Testing geocentrism
An excellent and relevant series examining geocentrist claims:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLmWeueTF8l82THrHwihtcmhQdjcBQBX jT
[deleted]
MovieChat Forums > The Principle (2014) Discussion > Testing geocentrism
That's dealing mainly with ptolemaic geocentrism. It's not at all what any modern geocentrism talks about.
Having done my own investigation in this matter, after the initial "WTF" moment, I noticed how 99% of the attempts to explain or debunk geocentrist claims are flawed because they simply aren't talking about the same thing. They come up with a strawman, usually based on ptolemaic geocentrism, debunk that, and it isn't a hard task at all, and assume that's enough to debunk all other models.
You clearly didn't watch the whole series (which btw hasn't even finished), it covers pretty much the gamut of geocentrist claims.
shareAs a matter of fact, I did, and no, it covers only ptolemaic geocentrism, which isn't what any of the modern geocentrists is defending anyway. If you really believe that series covers the "gamut" of geocentrist claims, well... you're missing a LOT buddy.
The first 4 episodes are giving purely kinematic arguments against ptolemaic geocentrism, which are very well known, and don't apply to any of the models defended by modern geocentrists. Either the author never did his homework on the subject, or he is being deliberately deceptive by attacking a strawman.
If I remember correctly, episodes 5 and 6 deal with the issue of parallax, but that's the most frequently answered objection in geocentrism circles. Parallax would be observed in the exact same way in a neo-tychonean model which is a mirror image of a relativistic no-preferred-frames allowed model. It's a valid objection, but it's not like it's left unanswered.
I thought things would get interesting in episodes 7 and 8, but again he's using redshift to present objections that can be accounted for as relative movement. He's making a real mess at that point.
It's obvious from the start that the series is nothing but an anti-religious rant, to appeal with the teenage-atheist crowd who fancy themselves as "rational" and "scientific", not science. Frankly, it's a display of pedantry like I haven't seen in a long time.
You speak of straw man arguments, yet you said it deals "mainly with ptolemaic geocentrism". He covers it and historical perspectives, but that's not really an accurate assessment. Since he raises a whole host of phenomena explainable and predictable by heliocentrism and a non-geocentric universe, which demand explanation by any geocentric model one cares to present. If you believe he's misrepresenting, or have the geocentrist explanation with accompanying predictive mathematical models to support it, you should present them. But if you're going to rely on things such as faster-than-light motion of celestial bodies and "aether" you'd better bring something pretty special to the table, such as modern repeatable experiments and solid models. If it's an issue you're interested in, I suggest you challenge him so the truth can be known. I'm sure he'd be more than happy to address any issues you may have.
shareYou speak of straw man arguments, yet you said it deals "mainly with ptolemaic geocentrism". He covers it and gives a historical perspective, but that's not really an accurate assessment.
Well... he doesn't mention any other geocentric model anywhere, and all his objections only apply to ptolemaic geocentrism. That's pretty accurate from what I saw. Obviously, if you know nothing beyond that, you'll believe he's covering all possibilities. Basically, it looks like you don't even know that you don't know.
Since no modern geocentrist is defending ptolemaic geocentrism, that's a strawman. If he does this out of malice or ignorance, I have no idea.
Since he raises a whole host of phenomena explainable and predictable by heliocentrism and a non-geocentric universe, which demand explanation by any geocentric model one cares to present.
Well... when you present geocentrism and heliocentrism as antithetical, you're again talking only of ptolemaic geocentrism. The tychonean model proposed by the modern geocentrists is a mirror image of the heliocentric model antithetical to ptolemaic geocentrism.
Most phenomena presented in the videos are purely kinematic or dependent on relative movement only. That's not an objection to geocentrism, since it's merely a change of coordinate system. It's a common confusion that most people make, because they think of the Solar System isolated from the rest of the universe, and keep thinking that geocentrism means the Earth being the center of the Solar System.
All that modern geocentrists claim is simply that the ECI is an actual absolute reference frame. That claim can't be refuted on kinematics only, and most objections to it would be subjective, at least until we can travel and do experiments beyond the horizon of parallax measurements.
If you believe he's misrepresenting, or have the geocentrist explanation with accompanying predictive mathematical models to support it, you should present them.
If someone is interested in that, all they have to do is study the literature on the subject. Read Galileo Was Wrong, by Sungenis and Bennet, they are friendly to layman and leave no stone unturned. It took me considerable effort to find any flaws in it, which they answered. I'm definitely not interested in someone who has a rhetorical interest on this for fueling anti-religious rants, and lacks respect for others, which seems to be the case of the author of those videos.
But if you're going to rely on things such as faster-than-light motion of celestial bodies and "aether" you'd better bring something pretty special to the table, such as modern repeatable experiments and solid models.
You're confusing things a little. I don't have to bring something pretty special to the table in order for geocentrism to be a viable option, because what makes it not viable isn't observational evidence, but the axiomatic premises used to interpret observational evidence. The obvious one here is the Copernican Principle, hence the name of the movie. Once you adopt as a premise the assumption that Earth can't have a privileged location, then it's impossible to interpret any observational evidence as supporting that. I call that an epistemic closure.
So, what has to be brought to the table aren't modern repeatable experiments and solid models, since even those that do support geocentrism must be disregarded in the name of the Copernican Principle. What has to be brought to the table is the issue that a science cannot carry a metaphysical assumption that can't be falsified. Once you do it and clarify that in fact our knowledge rests on that assumption and one is free to waive it at any moment, the existent experiments and observational evidence can be reinterpreted under another set of premises.
If it's an issue you're interested in, I suggest you challenge him so the truth can be known. I'm sure he'd be more than happy to address any issues you may have.
Buddy... I don't argue with people like the one who authored those videos. That's what they want. I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it. share
"it covers only ptolemaic geocentrism"
Except it doesn't.
Ptolemy was left behind after episode 2/3, and the Tychonic system has begun to be explored in episode 10.
Get your facts right. Maybe watch episode 10 and learn how to have an actual rebuttal, for a change - instead of peddling an outright lie.
And no, addressing a geocentric model isn't making a straw man argument, just because it isn't *YOUR* favourite geocentric model.
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.
My favourite thing about Sungenis is 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"....
"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.
"Get your facts right. Maybe watch episode 10 and learn how to have an actual rebuttal, for a change - instead of peddling an outright lie."
Why do I have do provide a rebuttal for a counter-argument against something I never said? I've watched enough of those videos to see they are nothing but an anti-religious diatribe, and that's not worth my time.
If he comes up with an actual rebuttal of the book Galileo Was Wrong, I'd be glad to watch it and maybe even bother writing a response, if he can refrain from engaging in such childish insults as he does on those videos.
Shame you've produced none of that physics and maths you were asked for.
First of all, all the arguments presented so far were conceptual. Nobody said the math is wrong. Second, nobody asked me anything, and if they do, I'll point them towards the book. Why should I spend time explaining something when there's a 650 page book about it? My ego is not at stake, if you think I'm under such an obligation, maybe you think yours is.
I, however, have seen all the papers that geocentrifrauds like to throw around the place.
I don't know what "geocentrifrauds" throw around the place. The only places I mentioned so far are the book Galileo Was Wrong and the documentary The Principle, and I'm pretty sure you never read that book.
The funny bit is that they enjoy flaunting the 1977 Barbour and Bertotti paper, "Gravity and Inertia in a Machian Framework".
That paper is one among more than a thousand others quoted in the book. So?
The hilariously tragic fact being that their paper still has the Earth going around the Sun.
I don't think you actually read the paper. In both examples it uses a central test body, the Earth, in the center of a shell. If you mean it still has the Earth going around the Sun in the sense that relative motion is unaltered, yes, sure, that's the point. I really don't see what's so hilarious about that.
Oddly, shortly after I asked Barbour about his involvement in this movie, he made a public statement denouncing it.
Sure, I don't doubt that, but it doesn't mean he's being misinterpreted or quoted out of context. It simply means he - pretty much like Krauss - doesn't want to be associated with Sungenis.
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.
Why are you saying that in the second person? I have no involvement with the documentary, Sungenis or the book. I'm simply a physics undergraduate and philosophy student who enjoys the book and would like to meet people who actually read it before criticizing.
By the way, I'm not even a geocentrist, as you seem to assume that. I believe the question is meaningless and is merely the dispute between two mythical narratives, one ruled by providence, other ruled by chance.
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.
That's the best you know, because you never read the book, only Alec MacAndrew's attack on Sungenis. The best they have is a book with two 650 pages volumes with over a thousand references and painstakingly researched, that very few detractors bother reading in the first place. Like you, they prefer to attack a book that only exists in their imagination.
If you admit Popov proves a kinematic equivalence between geocentric and heliocentric, then how he completely fails to produce any physics? You're at the same time saying he's saying something obvious, and completely failing to produce anything, which is obviously contradictory. Make up your mind. You can say he produced something any second-year undergraduate physics could figure out, and that's his point, but you can't say he failed to produce any physics.
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
First of all, you didn't even get his name right. It's Alec, not Alex.
Alec MacAndrew was enlisted by Karl Keating, a liberal catholic apologist founder of Catholic Answers, to engage Sungenis on geocentrism, since Keating realized he couldn't do it himself and needed an expert. As everyone else, MacAndrew also didn't read the book Galileo Was Wrong, and usually attacks his own straw men formed from superficial readings of blog posts and now the documentary. Needless to say, since he is a hired goon, he can't back down even if he's proven wrong, so it's very easy to see how he deliberately engaged in dishonest arguments after a while, pretending to not know things he has to know perfectly well, or repeating arguments already proven wrong.
I'm not going to waste my time replying to your copy of MacAndrew's arguments here. Sungenis provided a thorough response to MacAndrew. Read those, and if you still have objections you can present in a civilized and adult manner, we can talk about it:
http://galileowaswrong.com/critique-of-alec-macandrew-ph-d-topic-geocentrism/
http://galileowaswrong.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/There_Goes_the_Sun_Rebuttal_to_Alec_MacAndrew1.pdf
http://galileowaswrong.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Newton_v_Einstein_The_Physics_of_A_MacAndrew.pdf
And I believe there's another one I couldn't find now. I'm sure you'll be able to find it, if you're genuinely interested in it, and not simply ranting.
My favourite thing about Sungenis is 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.
Please, despite the insults and constant attempts at ridicule, I thought you were serious. That argument proves you're not. I don't think I have to explain to you what he means by that, which means you're playing dumb for the sake of argument. That's just incredibly immature.
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.
You're not thinking.
They cannot be explained with an ether and a moving Earth. They are consistent with an ether and a non-moving Earth. Please, just read the book. There must be at least two dozen pages explaining that alone, not to mention the Q&A and Summary sections devoted to each experiment in detail. What's at issue aren't the particularities of each type of ether, but the meaning behind the fact that no significant movement can be detected. Does it means there's no ether, or that the Earth isn't moving? That's the real question.
Geocentrifrauds are hilarious when they try to rewrite scientific history.
Please, quote a page on Galileo Was Wrong or any paper by Sungenis or Dr. Bennett where they misrepresented scientific history.
You show so much passion for the subject, I don't understand why you can motivate yourself through reading the actual book. Maybe you think it's more entertaining to attack a straw man? Maybe you're attacking it for some other reason?
And even if we just accept the Aether, despite there being no evidence for its existence and everything pointing against it
That's a weird argument. The problem is that both premises, that there's an ether and that Earth is moving, are mutually incompatible with the observations that no significant movement is detected between the Earth and the ether. You have to choose only one of them.
Everything points against it only if you choose to stick with the assumption that Earth is moving, therefore your argument is simply a petitio principii.
Anyway, we do accept the ether. The relativistic spacetime is nothing but another word for it. Homework reading for you, Einstein and the Ether, by Ludwik Kostro.
you still need to supply the physical mechanism/force that explains the motions of the bodies as they move through it.
An english occultist called Isaac Newton already did that for us. Please, read the book, or at least read Sungenis' response to MacAndrew.
Yet another important part of the physics that is completely missing from this childish conjecture.
The only thing childish here is your behavior. I'm not wasting more time with you until you read the book and present some actual criticism. If you won't, have a good life. share
Why do I have do provide a rebuttal for a counter-argument against something I never said?
Says the guy who ACTUALLY said that CHL has only ever addressed the Ptolemaic model.
Lies about supposed straw man arguments seems to be the best you can come up with, when you are challenged.
The 10th video begins to look at the specific claims pertaining to the neo-tychonean model. You claimed he hasn't addressed that model in any way.
How is my pointing out that he has produced a video that begins to address that model (which you claim to hold to) asking you to "provide a rebuttal for a counter-argument against something [you] never said"?
Or are you just trying to avoid it all again?
I've watched enough of those videos to see they are nothing but an anti-religious diatribe, and that's not worth my time.
Yeah, because nowhere in his videos does he ever go through the mathematics and videos behind each and every argument.
This is just a pathetic attempt at poisoning the well and absolving yourself from engaging with it in an intellectually honest way.
If he comes up with an actual rebuttal of the book Galileo Was Wrong, I'd be glad to watch it and maybe even bother writing a response, if he can refrain from engaging in such childish insults as he does on those videos.
But you've just admitted that you haven't and won't.
To begin with, addressing claims made by geocentrists that aren't claims you share, ISN'T a straw man. Most importantly, as stated, the claims in that book have begun to be addressed in the video that you refuse to watch.
And if the best argument you've got to absolve yourself from engaging with the videos is your moral high ground fallacy, then you're only admitting to your own cowardice.
Nobody except you is buying the "moral high ground" argument - especially because your invoking can only exhibit a bankruptcy in your own moral fiber, due to it being nothing more than a petulant argument designed to allow you to stick your head in the sand and somehow still claim your arguments valid.
First of all, all the arguments presented so far were conceptual.
So, you don't think, when it comes to demonstrating the veracity of a claim surrounding the Earth's motion and place in the universe, providing the maths and physics is first and foremost in any argument?
Interesting.
Nobody said the math is wrong.
You'd have to provide it, first.
Second, nobody asked me anything
Irrelevant. You're making a claim about the position and motion of the Earth, and you didn't feel the need to supply the relevant mathematics and physics to support this conjecture.
This question is not answered conceptually. You're trying to make a scientific argument. You have to provide the science.
Why should I spend time explaining something when there's a 650 page book about it?
So, although you've read this book, you find yourself completely incapable of supporting your claims with references at least? Not even references to the papers that are referenced in the book?
And yay! We get referred to a book that quote mines scientists, cherry picks its data in the most egregious manner, and claims that papers that aren't geocentric nor supportive of geocentrism, somehow are geocentric.
You never took a science course at college, did you?
My ego is not at stake, if you think I'm under such an obligation, maybe you think yours is.
I beg to differ. The entire question of the position of the Earth is clearly tied to your own overinflated sense of self-importance, and any challenge to the idea of a geocentric universe is intrinsically, to you, tied in with a challenge to your own import and sense of self.
I'm very much doubting the sincerity of your claims about not being a geocentrist, for reasons I'll explain later.
It is very clear that you have more invested in the idea of a geocentric universe, than just the question of the Earth's place and motion. You obviously do have a lot vested into the idea, in the sense of your own identity.
As for me, couldn't care less. It doesn't threaten my world view at all. Prove the Earth moves or doesn't move and it does absolutely nothing to my overall world view, because I don't have a religious or dogmatic doctrine (or personal interpretation of such) resting on the answer.
That paper is one among more than a thousand others quoted in the book. So?
Hmmm, the fact that even Barbour states that the Earth is in motion in that paper, making it NOT geocentric.
So, the book is trying to claim that a non-geocentric paper, in which the Earth is in motion, somehow supports geocentrism.
Nice.
I don't think you actually read the paper. In both examples it uses a central test body, the Earth, in the center of a shell. If you mean it still has the Earth going around the Sun in the sense that relative motion is unaltered, yes, sure, that's the point. I really don't see what's so hilarious about that.
Except it doesn't.
Do show me the part where it says "a central test body, the Earth, in the center of a shell."
Bottom line, it doesn't. In another post, you actually dishonestly implanted your own words into a quote from the paper, because without doing so, your conjecture that it is a geocentric paper falls flat on its arse.
So, now you're just going to outright lie about what a paper says?
Glad to see what caliber of person we're dealing with.
It's a shame I HAVE read the paper. I gave a short break down of it earlier in the year to Malcolm Bowden, explaining every single time he'd lied about it.
I'm more than happy to do the same for you.
Sure, I don't doubt that, but it doesn't mean he's being misinterpreted or quoted out of context. It simply means he - pretty much like Krauss - doesn't want to be associated with Sungenis.
http://www.livescience.com/44839-scientists-misquoted-in-geocentrism-film.html
" British physicist Julian Barbour — cited in a trailer description of the documentary on YouTube – said his involvement in the film seems to have arisen from a gross misunderstanding of a 1977 paper he di-authored with Italian physicist Bruno Bertotti.
The paper, Barbour told Live Science, created a model showing that Newton's First Law — that objects in motion will continue to move in a straight line unless an external force is applied — can be explained by distant stars or masses in the universe. The physicists used a simple modelin which the sun is at the center of the universe, but the model was not supposed to fully represent reality. It also, Barbour pointed out, is not a geocentric model as THE EARTH IS STILL GOING AROUND THE SUN." (my emphasis).
Seems pretty damning to me.
By the way, I'm not even a geocentrist, as you seem to assume that. I believe the question is meaningless and is merely the dispute between two mythical narratives, one ruled by providence, other ruled by chance.
I'm doubting the sincerity of this statement. You seem incapable of producing balanced arguments as one would expect from such a person - and even more so, completely incapable of critically analyzing a book filled with out of context quotes, geocentric (and geocentrist supportive) papers that aren't geocentric (or even supportive of it), and constantly and egregiously claim that legitimate challenges to the premises and supposedly supportive arguments for geocentrism are "straw men", as well as outright lying about the content of scientific papers.
Yeah, excuse me if I refuse to believe the sentiment here.
I've come across enough people who try to pretend they aren't believers in the very things they are arguing for, just so they can give a false air of neutrality - and before too long they all show their true colours. Every single one of them has very quickly come right out and shown themselves to have been geocentrists all along, masquerading as "inquisitive citizens", who are "only interested in the truth", but who are never interested in the answers they get, but instead with obfuscating and proselytizing their favourite brand of rubbish.
It's getting to become a very predictable and tiresome tactic, for which I have no sympathy.
That's the best you know, because you never read the book, only Alec MacAndrew's attack on Sungenis.
Erm, so the best you've got as an answer is to claim I've never read a book, and claim that because I only gave this one reference, then a) that's "all I have" and b) that's a good enough response to even be considered valid.
Wow.
Yeah. Sure you're a physics and philosophy graduate, kid.
The best they have is a book with two 650 pages volumes with over a thousand references and painstakingly researched, that very few detractors bother reading in the first place.
No. The best we've got is SCIENCE and every theory that has been substantiated through measurement and experiment. Unlike Sungenis and every other geocentrifraud.
Like you, they prefer to attack a book that only exists in their imagination.
Says the guy who refuses to watch videos that respond to Sungenis' claims, but still thinks they can comment on them.
If you admit Popov proves a kinematic equivalence between geocentric and heliocentric, then how he completely fails to produce any physics?
Because it's a mathematical model, not a physical one. How is that too difficult for a supposed physics graduate to understand?
There's no attempt to demonstrate a physical force or mechanism to account for the motion. The inability to provide a physical element is kind of a big problem if you want to suggest that his paper has produced any physics. It kind of - how do I put this in simple terms for you to understand? - PRODUCE ANY PHYSICS.
You're at the same time saying he's saying something obvious, and completely failing to produce anything
Yet another straw man, from the perpetually vacuous serial "straw man!" crier.
No, I didn't say that he's failed to produce ANYTHING. Show me where I did. Please do.
Oh, sorry, I forgot. Inventing things for people to say is your entire argument, isn't it?
What I did say, was that he hasn't produced any PHYSICS.
He's produced a paper that points out kinematic equivalence. That's NOT producing a physical mechanism or force accounting for motion. It's producing a mathematical model, NOT a physical one.
You can say he produced something any second-year undergraduate physics could figure out, and that's his point, but you can't say he failed to produce any physics.
Yes, I can, since it is purely a mathematical paper. It's about as much a physics paper as if I wrote one stating that a square pyramid when looked from above resembles a square, but when looked from perfectly side on resembles a triangle.
It's not physics. It's mathematics.
Provide the forces and I'm sold. Otherwise, I'm not at all impressed.
Understand?
Probably not.
First of all, you didn't even get his name right. It's Alec, not Alex.
And this is relevant, because?
Oh, yeah, sorry. Poisoning the well by showing that I get someone's name wrong is entirely a valid argument that doesn't exhibit the most desperate measure worthy of ridicule.
Alec MacAndrew was enlisted by Karl Keating, a liberal catholic apologist founder of Catholic Answers, to engage Sungenis on geocentrism, since Keating realized he couldn't do it himself and needed an expert.
And this is relevant because?
Oh, yeah, I forgot. When you haven't got anything substantive, there's always poisoning the well and the introduction of the furtive fallacy.
Very important.
Absolutely vital to determining the validity of the arguments, and not at all a transparently desperate attempt to get around the issues raised.
Just when is "Mr Physics graduate" going to address the issues I raise about the Universe not even acting like it has a center of mass, and the problems that gravity provides geocentrism, again?
I'm still waiting.
It's been a long old post, and you've not even once tried to address them.
As everyone else, MacAndrew also didn't read the book Galileo Was Wrong
Your evidence for this conjecture being where? Or are we just reciting Sungenis' own butt-hurt blanket responses on his *beep* for every challenge to his childish conjecture?
and usually attacks his own straw men formed from superficial readings of blog posts and now the documentary.
And so the points are raised are apparently straw man, because....?
Because YOU or Sungenis say so?
That's not how logical fallacies work. You kind of still have to demonstrate why those points don't deal with your arguments. You don't just get to assert it.
Seems odd that I have to point this out to someone claiming to be a physics and philosophy graduate.
It's almost as if you completely made that up.
Needless to say, since he is a hired goon, he can't back down even if he's proven wrong
Yep, and there's the predictable furtive fallacy. An unsubstantiated claim about a conspiracy that I'm supposed to take your word for, along with the poisoning the well tactic, that this would invalidate everything he had to say on the subject.
Where did you graduate from, again? Patriot university?
so it's very easy to see how he deliberately engaged in dishonest arguments after a while, pretending to not know things he has to know perfectly well, or repeating arguments already proven wrong.
And we're not even going to bother producing any substantiation for any of this either.
For someone who's supposedly not a geocentrist, you seem to vehemently defend geocentrism, and seem to be very proficient in using every fallacious argument they do.
I'm not going to waste my time replying to your copy of MacAndrew's arguments here.
Why not? It's only a few simple points.
Would you like to show me the universe acting like it actually does have a center of mass. Would you like to name and demonstrate a force that can keep the Earth indefinitely at the supposed center of mass (even if you believed you could demonstrate the first point)?
Nope?
Thought not.
Just a short articulation of your thoughts, with some references, would do, "Mr physics graduate". Surely a physics graduate wouldn't find that to difficult a task?
Nope?
Nothing?
Sounds about right.
Sungenis provided a thorough response to MacAndrew. Read those, and if you still have objections you can present in a civilized and adult manner, we can talk about it:
And you're completely unable to provide a short response with quotes relevant to the points I made?
Nope?
We're just going to have to go through a Gish-gallop of Sungenis' tripe, most (if not all) of which is completely irrelevant to the points I've raised, because despite being a physics graduate, you're incapable of pulling out the relevant parts that deal with the points I raised?
OK.
http://galileowaswrong.com/critique-of-alec-macandrew-ph-d-topic-geocentrism/
Hmmmm, more vapid rubbish, with loads of poisoning the well to try and pad out the lack of argument in it (even just opening with something along the lines of "Hey, this guy's an open ATHEIST, yeah, that's how trust worthy HE is").
The usual rewriting of scientific history and cherry picking of data.
You do realise he misses the point that the Aether models supported by the Michelson-Morley experiment, the Michelson-Gale-Peterson experiment and the Airy telescope experiment are all different, that none of those Aether models supports the geocentric Aether and that the only explanation that fits all 3 experiments taken together is General Relativity, don't you?
Or did you somehow not learn these very fundamental experiments in your Patriot university course?
Still, most importantly, at NO POINT does he address the points I raised.
Do try and post up things relevant to what I've said, next time.
http://galileowaswrong.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/There_Goes_the_Sun_Rebuttal_to_Alec_MacAndrew1.pdf
Well yay. Another Sungenis tract that doesn't even try to hide the fact that his number one tactic is poisoning the well, and his number one argument is "BUT THITH GUYTH AN ATHEITHT!"
And absolutely nothing answering the points I raised, either.
Funny that.
It's almost like you can't find anything to respond to those points.
An important part is that those points refer to what a universe that works under the conditions of Newtonian mechanics looks like - and most important, what it should look like if Sungenis' conjecture is correct.
The fact we don't see that, is the very reason why Sungenis doesn't get to use Newtonian mechanics and has to invoke something else. The fact that he fails to understand this - and neither do you, it seems - speaks volumes.
http://galileowaswrong.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Newton_v_Einstein_The_Physics_of_A_MacAndrew.pdf
I'm sorry.
I've just spluttered my coffee everywhere.
Did you just refer me to an article that references WIKIPEDIA?
Yes. Yes, that just happened.
A "physics graduate" just referred me to an article that references wikipdeia.
Seriously, you've just made me cough up coffee all over my keyboard.
I'm going to bill you for that.
And, I notice, there are STILL no answers in this article to the points I raised.
I can't even critically analyze the responses to those points - the responses don't even exist!
Throw me a bone, here! At least give me SOME kind of response to the points I raised.
And I believe there's another one I couldn't find now. I'm sure you'll be able to find it, if you're genuinely interested in it, and not simply ranting.
To be honest, I've got quite bored of reading through Sungenis' scientifically illiterate claptrap, as he spits invective everywhere and hypocritically claims everyone else is doing the same.
If you think he answers them, why don't you save everyone's time and produce the arguments? Are come up with your own - after all, you do claim to be a physics graduate.
Please, despite the insults and constant attempts at ridicule, I thought you were serious. That argument proves you're not. I don't think I have to explain to you what he means by that, which means you're playing dumb for the sake of argument. That's just incredibly immature.
So, your only answer is that you don't think you have to explain how a STATIONARY OBJECT can even be said to have a "PATH"?
Translation: *beep* caught out. Got nothing. Go to call him immature and spit invective at him in order to distract from the fact that I have no answer."
Come on. A "path" is a vector along which an object moves through space.
Sungenis' answer to the comet problem is that the comets cross the Earth's PATH. The Earth, which he believes to be STATIONARY at the center of the universe. So, how does a STATIONARY OBJECT have a VECTOR along which it must MOVE?
Come on, Mr physics graduate. I'm dying to hear this special piece of pseudoscientific and pseudomathematical nonsense.
And remember, those are his words - that the comet "crosses the Earth's PATH". share
As I said before, I'm ignoring your insults and valley-girl trash-talk and focusing on the few things you say that can remotely be called an argument.
The 10th video begins to look at the specific claims pertaining to the neo-tychonean model. You claimed he hasn't addressed that model in any way.
He doesn't. He addresses what he thinks the model is because he never read the book. First, when he says the stars are centered on the Sun as synonym with orbiting or circling the sun, instead of in the same planar alignment as the Sun. He'd know that if he read the book and watched the animations in the accompanying CD-ROM. Second, he says that would make it more heliocentric, not geocentric, but if he read the book he'd know what makes a model geocentric is if the Earth is neither translating or rotating.
Both are common mistakes and are answered in the Q&A sections, by the way.
So, you don't think, when it comes to demonstrating the veracity of a claim surrounding the Earth's motion and place in the universe, providing the maths and physics is first and foremost in any argument?
How can you provide the math first, without a conceptual model? That's curious.
Irrelevant. You're making a claim about the position and motion of the Earth, and you didn't feel the need to supply the relevant mathematics and physics to support this conjecture.
I never made such claim. As a matter of fact, there's no way I would make such a claim since I know when and how Sungenis' model fails, most of his critics are still far from it. By critics I don't mean people like you. Everything you're saying is answered in the book.
So, although you've read this book, you find yourself completely incapable of supporting your claims with references at least?
Actually, that's what you've been doing here, except that you never read the book.
We get referred to a book that quote mines scientists
Quote, page number, and refutation, please.
cherry picks its data in the most egregious manner
Quote, page number, and refutation, please.
and claims that papers that aren't geocentric nor supportive of geocentrism, somehow are geocentric.
Quote, page number, and refutation, please.
I beg to differ. The entire question of the position of the Earth is clearly tied to your own overinflated sense of self-importance, and any challenge to the idea of a geocentric universe is intrinsically, to you, tied in with a challenge to your own import and sense of self.
You missed the point where I said a choice between geocentric and non-centric universes are irrelevant to me, because I consider them both a dispute between two narratives of our origins that can't be solved scientifically?
Frankly, I doubt you can even understand what that means, so what's the point?
It is very clear that you have more invested in the idea of a geocentric universe, than just the question of the Earth's place and motion. You obviously do have a lot vested into the idea, in the sense of your own identity.
I see. You are engaging in pseudopsychological speculations now. That's more entertaining than your usual rants. At least that says more about you.
As for me, couldn't care less. It doesn't threaten my world view at all. Prove the Earth moves or doesn't move and it does absolutely nothing to my overall world view, because I don't have a religious or dogmatic doctrine (or personal interpretation of such) resting on the answer.
Then why are you so invested in this discussion here? Why are you so passionate and feel the need to resort to insults and pseudopsychological speculations? That's curious, to say the least.
Hmmm, the fact that even Barbour states that the Earth is in motion in that paper, making it NOT geocentric.
Please, quote the passage and the page number.
Except it doesn't. Do show me the part where it says "a central test body, the Earth, in the center of a shell."
I already did.
Bottom line, it doesn't. In another post, you actually dishonestly implanted your own words into a quote from the paper, because without doing so, your conjecture that it is a geocentric paper falls flat on its arse.
Now you're playing semantics and accusing me of dishonest without basis.
What difference does it make the name of the body at the center? Please, don't be ridiculous.
"It also, Barbour pointed out, is not a geocentric model as THE EARTH IS STILL GOING AROUND THE SUN." (my emphasis).
Again, you're playing semantics. Sungenis and Dr. Bennett used Barbour's work to show the machian equivalence between an universe rotating around a fixed central body and a body moving in fixed universe. What difference does it make how you call the body which is at the center?
Seems pretty damning to me.
Yes, it seems, but it isn't, because you never read the book and you don't understand how it's used in the book.
I'm doubting the sincerity of this statement. You seem incapable of producing balanced arguments as one would expect from such a person - and even more so, completely incapable of critically analyzing a book filled with out of context quotes, geocentric (and geocentrist supportive) papers that aren't geocentric (or even supportive of it), and constantly and egregiously claim that legitimate challenges to the premises and supposedly supportive arguments for geocentrism are "straw men", as well as outright lying about the content of scientific papers.
Please, as I asked several times, provide the quotes and page numbers for the alleged, misquotations, egregious claims, etc. So far you provided absolutely nothing. You just keep repeating that, as if I had to accept that on your word. That's particularly amusing when we consider the fact that I read the book and you didn't.
Yeah, excuse me if I refuse to believe the sentiment here.
Fine. You're excused.
Because it's a mathematical model, not a physical one. How is that too difficult for a supposed physics graduate to understand?
That's difficult to understand, I admit, because it doesn't make any sense.
There's no attempt to demonstrate a physical force or mechanism to account for the motion.
Ohhh, I see. You mean a kinematic, not a dynamic model. That's something a supposed physics graduate would understand. Keep that in mind, OK?
The inability to provide a physical element is kind of a big problem if you want to suggest that his paper has produced any physics.
The purpose of his paper is to demonstrate kinematic equivalence. Isn't kinematics part of physics?
He's produced a paper that points out kinematic equivalence. That's NOT producing a physical mechanism or force accounting for motion. It's producing a mathematical model, NOT a physical one.
OK. I see you are agree that he demonstrates kinematic equivalence, and you wanted dynamic equivalence, but then you are the one who is mistaken, because nobody is claiming he did. Not even Popov himself. Why are you so angry about it? Popov is quoted for the kinematic equivalence. If you want dynamic equivalence, your own hero Alec MacAndrew admits it's obvious in both einsteinian and machian systems, with the newtonian left in dispute, so what's the problem?
It's not physics. It's mathematics.
OK. Kinematics isn't physics, it's mathematics. Got it. You need to ask all textbooks in the world to correct that immediately. You have to ask all universities to change their courses. Hurry.
Enough of this. To whoever asked me in private to keep on this, sorry, but it's just too much nonsense for me to bear. If you have any questions, feel free to ask, but I had enough of this clown.
Bye, mr. chizzlewit. Have a good life. share
As I said before, I'm ignoring your insults and valley-girl trash-talk and focusing on the few things you say that can remotely be called an argument.
When complaining about another's tone, it does not serve you to employ an impertinent tone breaking the illusion of your passive aggressive appeal to a moral high ground with such malapert rhetoric.
A word to the wise.
How can you provide the math first, without a conceptual model? That's curious.
How can you have a conceptual model, without a demonstrable mechanism or physical force? That's the actual point. Not this pathetic straw man version of what I said. Otherwise, all you have is unsubstantiated conjecture.
For someone so quick to shout "straw man!", you seem very adept at misrepresenting people's points.
As a matter of fact, there's no way I would make such a claim since I know when and how Sungenis' model fails, most of his critics are still far from it.
So you say, yet oddly, you don't feel the need to verify this assertion by presenting your supposed argument.
As I said, I would expect an actually sincere person to say something like "no, that doesn't quite work for an argument, because of [reasons], but THIS is the problem I find it has...."
Weirdly, you've not been at all forthcoming, in this respect.
Are we to just take your word for it that you are some great sage who knows a secret we don't?
I'd actually be more interested in these thoughts presented in this manner, than someone trying to appear highly superior, and quick to onerously claim "straw man" - we'll deal with one such example of this, elsewhere (when we get to the part in Sungenis' response that contradicts your claim that it was wrong to state that Sungenis offers no physical laws to back up his conjecture, by finding exactly the statement made by him that you challenged us to - making your claim of "straw man", invalid).
By critics I don't mean people like you. Everything you're saying is answered in the book.
Again, so you say, and yet you didn't produce any of these supposed answers to the points I raised. Which, along with the above point, makes me question your sincerity and motive.
Actually, that's what you've been doing here, except that you never read the book.
Except I have, albeit not all the way through. There was only so much my stomach could take of such drivel not well masqueraded as sincere inquisition.
You've simply asserted that I've not read it.
Even if you think my arguments are invalid (for reasons yet to be explained), you're asserting an assumption based only in the fictional narrative you wish to paint around me, solely with the desire to poison the well.
It's tiresome and pathetic.
"We get referred to a book that quote mines scientists"
Quote, page number, and refutation, please.
"cherry picks its data in the most egregious manner
Quote, page number, and refutation, please.
"and claims that papers that aren't geocentric nor supportive of geocentrism, somehow are geocentric."
Quote, page number, and refutation, please.
Again, need to check it back out of the library first to get exact page numbers and not misquote or get accused of quoting out of context - but I'm sure I remember chapter 12 being filled with examples, for one, on pretty much all counts. If I recall, Bennet goes on a veritable gish-gallop of nonsense at one point.
Do forgive me if I didn't feel compelled to splash out on my own copy, to have around every time someone wanted a direct quote and reference.
You missed the point where I said a choice between geocentric and non-centric universes are irrelevant to me, because I consider them both a dispute between two narratives of our origins that can't be solved scientifically?
It was probably around the time that you began making absolute and unfounded assumptions about me, to fit me into your pathetic 2-dimensional narrative.
Doesn't feel nice, does it?
So maybe, instead of complaining about it, don't do it.
At least I can give a valid reason to be suspicious of your sincerity and your claims regarding your degree, and invite you to demonstrate them.
You just like being disingenuous for disingenuous' sake, it appears.
But hey, I'll stop with the assumptions if you feel you have the ability to extend the same courtesy.
Deal?
You may have to get through these posts first.
Frankly, I doubt you can even understand what that means, so what's the point?
I do. I simply disagree. If you can provide me with a tool that demonstrably does a better job of creating accurate predictions and descriptions of reality than science, then I'm all ears and I'll ditch science in a heartbeat. Until that point, I find the matter of our origins to be exactly the kind of thing that has only got a chance of being settled by a tool that can make accurate predictions and descriptions of reality.
If, however, you're also talking about the fact that neither a geocentric or non-geocentric universe has widespread implications for one's personal worldview, then I'd say that it was you who was first mistaken about me - and disingenuously characterized me as such, in order to belittle me, instead of deal with the points I made. You don't get to play your moral high ground fallacy, when you don't have a moral high ground to stand on.
Contrary to what you suggested - if this is a point you are getting at - I'm happily in agreement.
I see. You are engaging in pseudopsychological speculations now. That's more entertaining than your usual rants. At least that says more about you.
Actually, more than anything it was offered as a parody of yourself. You'll find it - and the fact that you don't see this - speaks volumes about you.
"Hmmm, the fact that even Barbour states that the Earth is in motion in that paper, making it NOT geocentric."
Please, quote the passage and the page number.
I did. I gave you the livescience link and the quote in which he states this.
Do I have to repeat myself for your selective reading?
http://www.livescience.com/44839-scientists-misquoted-in-geocentrism-film.html
" British physicist Julian Barbour — cited in a trailer description of the documentary on YouTube – said his involvement in the film seems to have arisen from a gross misunderstanding of a 1977 paper he di-authored with Italian physicist Bruno Bertotti.
The paper, Barbour told Live Science, created a model showing that Newton's First Law — that objects in motion will continue to move in a straight line unless an external force is applied — can be explained by distant stars or masses in the universe. The physicists used a simple model in which the sun is at the center of the universe, but the model was not supposed to fully represent reality. It also, Barbour pointed out, is not a geocentric model as THE EARTH IS STILL GOING AROUND THE SUN." (Again, my emphasis.)
Is hearing it from the horse's mouth not enough?
I don't see what else you could be asking for.
I honestly don't.
Your request for me to produce a "quote, passage and page number" is directly below me stating "Hmmm, the fact that even Barbour states that the Earth is in motion in that paper, making it NOT geocentric", here.
If you're looking for a quote by Barbour stating this himself - there it is, for at least the third time.
If you're looking for something else, you're not being clear.
"Except it doesn't. Do show me the part where it says "a central test body, the Earth, in the center of a shell.""
I already did.
Nope, you didn't. You gave me the quote where you had to INSERT the words "[eg the Earth]", yourself.
So, again, show me the part where it ACTUALLY SAYS "a central test body, the Earth, in the center of a shell."
Not some part where you have to insert words into the text, to make it say what you want. Understand?
"Bottom line, it doesn't. In another post, you actually dishonestly implanted your own words into a quote from the paper, because without doing so, your conjecture that it is a geocentric paper falls flat on its arse."
Now you're playing semantics and accusing me of dishonest without basis.
No, you INSERTED WORDS into the quote. That's not without basis - it's what you did!
Wow, we're just going into full on reality denial now - even denying the things you yourself have clearly done in black and white.
Since when is pointing out the fact that you inserted words into a quote, "playing semantics". You changed the quote.
I don't see what's so hard to grasp.
What difference does it make the name of the body at the center? Please, don't be ridiculous.
Erm, the fact that without it being specified as the Earth (even when all you have is a pathetic short quote mine from that paper), it isn't GEOcentric, for one. It has to stipulate the Earth as a preferred reference frame for starters. And then the entire paper has to describe a model in which that body has no motion.
Even that quote you gave only stipulates that the test body is NEAR the center of (not AT the center of) the shell, and says nothing about the motion of the test body.
In fact, nowhere in this paper can I find them discussing the idea that the Earth has no motion (necessary for *your* description of a geocentric universe - though, understand I'm not calling *you* a geocentrist, just pointing at that it refers to the definition you demanded we abide by) - and I've been going through this paper for a good year or more. All the bodies still have motion.
The r(i) term, from your earlier quote, is also a positional vector. I don't know if you missed that.
One question, though, because you seem to want to assert that Barbour is lying about his own paper (I have given you that link and the quote at least three times now, and you're *still* asking for it). According to YOU, it seems pretty geocentric. According to Barbour, the Earth is still in motion around the Sun. Hmmmm. Who should I believe? The author of the paper? Or some guy on the internet?
Can you guess who I'm going with?
Again, you're playing semantics. Sungenis and Dr. Bennett used Barbour's work to show the machian equivalence between an universe rotating around a fixed central body and a body moving in fixed universe. What difference does it make how you call the body which is at the center?
Because their paper doesn't have the bodies fixed - it doesn't have a universe moving around a fixed body. Simple. Even the bodies near to the center are in motion. And because, as has been pointed out, a body cannot occupy a center of mass indefinitely.
And, you do realise that r(i) is a position vector, don't you? That's kind of important.
The body is not fixed at the center of the universe, nor does it support a model that has this. The body has motion.
Yes, it seems, but it isn't, because you never read the book and you don't understand how it's used in the book.
Actually, I have and I do. The answer is simply "poorly". And that's being charitable.
Your above explanation seems to do little to change or challenge the objection.
"Because it's a mathematical model, not a physical one. How is that too difficult for a supposed physics graduate to understand?"
That's difficult to understand, I admit, because it doesn't make any sense.
So, you don't understand the objection that a model that presents no physical forces or mechanisms can't be seen as anything more than a mathematical curiosity, rather than a dynamic model?
Let me explain it simply. If it purely looks at kinematic equivalences and doesn't posit any physical forces or mechanisms for the motion, it cannot be said to produce an accurate description of reality with predictive power. What are the demonstrated mechanisms and forces in Popov's paper?
It's about as useful and meaningful as Humphreys getting a hard on because he used a free parameter as if it was a constant in order to "prove" his "theory" about planetary electromagnetic field strengths.
"There's no attempt to demonstrate a physical force or mechanism to account for the motion."
Ohhh, I see. You mean a kinematic, not a dynamic model. That's something a supposed physics graduate would understand. Keep that in mind, OK?
I will when I'm the one claiming to be a physics graduate, whilst still making textbook mistakes. As it is, I'm not making such a claim. You are, whilst still making textbook mistakes.
Your point?
Do you understand the difference between a student and a graduate?
Do you understand the idea that you can only use that argument if I was making the same claim as you?
Still, momentary lapses of correct nomenclature are not as indicting as not being able to understand what constitutes a straw man argument, when you claim to be a philosophy student, or the fact that Sungenis' supposed answers to MacAndrew really don't wash, whilst claiming to be a physics graduate.
Yes, I finally got the parts you posted up (there was a problem with the connection and only part of the pdf came through first time - I'll go through it elsewhere).
OK. I see you are agree that he demonstrates kinematic equivalence, and you wanted dynamic equivalence, but then you are the one who is mistaken, because nobody is claiming he did. Not even Popov himself. Why are you so angry about it? Popov is quoted for the kinematic equivalence.
I'm not "angry" about anything here. I'm literally just pointing out how irrelevant it is. Relative motion has kinematic equivalence when observed from different frames of reference. Wow.
It's meaningless.
You yourself have even stated this.
So what's the problem.
How, exactly, does kinematic equivalence support an idea that we can impose a preferred reference frame onto the universe?
It doesn't.
And, yes, many geocentrists, such as Malcolm Bowden are trying to tout this paper around as doing just that. I'm not mistaken, I'm afraid. It isn't true that "nobody is claiming he [demonstrates a dynamic equivalence]".
In fact, it's not quite true that even he isn't:
"One doesn't have to invent anything new, plain old Newtonian mechanics combined with some imaginative application gives you geocentric system with equally good predictive power and equally simple as the heliocentric system"
Yeah, he actually does try and claim a dynamic equivalence here.
Shame he had to invent a vector potential out of thin air and just arbitrarily assign it an appropriate result - and never sees fit to address this point in his reply....
Free parameters are great.
Shame they don't work like constants.
If you want dynamic equivalence, your own hero Alec MacAndrew admits it's obvious in both einsteinian and machian systems, with the newtonian left in dispute, so what's the problem?
No, what he states is:
"General Relativity is the current best physical theory of gravitation and it might incorporate Mach’s Principle, although this is still a matter of debate. However, invoking General Relativity, as geocentrists do to attempt to get the equivalence they need, makes meaningless the concepts of being absolutely static and of a centre to the universe, thus demolishing the fundamental hypothesis they are trying to prove."
Now, whether you think Sungenis answers him or not, he's not quite supporting the claim that the dynamic equivalence is there, is he?
For one thing, he's pointed out that invoking Einstein kind of undermines the idea of an imposed preferred reference frame, as it is. He's also pointing out just how well it can be asserted that Mach's Principle is incorporated into GR is debatable.
But still, the problem is that there just isn't that dynamic equivalence.
The universe does not act as a geocentric universe following the Newtonian mechanics that Sungenis claims it does.
I had enough of this clown.
Oh, rest assured, I had enough of you a LONG LONG time ago. Your projectionism is irritating, your hypocrisy infuriating, you propensity to onerously cry "straw man" at the drop of a hat whenever a premise or argument is being challenged is immensely tedious, your passive aggressive nature is frankly wearisome in the extreme.
"It's not physics. It's mathematics."
OK. Kinematics isn't physics, it's mathematics. Got it. You need to ask all textbooks in the world to correct that immediately. You have to ask all universities to change their courses. Hurry.
I think that's a grossly disingenuous portrayal of the point I was making, akin to a red herring.
I'm kind of getting used to such tactics, though not growing less bored of them. share
You're not thinking.
We're just about to find out how this is the most amazing exhibition of projectionism ever, from a "physics graduate".
They cannot be explained with an ether and a moving Earth
Yes, neither can they be explained with a stationary Earth, because they can't be explained with a moving Aether.
For that to be the case, the speed of light would not be constant for all observers.
And.... you're really a physics graduate?
Really?
So, come on, which is it? Does the Aether drag in contradiction to experiment? Or does the Aether freely rotate around the Earth in contradiction to experiment?
Perhaps the third option - "the Aether only exists in the scientifically illiterate minds of geocentrifrauds" - is the most parsimonious/accurate.
Please, just read the book.
Unlike you, it appears, I'd much rather read the science, instead of an intellectually void moron's attempt to reconcile his biblical literalism with reality. What I've read and come across from that book has been nothing but rubbish (and I've gone through a fair amount of it, as it is).
What's at issue aren't the particularities of each type of ether, but the meaning behind the fact that no significant movement can be detected. Does it means there's no ether, or that the Earth isn't moving? That's the real question.
Well, given the fact that the speed of light is constant for all observers, I think it was kind of answered back at the turn of the 20th Century.
It'd be nice if geocentrifrauds kept up.
Please, quote a page on Galileo Was Wrong or any paper by Sungenis or Dr. Bennett where they misrepresented scientific history.
You just have. Thanks for that.
The entire part where they claim that these experiments demonstrate that the debate between a stationary aether or a moving Earth is still up in the air.
Oh, and then there's every claim surrounding Barbour and his paper.
In fact. Maybe it would be a quicker exercise if we just went through a list of examples where they DIDN'T misrepresent scientific history.
Here goes.
.......(crickets).......
You show so much passion for the subject, I don't understand why you can motivate yourself through reading the actual book. Maybe you think it's more entertaining to attack a straw man? Maybe you're attacking it for some other reason?
No, it's for the same reason that I won't finish "Atlas Shrugged". I don't feel compelled to make it all the way to the end of a book to find out that it's a pile of *beep* when it's made a very good job of proving this to be the case on every page past the first half (or even two thirds).
And the differences between me and this book, and you and CHL's series are simple:
1) I'm unimpressed by its lack of science, not the language it uses or how offensive it occasionally is.
2) I'm unimpressed by the way it misrepresents science, scientific history and various scientists themselves, not by the fact that it presents a historical context to a point, or addresses actual models that actual people adhere to whether I also do or not.
Kind of reverse those, and you've got your entire argument against CHL, and why it fails.
"And even if we just accept the Aether, despite there being no evidence for its existence and everything pointing against it"
That's a weird argument. The problem is that both premises, that there's an ether and that Earth is moving, are mutually incompatible with the observations that no significant movement is detected between the Earth and the ether.
Apart from the fact that the speed of light is constant for all observers, meaning that a freely rotating ether is impossible.
Whoops.
I really don't know where your (highly hypothetical) physics degree comes from.
Everything points against it only if you choose to stick with the assumption that Earth is moving, therefore your argument is simply a petitio principii.
Nope. It would be if that was all I was basing it on. Unfortunately for you, Mr "physics graduate" who's mysteriously completely ignorant of the theory of Special Relativity, the speed of light through a vacuum is constant for all observers.
That kind of kills the freely revolving aether idea, since such an idea completely contradicts experiment.
The fact that this is just ONE valid basis for such an argument, that renders your claim about it being petitio principii both fallacious and egregious in the extreme - but it also renders you supposed physics degree in tatters.
Anyway, we do accept the ether. The relativistic spacetime is nothing but another word for it. Homework reading for you, Einstein and the Ether, by Ludwik Kostro.
Yeah, not SUBSTANTIAL aether, we don't.
Seriously. You're meant to be a physics graduate, and the best you have is equivocation? You just google "Relativity and Aether" and post up the first thing you find, believing it completely substantiates the claims you or the authors of this book are making?
I really doubt you're a physics graduate at all. Not from anywhere that isn't basically a trailer park resting on house bricks.
"you still need to supply the physical mechanism/force that explains the motions of the bodies as they move through it."
An english occultist called Isaac Newton already did that for us. Please, read the book, or at least read Sungenis' response to MacAndrew.
Except he didn't, because the universe just doesn't act like it has a center of mass.
I've explained why and you've completely failed to answer those points.
Sungenis doesn't get to invoke Newtonian mechanics when a) the universe doesn't act like a geocentric universe acting in accordance with Newtonian mechanics would; and b) even his model violates Newtonian mechanics, since there is no possible way that the Earth could occupy a "center of mass" indefinitely.
Reality doesn't fit his model, and his model violates basic physics.
Hence, he needs to come up with some bizarre magical forces or mechanisms to account for the motions of bodies throughout the universe and through this supposed aether (which he still needs to account for, given its existence doesn't match experiment). Oops.
I keep asking, and I keep getting blank responses, or pathetic attempts at diversion and obfuscation, from every geocentrifraud around.
I'm not wasting more time with you until you read the book and present some actual criticism.
I knew it. We're dropping all pretense, throwing our toys out the pram and petulantly refusing to actually answer the points that have been made.
Nowhere.
Nowhere at all have you answered them.
Please explain away the fact that the universe doesn't even act like it has a center of mass in the first place, rendering Sungenis' attempt to invoke Newton futile.
Please explain away the fact that it is impossible for the Earth to indefinitely occupy a "center of mass", even if the universe had one (though, as we can see, it doesn't anyway).
Please explain away the fact that every experiment contradicts every substantial model of the aether, necessary for Sungenis' conjecture.
Please explain away the fact that Sungenis has been caught lying about scientific papers.
Nowhere have you answered these points.
In fact, you haven't even attempted to address the first 2 - and they're the most important of the lot!
So, now, please explain to me why you expected me to believe that you were a physics and philosophy graduate, let alone "not a geocentrist" (I'm half and half of whether to just outright claim that's a lie, but kind of want to give you the benefit of pretty much the entire body of doubt that you've raised against yourself).
And please explain to me why I should listen to the hypocritical pleas against childish behaviour, from a petulant brat who's go-to argument when the premises they rest the support of the arguments in question on, is to fallaciously cry "straw man" and huff off in a sulk.
You want people to not treat you so childishly?
Don't act so childishly. share
I'm not really interested in talking to you if you insist on the gratuitous insult and childish behavior, but someone asked me in a private message to keep answering because they are learning something. I'll simply ignore your valley-girl trash-talk, which makes up most of your messages, and the remaining that's worth answering won't take much time.
For that to be the case, the speed of light would not be constant for all observers.
I think you mean the speed of light would be constant for all observers in the same inertial frame.
You need a constant speed of light to account for the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment and a moving Earth. If Earth isn't moving, you don't need the speed of light to be constant. As I said, you're not thinking. You're simply repeating the same petitio principii.
Well, given the fact that the speed of light is constant for all observers, I think it was kind of answered back at the turn of the 20th Century.
The same petitio principii again. Besides that, since there's no true inertial frame, the only answer is that the math works, or that the speed of light is constant with respect to the Earth. Read pages 178-195.
The entire part where they claim that these experiments demonstrate that the debate between a stationary aether or a moving Earth is still up in the air.
Quote, page number, and refutation, please.
Oh, and then there's every claim surrounding Barbour and his paper.
Quote, page number, and a refutation, please.
1) I'm unimpressed by its lack of science, not the language it uses or how offensive it occasionally is.
Quote, page number, and refutation, please.
2) I'm unimpressed by the way it misrepresents science, scientific history and various scientists themselves, not by the fact that it presents a historical context to a point, or addresses actual models that actual people adhere to whether I also do or not.
Quote, page number, and refutation, please.
Apart from the fact that the speed of light is constant for all observers, meaning that a freely rotating ether is impossible.
If you can prove that the speed of light is constant for all observers, that's true. Can you?
That kind of kills the freely revolving aether idea, since such an idea completely contradicts experiment.
What experiment is contradicted by that and who demonstrated the contradiction, in which work?
Except he didn't, because the universe just doesn't act like it has a center of mass.
Why not? How do you know?
I've explained why and you've completely failed to answer those points.
No, you never explained why. You copied and pasted Alec MacAndrew's argument, which is flawed, and you never answered Sungenis' rebuttal. Here's it, again. Please, read it and refute it:
http://galileowaswrong.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/There_Goes_the_Sun_Rebuttal_to_Alec_MacAndrew1.pdf
I keep asking, and I keep getting blank responses, or pathetic attempts at diversion and obfuscation, from every geocentrifraud around.
That's the second time I sent you the rebuttal. I'm waiting for your extensive counter-argument to that.
So, now, please explain to me why you expected me to believe that you were a physics and philosophy graduate, let alone "not a geocentrist" (I'm half and half of whether to just outright claim that's a lie, but kind of want to give you the benefit of pretty much the entire body of doubt that you've raised against yourself).
I said I'm a philosophy student, not a graduate, and I don't expect you to believe anything. Why do you think I'm interested in convincing you of anything at all? You're obviously only venting your frustration here, and as I said, I'm answering only because I was asked to.
share
I'm not really interested in talking to you if you insist on the gratuitous insult and childish behavior
Frankly, I feel exactly the same about your hypocrisy, petulance, projectionism, passive aggressive facade and propensity to onerously cry "straw man" way too often - not to mention the fact that you claim to be one of only a select few to have valid arguments which you perpetually fail to produce, and which is smacking of a pathetic attempt to portray yourself as an intellectual superior, without having the responsibility of providing them.
Your perpetual complaints that everyone should treat you like an adult, when you don't bother to extend the same courtesy is past the point where I can even contemplate disguising my contempt.
But let's get this over shall we. I doubt either of us can be arsed with the other's company, for much longer than is necessary.
I think you mean the speed of light would be constant for all observers in the same inertial frame.
Actually, I'm given to understand that it is constant in all inertial frames, according to Special Relativity.
If Earth isn't moving, you don't need the speed of light to be constant.
It still needs to be constant to all observers, to match experimental results.
So, we're going to suggest that it isn't constant, contrary to experiment?
The same petitio principii again. Besides that, since there's no true inertial frame, the only answer is that the math works, or that the speed of light is constant with respect to the Earth. Read pages 178-195.
Read pages 178-195 of what? You didn't supply a book name. I'm going to assume that you mean GWW, but I don't want to base an answer on what may well be a mistaken assumption.
But since I'm given to understand the speed of light is the same in all inertial frames, then I don't follow this argument.
I also don't get the argument being proposed. There is no true inertial frame, so therefore there is a true inertial frame?
Forgive me if I'm getting what you wrong. It doesn't look very clear.
"The entire part where they claim that these experiments demonstrate that the debate between a stationary aether or a moving Earth is still up in the air."
Quote, page number, and refutation, please.
You want me to give you a reference for an argument that Sungenis makes that you yourself have referred to?
I don't get it.
Are you trying to suggest now that they DON'T claim that the debate between a stationary aether and a rotating Earth is still up in the air, despite stating that they have said this?
Why, exactly are you asking for me to reference an argument you're making (at least representing with reference to them)?
I mean, I can accept that this is meant to be some cunning test to see if I've read the book (or at least this part of it), but it makes no sense outside of that context, since YOU'VE REFERENCED THIS LINE OF ARGUMENT. So, I'm a bit puzzled, beyond it being a thinly masked ruse, as to why you've asked me to reference a point you refer to. There are more honest ways of asking for what you actually seem to be asking for, you know?
But cool. I can check out the copy at the library again, should you want me to provide a reference and direct quote for a point he's made that YOU'VE REFERENCED. I'm pretty sure they address it in chapters 9 and 12 (doesn't Bennet do a massive review of the experiments and observations he believes supports his conjecture in chapter 12? It's been a while, and I skimmed here and there at points), but you want page numbers and direct quotes, and I don't want to get accused of misquoting.
I believe I've supplied my refutation - that experiment contradicts the existence of the aether, with the reasons supplied above.
"Oh, and then there's every claim surrounding Barbour and his paper."
Quote, page number, and a refutation, please.
Again, you want me to provide a reference for a point YOU'VE referenced that they made.
If memory serves me right, it's also in chapter 9. It's been a while since I last got the stomach to go through anything in that book. I'll have to check the book back out to go through and find page numbers and direct quotes, so as not to misquote or be accused of quoting out of context.
"1) I'm unimpressed by its lack of science, not the language it uses or how offensive it occasionally is."
Quote, page number, and refutation, please.
This is me stating the difference between my objecting to their book on the strengths of the arguments it makes as opposed to your having a problem with me based on my use of language.
How, exactly, does that need a quote and reference?
I have given arguments and disagreements based on the ideas presented. You have mainly complained about my language. Quote: Pick anything in this thread. Page number: This thread. Refutation: I'm not refuting this point, I'm making it.
"2) I'm unimpressed by the way it misrepresents science, scientific history and various scientists themselves, not by the fact that it presents a historical context to a point, or addresses actual models that actual people adhere to whether I also do or not."
Quote, page number, and refutation, please.
Again, this is me stating the difference between my objecting to their book on the strengths of the arguments it makes as opposed to your having a problem with me based on my use of language.
How, exactly, does that need a quote and reference?
I have given arguments and disagreements based on the ideas presented. You have mainly complained about my language. Quote: Pick anything in this thread. Page number: This thread. Refutation: I'm not refuting this point, I'm making it.
I can accept you asking for references when the request is valid, but you seem to be stuck in a loop, and are now asking me for references with regard to my statements concerning my basing argument and disagreements on one thing as opposed to you basing them on another.
You're literally asking me to quote myself and you, and supply page numbers, referencing where I use arguments based on the ideas presented and you use arguments based on my character or language.
Yes, you've just asked me to reference the thread we're reading.
This is frankly ridiculous.
"Apart from the fact that the speed of light is constant for all observers, meaning that a freely rotating ether is impossible."
If you can prove that the speed of light is constant for all observers, that's true. Can you?
Well, all experimental evidence substantiates this. Care to provide one that falsifies it? After all, that IS how science is done.
"That kind of kills the freely revolving aether idea, since such an idea completely contradicts experiment."
What experiment is contradicted by that and who demonstrated the contradiction, in which work?
Erm, every experiment since the day of Maxwell, relating to the speed of light. It's contradicted by the fact that absolutely no experiment has falsified it, the speed of light being constant for all observers.
Do I have to list every experiment substantiating Maxwell's equations in the last century and a half?
No, you never explained why. You copied and pasted Alec MacAndrew's argument, which is flawed, and you never answered Sungenis' rebuttal. Here's it, again. Please, read it and refute it:
http://galileowaswrong.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/There_Goes_the_Sun_Rebuttal_to_Alec_MacAndrew1.pdf
I actually will apologise here, since when I last loaded it, it only loaded the first few pages - and since it didn't have the same name as the document in which those points were made, I didn't think there was more to it.
It's loaded properly now, so I can address it.
Again, apologies on my part for that.
However, I'm still not impressed.
What I find in here is Sungenis' pathetic response, that saying the Earth is "placed" at a center of mass is not the same as saying it "occupies" the center of mass - I suppose his one argument is akin to "the hand of god hold it there", since he seems to proposes nothing else of merit.
I also see a complete inability to answer the points about non-zero angular momentum, or angular velocities decreasing as a function of distance from a center of mass, a poor analogy to a record player and the ridiculous assertion that Newtonian mechanics are an example of MacAndrew committing ipse dixit.
In fact, now he seems to try to even suggest that the galaxies are NOT moving independently of the rotation of the universe. The galaxies move relative to each other. Even if the entire universe rotates, the galaxies have a motion relative to each other, independent of that rotation. It exists. It's measurable. He doe go on to assert that they are negligible - though, oddly, he just asserts this - IPSE DIXIT. The irony is quite amazing.
But then, which is it, Sunbgenis? Do they have motion independent of the rotation, contrary to your claim? Or do they not have motion independent of the rotation, contrary to your claim? And do you care to justify the assertion of this motion (which you seem to say both does and doesn't exist, confusingly), being "negligible"? (Yes, I'm addressing Sungenis here, not you.)
He then goes on to answer the claim that he speculates on the hypothetical center of mass using purely Newtonian mechanics, by saying "NUH-HU! YOU just said that both Einsteinian and Machian physics allow the Earth to occupy the center of mass."
Well, yes, he did, Bob. That wasn't the point he made. The point he made was that YOU only speculated on it using Newtonian mechanics.
His comment "As regards “classical mechanics,” otherwise known as Newtonian mechanics, if Machian and Einsteinian mechanics allows Earth to be the center of the universe, why wouldn’t Newton? Or is MacAndrew trying to make the astounding claim that Newton is actually opposed to Mach and Einstein instead of just incomplete?" is upside down. It's not even the point that MacAndrew made.
He stated that Sungenis only speculated on this using Newtonian mechanics. No claim that it doesn't fit other mechanics. Indeed, not even a claim that it should fit Machian and Einsteinian, but not Newtonian. You could try and ask it the other way around. It would make more sense with the statement that MacAndrew made, but would still be onerous, since you've just admitted that he agrees that those 2 sets of mechanics allow this to happen, Bobby. The only way this makes sense is if you try and claim that he's stating that Newtonian mechanic doesn't allow the Earth to occupy the center of mass.
Unfortunately, he doesn't state this, making this argument nonsensical.
Oh, he quotes wikipedia. Great.
Oh, hang on. What's this? Sungenis has just said, "Well, guess what? The geocentric universe is a “spherical shell or a spherical ball of perfectly uniform density.”
Yep, that completely contradicts his assertions (and yours regarding his argument) about the universe NOT being a perfectly uniform shell, which was at the heart of the defence behind the idea that he needed to produce no new forces to explain the bizarre oscillation of the universe.
You see why I get fed up with Sungenis? It takes ages, because he contradicts himself constantly - often way down the road when he tries to answer one point forgetting that his answer contradicts an earlier answer to another point.
Yes, contrary to what you suggest, he's now saying that the shell is NOT weighted.
I distinctly recall you asking me to "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."
There you go - you just supplied the article
So, my reply was NOT a straw man.
Unfortunately this is often the case with Sungenis, as you go through his many replies, you find the internal inconsistencies, lose them, get accused of producing a straw man, and have to go through reams of horses**t to find it again - but it pops up eventually. The question is, is he really worth wasting time on, in order to go through it all over and over again?
He now misses the point that the universe is not gravitationally symmetrical, even from the Earth's point of view.
He'd like to discount all the tugs pulling the Earth asymmetrically, stopping the Earth from staying in one place, but he doesn't really manage it.
Yes, Bobby, all those bodies are part of the system, but THEY ARE IN MOTION RELATIVE TO EACH OTHER. There are points in that dynamic model where the gravity is no going to be symmetrical, even if their ever are points when it is.
MacAndrew doesn't, as Sungenis contends for some bizarre reason "have to show
that it is impossible for there to be a center of mass for all the celestial bodies and space". He just needs to demonstrate that the gravity that the Earth experiences is not going to be symmetrical for all time. Simple. There are more possible configurations of the matter of the universe, where the gravity will be asymmetrical than symmetrical. Most importantly, though, the system is dynamic. It's moving. Those bodies exerting a force on the Earth are moving. Unless Sungenis can show them moving in such a way that they ALWAYS exert the same null force on the Earth, then this won't be the case. Sungenis needs all the mass in the universe to continually shift around to cancel its effects in the Earth out - taking special care to cancel the 2 largest gravitational influences, the Sun and moon. But of a tall order, especially in a universe filled with matter that is constantly reconfiguring itself into new stars, planets, nebulae, etc.
Indeed, we have another example of Sungenis invoking ipse dixit. He never demonstrates this being the case, despite the fact that it obviously can't. The universe is too chaotic.
His claim that a body at the center of mass "will experience no gravitational or inertial forces" is flat out wrong - at least in it's wording. It will experience them, even if they cancel out. But he doesn't want to add that caveat, because he realises the implication - that in a dynamic universe where those bodies that exert those forces move independently, then they will not cancel out indefinitely.
MacAndrew doesn't have to demonstrate that the universe has a "varying center of mass". Sungenis has to demonstrate that the universe has a constantly gravitationally symmetrical center of mass. Is this Onus Probandi, mixed with a bit of selective interpretation of science? Seems so.
The most egregious thing, though, is Sungenis projecting all of his ispe dixit onto MacAndrew - as if that is a valid argument for his case.
The whole thing seems to be condensable to the statement "The universe is geocentric because I say so!"
Now, it' kind of fine to a point that Sungenis wants to try and suggest that the only difference between the models is a metaphysical one - but he's not. He's actually trying to impose a geocentric reference frame. That is the whole point of his argument. But he never gets there. He asserts it, and his only argument often seems to be, "well you could be wrong about this, so I'm right!"
But, Bobby, you haven't demonstrated why you get to impose your preferred reference frame. - not why you get to view the universe in this way, but why you get to impose it and assert it., because that is what you're trying to get to. After all, you're making a case FOR Geocentrism, not a case for the uncertainty of "acentrism". But all he does is make a case for the uncertainty of "acentrism" and then, ipse dixit-style, impose Geocentrism. It's like the idea of "If I can find an argument against the modern model of evolution, I get to assert creationism by default!"
Doesn't work.
"Moreover, the Sun doesn’t exert any gravitational field on the center of mass either."
Wrong. MacAndrew himself has addressed this claim elsewhere (and so have I). I guess Sungenis has selective reading syndrome. It is exerting it, even if the force being exerted at any point is cancelled out at the center of mass.
MacAndrew is right, "Even when he has been corrected about his errors, he persists in wheeling them out." - though, as far as I can see, even to the point where he fails to have any internal inconsistency in some areas (the uniform/non-uniform shell of the universe, being one example).
"Even if the Earth were a smidgen off-center, the inertial forces that are created by a rotating universe on the Sun would counterbalance any gravitational forces the Sun might exert on a slightly off-center point."
Oh, look, more ipse dixit from Sungenis. Seems like that truly is, ironically, all he does in this response.
Care to put in any maths there, Sungenis? Care to provide the physics?
No?
Oh well. Guess we'll just have to take your word for it that the universe IS that way, won't we?
Besides which, the Earth doesn't have to be "a smidgen off-center". The gravitational forces experienced by the Earth just don't have to be symmetrical
indefinitely.
Talk about a straw man.
A lot of his arguments seem to be against, as he himself puts it, "the already bankrupt theory of General Relativity". However, he hasn't ever demonstrated that it's bankrupt. He, again, has just asserted it, and expects me to accept it.
Weird, as well, that he would do this, and yet so often appeal to it.
Still, having him just state it as fact, is getting nauseating.
He produces 2 very strenuous quote mines, from 1978 and 2004 - one before we got most of the evidence we now have that substantiates black holes, and one simply appealing to Einstein. And he appeals to an extremely egregious quote mine of Hawking, how is honestly just pointing out what a singularity is - a point at which our current understanding of physics breaks down.
Seriously, you're touting this guy as some great sage or something?
FFS.
Seriously. I'm not seeing actual answers here. I'm seeing someone making replies for want of the most charitable term I can offer, but not answers.
I could go on, but I'm getting tired and nauseous of dealing with Sungenis' vacuity, and I have work to do - and I'm not that buzzed about the idea of missing out on another night of astronomy, just to read through some vacuous diatribes from Geocentrists.
Life is getting too short to waste going through insipid, internally inconsistent argument after insipid internally inconsistent argument. share
Chizzle,
even I in my utter ignorance and mediocrity got the gist that speed of light being constant et alia are only "proved" by empirical evidence IF you a priorii assume Earth ISN'T the center. Hence the Copernican Principle title.
If you instead assume Earth instead is, then the data/experiments can be interpreted equally as supportive of said assumption. Or somesuch.
That appears to be Sungenis' starting point.
Dude, how much effort are you putting into this, it's the Internet...
share