The State of the Evidence in the HelioCenrtic/GeoCentric Debate Conveniently Forgotten by Friar Broccoli

[T Pagano]

Atheists and those who have been misled by them are under the delusion
that heliocentricism is indubitable. Nonsense. From the very start
Copernicus's theory required only a few less epicycles than did
Ptolomey's.

The vast majority of evidence cannot distinquish between the two
models. And none of the evidence contradicts GeoCentricism.
Furthermore the near (but not complete) equivalency of the two models
is demonstrated by the fact that NASA sometimes uses an Earth Centered
Inertial Frame in some of its launches. Atheists (and Ray who has
joined them) should read below and weep:

Evidences "A" (shown below) contradict heliocentricism.

Evidences "B" contradict the Big Bang geometry which avers that there
is no center to the universe.

Evidence "C" shows that a rotating shell of stars about a central
Earth would create the same forces at the Earth as would a rotating
earth in a fixed shell of stars.



_______________________________________________________
A. Evidence that the Earth does NOT translate around the Sun or the
Milky Way CONTRADICTING Heliocentricism
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Michelson-Morley interferometer experiments
2. Dayton C. Miller interferometer Experiments
3. George Airy's stellar aberration experiment



_________________________________________________________
B. Evidence of absolute rotation and which CONTRADICTS Einstein's
postulate about the speed of light for all observers and consistent
with a rotating universe.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Sagnac's interferometer experiments
2. Michelson-Gale interferometer experiments
3. GPS network of satellites

__________________________________________________________
C. Evidence concerning Newton's empty Sphere. Atheists assert that
there would be no forces at a central Earth with a spherical shell of
stars.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. While Newton demonstrated that the forces at the center of hollow
sphere would be zero Einstein, Thiring, and others showed that if the
sphere were rotating all of the forces at the center would be
indistinquishable for a fixed shell with a rotating center.



_________________________________________________________
D. Evidence that is equally consistent with GeoCentricism and
Heliocentricism due to identical relative motions in both
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Stellar parallax
2. Stellar aberration
3. Annual stellar doppler shift
4. Annistropic dipole of the CMBR
5. doppler shifts in general
6. corriolis effect
7. focault's penduluum
8. Newton's water bucket experiment
9. Lense-Thiring Effect
10. Geostationary Orbits
11. Eotvos Effect
12. Sun's Analemma
13. Earth's Axial Precession



________________________________________________________
E. Evidence against GeoCentricism which is ignorant nonsense
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Impossibility of the Earth being the barycenter of the universe
due to Newton'a Law of Gravity
2. GyroCompass theory.




_________________________________________________________
F. Evidence of a rotating Earth which is inconclusive due to the
inability to accurately resolve angular movement smaller than 0.3 arc
sec
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Diurnal stellar aberration




_______________________________________________________
G. Evidence of a rotating Earth for which misleading claims were made
and no evidence was produced
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Orbital launch mechanics; eastward launches




____________________________________________________________
H. Evidence of changes in the Earth's angular momentum for which no
experimental evidence was produced
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Claims that earthquakes, sunami's, techtonic movements and similar
Earth events alter the Earth's angular momentum are based solely on
mathematical models which presume that the earth rotates. No
experimental evidence produced.





___________________________________________________________
I. Evidence of changes in the Earth's angular momentum which implies
emprical consequences known to be false.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Our moon's rate of recession



___________________________________________________________
J. Evidence which fails because the Ptolemaic and original Tychonian
models have not been held by a geoCentricist for over 100 years.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Retrograde motion of the planets.
2. Sun's Analemma






Regards,
T Pagano

[Friar Broccoli]

On 2012-02-04 10:28, T Pagano wrote:


> E. Evidence against GeoCentricism which is ignorant nonsense
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 1. Impossibility of the Earth being the barycenter of the universe
> due to Newton'a Law of Gravity

OK Tony, you have previously stated here:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/2fbea17815722167

that:
> Newton's laws require that of two or more bodies in a rotating system
> all bodies will revolve around the center of mass.

So:
This is the part that confuses me Tony: You say that "in a rotating
system **all** bodies will revolve around the center of mass". Our
solar system is such a "rotating system". Yet two planets closer to
the sun (Mercury and Venus) have "decided" that the sun is the center
of mass of the system, and 5 or 6 others (including Mars and Jupiter)
have also "decided" the sun is the center of mass.

Why then does the earth disagree, if as you say "**all** bodies will
revolve around the center of mass"?

Any chance of your actually explaining why the effects of the Sun's
gravity don't contradict your madness?

--
Friar Broccoli (Robert Keith Elias), Quebec Canada
I consider ALL arguments in support of my views

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 10:28:11 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by T Pagano <not....@address.net>:

>Atheists and those who have been misled by them are under the delusion
>that heliocentricism is indubitable.

Is that *only* "atheists and those who have been misled by
them", Tony? Does that include the Jesuits? And I see you
continue to attempt to tilt the debate away from science and
toward semantics by using words such as "indubitable".
You've been told several times that science doesn't "prove"
things (which is what "indubitable" would imply); it
addresses the available evidence and formulates testable
hypotheses which explain the existing data and predict what
additional data will reveal. That evidence, and those
hypotheses (now theories) fully account for *all* of the
available data. Geocentrism does not.

> Nonsense. From the very start
>Copernicus's theory required only a few less epicycles than did
>Ptolomey's.

Really? Let's see...

"ep穒穋y穋le (祊摴-s簲k卨) n. 1. In Ptolemaic cosmology, a
small circle, the center of which moves on the circumference
of a larger circle at whose center is Earth and the
circumference of which describes the orbit of one of the
planets around Earth."

Perhaps you could tell us what epicycles Copernican
astronomy uses? Are you perhaps confused, and are referring
to Luna?

>The vast majority of evidence cannot distinquish between the two
>models. And none of the evidence contradicts GeoCentricism.

"Contradicts"? Perhaps not, but you'll have to explain, for
only one thing of several, how if the Earth doesn't rotate
everything beyond approximately the orbit of Neptune travels
at greater than c, which would as a minimum violate SR. Good
luck...

<snip the usual Tony maunderings>
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless

[Frank J]

On Feb 4, 10:28 am, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> Atheists and those who have been misled by them are under the delusion
> that heliocentricism is indubitable.  Nonsense.  From the very start
> Copernicus's theory required only a few less epicycles than did
> Ptolomey's.
>
> The vast majority of evidence cannot distinquish between the two
> models.  And none of the evidence contradicts GeoCentricism.
> Furthermore the near (but not complete) equivalency of the two models
> is demonstrated by the fact that NASA sometimes uses an Earth Centered
> Inertial Frame in some of its launches.    Atheists (and Ray who has
> joined them) should read below and weep:
>
> Evidences "A" (shown below) contradict heliocentricism.
>
> Evidences "B" contradict the Big Bang geometry which avers that there
> is no center to the universe.
>
> Evidence "C" shows that a rotating shell of stars about a central
> Earth would create the same forces at the Earth as would a rotating
> earth in a fixed shell of stars.
>
> _______________________________________________________
> A.  Evidence that the Earth does NOT translate around the Sun or the
> Milky Way CONTRADICTING Heliocentricism

> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------­-------

> 1.  Michelson-Morley interferometer experiments
> 2.  Dayton C. Miller interferometer Experiments
> 3.  George Airy's stellar aberration experiment
>
> _________________________________________________________
> B.  Evidence of absolute rotation and which CONTRADICTS Einstein's
> postulate about the speed of light for all observers and consistent
> with a rotating universe.

> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------­----

> 1.  Sagnac's interferometer experiments
> 2.  Michelson-Gale interferometer experiments
> 3.  GPS network of satellites
>
> __________________________________________________________
> C.  Evidence concerning Newton's empty Sphere.  Atheists assert that
> there would be no forces at a central Earth with a spherical shell of
> stars.

> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------­-----

> 1.  While Newton demonstrated that the forces at the center of hollow
> sphere would be zero Einstein, Thiring, and others showed that if the
> sphere were rotating all of the forces at the center would be
> indistinquishable for a fixed shell with a rotating center.
>
> _________________________________________________________
> D.  Evidence that is equally consistent with GeoCentricism and
> Heliocentricism due to identical relative motions in both

> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------­----

> 1.  Stellar parallax
> 2.  Stellar aberration
> 3.  Annual stellar doppler shift
> 4.  Annistropic dipole of the CMBR
> 5.  doppler shifts in general
> 6.  corriolis effect
> 7.  focault's penduluum
> 8.  Newton's water bucket experiment
> 9.  Lense-Thiring Effect
> 10. Geostationary Orbits
> 11. Eotvos Effect
> 12. Sun's Analemma
> 13. Earth's Axial Precession
>
> ________________________________________________________
> E.  Evidence against GeoCentricism which is ignorant nonsense

> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------­--

> 1.  Impossibility of the Earth being the barycenter of the universe
> due to Newton'a Law of Gravity
> 2.  GyroCompass theory.
>
> _________________________________________________________
> F.  Evidence of a rotating Earth which is inconclusive due to the
> inability to accurately resolve angular movement smaller than 0.3 arc
> sec

> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------­----

> 1.  Diurnal stellar aberration
>
> _______________________________________________________
> G.  Evidence of a rotating Earth for which misleading claims were made
> and no evidence was produced

> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------­--

> 1.  Orbital launch mechanics; eastward launches
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> H.  Evidence of changes in the Earth's angular momentum for which no
> experimental evidence was produced

> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------­------

> 1.  Claims that earthquakes, sunami's, techtonic movements and similar
> Earth events alter the Earth's angular momentum are based solely on
> mathematical models which presume that the earth rotates.  No
> experimental evidence produced.
>
> ___________________________________________________________
> I.  Evidence of changes in the Earth's angular momentum which implies
> emprical consequences known to be false.

> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------­-------

> 1.  Our moon's rate of recession
>
> ___________________________________________________________
> J.  Evidence which fails because the Ptolemaic and original Tychonian
> models have not been held by a geoCentricist for over 100 years.

> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------­-------

> 1.  Retrograde motion of the planets.
> 2.  Sun's Analemma
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano

So what was AiG's reaction when you challenged them? How about the DI?

[David Murdock]

On Feb 4, 12:32 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 10:28:11 -0500, the following appeared

> in talk.origins, posted by T Pagano <not.va...@address.net>:

>
> >Atheists and those who have been misled by them are under the delusion
> >that heliocentricism is indubitable.
>
> Is that *only* "atheists and those who have been misled by
> them", Tony? Does that include the Jesuits? And I see you
> continue to attempt to tilt the debate away from science and
> toward semantics by using words such as "indubitable".
> You've been told several times that science doesn't "prove"
> things (which is what "indubitable" would imply); it
> addresses the available evidence and formulates testable
> hypotheses which explain the existing data and predict what
> additional data will reveal. That evidence, and those
> hypotheses (now theories) fully account for *all* of the
> available data. Geocentrism does not.
>
> >  Nonsense.  From the very start
> >Copernicus's theory required only a few less epicycles than did
> >Ptolomey's.
>
> Really? Let's see...
>

> "ep·i·cy·cle (µp“¹-sº”k…l) n. 1. In Ptolemaic cosmology, a

> small circle, the center of which moves on the circumference
> of a larger circle at whose center is Earth and the
> circumference of which describes the orbit of one of the
> planets around Earth."
>
> Perhaps you could tell us what epicycles Copernican
> astronomy uses?

It used circles which moved on the circumferences of larger circles
which were centered on the *sun*.

>Are you perhaps confused, and are referring to Luna?

He's confused about a lot of things, but he's right about this one
thing. Copernicus' model of the Universe used epicycles. And it
would *have* to, as the prejudice of the time was that all motion had
to be based on circles. The idea that the orbit could have the shape
of an ellipse came later, from Kepler.

> >The vast majority of evidence cannot distinguish between the two

> >models.  And none of the evidence contradicts GeoCentricism.

For example, he's wrong about that.

> "Contradicts"? Perhaps not, but you'll have to explain, for
> only one thing of several, how if the Earth doesn't rotate
> everything beyond approximately the orbit of Neptune travels
> at greater than c, which would as a minimum violate SR. Good
> luck...
>
> <snip the usual Tony maunderings>
> --
>
> Bob C.
>
> "Evidence confirming an observation is
> evidence that the observation is wrong."
>                           - McNameless

---DPM

[A.Carlson]

On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 10:28:11 -0500, T Pagano <not....@address.net>
wrote:

>Atheists and those who have been misled by them are under the delusion
>that heliocentricism is indubitable. Nonsense.

First, heliocentrism was proved not just by theists but by theists
with position.

Second, heliocentrism became the dominant theory during a period of
time when the church still had far too much influence over science and
education.

Third, IT'S THE EVIDENCE STUPID! Religion has NOTHING TO DO WITH
IT!!!!!

>From the very start
>Copernicus's theory required only a few less epicycles than did
>Ptolomey's.

Perhaps "from the very start" but evidence relevant to the question
continued to develop - We can't forget (or reject) contributions made
by Kepler and then Newton.

>The vast majority of evidence cannot distinquish between the two
>models.

Which is exactly why re rely on the evidence that CAN distinguish
between the two. GOOD GOD, you're ignorant!!!

>And none of the evidence contradicts GeoCentricism.

Except a few minor things like Newtonian physics and gravity as well
as a number of observations based these hardly trivial scientific
theories and laws.

>Furthermore the near (but not complete) equivalency of the two models
>is demonstrated by the fact that NASA sometimes uses an Earth Centered
>Inertial Frame in some of its launches. Atheists (and Ray who has
>joined them) should read below and weep:
>
>Evidences "A" (shown below) contradict heliocentricism.

Since there is ample evidence showing heliocentrism to be valid it is
important to take note of the *true* nature of this highly selective
'evidence'

>Evidences "B" contradict the Big Bang geometry which avers that there
>is no center to the universe.

Which has little if anything to do with the question of Geocentrism.
Everything in the universe, including the earth, is *observed* to be
in motion.

>Evidence "C" shows that a rotating shell of stars about a central
>Earth would create the same forces at the Earth as would a rotating
>earth in a fixed shell of stars.

Variations in red shift alone disproves the existence of such a 'fixed
shell'.

The fact that such a shell would need to rotate at speeds much greater
than the speed of light is also a major stumbling block.

Also, what must such an invisible shell be made of so that it could
withstand an incomprehensible level of centrifugal force?

>_______________________________________________________
>A. Evidence that the Earth does NOT translate around the Sun or the
>Milky Way CONTRADICTING Heliocentricism
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>1. Michelson-Morley interferometer experiments

These would be the ones done in 1887 that disproved the existence of a
luminiferous aether. So how do these experiments relate - other than
in a negative fashion?

>2. Dayton C. Miller interferometer Experiments

Which 1) did not match the standard model for the existence of an
aether; 2) were not consistent with observations done by others. IOW
they were not independently replicated - the gold standard of science;
3) Were superceded by further advances in science - such as Einstein's
theory of special relativity - based on evidence *which was*
independently and repeatedly replicated.

>3. George Airy's stellar aberration experiment

WOW! yet another 19th century scientist.

Yes, he did experiments that were based on the assumption of an aether
but, like others, came up with a negative result. The non-existence
of an aether is just as valid a conclusion as any other assumed based
on his experiments.

Conclusion: In the light of *all* relevant evidence you have provided
nothing that proves the existence of a luminiferous aether - a
necessary base assumption for your claim.

>_________________________________________________________
>B. Evidence of absolute rotation and which CONTRADICTS Einstein's
>postulate about the speed of light for all observers and consistent
>with a rotating universe.
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>1. Sagnac's interferometer experiments

Which is consistent with Einstein's theory of special
relativity/non-existence of an aether.

>2. Michelson-Gale interferometer experiments

Again with the aether? IT DOESN'T EXIST!!! and it isn't necessary
with respect to special relativity - a concept that DOES have validity
based on multiple lines of observation.

>3. GPS network of satellites

Which need to take relativity into account in order to be accurate.

>__________________________________________________________
>C. Evidence concerning Newton's empty Sphere. Atheists assert that
>there would be no forces at a central Earth with a spherical shell of
>stars.
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>1. While Newton demonstrated that the forces at the center of hollow
>sphere would be zero Einstein, Thiring, and others showed that if the
>sphere were rotating all of the forces at the center would be
>indistinquishable for a fixed shell with a rotating center.

And if pigs had wings they could fly. So what!

Now try and explain how such a fixed (invisible) shell 1) could exist
in the first place. 2) could take into account variations in the
observed red shift (is Andromeda speeding towards us or is it not?).
3) could spin at speeds far greater than the speed of light without
succumbing to centrifugal forces.

And how exactly would such a spherical shell work with so many
separate rotating parts?

>_________________________________________________________
>D. Evidence that is equally consistent with GeoCentricism and
>Heliocentricism due to identical relative motions in both
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>1. Stellar parallax
>2. Stellar aberration
>3. Annual stellar doppler shift
>4. Annistropic dipole of the CMBR
>5. doppler shifts in general
>6. corriolis effect
>7. focault's penduluum
>8. Newton's water bucket experiment
>9. Lense-Thiring Effect
>10. Geostationary Orbits
>11. Eotvos Effect
>12. Sun's Analemma
>13. Earth's Axial Precession

IOW, so what!

>________________________________________________________
>E. Evidence against GeoCentricism which is ignorant nonsense
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>1. Impossibility of the Earth being the barycenter of the universe
>due to Newton'a Law of Gravity

Why would this be considered "ignorant nonsense"? Shouldn't this be
considered an example of fallacy of appeal to personal incredulity?

>2. GyroCompass theory.

Of course you conveniently leave out a great deal of evidence, clearly
not nonsense, that has long been considered evidence against
Geocentrism, such as:

The existence of gravity as a universal force - which, in relation to
Newton's laws of motion, provide countless examples of evidence
against Geocentrism.

The necessity for there to be stellar objects moving at speeds far
greater than the speed of light in order to orbit the earth.

>_________________________________________________________
>F. Evidence of a rotating Earth which is inconclusive due to the
>inability to accurately resolve angular movement smaller than 0.3 arc
>sec
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>1. Diurnal stellar aberration

How about all of the evidence that *is* conclusive?

Pointing out null evidence that does not in and of itself contradict
an alternative while ignoring positive evidence for an alternative is
pointless.

>_______________________________________________________
>G. Evidence of a rotating Earth for which misleading claims were made
>and no evidence was produced
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>1. Orbital launch mechanics; eastward launches

Are you really that arrogant? Do you really believe that you are
better informed on this matter than NASA scientists are?

And what 'misleading claims' were made relevant to this issue. But
more important, what about the claims that are not misleading
(according to you)? You have still not given an explanation that
comes anywhere near being suitable.

And how about those geostationary satellites?

>____________________________________________________________
>H. Evidence of changes in the Earth's angular momentum for which no
>experimental evidence was produced
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>1. Claims that earthquakes, sunami's, techtonic movements and similar
>Earth events alter the Earth's angular momentum are based solely on
>mathematical models which presume that the earth rotates. No
>experimental evidence produced.

The earth's rotation is not a mere presumption.

And as far as experimental evidence goes (never mind the logical
inferences based on gravity and Newtonian physics for a moment) I
would consider geostationary satellites and observed advantages of
eastward launches to certainly be evidence that should be considered.

>___________________________________________________________
>I. Evidence of changes in the Earth's angular momentum which implies
>emprical consequences known to be false.
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>1. Our moon's rate of recession

Care to explain?

>___________________________________________________________
>J. Evidence which fails because the Ptolemaic and original Tychonian
>models have not been held by a geoCentricist for over 100 years.
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>1. Retrograde motion of the planets.
>2. Sun's Analemma

So, do you have a better model then that DOES explain the above AS
WELL AS take into account:

- The existence of geostationary satellites.
- The observed advantages of eastward launches
- Gravity and Newton's laws of motion.
- The existence and placement of Lagrangian points
- variations in observed red shifts relative to any proposed
spherical shell
- The validity of standard candles relative to the question
of variations in the distance of stars and galaxies from
our own solar system.
- An explanation as to how objects could exceed the speed
of light when made necessary under some models.

[chris thompson]

On Feb 4, 10:28 am, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:

> Atheists and those who have been misled by them are under the delusion

snip

You would be talking about the Vatican there, right Tony? Here's the
closing passage of a web page I just discovered:

"Galileo was right in asserting the mobility of the earth and wrong in
asserting the immobility of the sun. His opponents were right in
asserting the mobility of the sun and wrong in asserting the
immobility of the earth.

Had the Catholic Church rushed to endorse Galileo’s views—and there
were many in the Church who were quite favorable to them—the Church
would have embraced what modern science has disproved.

NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004"

Note the first sentence I quote:

"Galileo was right in asserting the mobility of the earth and wrong in
asserting the immobility of the sun."

Now note the last paragraph. It seems the Roman Catholic Church
disagrees with you, Tony.

Full page- which presents an only slightly slanted view of the Galileo
Affair, can be found here:

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-galileo-controversy

Chris

[Ray Martinez]

On Feb 4, 7:28 am, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> Atheists and those who have been misled by them are under the delusion
> that heliocentricism is indubitable.  Nonsense.  From the very start
> Copernicus's theory required only a few less epicycles than did
> Ptolomey's.
>

Theists established heliocentrism, not Atheists. The latter have
joined us.

> The vast majority of evidence cannot distinquish between the two
> models.  And none of the evidence contradicts GeoCentricism.
> Furthermore the near (but not complete) equivalency of the two models
> is demonstrated by the fact that NASA sometimes uses an Earth Centered
> Inertial Frame in some of its launches.    Atheists (and Ray who has
> joined them) should read below and weep:
>

The main subject of the first two chapters in the Bible is the origin
of animate matter, not inanimate matter and its placement. Yet Tony
accepts the conceptual validity of the three main claims of Atheist
biology: natural selection, species mutability and common descent.

How can Tony deride another for allegedly siding with the Atheists
concerning inanimate matter (which is not true since the matter was
established by Theists) but have no problem siding with the three main
claims of Atheist biology?

The degree of hypocrisy seen here can only be explained by delusion,
inexcusable ignorance, and/or dishonesty.

Darwin became an Atheist during the same two years he "clearly
conceived" his theory of evolution (1837-1838; read his Autobio; pages
85-95). The three main clams of Darwinism are based on pro-Atheism
**assumptions** about living things, past and present. Yet Tony
rattles on about illogical geocentrism, motivated to protect his
warped view of Scripture, while sacrificing the main subject of the
first two chapters of the Bible. Talk about a confused and mixed up
person!

Geocentrism was a false assumption based on a misreading of Scripture,
namely Joshua (the Book of Joshua simply reports what he said) and
other unwarranted extrapolations based on Man's position as the apple
of God's eye.

Ray

> Evidences "A" (shown below) contradict heliocentricism.
>
> Evidences "B" contradict the Big Bang geometry which avers that there
> is no center to the universe.
>
> Evidence "C" shows that a rotating shell of stars about a central
> Earth would create the same forces at the Earth as would a rotating
> earth in a fixed shell of stars.
>
> _______________________________________________________
> A.  Evidence that the Earth does NOT translate around the Sun or the
> Milky Way CONTRADICTING Heliocentricism

> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------­-------

> 1.  Michelson-Morley interferometer experiments
> 2.  Dayton C. Miller interferometer Experiments
> 3.  George Airy's stellar aberration experiment
>
> _________________________________________________________
> B.  Evidence of absolute rotation and which CONTRADICTS Einstein's
> postulate about the speed of light for all observers and consistent
> with a rotating universe.

> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------­----

> 1.  Sagnac's interferometer experiments
> 2.  Michelson-Gale interferometer experiments
> 3.  GPS network of satellites
>
> __________________________________________________________
> C.  Evidence concerning Newton's empty Sphere.  Atheists assert that
> there would be no forces at a central Earth with a spherical shell of
> stars.

> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------­-----

> 1.  While Newton demonstrated that the forces at the center of hollow
> sphere would be zero Einstein, Thiring, and others showed that if the
> sphere were rotating all of the forces at the center would be
> indistinquishable for a fixed shell with a rotating center.
>
> _________________________________________________________
> D.  Evidence that is equally consistent with GeoCentricism and
> Heliocentricism due to identical relative motions in both

> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------­----

> 1.  Stellar parallax
> 2.  Stellar aberration
> 3.  Annual stellar doppler shift
> 4.  Annistropic dipole of the CMBR
> 5.  doppler shifts in general
> 6.  corriolis effect
> 7.  focault's penduluum
> 8.  Newton's water bucket experiment
> 9.  Lense-Thiring Effect
> 10. Geostationary Orbits
> 11. Eotvos Effect
> 12. Sun's Analemma
> 13. Earth's Axial Precession
>
> ________________________________________________________
> E.  Evidence against GeoCentricism which is ignorant nonsense

> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------­--

> 1.  Impossibility of the Earth being the barycenter of the universe
> due to Newton'a Law of Gravity
> 2.  GyroCompass theory.
>
> _________________________________________________________
> F.  Evidence of a rotating Earth which is inconclusive due to the
> inability to accurately resolve angular movement smaller than 0.3 arc
> sec

> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------­----

> 1.  Diurnal stellar aberration
>
> _______________________________________________________
> G.  Evidence of a rotating Earth for which misleading claims were made
> and no evidence was produced

> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------­--

> 1.  Orbital launch mechanics; eastward launches
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> H.  Evidence of changes in the Earth's angular momentum for which no
> experimental evidence was produced

> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------­------

> 1.  Claims that earthquakes, sunami's, techtonic movements and similar
> Earth events alter the Earth's angular momentum are based solely on
> mathematical models which presume that the earth rotates.  No
> experimental evidence produced.
>
> ___________________________________________________________
> I.  Evidence of changes in the Earth's angular momentum which implies
> emprical consequences known to be false.

> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------­-------

> 1.  Our moon's rate of recession
>
> ___________________________________________________________
> J.  Evidence which fails because the Ptolemaic and original Tychonian
> models have not been held by a geoCentricist for over 100 years.

> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------­-------

[John Harshman]

T Pagano wrote:

[mercifully snipped]

So, Tony. Are you ever going to explain why the wing of Archaeopteryx
doesn't count as a nascent structure? Or perhaps address any of my
various posts that you've been running away from for months now?

[Mark Buchanan]

Thanks so much for re-posting this meaningless drivel. I mentioned to
some coworkers that yes, there are still some real geocentrists that
have delusions of being right. I was going to have to dig up an old
post of yours but it's nice to have something fresh.

Mark

[T Pagano]

On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 14:31:12 -0800, John Harshman
<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:

>T Pagano wrote:
>
>[mercifully snipped]
>
>So, Tony. Are you ever going to explain why the wing of Archaeopteryx
>doesn't count as a nascent structure?

And every time you ask this you'll get precisely the same answer: The
Archaeopteryx wing is considered to have been fully capable of powered
flight. This means that its wing is unmistakeably and unambiguously
a "mature" structure. In his opus Darwin never considered
Archaeopteryx one of the transitional forms his theory predicted to be
ubiquitous in prehistory. That is, Darwin never considered any of the
structures evident in the Archaeopteryx fossil to be nascent.

While Harshman has explicitly distanced modern atheistic evolutionism
from Darwin (need quotes?), Darwin's word in this matter is good
enough for me.

>Or perhaps address any of my
>various posts that you've been running away from for months now?

For over two years (maybe closer to three) I've given Harshman a
remedy for this which he has proven too timid to take advantage of.
This means Harshman is hiding not I.




Some Additional Notes:
Kaiser makes clear in his book that the vast majority of birds are
cursorial; that is, other than escaping danger and commuting to
feeding areas they spend the vast majority of their time in a
cursorial lifestyle. He also made abundantly clear that similarity
is insufficient to justify claims of evolutionary descent. He points
out the (dramatic?) dissimilarities between bird species. This after
only a dozen+ pages. While Kaiser is undoubtedly an evolutionist he
is not the evolutionist cheerleader that Shipman demonstrates.



Regards,
T Pagano

On the HelioCentric/GeoCentric front:
When is Dr Carlip coming back? Dr Dworetsky is still licking his
wounds and limping around. And Harshman was forced to put his tail
between his legs when he failed to realize that a rotating shell
resulted in the same forces at the center as a rotating center in a
fixed shell. Things don't look too good for your side. Of course you
have Ray on your side.

[Ray Martinez]

On Feb 4, 4:51 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 14:31:12 -0800, John Harshman
>

You are angry because you cannot answer or refute anything that I say
(my previous reply remains unanswered). You more or less have become
the Ron Okimoto in the IDist camp.

Show us the Atheism of Copernicus? Of course, you can't. All you got
is one idiotic "interpretation" of Joshua (= rejection by Copernicus
means he was an Atheist). Since you have SPOKEN-UP for this idiotic
interpretation of Joshua you now have to defend it and protect your
policy of maintaining personal inerrancy.

We both know about Darwin's and Harshman's Atheism and your shameless
acceptance of the three main concepts of Atheist "biology": natural
selection, mutability, and common descent. You're on about the origin
and placement of inanimate matter as deciding Atheism while forgetting
the fact that the main subject of the first two chapters in the Bible
is the origin of animate matter. The point is: Atheists can agree with
Christians concerning the placement and position of the Earth, unlike
the origin of living things, which testifies directly to the existence
or non-existence of God.

In short your priorities are inverted (if not perverted).

Ray (anti-selectionist/species immutabilist)

[T Pagano]

Sadly this doesn't help much since the last time I checked "Catholic
Answers" is not (and never has been) an arm of the Magisterium of the
Catholic Church. The fact that a written work has a "Nihil Obstat"
and an "Imprimatur" is not an indication that the statements contained
within a covered work are Magisterial teachings either. These
indicators are merely recognition that the local Bishop saw nothing
contained therein explicitly contradicting Church doctrine. Neither
of these indications are immune from error.

Galileo was wrong about just about a few things His proof that the
Earth moved was based upon his false theory of tides which the Jesuit
scientists of the time knew was false and reported to the Pope.
Galileo's error was in publiclly ridiculing the Church in an attempt
to coerce them into changing their non Magisterial interpretation of a
passage of Scripture. Galilao was politely and quietly told that he
was welcome to teach his theories as speculative (which they were) so
long as he ceased to question the Church's authority in its area of
responsibility. Galileo refused and was rightfully punished. Oddly
enough Galileo willingly submitted to this punishment even though one
or more of his rich benefactors would undoubtedly have shielded him.

The Catholic Answers reference cited by Chris argues by assertion and
fails to present a single fact proving that the Earth moves or
refuting the neoTychoan GeoCentric model.

Try again Chris. . . .?


Regards,
T Pagano

[chris thompson]

Nice try, Tony. However, "Censor librorum" is an official position
within the R.C Church. As such, it is subject to the orders of the
Magisterium. While the R.C. Church has in the past moved slowly on
many issues, it seems to me that in the age of the Internet (that was
approved in 2004) something as central as geocentrism would have
attracted some attention by now. If the censor librorum was wrong, why
hasn't the Magisterium corrected him? They've had 8 years or so.

Anything with that imprimatur has the implicit approval of the
Magisterium, until something comes up otherwise.

Or are you arguing that the R.C. Church, in all its majesty, still
supports geocentrism?

I believe you have said, in the past, that you are a devout Roman
Catholic. Which way does the R.C. Church lean in this regard?

Chris

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Sat, 4 Feb 2012 21:16:11 -0500, chris thompson wrote
(in article
<64e6eb64-890c-41fa...@x19g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>):

> I believe you have said, in the past, that you are a devout Roman Catholic.
> Which way does the R.C. Church lean in this regard?

Not his way.

--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.

[Rolf]

There you go again about selection. Here is an example of natural selection
in action:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/02/120201120732.htm

[Rolf]

Unwarranted extrapolations and conclusions, that is your sole field of
expertise.
But you are a master, a true virtuoso at it.

[Friar Broccoli]

On 2012-02-04 19:51, T Pagano wrote:
> On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 14:31:12 -0800, John Harshman
> <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:

So Tony, why do you start a thread with my name in the subject line and
then reply to Harshman and not me?

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/2151ecb8011a1472

[John Harshman]

T Pagano wrote:
> On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 14:31:12 -0800, John Harshman
> <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> T Pagano wrote:
>>
>> [mercifully snipped]
>>
>> So, Tony. Are you ever going to explain why the wing of Archaeopteryx
>> doesn't count as a nascent structure?
>
> And every time you ask this you'll get precisely the same answer: The
> Archaeopteryx wing is considered to have been fully capable of powered
> flight. This means that its wing is unmistakeably and unambiguously
> a "mature" structure.

You will have to define "nascent" and "mature", because I'm not sure
what counts. But OK. Is the wing of Microraptor a nascent structure? How
about the wing of Velociraptor?

> In his opus Darwin never considered
> Archaeopteryx one of the transitional forms his theory predicted to be
> ubiquitous in prehistory.

Perhaps because his opus, presuming you mean the Origin, was published
in 1859, and the first Archaeopteryx fossil was discovered in 1866.

> That is, Darwin never considered any of the
> structures evident in the Archaeopteryx fossil to be nascent.

How do you know this?

> While Harshman has explicitly distanced modern atheistic evolutionism
> from Darwin (need quotes?), Darwin's word in this matter is good
> enough for me.

Oddly enough, it isn't good enough for you in any other circumstance.
Why? And of course any time you make an assertion about what someone
said we need a quote, because you have shown yourself to be capable of
misinterpreting anything.

>> Or perhaps address any of my
>> various posts that you've been running away from for months now?
>
> For over two years (maybe closer to three) I've given Harshman a
> remedy for this which he has proven too timid to take advantage of.
> This means Harshman is hiding not I.

Apparently you have forgotten that on December 1 I did just as you
request. Do you remember "New Thread Just for Tony"? Here's the first
paragraph to jog your memory:

"Tony, I'm only going to do this once. Here, in a new thread, is a
repost of my last reply to you. If you're willing to start a real
conversation, with as many rounds of give and take as necessary, do so
here, in this thread. If you only want to post nonsense and then run
away to escape the consequences, don't bother."

Sadly, you did just as I predicted in that last sentence. You made two
very weaselly attempts at reply, didn't answer a single one of my
questions, and vanished like...like...well, something unpleasant that
vanishes.

You seem to forget that your claims can be checked. In this case I did
exactly as you demanded and you still ran away.

> Some Additional Notes:
> Kaiser makes clear in his book that the vast majority of birds are
> cursorial; that is, other than escaping danger and commuting to
> feeding areas they spend the vast majority of their time in a
> cursorial lifestyle.

That isn't what "cursorial" means. And anyway, if Kaiser says that he's
wrong. The majority of birds are passerines, and most passerines use
their wings while feeding. Yes, we need a quote.

> He also made abundantly clear that similarity
> is insufficient to justify claims of evolutionary descent.

Depending on what he actually said, he might be right or wrong.

> He points
> out the (dramatic?) dissimilarities between bird species.

Of course he does. He's talking about morphological disparity. What does
that have to do with doubts about evolution, which is where I suspect
you're trying to go?

> This after
> only a dozen+ pages. While Kaiser is undoubtedly an evolutionist he
> is not the evolutionist cheerleader that Shipman demonstrates.

There's my argument. Your ability to misinterpret Kaiser is yet another
reason you need to quote.

[snip more heliocentrism]

[Friar Broccoli]

Further assistance:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/1700227edea81cf8

>
> You seem to forget that your claims can be checked. In this case I did
> exactly as you demanded and you still ran away.
>
>> Some Additional Notes:
>> Kaiser makes clear in his book that the vast majority of birds are
>> cursorial; that is, other than escaping danger and commuting to
>> feeding areas they spend the vast majority of their time in a
>> cursorial lifestyle.
>
> That isn't what "cursorial" means. And anyway, if Kaiser says that he's
> wrong. The majority of birds are passerines, and most passerines use
> their wings while feeding. Yes, we need a quote.
>
>> He also made abundantly clear that similarity
>> is insufficient to justify claims of evolutionary descent.
>
> Depending on what he actually said, he might be right or wrong.
>
>> He points
>> out the (dramatic?) dissimilarities between bird species.
>
> Of course he does. He's talking about morphological disparity. What does
> that have to do with doubts about evolution, which is where I suspect
> you're trying to go?
>
>> This after
>> only a dozen+ pages. While Kaiser is undoubtedly an evolutionist he
>> is not the evolutionist cheerleader that Shipman demonstrates.
>
> There's my argument. Your ability to misinterpret Kaiser is yet another
> reason you need to quote.
>
> [snip more heliocentrism]
>

[AGWFacts]

On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 19:51:14 -0500, T Pagano
<not....@address.net> wrote:

> On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 14:31:12 -0800, John Harshman
> <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:

> >T Pagano wrote:
> >
> >[mercifully snipped]
> >
> >So, Tony. Are you ever going to explain why the wing of Archaeopteryx
> >doesn't count as a nascent structure?

If "It looks like it was intelligently designed" is valid evidence
for intelligent design Creationism, then surely "It shows every
indication that it is a nascent structure" will be valid evidence
that the wing of Archaeopteryx is a a nascent structure.

> And every time you ask this you'll get precisely the same answer: The
> Archaeopteryx wing is considered to have been fully capable of powered
> flight.

That does not proscribe the conclusion that the wings are not
nascent structures.

> This means that its wing is unmistakeably and unambiguously
> a "mature" structure.

And you "know" that how, exactly? Did your gods tell you that?

> In his opus Darwin never considered
> Archaeopteryx one of the transitional forms his theory predicted to be
> ubiquitous in prehistory.

And you "know" that how, exactly? Did your gods tell you that?

Also, which of Darwin's opuses? All six Archaeopteryx fossils (or
is it eight now?) were found two years after Darwin's "On the
Origins...." book. Darwin just called Archaeopteryx "that strange
bird."

> That is, Darwin never considered any of the
> structures evident in the Archaeopteryx fossil to be nascent.

And you "know" that how, exactly? Did your gods tell you that?

> While Harshman has explicitly distanced modern atheistic evolutionism
> from Darwin (need quotes?), Darwin's word in this matter is good
> enough for me.

So go ahead, quote "Darwin's word" about Archaeopteryx. Heee.
(This ought to be good.....)


--
"I'd like the globe to warm another degree or two or three... and CO2 levels
to increase perhaps another 100ppm - 300ppm." -- cato...@sympatico.ca

[Dana Tweedy]

Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Feb 4, 7:28 am, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>> Atheists and those who have been misled by them are under the
>> delusion that heliocentricism is indubitable. Nonsense. From the
>> very start Copernicus's theory required only a few less epicycles
>> than did Ptolomey's.
>>
>
> Theists established heliocentrism, not Atheists. The latter have
> joined us.

It really doesn't matter to science the religious beliefs of the scientists
who make a discovery. The fact that species change was established by
"theists" as well. Even if you insist that Darwin was an atheist (and he
was not), he didn't do his work alone. He had the help and support of many
scientists who were, and remained, devout Christians.

>
>> The vast majority of evidence cannot distinquish between the two
>> models. And none of the evidence contradicts GeoCentricism.
>> Furthermore the near (but not complete) equivalency of the two models
>> is demonstrated by the fact that NASA sometimes uses an Earth
>> Centered Inertial Frame in some of its launches. Atheists (and Ray
>> who has joined them) should read below and weep:
>>
>
> The main subject of the first two chapters in the Bible is the origin
> of animate matter, not inanimate matter and its placement.

Actually, the 'main subject' of the first two chapters of Genesis is two
separate stories regarding the creation of both inanimate, and animate
matter.

> Yet Tony
> accepts the conceptual validity of the three main claims of Atheist
> biology: natural selection, species mutability and common descent.

There is no "atheist biology", just biology. While natural selection,
common descent, and "species mutability" are all findings of science, they
aren't the "main claims" of the science of biology.

>
> How can Tony deride another for allegedly siding with the Atheists
> concerning inanimate matter (which is not true since the matter was
> established by Theists) but have no problem siding with the three main
> claims of Atheist biology?

How can Ray claim those findings are "atheist" when none of them relate to
whether or not God exists? Again, it doesn't matter to science if the
discoverer of a fact was atheist, theist, or anything else. All that
matters is the evidence. A "theist" finding the earth moves doesn't make
the earth's movement a "theist" position. An atheist finding that species
change doesn't make that fact "atheist".

>
> The degree of hypocrisy seen here can only be explained by delusion,
> inexcusable ignorance, and/or dishonesty.

What explains your own hypocrisy, Ray?

>
> Darwin became an Atheist during the same two years he "clearly
> conceived" his theory of evolution (1837-1838; read his Autobio; pages
> 85-95).

Darwin was never an atheist. At most he became agnostic, but never gave up
a belief in a supreme being.

> The three main clams of Darwinism are based on pro-Atheism
> **assumptions** about living things, past and present.

Wrong again, Ray. The finding of common descent and species mutability
preceded Darwin, and did not require any "pro atheism" assumptions.
Natural selection was also discovered before Darwin, but not recognized as
part of the mechanism that explained species change. It too doesn't
require any atheist assumptions.

> Yet Tony
> rattles on about illogical geocentrism, motivated to protect his
> warped view of Scripture,

in the same way that Ray rattles on about illogical fixity of species,
motivated to protect his warped view of Scripture.

> while sacrificing the main subject of the
> first two chapters of the Bible.

Ray, instead sacrifices the whole message of the Bible..

> Talk about a confused and mixed up
> person!

Indeed, both are very confused and mixed up.

>
> Geocentrism was a false assumption based on a misreading of Scripture,

Just as fixity of species is a false assumption, based on a misreading of
Scripture, and an inability to admit one's mistake.

> namely Joshua (the Book of Joshua simply reports what he said) and
> other unwarranted extrapolations based on Man's position as the apple
> of God's eye.

Ray's error is in assuming the creation stories in the Bible are meant to be
taken literally, and unwarranted extrapolations based on Ray's position as
Ray being the apple of God's eye.

DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

Ray Martinez wrote:
snipping

>>. Of course you
>> have Ray on your side.
>
> You are angry because you cannot answer or refute anything that I say
> (my previous reply remains unanswered). You more or less have become
> the Ron Okimoto in the IDist camp.

Ray, you seem to be projecting your own anger, and your "inability to
refute".

>
> Show us the Atheism of Copernicus? Of course, you can't.

Whether or not Copernicus was an atheist does not matter in the least.

> All you got
> is one idiotic "interpretation" of Joshua (= rejection by Copernicus
> means he was an Atheist).

Likewise, your idiotic interpretation of Genesis being rejected by Darwin
apparently makes him an atheist as well.

>Since you have SPOKEN-UP for this idiotic
> interpretation of Joshua you now have to defend it and protect your
> policy of maintaining personal inerrancy.

These accusations fit you just as well, Ray.

>
> We both know about Darwin's and Harshman's Atheism

John has said he is an atheist, but Darwin never said he was. Your
assumption of Darwin being an atheist is not supported by anything Darwin
himself said.

> and your shameless
> acceptance of the three main concepts of Atheist "biology": natural
> selection, mutability, and common descent.

Those three are not "main concepts" of biology, and biology is not atheist.
All three are findings, and all three predated Darwin's writings. Even if
Darwin had been an atheist, the findings of science are not.

> You're on about the origin
> and placement of inanimate matter as deciding Atheism while forgetting
> the fact that the main subject of the first two chapters in the Bible
> is the origin of animate matter.

the 'main subject' of the first two chapters of Genesis are two separate
stories, both of which relate to both animate, and inanimate matter. In
any case, none of the chapters of Genesis, or any other book in the Bible is
scientific. It doesn't matter to science.

> The point is: Atheists can agree with
> Christians concerning the placement and position of the Earth,

Why do atheists and Christians get to agree on this, but not other points?

> unlike
> the origin of living things, which testifies directly to the existence
> or non-existence of God.

The origin of living things does not "testify" to the existence of God any
more than the origin of non living things. God's existence is not a matter
of evidence; it's one of belief. God can exist if evolution is true, and
God can exist if the "Big Bang" is true. Both you and Tony are wrong.

>
> In short your priorities are inverted (if not perverted).

No more than your own, Ray.



DJT

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 4 Feb 2012 11:26:53 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by David Murdock
<mur...@tntech.edu>:

Including the stars? It would seem that this implies a
heliocentric universe (which on further reflection was
probably the case). It's been quite a while since I took any
class which even touched on this area, and that touch was
extremely shallow.

I suspect, based on Tony's proclivity for using semantics
(such as his perpetual claim that science hasn't "proven"
geocentricity false) to weasel through debates, that
obfuscation was his intent, but I could be mistaken.

>>Are you perhaps confused, and are referring to Luna?
>
>He's confused about a lot of things, but he's right about this one
>thing. Copernicus' model of the Universe used epicycles. And it
>would *have* to, as the prejudice of the time was that all motion had
>to be based on circles. The idea that the orbit could have the shape
>of an ellipse came later, from Kepler.

I bow to your superior knowledge and insight; I was using
the dictionary definition I posted for reference (always an
iffy proposition).

Hey, Tony? One for you. Now all you have to do is address
all the other points brought up, here and elsethread, which
show you're wrong.

[T Pagano]

On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 11:22:29 -0500, Friar Broccoli <eli...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 2012-02-04 10:28, T Pagano wrote:
>
>
>> E. Evidence against GeoCentricism which is ignorant nonsense
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 1. Impossibility of the Earth being the barycenter of the universe
>> due to Newton'a Law of Gravity
>
>
>OK Tony, you have previously stated here:
>http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/2fbea17815722167
>
>that:
> > Newton's laws require that of two or more bodies in a rotating system
> > all bodies will revolve around the center of mass.
>
>So:
>This is the part that confuses me Tony: You say that "in a rotating
>system **all** bodies will revolve around the center of mass".

It's not what "I" say, but is a logical consequence of Newton's Law.

> Our
>solar system is such a "rotating system".
> Yet two planets closer to
>the sun (Mercury and Venus) have "decided" that the sun is the center
>of mass of the system, and 5 or 6 others (including Mars and Jupiter)
>have also "decided" the sun is the center of mass.
>
>Why then does the earth disagree, if as you say "**all** bodies will
>revolve around the center of mass"?

Here Friar is attempting to consider a number of different systems yet
at the start he says that the system under consideration is the solar
system. Friar Broccoli apparently doesn't understand that the center
of mass depends upon the masses being considered and their relative
distribution within that system at a given point in time.

So if I restrict the system to the Sun, Mercury and Venus the center
of mass will depend upon that system. However one can only do this if
other masses, their distribution, and their attendent gravitational
effects in the general area can be ignored.

So the center of mass of the Solar System depends upon the masses in
that system and their relative distribution in that system at any
given point in time. Friar Broccoli apparently is unaware that the
center of mass of the Solar System is almost never located at the
center of the Sun.

>Any chance of your actually explaining why the effects of the Sun's
>gravity don't contradict your madness?

The problem with Friar Broccoli's thinking is that he assumes that our
Solar System is completely independent and isolated from the rest of
the Solar System. If that were true how is it that atheists assert
that our Solar System it is hurtling 200-400 km/sec around the center
the Milky Way? The center of mass of which is not located near our
sun. And our galaxy is supposedly rotating with a system of
galaxies; the center of mass of which is not located at or near our
sun.

In other words the solar system cannot be isolated. and its center of
mass is not an argument agains the Earth being the center of mass in a
rotating universe.

Friar doesn't demonstrate madness but utter and complete ignorance.

Regards,
T Pagano


Friar doesn't lay a glove on the neoTychoan GeoCentric model. Try
again?

[A.Carlson]

On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 16:06:21 -0500, T Pagano <not....@address.net>
wrote:

>On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 11:22:29 -0500, Friar Broccoli <eli...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On 2012-02-04 10:28, T Pagano wrote:
>>
>>
>>> E. Evidence against GeoCentricism which is ignorant nonsense
>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 1. Impossibility of the Earth being the barycenter of the universe
>>> due to Newton'a Law of Gravity
>>
>>
>>OK Tony, you have previously stated here:
>>http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/2fbea17815722167
>>
>>that:
>> > Newton's laws require that of two or more bodies in a rotating system
>> > all bodies will revolve around the center of mass.
>>
>>So:
>>This is the part that confuses me Tony: You say that "in a rotating
>>system **all** bodies will revolve around the center of mass".
>
>It's not what "I" say, but is a logical consequence of Newton's Law.

Which, it should be noted, that you only selectively apply in defense
of your long bankrupt geocentric model. BTW, when are you going to
get around to explaining how, in your model, geostationary satellites
can exist and why there is a distinct advantage to eastward rocket
launches?

Or how your long ago bankrupt model deals with the necessity of the
vast majority of objects in the universe having the need to travel far
in excess of the speed of light in order to rotate around the earth?

>> Our
>>solar system is such a "rotating system".
>> Yet two planets closer to
>>the sun (Mercury and Venus) have "decided" that the sun is the center
>>of mass of the system, and 5 or 6 others (including Mars and Jupiter)
>>have also "decided" the sun is the center of mass.
>>
>>Why then does the earth disagree, if as you say "**all** bodies will
>>revolve around the center of mass"?
>
>Here Friar is attempting to consider a number of different systems yet
>at the start he says that the system under consideration is the solar
>system. Friar Broccoli apparently doesn't understand that the center
>of mass depends upon the masses being considered and their relative
>distribution within that system at a given point in time.

Are you really suggesting that the mass of the earth relative to other
objects within our own solar system is sufficient to allow other
objects within this same solar system to rotate around the earth?

Perhaps you could start by explaining why the lagrangian points
(particularly L1) are located where they are with respect to the earth
and sun if the gravitational pull of the earth is really sufficient to
rein in the sun.

>So if I restrict the system to the Sun, Mercury and Venus the center
>of mass will depend upon that system. However one can only do this if
>other masses, their distribution, and their attendent gravitational
>effects in the general area can be ignored.

Yes, the relatively minor gravitational effects of other objects
within our own solar system, none of which come anywhere near close to
having the gravitational pull of the sun, can have minor effects on
other bodies over long periods of time.

IOW, you could ignore them and expected observations would still be
pretty close to what is actually observed.

>So the center of mass of the Solar System depends upon the masses in
>that system and their relative distribution in that system at any
>given point in time. Friar Broccoli apparently is unaware that the
>center of mass of the Solar System is almost never located at the
>center of the Sun.

Perhaps not, but damn near close to it. When objects are particularly
close to each other, such as is with Pluto and its moon, for
calculation purposes the center of mass may even lie outside of, but
still between, either object.

BTW, the total mass of all other objects within our own solar system
do not come close to equaling the mass of the sun itself.

>>Any chance of your actually explaining why the effects of the Sun's
>>gravity don't contradict your madness?
>
>The problem with Friar Broccoli's thinking is that he assumes that our
>Solar System is completely independent and isolated from the rest of
>the Solar System.

????

>If that were true how is it that atheists assert
>that our Solar System it is hurtling 200-400 km/sec around the center
>the Milky Way? The center of mass of which is not located near our
>sun.

The center of mass of what?

If you are referring to the center of mass of our sun, you are
incorrect about its location.

If you are referring to the center of mass of our solar system then
you still don't have a valid point. One admittedly simplistic way of
looking at it is that our sun is hurtling through space and other
objects close enough to it are being dragged along collectively. As
objects within the solar system are tethered together by the force of
gravity so are they tethered to other nearby objects within the
galaxy, albeit by a much weaker collective force.

>And our galaxy is supposedly rotating with a system of
>galaxies; the center of mass of which is not located at or near our
>sun.

No, we are not the center of the galaxy or universe. In fact it has
long been held that our solar system is located on an outer spiral arm
of our own galaxy.

>In other words the solar system cannot be isolated. and its center of
>mass is not an argument agains the Earth being the center of mass in a
>rotating universe.

You do know, don't you, that the force of gravity diminishes by
distance squared? Regardless of the collective pull of objects
throughout the entire universe from all directions, the pull of
objects in our vicinity have a far greater effect on the movements of
objects within our own solar system.

IOW, for the earth to be the center of mass just within its own system
it would still have to have a mass greater than the mass of the sun.

As far as the rest of the 'rotating [sic] universe' goes, the force of
gravity and the laws of motion still appear to apply. Objects close
to each other typically appear to rotate around central masses not
only far larger than the earth but typically far larger than even our
own sun. Solar systems appear to rotate separately around the cores
of galaxies and galaxies appear to have their own collective
influences on nearby galaxies - in our case, the Andromeda galaxy
which appears to be racing towards us.

>Friar doesn't demonstrate madness but utter and complete ignorance.

Pot, meet kettle.

>Regards,
>T Pagano
>
>
>Friar doesn't lay a glove on the neoTychoan GeoCentric model. Try
>again?

Whether true or not, mainstream science does.

Would you care to explain:

- Geostationary satellites
- Advantages of eastward rocket launches
- The existence and location of lagrangian points
- How the earth, with far less mass than the sun, could
possibly be the center of even its own solar system?
- Why all extra-solar planets observed all rotate around
their own sun/star.
- How your own geocentric model, long rejected by
mainstream science, fully complies with Newtonian physics.

[Friar Broccoli]

What I've pointed out is that all 7 other nearby planets are acting as
if that the sun is at the center of mass of our Solar System. You have
not explained why the earth should act differently.

> So if I restrict the system to the Sun, Mercury and Venus the center
> of mass will depend upon that system. However one can only do this if
> other masses, their distribution, and their attendent gravitational
> effects in the general area can be ignored.

The other 7 planets are acting that way, why is the earth supposed to
follow different rules Tony?

> So the center of mass of the Solar System depends upon the masses in
> that system and their relative distribution in that system at any
> given point in time. Friar Broccoli apparently is unaware that the
> center of mass of the Solar System is almost never located at the
> center of the Sun.

The center of mass is indeed "almost never located at the center of the
Sun." Sometimes it is slightly outside the sun. Since the mass of the
sun is more than 500 times greater than the entire rest of the solar
system added together, it is never very far outside.

>> Any chance of your actually explaining why the effects of the Sun's
>> gravity don't contradict your madness?
>
> The problem with Friar Broccoli's thinking is that he assumes that our
> Solar System is completely independent and isolated from the rest of
> the Solar System. If that were true how is it that atheists assert
> that our Solar System it is hurtling 200-400 km/sec around the center
> the Milky Way? The center of mass of which is not located near our
> sun. And our galaxy is supposedly rotating with a system of
> galaxies; the center of mass of which is not located at or near our
> sun.

Does Tony think something prevents smaller orbital systems from existing
inside larger orbital systems? If so, how does he explain that the
center of mass of Jupiter and its moons is inside Jupiter? The same
model holds for Saturn's orbital system. Both those small orbital
systems exist while at the same time orbiting the sun.

> In other words the solar system cannot be isolated. and its center of
> mass is not an argument agains the Earth being the center of mass in a
> rotating universe.

It certainly is, if you're asserting that the earth is not orbiting the
sun, when other planets nearer to and further from the sun are all
orbiting it.

So try answering my question Tony - Why do all the other planets orbit
the sun, but not (according to you) the earth?

[jillery]

On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 11:01:57 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

This is a historical point that often gets lost. Although later
events proved heliocentrism correct, at the time the Copernican Model
was submitted, it was accepted as a mathematical simplification only.
IIUC it eliminated the need for separate mechanisms to account for
retrograde motions, but as David Murdock pointed out, it didn't
predict apparent positions any more accurately than the Platonic
Model.

The Tychonic Model also eliminate the problem of retrograde motion,
but it was criticized for requiring intersecting celestial spheres,
which were considered actual physical phenomena at the time.

Kepler's insight about elliptical orbits, combined with the Copernican
Model, is what provided the great leap in accurately predicting the
apparent positions of celestial objects.

Galileo not only expanded the Solar System beyond that recognized by
Plato, but his observation of the phases of Venus is empiric proof
against the Platonic Model.

Newton's Theory of Gravity and Laws of Motion destroyed any scientific
argument for any kind geocentric solar system.

From time to time Tony will infer, but not say explicitly, that he has
given up on the solar system, and instead presumes a Universe whose
collective motions are such that it just happens to cancel the
apparent motions of the Earth, including its daily rotation. As has
been pointed out many times, this would require FTL orbits of the
stars, and spooky actions at celestial distances to account for local
orbital perturbations.

So, in summary, your argument to Tony was inaccurate in this detail,
but correct in substance. Tony's geocentric arguments are asinine.

[gdgu...@gmail.com]

On Feb 5, 4:06 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 11:22:29 -0500, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com>

> wrote:

>
> >On 2012-02-04 10:28, T Pagano wrote:
>
> >> E.  Evidence against GeoCentricism which is ignorant nonsense
> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- --
> >> 1.  Impossibility of the Earth being the barycenter of the universe
> >> due to Newton'a Law of Gravity
>
> >OK Tony, you have previously stated here:
> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/2fbea17815722167
>
> >that:
> > > Newton's laws require that of two or more bodies in a rotating system
> > > all bodies will revolve around the center of mass.
>
> >So:
> >This is the part that confuses me Tony:   You say that "in a rotating
> >system **all** bodies will revolve around the center of mass".
>
> It's not what "I" say, but is a logical consequence of Newton's Law.

Newton. Excellent! Now what is Newton's most famous equation?

F=ma, first week of high school physics.

This relation tells us that if a mass is acted on by a net force, it
will undergo acceleration. Further, it tells us that the only way for
a mass NOT to undergo acceleration is for all the forces on it to be
exactly balanced; leaving no net force.

How do you suppose the Earth could experience no net gravitational
force given the constantly varying positions of the masses around it,
including the Moon, the Sun and Jupiter? Here we must consider another
of Newton's most famous concepts: the inverse square law. I'm too lazy
to work up the numbers again, but luckily, I don't have to. Here's a
post you never responded to:

https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!searchin/talk.origins/guarino$20inverse$20square/talk.origins/FssboXLRVNg/MlygZ2vVD-4J

I've reproduced it below:

"That inverse square law is very unkind to geocentrism, especially
when
combined with F=ma. F=ma tells us that if there is a net force acting
on
a mass, the mass will accelerate. The tides provide daily evidence
that
the Moon and Sun exert a net force at the Earth's location. But even
if
that were not the case, it would be hard to imagine where we could
find
enough mass to counterbalance the Sun, or even the Moon.

I had never done the math until today, and it's much worse (for
geocentrism) than I had even expected. It would require 400 billion
solar masses to counterbalance the Sun's gravity, *if* we could
somehow
gather that mass at a distance of only 10 light years. 400 billion
stars
is the upper end of the estimates for the number of stars in the
entire
Milky Way, all but 7 of which are further away than 10 light years.
Most, in fact, are thousands of times further away. Sure, some are
much
bigger than our Sun, and there's that black hole in the center, but
the
distance kills any thought that such factors could compensate.

At 1000 light years distance, we would need 4 quadrillion solar
masses
to counteract the pull of the Sun. Moreover, that mass would always
need
to be in direct opposition to the Sun, all year. So even if the mass
of
the Milky Way was great enough (it isn't), and close enough (it
isn't),
it would act in the wrong direction, especially at certain times of
the
year.

What about other galaxies then? The nearest one is 2.5 million light
years away. This means that the 400 billion solar masses that we
can't
find at 1000 light years would expand to 2.5 x 10^21 solar masses
that
we still can't find at the distance of the Andromeda galaxy. Most
galaxies are much further away.

But suppose we could find enough mass, and could further imagine it
remaining in exact opposition to the Sun as it whirls about every 24
hours. Now there is the Moon to contend with, and to a lesser degree,
Jupiter, Mars and Venus. Each would require it's own set of distant
masses to prevent its gravity from moving the Earth, each precisely
oriented to counteract the pull of its planet.

All of this rules out either Geocentrism or Newton. I have not
rechecked
my figures, but even if I have added on or lopped off a few zeros,
the
point stands.

I'll add on one more, a matter of aesthetics, if you will. Do you
really
worship a God who would create a spiral (galaxy) and expect us to
believe that it rotates about some point way out on one of the arms? "

[TomS]

"On Mon, 6 Feb 2012 04:24:53 -0800 (PST), in article
<f11fdc9a-66c9-4666...@do4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
g...@risky-biz.com stated..."

Curious, also, that the Earth is the only body which has zero net
force on it.

Among those bodies which are different from the Earth are rockets
which start on the Earth and go into space. Meanwhile, meteors which
start in space acquire the Earth's motionlessness when they land on
Earth.

But what I am *really* interested in is the response of those who
accept that the Earth is a planet but not that life on Earth is
related by common descent.


--
---Tom S.
"Ah, yeah, well, whenever you notice something like that, a wizard did it"
Lucy Lawless, the Simpsons "Treehouse of Horror X: Desperately Xeeking Xena"
(1999)

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 20:36:03 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

Thanks for the expansion on this; as I said it's not my
field and what little I learned of it (especially the
detailed history) was long ago. But not, it should be added,
in a galaxy far away and moving at superluminal velocity...

> Tony's geocentric arguments are asinine.

Since no few of his arguments are based on what science
hasn't "proven" they're actually kind of clever, in a slimy
sort of way. It took me a while to realize that this, along
with ignoring any responses showing his own arguments and
assertions are incorrect, was his preferred technique.

>>>> >The vast majority of evidence cannot distinguish between the two
>>>> >models.  And none of the evidence contradicts GeoCentricism.
>>>
>>>For example, he's wrong about that.
>>>
>>>> "Contradicts"? Perhaps not, but you'll have to explain, for
>>>> only one thing of several, how if the Earth doesn't rotate
>>>> everything beyond approximately the orbit of Neptune travels
>>>> at greater than c, which would as a minimum violate SR. Good
>>>> luck...
>>>>
>>>> <snip the usual Tony maunderings>

[Rolf]

T Pagano wrote:
> Atheists and those who have been misled by them are under the delusion

> that heliocentricism is indubitable. Nonsense. From the very start

> Copernicus's theory required only a few less epicycles than did
> Ptolomey's.
>

> The vast majority of evidence cannot distinquish between the two

> models. And none of the evidence contradicts GeoCentricism.

> Furthermore the near (but not complete) equivalency of the two models
> is demonstrated by the fact that NASA sometimes uses an Earth Centered
> Inertial Frame in some of its launches. Atheists (and Ray who has
> joined them) should read below and weep:
>

> Evidences "A" (shown below) contradict heliocentricism.
>
> Evidences "B" contradict the Big Bang geometry which avers that there
> is no center to the universe.
>
> Evidence "C" shows that a rotating shell of stars about a central
> Earth would create the same forces at the Earth as would a rotating
> earth in a fixed shell of stars.
>
>

Is there something like 'a fixed shell of stars? AFAIK, every object in the
universe keeps moving. stars or galaxies, they ar not only orbiting, they
are 'moving across the firmament too. I seem to remember a scientist had
discovered that galaxies are all moving to one side of the universe.
Strange. But anyway, without a fixed shell, the Earth's orbit wouldn't be
fixed either, would it?

>
> _______________________________________________________
> A. Evidence that the Earth does NOT translate around the Sun or the
> Milky Way CONTRADICTING Heliocentricism
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------

> 1. Michelson-Morley interferometer experiments
> 2. Dayton C. Miller interferometer Experiments
> 3. George Airy's stellar aberration experiment
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________
> B. Evidence of absolute rotation and which CONTRADICTS Einstein's
> postulate about the speed of light for all observers and consistent
> with a rotating universe.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------

-----

> 1. Sagnac's interferometer experiments
> 2. Michelson-Gale interferometer experiments
> 3. GPS network of satellites
>
> __________________________________________________________
> C. Evidence concerning Newton's empty Sphere. Atheists assert that
> there would be no forces at a central Earth with a spherical shell of
> stars.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------

------

> 1. While Newton demonstrated that the forces at the center of hollow
> sphere would be zero Einstein, Thiring, and others showed that if the
> sphere were rotating all of the forces at the center would be
> indistinquishable for a fixed shell with a rotating center.
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________
> D. Evidence that is equally consistent with GeoCentricism and
> Heliocentricism due to identical relative motions in both
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------

-----

> 1. Stellar parallax
> 2. Stellar aberration
> 3. Annual stellar doppler shift
> 4. Annistropic dipole of the CMBR
> 5. doppler shifts in general
> 6. corriolis effect
> 7. focault's penduluum
> 8. Newton's water bucket experiment
> 9. Lense-Thiring Effect
> 10. Geostationary Orbits
> 11. Eotvos Effect
> 12. Sun's Analemma
> 13. Earth's Axial Precession
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________

> E. Evidence against GeoCentricism which is ignorant nonsense
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
> 1. Impossibility of the Earth being the barycenter of the universe
> due to Newton'a Law of Gravity

> 2. GyroCompass theory.
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________
> F. Evidence of a rotating Earth which is inconclusive due to the
> inability to accurately resolve angular movement smaller than 0.3 arc
> sec
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------

-----

> 1. Diurnal stellar aberration
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________________
> G. Evidence of a rotating Earth for which misleading claims were made
> and no evidence was produced
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

> 1. Orbital launch mechanics; eastward launches
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> H. Evidence of changes in the Earth's angular momentum for which no
> experimental evidence was produced
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------

> 1. Claims that earthquakes, sunami's, techtonic movements and similar
> Earth events alter the Earth's angular momentum are based solely on
> mathematical models which presume that the earth rotates. No
> experimental evidence produced.
>

Could you suggest how to set up that experiment; why are not the data from
the 'experiment', the tsunami usfficient?

Should not a mathematical solution based on the equations of gravity settle
the argument?

Where did the energy come from, where did it go?

Wouldn't that be all?

I presume that when I step on my car's accelerator that I am not only making
my car go faster but also pushing the Earth in the other direction.

>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________
> I. Evidence of changes in the Earth's angular momentum which implies
> emprical consequences known to be false.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------

> 1. Our moon's rate of recession
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________
> J. Evidence which fails because the Ptolemaic and original Tychonian
> models have not been held by a geoCentricist for over 100 years.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------

[Inez]

On Feb 5, 6:54 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> T Pagano wrote:
> > On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 14:31:12 -0800, John Harshman
> > <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>

> Sadly, you did just as I predicted in that last sentence. You made two
> very weaselly attempts at reply, didn't answer a single one of my
> questions, and vanished like...like...well, something unpleasant that
> vanishes.

Turd down a toilet.

[John Harshman]

I was thinking of something a bit appropriately windier.

[A.Carlson]

On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 10:28:11 -0500, T Pagano <not....@address.net>
wrote:

<clip>

>_________________________________________________________
>D. Evidence that is equally consistent with GeoCentricism and
>Heliocentricism due to identical relative motions in both
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since evidence which is *truly* consistent with two (or more)
competing theories does not reveal anything of determinative value
(which is why we should concentrate on theories that are not
consistent with one or the other) I skipped over this section. I
shouldn't have.

>1. Stellar parallax
>2. Stellar aberration
>3. Annual stellar doppler shift
>4. Annistropic dipole of the CMBR

That should be A-N-I-S-T-R-O-P-I-C

>5. doppler shifts in general
>6. corriolis effect

ON WHAT PLANET!!!!! Certainly not this one.

(and it's spelled c-o-r-i-o-l-i-s)

I know that draining water does not show this effect (an extremely
subtle one) as easy as is often suggested but under proper conditions
water still does drain differently in the two hemispheres due to the
earth's rotation. Or do you have another explanation for this effect
that is consistent with a stationary earth?

>7. focault's penduluum

Again, ON WHAT PLANET!!!!! Certainly not this one.

>8. Newton's water bucket experiment
>9. Lense-Thiring Effect

Shouldn't that be the Lense T-H-I-R-R-I-N-G effect.

And again, this is yet another indicator that the earth is indeed
rotating.

>10. Geostationary Orbits

I missed this giant turd on first read. Really?!?!?! Exactly how do
you figure that geostationary satellites, which are only orbiting in
the heliocentric model, are in any way consistent with Geocentrism?

I'll give you a hint regarding the overwhelming problem related to
this....G-R-A-V-I-T-Y - In a geocentric model such a stationary
object would immediately succumb to earth's gravity and come hurtling
towards earth at ever-increasing speed. Or do you also reject
Newtonian physics?

Is this your pathetic attempt to deal with the reality of
geostationary satellites, just to add it to a list with a convenient
but non-applicable heading?

>11. Eotvos Effect

Again, WRONG!!! This one actually looks a lot like the problem that
you continue to dodge regarding the advantages of eastward rocket
launches.

You may actually want to take a peek at the equation related to the
Eotvos effect. The equation actually factors in the earth's rotation.

>12. Sun's Analemma
>13. Earth's Axial Precession

Which raises the question if the earth is not rotating, which would
give it stability, what exactly is keeping it from wobbling in all
different directions? It certainly is acting as though it spins!

Someone needs to go back and hit the books.
>

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 21:07:59 -0800, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by "A.Carlson"
<amc...@hotmail.com>:

IMHO draining water is a bad example, since the effect is so
small that local variations in water movement easily
override it. A much better example is weather systems.

>>7. focault's penduluum
>
>Again, ON WHAT PLANET!!!!! Certainly not this one.
>
>>8. Newton's water bucket experiment
>>9. Lense-Thiring Effect
>
>Shouldn't that be the Lense T-H-I-R-R-I-N-G effect.
>
>And again, this is yet another indicator that the earth is indeed
>rotating.
>
>>10. Geostationary Orbits
>
>I missed this giant turd on first read. Really?!?!?! Exactly how do
>you figure that geostationary satellites, which are only orbiting in
>the heliocentric model, are in any way consistent with Geocentrism?

I think you're conflating geocentrism with a non-rotating
Earth; the two are usually claimed together by the loons but
are not otherwise related. A non-rotating Earth would be
possible in either system (or at least, an Earth tide-locked
to the sun). The mechanics of geostationary satellites is a
compelling argument in favor of a rotating Earth, although
Tonyt will be quick to point out that this isn't "proof"
that the Earth rotates. Tony is fixated on "proof", which
he's well aware isn't a concept of science; I suspect it
comes from reading the labels on his favorite beverages.

Neither of these points in any way supports Tony's idiocies;
I'm just being a pedant... ;-)

>I'll give you a hint regarding the overwhelming problem related to
>this....G-R-A-V-I-T-Y - In a geocentric model such a stationary
>object would immediately succumb to earth's gravity and come hurtling
>towards earth at ever-increasing speed. Or do you also reject
>Newtonian physics?
>
>Is this your pathetic attempt to deal with the reality of
>geostationary satellites, just to add it to a list with a convenient
>but non-applicable heading?
>
>>11. Eotvos Effect
>
>Again, WRONG!!! This one actually looks a lot like the problem that
>you continue to dodge regarding the advantages of eastward rocket
>launches.
>
>You may actually want to take a peek at the equation related to the
>Eotvos effect. The equation actually factors in the earth's rotation.
>
>>12. Sun's Analemma
>>13. Earth's Axial Precession
>
>Which raises the question if the earth is not rotating, which would
>give it stability, what exactly is keeping it from wobbling in all
>different directions? It certainly is acting as though it spins!
>
>Someone needs to go back and hit the books.
>>

[TomS]

"On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 09:15:04 -0700, in article
<rvi2j71uin1h51bn7...@4ax.com>, Bob Casanova stated..."

>
>On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 21:07:59 -0800, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by "A.Carlson"
><amc...@hotmail.com>:

[...snip...]

>>I missed this giant turd on first read. Really?!?!?! Exactly how do
>>you figure that geostationary satellites, which are only orbiting in
>>the heliocentric model, are in any way consistent with Geocentrism?
>
>I think you're conflating geocentrism with a non-rotating
>Earth; the two are usually claimed together by the loons but
>are not otherwise related. A non-rotating Earth would be
>possible in either system (or at least, an Earth tide-locked
>to the sun). The mechanics of geostationary satellites is a
>compelling argument in favor of a rotating Earth, although
>Tonyt will be quick to point out that this isn't "proof"
>that the Earth rotates. Tony is fixated on "proof", which
>he's well aware isn't a concept of science; I suspect it
>comes from reading the labels on his favorite beverages.
>
>Neither of these points in any way supports Tony's idiocies;
>I'm just being a pedant... ;-)

[...snip...]

I'm not sure that it is possible to have *proof*, in the mathematical/
logical sense, of the motion of the Earth.

After all, can't one make a mathematical transformation of the
coordinates into a system with the Earth at the center and fixed? You
will need several additional ad-hoc forces, and the transformation
may have to be discontinuous, but so be it.

But, then, that's also true of a flat Earth, or of a concave hollow
Earth.

[jillery]

On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 09:15:04 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

Considering the loon in question does in fact do exactly that, a
reasonable reply to him can rightfully consider the two phenomena
together.

>A non-rotating Earth would be
>possible in either system (or at least, an Earth tide-locked
>to the sun). The mechanics of geostationary satellites is a
>compelling argument in favor of a rotating Earth, although
>Tonyt will be quick to point out that this isn't "proof"
>that the Earth rotates.

Apparently this is where you and I differ as to the merits of Tony's
arguments. An affirmative counter-argument would 1. identify what
would qualify as proof, and 2. give a plausible alternate explanation
for the described phenomenon. To the best of my knowledge, Tony
hasn't done either in this case. IIRC all he offers in rebuttal is
"it isn't proof" as you say, and "it's consistent with geocentrism",
when in fact it's not.

>Tony is fixated on "proof", which
>he's well aware isn't a concept of science; I suspect it
>comes from reading the labels on his favorite beverages.
>
>Neither of these points in any way supports Tony's idiocies;
>I'm just being a pedant... ;-)

And I'm just as willing to follow your lead.

[Craig Franck]

On 2/4/2012 7:51 PM, T Pagano wrote:

> On the HelioCentric/GeoCentric front:
> When is Dr Carlip coming back? Dr Dworetsky is still licking his
> wounds and limping around. And Harshman was forced to put his tail
> between his legs when he failed to realize that a rotating shell
> resulted in the same forces at the center as a rotating center in a
> fixed shell. Things don't look too good for your side.

Have you ever considered working with a programmer and coming
up with software for a specific geocentric model? If any geocentric
system would eventually settle into a much more stable heliocentric
system, that would be a major reason for rejecting the former.

The fact that two systems are equivalent is irrelevant if they will
not remain so for very long.

Craig

[Mike Dworetsky]

Craig Franck wrote:
> On 2/4/2012 7:51 PM, T Pagano wrote:
>
>> On the HelioCentric/GeoCentric front:
>> When is Dr Carlip coming back? Dr Dworetsky is still licking his
>> wounds and limping around. And Harshman was forced to put his tail
>> between his legs when he failed to realize that a rotating shell
>> resulted in the same forces at the center as a rotating center in a
>> fixed shell. Things don't look too good for your side.
>

[For some reason Pagano's original post did nto propagate to my server.]

Pagano, having rammed your head so far up your backside is probably the
reason you keep going in circles. A sort of perpetual Ourosboros moment for
Pagano.

Tell us how synchronous satellites stay in orbit above one point on the
nonrotating geocentric Earth. And while you are at it, have you sent your
green-ink letter to the director of NASA yet, demanding details of rocket
fuel manifests and payloads for east vs west launches? What was his reply?

If you haven't done this, why not?

> Have you ever considered working with a programmer and coming
> up with software for a specific geocentric model? If any geocentric
> system would eventually settle into a much more stable heliocentric
> system, that would be a major reason for rejecting the former.
>
> The fact that two systems are equivalent is irrelevant if they will
> not remain so for very long.
>
> Craig

--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)

[Inez]

A fart in a Jacuzzi.

Hey, when is my charm school diploma going to come?

[A.Carlson]

On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 09:15:04 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

>On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 21:07:59 -0800, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by "A.Carlson"
><amc...@hotmail.com>:
>
>>On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 10:28:11 -0500, T Pagano <not....@address.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>><clip>
>>
>>>_________________________________________________________
>>>D. Evidence that is equally consistent with GeoCentricism and
>>>Heliocentricism due to identical relative motions in both

Note: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

<Clip>

>>>10. Geostationary Orbits
>>
>>I missed this giant turd on first read. Really?!?!?! Exactly how do
>>you figure that geostationary satellites, which are only orbiting in
>>the heliocentric model, are in any way consistent with Geocentrism?
>
>I think you're conflating geocentrism with a non-rotating
>Earth; the two are usually claimed together by the loons but
>are not otherwise related. A non-rotating Earth would be
>possible in either system (or at least, an Earth tide-locked
>to the sun). The mechanics of geostationary satellites is a
>compelling argument in favor of a rotating Earth, although
>Tonyt will be quick to point out that this isn't "proof"
>that the Earth rotates. Tony is fixated on "proof", which
>he's well aware isn't a concept of science; I suspect it
>comes from reading the labels on his favorite beverages.
>
>Neither of these points in any way supports Tony's idiocies;
>I'm just being a pedant... ;-)

Last night, after I wrote this, I was just coming to the realization
that Tony may indeed appear to accept a rotating earth, at least
selectively when it suits him, as part of some sort of hybrid
geocentric model - Hardly a unique viewpoint, I am coming to find, but
still nonsensical for a number of reasons.

All the more reason to stress the location of Lagrangian points with
respect to comparative gravities between earth and sun and the
resulting significance.

One of his recent posts had the following heading:

"Neirther Friar Broccoli Nor Anyone Else has Proved that the
Earth Translates or Rotates"

It also appears that Tony is not actively arguing the point as much
as just listing various arguments/positions - The infamous Creationist
kitchen sink strategy. Perhaps he has commitment issues or, deep
down, he is actually aware of the vacuous nature of his own position
and just won't honestly engage because he knows he would otherwise go
down in defeat.

I'm really just wondering if he'll ever bite on anything.

[Friar Broccoli]

On 2012-02-05 16:06, T Pagano wrote:

Since Tony has already run away from my reply here:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/013a59346ce45da2

this is a just a test to see if I can prevent subject line wrapping, and
a check on the toggles other effects.




Disabling paragraph flow

To disable paragraph flow when you send plain text messages, and in the
plain text part of multipart messages, set the preference:

mailnews.send_plaintext_flowed false

Note: Disabling paragraph flow can make your messages difficult for
other people to read. They might see line breaks in strange places. If
you have quoted another message, the quote might not be displayed in the
normal way.

[Bob Casanova]

On 7 Feb 2012 08:59:55 -0800, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com>:

>"On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 09:15:04 -0700, in article
><rvi2j71uin1h51bn7...@4ax.com>, Bob Casanova stated..."
>>
>>On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 21:07:59 -0800, the following appeared
>>in talk.origins, posted by "A.Carlson"
>><amc...@hotmail.com>:
>[...snip...]
>>>I missed this giant turd on first read. Really?!?!?! Exactly how do
>>>you figure that geostationary satellites, which are only orbiting in
>>>the heliocentric model, are in any way consistent with Geocentrism?
>>
>>I think you're conflating geocentrism with a non-rotating
>>Earth; the two are usually claimed together by the loons but
>>are not otherwise related. A non-rotating Earth would be
>>possible in either system (or at least, an Earth tide-locked
>>to the sun). The mechanics of geostationary satellites is a
>>compelling argument in favor of a rotating Earth, although
>>Tonyt will be quick to point out that this isn't "proof"
>>that the Earth rotates. Tony is fixated on "proof", which
>>he's well aware isn't a concept of science; I suspect it
>>comes from reading the labels on his favorite beverages.
>>
>>Neither of these points in any way supports Tony's idiocies;
>>I'm just being a pedant... ;-)
>[...snip...]

>I'm not sure that it is possible to have *proof*, in the mathematical/
>logical sense, of the motion of the Earth.

Sure; that's my point. Tony's clever; he always uses "no
proof" as justification for his claims, while knowing full
well that those who read and dispute those claims will
interpret "proof" in the scientific sense of "preponderance
of evidence", which allows Tony to carp endlessly. Tony
undoubtedly knows this is at best disingenuous, but it seems
to delight him. And he ignores those points which are strong
arguments against his assertions, such as geostationary
satellites.

>After all, can't one make a mathematical transformation of the
>coordinates into a system with the Earth at the center and fixed? You
>will need several additional ad-hoc forces, and the transformation
>may have to be discontinuous, but so be it.
>
>But, then, that's also true of a flat Earth, or of a concave hollow
>Earth.

A concave hollow Earth has the problem of felt gravity.
Among others.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 14:43:27 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

OK; Iwas only pointing out that they're essentially
unrelated.

>>A non-rotating Earth would be
>>possible in either system (or at least, an Earth tide-locked
>>to the sun). The mechanics of geostationary satellites is a
>>compelling argument in favor of a rotating Earth, although
>>Tonyt will be quick to point out that this isn't "proof"
>>that the Earth rotates.
>
>
>Apparently this is where you and I differ as to the merits of Tony's
>arguments. An affirmative counter-argument would 1. identify what
>would qualify as proof, and 2. give a plausible alternate explanation
>for the described phenomenon. To the best of my knowledge, Tony
>hasn't done either in this case. IIRC all he offers in rebuttal is
>"it isn't proof" as you say, and "it's consistent with geocentrism",
>when in fact it's not.

Just to clarify, I don't think Tony's arguments have any
merit. What they *do* have is a semi-concealed goalpost
shift in how science works, from "preponderance of evidence"
to "proof". Since most people who respond to Tony's idiocies
interpret the latter as the former the arguments become
self-sustaining and Tony "wins" again; Tony seems extremely
fond of hollow "victories".

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 17:56:45 -0800, the following appeared

Based on the evidence that seems likely; he refuses to
engage when the arguments against his assertions are strong
ones.

>I'm really just wondering if he'll ever bite on anything.

I'll leave consideration of his personal habits to
others...;-)

[jillery]

On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 10:38:18 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

I understand what you're saying. Despite the risk of beating a
non-existent dead horse, he doesn't deserve even that much credit. He
starts with "geocentrism is true". That's easy enough to prove false.
Then he shifts to "prove heliocentrism". Does proving geocentrism
false prove heliocentrism true? Of course not. Does anybody but Tony
imply that it did? No. If repetitive facile deceit counts as clever
I'll give him that.