Friday, 26 February 2016

Q posed and diversely A : How Can the Larger Sun Revolve around the Smaller Earth?

First, Sungenis came out with a pdf and blog post on galileowaswrong on the theme:

Question posed by Sungenis
How Can the Larger Sun Revolve around the Smaller Earth?

He introduces Newton
This question is one of the most frequently asked in regard to a geocentric universe. Since the sun has 99% of the mass of the solar system, it seems counterintuitive that it could revolve around the tiny Earth, especially when we see smaller moons revolving around larger planets.

This objection is not without merit. If our world were confined to a sun, Earth and planets, it would certainly be the case that the smaller planets, including Earth, would revolve around the sun. This is precisely why Newton believed that the Earth revolves around the sun. He limited his physics to our solar system.

But Newton was smart enough to realize that if he expanded his system to include the forces in the rest of the universe, he agreed that the Tychonic geocentric system would be viable. Here is what he said in Proposition 43:

Newton proposition 43:
In order for the Earth to be at rest in the center of the system of the Sun, Planets, and Comets, there is required both universal gravity and another force in addition that acts on all bodies equally according to the quantity of matter in each of them and is equal and opposite to the accelerative gravity with which the Earth tends to the Sun…

Since this force is equal and opposite to its gravity toward the Sun, the Earth can truly remain in equilibrium between these two forces and be at rest. And thus celestial bodies can move around the Earth at rest, as in the Tychonic system.

Sungenis comments on Newton
Notice that Newton specifies that there must be “another force…that acts on all bodies equally.” Well, that “force” appears when the universe is allowed to rotate around the Earth. That universal “force” acts upon every celestial body and keeps them in their daily rotation around the fixed Earth.

Read the rest here:
How Can the Larger Sun Revolve Around the Smaller Earth?
Posted by galileowaswrong on Feb 19, 2016

He introduced Newton, a proposition which Dr Luca Popov later says didn't make it into Principia, but ignored St Thomas Aquinas' explanation.

To which that was not a mystery. Since, Earth is NOT a mechanism either for own movement or Sun's movement or even of Moon's movement. Earth is still, since put in non-motion by God, and celestial bodies move, along with the daily motion of "the spheres" (as St Thomas thought) or the aether, by God moving it, and relative to the daily motion by angels moving them around it.

Here are a few excerpts with my comments.

A reference to Popov's explanation from Sungenis
If we were to adopt a frame of reference like Tycho’s in which the Earth is at rest, then the distant galaxies would seem to be executing circular turns once a year, and in general relativity this enormous motion would create forces akin to gravitation, which would act on the Sun and planets and give them the motions of the Tychonic theory.

That is (I comment)
if daily rotation of aether is at speed of Sun. If it is at speed of stars, it is Sun who goes a full circle eastward each year.

That is also (I comment)
assuming the stellar distances are verified. Note that cosmic distance ladder is based on "its first rung" which is parallax. In conventional cosmology, parallax is based on Earth's yearly orbit around Sun, or supposed such. If Earth is still, it is stars that move.

Parallax is ONLY a distance measure if either Earth has a unique motion around Sun making for it OR if all these stars share a unique motion with Sun around Earth. But if Earth is still, we can rule out the first. If angels can move celestial bodies, the latter is superfluous as an explanation to the movement falsely referred to as parallax. Angels could be imposing "parallel" but very much smaller movements. Which of themselves tell us nothing of how far the stars are away.

So here we have, the two greatest systems of physics developed by mankind both saying that a geocentric system is viable. How much more evidence do we need?

My comment:
How about the METAPHYSICS of St THomas Aquinas, even greater than Newton and Einstein? And of course it counts on angelic movers.

Sungenis p. 16
Using Mach’s principle, we will show that the observed diurnal and annual motion of the Earth can just as well be accounted as the diurnal rotation and annual revolution of the Universe around the fixed and centered Earth.

My comment:
But there IS NO observed annual and diurnal motion of the Earth. There is only a concluded such!

ONE major point about Geocentrism is that Earth being still, cosmos moving daily around Earth, Sun changing its place over cosmos annually are what in fact we OBSERVE.

MUCH of the physics is over my head.

But what is not over my head is that it presumes that circles can go on being drawn by bodies moved by gravitation and inertia only.

This is not what we observe in the experience of Don Petit.

And I would like to know, if Popov, Sungenis (or their opponents David Palm and Alec Mac Andrew) can show some valid mathematical reason why the parallel of electromagnetic attraction and inertia stops after 10 - 20 circles around charged knitting needles, in no gravitation or low gravitation environment, while their own mechanics (common both to nearly all Heliocentrics and to these modern Geocentrics who differ from me) of gravitation and inertia (also based on masses) can go on ad infinitum?

Because, obviously circles that are by now into n° 7215 after creation for annual movement and perhaps 2,635,279 or sth for daily movement (at least not under 2 million) are movements resembling either a continual intention of moving the things OR a perpetuum mobile, which the Don Petit experiment does not seem to parallel.

Science off the Sphere: Dancing Droplets
Physics Central

I here give a version which I hope is slow motion, so that for each droplet you can count how many turns it takes around knitting needle. I got it (on another video of this experiment) to 10 for some, 20 for some, between for some (or I lost count, but the droplets finished by clinging to knitting needle).

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre University Library
Day after St Mathias

No comments:

Post a Comment