Summary on Earth rotation and geostationarity, observationaly.

[J. J. Lodder]

Since this topic recurs regularly I summarise the relevant points.

1) Absolute rotation has no -observational- meaning.

2) The relative rotation of the earth w.r.t. the rest of the universe
(or of the rest of the universe w.r.t. to the earth)
can nowadys be measured with great precision)
(see <www.iers.org> for more than you want to know)
By GPS for the short term, by VLBI for long term stability.
(and with other supplementary methods such as satellite laser ranging)

3) The rotation rate of earth (or universe) is quite variable,
when measured with modern accuracy. (of about a cm on the surface)
See for example
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Deviation_of_day_length_from_SI_day_.svg>
for the long term development in the length of the day.
Immediately obvious in the graph are the seasonal variation,
(caused by changes in atmospheric circulation)
and the secular slowdown.
(caused by tidal friction, with a corresponding moving away of the moon)

4) Note that the 'fuzz' in the graph isn't noise.
Most of it has known causes, and can be predicted in great detail.
Again, see www.iers.org for more than you want to know.

5) If one insists on geostationarity, the universe must be rotating,
and the possibility of a causal explananation
of the observed variability in the rotation rate is lost.

6) And worse, most of the universe is more than one light year out.
So all those stars, galaxies, and all the rest out there
must anticipate, at a delay proportional to their distance,
in order for them all to simultaneously match the observed variations
in rotation rate, as seen from earth.
A quasar, billions light years out,
must adapt it's rate of rotation to match the seasons
on a particular planet that wasn't even formed when it shone.

6bis) And worse than that, not only the rate is variable.
The pole position also varies in largely predictable ways.
The whole universe has to dance around in a synchronised way
(with proper retardation) to match the wanderings of the earth's pole.

7) So it is obvious that the only possible way
to save the phenomena in geocentrism/geostationarity
is by adopting omphalism to an extreme degree.
God, or the designer, must orchestrate all the motions out there
in just such a way (and with proper time delay)
that they appear (falsely of course) to give the impression
of a rotating earth (at a variable rate and pole direction)

8) It should be obvious to any sane person that such a view
(while logically unassailable) is completely crazy.

9) Moreover, like all other forms of omphalism
this is unfalsifiable by definition,
and therefore by definition unscientific.

The absurdities inherent in geostationarity, outlined above,
make it a belief system that's even crazier than flat-earthism.
Even 'Answers in Genesis' rejects it vehemently,
as adopting it would make believers
appear to be extremely stupid to all normal people.

There are limits to how crazy you can be
if you want to be taken seriously,

Jan

[Karel]

On 5 okt, 09:19, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> Since this topic recurs regularly I summarise the relevant points.
>
> 1) Absolute rotation has no -observational- meaning.
>
> 2) The relative rotation of the earth w.r.t. the rest of the universe
> (or of the rest of the universe w.r.t. to the earth)
> can nowadys be measured with great precision)
> (see <www.iers.org> for more than you want to know)
> By GPS for the short term, by VLBI for long term stability.
> (and with other supplementary methods such as satellite laser ranging)
>
> 3) The rotation rate of earth (or universe) is quite variable,
> when measured with modern accuracy. (of about a cm on the surface)
> See for example

> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Deviation_of_day_length_from_SI_day...>

> for the long term development in the length of the day.
> Immediately obvious in the graph are the seasonal variation,
> (caused by changes in atmospheric circulation)
> and the secular slowdown.
> (caused by tidal friction, with a corresponding moving away of the moon)
>
> 4) Note that the 'fuzz' in the graph isn't noise.
> Most of it has known causes, and can be predicted in great detail.

> Again, seewww.iers.orgfor more than you want to know.

Thank you, that is a very nice summary. And it is
a top post. Tony would like that.

Regards,

Karel

[Mike Dworetsky]

Very detailed and concise summary of the craziness of extreme
geocentrism/geostationarity as advocated by Pagano. I wonder if he has
written to the director of NASA yet for details of the fuel consumption of
rockets launched eastwards vs westwards?

--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)

[Karel]

On 5 okt, 10:31, Karel <GCPAXSZJI...@spammotel.com> wrote:
> On 5 okt, 09:19, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Since this topic recurs regularly I summarise the relevant points.
>
> > 1) Absolute rotation has no -observational- meaning.
>
> > 2) The relative rotation of the earth w.r.t. the rest of the universe
> > (or of the rest of the universe w.r.t. to the earth)
> > can nowadys be measured with great precision)
> > (see <www.iers.org> for more than you want to know)
> > By GPS for the short term, by VLBI for long term stability.
> > (and with other supplementary methods such as satellite laser ranging)
>
> > 3) The rotation rate of earth (or universe) is quite variable,
> > when measured with modern accuracy. (of about a cm on the surface)
> > See for example
> > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Deviation_of_day_length_from_SI_day...>
> > for the long term development in the length of the day.
> > Immediately obvious in the graph are the seasonal variation,
> > (caused by changes in atmospheric circulation)
> > and the secular slowdown.
> > (caused by tidal friction, with a corresponding moving away of the moon)
>
> > 4) Note that the 'fuzz' in the graph isn't noise.
> > Most of it has known causes, and can be predicted in great detail.

> > Again, seewww.iers.orgformore than you want to know.

(I meant thread starter)

[J. J. Lodder]

NASA director will point to several NASA FAQs on the subject
<http://spaceplace.nasa.gov/launch-windows/> for example,
(just grabbing the first one that comes up)

Jan

[Ernest Major]

In message <1k8m3qo.1as...@de-ster.xs4all.nl>, J. J. Lodder
<nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> writes

A succinct summary of the problems with geocentric models.

(But it would be nice to see a Fourier transform of the data set.)
--
alias Ernest Major

[Karel]

On 5 okt, 13:16, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <1k8m3qo.1as305yiifp...@de-ster.xs4all.nl>, J. J. Lodder

> <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> writes
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >Since this topic recurs regularly I summarise the relevant points.
>
> >1) Absolute rotation has no -observational- meaning.
>
> >2) The relative rotation of the earth w.r.t. the rest of the universe
> >(or of the rest of the universe w.r.t. to the earth)
> >can nowadys be measured with great precision)
> >(see <www.iers.org> for more than you want to know)
> >By GPS for the short term, by VLBI for long term stability.
> >(and with other supplementary methods such as satellite laser ranging)
>
> >3) The rotation rate of earth (or universe) is quite variable,
> >when measured with modern accuracy. (of about a cm on the surface)
> >See for example

> ><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Deviation_of_day_length_from_SI_day...>

> >for the long term development in the length of the day.
> >Immediately obvious in the graph are the seasonal variation,
> >(caused by changes in atmospheric circulation)
> >and the secular slowdown.
> >(caused by tidal friction, with a corresponding moving away of the moon)
>
> >4) Note that the 'fuzz' in the graph isn't noise.
> >Most of it has known causes, and can be predicted in great detail.

> >Again, seewww.iers.orgfor more than you want to know.

Seconded

[Mike Dworetsky]

Pagano maintains that it is all a gigantic heliocentrist conspiracy, and the
fact that every website, textbook and popular account of astronautics and
physics says the same thing is just confirmation of that. Until he sees the
payload manifests and fuel tank records from NASA he refuses to accept it.

Still waiting for a coherent account from Pagano explaining how
geostationary satellites stay above the same place on Earth if it doesn't
rotate.

[Mike Dworetsky]

Thirded, but I don't require a FT for this.

[TomS]

"On Wed, 5 Oct 2011 13:20:59 +0100, in article
<1MKdnQ9VK8Yx1hHT...@bt.com>, Mike Dworetsky stated..."

I'm still waiting for a response from the creationist heliocentrists
explaining how they accept the naturalistic evidence for
heliocentrism over the literal interpretation of the Bible.


--
---Tom S.
"... the heavy people know some magic that can make things move and even fly,
but they're not very bright, because they can't survive without their magic
contrivances"
Xixo, in "The Gods Must Be Crazy II"

[TomS]

"On Wed, 5 Oct 2011 13:20:59 +0100, in article
<1MKdnQ9VK8Yx1hHT...@bt.com>, Mike Dworetsky stated..."
>

[TomS]

"On Wed, 5 Oct 2011 13:20:59 +0100, in article
<1MKdnQ9VK8Yx1hHT...@bt.com>, Mike Dworetsky stated..."
>

[Rolf]

Funny, St. Augustine said the same thing, they had some laughing stock in
his time too:

"It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky,
about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even
the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun
and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of
animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with
the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not
a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be
avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so
idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings,
that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how
totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind
constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was
able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of
obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the
prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation."


> Jan

[Mark Buchanan]

On Oct 5, 3:19 am, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> Since this topic recurs regularly I summarise the relevant points.
>
> 1) Absolute rotation has no -observational- meaning.
>
> 2) The relative rotation of the earth w.r.t. the rest of the universe
> (or of the rest of the universe w.r.t. to the earth)
> can nowadys be measured with great precision)
> (see <www.iers.org> for more than you want to know)
> By GPS for the short term, by VLBI for long term stability.
> (and with other supplementary methods such as satellite laser ranging)
>
> 3) The rotation rate of earth (or universe) is quite variable,
> when measured with modern accuracy. (of about a cm on the surface)
> See for example

> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Deviation_of_day_length_from_SI_day...>

> for the long term development in the length of the day.
> Immediately obvious in the graph are the seasonal variation,
> (caused by changes in atmospheric circulation)
> and the secular slowdown.
> (caused by tidal friction, with a corresponding moving away of the moon)
>
> 4) Note that the 'fuzz' in the graph isn't noise.
> Most of it has known causes, and can be predicted in great detail.

> Again, seewww.iers.orgfor more than you want to know.

Good summary but point 1 doesn't make sense to me.

There are only two things in the material universe - matter and
energy. (And of course they have been equated by SR.) A rotating
object has energy that a non-rotating object does not. A universe with
just one object in it that rotates is quantitatively different than a
universe with an identical object that does not rotate. Geocentrism is
false because it claims that Earth does not have the rotational energy
that it clearly does.

Mark

[J. J. Lodder]

Googling on "length of day" + Fourier
(standard abreviation LOD)
throws up -lots- of research papers.
You can find signals of all kinds of things in LOD data,
on various time scales.
(core motions, seasons, winds, ocean circulation, solar wind,
tides, nutation, etc.)
It is an incredibly rich data set.

"length of day" + transform will also do.
It seems that all transforms ever invented by mathematicians
have been applied to it.

I don't think a single Fourier spectrum for all
would be very useful.
Moreover, some changes are secular,
and won't show up under Fourier,

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

Is theory, not observation.

Jan

[Bill]

On Oct 6, 1:49�am, Mark Buchanan <marklynn.bucha...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Good summary but point 1 doesn't make sense to me.
>
> There are only two things in the material universe - matter and
> energy. (And of course they have been equated by SR.) A rotating
> object has energy that a non-rotating object does not. A universe with
> just one object in it that rotates is quantitatively different than a
> universe with an identical object that does not rotate. Geocentrism is
> false because it claims that Earth does not have the rotational energy
> that it clearly does.
>
> Mark

You only every measure energy differences, not absolute energies.
Therefore, you could measure a change in the rotational state of the
one object in the universe, but you couldn't decide whether it had
gone from being stationary to rotating clockwise or from rotating
counterclockwise to stationary.

[Mark Buchanan]

On Oct 5, 11:29 pm, Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 6, 1:49 am, Mark Buchanan <marklynn.bucha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Good summary but point 1 doesn't make sense to me.
>
> > There are only two things in the material universe - matter and
> > energy. (And of course they have been equated by SR.) A rotating
> > object has energy that a non-rotating object does not. A universe with
> > just one object in it that rotates is quantitatively different than a
> > universe with an identical object that does not rotate. Geocentrism is
> > false because it claims that Earth does not have the rotational energy
> > that it clearly does.
>
> > Mark
>
> You only every measure energy differences, not absolute energies.

False. Take thermal energy as an example. The thermal energy of any
object is a function of its temperature and the heat capacity of the
object. An object at absolute zero has no thermal energy.

> Therefore, you could measure a change in the rotational state of the
> one object in the universe, but you couldn't decide whether it had
> gone from being stationary to rotating clockwise or from rotating
> counterclockwise to stationary.

Also false, a non-rotating object will have no detectable Coriolis
effect, a rotating one will. Also, by taking various measurements at
different locations you would be able to identify the axis of
rotation, and locate and label the poles - up/down (or whatever). Then
if the rotation changed you would be able to take another set of
measurements and find out what happened - speed up slow down, change
direction, and change of axis. Knowing the mass, mass distribution,
size and shape of the object you would be able to calculate the total
kinetic rotational energy.

Mark

[Bill]

On Oct 6, 10:07 pm, Mark Buchanan <marklynn.bucha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 5, 11:29 pm, Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 6, 1:49 am, Mark Buchanan <marklynn.bucha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Good summary but point 1 doesn't make sense to me.
>
> > > There are only two things in the material universe - matter and
> > > energy. (And of course they have been equated by SR.) A rotating
> > > object has energy that a non-rotating object does not. A universe with
> > > just one object in it that rotates is quantitatively different than a
> > > universe with an identical object that does not rotate. Geocentrism is
> > > false because it claims that Earth does not have the rotational energy
> > > that it clearly does.
>
> > > Mark
>
> > You only every measure energy differences, not absolute energies.
>
> False. Take thermal energy as an example. The thermal energy of any
> object is a function of its temperature and the heat capacity of the
> object. An object at absolute zero has no thermal energy.

I believe that that is a convention, not a measurement, in the same
way that it is a convention to take the gravitational potential energy
of an object infinitely distant from the earth to be zero.

>
> > Therefore, you could measure a change in the rotational state of the
> > one object in the universe, but you couldn't decide whether it had
> > gone from being stationary to rotating clockwise or from rotating
> > counterclockwise to stationary.
>
> Also false, a non-rotating object will have no detectable Coriolis
> effect, a rotating one will. Also, by taking various measurements at
> different locations you would be able to identify the axis of
> rotation, and locate and label the poles - up/down (or whatever). Then
> if the rotation changed you would be able to take another set of
> measurements and find out what happened - speed up slow down, change
> direction, and change of axis. Knowing the mass, mass distribution,
> size and shape of the object you would be able to calculate the total
> kinetic rotational energy.

Yes, I believe I understand this. However, the question is about a
rather unique universe in which nothing material exists except a
single object, whose rotation is in question. We know, in our
universe, that a force is a fictitious Coriolis force because we KNOW,
independently of the Coriolis force itself, that the earth is rotating
(i.e. relative to the distant stars). In the absence of any matter
with respect to which our single hypothetical body is rotating, how do
we determine whether the Coriolois force is fictitious rather than
being a real force in our unusual universe.

>
> Mark

[Mark Buchanan]

On Oct 6, 8:09 pm, Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 6, 10:07 pm, Mark Buchanan <marklynn.bucha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 5, 11:29 pm, Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 6, 1:49 am, Mark Buchanan <marklynn.bucha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Good summary but point 1 doesn't make sense to me.
>
> > > > There are only two things in the material universe - matter and
> > > > energy. (And of course they have been equated by SR.) A rotating
> > > > object has energy that a non-rotating object does not. A universe with
> > > > just one object in it that rotates is quantitatively different than a
> > > > universe with an identical object that does not rotate. Geocentrism is
> > > > false because it claims that Earth does not have the rotational energy
> > > > that it clearly does.
>
> > > > Mark
>
> > > You only every measure energy differences, not absolute energies.
>
> > False. Take thermal energy as an example. The thermal energy of any
> > object is a function of its temperature and the heat capacity of the
> > object. An object at absolute zero has no thermal energy.
>
> I believe that that is a convention, not a measurement, in the same
> way that it is a convention to take the gravitational potential energy
> of an object infinitely distant from the earth to be zero.
>

Wrong again, stick your hand in a fire and see if the pain is just a
convention. Energy is a really real thing and measurement is the only
way we can quantify it.

>
>
> > > Therefore, you could measure a change in the rotational state of the
> > > one object in the universe, but you couldn't decide whether it had
> > > gone from being stationary to rotating clockwise or from rotating
> > > counterclockwise to stationary.
>
> > Also false, a non-rotating object will have no detectable Coriolis
> > effect, a rotating one will. Also, by taking various measurements at
> > different locations you would be able to identify the axis of
> > rotation, and locate and label the poles - up/down (or whatever). Then
> > if the rotation changed you would be able to take another set of
> > measurements and find out what happened - speed up slow down, change
> > direction, and change of axis. Knowing the mass, mass distribution,
> > size and shape of the object you would be able to calculate the total
> > kinetic rotational energy.
>
> Yes, I believe I understand this. However, the question is about a
> rather unique universe in which nothing material exists except a
> single object, whose rotation is in question. We know, in our
> universe, that a force is a fictitious Coriolis force because we KNOW,
> independently of the Coriolis force itself, that the earth is rotating
> (i.e. relative to the distant stars). In the absence of any matter
> with respect to which our single hypothetical body is rotating, how do
> we determine whether the Coriolois force is fictitious rather than
> being a real force in our unusual universe.
>
>

Huh? Fictitious forces don't exist (I can't believe I said that). Are
you getting physics lessons from a geocentrist?

Mark

[Bill]

On Oct 7, 8:26 am, Mark Buchanan <marklynn.bucha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 6, 8:09 pm, Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 6, 10:07 pm, Mark Buchanan <marklynn.bucha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 5, 11:29 pm, Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Oct 6, 1:49 am, Mark Buchanan <marklynn.bucha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Good summary but point 1 doesn't make sense to me.
>
> > > > > There are only two things in the material universe - matter and
> > > > > energy. (And of course they have been equated by SR.) A rotating
> > > > > object has energy that a non-rotating object does not. A universe with
> > > > > just one object in it that rotates is quantitatively different than a
> > > > > universe with an identical object that does not rotate. Geocentrism is
> > > > > false because it claims that Earth does not have the rotational energy
> > > > > that it clearly does.
>
> > > > > Mark
>
> > > > You only every measure energy differences, not absolute energies.
>
> > > False. Take thermal energy as an example. The thermal energy of any
> > > object is a function of its temperature and the heat capacity of the
> > > object. An object at absolute zero has no thermal energy.
>
> > I believe that that is a convention, not a measurement, in the same
> > way that it is a convention to take the gravitational potential energy
> > of an object infinitely distant from the earth to be zero.
>
> Wrong again, stick your hand in a fire and see if the pain is just a
> convention. Energy is a really real thing and measurement is the only
> way we can quantify it.

Sure, there is a change in the thermal energy, and it hurts, duh. You
can measure changes. As I said above, you measure differences; what
you call zero is a convention.

>
> > Yes, I believe I understand this. However, the question is about a
> > rather unique universe in which nothing material exists except a
> > single object, whose rotation is in question. We know, in our
> > universe, that a force is a fictitious Coriolis force because we KNOW,
> > independently of the Coriolis force itself, that the earth is rotating
> > (i.e. relative to the distant stars). In the absence of any matter
> > with respect to which our single hypothetical body is rotating, how do
> > we determine whether the Coriolois force is fictitious rather than
> > being a real force in our unusual universe.
.
>
> Huh? Fictitious forces don't exist (I can't believe I said that). Are
> you getting physics lessons from a geocentrist?

The question of whether one could detect absolute rotation of a single
object in a universe containing no other matter than that object is
not easy. Newton said you could. Einstein, when discussing special
relativity agreed with Newton. Mach, and Einstein, when he got to
general relativity, disagreed with Newton. So what do you think? If
the only object in the universe were a spinning pail of water, would
the surface of the water be flat or concave.

>
> Mark

[Rolf]

A pail of water = one object?

>> Mark

[J. J. Lodder]

A universe with one object in it,
and an apparatus to measure its energy
is not a universe with one object in it.

What's 'an object' anyway,
a single electron?

Jan

[Bill]

Excellent, you've noticed that there are problems in delimiting an
object. Now how does that bear on the question of the rotating pail? I
don't think it really does, but I'm open to elaboration.

[Ernest Major]

In message
<eaeec2e0-f404-4caa...@h10g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Mark Buchanan <marklynn...@gmail.com> writes

J.J. Lodder is taking a narrow definition of observation. It's not one
that I would adopt - but I don't think it's worth agonising over at this
point.
>
>Mark
>

--
alias Ernest Major

[J. J. Lodder]

Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:

I don't. But I do think it's a good idea
to keep track of how theory-laden an observation is.

In particular, observing relative rotation
is rather straightforward.
Absolute rotation cannot be observed directly,
it has to be inferred.
(and that inference may depend on theories used)
The status of Mach's principle is not settled.

In discussion with nutters it is best avoided completely,
(imho)

Jan

[Perseus]

On Oct 5, 1:20 pm, "Mike Dworetsky" <platinum...@pants.btinternet.com>

wrote:
> J. J. Lodder wrote:

> > Mike Dworetsky <platinum...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> >> J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >>> Since this topic recurs regularly I summarise the relevant points.
>
> >>> 1) Absolute rotation has no -observational- meaning.
>
> >>> 2) The relative rotation of the earth w.r.t. the rest of the
> >>> universe (or of the rest of the universe w.r.t. to the earth)
> >>> can nowadys be measured with great precision)
> >>> (see <www.iers.org> for more than you want to know)
> >>> By GPS for the short term, by VLBI for long term stability.
> >>> (and with other supplementary methods such as satellite laser
> >>> ranging)
>
> >>> 3) The rotation rate of earth (or universe) is quite variable,
> >>> when measured with modern accuracy. (of about a cm on the surface)
> >>> See for example

> >>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Deviation_of_day_length_from_SI_day...>

> >>> for the long term development in the length of the day.
> >>> Immediately obvious in the graph are the seasonal variation,
> >>> (caused by changes in atmospheric circulation)
> >>> and the secular slowdown.
> >>> (caused by tidal friction, with a corresponding moving away of the
> >>> moon)
>
> >>> 4) Note that the 'fuzz' in the graph isn't noise.
> >>> Most of it has known causes, and can be predicted in great detail.

> >>> Again, seewww.iers.orgfor more than you want to know.

It's very easy.
The geostationary satellites are also a part of the conspiracy.
Anything that do not concurs with biblical accounts is a conspiracy of
atheists.

Perseus

[Mark Buchanan]

Absolute zero exists - 0 Kelvin = -273.16 Celsius = 0 Rankine =
-459.67 Fahrenheit. This is not a convention but a reality. Read all
about it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelvin

>
>
>
>
> > > Yes, I believe I understand this. However, the question is about a
> > > rather unique universe in which nothing material exists except a
> > > single object, whose rotation is in question. We know, in our
> > > universe, that a force is a fictitious Coriolis force because we KNOW,
> > > independently of the Coriolis force itself, that the earth is rotating
> > > (i.e. relative to the distant stars). In the absence of any matter
> > > with respect to which our single hypothetical body is rotating, how do
> > > we determine whether the Coriolois force is fictitious rather than
> > > being a real force in our unusual universe.
> .
>
> > Huh? Fictitious forces don't exist (I can't believe I said that). Are
> > you getting physics lessons from a geocentrist?
>
> The question of whether one could detect absolute rotation of a single
> object in a universe containing no other matter than that object is
> not easy. Newton said you could. Einstein, when discussing special
> relativity agreed with Newton. Mach, and Einstein, when he got to
> general relativity, disagreed with Newton. So what do you think?

'I think' Mach & Einstein didn't change the physical world in any way
and didn't overthrow Newtonian physics. They just added to it a bit.

> If
> the only object in the universe were a spinning pail of water, would
> the surface of the water be flat or concave.
>

For clarity lets give the solitary object more detail. Make it:

- earth sized

- 99.9 % of its mass is a perfectly spherical solid rock. Its mass
distribution is homogeneous spherically and there is no tectonic
activity.

- the entire sphere is covered in liquid water making up the remaining
0.1 % mass.

- there is a boat with instruments, observers, and locomotion - mass
of boat and is insignificant.

The observers travel all over the object and drop a grid of
transponders that sink to the bottom. These transponders enable them
to navigate and measure water depth accurately.


Your question now translates to: Would the water depth be the same at
all locations on the object? Yes for non-rotating object and no for
rotating object. Any choice of your frame of reference would not
change the measurements.

Mark

[Bruce Stephens]

Perseus <leopoldo...@gmail.com> writes:

[...]

> It's very easy.
> The geostationary satellites are also a part of the conspiracy.
> Anything that do not concurs with biblical accounts is a conspiracy of
> atheists.

Nobody launched a geostationary satellite before 1859. Coincidence?

[T Pagano]

On Wed, 5 Oct 2011 09:19:33 +0200, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder) wrote:

>Since this topic recurs regularly I summarise the relevant points.

This was the same dim wit who claimed that a gyroscope aligned itself
with the north-south meridian BECAUSE the Earth rotated.

>
>1) Absolute rotation has no -observational- meaning.

This is nonsense. In 1904 Albert Michelson predicted that observers
on earth, if they are co-moving and co-rotating with a light source
and screen, will observe an interference pattern that is dependent on
the ABSOLUTE ROTATION OF THE SYSTEM. This is precisely what Georges
Sagnac demonstrated experimentally in 1913 with his rotating
interferometer.

His rotating interferometer proved that the speed of light was NOT a
constant; that it was not the same for all observers. This rendered
Special Relativity invalid (at least for rotating systems) And in
light of the experiment's clear demonstration of ABSOLUTE motion,
physicists of the Copernican yet non-Relativity variety have commonly
interpreted Sagnac's results as being evidence for the absolute
rotation of the earth. However, if other evidence shows that the
Earth is NOT moving diurnally (which is strongly indicated by the
stellar aberation experiments of Airy) then Sagnac's results would be
positive proof for the absolute rotation of the Universe around a
motionless Earth.

Sagnac's results are so solid and irrefutable that current physics
finds itself in the unenviable position of having to use Sagnac's
discovery to make thir Relativistic formulas work. The popular GPS
system cannot function properly without adjustments based upon
Sagnac's experimental results. Not surprisingly whenever the need
arises for inertial navigation (i.e. an absolute frame from which to
measure all other coordinates) the Sagnac effect is always included.

The Sagnac Effect is a universal principle for all electromagnetic
counter-propagating beams. All the various beams and waves show the
same time differences, both for matter and light, independent of the
physical nature of the interference. These various testing elements
show that the Sagnac effect is not dependent on the nature of light,
per se, but solely on the principle of absolute rotation. Ring lasar
experiments have confirmed the Sagnac Effect to within one part in
10^20.

>
>2) The relative rotation of the earth w.r.t. the rest of the universe
>(or of the rest of the universe w.r.t. to the earth)
>can nowadys be measured with great precision)
>(see <www.iers.org> for more than you want to know)
>By GPS for the short term, by VLBI for long term stability.
>(and with other supplementary methods such as satellite laser ranging)

This neither rules out absolute rotation of a system nor the
neoTychonian model. Furthermore in Big Bang geometry there is no
center. It makes no sense to talk about the universe rotating about
anything.

>
>3) The rotation rate of earth (or universe) is quite variable,
>when measured with modern accuracy. (of about a cm on the surface)
>See for example

><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Deviation_of_day_length_from_SI_day_.svg>

>for the long term development in the length of the day.
>Immediately obvious in the graph are the seasonal variation,
>(caused by changes in atmospheric circulation)
>and the secular slowdown.
>(caused by tidal friction, with a corresponding moving away of the moon)

JJ Load in his Pants misrepresents the facts. The referenced link
makes no claim whatsoever that any mass distribution changes on the
face of the earth are correlated with the change in velocity.

>
>4) Note that the 'fuzz' in the graph isn't noise.
>Most of it has known causes, and can be predicted in great detail.

>Again, see www.iers.org for more than you want to know.

The referenced web page also does NOT display any data correlating
mass distribution changes on the earth or the moon's recession to
these changes.

Furthermore all of the recent posts by other atheists along these
lines correlate mass distribution changes on the earth and angular
momentum changes with computer models only. Never with any actual
observations.

>
>5) If one insists on geostationarity, the universe must be rotating,
>and the possibility of a causal explananation
>of the observed variability in the rotation rate is lost.

Dayton Miller's interferometer experiments and results were calculated
in relation to sidereal time; that is, the displacement between a star
and the earth as opposed to the sun and the earth. Sidereal time is
24 hours exactly. Recall that interferometer experiments measure
motion relative to the ether. This shows that the ether is drifting
in relation to the stars and thus gives a more definitive picture of
absolute motion.

>
>6) And worse, most of the universe is more than one light year out.
>So all those stars, galaxies, and all the rest out there
>must anticipate, at a delay proportional to their distance,
>in order for them all to simultaneously match the observed variations
>in rotation rate, as seen from earth.
>A quasar, billions light years out,
>must adapt it's rate of rotation to match the seasons
>on a particular planet that wasn't even formed when it shone.

But in sidereal time there is no velocity variability.

>
>6bis) And worse than that, not only the rate is variable.
>The pole position also varies in largely predictable ways.
>The whole universe has to dance around in a synchronised way
>(with proper retardation) to match the wanderings of the earth's pole.


>
>7) So it is obvious that the only possible way
>to save the phenomena in geocentrism/geostationarity
>is by adopting omphalism to an extreme degree.
>God, or the designer, must orchestrate all the motions out there
>in just such a way (and with proper time delay)
>that they appear (falsely of course) to give the impression
>of a rotating earth (at a variable rate and pole direction)

Nonsense. The universe is a rotating system. Generally it is not the
stars, galaxies that are rotating but the ether/fabric of space
rotating. The stars and other bodies are generally being carried with
the ether and are not moving relative to the ether. Therefore any
wobbling of this rotating system is evident in the bodies being
carried by it.

Furthermore the stars all appear to be positioned in shells with the
Sun at the center. In the Big Bang model there is no center
whatsoever and this observation contradicts it.

>
>8) It should be obvious to any sane person that such a view
>(while logically unassailable) is completely crazy.

In reality JJ Load in his Pants would like to believe this to justify
his own pet theory. All the interferometer experiments stand against
Einstein's relativity especially Dayton Miller's experiments.

>
>9) Moreover, like all other forms of omphalism
>this is unfalsifiable by definition,
>and therefore by definition unscientific.

Talk about omphalism: The Big Bang Model requires that the Universe
be made up of 95 percent of cold dark matte which no one can find or
describe.

>
>The absurdities inherent in geostationarity, outlined above,
>make it a belief system that's even crazier than flat-earthism.
>Even 'Answers in Genesis' rejects it vehemently,
>as adopting it would make believers
>appear to be extremely stupid to all normal people.

JJ Load in his Pants only demonstrated his ignorance

>
>There are limits to how crazy you can be
>if you want to be taken seriously,
>
>Jan
>

Read more post less


Regards,
T Pagano

[Bill]

That is the question, sure, equivalent to Newton's spinning bucket.
But remember, there is no other matter in the universe at all. Whether
the water depth would be the same is still an unresolved question. But
don't just take my word for it. Look up Mach's principle or Newton's
bucket. This has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with geocentrism,
and the unresolved status of Mach's principle should be of no comfort
to nut jobs like Pagano. J,J, Lodder's original post shows all the
holes in geocentrism beautifully.



>
> Mark- Sembunyikan teks kutipan -
>
> - Perlihatkan teks kutipan -- Sembunyikan teks kutipan -
>
> - Perlihatkan teks kutipan -

[T Pagano]

On Wed, 5 Oct 2011 12:16:55 +0100, Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:

snip

I suspect that Ernest wouldn't know POTM material if it jumped up and
bit him in the arse. I've not seen a single post written by JJ Load
in the Pants where he wasn't as full of shit as a Christmas turkey.
According to the Google stats he posts in the neighborhood of 300
articles each month so there's plenty to chose from. That Ernest
nominated this thread starter as a POTM is a perfect example of the
blind leading the blind.

Ernest has plunged head long into so many pits that I suspect that
even his buddy Burkhard is beginning to grow weary.

Regards,
T Pagano

"I came, I saw, I got blowed up."

-Ernest

[John Harshman]

T Pagano wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Oct 2011 12:16:55 +0100, Ernest Major
> <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> snip
>
> I suspect that Ernest wouldn't know POTM material if it jumped up and
> bit him in the arse. I've not seen a single post written by JJ Load
> in the Pants where he wasn't as full of shit as a Christmas turkey.

Remind me not to eat the stuffing at your house.

[RAM]

On Oct 8, 9:08�pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Oct 2011 12:16:55 +0100, Ernest Major
>

> <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> snip
>
> I suspect that Ernest wouldn't know POTM material if it jumped up and
> bit him in the arse. � I've not seen a single post written by JJ Load
> in the Pants where he wasn't as full of shit as a Christmas turkey.
> According to the Google stats he posts in the neighborhood of 300
> articles each month so there's plenty to chose from. � That Ernest
> nominated this thread starter as a POTM is a perfect example of the
> blind leading the blind.
>
> Ernest has plunged head long into so many pits that I suspect that
> even his buddy Burkhard is beginning to grow weary.
>

SELECTIVE INSERT OF SNIPPED COMMENTS:

The absurdities inherent in geostationarity, outlined above,
make it a belief system that's even crazier than flat-earthism.
Even 'Answers in Genesis' rejects it vehemently,
as adopting it would make believers
appear to be extremely stupid to all normal people.

There are limits to how crazy you can be

if you want to be taken seriously,

Jan

END INSERT

PAGS have you nothing to plagiarize? And what about the "victory
dance?"

All you have above is straight forward ad hominem! What a joke you
are.

What happened to scientific "evidence" for countering his claims?

Well, we all know you are the biggest bloviator in TO. So your
failed performance is as expected. You can't provide the scientific
evidence and Jan's post was so pointedly cutting he has left you, Sir
Brave Tony, with an empty scrotum.

Jan justly summarized your stupidities above and his last sentence is
worth repeating:

"There are limits to how crazy you can be if you want to be taken

seriously."

The joke is still on and in you.

[Boikat]

On Oct 8, 9:08�pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:

> On Wed, 5 Oct 2011 12:16:55 +0100, Ernest Major
>

> <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> snip
>
> I suspect that Ernest wouldn't know POTM material if it jumped up and

> bit him in the arse. ...

On the other hand, Tony Pagano is afraid of answering the challenge to
demonstrate that Tiktaalik does not possess traits that clearly
demonstrate it is a trasitional form between fish and tetrapods. But,
then again, it could be ignorance, willful or otherwise.

Boikat

[Greg Guarino]

On 10/7/2011 4:53 PM, T Pagano wrote:
>> >
>> >2) The relative rotation of the earth w.r.t. the rest of the universe
>> >(or of the rest of the universe w.r.t. to the earth)
>> >can nowadys be measured with great precision)
>> >(see<www.iers.org> for more than you want to know)
>> >By GPS for the short term, by VLBI for long term stability.
>> >(and with other supplementary methods such as satellite laser ranging)

Very interesting site. Quite over my head, and I am confident that it is
over Tony's head as well. But some points seem clear.

> This neither rules out absolute rotation of a system nor the
> neoTychonian model.

Either the Earth's rotation (and axis) is variable on short and long
time scales, or each and every object in the universe slows down and
speeds up its velocity around the Earth (not to mention its angle).
Worse, the various objects must change their velocity and trajectory OUT
OF SYNC; objects further away must wobble and change velocity EARLIER
(and closer objects later) to present the illusion of synchronization
when viewed form Earth.

> Furthermore in Big Bang geometry there is no
> center. It makes no sense to talk about the universe rotating about
> anything.

Surely this can't be *your* argument. You believe the universe does have
a center (or perhaps two), don't you?

>> >
>> >3) The rotation rate of earth (or universe) is quite variable,
>> >when measured with modern accuracy. (of about a cm on the surface)
>> >See for example
>> ><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Deviation_of_day_length_from_SI_day_.svg>
>> >for the long term development in the length of the day.
>> >Immediately obvious in the graph are the seasonal variation,
>> >(caused by changes in atmospheric circulation)
>> >and the secular slowdown.
>> >(caused by tidal friction, with a corresponding moving away of the moon)

> JJ Load in his Pants misrepresents the facts. The referenced link
> makes no claim whatsoever that any mass distribution changes on the
> face of the earth are correlated with the change in velocity.

I found many such descriptions on the IERS site, with more detail than I
could safely absorb. Did you look at it?

>> >
>> >4) Note that the 'fuzz' in the graph isn't noise.
>> >Most of it has known causes, and can be predicted in great detail.

>> >Again, seewww.iers.org for more than you want to know.

> The referenced web page also does NOT display any data correlating
> mass distribution changes on the earth or the moon's recession to
> these changes.

Te IERS site discusses many such processes. Have a look. But more
importantly, whatever the specific causes, it is quite a stretch to
imagine that all that "fuzz" is billions of celestial objects acting in
a perfectly-timed asynchronicity rather than one small body rotating
imperfectly.

> Furthermore all of the recent posts by other atheists along these
> lines correlate mass distribution changes on the earth and angular
> momentum changes with computer models only. Never with any actual
> observations.

I won't claim to understand all of it, but the IERS site seems to have
quite detailed observational data.

>> >5) If one insists on geostationarity, the universe must be rotating,
>> >and the possibility of a causal explananation
>> >of the observed variability in the rotation rate is lost.
> Dayton Miller's interferometer experiments and results were calculated
> in relation to sidereal time; that is, the displacement between a star
> and the earth as opposed to the sun and the earth. Sidereal time is
> 24 hours exactly.

The IERS says otherwise, with impressive precision.

Recall that interferometer experiments measure
> motion relative to the ether. This shows that the ether is drifting
> in relation to the stars and thus gives a more definitive picture of
> absolute motion.
>
>> >
>> >6) And worse, most of the universe is more than one light year out.
>> >So all those stars, galaxies, and all the rest out there
>> >must anticipate, at a delay proportional to their distance,
>> >in order for them all to simultaneously match the observed variations
>> >in rotation rate, as seen from earth.
>> >A quasar, billions light years out,
>> >must adapt it's rate of rotation to match the seasons
>> >on a particular planet that wasn't even formed when it shone.
> But in sidereal time there is no velocity variability.

Presumably you are referring to the seasonal variability of solar time
caused by the Earth's slightly elliptical orbit. That doesn't explain
the shorter-term variations (or the longer-term ones).

[Ernest Major]

In message <j6r9pg$p4j$1...@dont-email.me>, Greg Guarino
<gdgu...@gmail.com> writes

>> Dayton Miller's interferometer experiments and results were calculated
>> in relation to sidereal time; that is, the displacement between a star
>> and the earth as opposed to the sun and the earth. Sidereal time is
>> 24 hours exactly.
>
>The IERS says otherwise, with impressive precision.

Actually the claim that sidereal time (I presume that sidereal day is
intended) is exactly 24 hours is chez-watt-worthy. The mean sidereal day
is, fide Wikipedia, 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4.091 seconds, with low
variance. It's the mean solar day which is 24 hours, but with a higher
variance and more regular variance (up to 30 seconds).

I wonder if Tony will persist in claiming that a sidereal day is 24
hours with the same persistence as in claiming that bats were thought to
be descended from mesonychids.
--
alias Ernest Major

[Ernest Major]

In message <apagano-eav197hgjq5po...@4ax.com>, T
Pagano <not....@address.net> writes

<vulgar ad-hominem snipped - nothing left>
--
alias Ernest Major

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Sat, 8 Oct 2011 22:44:13 -0400, John Harshman wrote
(in article <LYidnV0cOrD...@giganews.com>):

>> I suspect that Ernest wouldn't know POTM material if it jumped up and
>> bit him in the arse. I've not seen a single post written by JJ Load
>> in the Pants where he wasn't as full of shit as a Christmas turkey.
>
> Remind me not to eat the stuffing at your house.

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

[J. J. Lodder]

Greg Guarino <gdgu...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 10/7/2011 4:53 PM, T Pagano wrote:
> >> >
> >> >2) The relative rotation of the earth w.r.t. the rest of the universe
> >> >(or of the rest of the universe w.r.t. to the earth)
> >> >can nowadys be measured with great precision)
> >> >(see<www.iers.org> for more than you want to know)
> >> >By GPS for the short term, by VLBI for long term stability.
> >> >(and with other supplementary methods such as satellite laser ranging)
>
> Very interesting site.

IERS is the best that's available, to all of humanity.
It is a service maintained by professionals, for professionals.
(astronomers, the GPS community, the military,
NASA, standards laboratories etc.)
Precise earth orientation data have become important
for many practical purposes.
You can't compute precise orbital corrections for your GPS sat
if you don't know precisely where your ground station is.
Neither can you navigate a probe past the Saturnian moons.

> Quite over my head, and I am confident that it is
> over Tony's head as well. But some points seem clear.
>
> > This neither rules out absolute rotation of a system nor the
> > neoTychonian model.
>
> Either the Earth's rotation (and axis) is variable on short and long
> time scales, or each and every object in the universe slows down and
> speeds up its velocity around the Earth (not to mention its angle).
> Worse, the various objects must change their velocity and trajectory OUT
> OF SYNC; objects further away must wobble and change velocity EARLIER
> (and closer objects later) to present the illusion of synchronization
> when viewed form Earth.

I must take of my hat to Tony.
He did come up with an even crazier 'solution'.
All atomic clocks, all GPS sat orbits, all pulsars up there,
all have timekeping errors, and all in the same way.
It's only the earth (excuse me, the universe)
that rotates uniformly.

Jan

[TomS]

"On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 01:00:47 -0400, in article <j6r9pg$p4j$1...@dont-email.me>,
Greg Guarino stated..."
[...snip...]

>Either the Earth's rotation (and axis) is variable on short and long
>time scales, or each and every object in the universe slows down and
>speeds up its velocity around the Earth (not to mention its angle).
>Worse, the various objects must change their velocity and trajectory OUT
>OF SYNC; objects further away must wobble and change velocity EARLIER
>(and closer objects later) to present the illusion of synchronization
>when viewed form Earth.

[...snip...]

This seems to me to present the greatest difficulty for geocentrism.

Astronomers before the telescopic era didn't realize that the stars
were at different distances, so they could treat the variable motions
of the stars as representing variations in the spherical shell which
carried them. Also, they didn't know about planets further than
Saturn. And they didn't know that there was a finite speed of light.

They did know about the "precession of the equinoxes", for example,
but that did not represent as much of a problem for geocentrism as
it does today. Today, a geocentric exposition of such a variation in
the apparent motions of the stars must be exceedingly complex and begs
for an explanation to make some sense of it. All of the stars at
distance X make their "dance" around the Earth in synchronization,
but the stars at distance Y make the same dance, but at an offset
in time of (X-Y)/c. Two stars, both at distance X from the Earth,
but in opposite directions and thus at distance 2*X from one
another, dance in synchronization; while two stars in the same
direction from the Earth, but at distances X and Y, and thus at
distance (X-Y) from one another, are not in synchronization.

And this holds true for interplanetary rockets, too. Once they lift
off from the Earth, they obey the same "rules of the dance" as the
distant stars.

--
---Tom S.
"... the heavy people know some magic that can make things move and even fly,
but they're not very bright, because they can't survive without their magic
contrivances"
Xixo, in "The Gods Must Be Crazy II"

[T Pagano]

On Sun, 9 Oct 2011 07:31:56 -0400, "J.J. O'Shea"
<try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote:

>On Sat, 8 Oct 2011 22:44:13 -0400, John Harshman wrote
>(in article <LYidnV0cOrD...@giganews.com>):
>
>>> I suspect that Ernest wouldn't know POTM material if it jumped up and
>>> bit him in the arse. I've not seen a single post written by JJ Load
>>> in the Pants where he wasn't as full of shit as a Christmas turkey.
>>
>> Remind me not to eat the stuffing at your house.

In the beginning I suspected that J.J. Load in his Pants was a nym
shift form J.J. O'Shit Stain but Load in his Pants isn't even this
clever.

[Bill]

On 9 Okt, 19:50, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Oct 2011 07:31:56 -0400, "J.J. O'Shea"
>

> <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> >On Sat, 8 Oct 2011 22:44:13 -0400, John Harshman wrote

> >(in article <LYidnV0cOrDglwzTRVn_...@giganews.com>):

>
> >>> I suspect that Ernest wouldn't know POTM material if it jumped up and
> >>> bit him in the arse. � I've not seen a single post written by JJ Load
> >>> in the Pants where he wasn't as full of shit as a Christmas turkey.
>
> >> Remind me not to eat the stuffing at your house.

.

>
> In the beginning I suspected that J.J. Load in his Pants was a nym
> shift form �J.J. O'Shit Stain but Load in his Pants isn't even this
> clever.

I know it's been a long time since the New Year, but surely this post
is inconsisent with your announced New Year's resolution.

[Kleuskes & Moos]

You really _should_ grow up if you want to discuss things with grown-ups.
Childish name calling isn't a proper alternative for actual arguments.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_________________________________________
/ Send your questions to ``ASK ZIPPY'', \
\ Box 40474, San Francisco, CA 94140, USA /
-----------------------------------------
\
\
___
{~._.~}
( Y )
()~*~()
(_)-(_)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[T Pagano]

<snippage>


The clown act is really taking a pounding. The atheist lines are
steadily losing ground in the cosmogony and the evolutionary biology
fronts. Harshman is an able commander but the troops aren't up to the
fight.

For example: Burkhard, as usual, crashed and burned while coming in
to rescue Ernest P. Worrell (aka Ernest Major). It's gotten so bad
that Ernest, in a desparation similar to Harshman's, nominated a post
from J.J. Load in his Pants that is so completely mistaken that it's
impossible to know which way is up.

Nyikos is (apparently) under the impression that horse evolution
follows the evolutionary claim of 1882 with horses being lined up by
size in a linear path. A fairy tale which he tried to use to shake
Ray (to no avail). Yet he takes joy in pounding Okimoto, Harshman and
other neoDarwinians. A non-darwinian evolutionist? Hard to figure.

The clown act is getting stranger and stranger. At some point
Harshman is going to have to bring in some fresh reinforcements from
academia. Especially after Harshman explicitly claimed that Darwin
was irrelevent ( need the link? ). If Darwinism is irrelevent,
neoDarwinism can't be far behind. Ray and I have chipped to many
chinks out of Harshman's armor.

In any event, still more to go in the Transformational challenge
thread. Will there be yet another creationist victory? Maybe, maybe
not.

Regards,
T Pagano

BTW, any chance you can cage up the yappy RAM troll.

[John Harshman]

T Pagano wrote:

> BTW, any chance you can cage up the yappy RAM troll.

Perhaps you should deal with the plagiarism. Then he might go away.

[Walter Bushell]

In article <j6s0n...@news1.newsguy.com>,

"J.J. O'Shea" <try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote:

> On Sat, 8 Oct 2011 22:44:13 -0400, John Harshman wrote
> (in article <LYidnV0cOrD...@giganews.com>):
>
> >> I suspect that Ernest wouldn't know POTM material if it jumped up and
> >> bit him in the arse. I've not seen a single post written by JJ Load
> >> in the Pants where he wasn't as full of shit as a Christmas turkey.
> >
> > Remind me not to eat the stuffing at your house.

Second.

--
Ignorance is no protection against reality. -- Paul J Gans

[RAM]

> BTW, any chance you can cage up the yappy RAM troll. �

Good to see that poking at a joke gets your attention.

I see my comments about your failure to engage in a "victory dance"
were premature.

You still are highly predictable in your stupidities about science and
then claiming "victory" when demonstrated to be wrong.

Your "victory dance" is of course an intended distraction from TOers
focusing on the abject and silly willful ignorance you display in your
failed attempts to appear competent in criticizing science that
conflicts with your dubious religious beliefs. The source of your
abject science ignorance is of course your dubious religious beliefs
and your numerous "victory dances" reveal you to be consistently
morally weak as well. On top of that I predictably and consistently
point out another major moral weakness of you plagiarizing and then
brashly lying about your plagiarizing.

The yappy RAM troll also predicts that no priest has ever heard about
these numerous moral failings displayed on TO; but your God knows - if
he exists. And if he does exist I also predict he would be ashamed of
your TO behavior. If you ever decide to visit a confession booth I
would recommend for several obvious reasons you not engage in a
"victory dance."

[TomS]

"On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 09:23:03 -0400, in article
<apagano-c66397dopfd0g...@4ax.com>, T Pagano stated..."

I'm still waiting for the creationist heliocentrists to respond.

Why does naturalistic evidence override Biblical geocentrism?

--
---Tom S.
"I nailed that window that's always rattled when the wind blows so you can't
hear yourself think shut."
Fibber McGee, "Man's Untapped Energy" (1947/3/11)

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Sun, 9 Oct 2011 08:50:58 -0400, T Pagano wrote
(in article <apagano-h16397dmkc1mh...@4ax.com>):

Pags, you lying little shit, you just proved that you can't read headers.

You also haven't been paying attention. Lodder and I have had _several_
prolonged arguments.

[RAM]

On Oct 9, 7:50�am, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Oct 2011 07:31:56 -0400, "J.J. O'Shea"
>

> <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> >On Sat, 8 Oct 2011 22:44:13 -0400, John Harshman wrote

> >(in article <LYidnV0cOrDglwzTRVn_...@giganews.com>):

>
> >>> I suspect that Ernest wouldn't know POTM material if it jumped up and
> >>> bit him in the arse. � I've not seen a single post written by JJ Load
> >>> in the Pants where he wasn't as full of shit as a Christmas turkey.
>
> >> Remind me not to eat the stuffing at your house.
>
> In the beginning I suspected that J.J. Load in his Pants was a nym
> shift form �J.J. O'Shit Stain but Load in his Pants isn't even this
> clever.

The ad hominems are all you have and God(?) knows it is abysmally
inadequate.

While you would hope the ad hominems would deflect form your
scientific inadequacies and stupidities they do not. You are still a
joke.

Further your Xtian side is morally pierced but for the wrong
reasons.

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Sun, 9 Oct 2011 10:59:08 -0400, RAM wrote
(in article
<485e6a99-878b-4c54...@z19g2000vby.googlegroups.com>):

> You still are highly predictable in your stupidities about science and then
> claiming "victory" when demonstrated to be wrong.

His little victory dance when he's wrong, and he knows that he's wrong, is
all he has left. His notion that Lodder and I are sock puppets, for
example... different newsreaders, and Lodder posts from 86.202.227.141,
Wanadoo. I post from Newsdawg, which is Newsguy's newsfeed. Hint: one of 'em
is on the eastern side of the Atlantic, and one of them is on the western
side of the Atlantic. I have been using Newsguy for a _very_ long time. It
wouldn't surprise me if Lodder has been using Wanadoo for equally as long a
time. Pags literally has nothing left except ad homs, and weak ones at that.
He refuses to address the points so many have made wrt lightspeed effects,
geosync orbits, or many, many, many other points which totally destroy his
position. He appears to be under the delusion that he can hide the fact that
he can't address those points if only he screams loudly enough about
something, anything, else. He's wrong. But then he should be used to that, as
he hasn't been right about anything he's posted that I've ever read in all
the years that he's been posting on t.o. Not even once. Hey, Ray is right
once in a while. Suzy is right once in a while. Even Nylkos is right once in
a very long while. Pags has never been right. Not even once. Not that I've
seen, anyway. Now, I've not read all of his posts so the possibility exists
that he was right once and I just missed that post. Perhaps someone who _has_
read all his posts could correct me if Pags has ever been right, even once?

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 08:50:58 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by T Pagano <not....@address.net>:

Perhaps instead of resorting to gradeschool playground
toilet epithets you could spend a bit of time addressing the
questions you keep dodging, such as:

1) Where did I claim to be an atheist, or post information
showing that I'm an atheist, as you contend I am?

(Assertions about what you "know" based on the fact that I
accept scientific evidence aren't relevant.)

2) How do multiple geostationary satellites each hang over a
different single point above a non-rotating Earth?

(Vague references to "neo Tychonian" models won't work; this
requires specific information, preferably with supporting
math.)

Carlson had several others, all of which you continue to
dodge.

Grow up and grow a spine.
--

Bob C.

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

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 22:08:14 -0400, the following appeared

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

>... as full of shit as a Christmas turkey.

You have interesting dietary habits.

[J. J. Lodder]

J.J. O'Shea <try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote:

> On Sun, 9 Oct 2011 08:50:58 -0400, T 'kindergarten' Pagano wrote

Indeed, and never on Tony's kindergarten level,

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

J.J. O'Shea <try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote:

> On Sun, 9 Oct 2011 10:59:08 -0400, RAM wroteh

> (in article
> <485e6a99-878b-4c54...@z19g2000vby.googlegroups.com>):
>
> > You still are highly predictable in your stupidities about science and then
> > claiming "victory" when demonstrated to be wrong.
>
> His little victory dance when he's wrong, and he knows that he's wrong, is
> all he has left. His notion that Lodder and I are sock puppets, for
> example... different newsreaders, and Lodder posts from 86.202.227.141,
> Wanadoo.

Most surprising indeed.
Tony 'kindergarten' Pagano is clueless about everything,
not just science.
He seems to be panicking.

> I post from Newsdawg, which is Newsguy's newsfeed. Hint: one of 'em
> is on the eastern side of the Atlantic, and one of them is on the western
> side of the Atlantic.

Indeed, we live six hours apart. (most of the year)

> I have been using Newsguy for a _very_ long time. It
> wouldn't surprise me if Lodder has been using Wanadoo for equally as long a
> time.

No, I have been switching providers several times.
(and use a different newsserver anyway)

> Pags literally has nothing left except ad homs, and weak ones at that.

Correct. 'welcome to kindergarten' is appropriate for Tony.

> He refuses to address the points so many have made wrt lightspeed effects,
> geosync orbits, or many, many, many other points which totally destroy his
> position. He appears to be under the delusion that he can hide the fact that
> he can't address those points if only he screams loudly enough about
> something, anything, else. He's wrong. But then he should be used to that, as
> he hasn't been right about anything he's posted that I've ever read in all
> the years that he's been posting on t.o. Not even once. Hey, Ray is right
> once in a while. Suzy is right once in a while. Even Nylkos is right once in
> a very long while. Pags has never been right. Not even once. Not that I've
> seen, anyway. Now, I've not read all of his posts so the possibility exists
> that he was right once and I just missed that post. Perhaps someone who _has_
> read all his posts could correct me if Pags has ever been right, even once?

Sorry, can't help you there,

Jan

[Friar Broccoli]

On Oct 5, 2:19 am, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> Since this topic recurs regularly I summarise the relevant points.
>
> 1) Absolute rotation has no -observational- meaning.

>
> 2) The relative rotation of the earth w.r.t. the rest of the universe
> (or of the rest of the universe w.r.t. to the earth)
> can nowadys be measured with great precision)
> (see <www.iers.org> for more than you want to know)
> By GPS for the short term, by VLBI for long term stability.
> (and with other supplementary methods such as satellite laser ranging)
>

> 3) The rotation rate of earth (or universe) is quite variable,
> when measured with modern accuracy. (of about a cm on the surface)
> See for example

> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Deviation_of_day_length_from_SI_day...>

> for the long term development in the length of the day.
> Immediately obvious in the graph are the seasonal variation,
> (caused by changes in atmospheric circulation)
> and the secular slowdown.
> (caused by tidal friction, with a corresponding moving away of the moon)
>

> 4) Note that the 'fuzz' in the graph isn't noise.
> Most of it has known causes, and can be predicted in great detail.

> Again, seewww.iers.orgfor more than you want to know.

>
> 5) If one insists on geostationarity, the universe must be rotating,
> and the possibility of a causal explananation
> of the observed variability in the rotation rate is lost.
>

> 6) And worse, most of the universe is more than one light year out.
> So all those stars, galaxies, and all the rest out there
> must anticipate, at a delay proportional to their distance,
> in order for them all to simultaneously match the observed variations
> in rotation rate, as seen from earth.
> A quasar, billions light years out,
> must adapt it's rate of rotation to match the seasons
> on a particular planet that wasn't even formed when it shone.
>

> 6bis) And worse than that, not only the rate is variable.
> The pole position also varies in largely predictable ways.
> The whole universe has to dance around in a synchronised way
> (with proper retardation) to match the wanderings of the earth's pole.
>
> 7) So it is obvious that the only possible way
> to save the phenomena in geocentrism/geostationarity
> is by adopting omphalism to an extreme degree.
> God, or the designer, must orchestrate all the motions out there
> in just such a way (and with proper time delay)
> that they appear (falsely of course) to give the impression
> of a rotating earth (at a variable rate and pole direction)

.

> 8) It should be obvious to any sane person that such a view
> (while logically unassailable) is completely crazy.

A model in which all the other planets are orbiting the sun (in
accordance with the laws of gravity) but the earth is not, is
"logically unassailable"?


> 9) Moreover, like all other forms of omphalism
> this is unfalsifiable by definition,
> and therefore by definition unscientific.

[J. J. Lodder]

Friar Broccoli <eli...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Oct 5, 2:19 am, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> > Since this topic recurs regularly I summarise the relevant points.
> >

[snip]

> > 7) So it is obvious that the only possible way
> > to save the phenomena in geocentrism/geostationarity
> > is by adopting omphalism to an extreme degree.
> > God, or the designer, must orchestrate all the motions out there
> > in just such a way (and with proper time delay)
> > that they appear (falsely of course) to give the impression
> > of a rotating earth (at a variable rate and pole direction)
>

> > 8) It should be obvious to any sane person that such a view
> > (while logically unassailable) is completely crazy.
>
> A model in which all the other planets are orbiting the sun (in
> accordance with the laws of gravity) but the earth is not, is
> "logically unassailable"?

That's another subject.
And yes, any omphalism is logically unassailable.
(hence not scientific)

Jan

[Friar Broccoli]

On Nov 6, 4:12 pm, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:

Omphalism refers to a false history.
If the sun were orbiting the earth we would be living in a false
present where the planet earth is not obeying natural laws.


> (hence not scientific)
>
> Jan

[wiki trix]

On Nov 6, 3:31 pm, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 6, 4:12 pm, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Oct 5, 2:19 am, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> > > > Since this topic recurs regularly I summarise the relevant points.
>
> > [snip]
>
> > > > 7) So it is obvious that the only possible way
> > > > to save the phenomena in geocentrism/geostationarity
> > > > is by adopting omphalism to an extreme degree.
> > > > God, or the designer, must orchestrate all the motions out there
> > > > in just such a way (and with proper time delay)
> > > > that they appear (falsely of course) to give the impression
> > > > of a rotating earth (at a variable rate and pole direction)
>
> > > > 8) It should be obvious to any sane person that such a view
> > > > (while logically unassailable) is completely crazy.
>
> > > A model in which all the other planets are orbiting the sun (in
> > > accordance with the laws of gravity) but the earth is not, is
> > > "logically unassailable"?
>
> > That's another subject.
> > And yes, any omphalism is logically unassailable.
>
> Omphalism refers to a false history.

Nope. You are giving it far too much credit. Omphalism is not
falsifiable. So how can you be sure it is false? The strongest case
you can safely make is that Omphalism is merely bullshit.

> If the sun were orbiting the earth we would be living in a false
> present where the planet earth is not obeying natural laws.

Nope. Hypothetically speaking, if the sun was orbiting the earth, then
the earth would be obeying natural laws. Of course, those laws are
different from the laws that we actually do observe.

[r norman]

No, those laws would be different from the laws that we derive
assuming the earth to orbit the sun. The laws derived from the
assumption of a fixed earth would be very different from the laws of
physics we have but still would be formulated to describe what
actually is observed.

[MG]

On Oct 5, 6:17 am, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> "On Wed, 5 Oct 2011 13:20:59 +0100, in article
> <1MKdnQ9VK8Yx1hHTnZ2dnUVZ8q2dn...@bt.com>, Mike Dworetsky stated..."
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >> Mike Dworetsky <platinum...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote:

>
> >>> J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >>>> Since this topic recurs regularly I summarise the relevant points.
>

> >>>> 7) So it is obvious that the only possible way
> >>>> to save the phenomena in geocentrism/geostationarity
> >>>> is by adopting omphalism to an extreme degree.
> >>>> God, or the designer, must orchestrate all the motions out there
> >>>> in just such a way (and with proper time delay)
> >>>> that they appear (falsely of course) to give the impression
> >>>> of a rotating earth (at a variable rate and pole direction)
>
> >>>> 8) It should be obvious to any sane person that such a view
> >>>> (while logically unassailable) is completely crazy.
>

> >>>> 9) Moreover, like all other forms of omphalism
> >>>> this is unfalsifiable by definition,
> >>>> and therefore by definition unscientific.
>
> >>>> The absurdities inherent in geostationarity, outlined above,
> >>>> make it a belief system that's even crazier than flat-earthism.
> >>>> Even 'Answers in Genesis' rejects it vehemently,
> >>>> as adopting it would make believers
> >>>> appear to be extremely stupid to all normal people.
>
> >>>> There are limits to how crazy you can be
> >>>> if you want to be taken seriously,
>
> >>>> Jan
>

> >>> Very detailed and concise summary of the craziness of extreme
> >>> geocentrism/geostationarity as advocated by Pagano.  I wonder if he
> >>> has written to the director of NASA yet for details of the fuel
> >>> consumption of rockets launched eastwards vs westwards?
>
> >> NASA director will point to several NASA FAQs on the subject
> >> <http://spaceplace.nasa.gov/launch-windows/> for example,
> >> (just grabbing the first one that comes up)
>
> >> Jan
>
> >Pagano maintains that it is all a gigantic heliocentrist conspiracy, and the
> >fact that every website, textbook and popular account of astronautics and
> >physics says the same thing is just confirmation of that.  Until he sees the
> >payload manifests and fuel tank records from NASA he refuses to accept it.
>
> >Still waiting for a coherent account from Pagano explaining how
> >geostationary satellites stay above the same place on Earth if it doesn't
> >rotate.
>
> I'm still waiting for a response from the creationist heliocentrists
> explaining how they accept the naturalistic evidence for
> heliocentrism over the literal interpretation of the Bible.

>
> --
> ---Tom S.
> "... the heavy people know some magic that can make things move and even fly,
> but they're not very bright, because they can't survive without their magic
> contrivances"
> Xixo, in "The Gods Must Be Crazy II"

I'm still waiting for Pagano to address the allegations of plagiarism
leveled against him months ago. Unless I missed it somewhere?

[Friar Broccoli]

Omphalism is the proposition that God created a complete set of
(false) evidence for a history that never occurred.

Therefore
if omphalism is true it "refers to a false history".
and
if omphalism is false it "refers to a false history".

> > If the sun were orbiting the earth we would be living in a false
> > present where the planet earth is not obeying natural laws.
>
> Nope. Hypothetically speaking, if the sun was orbiting the earth, then
> the earth would be obeying natural laws. Of course, those laws are
> different from the laws that we actually do observe.

Tony has been carefully avoiding any discussion of the laws of motion
and gravity for well over a year now. I fervently hope that he is
convinced by your argument here and decides to use it.

[Kent]

On Sunday, November 6, 2011 5:09:13 PM UTC-8, r norman wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Nov 2011 16:56:12 -0800 (PST), wiki trix
> <wiki...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

The laws are different but related by a well defined mathematical transformation. Hence the laws in one frame can be transformed to the other frame without any lose of the ability to describe the phenomena. The only difference is how complicated the laws are. To quote Poincare (probably the third greatest mathematical physicist of all times):

And hence this affirmation: "the earth turns round," has no meaning, since it cannot be verified by experiment; since such an experiment not only cannot be realised or even dreamed of by the most daring Jules Verne, but cannot even be conceived of without contradiction; or, in other words, these two propositions, "the earth turns round," and, "it is more convenient to suppose that the earth turns round," have one and the same meaning. There is nothing more in one than in the other.

[jillery]

On Sun, 06 Nov 2011 20:09:13 -0500, r norman <r_s_n...@comcast.net>
wrote:

Perhaps this is my own version of personal incredulity, but given what
we know today, I don't think it's possible to derive a consistent set
of laws assuming a fixed Earth. It would be like trying to derive a
nested heirarchy out of movie classifications.

[Mike Dworetsky]

What he seems to have implied is that you can't verify that the Earth
rotates by direct experiment, but that if someone was able to travel in
space (and observe the Earth rotating from a distance) that would be direct
observational proof.

This was (presumably) pre-relativity (special and general).

--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)

[jillery]

In "The Foundation of Science" Poincare goes on to write:

*************************************************
These words have given rise to the strangest interpretations. Some
have thought they saw in them the rehabilitation of Ptolemy's system
and perhaps the justification of Galileo's condemnation.

Those who have read attentively the whole volume could not, however,
delude themselves. This truth, the earth turns round, was put on the
same footing as Euclid's postulate, for example. Was that to reject
it? But better; in the same language it may very well be said: the
two propositions, the external world exists, or, it is more convenient
to suppose that it exists, have one and the same meaning. So the
hypothesis of the rotation of the earth would have the same degree of
certitude as the very existence of external objects.
*************************************************

IIUC Poincare is saying, "the earth rotates" is as certain as "the
existence of external objects", and implies, to doubt the earth's
rotation is the same as to doubt the very existence of external
objects. ISTM his words are the strongest refutation of geocentrism
of all kinds, the convenience of different geometries notwithstanding.

>What he seems to have implied is that you can't verify that the Earth
>rotates by direct experiment, but that if someone was able to travel in
>space (and observe the Earth rotating from a distance) that would be direct
>observational proof.

Poincare goes on to write:

*************************************************
Behold the apparent diurnal motion of the stars, and the diurnal
motion of the other heavenly bodies, and besides, the flattening of
the earth, the rotation of Focault's pendulum, the gyration of
cyclones, the trade-winds, what not else? For the Ptolemaist all
these phenomena have no bond between them; for the Copernican, they
are produced by the one same cause. In saying, the earth turns round,
I affirm that all these phenomena have an intimate relationship, and
that is true, and that it remains true, although there is not and can
not be absolute space.
*************************************************

I agree that observing the earth's rotation from space is good
evidence for it, but IIUC Poincare didn't think it necessary to wait
for it.

>This was (presumably) pre-relativity (special and general).

IIUC Poincare made significant contributions to Einstein's Special
Relativity, so if Poincare thought SRT made any difference to his
statements above, I have no doubt he would have mentioned it.

[Kent]

On Monday, November 7, 2011 3:35:36 AM UTC-8, jillery wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Nov 2011 10:01:10 -0000, "Mike Dworetsky"

> IIUC Poincare is saying, "the earth rotates" is as certain as "the
> existence of external objects", and implies, to doubt the earth's
> rotation is the same as to doubt the very existence of external
> objects. ISTM his words are the strongest refutation of geocentrism
> of all kinds, the convenience of different geometries notwithstanding.
>
>

In this regard it is interesting to see what Poincare says about material objects

"The object of mathematical theories is not to reveal to us the real nature of things; that would be an unreasonable claim. Their only object is to co-ordinate the physical laws with which physical experiment makes us acquainted, the enunciation of which, without the aid of mathematics, we should be unable to effect. Whether the ether exists or not matters little�let us leave that to the metaphysicians; what is essential for us is, that everything happens as if it existed, and that this hypothesis is found to be suitable for the explanation of phenomena. After all, have we any other reason for believing in the existence of material objects? That, too, is only a convenient hypothesis; only, it will never cease to be so, while some day, no doubt, the ether will be thrown aside as useless."

Poincare's refutation of the rotating earth is based on convenience. The moving earth is only a convenient hypothesis; a convention but not an arbitrary convention.

[Kent]

It is not only possible but also fairly easy. Just take all the laws in the frame you like and do the change of coordinate systems. The mathematical process is well defined.

[Friar Broccoli]

On Nov 7, 10:05 am, Kent <musquods...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, November 6, 2011 9:43:00 PM UTC-8, jillery wrote:
> > On Sun, 06 Nov 2011 20:09:13 -0500, r norman <r_s_n...@comcast.net>
> > wrote:
>
> > >On Sun, 6 Nov 2011 16:56:12 -0800 (PST), wiki trix
> > ><wiki...@gmail.com> wrote:

[snip]

> > >>Nope. Hypothetically speaking, if the sun was orbiting the earth, then
> > >>the earth would be obeying natural laws. Of course, those laws are
> > >>different from the laws that we actually do observe.
>
> > >No, those laws would be different from the laws that we derive
> > >assuming the earth to orbit the sun.  The laws derived from the
> > >assumption of a fixed earth would be very different from the laws of
> > >physics we have but still would be formulated to describe what
> > >actually is observed.

.

> > Perhaps this is my own version of personal incredulity, but given what
> > we know today, I don't think it's possible to derive a consistent set
> > of laws assuming a fixed Earth.  It would be like trying to derive a
> > nested heirarchy out of movie classifications.

.

> It is not only possible but also fairly easy. Just take all the laws in the frame you like and do the change of coordinate systems. The mathematical process is well defined.

In one of his posts Steve Carlip distinguished causative from
coordinate systems.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/b6831fee5ef2eff3

Among other things he said:

"While one can choose such a description, it does not reflect the real
causality: there is no physical mechanism by which the motion of the
Earth today can affect the motions of stars in the past. This is
especially true because the Earth's orbit varies; the "cause" of a
change in motion now cannot have the "effect" of changing stars'
motions hundreds or thousands of years ago."

to that I add, that as a practical matter we all agree, that
gravitational mass together with inertial momentum (as described by
Newton's laws of motion) are the causes of orbits.

Given that:
1) The mass of the sun far exceeds the mass of the rest of the solar
system.
2) All the other planets recognize a moving point inside the sun as
the centre of the solar system around which they orbit.
3) The speed of light constrains the motion of objects outside our
solar system.
4) Objects outside our solar system (like binary stars and galaxies)
are behaving as if they locally observe these same causative rules.

Do you think it is "possible to derive a consistent set of [causative]
laws assuming a fixed Earth?"

Specifically (and this is the question I want directly addressed):
What, given the above 4 constraints, is it that would cause the sun to
orbit the earth?

I note your reply to Steve's post here:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/05feb364651b3df3

[jillery]

On Mon, 7 Nov 2011 07:05:52 -0800 (PST), Kent <musqu...@gmail.com>
wrote:

No, that's a nonsense argument. All it does is change the reference,
which is meaningless. By your own definition, it doesn't identify any
real difference between models. Coordinate systems say nothing about
gravity, or about the effects of acceleration on masses, or
relativistic effects. These things aren't accountable as a group
simply by changing the coordinate system.

[jillery]

On Mon, 7 Nov 2011 07:23:19 -0800 (PST), Kent <musqu...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>In this regard it is interesting to see what Poincare says about material objects
>

>"The object of mathematical theories is not to reveal to us the real nature of things; that would be an unreasonable claim. Their only object is to co-ordinate the physical laws with which physical experiment makes us acquainted, the enunciation of which, without the aid of mathematics, we should be unable to effect. Whether the ether exists or not matters little様et us leave that to the metaphysicians; what is essential for us is, that everything happens as if it existed, and that this hypothesis is found to be suitable for the explanation of phenomena. After all, have we any other reason for believing in the existence of material objects? That, too, is only a convenient hypothesis; only, it will never cease to be so, while some day, no doubt, the ether will be thrown aside as useless."

>
>Poincare's refutation of the rotating earth is based on convenience. The moving earth is only a convenient hypothesis; a convention but not an arbitrary convention.

Even assuming all realities can be described with mathematical
theories, it remains true that not all mathematical theories describe
any reality. More to the point, the veracity of a moving earth is not
based on the convenience of the hypothesis, but on its ability to
explain and predict material evidence and observations, which is
something a stationary earth doesn't do nearly as well, its geometric
equivalence notwithstanding.

[r norman]

On Mon, 07 Nov 2011 12:35:35 -0500, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
wrote:

A stationary earth system would produce incredibly complicated laws
of gravity and motion which depend on the location of the object.
Still, it is conceptually possible to write "laws" that describe what
is observed. I am not sure what is meant by "consistent". There is
no requirement that the same law apply to everything the same way in
the same form. There is no requirement that the laws of motion be
independent of position. There is no requirement that the apparent
motion of an apple falling should obey the same law as the apperent
motion of objects across the sky.

The resulting "laws" will be incredibly ugly and totally unappealing
so that any reasonable person will prefer the utter simplicity and
elegance of Copernicus and Newton and that even the truly pious
individuals, like Galileo and Newton and all their contemperaries,
would prefer the beauty and simplicity as better representing God's
laws. Still it could be done.

Incidentally, according to general relativity coordinate systems say
everything about gravity.

[Kent]

On Monday, November 7, 2011 9:35:35 AM UTC-8, jillery wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Nov 2011 07:05:52 -0800 (PST), Kent <musqu...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Sunday, November 6, 2011 9:43:00 PM UTC-8, jillery wrote:

> >> On Sun, 06 Nov 2011 20:09:13 -0500, r norman <r_s_...@comcast.net>

The only difference between a geocentric model and an heliocentric model is change of coordinate systems or reference.

[Kent]

On Monday, November 7, 2011 9:55:48 AM UTC-8, r norman wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Nov 2011 12:35:35 -0500, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 7 Nov 2011 07:05:52 -0800 (PST), Kent <musqu...@gmail.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>On Sunday, November 6, 2011 9:43:00 PM UTC-8, jillery wrote:

> >>> On Sun, 06 Nov 2011 20:09:13 -0500, r norman <r_s_...@comcast.net>

Actually, I am agreeing with you. The only reason for choosing one frame over another is simplicity. You do not give the direction to the corner store using a heliocentric model and you do not describe planetary motion using a geocentric model unless you are a complete masochist.

[r norman]

On Mon, 7 Nov 2011 10:36:22 -0800 (PST), Kent <musqu...@gmail.com>

Yes. But given that the rotation of the earth is subject to some
erratic variations in addition to the purely periodic ones, the
coordinate transformation must include a term for earthly time. All
the "laws" of physics will include this time term. It would be truly
ugly. But it could be done.

It would also include the fact that contingent events like
earthquakes or massive volcanic eruptions that shift the moment of
inertia and hence the rotation of the earth also affect the laws of
physics. The result is a total mess that no sane person could accept.
But still it could be done.

And, indeed, no sane person does accept it. Still we are forced to
talk about it.

[jillery]

On Mon, 7 Nov 2011 09:29:38 -0800 (PST), Friar Broccoli
<eli...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Nov 7, 10:05 am, Kent <musquods...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sunday, November 6, 2011 9:43:00 PM UTC-8, jillery wrote:
>> > On Sun, 06 Nov 2011 20:09:13 -0500, r norman <r_s_n...@comcast.net>
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > >On Sun, 6 Nov 2011 16:56:12 -0800 (PST), wiki trix
>> > ><wiki...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> > >>Nope. Hypothetically speaking, if the sun was orbiting the earth, then
>> > >>the earth would be obeying natural laws. Of course, those laws are
>> > >>different from the laws that we actually do observe.
>>
>> > >No, those laws would be different from the laws that we derive
>> > >assuming the earth to orbit the sun.  The laws derived from the
>> > >assumption of a fixed earth would be very different from the laws of
>> > >physics we have but still would be formulated to describe what
>> > >actually is observed.
>

>> > Perhaps this is my own version of personal incredulity, but given what
>> > we know today, I don't think it's possible to derive a consistent set
>> > of laws assuming a fixed Earth.  It would be like trying to derive a
>> > nested heirarchy out of movie classifications.
>

>> It is not only possible but also fairly easy. Just take all the laws in the frame you like and do the change of coordinate systems. The mathematical process is well defined.
>
>In one of his posts Steve Carlip distinguished causative from
>coordinate systems.
>http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/b6831fee5ef2eff3
>
>Among other things he said:
>
>"While one can choose such a description, it does not reflect the real
>causality: there is no physical mechanism by which the motion of the
>Earth today can affect the motions of stars in the past. This is
>especially true because the Earth's orbit varies; the "cause" of a
>change in motion now cannot have the "effect" of changing stars'
>motions hundreds or thousands of years ago."

I had exactly that post in mind when I replied to Kent. I'm glad you
found it.

>to that I add, that as a practical matter we all agree, that
>gravitational mass together with inertial momentum (as described by
>Newton's laws of motion) are the causes of orbits.
>
>Given that:
>1) The mass of the sun far exceeds the mass of the rest of the solar
>system.

To quantify, the Sun contains over 99% of the mass of the Solar
System.

>2) All the other planets recognize a moving point inside the sun as
>the centre of the solar system around which they orbit.

Pedantic point; the center of mass, or barycenter, of the solar system
is usually within the radius of the Sun, but not always:

http://www.timingsolution.com/TS/Study/cm/

but it is a fact that the barycenter is always much closer to the Sun
than it is to any other object.

>3) The speed of light constrains the motion of objects outside our
>solar system.

Another pedantic point; the speed of light constrains all motions,
inside and outside our solar system.

[jillery]

On Mon, 07 Nov 2011 12:55:48 -0500, r norman <r_s_n...@comcast.net>

An example of what I mean by consistency is the nature of gravity. If
we assume gravity is a function of mass, as Newton did, then a
consistent model would have the less massive objects orbiting around
the more massive objects. IIUC this is what is observed, not just for
our solar system, but for all the observable universe. OTOH a
neoTychonian model has most planets orbiting around the Sun, but
exceptionally has the Sun (and its planetary outliers) orbiting around
the Earth. Why are the rules applied inconsistently to the (much)
less massive Earth? IIUC there are no observations that require the
Earth to be stationary.

>The resulting "laws" will be incredibly ugly and totally unappealing
>so that any reasonable person will prefer the utter simplicity and
>elegance of Copernicus and Newton and that even the truly pious
>individuals, like Galileo and Newton and all their contemperaries,
>would prefer the beauty and simplicity as better representing God's
>laws. Still it could be done.
>
>Incidentally, according to general relativity coordinate systems say
>everything about gravity.

I can't tell if we are again talking at each other here. Could you
elaborate on this last point? How is one coordinate system different
than another in GR?

[jillery]

On Mon, 7 Nov 2011 10:36:22 -0800 (PST), Kent <musqu...@gmail.com>

If all you're concerned about is coordinate systems, you're correct.
If you're concerned with describing reality, you're not even wrong.

[Friar Broccoli]

.

> I had exactly that post in mind when I replied to Kent.  I'm glad you
> found it.

Somehow it seems to be constraining replies.

> >to that I add, that as a practical matter we all agree, that
> >gravitational mass together with inertial momentum (as described by
> >Newton's laws of motion) are the causes of orbits.
>
> >Given that:
> >1) The mass of the sun far exceeds the mass of the rest of the solar
> >system.
>
> To quantify, the Sun contains over 99% of the mass of the Solar
> System.
>
> >2) All the other planets recognize a moving point inside the sun as
> >the centre of the solar system around which they orbit.

.

> Pedantic point; the center of mass, or barycenter, of the solar system
> is usually within the radius of the Sun, but not always:
>
> http://www.timingsolution.com/TS/Study/cm/

I didn't read the link.
Can I wiggle out of this by claiming the Chromosphere is part of the
sun?

[Kent]

The last sentence is the nub. As a physicist, I have given up worrying about reality a long time ago. It is quite clear that all our physical theories are detached from reality to some extent. If string theory is correct they even have the number of dimensions wrong. Consequently, I tend towards instrumentalism and view the true nature of reality as unknowable and hence not worth arguing about (http://www.quantumdiaries.org/2011/09/30/the-limits-of-science/).

To reorganize the lead post in this discussion:

1) The idea of absolute rotation is meaningless.
2) Terrestrial phenomena are most conveniently described in a geocentric frame.
3) Planetary motion is most conveniently described in a heliocentric (baryocentric?) frame.
4) Cosmological calculations are most conveniently done in still a different frame -- one where the dipole moment of cosmic microwave background vanished.

Giving directions to corner store in the cosmic frame is as ridiculous as doing cosmology in geocentric frame.

"Most convenient" is a very significant consideration. Much that is considered to be reality is fixed not directly by experiment but by "most convenient" considerations. Hence my leading towards instrumentalist.

Oh and by the way the argument is not between Copernicus and Ptolemy but between Copernicus and Brahe. The Ptolemaic system was largely ruled out by the variation of the size of Mars and phases of Venus. The difference was not just a question of frame but of geometry. It was Brahe that had the sun circling the earth and the other planets circling the sun.

[J. J. Lodder]

The general theory of relativity suffices for all cases
as the one and only law of gravity and motion.
It is only the description that becomes excessively complicated.

And, as anyone who has looked at it knows,
general relativity is hard enough in the best of coordinate systems.

Jan

[Friar Broccoli]

On Nov 7, 4:02 pm, Kent <musquods...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, November 7, 2011 11:45:15 AM UTC-8, jillery wrote:
> > On Mon, 7 Nov 2011 10:36:22 -0800 (PST), Kent <musqu...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > If all you're concerned about is coordinate systems, you're correct.
> > If you're concerned with describing reality, you're not even wrong.
>
> The last sentence is the nub. As a physicist, I have given up worrying about reality a long time ago. It is quite clear that all our physical theories are detached from reality to some extent. If string theory is correct they even have the number of dimensions wrong. Consequently, I tend towards instrumentalism and view the true nature of reality as unknowable and hence not worth arguing about (http://www.quantumdiaries.org/2011/09/30/the-limits-of-science/).
>
> To reorganize the lead post in this discussion:
>
> 1) The idea of absolute rotation is meaningless.
> 2) Terrestrial phenomena are most conveniently described in a geocentric frame.
> 3) Planetary motion is most conveniently described in a heliocentric (baryocentric?) frame.
> 4) Cosmological calculations are most conveniently done in still a different frame -- one where the dipole moment of cosmic microwave background vanished.
>
> Giving directions to corner store in the cosmic frame is as ridiculous as doing cosmology in geocentric frame.
>
> "Most convenient" is a very significant consideration. Much that is considered to be reality is fixed not directly by experiment but by "most convenient" considerations. Hence my leading towards instrumentalist.

In the context of your post (which includes the view that "the true
nature of reality as unknowable and hence not worth arguing about")
your "most convenient" appears to be a discussion about descriptive
models as opposed to causative models. I completely agree that we are
far from knowing what the fundamental nature of reality is; but that
does not mean that no reality exists, nor that causation (however
distorted our view of it) does not exist or is irrelevant.

Since I am completely out of my depth, it is likely that I am
distorting his intent, but JJ Lodder has just said: "The general

theory of relativity suffices for all cases

as the one and only law of gravity and motion." Using general
relativity to calculate orbits invokes causation, in as much as a more
massive sun produces more gravity waves which distort the surrounding
space more than less massive bodies like the earth. Thus
relativistic calculations describe the mass of the sun as the cause of
earth's orbit around it. For these types of calculations it is not a
matter of convenience - the sun's mass is the cause and therefore the
sun as centre the preferred frame.

> Oh and by the way the argument is not between Copernicus and Ptolemy but between Copernicus and Brahe.

.

> The Ptolemaic system was largely ruled out by the variation of the size of Mars and phases of Venus.

Here I have a question: Are you saying that the Ptolemaic model
(which depended on regular spheres) was ruled out due to the
eccentricity, inclination and/or precession in their orbits? Ie.
could you expand please?

[r norman]

On Mon, 07 Nov 2011 14:40:41 -0500, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>

Why should we assume that gravity is a function of mass or that
smaller objects should orbit larger ones? You can write down formulas
to describe the motion of objects from a geocentric reference frame
and now you have the "laws of nature" that agrees with observation.

Yes, if you assume what Newton did including a mysterious coordinate
system somehow fixed in space through which everything moves you get
universal laws of a particularly simple form that apply seemingly to
everything (until more modern physics came along). But still Newtons
laws are nothing more than mathematical formulas for describing the
motion of objects. In the geocentric system you can produce
mathematical formulas for describing the motion of objects. Why choose
one over the other?

I already described in a separate post that no sane person would
choose the geocentric system. Still it is possible to do it.

As to general relativity, a more proper statement would refer to the
metric geometry of space which strongly constrains the kind of
coordinate systems that can be used to identify points.

[Friar Broccoli]

On Nov 7, 7:08 pm, r norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Nov 2011 14:40:41 -0500, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Mon, 07 Nov 2011 12:55:48 -0500, r norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net>
> >wrote:
>
> >>On Mon, 07 Nov 2011 12:35:35 -0500, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com>
> >>wrote:
>
> >>>On Mon, 7 Nov 2011 07:05:52 -0800 (PST), Kent <musquods...@gmail.com>

Because Newton's law states "that any two bodies attract each other
with a force that is directly proportional to the product of their
masses". So the guy with more mass has more pull.

> You can write down formulas
> to describe the motion of objects from a geocentric reference frame
> and now you have the "laws of nature" that agrees with observation.

How do you get around: greater mass, greater pull?

[r norman]

On Mon, 7 Nov 2011 16:20:52 -0800 (PST), Friar Broccoli

Why are you assuming that Newton's law of gravity plus his laws of
motion is the proper way of describing reality using the geocentric
coordinate system? All natural laws will have to be rewritten.

[Friar Broccoli]

Because a completely different set of laws - the relativistic ones
reached essentially the same conclusion?

Because any alternative you come up with will make Noah's flood appear
completely plausible by comparison?

We may completely misunderstand the nature of mass, but whatever it
refers to is causative with respect to orbits.

[r norman]

On Mon, 7 Nov 2011 17:07:02 -0800 (PST), Friar Broccoli

>> Why are you assuming that Newton's law of gravity plus his laws of
>> motion is the proper way of describing reality using the geocentric
>> coordinate system?   All natural laws will have to be rewritten.
>
>Because a completely different set of laws - the relativistic ones
>reached essentially the same conclusion?
>
>Because any alternative you come up with will make Noah's flood appear
>completely plausible by comparison?
>
>We may completely misunderstand the nature of mass, but whatever it
>refers to is causative with respect to orbits.

I think you fail to understand just what it is that I am saying.

Given a stationary earth, every law of nature we now have would have
to be revised quite substantially. You have to account for the motion
of astronomical objects, what we call the Coriolis effect (which would
of course have a completely different explanation), the notion of
geostationary orbits, all sorts of things.

You say mass, whatever it is, is causative with respect to orbits.
That is only because you accept Newtonian gravity and laws of motion
or more modern physical theories of gravity and laws of motion.

I am saying that everything we see can be described by mathematical
equations from a stationary earth perspective. The equations would
look horrendous because our simple, elegant, universal laws would be
replaced by laws where all forces and motions would depend on position
in space and the current time. Still, our modern "theories" are just
mathematical equations that describe what we see. What makes one set
of equations better than another? Because they are simpler, more
elegant, and universal? Is there some rule that says we must adopt
simplicity, elegance, and universality? We do because no sane person
(as I have said over and over and over) would choose the alternative.
Still, it could be done.

[Mark Isaak]

Furthermore, I believe Tony's position is not merely that geocentrism is
true, but that the accepted cosmology is all wrong. But then, Tony is
not big on saying what he thinks, other than that he knows he is always
right about everything.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume

[Friar Broccoli]

On Nov 7, 8:47 pm, r norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Nov 2011 17:07:02 -0800 (PST), Friar Broccoli
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

It is not true that "every law of nature we now have would have to be
revised quite substantially". The only laws that would need to be
revised are the ones relating to the earth, the sun and probably to
the properties of space between them. All the other bodies we know
about would be explained just fine with the existing laws. Since the
earth's moon, and all the other other planets (as well as distant
stars and galaxies) could be explained just fine with the current laws
you wind up with a sun that needs to follow two different and
incompatible sets of laws at the same time.

You can claim that a set of consistent laws can be devised, but you
know full well that you cannot possibly demonstrate this, or even
present a plausible argument that such a duel system of laws might be
true. And that is Tony's problem. He needs a second set of laws that
apply uniquely to earth and the sun, but there is no observational
justification for invoking any additional laws.

[r norman]

On Mon, 7 Nov 2011 18:45:57 -0800 (PST), Friar Broccoli

You are wrong about your statement that we could apply all the
existing laws of nature to things other than the sun and the earth.
Every object outside the earth would have to revolve around the earth
with very weird dynamics and each one needs its own special
description. And each particle on or in the earth has dynamics that
depends on exactly where on earth it is located to account for what we
call Coriolis effect. Once you go that path you have to completely
abandon everything you now know about physics.

I said it is a total mess and special laws are needed for every
possible situation. I also never claimed that the laws need be
consistent. In fact i questioned what is meant by consistency of
laws. The only plausible demonstration that the laws are true is that
the particles obey the laws.

Tony's problem is very simple. It is exactly the reason for my often
repeated statement: "No sane person would choose this route."

[Friar Broccoli]

On Nov 7, 10:14 pm, r norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Nov 2011 18:45:57 -0800 (PST), Friar Broccoli
>

Well, you got me there. Guess I shouldn't have put off my nap for so
long.

[jillery]

On Mon, 07 Nov 2011 19:08:43 -0500, r norman <r_s_n...@comcast.net>

You ignored my point. I don't say the assumption that gravity is a
function of mass is a necessary one. ISTM the only necessary
assumption is that all rules are applied to all objects equally.
ISTM that geocentric models violate that rule. ISTM the important
question that you and Kent don't answer is; what rule can you state
about gravity in a neotychonian model that can be applied to all
objects equally?

>As to general relativity, a more proper statement would refer to the
>metric geometry of space which strongly constrains the kind of
>coordinate systems that can be used to identify points.

IIUC you are saying that that neotychonian coordinate systems are
equivalent to helocentric coordinate system wrt to GR. If so, then I
point out that the question of coordinate systems has no relevance to
the question of which model best explains material observations,
precisely because their coordinate systems are equivalent and make no
distinction between the models.

[jillery]

On Mon, 07 Nov 2011 22:14:58 -0500, r norman <r_s_n...@comcast.net>

IIUC you state above that in order to make sense of geostationary
models, you have to abandon Newtonian gravity (implies abandonging GR
also?), and instead come up with a set of special rules for every
object in every point in space and time. ISTM that is in no way
equivalent to heliocentric models.

I can make sense of geostationary models by assuming that an
omnipotent deity moves every object arbitrarily in every point in
space and time. ISTM that is equivalent to the argument you state
above.

[jillery]

I have noticed that Tony starts with assertions that his neotychonian
model is the right one, but whenever he is backed into a corner, he
falls back to "is consistent with and equivalent to", which is what I
understand is Kent's argument above.

There are lots of models that are "consistent with" some observations,
up to and including the seccond-by-second manipulation of an
omnipotent deity. ISTM the argument isn't about identifying models
which are merely consistent with observations, but is about
identifying models which also explain the observations. That's what
Newton and Einstein did. ISTM to argue that heliocentric and
neotychonic models are equivalent because their coordinate systems are
equivalent is sophistry.

[jillery]

On Mon, 7 Nov 2011 10:36:22 -0800 (PST), Kent <musqu...@gmail.com>

Then how do you explain the special nature of earth's
lack of motion in geocentric models, while all other heavenly bodies
go whizzing 'round it?

[jillery]

On Mon, 7 Nov 2011 13:02:52 -0800 (PST), Kent <musqu...@gmail.com>

wrote:

>On Monday, November 7, 2011 11:45:15 AM UTC-8, jillery wrote:
>> On Mon, 7 Nov 2011 10:36:22 -0800 (PST), Kent <musqu...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>
>
>> If all you're concerned about is coordinate systems, you're correct.
>> If you're concerned with describing reality, you're not even wrong.
>
>The last sentence is the nub. As a physicist, I have given up worrying about reality a long time ago. It is quite clear that all our physical theories are detached from reality to some extent. If string theory is correct they even have the number of dimensions wrong. Consequently, I tend towards instrumentalism and view the true nature of reality as unknowable and hence not worth arguing about (http://www.quantumdiaries.org/2011/09/30/the-limits-of-science/).

I freely admit I am no expert. I am probably the least person
qualified here to discuss these issues. However, I don't base my
argument on my personal authority, nor do I challenge your authority
or qualifications. I do challenge what I understand your assertion to
be, that heliocentric and neotychonian models are equivalent. I base
my challenge on the material observations I have read others have made
regarding the physical properties of matter. IIUC neotychonian models
violate accepted laws of physics. Pointing out that some features of
neotychonian models "are equivalent to" heliocentric models doesn't
address those violations, nor does asserting that reality is
unknowable. Answering the question of Friar Broccoli wrt causative vs
descriptive models would address those violations.


<snip miscellaneous strawman assertions>

[r norman]

On Tue, 08 Nov 2011 01:24:05 -0500, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Mon, 07 Nov 2011 22:14:58 -0500, r norman <r_s_n...@comcast.net>
>wrote:

<snip>

>
I am combining here comments from two recent posts of yours for the
sake of simplification:

Here is the first

>IIUC you state above that in order to make sense of geostationary
>models, you have to abandon Newtonian gravity (implies abandonging GR
>also?), and instead come up with a set of special rules for every
>object in every point in space and time. ISTM that is in no way
>equivalent to heliocentric models.
>
>I can make sense of geostationary models by assuming that an
>omnipotent deity moves every object arbitrarily in every point in
>space and time. ISTM that is equivalent to the argument you state
>above.

Here is the second

>ISTM the only necessary
>assumption is that all rules are applied to all objects equally.
>ISTM that geocentric models violate that rule. ISTM the important
>question that you and Kent don't answer is; what rule can you state
>about gravity in a neotychonian model that can be applied to all
>objects equally?

I think you may have overlooked what I wrote:

>>I said it is a total mess and special laws are needed for every
>>possible situation.

>>I also never claimed that the laws need be
>>consistent. In fact i questioned what is meant by consistency of
>>laws.

You still insist that the rules be universal: applied to all objects
equally. You most definitely have to abandon such ideas in order to
produce a full picture of a geostationary universe. In earlier days,
before any details were known about astronomy, you could have a
uniformly rotating celestial sphere. Then you had to add epicycles
and epicycles on the epicycles. Now you have to add all sorts of
special tricks on everything you see to make it all work. I did say
it is a mess and special laws are needed for each possible situation.

You say this is in no way equivalent to heliocentric models. True,
the models are different but they both describe the same reality.

You say the only way you can make sense of it is if some god moves
everything just the right way. I say two things. First, I don't try
to make sense of it; it makes no sense -- it just is. Second, why
should God, who is attentive to the fall of every sparrow, not move
everything just the right way? Is that any more difficult to believe
than God moving everything exactly according to some mathematical
rule?

What I am saying is that is is possible to describe the universe in a
geocentric way. I have said so many times now that I have lost count
that no sane person would ever believe that is a good or a reasonable
way of doing so. All your arguments based on reason and order and the
need for universal laws fail -- geocentrism is insanity. Still it is
possible to do.

[Kent]

On Monday, November 7, 2011 10:46:35 PM UTC-8, jillery wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Nov 2011 10:36:22 -0800 (PST), Kent <musqu...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, November 7, 2011 9:35:35 AM UTC-8, jillery wrote:

> >> On Mon, 7 Nov 2011 07:05:52 -0800 (PST), Kent <musq...@gmail.com>

> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Sunday, November 6, 2011 9:43:00 PM UTC-8, jillery wrote:

> >> >> On Sun, 06 Nov 2011 20:09:13 -0500, r norman <r_s...@comcast.net>

I don't explain, I make models that describe observations and prediction future ones. Explanations are in the eye of the beholder.

[Kent]

On Monday, November 7, 2011 11:14:58 PM UTC-8, jillery wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Nov 2011 13:02:52 -0800 (PST), Kent <musqu...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, November 7, 2011 11:45:15 AM UTC-8, jillery wrote:

> >> On Mon, 7 Nov 2011 10:36:22 -0800 (PST), Kent <musq...@gmail.com>

> >> wrote:
> >>
> >
> >
> >> If all you're concerned about is coordinate systems, you're correct.
> >> If you're concerned with describing reality, you're not even wrong.
> >
> >The last sentence is the nub. As a physicist, I have given up worrying about reality a long time ago. It is quite clear that all our physical theories are detached from reality to some extent. If string theory is correct they even have the number of dimensions wrong. Consequently, I tend towards instrumentalism and view the true nature of reality as unknowable and hence not worth arguing about (http://www.quantumdiaries.org/2011/09/30/the-limits-of-science/).
>
>
> I freely admit I am no expert. I am probably the least person
> qualified here to discuss these issues. However, I don't base my
> argument on my personal authority, nor do I challenge your authority
> or qualifications. I do challenge what I understand your assertion to
> be, that heliocentric and neotychonian models are equivalent. I base
> my challenge on the material observations I have read others have made
> regarding the physical properties of matter. IIUC neotychonian models
> violate accepted laws of physics. Pointing out that some features of

The laws of physics are different in neotychoian system but different in a way that can be be derived mathematically starting from a heliocentric system.

My point is two fold.

First: The heliocentric model is driven not just by observation but by observation plus a simplicity criteria. This I believe is the point r norman is making. The simplicity criteria is as fundamental to science as observations.

Second: One should not take the internal constructs of one's models too seriously. They change dramatically as science progresses. The history of science is littered with abandoned metaphysics: Newton's fixed space time and clock work universe, caloric, etc.