Admitting a Discrepancy Previously Undetected

I had, during most of my time as Geocentric debater, imagined "aether" as moving at uniform angular speed of 360° in somewhat less than 24 hours, namely in 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4 seconds.

Celestial bodies with a slower daily round around Earth, most notably Sun at 24 hours and and Moon at 360° in 24 hours and 50 minutes, are not moving with an aether slowing down as lower and closer to Earth, but moved by angelic movers. This part is so far no problem.

The problem is this.

I had imagined that the speed for 360° in 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4 seconds was a fairly slow rectilinear speed in terms of km/h at the level of Earth surface.

Therefore I saw no discrepancy in allowing on the one hand Geostationary Satellites to be moving at stellar angular speed one way through an aether moving at stellar angular speed other way, that is in reality (which I didn't count through) 360°/86 164,098903691 seconds or 0,0041780742162973°/second due Westward

0,0041780742162973° = 0,250684452977838 arc minutes = 15,04106717867028 arc seconds/second of time* still due Westward.

Do you know what linear speed that is at the equator?

40 076 km / 23,93447191769194 h = 1674,405022923298 km/h.

40 076 000 m / 86 164,098903691 seconds = 465,1125063675826 m/s.

For Geostationary satellites, I had counted on aether being "the medium of place" - what moved things when moving without adding momentum per se (though a relative momentum compared with things fixed to earth might result), without applying any force, simply by being the place itself of the thing and being displaced.

But on ground level, at Equator, this would imply falling things have:

• a non-vectorial but factually local speed westward of 465 m/s
• along with vectorial acceleration of approx. 9,80665 m/s²

So, the first second something fell, it would be falling 10 meters down and at same time 465 meters Westward ... er, no. It falls pretty straight down.

For this Westward speed to reduce to half, we would need to go further North or South than 45°. In Marseille, things falling down would go West faster than 232,5 m/s while falling down 10 meters. I don't think this is correct.

I did not notice any such falling Westward when I was there.

I thought of one solution, namely that not just the linear speed of aether could be slowed down due to angular speed being around a narrower circle, when on Earth level, but also the linear speed could be slowed down by another factor, drastically reducing angular speed, namely the nucleic matter of the atmosphere** interfering with the Westward move.

The problem with this solution is that aether is also supposed to be luminiferous, and the Michelson Gale experiment, in Geocentric interpretation, measured a Westward movement of luminiferous aether at 360° in 23,93447191769194 hours.

I don't think the Michelson Gale experiment was conducted at satellite height, more like ground level. Therefore, if aether were slowed down toward ground by nucleic matter in atmosphere, Michelson Gale should not have detected such a speed of the luminiferous aether.

In other words, the discrepancy is between "locigenous aether" having the slowness of Coriolis and luminiferous aether the speed of Michelson Gale and aether still being the same ... something is rather discrepant.

I have failed.

I don't know exactly where, but if the dear reader will take a look, I'd consider answers.

The in today's society most obvious one that Earth is turning around itself*** is least likely to be welcomed by me, just saying in advance.

That geostationary satellites work because of angels, rather than because of physical forces, I have already thought of.

Perhaps God and the angels were laughing when the satellites were launched, and God said "let's humour them a bit". Or perhaps NASA's satellites will be very useful one day, when Antichrist mimes the Solar miracles in atmospheric only version : he cannot do a real miracle, but he can do the appearance of one. Ergo, he should be able to fool viewers, but not obervation from space.

Or because internet is so far a good idea.

But, I would appreciate another mechanic solution for Geostationary Satellites, perhaps along same lines as mine, but involving no such discrepancy as here discovered.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Sabbas, Abbot
5.XII.2016

PS, has now been posted on three forums and sent in one pm for further debate./HGL

Update, St Francis of Sales (25.I.2017):

I did get a solution while posting on one of the forums. The object which falls straight to the ground is first held still above the ground, and thereby it has gained a momentum eastward through a westward moving aether, before it starts falling.

Really not very different from the explanation of Heliocentrics, and it involves some use of Mach's Principle./HGL

* a/100=x/60 ; 60a/100=x ; 6a/10=x ; 3a/5=x
86 164,098903691 seconds = 23,93447191769194 hours
40 076 000 m = 40 076 km

** My general theory of physics having gravitated to an otherwise elegant notion of aether being the matter between and around all nucleic matter, rotating more or less freely when unblocked by such, but staying mainly still - except for electricity and such - when inside bodies that include nucleic matter.

*** Even this would in no way show anything like a proof Earth were turning yearly around Sun.

To David Palm

1) Phil Plait and Atheist Prejudice, 2) David Palm as a Canonist, 3) To David Palm

"I think that it is safe to say that the number of modern geocentrists who came to that view first by examining the scientific evidence is vanishingly small; I wonder whether even one such individual exists. Geocentrists do not normally start with scientific evidence."

Here Comes the Sun
http://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/here-comes-the-sun-intro/

Not normally ... whether I am normal or not, "normally" is not a description of my life.

I had the Geocentrism of St Thomas Aquinas in mind since studying Summma and Summa (in Contra Gentes I think it is directly mentioned as part of what is called Prima Via in STh I Q2 A3), and debated the Distant Starlight argument against a young earth.

I also read a book on astronomy from 1980. Only c. 10,000 stars showed any parallax. 200 stars showed proper movement (identified as such) greater than greatest parallax.

And at night there was a moment when senses and ideas went blank dark and I formulated an idea, the details of which came flooding after. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR HELIOCENTRISM, since the physical one is offset by angelic movers (as per Aquinas) and the optical one is NOT an uniform parallax at all.

If Virgo were twice as big in spring than just before or after it vanishes in autumn to be covered by the sun, and if Pisces were twice as large in autumn as just before and after they are covered by the sun in spring, and so on for all constellations, then we would have a shell of fix stars with a clearly parallactic motion, which would be better to ascribe to earth.

But the evidence we do have is instead either compatible with stars being at very far and then again comparatively near distances (Alec is presupposing the distances are known when arguing against Geocentrism, but they can only be known if parallax is clearly parallax), and with stars showing therefore very diverse parallax this really being such, or equally compatible with stars "showing parallax" being specially moved by angelic movers, probably in sympathy with the angel of the Sun.

Aquinas could not rule that out, because he was a Christian. How about you and Schönborn?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Bpi, Georges Pompidou
Vigilia Paschali
19-IV-2014