How Geocentrics Account For Seasons

Citing a group Geocentricity where I am not a member:

Dave Rogers

How do geocentrists account for the seasons? Does the sun's orbit oscillate between the hemispheres? Do all the other planets orbiting the sun oscillate with the sun?

Someone

answers the question by linking to a blog and to a video model made by a Geocentric. Whereupon ...

Dave Rogers

Can you cite an actual scientific source? Blogs and videos aren't even close. [...] Blogs and YouTube videos are worthless in the actual scientific community.

At which I can only comment

that if "the actual scientific community" refuses to consider an argument because the format of the presentation is a blog or a youtube video, then the "actual scientific community" is worthless as far as serious discussion is concerned. But more seriously to our purpose:

Ibn Salama

Spiral orbit of the sun. 6 months near the north, 6 near the south

Which is about

my answer too, as far as geometry and direct accounting for seasons is concerned. I would not word it "near the south" and "near the north" but "on southern hemisphere of heaven" and "on northern hemisphere of heaven" (crossing between hemispheres at equinoxes). But that is probably a specificity of Arabic phrasing, and would be more intelligible, as would a Latin or Greek text, if put in the comparative: "6 months nearer the north, 6 nearer the south".

Dave Rogers

How does the sun reverse its momentum at the summer and winter solstice? How does it reverse its momentum to head back to the other hemisphere?

Here comes one answer, not mine:

Alex Naszados

As alluded to in the two papers above, the sun moves with the whole star field, and the star field is moving vertically by 74 million miles every six months. The combination of the star field’s rotation and its vertical oscillation moves the sun laterally and vertically. Because of the distance of the stars (relative to the proximity of the sun), we do not detect the 74 million mile vertical movement as we do with the sun. While the sun creates a 47 degree angle with the Earth when it moves vertically by 74 million miles, the nearest star (Alpha Centauri) would only create a 0.00019 degree angle (too small to detect). This viewing angle is much smaller than the angle of aberration caused by the lateral, 1 AU, movement of the star field.

Dave Rogers

Okay Alex, but that doesn't answer my question. How and why does the "star field" reverse momentum? What force is reversing the "star field's" inertia? Also, is this just within our galaxy or are far off galaxies oscillating too?

Alex Naszados

There is no "reversal" of the star field. You can think of it as a "wobble" of a gyroscope, by way of illustration. By star field, the entire observable universe is indicated. Since this motion is that of the aether (or quantum vacuum- there are several modern versions of aether theory), the stars are not actually moving through absolute space (absolute space does not actually exist, since space is relational). This answers the question of how distant stars can move faster than the speed of light (since they are technically not moving, but it is "space" itself that can be said to be moving- somewhat in the same way that expansion cosmology proposes that the very early universe was expanding superluminally, where it is proposed that so-called space-time was expanding & carrying the stars with it at FTL). As to the origins of this motion, it is as metaphysical a question as a Big Bang cosmologist asking what initiated the "bang" in the first place. This would involve stepping out of the observable universe to observe it from a vantage point that is not available to us.

One thing:

a wobble involves a reversal of direction, of momentum, so he is not quite wording his answer as well as he should, even from his own standpoint.

Another thing:

while being Geocentric, the answer remains mechanistic. Which brings me to a group where I am a member. Catholic Cosmology and Geocentrism

Brandon Kleinhaus

"The sun rises every morning. I do not rise every morning; but the variation is due not to my activity, but to my inaction. Now, to put the matter in a popular phrase, it might be true that the sun rises regularly because he never gets tired of rising. His routine might be due, not to a lifelessness, but to a rush of life.

The thing I mean can be seen, for instance, in children, when they find some game or joke that they specially enjoy. A child kicks his legs rhythmically through excess, not absence, of life. Because children have abounding vitality, because they are in spirit fierce and free, therefore they want things repeated and unchanged. They always say, 'Do it again'; and the grown-up person does it again until he is nearly dead. For grown-up people are not strong enough to exult in monotony. But perhaps God is strong enough to exult in monotony.

It is possible that God says every morning, 'Do it again' to the sun; and every evening, 'Do it again' to the moon. It may not be automatic necessity that makes all daisies alike; it may be that God makes every daisy separately, but has never got tired of making them. It may be that He has the eternal appetite of infancy; for we have sinned and grown old, and our Father is younger than we. The repetition in Nature may not be a mere recurrence; it may be a theatrical encore."

—GKC

Which is very much more my answer.

If the Sun is an angel with a burning gas body (as considered by St Jerome), or is a burning gas body held by an angel, or is a burning gas body doing as any creature whatever God wills it to do, God's ordering it suffices for the execution to follow, either immediately, in the third case, or by means of the freewill of the angel in the two first cases.

The quote is, btw, from a very fine piece of writing by Chesterton:

Orthodoxy
Gilbert K. Chesterton
http://www.pagebypagebooks.com/Gilbert_K_Chesterton/Orthodoxy/

Here is another quote from it:

It is only with one aspect of humility that we are here concerned. Humility was largely meant as a restraint upon the arrogance and infinity of the appetite of man. He was always outstripping his mercies with his own newly invented needs. His very power of enjoyment destroyed half his joys. By asking for pleasure, he lost the chief pleasure; for the chief pleasure is surprise. Hence it became evident that if a man would make his world large, he must be always making himself small. Even the haughty visions, the tall cities, and the toppling pinnacles are the creations of humility. Giants that tread down forests like grass are the creations of humility. Towers that vanish upwards above the loneliest star are the creations of humility. For towers are not tall unless we look up at them; and giants are not giants unless they are larger than we. All this gigantesque imagination, which is, perhaps, the mightiest of the pleasures of man, is at bottom entirely humble. It is impossible without humility to enjoy anything— even pride. But what we suffer from to-day is humility in the wrong place. Modesty has moved from the organ of ambition. Modesty has settled upon the organ of conviction; where it was never meant to be. A man was meant to be doubtful about himself, but undoubting about the truth; this has been exactly reversed. Nowadays the part of a man that a man does assert is exactly the part he ought not to assert—himself. The part he doubts is exactly the part he ought not to doubt—the Divine Reason. Huxley preached a humility content to learn from Nature. But the new sceptic is so humble that he doubts if he can even learn. Thus we should be wrong if we had said hastily that there is no humility typical of our time. The truth is that there is a real humility typical of our time; but it so happens that it is practically a more poisonous humility than the wildest prostrations of the ascetic. The old humility was a spur that prevented a man from stopping; not a nail in his boot that prevented him from going on. For the old humility made a man doubtful about his efforts, which might make him work harder. But the new humility makes a man doubtful about his aims, which will make him stop working altogether.

Briefly back to subject

If one says a Geocentric cannot account for the seasons and means it in a purely geometric way, one lacks imagination in the field of geoemtry and is sufficiently answered by ...

Ibn Salama (once again)

Spiral orbit of the sun. 6 months near the north, 6 near the south

... If however

the question concerns the mechanics of why things move the way they move rather than in straight lines at same speed or rather than not at all, the question is concerned with the ultimate questions, where Geocentrism usually points very much quicker to the right answer, which was given, not by Naszados, but by Chesterton quoted by Kleinhaus. God orders. Creatures obey. Mechanic necessity is not necessarily inbuilt in creation. If mechanic necessities are so at some level (which a physicist can study at close hand), this does not preclude God or His angels from ordering things more directly than men can do via their bodies and machinery.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Bibliothèque Buffon
St Callistus I, Pope and Martyr
14-X-2014

PS, if you enjoy my quoting debates from FB, I have another blog where I do much of that:

HGL's F.B. writings
http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com