Was There No Celestial Mechanics for Tychonian System? Oh, yes!

1) New blog on the kid : GWW got Aristotle and St Thomas wrong. · 2) HGL's F.B. writings : What Mechanism? Are "Angelic Movers Outside Natural Sciences"? · 3) Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : GWW vs Plato, HGL vs GWW · 4) New blog on the kid : Was There No Celestial Mechanics for Tychonian System? Oh, yes! · 5) Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : One More Quote, if I May, Please! · 6) HGL's F.B. writings : Sungenis Countering Flat Earthers - with Some Lacks in his Argument · 7) Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Any Fathers NOT Supporting Round Earth? Any Authorities that DO support Angelic Movers? · 8) HGL's F.B. writings : Debating with Sungenis, Mainly

GWW

One thing missing from Brahe’s model, however, was the power grid. What was making the sun revolve around the earth, and the planets around the sun? How, in fact, could the larger sun revolve around the smaller earth (which was one of the issues that bent Copernicus toward a sun-centered model)? The Greeks believed the power came from their gods; the Christians believed it was God of the Bible, but no one had supplied a natural reason for the celestial movements (even if the natural cause was created by God).

p. 61

NOTE

Riccioli accepting basically Tycho, agreed with St Thomas in angelic movers (a few pages earlier, GWW repeats the false opposition between Aristotle and St Thomas on this item).

Since angels are CREATED, they are natural. They are secondary causes, quite as much as men are. They are not miraculous or divine. Their power over matter is limited. They can as we say "move" bodies, they cannot - directly - change them. If an angel wants to change wood into ashes, that angel needs to move a fire to that wood. Not so for God.

So, the power grid was not at all missing. It was already in place since the scholastics.

GWW's footnote

The objection raised by Hartman and Nissim against Brahe’s system is worded in a similar vein: “Brahe’s system violates conservation of momentum in that the solar system does not orbit around its center of mass and Mach gives no inkling on how to deal with the nonconservation of momentum in Brahe’s system” (“On Mach’s critique of Newton and Copernicus,” American Journal of Physics 71 (11) November 2003, p. 1167). We will thoroughly address this objection in Chapter 2. Suffice it to say for now that the “center of mass” in the geocentric system is no longer defined on a local, solar system, basis but on the basis of the whole universe in rotation around a fixed Earth at the universe’s center of mass.

NOTE

Conservation of momentum is only relevant when body influences body, or physical forces do so. Not when God moves the aether. Not when angels move celestial bodies. Or smaller bodies (including but not limited to* poltergeist infestations - the demons who can no longer move stars are sometimes allowed to move pots and pans and scare people).

GWW

Brahe didn’t offer any solutions. He was merely a planet-charter who was devoted to the biblical geocentric system but didn’t know quite how to use his forty-years worth of figures to prove his case.

NOTE

Ptolemy was also just a planet charter.

Back then, some respected the division of labour between (planar) astronomy (as an optical science) and metaphysics (which included mechanics of celestial bodies, usually angelic movers).

GWW (with footnote)

Of course, although Kepler offered a solution (the magnetic pull of the sun) it would later be discredited.

After reading William Gilbert’s 1600 book De Magnete on magnetism, Kepler believed that each planet contained a magnet, and the sun contained a huge magnet. Depending on how the magnets were positioned, the result would either pull or push the planet around the sun. The farther the planet was from the sun, the weaker the magnetic field, and thus the slower the planet would move around the sun. The precise orientation of the polarities of the sun and the planets would then determine the ellipticity of the latter’s orbits.

p. 61, footnote reaching to p. 62.

NOTE

There are two discreditations of the magnetic theory.

Or, by now, three.

There is of course "gravitation instead of magnetism" - Newton - which has in its turn been set aside by believers in "electromagnetic universe".

There is Riccioli who said that Kepler was wrong to take an inanimate causation for the celestial mechanics. If stars and planets are lower than our nature by being inanimate, at least their movers must be higher than our nature, like God or angels, or God would not have placed them above us.

There is also the doubt (which I referred to in my debate with MS) and a very strong one, if a non-solid simple force could take the place that strings have on the stone on string experiment. Btw, it works against electromagnetic as well as gravitational explanations.

That is my third one and I take some personal pride in it, as well as first of all thanking God for it.

GWW

To this day, no one has found the power grid. Two centuries later, Newton would merely refine Kepler’s area law and show how gravity, not magnetism, was involved with the orbits of the planets, but he couldn’t explain the mechanism that produced gravity. He merely developed an equation to show its effects.

NOTE

... which is why (or one reason why)** he could not prove that gravity was the cause for this. Nor has this been proven to this day (see my debate with MS on supposed proofs for it).

And it is simply not true that there was no such thing as an idea what made the Heavens move, there was a very clear idea : God moves the overall movement each day, angels move the individual movements, like the solar one taking a year or the lunar one taking a month.

The problem noted by Hartman and Nissim is to a scholastic philosopher or anyone considering angels have the skill set they gave them, simply not a problem at all. Conservation of momentum comes secondary to angelic movers, not prior to it.

GWW

As one physics course put it: “However, one could also construct a ‘Tychonean’ model with elliptical orbits.”

University of Illinois, Physics 319, Spring 2004, Lecture 03, p. 11.

p. 63

NOTE

Exactly!

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Tuesday after III Lord's Day of Lent
1.III.2016

PS, Agreeing with GWW on this one:

Hence Kepler is driven to Copernicanism because he believes it is better for the Earth to take part in an adventurous excursion through the universe rather than being in a unique and immovable position from which to observe the universe, thus proving once again that modern cosmology is influenced by a significant percentage of philosophical bias. In actuality, a moving earth would not allow man to “more correctly view and measure the single parts of his house,” simply because without an immovable foundation on which to set his measuring stick, there is no accurate way to know the distances, positions, or motions of the house. It is the very reason that Barbour titled his book “Absolute or Relative Motion?” for he, like Kepler, cannot tell what is moving and what is not.

p. 66

NOTE

This is why I entitled a very early writing on Geocentrism, actually laboriously written in Classical Greek, some fifteen years ago, when my contact with Greek studies were only ten years back rather than as now 23, after a dictum by Archimedes:

Δος μοι πω στα και κινασω ταν γαν.***

Archimedes meant leverage and physically causing Earth to move. I meant optically proving it to be moving.

We are NOT watching the Solar System, or supposed such, from an immobile spot outside it, like from the Empyrean Heaven. If we were, we could watch without any hesitation whatsoever what was moving and what wasn't. As we aren't, our best is to assume we were placed to where we can see things best - unless that is proven otherwise. Which, with angelic movers as even a possibility, it isn't.

PPS: Do NOT miss the quote GWW gives about Michelson-Morley on pp. 76-77. These are crucial for the kind of experimental understanding of Michelson-Morley, on which I can only defer to Sungenis and Bennett and their scientific reading./HGL

* See §§15, 16 of: Triviū, Quadriviū, 7 cætera : When a Thought Ceases to be Believable to You, You should Cease to Think It.
http://triv7quadriv.blogspot.com/2012/03/when-thought-ceases-to-be-believable-to.html

** Another reason being, of course, that the angelic movers theory was an option, and he conspicuously failed to give any explanation or demonstration on why it should be excluded as an alternative. *** Title in Doric, as per quote from Archimedes, rest in as good an Attic as still I could muster. Unless it was koiné.