Can the Great and Mighty Carlip Prove that the Sun is at Rest with Respect to the Earth?

[T Pagano]

Can the Great and Mighty Carlip prove that the Sun is at rest with
respect to the Earth? In order for the proof to be of particular value
it must----at the same time-----be unexplainable by an Earth at rest with
respect to the Sun. What was Einstein's and Mach's opinion in this
regard?

Carlip undoubtedly has a greater command of the facts and the math than
all of us combined. I, on the other hand, am a mere idiot-----a point
which he and Harshman make clear.

Harshman has over the years pointed out matters involving evolutionary
theory that caused me to hit the books. I'm hoping Carlip gives me
something I can't explain and I'll have to hit the books.

[Ernest Major]

You're asking him to prove your strawman.

--
alias Ernest Major

[T Pagano]

I remember the old days when Burkhard used to save your bacon on a
regular basis. I guess he grew tired of that in my absence.

.. . .but I digress.


I'm asking the mighty one to prove that the "Sun" is at rest with respect
to the Earth. That's the heliocentric model----Copernicanism. The model
held as a religious-like truth by every secular atheist since
Copernicus's book was published. Furthermore heliocentricism isn't a
straw position. Is it?

Help like this Carlip doesn't need.

[Ernest Major]

I'm not trying to help Carlip; I'm trying to help you. What you're
asking him to prove isn't heliocentrism. If you want a less wrong
formulation it would be that the sun is at rest in an inertial frame,
but that's not what physicists believe either.

PS: Copernicus's model has been dead since Kepler.

--
alias Ernest Major

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 10:36:57 -0600, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by T Pagano <notmya...@dot.com>:

>On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 16:08:43 +0000, Ernest Major wrote:
>
>> On 12/02/2018 14:46, T Pagano wrote:
>>> Can the Great and Mighty Carlip prove that the Sun is at rest with
>>> respect to the Earth? In order for the proof to be of particular value
>>> it must----at the same time-----be unexplainable by an Earth at rest
>>> with respect to the Sun. What was Einstein's and Mach's opinion in
>>> this regard?
>>>
>>> Carlip undoubtedly has a greater command of the facts and the math than
>>> all of us combined. I, on the other hand, am a mere idiot-----a point
>>> which he and Harshman make clear.
>>>
>>> Harshman has over the years pointed out matters involving evolutionary
>>> theory that caused me to hit the books. I'm hoping Carlip gives me
>>> something I can't explain and I'll have to hit the books.
>>>
>>>
>> You're asking him to prove your strawman.
>
>
>
>I remember the old days when Burkhard used to save your bacon on a
>regular basis. I guess he grew tired of that in my absence.
>
>.. . .but I digress.
>
>
>I'm asking the mighty one to prove that the "Sun" is at rest with respect
>to the Earth. That's the heliocentric model----Copernicanism.

No, it's not; that's why it's a strawman. The constraint
"with respect to" means exactly that, and it's has nothing
to do with absolute motion. From *any* particular
perspective *everything else* which moves, moves relative to
that perspective. But Newton and Kepler showed that with
respect to an external observer the Earth both rotates and
orbits the sun, not vice versa.

> The model
>held as a religious-like truth by every secular atheist since
>Copernicus's book was published. Furthermore heliocentricism isn't a
>straw position. Is it?
>
>Help like this Carlip doesn't need.

--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 17:01:30 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk>:

Tony seems to use "Copernicanism" exactly as he uses
"evolutionism", and "secular atheist" as a synonym for
"scientist", as scare terms equating science to religion,
and scientific knowledge to faith-type belief. No actual
meaning need apply.

[Ernest Major]

If Tony had asked for proof that the sun was at rest it would at least
have been a heliocentrist straw man (Copernicus and Kepler have the sun
at rest IIRC, Newton and Einstein don't), but asking for the sun at rest
with respect to the earth is a neo-Tychonian (but not Tony's preferred
neo-Tychonian model, as it would imply a rotating earth) strawman - you
can imagine a model in which both the sun and earth are at rest, and
everything else other than the moon orbits the sun. I wonder how Tony
reconciles the idea that the sun is at rest with respect to the earth
with the observation that the distance between the earth and the sun
varies both annually and on longer periods.

--
alias Ernest Major

[Richard Clayton]

Actually, Tony, if you'll permit me, there's a related question I've
wondered about for many years, and your return to this newsgroup may
offer a chance to satisfy my curiosity.

Let's stipulate /arguendo/ that geocentrism is correct: The Earth is at
the center of the universe, or at least the center of what modern
science calls the solar system. (Clearly it should be the terrestrial
system, but I hope you'll indulge me in using the commonly-accepted
terminology; if we start redefining terms, Alps on Alps arise.) Now, in
this geocentric model, I'm curious what accounts for little ol' Earth, a
mere cosmic featherweight at 5.97×10^24 kilograms (/fide/ Wikipedia)
swinging mighty Sol and its 1.99×10^30 kilograms (again, per Wikipedia)
in a circle once per day.

There are, of course, a number of potential solutions to this
superficially puzzling situation; other geocentrists have posited a
striking variety of answers. Nonetheless, I'd be quite interested to
hear yours.

Thanks,
Richard

--
[The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
Richard Clayton
"I keep six honest serving men (they taught me all I knew); their names
are What and Why and When and How and Where and Who." — Rudyard Kipling

[jillery]

On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 11:21:19 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

There are a lot of similarities between the styles of argumentation
for Pagano and Martinez.

--
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire

[jillery]

On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 08:46:42 -0600, T Pagano <notmya...@dot.com>
wrote:

>Can the Great and Mighty Carlip prove that the Sun is at rest with
>respect to the Earth? In order for the proof to be of particular value
>it must----at the same time-----be unexplainable by an Earth at rest with
>respect to the Sun. What was Einstein's and Mach's opinion in this
>regard?

Nonsense. As you have pointed out yourself many times, saying that
the Earth is in motion relative to the Sun is equivalent to saying
that the Sun is in motion relative to the Earth. As I have pointed
out to you many times, the differences between geocentrism and
heliocentrism are *not* demonstrated by relative motions. It doesn't
take any kind of astrophysicist, great or otherwise, to understand
that.

>Carlip undoubtedly has a greater command of the facts and the math than
>all of us combined. I, on the other hand, am a mere idiot-----a point
>which he and Harshman make clear.
>
>Harshman has over the years pointed out matters involving evolutionary
>theory that caused me to hit the books. I'm hoping Carlip gives me
>something I can't explain and I'll have to hit the books.

[jillery]

As would many others who have asked that question to him, in vain.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 19:39:52 +0000, the following appeared

I assume that it's due to the "revolving (rotating?)
starfield" the one which moves at gazillions of times c in
order to circle the Earth once daily. Once you have that
*anything* is possible.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 20:57:31 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

True, but Ray is more honest about his religious motivation
than Tony is.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 21:05:47 -0500, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

>As would many others who have asked that question...

....and many others...

> ...to him, in vain.

[Ernest Major]

For the earth-sun distance be fixed (which is part of what Tony was
asking to be proved) the earth's diameter has to vary by dozens of miles
annually, with corresponding differences in all sorts of other
distances. I was thinking that we'd have the distance of 3C 273
differing by millions of light years annual in addition to its fantastic
angular velocity, but perhaps Tony would prefer something more elaborate
than simultaneous variation in the length of a meter through the universe.

--
alias Ernest Major

[jillery]

On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 11:15:02 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

Of course, there are also differences between them, but most of those
differences aren't especially relevant to their style of
argumentation, including IMO the one you specify above.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 19:18:35 +0000, the following appeared

OK, I was unaware that a fixed Earth-sun distance was part
of his fantasy; I thought all that was required was that the
Earth remain fixed in position and non-rotating, and that
everything else moved in such a way as to produce what we
observe, including the ability of the universe to act in
such a way that any number of geostationary satellites in
any positions around the Earth are held in position by MGE
("Magical Gravity Effects").

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 14 Feb 2018 00:25:55 -0500, the following appeared

All true, but I consider honesty to be at least as important
as argumentation style when I consider whether to lend *any*
weight to their opinions. But the accuracy of those opinions
far outweighs either in such an evaluation.

[Ernest Major]

It's not part of his fantasy; it's part (possible unintentionally due to
a Martinezesque command of the English language) of the strawman he was
asking Professor Carlip to prove. (Yes, Tony's strawman of consensus
physics was nearer to his position than to actual consensus physics.)

--
alias Ernest Major

[jillery]

On Wed, 14 Feb 2018 12:18:05 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

The point you made to which I responded above isn't about honesty in
general, but instead of honesty about religious motives (still
preserved in the quoted text above). Pagano's religious motives
aren't as relevant to his style because he focuses almost exclusively
on geocentrism, which isn't as strongly associated with religion as is
Martinez' Creationism. OTOH Martinez goes out of his way to embed
religion even beyond what that subject requires.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 14 Feb 2018 20:09:53 +0000, the following appeared

OK.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 14 Feb 2018 19:36:51 -0500, the following appeared

No argument here, but I'd point out that dishonesty in
specific lends suspicion to the probability of dishonesty in
general; the ubiquitous "slippery slope".

> Pagano's religious motives
>aren't as relevant to his style because he focuses almost exclusively
>on geocentrism, which isn't as strongly associated with religion as is
>Martinez' Creationism. OTOH Martinez goes out of his way to embed
>religion even beyond what that subject requires.

OK, I can buy that. My assumption was that the *only* reason
to espouse geocentrism in the face of the mountains of
evidence refuting it had to be religious, and
Biblical-literalist at that.

[T Pagano]

On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 20:06:56 -0500, Richard Clayton wrote:

> On 12-Feb-18 09:46, T Pagano wrote:
>> Can the Great and Mighty Carlip prove that the Sun is at rest with
>> respect to the Earth? In order for the proof to be of particular value
>> it must----at the same time-----be unexplainable by an Earth at rest
>> with respect to the Sun. What was Einstein's and Mach's opinion in
>> this regard?
>>
>> Carlip undoubtedly has a greater command of the facts and the math than
>> all of us combined. I, on the other hand, am a mere idiot-----a point
>> which he and Harshman make clear.
>>
>> Harshman has over the years pointed out matters involving evolutionary
>> theory that caused me to hit the books. I'm hoping Carlip gives me
>> something I can't explain and I'll have to hit the books.
>
> Actually, Tony, if you'll permit me, there's a related question I've
> wondered about for many years, and your return to this newsgroup may
> offer a chance to satisfy my curiosity.
>
> Let's stipulate /arguendo/ that geocentrism is correct: The Earth is at
> the center of the universe, or at least the center of what modern
> science calls the solar system. (Clearly it should be the terrestrial
> system, but I hope you'll indulge me in using the commonly-accepted
> terminology;

1. Unfortunately this is where the confusion occurs and hence supposed
secular refutations veer off. Let's look at the fundamental differences
in the models which are ignored (usually through ignorance of both
models) which make the Sun-Earth gravitational issue apparent and not
real.

2. Heliocentricism is not a model of the universe. It merely describes
the relative motions of a solar system which is *not* closed. It is the
Big Bang Cosmogeny which describes the Universe.

3. The GeoCentric model is a description of both the relative motions in
our solar system and also of the universe.

4. The GeoCentric model has a three dimensional, spherical, Euclidean
geometry which *rotates" and has a center. The Big Bang Model geometry
is often described as a three-dimensional hyspersphere which expands,
does not rotate and does not have a center.

5. GeoCentric space (the ether) is made up of a highly dense, Plank
sized particles forming a frictionless fluid which can exhibit the
properties of a rigid body. This was, more or less, the theoretical
description provided by James Clerk Maxwell in support of his
electromagnetic theory. It explains electromagnetic propagation and
gravity as a force. If this universal ether exists Relativity is false.

6. Relativity explains "space" as having *no* material existence yet it
warps in the presence of material bodies and can cause a "gravitational"
effect on material bodies through curvature and not force.

> if we start redefining terms, Alps on Alps arise.)

1. Unfortunately---as you see above---the differences in the models are
not mere matters of verbalism, but contain radical differences with
different material effects.

2. In other words your underlying assumptions are not correct:

(a) Our solar system is neither a closed system nor can it be
approximated to be so. Under the Big Bang model if the center of gravity
of the Milky Way is powerful enough to hold our Earth and keep it in its
orbit then ignoring outside forces (outside of our Solar system) is not
legitimate.

(b) The geoCentric universe can be idealized as a rotating Newton's
Sphere with the star field as the shell. Einstein and Mach reported that
under Relativity this model was a perfectly acceptable alternative though
not one either accepted.

(c) Hans Thirring reported---considering a rotating Newton's Sphere with
the starfield as the shell and Earth at the center (an idealized
geoCentric model)----that the rotating gravitational field of the star
field induced the exact centrifugal/Coriolis forces experienced on
Earth. The rotating starfield also applied a real centrifugal force to
the other bodies within the shell.

(c) The Big Bang model has no center and explains centrifugal forces as
a local matter. The Big Bang model explains the Centrifugal force as
"fictitious" because it has a tenuous physical explanation.

(d) The Big Bang model is rapidly expanding causing difficulties
explaining seemingly simple celestial-mechanical effects----like the
rotation of galaxies.

> Now, in
> this geocentric model, I'm curious what accounts for little ol' Earth, a
> mere cosmic featherweight at 5.97×10^24 kilograms (/fide/ Wikipedia)
> swinging mighty Sol and its 1.99×10^30 kilograms (again, per Wikipedia)
> in a circle once per day.

In the Big Bang model the Earth is not sucked into the center of the
Milky way because the centrifugal force balances the gravitational. The
principle is the same with the Sun in a rotating geoCentric model-----the
centrifugal force. The difference is that the geoCentric model has a
real, physical explanation for the centrifugal.

> There are, of course, a number of potential solutions to this
> superficially puzzling situation; other geocentrists have posited a
> striking variety of answers. Nonetheless, I'd be quite interested to
> hear yours.

Logically there are an infinite number of solutions to any problem, but
I'm only interested in the one which is objectively true.

[Ernest Major]

My understanding is that the modern crop of geocentrists are inspired
more by ecclesiolatry than by bibliolatry. And some may be more like
moon-landing deniers - motivated by conspiracy ideation and the wish to
think of themselves as smarter than the average sheeple.

--
alias Ernest Major

[jillery]

Ditto flat-earthers. It's actually painful to listen to their willful
stupidity:

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IimQK_txr4M>

My impression is pseudo-skeptics think alike, regardless of their
specific obsessions. One could almost write a script and just leave a
few blanks in it.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 17 Feb 2018 00:54:22 +0000, the following appeared

You could be right, although that would still be a religious
motivation; just a more general one.

> And some may be more like
>moon-landing deniers - motivated by conspiracy ideation and the wish to
>think of themselves as smarter than the average sheeple.

And let's not forget the flat-Earthers...

Anyway, that would also make sense; thanks.

So many kooks; so many possible motives...

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 16 Feb 2018 22:37:00 -0500, the following appeared

Dammit, I have *got* to start reading all the posts in a
thread before responding to any...

> It's actually painful to listen to their willful
>stupidity:
>
><https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IimQK_txr4M>
>
>My impression is pseudo-skeptics think alike, regardless of their
>specific obsessions. One could almost write a script and just leave a
>few blanks in it.

Good point; I bel;ieve I can even picture the boilerplate
form.

[Don Cates]

On 2018-02-17 11:11 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Feb 2018 22:37:00 -0500, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>
>> On Sat, 17 Feb 2018 00:54:22 +0000, Ernest Major
>> <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>

[snip]

>>>
>>> My understanding is that the modern crop of geocentrists are inspired
>>> more by ecclesiolatry than by bibliolatry. And some may be more like
>>> moon-landing deniers - motivated by conspiracy ideation and the wish to
>>> think of themselves as smarter than the average sheeple.
>>
>>
>> Ditto flat-earthers.
>
> Dammit, I have *got* to start reading all the posts in a
> thread before responding to any...
>
>> It's actually painful to listen to their willful
>> stupidity:
>>
>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IimQK_txr4M>
>>
>> My impression is pseudo-skeptics think alike, regardless of their
>> specific obsessions. One could almost write a script and just leave a
>> few blanks in it.
>
> Good point; I bel;ieve I can even picture the boilerplate
> form.
>

"If the earth was flat, cats would have pushed everything off by now."
-some WebWit

--
--
Don Cates ("he's a cunning rascal" PN)

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 17 Feb 2018 11:47:45 -0600, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Don Cates
<cate...@hotmail.com.invalid>:

I *think* that was jillery, just a few days ago.

[jillery]

On Sun, 18 Feb 2018 10:15:23 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

I would love to take credit for that witticism, but I am merely one of
its many publicists, at most.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 02:02:34 -0500, the following appeared

OK. It was the first time I'd seen it, so I assumed you were
the author.

[Rolf Aalberg]

"Ernest Major" <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:p67ufr$bac$1...@dont-email.me...

You think they are not?

Well, even I do;)
> --
> alias Ernest Major
>

[Rolf Aalberg]

"T Pagano" <notmya...@dot.com> wrote in message
news:Q_2dnS1q1eZ75hrH...@ptd.net...

Looks like tp is on a crusade.

Rolf

[jillery]

On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 10:36:21 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

For those who haven't had enough, here's how cats do scientific
validation:

<https://twitter.com/TheCatTweeting/status/964902522577195008/photo/1>

[zencycle]

On Friday, February 16, 2018 at 7:50:03 PM UTC-5, T Pagano wrote:
>
> Logically there are an infinite number of solutions to any problem

No, there aren't. This only goes to prove that you have no understanding of the concept of logic. Philosophically, in an infinite universe, infinite things are possible. Logically, we can only consider the solutions that fit within the physical laws of the known universe.

> I'm only interested in the one which is objectively true.

No, you're interested in validating the ludicrousness of ID "theory". As with logic, this only goes to prove your complete misunderstanding of objectivity.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 20:46:09 -0500, the following appeared

Oooh! Me! Me!

>, here's how cats do scientific validation:
><https://twitter.com/TheCatTweeting/status/964902522577195008/photo/1>

Ah the well-known "Test by exhaustion of resources".

And I note that its "world" almost certainly has four
corners, in keeping with the Bible... ;-)