniform shell.

All models are "pretend" models, or they wouldn't be models in the first place, would they?

Please, quote the page in Galileo Was Wrong or any article by Sungenis or Dr. Bennett where they say the universe is just an uniform shell. That's a straw man, and it doesn't even make sense, since what would be the point of challenging the Cosmological Principle in the first place? You're clearly not thinking.

You're obviously confusing the way he uses the models by Thirring, Barbour, Bertotti and others to explain the presence of residual forces on the Earth's surface, by consider the universe as an uniform shell with a central body.

He produces no mechanism for it's tilt. He actually contradicts his own model here.

No, because that's not his model. That's what you imagine his model is because you never read his book. Seriously, this gets old quickly. Read the damn book before criticizing it. Is that too much to ask?

Again, there's no need to repeat the same rant on every thread on this board, unless you have an agenda to overwhelm the presence of anyone who is supporting the film instead of having a civilized conversation.

reply

[–] chizzlewit 10 years ago

"The problem is that an absolute reference frame can't be *established* on kinemtaics, and nobody in the astrophysical world is using kinematics to disprove geocentrism."
The guy in the video just did. Sure, no serious astrophysicist would use kinematics to disprove geocentrism, which shows the video's author isn't one.

Which guy in which video?
CHL?
Wow. Show me the part where he attempts to use kinematics to disprove geocentirsm as a whole - which must necessarily include the Neo-Tychonian model.
I'm not seeing it, anywhere.

what lie and straw men?

The claim that "Most of those videos are dealing with ptolemaic geocentrism and pure kinematics and it's absolutely irrelevant for modern geocentrism."
When the Ptolemaic model was left fairly early on the series, and they've never used kinematics to disprove geocentrism.

Yeah.... THAT lie and straw man. Remember?

I think you got so emotive with your knee-jerk reaction to your own sarcasm that you forgot you were criticizing it for being too obvious, not for being wrong or deceptive. Make up your mind.

I think you forgot how to read and jumped to a bizarre conclusion that I was talking about something I wasn't - in the most hilarious example of irony.

Again, the lie and straw man to which I was referring came from your statement "Most of those videos are dealing with ptolemaic geocentrism and pure kinematics and it's absolutely irrelevant for modern geocentrism." - not from the idea the geocentrists use kinematics to falsely establish a preferred frame of reference.

I'm not the only person here who understands English, am I?

All models are "pretend" models, or they wouldn't be models in the first place, would they?

Surely you have something better than this?

Please, quote the page in Galileo Was Wrong or any article by Sungenis or Dr. Bennett where they say the universe is just an uniform shell. That's a straw man

No, because I asked a QUESTION, that needed CLARIFICATION.
"Except he doesn't, because in Sungenis' pretend model, isn't the universe not meant to be "weighted at some point on the circumference"? It's just a uniform shell."

Notice the question mark there?

But it's OK. Apparently, according to you, questions that seek clarification are "straw men" arguments, because you have the words "straw man" on the most retarded hair-trigger response system.
Dinner must be amazing at your house.
"How was work, Honey?"
"THAT'S A STRAW MAN ARGUMENT!"
"Erm.... Oooookey.... I'm going to cook us up a nice lovely steak."
"THAT'S ANOTHER STRAW MAN!"
"Riiiiiiiight...."

Seriously, take your finger off the "straw man" button, and THINK for once about the things that people are saying. Many people make annoying straw man arguments, but just because they challenge the premises of the arguments you present, it doesn't mean they are making straw man arguments - and if they're asking a QUESTION, the appropriate response is, "no, I believe this is the case, as shown by this citation here...."
Is that too difficult to understand?

And you wonder why I think you're a petulant idiot and a massive hypocrite for demanding to be treated as an adult.

Now, since I asked, and since you're claiming it ISN'T a uniform shell (despite every paper that he uses to prop up his rubbish talking about a uniform shell, and the fact that nowhere have I found amongst the pages I've dared to delve into, him mentioning the shell being "weighted"), perhaps you could show us where Sungenis provides any predictive model relating to this or refers to one.
And, where the initial motion of this universe comes from, whether it is slowing down or not, what EXACTLY the entire universe is rotating IN? How come nothing in the universe acts like this "shell" exists - and we don't have this non-zero sum angular momentum? In fact, why don't find those regions of space that would be near any "weightedness" exhibiting a larger angular momentum than elsewhere.
In short, why don't we see the universe at all exhibiting the behaviours we should expect to see, if this conjecture is correct?
There's just no getting around it. Sungenis needs new physics for his conjecture, and he doesn't want to supply them, because he knows he can't - that on it's own would be fine, but he absolutely refuses to admit it, because he thinks doing so is a weaknesses. He thinks intellectual honesty is a weakness.

You're obviously confusing the way he uses the models by Thirring, Barbour, Bertotti and others to explain the presence of residual forces on the Earth's surface, by consider the universe as an uniform shell with a central body.

Considering he has onerously touted them as "geocentric papers", one can understand where such confusion comes from, surely.
Perhaps if Sungenis had just SLIGHTLY more intellectual integrity, then such mistakes wouldn't happen.
So.... what? You're saying he doesn't suggest that the universe has a uniform shell, but that it's weighted? Does he ever state where and what predictions can be made with his model? Where does he state that the universe has a weighted shell? How does he account for it? If he isn't stating that its weighted, then he's asking us to accept that another mysterious force (on top of all the others necessary for his universe) is tilting the universe.
Or are you saying he ends up suggesting that there isn't any shell at all, which surely couldn't be the case, since his whole conjecture here rests on it having a shell?
I'm guessing you mean the first, yeah? If so, then what predictions does he think he can make with his model and how does he claim the shell is weighted, what process is behind it? I'll admit to not getting far enough through the book to have reached such a point, if he does - but flicking through, I'm not getting anything jump out at me, in terms of predictive models based around this idea.
But what force causes the motion of this shell? Sungenis seemingly offers nothing, despite his claim that his model agrees with all the laws of physics.

But all this is made moot by the rather gaping problem. The fact that our universe just doesn't behave like it has a center of mass - and it is impossible for the Earth to indefinitely occupy a "center of mass" even in a universe that did.

I notice how this keeps getting brushed over. Seems a bit odd.

reply

[–] AureliusBady 10 years ago

I don't know much about astrophysics or the whole debate here, but I have to say whenever someone is forced to make up a slanderous nickname for his opponents (geocentrifrauds) he is usually just a hateful, lying, idiot.

Also the pompous, vicious, rabid tone does not help your argument in any way, except if your main goal is merely seeking approval from your own circles.

reply

[–] rocinante-421-313928 10 years ago

Coming up with a nickname like that shows a refusal to understand the other side.

I don't think chizzlewit is hateful or lying. He doesn't understand what he's arguing against, he doesn't want to understand, but has an emotional need to do it anyway, so he keeps arguing against what he imagines it's about. If I had to guess, I'd say he's a militant atheist who thinks religion is bad and idealizes science. He doesn't sound like someone with an actual scientific education, but like someone who is enthusiastic about science because he reads a lot of recreational scientific literature, militant atheistic literature, etc.

Frankly, I've never seen someone arguing against geocentrism with arguments that aren't already answered by the book Galileo Was Wrong. Never. Not one. I had a few productive conversations with people who read it and together we found some flaws in the hypothesis, but the arguments used by most critics are simply uninformed.

I'd say there are three kinds of critics of modern geocentrism:

- People like chizzlewit, who have an emotional reaction and disagree even before understanding what's about. Often they are militant atheists who will engage in arguments about anything that can be favorably connected to religion.

- People like Dr. Alec MacAndrew, quoted by chizzlewit, who have a scientific education and would understand the arguments if they read the 650 pages book, but instead they prefer to attack a straw man. When shows how their arguments are plain wrong, they prefer to engage in deception than admit the mistake, and pretend to not know something they know perfectly well, because they know most people who will read the discussion won't understand it anyway.

- People who have an education, read the book and find the real flaws in the hypothesis. Needless to say, those are incredibly rare. The few I know are some physics students who went to a conference on geocentrism to mock it, but came back dumbfounded because it was actual science, not what they were expecting, and a few friends who actually read the book after arguing with me and realizing it wasn't that easy to dismiss.

reply

[–] AureliusBady 10 years ago

May I ask you a question about empirical evidence?
I have read many times there is very little or none in support of a non-geocentric universe.
But what about the observed (or alleged so?) position of our galaxy as in the utmost periphery of the observable universe?

Thank you.

reply

[–] rocinante-421-313928 10 years ago

Sure, ask what you want, I'll do my best to answer.

I have read many times there is very little or none in support of a non-geocentric universe.

It's not that simple. The problem is that there are very few concrete observational facts of the universe. All we know comes from observations made from the Earth, or very close to it, so when we go beyond a few thousand light-years, beyond the limit of purely geometric methods, we have to generalize everything by assuming the universe works the same way everywhere else. We have to assume that the universe seen on a large scale has an uniform distribution of matter and energy and our location isn't different in any way. That's the Cosmological Principle the movie is about.

So, the point is not that there is very little or no evidence in support of either position, but that the position itself is determined by the initial assumption. There's plenty of evidence for and against either one, but it depends on how you choose to interpret it. Eventually they both hit some hard walls because we our knowledge is inherently incomplete, but ultimately, the choice is philosophical, not scientific.

But what about the observed (or alleged so?) position of our galaxy as in the utmost periphery of the observable universe?

I'd have to read the exact statement to give an honest answer, but that sounds confused, because in reality it's the opposite. The point of most of the theories in modern astrophysics and cosmology is to build a model of the universe where it looks like you're at the center of the universe no matter where you are, precisely because that's what many observations show but the conclusion that we indeed are at the center is unacceptable because it breaks the assumption of the Cosmological Principle.

For instance, when Edwin Hubble observed the symmetrical distribution of redshifts everywhere around us, he concluded that could be explained by a central Earth, as everything seems to be moving away from the Earth. That explanation was considered unwelcome on philosophical grounds, so an alternative had to be found, which is the idea that the universe is expanding and everything is moving away from everything else.

Ultimately, it's a philosophical choice, not scientific. If you believe everything in the universe is the product of chance and our existence doesn't really have an ultimate purpose, you'll be inclined to accept the premise that we are not privileged in any way. If you believe the universe has a purpose determined by something that transcends it and we play a role in that purpose, then you'll be inclined to reject that premise. That's why I think the debate between geocentrists and non-geocentrists is as useless and misguided as the debate between creationists and evolutionists. Neither side can completely exclude the other on the grounds of science, and it ultimately rests on a subjective philosophical choice. Despite that, they spend copious amounts of time and intelligence arguing on who is more scientific and correct.

Here's a quote from physicist Paul Davies that's often show by geocentrists to illustrate that fact. Davies was commenting on an article by George Ellis:

Often the simplest of observations will have the most profound consequences. It has long been a cornerstone of modern science, to say nothing of man’s cosmic outlook, that the Earth attends a modest star that shines in an undistinguished part of a run-of-the-mill galaxy. Life arose spontaneously and man evolved on this miscellaneous clump of matter and now directs his own destiny without outside help. This cosmic model is supported by the Big-Bang and Expanding Universe simple observation that astronomers see redshifts wherever they look.

These redshifts are due, of course, to matter flying away from us under the impetus of
the Big Bang. But redshifts can also arise from the gravitational attraction of mass. If the Earth were at the center of the universe, the attraction of the surrounding mass of stars would also produce redshifts wherever we looked! The argument advanced by George Ellis in this article is more complex than this, but his basic thrust is to put man back into a favored position in the cosmos. His new theory seems quite consistent with our astronomical observations, even though it clashes with the thought that we are
godless and making it on our own.

reply

[–] AureliusBady 10 years ago

Thank you for your answer.
Yes I get all that, both from experience and from having read it from Galileo was wrong in the last few days.

I'm referring in particular to this paragraph:
"In addition, decades of velocity measurements, radio observations, and many other lines of evidence show that our solar system sits in the outer-ish part of a spiral galaxy that’s rotating around a center that isn’t Earth. Observations also show that our galaxy is in a group of galaxies, and that this Local Group is on the outer edge of a giant supercluster. Geocentrism simply doesn’t match the empirical evidence. Nor is there any coherent theory of gravity that can both explain all our observations and put Earth at the universe’s physical center."

from this article:
http://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/carlisle-protecting-faith-from-pseudoscience/

Not the first time I have come across such claims, usually from amateurs or simple layman commenters.

I always thought the position of Earth in the periphery of the Milky Way, and the Milky Way itself being nowhere near the center of the "universe" was a fact corroborated by direct empirical observations.
Do I have to assume it is just another case of speculation presented as fact to the masses?
Data interpreted in light of an a priori arbitrary assumption?

reply

[–] rocinante-421-313928 10 years ago

Yes, that claim is rhetorical nonsense that surreptitiously inserts the conclusion as one of its premises. It's a petitio principii. It's presented as fact, but ultimately relies on unwarranted assumptions.

Think about it. You can't have direct empirical observations to corroborate that, because the furthest we ever made direct observations from is a little beyond the orbit of Neptune. A direct empirical observation of that would have to be an observation made from thousands of light-years beyond the Milky Way.

What we have are indirect observations made very close to the Earth, interpreted under a set of assumptions, among them the claim that bodies across the universe are organized linearly: planets and stars, solar systems, galaxies, local groups, superclusters and so on. Since we assumed a priori that the Earth isn't special and the universe is homogeneous at large scales, then Earth must be placed in that theoretical hierarchy, and based on other galaxies we think are similar to what ours should be, we can estimate where Earth would be located.

In reality we can't even establish as an observational fact that we are indeed inside a galaxy. Sungenis claims that what we see at night as the Milky Way is merely a band of stars similar to a globular cluster, but more spread out, but that's merely one hypothesis that fits his purely newtonian geocentric model. I don't find it particularly convincing, but it's no more of a stretch than Dark Matter, for instance.

If you are reading Galileo Was Wrong, Dr. Bennett goes through that in depth on Chapter 10. An indirect observation that could put the issue to rest would be the absence of aberration in stellar motion as seen from the sun, but even that is probably beyond our technological means now.

If you read the articles linked in the paragraph you posted, you can see the claims that we are part of a supercluster rely on measurements on the scale of millions of light-years. Those measurements require several assumptions that are discarded by modern geocentrists like Sungenis and Dr. Bennett, so they aren't really an argument against them. Even if we ignore that, they would still fit other geocentric models, like the Lemaitre-Tolman-Bondi model proposed by George Ellis, so they aren't an argument against geocentrism at all.

Finally, I'm not catholic, and I don't agree at all with Sungenis' literal interpretation of the Genesis, nor with his occasional deviations of academic discourse, but I strongly disagree with that article where it says his underlying philosophical argument is unsound. The Cosmological Principle, as many other axioms and theories of modern science, is nothing but an attempt to make naturalistic sense out of anthropic coincidences that support a teleological argument. That claim is Epicurean in nature, not Catholic.

The very fact that the Catholic Church submits to the authority of modern scientists and the cartesian metaphysics underlying it is the reason why I'm not catholic. I've had an interest in scientific imposture for a long time, and I've learned about Sungenis from prof. Wolfgang Smith, who is a trained physicist, mathematician and philosopher who addresses those philosophical questions in depth. If you have an interest on that side of things, I recommend reading his books Cosmos and Transcendence, The Wisdom of Ancient Cosmology and The Quantum Enigma.

reply

[–] AureliusBady 10 years ago

Thank you again for the time spent explaining to me such issues in a normal, civil, way.
I meant I was reading the website (and blog), not the book of the same name. Frankly I am probably too ignorant in the field to make head or tails out of it all.
I guess the interest in the topic stems from the unruly, fanatical reactions we witness in most at the mere thought of geocentrism.
As I've seen in other fields (for instance, Archeology or recent History) it is usually a sign the argument is plausible (ergo the claim *could* be true) enough as to upset the status quo and therefore needs to be "put down" by any means necessary.

Using their own ad hominem tactic though, the author of the article is a somewhat illustrious member of the more liberal sect in Catholicism, and its efforts could be motivated by political and religious goals.

reply

[–] rocinante-421-313928 10 years ago

I meant I was reading the website (and blog), not the book of the same name. Frankly I am probably too ignorant in the field to make head or tails out of it all.

The book is very didactic and gentle with layman. The more technical explanations written by Dr. Bennett are reserved to the appendix and Q&A sections. If you can get your hands on it and you aren't easily offended by the occasional apologetics by Sungenis, I recommend reading it.

I guess the interest in the topic stems from the unruly, fanatical reactions we witness in most at the mere thought of geocentrism. As I've seen in other fields (for instance, Archeology or recent History) it is usually a sign the argument is plausible (ergo the claim *could* be true) enough as to upset the status quo and therefore needs to be "put down" by any means necessary.

As I said before, I had an interest in scientific imposture for quite a while. The virulent reactions against modern geocentrism aren't very different from some other reactions I've seen in other fields where similar controversies appeared. I think we can say there are two different aspects of that problem.

First, there's an incredibly naive idealization of science by scientists. They adhere to the dogmas of the scientific method as a fact, not as an untenable ideal, and forget that science itself doesn't really exist as a concrete entity. For instance, science as an ideal is self-correcting, but actual science is made by humans, and humans hate being wrong almost as much as they hate being corrected. As Max Planck said, "a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it". In that sense, some arguments don't upset the status quo as much as they upset the egos of those that determine the status quo.

Then, there's the more political and long-term effects of the belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method in attaining knowledge, to the exclusion of other methods and subjective truth. That's a lot more pernicious than the other, and I think that's where your comment applies. It's more about political power than it is about personal egos, and we were warned about that by Eisenhower when he said "in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite". Geocentrism is particularly detrimental to that "epistemological cartel", because what would be worse to them than having people thinking the Church has been right all along on something they were taught it was wrong since their childhood?

Recommended reading if you're interested in that: http://www.amazon.com/The-Ascendancy-Scientific-Dictatorship-Examination/dp/0595311644

Using their own ad hominem tactic though, the author of the article is a somewhat illustrious member of the more liberal sect in Catholicism, and its efforts could be motivated by political and religious goals.

That's a possibility, but I don't know enough about the politics of Catholic sects to have an opinion on the subject.

reply

[–] AureliusBady 10 years ago

The book is very didactic and gentle with layman. The more technical explanations written by Dr. Bennett are reserved to the appendix and Q&A sections. If you can get your hands on it and you aren't easily offended by the occasional apologetics by Sungenis, I recommend reading it.

I believe you, the point is even though I could perhaps understand it, given my ignorance I would still unable to be reasonably sure it is right versus its criticism and/or mainstream publications. So a rather pointless exercise, except for personal entertainment.

As I said before, I had an interest in scientific imposture for quite a while. The virulent reactions against modern geocentrism aren't very different from some other reactions I've seen in other fields where similar controversies appeared. I think we can say there are two different aspects of that problem. (ETC ETC)

Yours is a very plausible distinction.
I grossly also failed to distinguish between layman/amateurs/enthusiasts and professional. The former comprised mainly by ignorant, conformist people, who no doubt would be just as virulent against the C. principle were they born in other time periods or hypothetical alternative realities where it isn't the de fide norm.
Said category can also further be subdivided into those who have no idea of what they are talking about at all, and just go by what they have been taught at a highschool level or from the people they admire, hold in high regard, perceive as authority figures, and those that are just knowledgeable enough, but not too much, as to be unable to perceive the very limits of their knowledge. This is often the case for aficionados of any given field with little or no relevant academic background.
Both may or may not be heterodirected (directly and indirectly) though.
PR firms for hire to sway public opinion via fake internet personas are also a somewhat realiably documented phenomenon.
Funding to certain "amateur" organisations and web bloggers-writers too.
Propaganda campaigns to depict anyone questioning any given official "fact", or even small details, as deranged, disturbed, dangerous deviant are real and have been extremely effective.

Then there's the professionals who may be motivated by convenience, fear of being ostracised or, as you say, political goals.

The phenomenon of technocratisation is not only visible, but well recognised and openly talked about in the Politics and Economics fields, and even purpoted as a positive development by some.
We have now reached a point where Politics and Economics, (much like the Catholic Church) have de facto recognised "Science" (meaning the current paradigm, which itself self-professes to be objective and relatively truthful, via the otherwise-it-wouldn't-be argument per the scientific method/peer review mechanisms) as the supreme arbiter and judge of all things, be it faith, morality or the "common good", therefore relinquishing their ability to shape and direct reality, relegating themselves to mere actors who can just react to the cold hard "phenomenological" truths highlighted by technocrats.

PS: I read on Palm's blog satellites in geosynchronous orbit are definitive proof geocentrism is "bunk" (rather, he implied it).
What do you think of that claim?

reply

[–] rocinante-421-313928 10 years ago

Said category can also further be subdivided into those who have no idea of what they are talking about at all, and just go by what they have been taught at a highschool level or from the people they admire, hold in high regard, perceive as authority figures, and those that are just knowledgeable enough, but not too much, as to be unable to perceive the very limits of their knowledge.

True, but that's not reserved to the layman! That's what's really crazy about this phenomenon. Most scientists today don't have the philosophical education to understand the limitations of scope in their own field. That's what made me turn from physics to philosophy.

This isn't even restricted to the mediocre. An example that illustrates it is how Stephen Hawking on the first page of his The Grand Design says philosophy is dead, but then spends the rest of the book struggling with a philosophical problem, trying to get physics to fill the role of metaphysics. Wolfgang Smith already gave the hint to solve that by explaining how the whole issue isn't physics, but the unwarranted assumption of a cartesian metaphysics that can't deal with quantum phenomena properly, but very few physicists today have the training to even understand what he's talking about.

Very few scientists today can tell the difference between reality and the metaphysical and epistemological premises of modern science. They are constantly confusing the two. As Paul Feyerabend said years ago, the newer generations of scientists may even be more intelligent than their predecessors, but they lack philosophical depth. They are uncivilized savages. There's no qualitative difference between them and a tribe shaman who knows which herbs to mix, but don't know why they work.

This is often the case for aficionados of any given field with little or no relevant academic background.

Well... there's a thriving industry targeting that public. Have you noticed how people who read recreational scientific literature and watch scientific documentaries, all of which are basically entertainment, often fancy themselves as qualified enough to make scientific judgement on facts of everyday life, even when those facts go directly against common sense and perception? I know, because I was one of them.

I grew up with a lot of enthusiasm for science, but I eventually realized it was an idealization. When I was growing up, that was fine, because it was a way to inspire children into learning. When you compare the Carl Sagan's Cosmos with the Neil deGrasse Tyson Cosmos, they may follow the same script, the same ideas, but the tone is different. The old show wasn't trying to establish itself as an authority on what's real. The message was "there's a big universe out there for you to explore". Tyson's message is "you're now better than everyone else because you watched this show, specially religious people".

Yes, this is political, because real power rests on who people trust to determine what's the truth.

PS: I read on Palm's blog satellites in geosynchronous orbit are definitive proof geocentrism is "bunk" (rather, he implied it). What do you think of that claim?

That's nonsense. Palm thinks a geosynchronous satellite would have to fall from the sky in a geocentric universe, since the Earth isn't rotating and the satellite seems static on the sky, but if that were the case, the satellite couldn't be launched to orbit by using the Earth as a reference frame either. In the geocentric model the centripetal force due to the Earth's gravitational pull on the satellite is counteracted by the centrifugal pull of the rotating universe, which appears as a fictitious force in other systems. Palm doesn't even realize that geosynchronous orbits aren't special in any way, and without accounting for the centrifugal pull of the rotating universe, no satellites would stay in orbit.

As most of his claims, it proves he never read the book and is attacking a straw man that isn't really the model defended by Sungenis. Both David Palm and Karl Keating are attacking Sungenis over his catholic apologetics for years, but they aren't physicists, so they hired Alec MacAndrew to do that. As a hired goon, MacAndrew is dishonest sometimes, but I don't think he would commit a mistake like that in good faith.

reply

[–] AureliusBady 10 years ago

Appreciate the input.
The following could have been written just as likely by a professional(and in fact mirrors what little I have read from MacAndrew/Palmer duo):

Willfully Ignorant

By Scott in Clevelandon
At first I was considering writing a satirical review, but after seeing others that actually take this seriously, I had to be serious myself.
This is the worst kind of intellectual dishonesty, and this book is so willfully ignorant of basic science that I hesitated to give it any credence by reviewing it.
(....)
The fact is, every single shred of evidence, from planetary science, to rocket science, to direct astronomical observation, supports a heliocentric view. There is no inconsistency. Indeed, there is also photographic evidence in the images sent back to Earth by the Cassini spacecraft that shows the planets, the Earth among them, exactly where astronomers say they are supposed to be. This is simply a case of someone who doesn't like that the evidence doesn't support his pre-conceived notions. Travel to the moon (which he probably thinks was faked), sending probes to other planets, geosynchronous satellites, and the most basic observational astronomy is impossible in a geocentric model. Don't like it? Sorry, but the universe doesn't bend itself to your desires.

That's a random review from Amazon of GWW.

What can I say, let's just wait for part 11 of the delightful series from that one youtuber, it should be due soon.
He's been very clever in setting up his "debunking" of Sungenis&alia geocentric model, making it look like it is just yet another pseudoscience-driven patchwork in a long line of such "idiocy".

Ps: the one about geosynchronous satellites wasn't an argument put forth directly by Palm, as I said he implied it. He did that by publishing alleged emails between geocentrists he says worked with Sungenis, where one of them thought geosync. sats disproved geocentrism himself.

reply

[–] rocinante-421-313928 10 years ago

The following could have been written just as likely by a professional(and in fact mirrors what little I have read from MacAndrew/Palmer duo):

Yes, I know that review. As a matter of fact, if you check the comments, you'll see a long discussion with me there. But I have to disagree. That couldn't have been written by a professional, unless he's confusing the neo-tychonean geocentrism with ptolemaic geocentrism.

This statement lead to a very interesting conversation between me and a few friends:

Indeed, there is also photographic evidence in the images sent back to Earth by the Cassini spacecraft that shows the planets, the Earth among them, exactly where astronomers say they are supposed to be.

Scott obviously means there's photographic evidence that the Earth and other planets of the Solar System move around the Sun, hence why I said he's confusing it with ptolemaic geocentrism, but there's something interesting about that statement. Because of the inherently chaotic nature of many factors that influence planetary orbits, the exact position of the planets isn't as easy to know as people think, and many missions actually provided information to figure that out. Often those are settled by establishing some measurement as dogma, and many probes had as part of their mission to figure out exactly where they actually are.

So, I don't know the details about Cassini, but Scott likely got it reversed.

Ps: the one about geosynchronous satellites wasn't an argument put forth directly by Palm, as I said he implied it. He did that by publishing alleged emails between geocentrists he says worked with Sungenis, where one of them thought geosync. sats disproved geocentrism himself.

Without reading those emails I can't say much about it, but there are several different geocentric models defended by many today. For instance, there are geocentrists who support an einsteinian model where the Earth occupies the center of a Lemaitre-Tolman-Boldi spherical universe, and everything is basically unchanged, so the Earth is still rotating and geosynchronous satellites don't seem to be a problem. Sungenis is radical in that he claims a perfect equivalence between the newtonian, machian and einsteinian models, with an Earth that's almost perfectly static at the center, and it's not surprising that the less radical geocentrists have a problem with that.

reply

[–] chizzlewit 10 years ago

Seriously? The best you've got is actually to form an ad hominem, talking about me in the second person?
Wow.

He doesn't understand what he's arguing against, he doesn't want to understand, but has an emotional need to do it anyway, so he keeps arguing against what he imagines it's about.

Except, that's not exactly true, is it? What is often true is that you're desperate to scream "straw man!" at every available opportunity, when a premise that is used to support or argue for geocentrism is challenged, or in danger of being exposed as rubbish.
It's a very petulant tactic.

If I had to guess, I'd say he's a militant atheist who thinks religion is bad and idealizes science.

Setting up for the poisoning of the well....
Open the flood gates, lads - here the irrelevant *beep* comes pertaining to assumptions about my character, as if they count as valid arguments for anything....
(And apparently I'm supposedly the childish and morally corrupt one. Hmmmm.)

He doesn't sound like someone with an actual scientific education, but like someone who is enthusiastic about science because he reads a lot of recreational scientific literature, militant atheistic literature, etc.

And wrong on all counts. But hey, you carry on making fallacious assumptions based on bugger all evidence, in lieu of making a valid point. It doesn't make you look like a prat at all.

Frankly, I've never seen someone arguing against geocentrism with arguments that aren't already answered by the book Galileo Was Wrong. Never. Not one.

Except for, for instance, the ones you've completely failed to engage with, such as the fact that if the universe had a center of mass, it is impossible for the Earth to occupy that point indefinitely, since it isn't gravitationally symmetrical and a center of gravity is not synonymous with a point of zero gravity.
The fact that the universe doesn't act as if it has a center of mass, and looks nothing like a geocentric universe obeying Newtonian mechanics. Where's the non-zero angular momentum total? Why do the galaxies and clusters not act as gravitationally bound free falling bodies rotating around a center of mass, not moving away at faster than escape velocity and with their angular momentum decreasing as a function of their distance from the supposed center?
Why is there absolutely no evidence of the freely-rotating aether, which contradicts all experiment?
What force is supposedly moving the aether and moving the bodies in the aether - and no, clearly we can't apply Newtonian mechanics, since the universe just isn't acting like that, and the galaxies and cluster just aren't acting like gravitationally bound free-falling bodies rotating around a center of mass.

I had a few productive conversations with people who read it and together we found some flaws in the hypothesis

Such as....?
I'm actually interested. I've heard many - some that work, some that don't - as well. I'd actually be interested in who sincere this statement is, and what you've come up with.
You see, then I'd be more inclined to believe you have any scientific education and may well not be a geocentrist - rather than someone trying to pose as a non-geocentrist in order to produce the illusion of someone reasonable finding such arguments compelling.
Like I say, I've dealt with too many who start off that way and show their true colours very quickly, and to be honest you smell a lot like them.

People like chizzlewit, who have an emotional reaction and disagree even before understanding what's about.

Yay. I'm onerously lumped in with a group defined as "ignorant and angry", despite the fact that I've listed things for which you didn't find an answer, and only responded in kind to someone who was patronizingly and arrogantly making onerous assertions.
But hey, there's nothing wrong with a bit of meaningless poisoning of the well, is there?

People like Dr. Alec MacAndrew, quoted by chizzlewit, who have a scientific education and would understand the arguments if they read the 650 pages book, but instead they prefer to attack a straw man.

Right. So, you've made a claim (or at least accepted Sungenis' claim) that this person was "hired" to debunk Sungenis' arguments, but now for some reason seem to claim that he didn't even read the book he's debunking.
Hmmmmm.
I'm going with the more realistic explanation that this is a pathetic attempt by Sungenis to try and belittle his detractors.
In fact, having gone through some of Sungenis' "work" (for want of a way better term), MacAndrew and others (such as Cole) are often spot on - and all I see Sungenis do in return is restate his arguments ad nauseum, all too often ignoring their points or even the internal inconsistencies he finds himself forced to adopt. Worse of all, I find him projecting his failings onto everyone else.

The few I know are some physics students who went to a conference on geocentrism to mock it, but came back dumbfounded because it was actual science, not what they were expecting, and a few friends who actually read the book after arguing with me and realizing it wasn't that easy to dismiss.

Unnamed experts (at least when compared to laypersons). Yay! Anecdotes involving unnamed persons either converting or conceding points is ALWAYS valid.

Why do I get the feeling that you'll never put forward one of these "actual flaws in the hypothesis". Oddly, not only do I not find replies to the points raised, I don't find a single instance (as I would expect fro someone who "isn't a geocentrist" and who is interested in a fair and balanced discourse) of "no, that argument doesn't really work, but this one does prove a problem for the conjecture."
So, you'll excuse me if I'm not so totally convinced, as of yet - and don't mistake me for thinking that you have to be a Catholic or belong to any other religion to hold to geocentrism. I have never made that statement. As far as I'm concerned the question of the position and motion of the Earth is completely separate to the issue of whether any religion is correct. Painting me as some "angry atheist" does nothing except demonstrate that you're interested in poisoning the well by making assumptions about me that are neither substantiated nor relevant.
It's like evolution. Religion has got nothing to do with whether the current model of evolution can be demonstrated to be false or not (though a person can be religiously motivated in whether they accept it or not). Evolution could be demonstrated as false, and it would affect my view of religion just as much not being demonstrated false.
I don't think you understand that, because you have a desire to paint me in a pathetically 2-dimensional way (hence why I'm not overly taken with the idea of your sincerity, and find you highly hypocritical).
I don't need to defend against geocentrism for ANY personal reason, relating to my world view. But you carry on pretending that I do. It works so well as the basis for an argument.

reply

[–] rocinante-421-313928 10 years ago

I'm actually interested. I've heard many - some that work, some that don't - as well. I'd actually be interested in who sincere this statement is, and what you've come up with.

You're a real character, aren't you?

Yes, I'm sure you are actually interested. The problem is you blew that up when you decided to gratuitously insult me. I'm sure you're used to talk to people who feel theirs egos are at stake when you do that, and that's very common these days, but here's a hint: that doesn't work for those who know you're a bluff.

In case you still don't understand it, I am under no obligation whatsoever to answer anything you ask, or to present a counter-argument to every nonsense you say, and insulting me or trying to undermine my education won't coerce me to that.

If that's really your interest, you desperately need to sharpen up your social skills, buddy. I mean that. You really don't know how to work towards your interests. Read my conversation with AureliusBady. We never met each other, yet we had a nice, civilized, productive talk, because neither one of us is trying to prove to himself that he's superior to others, which seems to be your case.

Now I'm really gone. I'm putting you on my ignore list from now on.

reply

[–] chizzlewit 10 years ago

Yes, I'm sure you are actually interested.

Yes. That's why I said I was actually interested.
Is the concept of someone saying what they mean that alien?

The problem is you blew that up when you decided to gratuitously insult me.

"Blew up".... interesting. I've not exactly used expletives. I've been about as terse with you as you have with me.
But hey, yeah, it was all me. You were never guilty of exhibiting an air of superiority whilst making egregious claims of straw men arguments and trying to belittle others with a condescending tone.

Sheesh. It'd be fun if you just got past this whole attitude and tone thing you've got a bee in your bonnet about, and stopped being so infuriatingly passive aggressive, with often excursions into just aggressive.

We could start again, but not whilst being all pissy. That's going to take 2 - but frankly, each time I think, "OK, fresh slate", you go ahead and say something that just invites contempt.
If you drop that, so will I.
If all you want to do is complain about it, and pretend that you're not guilty of any such infractions yourself, then you can stick it.

hat doesn't work for those who know you're a bluff.

Hmmmm. A bluff.
Well now. What claim have I made that I'm obviously bluffing about?
Don't remember claiming to be anything much. Not claimed to be some expert on things. Not claimed to have all the answers on things. Not claimed I've got some esoteric knowledge that nobody else knows about.
Not sure where I'm bluffing, or what claims I've made that are provably false - or even worthy of merit in such a way as trying to paint myself as some authority on anything to which I can or should be appealed.

In case you still don't understand it, I am under no obligation whatsoever to answer anything you ask, or to present a counter-argument to every nonsense you say, and insulting me or trying to undermine my education won't coerce me to that.

Fine, but that's not what I was doing.
I honestly asked you, because I'm interested.
Yes I am also interested in the sincerity of your sentiment, as you evidently are of me. And we've both taken umbrage with each other's tone from the start off, creating what appears to be a cold war of invective - where both parties have guilt.
Also, given your tone, I'm only being honest when I tell you how it appears to me. But that doesn't matter.
However, in case you still don't understand, your perpetual claim of victimhood, and inability to reflect upon your own behaviour and understand why someone might have reason to take a tone in conversation with you, is quite petulant and irritating.

If that's really your interest, you desperately need to sharpen up your social skills, buddy. I mean that.

I can accept that, only if you can.

You really don't know how to work towards your interests. Read my conversation with AureliusBady. We never met each other, yet we had a nice, civilized, productive talk, because neither one of us is trying to prove to himself that he's superior to others, which seems to be your case.

Actually, it looked more like you enjoying someone lapping up your responses to their questions. I'm not saying that they were wrong, just that it appeared more like you enjoying having your ego stroked, rather than having a discussion with someone who challenged the points you were making.
I tend not to just jump straight in with an air of superiority with people who challenge points I make, by onersouly screeching "straw man!" in order to shut them down.
You'd do well to watch a conversation I have with a flat Earth proponent, where we are extremely civilized and exchange our views and challenge each other's points. I don't have to give you an example of me having my ego stroked by an inquisitive soul - and can actually give you an example of a civilized *debate*, in which neither of us stoop to the passive aggression and air of superiority that you did at the very beginnings of these threads.

I don't have to prove myself superior to you - not because I somehow think I am, but precisely because I'm not assuming such.
I am assuming that you may not be as superior as you seem to have tried so hard to paint yourself out to be, though.

If you want the attitude to drop, it's a two way process.

reply

[–] chizzlewit 10 years ago

Yes and the one thing I've learned from my years, is that when someone has nothing to say except a vacuous complaint about use of language or tone, it's because they've got nothing of value to add and have no place in the conversation.

reply

[–] AureliusBady 10 years ago

You're right, I do not have literally anything of value to add.
In fact I didn't even engage in the conversation, I simply pointed out how you lack manners and come off as an immature angry fanatical depressed teenager.
I wouldn't dare to dream of engaging in a conversation about things I know nothing about, unlike others! Forgive me.
Having said that, is it true you haven't even read the book?

In the last few days I've had some fun reading ALL the comments to the reviews of GWW on Amazon, and literally (and I'm not misusing the word) not one of the detractors (who curiously sounded mostly just like you, figures..) had actually read the damn book they were reviewing.

I honestly wish both of you would amically engage in a proficous conversation about geocentrism and related topics, minus the harsh language.

Cheers.

reply

[–] chizzlewit 10 years ago

I wouldn't dare to dream of engaging in a conversation about things I know nothing about, unlike others! Forgive me.

Yes, thinly veiled sarcasm really helps your case of claiming maturity.
My comment was to the fact that all you had was a complaint about my use of language, as if that was relevant to anything. And now your response is to be highly hypocritical.
Unlike some, I'm not really interested in slagging matches that are completely devoid of relevance to the subject. And unlike others, I don't care about insults enough to be offended when people intersperse actual arguments with them. I understand the difference between passion and a faux moral high ground fallacy - especially when it is explicitly used to belittle the character without ever attempting to acknowledge their points.

Having said that, is it true you haven't even read the book?

No, though I'll admit to having not read to the end - for the same simple reason, as I've said before, that I haven't read "Atlas Shrugged" all the way through. When Ive got over half way, or two thirds of the way, through a book that is complete rubbish, I don't feel the need to make it to the end.
Maybe when I next feel like wasting my time on internal inconsistencies and vacuous arguments which overtly claim geocentrism is true and everything else false, and then thinly veils itself as "only trying to produce a fair and balanced argument" whilst never once producing an honest critique of itself or its premises, and which misrepresents scientific history, papers and scientists themselves, I'll finish it. But I haven't had to get far to see enough flaws to not feel I need to waste more time on it.

In the last few days I've had some fun reading ALL the comments to the reviews of GWW on Amazon, and literally (and I'm not misusing the word) not one of the detractors (who curiously sounded mostly just like you, figures..) had actually read the damn book they were reviewing.

And because people who comment on Amazon haven;t said anything you find parsimonious, that means....? What? That the book is to be taken uncritically as one of the greatest tomes ever?
Have I ever said "don't read it"? Have I ever said "don't bother watching this film", as one would if one's arguments were simply vacuous and based on an emotional knee-jerk response?
Or, have I given some points as to the major failings behind Sungenis' conjecture, albeit in the tone of someone who's quite fed up and tired with being exposed, yet again, pseudoscientific and pseudophilosophical rubbish?
Don't conflate a passionate tone with any other meaning. It's highly disingenuous and only invites contempt.

I honestly wish both of you would amically engage in a proficous conversation about geocentrism and related topics, minus the harsh language.

Yes, well, one of us would have to drop the passive aggression and transparently petulant attitude, especially of wailing "straw man" at every opportunity, in the most egregious ways.
I don't respond well to people making fallacious claims about logical fallacies, just because someone makes a point that an argument or premise has problems or is invalid. It's tiresome and frustrating, and only serves as an attempt to obfuscate and divert.

I have to spend a lot of time talking with geoncentrists and flat Earthers alike, all of whom - like pretty much every pseudoscience fanatic, from spirit "science" to Sheldrake fans to moan landing hoaxers and beyond - use the exact same tedious tactics, and my patience has worn thin, such that I no longer stroke the egos of the bruised.

reply

[–] AureliusBady 10 years ago

Yes, thinly veiled sarcasm really helps your case of claiming maturity.
My comment was to the fact that all you had was a complaint about my use of language, as if that was relevant to anything. And now your response is to be highly hypocritical.
Unlike some, I'm not really interested in slagging matches that are completely devoid of relevance to the subject. And unlike others, I don't care about insults enough to be offended when people intersperse actual arguments with them. I understand the difference between passion and a faux moral high ground fallacy - especially when it is explicitly used to belittle the character without ever attempting to acknowledge their points.

It wasn't sarcasm. I meant unlike all those people on Amazon I mention below.
Are you really so bitter you expect everyone to be rude, hostile and insulting?

No, though I'll admit to having not read to the end - for the same simple reason, as I've said before, that I haven't read "Atlas Shrugged" all the way through. When Ive got over half way, or two thirds of the way, through a book that is complete rubbish, I don't feel the need to make it to the end.
Maybe when I next feel like wasting my time on internal inconsistencies and vacuous arguments which overtly claim geocentrism is true and everything else false, and then thinly veils itself as "only trying to produce a fair and balanced argument" whilst never once producing an honest critique of itself or its premises, and which misrepresents scientific history, papers and scientists themselves, I'll finish it. But I haven't had to get far to see enough flaws to not feel I need to waste more time on it.

From your Exchange with Pedro it seems you haven't read the book at all, and you're going by geocentrismdebukend.com by Palm&co.
Speaking of wasting one's time... it seems you're doing plenty of that both on IMDB and imagine other web outlets talking about a book (and theory) you despise so much and think "is complete rubbish".

And because people who comment on Amazon haven;t said anything you find parsimonious, that means....? What? That the book is to be taken uncritically as one of the greatest tomes ever?
Have I ever said "don't read it"? Have I ever said "don't bother watching this film", as one would if one's arguments were simply vacuous and based on an emotional knee-jerk response?
Or, have I given some points as to the major failings behind Sungenis' conjecture, albeit in the tone of someone who's quite fed up and tired with being exposed, yet again, pseudoscientific and pseudophilosophical rubbish?
Don't conflate a passionate tone with any other meaning. It's highly disingenuous and only invites contempt.

Are you serious? That is your response?

Yes, well, one of us would have to drop the passive aggression and transparently petulant attitude, especially of wailing "straw man" at every opportunity, in the most egregious ways.
I don't respond well to people making fallacious claims about logical fallacies, just because someone makes a point that an argument or premise has problems or is invalid. It's tiresome and frustrating, and only serves as an attempt to obfuscate and divert.

I have to spend a lot of time talking with geoncentrists and flat Earthers alike, all of whom - like pretty much every pseudoscience fanatic, from spirit "science" to Sheldrake fans to moan landing hoaxers and beyond - use the exact same tedious tactics, and my patience has worn thin, such that I no longer stroke the egos of the bruised.

Ok internet crusader, let them know they shall soon fear your mighty intellectual wrath.

You have to now? Why is that? What kind of career could possibly force you to deal specifically with those individuals? Apart from internet paid troll that is..

reply

[–] chizzlewit 10 years ago

It wasn't sarcasm. I meant unlike all those people on Amazon I mention below.
Are you really so bitter you expect everyone to be rude, hostile and insulting?

If that's true, then accept my humblest apologies. I'm far too used to dealing with flat Earthers denying basic geometry, geocentrists denying basic reality and misrepresenting science, and the entire flock of pseduoscience fans spamming rubbish at me, whilst all displaying misplaced arrogance, thinly veiled attacks at best in lieu of valid points, and a whole subsection (numbering disparagingly more than you'd care to think) who attempt to portray themselves as one thing to lend credence to their cause, but who just as quickly reveal their true colours by ignoring every point ever made and decalring themselves to "know the truth" - as if evidence and discourse were secondary to forming conclusions.

From your Exchange with Pedro it seems you haven't read the book at all, and you're going by geocentrismdebukend.com by Palm&co.
Speaking of wasting one's time... it seems you're doing plenty of that both on IMDB and imagine other web outlets talking about a book (and theory) you despise so much and think "is complete rubbish".

I don't care what it "seems" like. To me, Pedro doesn;t look like anything he claims to be.
So?
The fact is that I have, but that you can't accept this, because it doesn't fit with you assumptive and fictional narrative about someone you've never met.
Nice one.

You ask why I get bitter, and then you just go and make statements like that. If you don't want this tone, try not to talk out of both sides of your mouth.

Are you serious? That is your response?

Yes. I'm just amazed that ^^^^this is supposed to count as a response.
Again:
Have I ever said "don't read it"? Have I ever said "don't bother watching this film", as one would if one's arguments were simply vacuous and based on an emotional knee-jerk response?
Or, have I given some points as to the major failings behind Sungenis' conjecture, albeit in the tone of someone who's quite fed up and tired with being exposed, yet again, pseudoscientific and pseudophilosophical rubbish?
Don't conflate a passionate tone with any other meaning. It's highly disingenuous and only invites contempt.
Surely, if I was the person fitting your fictional narrative, I'd be shouting to everyone "Don't read this sh*t!" and "Don't watch this sh*t!"
But I'm not.
I began by addressing an onerous set of points regarding another video series, which still stand - right up to the fact that we've just found the exact quote by Sungenis contradicting the assertion that the video is wrong to state that Sungenis offers no laws of physics to account for his universal oscillation.
And yet, nowhere am I "trolling around" yelling at people to not watch or read Sungenis' work.

Ok internet crusader, let them know they shall soon fear your mighty intellectual wrath.
You have to now? Why is that? What kind of career could possibly force you to deal specifically with those individuals? Apart from internet paid troll that is..

Oh, spare me the jejune remarks.
I spend my spare time writing articles and making short videos centered around astronomy and teaching geometry in as engaging a way as it is possible to do with a subject that is as boring and painful as it is fascinating and enjoyable. For some reason, it attracts internet nut jobs with an opinion of their own intellect that vastly eclipses their capabilities.
So sorry I put some of my spare time into doing that and dealing with the moronic claims that get flung around regarding such matters.

But, on the subject of "troll", at least I've tried to raise points pertinent to the subject, instead of just weighing in and attacking someones character and trying to fit them to a fictional narrative.
Do tell me what assumptions I've made about you, barring an assumption of your using a tone you claim you didn't (and for which I apologised above).

Every time I feel the urge to extend politesse, you go and spoil it by doubling down on assumptions and empty epithets.
It would have been nice if I could have just had a post that apologised for mistaking your tone, instead of dealing with yet another post of "yeah, but everyone who objects to Sungenis' ideas is just like this...."

Can we get past that point?

reply

[–] chizzlewit 10 years ago

Just to clarify, the comment made by someone else below is actually ridiculous:
"it's ridiculous how the author of this video claims Sungenis gives no explanation other than magic for the z-axis tilt of the spinning universe, while his book actually spends a few pages on chapter 9 detailing how that's due to gyroscopic effects of the spinning universe, pretty much like a gyroscope will wobble if you try to tilt it, or if it has an additional weight at some point of the circumference. Strawman of the year for the video's author."

Unfortunately, Sungenis *doesn't* provide any physics for this magical motion.
It is claimed that elsewhere that his universe model has a weighted shell, which is necessary for this conjecture.
Unfortunately this claim is contradicted by none other than Sungenis himself, who, when challenged on something else in his ridiculous model, states "The geocentric universe is a “spherical shell or a spherical ball of perfectly uniform density.”

Whoops. There goes their claim that CHL has committed a supposed straw man fallacy.
It seems that Sungenis' inability to have an internally consistent argument, disqualifies this explanation for the motion of his bizarre universe.

Equally egregious is their assertion that it doesn't deal with the Neo-Tychonean model at all. It actually presents an introduction leading up to the NT model, exploring various problems on its way, which the author uses - as ever - as simply ways of exploring concepts in astrophysics whilst exploiting a comedic backdrop. A point that is perpetually missed on those trying to appear intellectually superior.

It's clear that the commenter below wants to throw the baby out with the bath water, and thinks that unless this series immediately addresses the exact issues he would like to see addressed, then it's absolutely pointless and childish - completely ignoring the facts that, a) he's still addressing beliefs held by many people as it is, making the points being raised valid for those arguments (claiming someone is making a "straw man" argument just because they address one of many different models that this person isn't interested in, is a red herring); and b) the whole point of the series is actually to explore some basic astrophysics through a comedic medium.
Of course, those of us who, like yourself, enjoy the antics and don't feel compelled to flash our egos around the place, find this a simple concept to understand - and can appreciate, for instance, the fact that we can learn how to calculate the distance to the Sun in a fun and informative way, can't we? ;)

reply

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] msetc 10 years ago

Wow, I stay away from IMDB for a while and this discussion explodes into vast tomes of finger-pointing and umbrage-taking.

drewwilliam: I think it's you that needs to get over yourself, I can almost smell the self-congratulatory secretions from your "input". All of those arguments you mention have been soundly re-buffed many times over. Listing them like some kind of series of victorious battles is pretty cringe-worthy. It's also not really pertinent to the point being discussed, since many religious believers are able to reconcile their beliefs with the prevailing scientific model of the universe.

pjwerneck-421-313928: whatever tone you think chizzlewit has taken with you and however unjustified you think it is, he is certainly correct about one thing. Nothing of substance to address all of the various problems with Sungenis's model he highlighted has been presented. All I've really witnessed from you is excuses for obfuscation, misrepresentation and diversion from the meat of the matter.

Unlike chizzlewit, I don't have the inclination or the time to get into tedious protracted discussions that only end up mired in discussions of character. I think the lack of substance and solid science that explains _all_ of the various observed celestial phenomena that would appear to contradict Sungenis speaks for itself. Feel free to reply, but unless I'm at a particularly loose end I doubt I'll read it.

reply

[–] nicmadsuperbad 9 years ago

None of this is relevant. I'm sure there are many theories providing pros and cons for both outlooks. However, this "documentary" everyone seems to be in uproar over is itself a hoax. The film was chopped and edited to make certain statements appear as though independent of the scientists and researchers interviewed within. They were all tricked (in that full honesty of the film's intent was not disclosed) and have openly admitted that it was diced up to reveal truths they don't actually believe. Even the narrator issued a letter of apology to her fans for being a part in the film. And, unlike the subject matter at hand, concrete evidence does exist that this happened. You want links? Go Google it or whatever. With all the research everyone seems to have done on the topic of geocentrism in the first place you would think someone would of looked into the *beep* factor of the film's creator. It's not a question of who's right or wrong. The film itself is fake.

reply

[–] rocinante-421-313928 9 years ago

What do you mean by "fake"? There's nothing the interviewed said in the movie that they haven't said before in interviews or even academic papers. They disowned the movie after cashing their checks because of the controversy surrounding the producer.

reply