[geocentrism] Re: Geocentrism versus Heliocentrism
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "geocentrism list" <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 07:06:55 +1000
I found question with a couple of remarks Griff made, which need confirming :
Griff said: "Still another: The diameter of the earth at the equator is larger
than the diameter from Pole to Pole. This oblate, rather than spherical, shape
of the earth reflects the centrifugal force "
Did I read somewhere that photos from space do not prove this? Or did they
alter the aspect ratio of the prints?
Griff said: "True zero state of rotation is therefore easy to define: true and
objective rotation is zero when the centrifugal force is zero."
How does he know there is any centrifugal force on the surface of the earth
without assuming rotation?
May I ask, in the space station, which is continuously rotating around the
earth, are the people in side continually drifting to the outer side of the
hull? No? Why? Because gravity ties every atom to the earth? Just as it does
tie every single atom to he earth down here on the earth. That there is a
centrifugal force is assumed because rotation is assumed. It cannot be felt.
I might ask, are the other planets or moons oblate in shape?
Gyroscopes or flywheels may answer the questions I asked, if physics truely
explained enertia, which they cannot do whilst they deny certain parameters
like an aether to be included in their models.
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: marc-veilleux@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To: Geocentric
Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2007 3:54 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Geocentrism versus Heliocentrism
«...debating questions which have so long been uttely settled (about HC)»
Would Griff Ruby (or any of his co-believer) be kind enough to tell us when
exactly has the question been settled ? Was it when Copernic wrote his book ?
Or when Galileo showed his "proofs"? Or when Newton showed that his theory
gave good results with HC? Or when Bradley discovered the stars' aberration?
Or when Foucault discovered a motion with his pendulum? According to the
Vatican (when they rehabilitated Galileo), the proofs came from optic's
experiments ... but they didn't mention any of them. And according to Einstein
there is no proof of the motion of the Earth in any of the optic's experiments.
In all the examples he gives to prove HC, he assumes (without any solid
arguments) that it is impossible that GC would give the same results. For
example, how does he mesure the rotation of the Earth without looking at the
Sun and the stars? and if he does, what makes him believe that GC would have
different results? What makes him believe that Foucault's pendulum would not
do the same movement in GC (cause by the aether movement and/or by the
gravitational force of the Sun and mostly by the stars acting on the Earth?
But the cream of the cake is what he claims about the stars at a 6 months
interval. Even heliocentrists would laugh at him for such a claim. First of
all we cannot observe the same stars 6 months apart except for the polar stars.
Second, if the parallaxes were visible with naked eyes, it would prove that
the stars are way much closer than claimed by HC.
Marc V.
----- Original Message -----
From: philip madsen
Sent: 16 août 2007 21:15
To: geocentrism list
Subject: [geocentrism] Geocentrism versus Heliocentrism
This man Griff Ruby has my Catholic religion well under control, with a
very good grasp of matters theological as applied in the world of the Vatican
today.
However as a scientist, he is both arrogant and proud, not good Catholic
virtues, as you will no doubt gather from the following letter. I would like
all who can to put our heads together and collectively find and show the faults
in his reasoning.. He oozes with sarcasm, the way of most scientists, when
they are threatened with being exposed as ignorant of the subject. It's called
Attacking the Person (argumentum ad hominem)
He is so proud of his style that this is actually up on his web site.
http://www.the-pope.com/index.html
Philip.
Geocentrism versus Heliocentrism
Editor, The Remnant:
I am astonished, horrified, and utterly shocked that valuable column space
on the pages of the Remnant has been sqandered on debating questions which have
so long been uttely settled that asking them again (let alone pronouncing
nonsense in sheer perverse defiance of the varifiable facts) is gravely
irrational, to say the best, and positively scandalous (as in the sin of
scandal) at the worst.
It is certainly a good and reparational thing that some couple of more
sensible voices have also been allowed to weigh in on this (Mario Derksen, Adam
Kolasinski), But the initial publishing of Hertz's original article which
started this (and that, without at least some editorial distance!) was uncalled
for and unnecessary, to say nothing of being gravely embarrasing to the whole
traditionalist cause.
(I can't believe I am even having to debate this, but...) I have worked for
over 16 years on the computer systems (radar, telemetry) which are used in
tracking the missiles we fire out of Vandenberg Air Force Base here in
California. Allow me to introduce you to a number which has significant
relevance on many of the calculations that run on the missiles, and on those
tracking computers, and therefore is used in the software running on them:
7292115147X10-5
What is this number? It is the rotation rate of the earth in radians per
second. (For the ease of those who don't know, multiply that by 180 and divide
by π 3.1416...to get it in degrees per second, which is about 4.178074X10-3,
and which in turn amounts to 360.9856 degrees per day (multiply the
4.178074X10-3 by 86400 seconds in a day).
For one thing, notice that the rate is non-zero If we use zero instead of
that number and attempt to compute the course of the rocket, the range might be
obligated to destroy a missile which is perfectly on course, or even worse,
might fail to detect that a missile which is off course and on its way to
landing on someone, so as to destroy it when necessary. Even a very small error
could threaten people's lives.
For another thing, notice the remaining ".9856" degrees. It is just
slightly less than one degree in excess of a complete circle. That excess
represents the motion of the earth around the sun in a single day, such that
the earth must turn that amount more than a circle in order to reach the same
exact time of day. Divide the 360 degrees of a circle by the 365.2425 days in a
true solar year (calendar years handle the ".2425" by inserting a "February 29"
every fourth year, except three out of four century years), and that gets our
".9856" degrees. Voila!
Another one (not form my work): Take a picture of night sky, not straight
up, but as close to a 90 degree angle as possible (from space works the best)
and then take a picture of the same part of the night sky six months later.
What one gets from doing that is a beautiful stereoscopic picure of that
portion of the sky in which the closest stars are noticably different in their
locations relative to the more distant stars, just as a finger held before your
face as you stare at a landscape will seem to be double. Not even all the most
complicated Ptmolemian "epicycles" could explain let alone have anticipated
that seeming "movement" of the near, but supposedly fixed stars.
Still another: Dr. Christian mentioned Foucault's Pendulum and even
discussed putting one on the South Pole, but this is unnecessary since if the
earth were stationary, it wouldn't matter where it is placed; it would just
swing on one axis without ever changing so long as it swings undisturbed at
all. That its motions would seem to be more complicated than one might expect
ignores the basic fact that only the rotation of the earth on which it is
mounted is what feeds all of its motions of any kind other than to swing on one
axis indefinitely.
"Dr." Benitz may have thought he could pull a fast on on us by hastily
including "rotating systems" within his comments on Einstein's relativity, as
if there were no such thing as an objective standard of "rotation," just as
there really is no such thing as an objective standard of "linear motion," but
I am not going to let him get away with that one. The objectivity of rotational
motion can be readily demonstrated by holding two pails of water (or hand
dumbells). Stand still (whether on the ground or inside a vehicle steadily
moving down a long straight highway at 70 mph, with the pails (or weights) in
your hands, one in each, and let your arms flop where they will. Where are
they? Hanging straight down. Now turn around as fast as you can (either way,
makes no diffference), still holding the pails or weights, and still letting
your arms flop as they will. When everything stabilizes, where are they?
Sticking out to the sides! True zero state of rotation is therefore easy to
define: true and objective rotation is zero when the centrifugal force is zero.
Still another: The diameter of the earth at the equator is larger than the
diameter from Pole to Pole. This oblate, rather than spherical, shape of the
earth reflects the centrifugal force on an earth-sized liquid body (most of the
earth's internal substance is liquid, magma) rotating at the rate of that
number I use in my work.
I could go on and on, but it is interesting to see just how many ways the
heliocentric model has continued to match many new findings which those who
originally advocated it were thoroughly unaware of in their day (such as the
oblate shape of the earth), whereas the geocentric model predicts contrary
things unless it is further "tweaked" by adding additional epicycles etc. as
the new facts come in. That should be enough, but I am barely getting started:
I accuse the geocentrists (both ancient and modern) of what I call (for
lack of a better expression) "Scriptural flippancy." My reference for this
expression is C. S. Lewis' "The Screwtape Letters," in which (in Letter XI,
last paragraph) he defines flippancy as being, from the tempter's standpoint
anyway, (in discussing all the sources of laughter) "the best of all. In the
first place it is very economical. Only a clever human can make a real Joke
about virtue, or indeed about anything else; any of them can be trained to talk
as if virtue were funny. Among flippant people, the Joke is always assumed to
have been made; no one actually makes it."
In the pages of the Remnant, since this topic has come up, I have seen at
least half a dozen times where some writer has claimed that "Scripture supports
the geocentric scenario," or words to that effect, however not one Scriptural
verse or passage as ever been cited in support of such an extraordinary claim,
nor can one be. (Doubt me? Go back and look!) Everyone just seems to have been
taking it as proven that "Scripture supports geocentrism," "Scripture supports
geocentrism," "Scripture supports geocentrism," as if one were reciting a
mantra, but no one anywhere has ever actually shown it.
The "literalist" six-24-hour-day creationist at least has a passage in the
Bible (Genesis 1:1-2:4) which, on a cursory, hasty, and superficial reading
anyway, might seem to support their claim (although closer and more careful
reading of it shows that interpretation wrong, as St. Augustine pointed out),
but the geocentrists (like the flat-earthers) have not a single verse which
even seems to support them, not one! Such an attempt as to ascribe such
geocentrical nonsense to Sacred Scripture is scholastically dishonest and
gravely blasphemous, to say the least. I am horrified to see Pope Paul V
stooping to such, literally on par with Paul VI imposing a synthetic new "Mass"
and then having the gall to claim that it "restores" some ancient unknown
practice.
Thankfully, every detail of the physical science of orbital mechanics, like
that of all physical sciences, is by defintion intrinsically outside the scope
of "Faith and Morals" where alone infalliblity is claimed, as defined by
Vatican I. Therefore it does not matter what that pope said in a moment of
silliness and foolishness. Interestingly, it was the Protestants of the day who
were by far the most sympathetic to such words of the pope, not any Catholic.
Perhaps that was an early example of ecumenism?
And what of what pathetically few "arguments" (non-Scriptural of course) as
have been put forth to claim geocentrism? This is like shooting sitting ducks:
1) The incarnation. If the incarnation was supposed to be "evidence" of the
earth being the physical center of the universe, then by that standard, Jesus
was born in the palace of Jerusalem, in its days of greatest glory, son of a
glorious King of Israel even grander than Solomon ever was, and certainly not
some miles away in a boondockey non-place in a smelly stable or cave, to a
fleeing, poverty-stricken couple who had to sacrifice turtledoves because they
were so poor, and who soon had to flee again to Egypt for their lives. Or even
worse, if being at the exact physical center is so be-all end-all important,
then perhaps Jesus was born in the very center of the earth, amongst all the
thousands-of-degrees-hot magma.
Need I state the obvious truth here? Jesus was born in some nowhere nothing
place (call it the stable; call it bethlehem; call it the earth) and even that
did not stop Him from doing only the things that God can do. It is a mental
subterfuge of the lowest kind to claim that divine glory requires something
concocted solely to feed our own arrogant pride. The people who actually put
forth this argument as if the glory of God depended on the earth being the
center of the universe merely wanted to place themselves (who were also on the
earth) in the center of the universe.
Heliocentrism is therefore not only the real nature of the solar system, it
is a powerful and compelling Divine lesson in humility. The universe does not
revolve around the earth, nor around any of us personally. The sooner we truly
understand and appreciate our truly humble and unimportant status and
circumstance, the deeper we can truly appreciate the love and sacrifice of God
that He has nevertheless seen fit to visit us.
2) "The sun stood still." While this claim pretends to base itself on one
specific passage of Scripture, the Scripture itself has nothing to say about
celestial mechanics, as is obvious from the text and the clear meaning of both
what Joshua prayed, and what the chronicler wrote of the events. Joshua is
fighting a war, and because he needs more time to win it he pleads that "the
sun would stop," and (according to the chronicler) it does. They didn't have
modern clocks in his day; the hour was discerned by one's observation of where
the sun is in the sky, and if they wanted to be really precise, there were
sundials. The prayer for the sun to stop would have been worded, in more
contemporary times, as being for the hands of the clock to stop
Which clock? This one? That one? All of them? Clearly the desire was not
that this or that or every timepiece should malfunction, but for there to be
more of sheer time itself. God, who created time, saw fit to provide the needed
extra time. How did He do this? One most likely scenario would be by
accelerating the subjective time of the combatants. It is said that a priest
said Mass on behalf of a deceased but saintly friend of his, who appeared to
him after the Mass to thank him for saying it and thus delivering him out of
Purgatory. The friend went on to mention what a long year it had been in
Purgatory until the priest had said this Mass, at which the priest replied to
the apparition of his friend, "don't you know? I started that Mass only fifteen
minutes after your death." If God can make fifteen minutes in Purgatory take
one year for the soul in it, He certainly can make fifteen minutes seem like
several hours on the battlefield. Again, atheletes often speak of being "in the
zone" which refers to an altered state of mind in which the whole world seems
to move far more slowly than usual and of course the athelete significantly
outshines the other athletes who are not "in the zone." With an act of His
will, God could have quite reasonably just placed all of His combatants "in the
zone" so they could win There is therefore no real claim in the Bible that
either the sun or the earth or the moon or any other celestial body did
anything unusual that day, only the armies themselves.
Even worse for the geocentric nonsense, if one were to take such an account
as some sort of claim of extraordinary celestial movements, then the geocentric
picture of things is only all the more bizarre than the heliocentric could ever
be. Stopping the earth on its axis would be a powerful act, but stopping an
entire rotating universe from rotating would be only all the more extraordinary
and ludicrous. Or did only the sun stop while everything else kept on moving?
In either case the other planets crashed into the sun, the stars all exploded
and the firmament was irreparably broken.
3) Fatima sundance. This was obviouly a localized phenomena, as no one in
any other parts of the earth saw any of that happen. Rather, people had to
gather at a certain spot to see it. It was caused by unusually turbulant air
which caused the sun to seem to move about and "dance" as those at Fatima saw.
This theory of atmospheric turbulance is further supported by the presence of
the driving rain, so closely followed by such harsh dry winds as to dry
everyone off so quickly afterwords. It was still Divine evidence from our Lady
as how could anyone have predicted precisely when such a thing would occur, to
the day, and where people should gather to see it? But with a telescope at
night, one can see the same sort of thing. Use it to look at a star, with the
strongest power available, and the star will seem to "dance" about due to the
turbulance of the air. This (but on a much larger and more dramatic scale) is
what the 10,000 people at Fatima saw in 1917. Again, no cause for claiming
extraodinary celestial mechanics or motions.
What, besides stupid arrogant pride of wanting to think ourselves the
center of the universe, are the real reasons for geocentrism, and especially in
our day? I have seen this before. The world hates us for our traditional
Catholic stance. To them we represent everything bad, not only dogmatic rules
that would inconvenience their "free and easy living," but everything negative,
or which could be construed as negative, with crusades, wars, inquisitions, and
why stop there? Why not also accuse us, however obviously falsely and absurdly,
of Nazism, Fascism, and for that matter flat-earthism? I guess some of us,
being persecuted by the whole world for supposed evils (when we are really
being good), sooner or later decide to be "hung for a wolf as a lamb. So they
call us Nazis? Let us be Nazis for real. So they call us obscurantistist
flat-earthers? Let us be obscurantist flat-earthers! And that is what modern
geocentrism really is all about.
One final word about laughter. There is a world of difference between the
nervous laughter of one who is reproved by the genuinely holy and saintly
example of the saints, and the contemptuous laughter reserved for those who
insist on behaving in silly, self-destructive manners. The Catholic mother with
ten children (and an eleventh on the way) is a sharp reproof to the worldly
woman who has had three abortions, but the fool who goes through life wearing a
popsicle around his neck is only a legitimate target of ridicule and disgust.
Without a doubt, the geocentrists fall squarly and neatly into the latter
category. As a piece of editorial advice, GET RID OF THAT POPSICLE!
Regretfully yours,
Griff Ruby
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.484 / Virus Database: 269.12.0/959 - Release Date: 17/08/2007
5:43 PM
Other related posts:
