quote:That's certainly fair. And if I don't find your posting to be completely representative of everything Sungenis has said, I'm sure you won't mind if I post some additional material in response.
I suspect that an exchange of such material might derail your movie thread about "The Principle" considerably. You might want to consider opening a new thread on whether or not Sungenis is a Jew Bashing anti-Semite. I promise to keep my rebuttal to such a thread if it is opened.
Thanks for a hearty chuckle. Let's do that. And you have to give me time to locate the article.
I've been very busy on a writing project. I've been studying the history of the helio/geo debate and have been looking at the evidences and experiments discussed in the GWW DVD set.
If one is not physics oriented (that be me) it is all-consuming.
quote:Good, I'm just sitting here waiting for you to provide that argument for geocentricism that you said you would in Message 16.
All you've provided so far is arguments that are anti-current-science, but that's not an argument for geocentricism anymore than anti-evolution arguments are for creationism.
Hi Cat! I just started a new thread in the education section. I am now uploading synopses for the GWW scenes. They will contain some of the discussion on the geo arguments.
Bear with me. Trying to juggle job and keeping up with forum posts.
Cat Sci, I wrote the synopses just last week after studying the DVD. You want my thinking? You get it in the synopses. They contain my understanding of the arguments put forth.
I am happy to discuss real time after I post those.
Understand that I believe that the universe is geocentric because the Scriptures say that the Sun moves and the Earth does not. The geocentricity of the universe is, first and foremost, a matter of revealed religion. I believe that the Earth doesn't move pursuant to an intellectual assent of faith. I believe first, and then I am happy to look at the science and marvel because nothing in the Creature contradicts the revelation of the Creator.
Interestingly, I bought Robert's book, GWW, back in 2005. I was one of those eager beavers who got it hot off the presses. I tried to read it. I really did. But it went so far over my head that I had to chuckle. I just believed and I was happy that Robert had the brains to tackle the science.
Last week I had to address the science, so that I could write the synopses. You have no idea the brain ache it has cost me. I'm not a physicist. But I did the work, put in the time, and produced some pretty coherent summarizations. I'm not finished either - I'm still in the process.
You engage in a logical fallacy when you dismiss out of hand something a person has posted just because it came from a promotional website. Your dismissal is not content based. It is based on a squeamishness about the source. Everything I have posted here was created recently by thinking, reasoning adults. I even gave you Ricker's email address. By all means, pull him in here for a discussion. I pray that I have addressed your objections.
I'm sure, Cat Sci, that if you actually read them, there is something in the synopses for you to tear apart.
And if you actually watch the DVD's, you might be able to take Ricker to task for anything misrepresentative he has included in his review.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Reset signature
{Too spammy video promotion banner/link replaced with this message - Adminnemooseus)
quote:You are certainly not going to convince anyone with a non-argument like that.
Revealed religion is pretty much totally worthless in any science thread and of hardly any worth even in religious threads. What you offer is simply another example of factual errors that run throughout the Bible from beginning to end.
You are presupposing I came here to talk religion. I have not. I simply shared with you pertinent facts that addressed the concern you voiced.
This is not the forum to discuss Scripture. I won't waste anyone's time with that subject.
I am simply seeking permission to publish the synopses as my own work product.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Reset signature
{Too spammy video promotion banner/link replaced with this message - Adminnemooseus)
Re: Galileo Was Wrong...about circular planetary orbits
Mr.Hambre wrote:
quote:You're right that the physics of how the solar system works is beyond laymen like you and me. But why do you think that so many professionals in astronomy throughout the centuries since Galileo have been so reluctant to work out what some theology blogger like Robert Sungenis found so easy to recognize? Since there's so much gain and glory at stake in the competitive science industry, I have a hard time believing that countless experts simply toed the heliocentric line when the evidence is supposedly so overwhelmingly against it.
Hello my good man!
I promised not to talk religion.
But let's just say for argument's sake that I hate Jesus Christ and want to destroy for once and for all His Christendom. Let's say I think I have a better idea for the foundation of civilization.
But that damnable medieval culture stands in my way; and that damnable culture is founded, like a rock, on the Catholic Church's Magisterial teaching; and that damnable Magisterial teaching is based firmly on a dogma regarding the inerrancy of Sacred Writ; and that damnable Sacred Writ is, well, geocentric.
From that perspective, the "copernican principle" is something to defend with the best one has, n'est ce pas?
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Reset signature
{Too spammy video promotion banner/link replaced with this message - Adminnemooseus)
Re: Galileo Was Wrong...about circular planetary orbits
Mr.Hambre:
quote:You didn't respond to the question I asked in my post: why would presumably millions of astronomers from Galileo's time to ours have ignored the overwhelming evidence of geocentrism, when there's so much wealth and renown at stake?
I responded by way of hypothetical to the question I thought was actually contained within your words, namely: Why is the whole science industry copernican if they know that geocentrism is the truth?
Your words as such do not really constitute a question. Rather they amount to an unproven assumption, and thereby an affirmation, disguised as a question; namely: If I am a scientist that knows geocentrism is the truth, and if I make that truth public, I will get rich and famous.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Reset signature
{Too spammy video promotion banner/link replaced with this message - Adminnemooseus)
Re: Galileo Was Wrong...about circular planetary orbits
PaulK:
quote:But isn't it obvious that all astronomers - including those working at the Vatican Observatory - are dedicated to destroying Christianity and overthrowing the Catholic Church ?
Truly, the Vatican Observatory, and the last six or seven Popes for that matter, seem to have no desire to be Catholic. Aye there's the rub.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Reset signature
{Too spammy video promotion banner/link replaced with this message - Adminnemooseus)
Re: Galileo Was Wrong...about circular planetary orbits
CatSci:
quote:Any thoughts on the mass of the sun being waaay too huge for it to revolve around the Earth?
My thought is that this question is framed by Newtonian mechanics because it implies that only the forces caused by the mass of the two bodies stipulated - the Sun and the Earth - should be factored into the analysis. As framed, your question posits the Newtonian idea of Absolute Space, wherein the only things moving and exerting force are the bodies under consideration, the bodies plugged into a mathematical equation. IF the Sun and the Earth were the two bodies in a two-body system, indeed the mass of the Sun would be "waaaay too huge for it to revolve around the Earth."
But we do not live in a two body universe; wherefore Newton's law of two bodies cannot accurately measure reality. According to Ernst Mach, though the huge mass of the Sun has a great force of gravity, the combined masses of the stars have a corresponding force of gravity, which influences other bodies in the universe.
The answer to your question is that the entire universe rotates around its center of mass, carrying the stars and the Sun with it. The Earth being the universe's center of mass, the stars and the Sun rotate around the Earth.
quote:Awww give her a chance! I respect Faith in part largely due to the fact that she has hung in there so long after being repeatedly dogpiled by others who preach the gospel of logic, reason, and reality. If Suzanne was as tough as Faith, she would fit in here quite nicely. Perhaps she would eventually learn to express her beliefs more in her own words and less cut & paste. Or perhaps she would become more like the way you want her to be---a critical thinker who supports reasoned argumentation with evidence.
Mighty nice of ya, Phat.
'preciate 'er.
Thing is, I'm not allowed to speak of faith here. Faith will not be tolerated. I would love to have a go with the folks here on the subject of Natural Philosophy. But then they would accuse me of cutting and pasting from St. Thomas Aquinas and the Magisterium of the Church.
What Suzanne Romano obviously fails to understand (and which makes her a crank and a cook and an irrelevant cutting and pasting time waster), is that every other person on this forum has a degree in Physics, Logic, Philosophy, and/or other science, and has been pre-qualified as an expert in their field as a criterion for membership. No one on this forum who does not have a degree in Physics posts anything related to Physics, and so on. Indeed, any comment now adorning this board - the comments of Suzanne Romano excepted (for she apparently qualified for membership under a different set of posting guidelines) - has the guarantee and bears the royal stamp of having been submitted by a qualified expert with a degree in the field of science under discussion.
Only Suzanne Romano posts comments about subjects wherein she has no professional expertise or official recognition. Everyone else here is a world renowned scientist of one sort or another.
And if a poster should quote another expert, like Hegel, Kant, Einstein, Newton, Hawking, Voltaire, et. al., this is not cutting and pasting. It is only cutting and pasting if Suzanne Romano quotes an authority.
Furthermore, no member of this forum believes anything on the word of another because that would certainly not be rational or logical. Indeed many members of this forum cannot post regularly because they are too busy in labs, observatories, expeditions, and space flights. They are all busy making sure (on their own steam and power) that every single thing they ever read in a textbook is empirically true.
See, Phat, it's a double standard called: Leveling the field.
Now, if you will please excuse me, I am going to review the GWW segment on the Michelson-Morley experiment. Then I am going to write another synopsis, using the GWW material and the independent research I have gathered over the course of ten years. Then I am going to post that synopsis on this forum, if they don't ban me first. Then the members will have at me. Then I will answer some of the more intelligent replies. Then I will go and write again. And so forth, and so on, blah, blah, blah.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
