[geocentrism] Re: parallax & center
- From: <marc-veilleux@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "Geocentric" <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 25 May 2008 21:48:02 -0400
According to my knowledge, Scriptures and Church's teaching are that the Earth
doesn't move and the Sun orbits around the Earth. Church's teachings tells us
the Earth is the center of the Universe, but it leaves the door open to
determine what kind of center: I have serious doubts about an euclidian center.
More: Scriptures and Church's teachings don't say that only the Earth is not
moving; the whole axis between Earth and Polaris (or a longer axis) could be
not moving without contradiction with Scripture and Church's teachings. And all
stars could orbit around that immovable axis or around Polaris only ...
somehow without debunking the Earth from the centre of the Universe.
Marc V.
----- Original Message -----
From: Allen Daves
Sent: 25 mai 2008 20:18
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: parallax
"Merely making it rock solid and immovavle does not explicitly mean that it is
the centre.."
.. but ........since all observations do show the earth center of the
distrobution of mass, red shifts, quasars & double galexies and even
berrycentric anylisis and & oh yea no demonstratable motions..........what
other conclusion can you claim to have drawn logicaly ?!...You cannot calim any
other conclusion without envoking pure imaginaions that are neither
demonstratable nor logicaly tenable.......??
----- Original Message ----
From: philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sunday, May 25, 2008 5:07:18 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: parallax
Marc. Someone needs to remind me what Scripture and the Church says as regards
the earth being the centre of the universe.. Merely making it rock solid and
immovavle does not explicitly mean that it is the centre.. I have heaps of
expert theological opinions, to wade through.. But the wording of Scripture
alone should suffice.. That is all the Church had to go on when it made certain
that the world did not move around the sun, or spin . I think we just assumed
all the rest..
Philip
----- Original Message -----
From: marc-veilleux@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To: Geocentric
Sent: Monday, May 26, 2008 9:05 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: parallax
Philip, how about the possibility that all stars rotate around the Polaris star
?
http://www.wiser.tv/physics/motionless.html
Marc V.
----- Original Message -----
From: philip madsen
Sent: 25 mai 2008 17:24
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: parallax
If Parallax is real, then yes the stars have to be centred on the sun.. just
as all have agreed. for it to be identical in the geocentric system..
I'm hoping I'm wrong again again ..
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: philip madsen
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sunday, May 25, 2008 3:15 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] parallax
I almost forgot these few words on parallax.. Its years since we last
discussed this subject on this list, and I thought resolved it yet here we go
again.
Not complaining because this new argument was presented by both sides, that the
stars have to be centred on the sun for parallax to be identical in both
systems..
Before I specifically detail my concerns with this, I will first present my
basic concept of parallax which the technician learned.. and you all can have
the opportunity to tell me if I am wrong.
Parallax was first presented to me as parallax error, In a lesson on meters and
how to read them correctly. Because the scale was behind the moving pointer we
were shown that to read the meter correctly and avoid parallax error the eye
had to be directly in the same line as the moving pointer and the scale mark
being read. To this end the meter face scale had a small mirror. All that was
necessary was to keep the pointer in line with its reflection to get a precise
reading.
This error is quite significant, and it would be the same error if one moved
the meter to the left or right, as it was if one moved the head. Purely a
relative positions phenomena.
With out any complication, isn't that parallax?
Two proximate stars in the distance, one closer. From the summer side of the
sun the further star will be seen to the right of the closer. From the winter
side of the sun it will be seen on the left side of the closer..
Straight common sense for a heliocentric orbiting world. .. But if the world
was fixed, and all the stars moved across the sky, as it appears to us the
observer, from my angle this parallax movement (error) will be identical. The
meter was moved instead of my head!!!!
I can imagine that a central position relative to a triangulation with the sun
may effect the deviation angles off centre, but this can be computed from
knowledge of the phase difference in the sun and stars angular speed. relative
to a fixed longitude on the world. Where does this need for centering the
universe on the sun instead of the world, come from???
Curious. Thats my basic understanding.. I will now go draw some geometry and
figure it out. ...
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Regner Trampedach
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sunday, May 25, 2008 10:56 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Inertia
No worries, Paul, sorry for the wait.
Regner
Paul Deema wrote:
Regner T
A timely post!
I was beginning to wilt under the Goebbels gambit from Allen re gravity/inertia
and inertia/distant_stars. Thank you for restoring my confidence in physics and
my limited understanding of same.
Paul D
----- Original Message ----
From: Regner Trampedach <art@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, 23 May, 2008 4:54:26 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Inertia
I am afraid I don't have the time to dig up all the relevant posts and reply
to them individually. This post, however, should address many issues
raised over the concept of inertia in a range of threads in this forum.
In Philip Madsen's post, 10/05/2008 he correctly points out the difference
between "equivalence" and "equality". That is an important distinction.
In physics and astronomy we don't have a habit of redefining words, as
opposed to, say, in politics...
a) Gravity and inertia are not the same.
b) Gravitational mass and inertial mass, do seem to be the same (no
observations have contradicted this, to date).
c) Inertia cannot be caused by gravity from the distant stars - no matter how
far away or how the are distributed. The gravitational force from the
distant stars is minuscule compared to all the other forces we are subject
to - do the math!
If the Universe (on large scales) has a smooth matter distribution, the
gravity from all directions will cancel each other. It is obviously not
completely uniform, so let's explore the other extreme: Only stars from
one direction, say, a cone of 30° opening angle contribute any gravity.
The pull from all those stars, back to the beginning of time, would be
a million-million times feebler than gravity from Earth. If the Universe
is only 6000 years old (and gravity travels at the speed of light) the pull
from those stars would be yet another factor of a million times feebler.
And there is of course the problem about direction. How can the distant
stars know which way we are trying to move a body, and then counter-
act that motion with a gravitational pull in the opposite direction. It
can't
make sense, whichever way you look at it.
d) Maybe I need to point out that forces are vectors and they are additive.
That means, that if you have two forces of equal magnitude but opposite
direction, the nett-force will be exactly zero. And the behaviour of an
object in that zero nett-force field does not depend in the slightest on how
that zero came about; whether it be from no forces at all, or from huge,
but opposing forces. Only the (vector-)sum matters.
e) If gravity created inertial mass, we would be able to predict the mass of
objects from the law of gravity - we can't! We can only observe and use
Newton's 2nd law (F = m*a) and maybe the law of gravity or others, to
infer the mass.
f) There has been other philosophical theories about the distant stars "somehow"
giving rise to inertia, but no successful physical theory that I am aware
of.
g) The best current candidate for a inertial field, is the Higg's field,
mediated by
the Higg's boson - but there are, of course, competing theories. The Large
Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN, opening later this year, should be able to
detect the Higg's boson if it exists And the Higg's field would be a local
field, not depending on the totality of stars in the Universe.
h) Lastly, but very important: We know how inertia works, and not knowing
why, doesn't really change that. Claiming that classical mechanics doesn't
work
because we don't know where inertia comes from, is therefore nothing but
obstruction and obfuscation from the issues at hand. Finding out what gives
rise to inertia is a separate and obviously very interesting question
I have tried to address most of the inertial issues that have surfaced in this
forum
lately (I predict that Allen will disagree - I must be a psychic...) and the
verbosity
(I apologize) is due to an attempt at catching some of the most glaring
objections
that could arise.
Regner
Get the name you always wanted with the new y7mail email address.
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 269.24.1/1464 - Release Date: 5/24/2008 8:56
AM
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 269.24.1/1464 - Release Date: 5/24/2008 8:56
AM
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 269.24.1/1466 - Release Date: 5/25/2008 6:49
PM
Other related posts:
- » [geocentrism] Re: parallax & center
