Here is a link to their article:
CMI : Why the Universe does not revolve around the Earth
Refuting absolute geocentrism
by Robert Carter and Jonathan Sarfati Published: 12 February 2015 (GMT+10)
Here is the link, first, to Joshua X:
There are other passages, however, that require a more careful exegesis. After the Israelites crossed the Jordan into Canaan, they defeated the cities of Jericho and Ai (Joshua 1–8). Soon after that the residents of Gibeon tricked Israel to entering into a covenant with them (Joshua 9). Gibeon was to the west of Ai and an obvious next target for the invading army. The other peoples in the area were angry and went to war against the Gibeonites. Israel came to their aid and a great battle was fought (Joshua 10). In the midst of this battle, the Bible says:
At that time Joshua spoke to the Lord in the day when the Lord gave the Amorites over to the sons of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, “Sun, stand still at Gibeon, and moon, in the Valley of Aijalon.” And the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, until the nation took vengeance on their enemies. Is this not written in the Book of Jashar? The sun stopped in the midst of heaven and did not hurry to set for about a whole day. There has been no day like it before or since, when the Lord heeded the voice of a man, for the Lord fought for Israel.
This very famous passage describes Joshua’s Long Day, and is often used to support geocentric views, but what is it saying, really? Obviously, the statements are being given in a local frame of reference. Why? Because the sun standing over Gibeon would not appear to be overhead anywhere except in the geographic vicinity of Gibeon. The valley of Aijalon is to the west of Gibeon. Therefore, the moon would not appear to be to the west of Gibeon to someone standing in Aijalon; it would be out over the Mediterranean. Many claim this passage teaches that God stopped the moving sun and moon. Yet there is nothing here to say that he did not temporarily slow down a rotating earth (as well as the hydrosphere and atmosphere). This would produce the same effect. Or He could have stopped the movement of everything in the universe. Same result. That something universal really happened in history is shown by legends of a long night in people groups on the other side of the globe.
Note that the mention of the moon is a mark of authenticity. The Amorites were sun worshippers, so it makes sense for God to show His power over the false god. But if His means really was slowing down the earth, as we suggest, then this would also affect the relative motion of the moon, which otherwise need not have been mentioned.
And let us not forget the reversing of the course of the sun in the time of Hezekiah (2 Kings 20:5–11, Isaiah 38:1–7), an event that was noticed, or at least enquired about, by astronomers outside of Jerusalem (2 Chronicles 32:24–31). These deviations from the scientific norm are what allow us to identify miracles when they occur. In a geocentric universe, everything is one giant miracle with no simple explanation (see below). Certainly, a geocentrist would not expect the sun to stop or to move backward, but why not? There is no rational explanation for the way the universe operates, so why could something out of the ordinary not happen?
Now, let us start some picking to pieces of their false arguments.
First paragraph, just resuming background before Bible quote. Second paragraph, Bible quote. No false arguments so far. Third paragraph.
This very famous passage describes Joshua’s Long Day, and is often used to support geocentric views,
And was indeed so used by St Robert Bellarmine when in Galileo's presence he tried Galileo's first book on the subject (Galileo personally was neither accused nor tried in 1616 and St Robert wrote a letter he had not made Galileo abjure any proposition - only promise not to write any more on the subject.)
but what is it saying, really?
Perhaps sth to the point? St Robert thought so.
Obviously, the statements are being given in a local frame of reference.
Statements or commands? There are both kinds of sentences in the Bible text!
Why? Because the sun standing over Gibeon would not appear to be overhead anywhere except in the geographic vicinity of Gibeon. The valley of Aijalon is to the west of Gibeon. Therefore, the moon would not appear to be to the west of Gibeon to someone standing in Aijalon; it would be out over the Mediterranean.
Wait a second, are Gibeon and Aijalon mentioned in the author's (Joshua's no doubt, at a later time when he had time to write) description? Or is Gibeon and Aijalon mentioned in his commands before the miracle took place?
and he said in the sight of Israel, “Sun, stand still at Gibeon, and moon, in the Valley of Aijalon.”
Here we start to see a little problem for Heliocentric exegesis. Or I do, at least. And it is even not so pretty. Not so small.
I am an ex-Lutheran. And Swedish mainstream Lutheranism has been slanting to Modernism for centuries. So, obviously, even back in 19th C some Swedish Lutheran theologians no longer believed in demons. Now, what has this to do with it? Well, this means they could not take Jesus' words when exorcising demons as literally describing what He really wanted to happen as God omniscient in the flesh. There were slants to Kenotic heresy, but one slant was "adaptation theory" or "accomodation theory". He adapted his language to the demonological prejudices of his hearers, according to this theory. I think it is a heresy. And so I also think it is a heresy to suppose Joshua adapted his language to the geocentric prejudices of his hearers.
So, if Joshua was not adapting his language so much as to include positive untruth to accomodate to his hearers prejudices, perhaps since he was not God, it doesn't matter if he was genuinely ignorant? God knew what phenomena Joshua was praying for, and provided them, perhaps?
No, not quite. Joshua first prayed to God - At that time Joshua spoke to the Lord - and then spoke up in front of all Israel and spoke to the Sun and the Moon : and he said in the sight of Israel, “Sun, stand still at Gibeon, and moon, in the Valley of Aijalon.”
So, this would place Joshua's theoretically possible ignorance not in a prayer which God was free to correct, but after a prayer in "words working a miracle". You had better not try to make the prayer identical to the words spoken to Sun and Moon, or you would be making him a worshipper of Sun and Moon.
I have heard it suggested (or rather seen it suggested on the screen) that Joshua's miracle working words not only were in fact a prayer, but also that God would not have had time to instruct him, since the battle was raging. Well, no, not quite either. You see, for one thing this was - along with crossing of Jordan, earlier - probably the most important moment in the life of Joshua. It is inconceivable that God would all through his previous life not have prepared him properly for it, especially as God knew from all Eternity what role the passage would have in the debate. For another, Joshua was not exactly in a desperate hurry even. Sun and Moon don't pass that fast over heaven. And it was a question or pursuing fleeing enemies, not of fearing them. God could have given Joshua another five minutes to give him time to find a formula or to inspire a formula which would NOT have been interpreted as it was by St Robert. Even, Israel as such had had forty years in the desert. God could have mentioned a word or two about universe not being Geocentric, if that had been the case. I mean, all they did five days out of seven, as physical work, was collecting mannah for a day's sustenance, and walking. And the sixth day they collected mannah for two days' sustenance and were walking. And the seventh day they neither walked nor collected mannah. If God would have wanted to instruct them so as not to misunderstand Joshua's words, and of course Joshua so as to give him the right words (he was born in that desert wandering) He could have done so.
Now, it is true that the words spoken by Joshua are relative. But it is also true that he spoke to Sun and Moon and not to Earth or Tellurian Axis. Which is my main point. Now, CMI writers (two for this article) also give us another clue used by St Robert:
Note that the mention of the moon is a mark of authenticity. The Amorites were sun worshippers, so it makes sense for God to show His power over the false god. But if His means really was slowing down the earth, as we suggest, then this would also affect the relative motion of the moon, which otherwise need not have been mentioned.
It would affect the relative motion of the Moon, but not stop it. You see, Moon has a rotation around Earth in Heliocentric astronomy too - the one that takes a Month. If this were not a real rotation, Moon would always be on same side of Earth compared to Sun, and either would have no phases or would have phases over the year, not over the month.
And what does the text say?
And the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, until the nation took vengeance on their enemies.
Supposing Heliocentrism to be true, in a normal day, Moon would appear to move nearly full circle around earth, but not quite a full circle. But on the Long Day - supposing it happened as CMI is suggesting, with Earth stopping - it would therefore have appear to move one 27th of a circle, about. Since the circle they suppose around Earth (and which Geocentrics suppose rather in relation to Zodiac which itself moves around Earth) takes 27.321582 days (according to wiki), in one day it completes 0.0366011016492383 of that circle. Or 13° (and some more) of the circular arc. This would not have been affected by the Earth stopping. So, the moon would not literally have stopped (inspired writer Joshua describing result) only have reversed in appearance and gone backwards for 13° during the 24 hours. Or at least 6°-7° during 12 hours, but 24 hours (thus 13°) are more likely:
The sun stopped in the midst of heaven and did not hurry to set for about a whole day.
So 11 h. 30 minutes to 12 h. 30 minutes, or 23 - 25 hours. Depending on whether "day" refers to "day-and-night" (as in first day, second day, etc) or only to the day part of it (as in "called the light Day"). In this time, the moon would have visible moved in relation to objects at valley of Aijalon, as seen from Gibeon.
That is the conclusion of St Robert Bellarmine. From back when he and Galileo debated in 1616.
So, why exactly are the words of Joshua relative? Well, there are some diverse options for Geocentrics as to how the Universe works: empty space with celestial bodies going themselves East to West in it (Jews agree with Helios worshippers) or some kind of solid or firmness in a rotating space (Aristotle and St Thomas), but celestial bodies going backwards through its East to West movement in an individual movement from West to East along the Zodiac, taking a year for the Sun and a Month for the Moon (or rather 27.3 days for the Moon, since Moon by this motion relative to Zodiac enters in a relation to Sun's movement relative to the Zodiac, which relation changes and that gives us the full Lunar Month). My option is that Aristotle and St Thomas are right. God did not stop the Earth. Nor did God stop the Universe from rotating around it (that would probably have stopped time also). But God made the Sun and the Moon speed up the Eastward journeys, so Moon went 27 times faster than usual in order to stand still in relation to Gibeon, and so that Sun went 365 times faster than usual to stand still in zenith over Gibeon. Like a pair of motor boats speeding up an upstream direction so as to stand still in relation to the shore.
But now I have ventured into physics. And it seems, that CMI were going to argue about that too. So, I'd better scroll down and see:
Here’s the main logical problem with absolute geocentrism: it’s not that we could not construct a geocentric cosmology, as one of many allowable reference frames. It’s that there is no scientific or biblical reason why we would—there is no dynamic model to explain it, i.e. in terms of forces as efficient causes of motions.
There are TWO ways of explaining the motions.
The Pagan-Mythological and Jewish one (shared by some Christians in St Augustine's times) is that spirits lesser than God the Most High but larger than man (i e "gods" to those denying a real God, and "angels" to those affirming God) are moving the celestial bodies East to West each day. Each star, possibly (at least the Jewish view), each planet definitely, and of course Sun and Moon. The other view is the Philosophical one of Western Christendom at least by the Scholastic period: God provides a Westward movement of the orbits / firmament / in my updated version the ether is a firmament which is not a "solid body" as opposed to liquid or gas, but the "substance of space" and "substance of which light is the vibration". In it spirits lesser than Him, but larger than man, move at least bodies below the fix stars in relation to the Zodiac. Eastward.
Saying there are two explanations does not mean there is none. Only, neither of these two explanations strikes a certain community of sceintists as "scientific". The efficient causes are not "forces" in Newtonian terms, but spirits. In the Western Medieval view the One who moves Westwards stands out as vastly greater or mightier than the rest of them.
Yes, it could describe planetary positions accurately enough for pre-telescope astronomy, admittedly a great achievement, but it fails to explain the orbital motions of satellites of other planets.
Nope, just have to add angels for Deimos and Phobos dancing around Mars, like angel of Mars dances around Sun, while angel of Sun goes Eastward while all enjoy the Westward surge provided by God.
Yet, because it lacks predictive power, a fully-comprehensive geocentric model would be very, very complicated.
To describe Geometrically, yes. In fact, programme a computer to draw the orbits out, and when yu have done it, you get intricate very pretty orbits. These are of course abstracting from daily rotation. Take that into account, and any body each day describes a very near perfect circle. To explain, no, it is not so complicated. By taking the explanation FROM the realm of vectors TO the realm of artistry (which does not do away with vectors, but which gives non-vectorial reasons for paths taken) that problem is easily fixed.
They would need to add terms almost at random to account for the thousands of variations easily explained by geokineticism.
I am not sure what they mean by "thousands". I am sure that three variations explained by geokinetism as nutations in earth are equally explainable in geostasis is God's turning the Heavens round with a few twilts. Think aether.
There is another, perhaps stronger, point to make: geokinetics is the best way to understand the physics.
Or to misunderstand the "stone around a string" experiment as opposite forces of centrifugal and centripetal nature neatly balancing. No, the string is NOT a centripetal force, as gravitation is supposed to be in geokinetic physics, the string is an OBJECT. And it is not neatly balancing but firmly holding in the centrifugal force, by having a cohesion superior to it.
Here’s the main scientific problem with geocentrism: if absolute geocentrism is true, then the laws of physics are not universal.
Wrong. Not being the only laws, but being subordinate to 1) God moves any creature He wants and 2) created spirits move material bodies in so far as God has given them power over them (to human spirit a limited one over human body, to guardian angels on occasions over threatening objects, to angel of Sun over Sun - with the impetus needed for full circle backward in 365 odd days), before we get to 3) physical laws of how bodies influence bodies - that does not make them "non-universal" or "sometimes broken" in that sphere.
That is, experiments we do on earth cannot apply to things outside the atmosphere because Newton’s laws of motion and gravity cannot explain what we are seeing.
Can they explain everythingoberved on Earth? Hold a pen over the ground, they will explain where it falls if you drop it. But hold a pen over the paper and it is your will that explains where you stain it witgh ink from the pen. Your will, not the laws of Newton. That is the experiment which applies to celestial bodies with angelic movers. And to God moving the universe.
Absolute geocentrism requires a universe that does not work according to Newton’s laws. Yes, you can attempt to describe the way things revolve around the earth in a absolute geocentric system, but gravity cannot be used to explain the motion of those objects; another force is required to glue the universe together. Where does the change occur? Certainly before we get to the moon, for that must orbit the earth once a day. But we cannot detect any such transition! We can fly a plane, launch a satellite, send things to the outer solar system and there is no place where Newtonian mechanics does not apply.
Solution is, your planes and space shuttles are moving in the aether God moves Westward - it also moves atmosphere and waters (winds of passage, Oceanic Equatorial currents). No place of transition needed.
If you can’t use gravity to explain the motion of objects in the solar system, you can’t use gravity to explain the motion of space probes flying among those objects. It is that simple.
No, since the gravity even if Newtonian may be subordinate to another causality, and that one not interfering with space landings, but with day and night which are more relevant to us on Earth. To Geocentrics, the words about visible things showing forth the invisible ones are clearly reminiscent of Geocentric explanation range for Day and Night:  Because that which is known of God is manifest in them. For God hath manifested it unto them.  For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable. - Geocentrism and God turning the Universe around us each day, that is how St Thomas Aquinas and John Calvin BOTH make their most accessible proof for God's existence. Precisely as Aristotle (though the latter, in later days, came to consider God only moved the Universe West by exciting love for Himself in the world soul, not by directly acting).
Absolute geocentrism is then nothing more than ‘stamp collecting’. One cannot make many predictions.
Sure one can: one can predict backwards that God had no problem and angels of Sun and Moon no problem to make the two Solar miracles, Joshua's long day, worked through a namesake of Jesus, and the returning a few lines, worked at choice of Hezekiah, an ancestor of the same Our Lord. Which prediction we find confirmed by the Holy Text.
The main protagonist in the geocentrism debate is a man named Claudius Ptolemy (AD 90–168), a Greek scholar living in the Egyptian city of Alexandria in the second century AD. He had a profound influence on this debate, to the point that today the terms “geocentric” and “Ptolemaic” are interchangeable.
St Thomas was pretty firmly Geocentric, since he based his Proof of God First Way (of the five) on Geocentrism. But he was well aware that Ptolemy might be off, there might be other ways of explaining (that is constructing geometrically) the orbits.
St Robert Bellarmine and Galileo agreed that Ptolemy had been refuted in certain particulars. So, St Robert Bellarmine referred Galileo to the system of Tycho Brahe, of which he was well aware (if not before, at least during the affair). Is CMI going to reuse the old canard that the Galileo cases were due to an undue dogmatisation of Aristotle and Ptolemy?
Prior to him, however, there was no unanimity among Greek thinkers. In fact, several solar-centric views predated Ptolemy’s geocentrism. The Greek scholar Aristarchus of Samos (310–230 BC) is but one of those people.
Possibly Aristarchus is but one of these. I'd like to hear names of the others, not a bare affirmation. But what is certain is that whether these thinkers were few or many, they were not in that particular very influential.
Interestingly, he also said that the sun must be further away than moon (because the moon can eclipse the sun). Since they have the same apparent size, he reasoned the size of the sun must be proportional to its distance behind the moon.
And this was accepted by Aristotle. And it was accepted by Ptolemy. And the four moons of Jupiter were accepted by St Robert Bellarmine ... so the point is?
And he was not the only ancient to struggle with it. The debate was known to famous people like Archimedes (287–212 BC), Seneca (4 BC – AD 45), Pliny the Elder (AD 23–79), and Plutarch (AD 45–120).
Sure, I'd believe you even more if you gave references to whdere in the text, but I believe you. How many of these considered the position of Aristarchus as more than a curiosity, if you read their texts? That is another reason why I'd like references.
Here, Ptolemy is cited as giving a reason from "earth would fall apart if it rotated each 24 hours", Copernicus is cited as returning the reason, it would be even more true for periphery of universe.
Now, Calvin knew of that argument and answered Epicurus/Lucrece. These had argued that the daily rotations of the Universe around Earth in layer above layer were products of chance. Calvin used the observation of Copernicus to prove that God alone could arrange the outer Heavens so that they all keep together in all this speed. Note, as for chapters 1 and 2 of Genesis a Catholic has not much quarrel with Calvin.
Some recent historians have tried to make the claim that Copernican theory was driven by some sort of Hermetic sun worship, but this is grossly anachronistic. By taking the ‘perfect’ sun and putting it at the center, instead of worshiping the sun, Copernicans were demoting it to the worst place.And even though the Hermitica was widely read among the scholars of Copernicus’ time (the Renaissance), we do not believe Copernicus was among the adherents.
I have not tried to make that point. But I have tried to make a slighty similar and yet very different one: Heliocentrism favours Sun worship. Let us take First Way of St Thomas:
The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.
Recent and Heliocentric / Geokinetic commentators have made the point that local movement was not all that was meant.
Obviously, local movement is in Geocentrism the most obvious example of this: God moves the Ether at its outermost edge or all through, this moves with it Sun and Moon and stars and also Winds of passage, Oceanic currents and Coriolis effects. A chain of movements from the unmoved mover God to the moved little details of Gulf stream giving us in Europe a milder winter than you have over West of Atlantic, because the Equatorial Stream is stopped by the Gulf and demotes North towards us, before the water returns to East shores of Atlantic. And the mild winter in its turn moves my survival chances a bit higher.
Now, take away that Geocentric perspective, where there is ONE universal movement involving ALL (except Earth at its low position and at levels lower than atmosphere and hydrosphere) points to ONE First unmoved Mover.
In that case, objects in Solar System would have as local mover gravitation of Sun, precisely like exoplanets would have as local mover some other star. Even more, all quality changes as opposed to local movement, which St Thomas also included in the concept movement, might point back to a first mover called - Sun. So, it would make "Sun" or "Our Star" a candidate for a local divinity of "Our Solar system". This was not Galileo's thought - if it had been he would have been burned on the stake. But it is very clearly a possible rough analysis of the thoughts attributed to Giordano Bruno. Note, I have not read his actual texts, I found beginning of Ash Wednesday Supper very unreadable with its "hush hush". But since Giordano Bruno had been tried also by St Robert Bellarmine and found guilty of pertinacious heresy and burned in 1600, he had some licit apprehension of where Heliocentrism might lead. So far from having been moved to Heliocentrism by un-Christian Mysticism, I think it was the reverse.
CMI is, needless to say, less good on history of Astronomy than on history of the Darwinian and Long Age theories they combat. In their "fun romp through history" they give us this:
~ 1250 AD Thomas Aquinas nearly fixes Ptolemaic astronomy in the minds of his contemporaries
Er, no. He fixes Geocentrism as starting point of one proof of God, he mentions Ptolemy but does so in a way so as NOT to fix him firmly in the minds of his contemporaries.
~1380 Nicole Oresme
~1450 Cardinal Nicolas of Cusa
Ah, yes. The guys who realised Heliocentrism was possible, but did not buy it anyway. Not commented on in the article, as far as I saw.
But I see there are two things more I must counter, and I had better do it now and together.
Put your finger on your nose. Now alternately open and shut one eye at a time. Your finger should move to the left and right as you look at it from each eye. This is called parallax. ... Parallax is very useful in astronomy. The earth’s orbit is 150 million kilometers in radius. Thus, when we look at a star in the summer and in the winter, that is like having two eyes that are very, very far apart. If the star is close, its position will change through the seasons. However, most stars do not measurably change position because they are too far away for us to measure the change in angle. The few that do are closer to us than the ones that do not.
Assuming this is the right explanation for parallax, of course, i e not for the general idea of parallax (it defines as this idea "put your finger on your nose" etc), but for the astronomical phenomenon usually referred to as parallax : the word "parallax" could be a misnomer.
Now, if it is true that "parallax" (the astronomic phenomenon) depends on "parallax" (as in: the earth’s orbit is 150 million kilometers in radius, thus, when we look at a star in the summer and in the winter, that is like having two eyes that are very, very far apart), it must follow that, as Earth were only moving ONE way around the Sun, not two opposite directions at once, all "parallax" (the observed astronomic phenomenon again) would be same direction.
63 Ophiuchi is an O-type giant star in the constellation Sagittarius, despite its name. During a 2009 survey for companions of massive stars, it was observed using speckle interferometry but no companion was found. Uncertain negative parallax measurements of –0.77 ± 0.40 mas suggest that this extremely luminous star may be located about 4000 light-years away.
Negative parallax measurements = "parallax" going the other way.
Heliocentric way out : the measurements are "uncertain". How are all the other measurements certain then?
Other way out for Heliocentrics, the parallax is 0.77 arcseconds closer to nil than the one usually taken as nil - which means that the one usually considered as nil is at least 0.77 arcseconds positive parallax. That in turn implies that the parallaxes which are registered as positive are greater than registered as.
|I had misread "-0.77 mas" as "minus 0.77 arcseconds", while it is "minus 0.77 milliarcseconds". However, in the Tycho Main Catalogue, there are objects in the range of minus 700 and more arcseconds, whether this includes 63 Ophiuchi or not. There seem to be divergences between catalogues.|
Parallax in milliarcseconds for α Centauri are acc. to Söderhjelm (1999) 747.1 ± 1.2, and according to van Leeuwen (2007) for α Centauri A 754.81 ± 4.11, for α Centauri B 796.92 ± 25.90. See wiki for Alpha Centauri.
So, if our second Heliocentric solution for 63 Ophiuchi is that parallax of 0 milliarcseconds is really a positive one of at least around, 770 milliarcseconds, then the one that is 796.92 (B) as measured against the supposed nil parallax would in reality be 1566.92 milliarcseconds, while α Centauri A would be 1524.81. This gives a radically closer and smaller universe (though of course still quite compatible with the immensity noted by Ptolemy) than conventually. A doubled parallax of α Centauri is about a halfed distance to α Centauri. It would also mean a universe where "sphere of fixed stars" had indeed some thickness (with its "main thrust" between the distance of α Centauri and of 63 Ophiuchi), but was nothing like a space uninterruptedly filled with stars.
The third option for the "parallax" of 63 Ophiuchi, observed as other way round than it should be, therefore noted -0.77 arcseconds, as opposed to (+)0.77 is this one: Geocentrism is true. Parallax in the proper sense has NOTHING to do with ANY "parallax". Angels are dancing with theirs stars and the one holding 63 Ophiuchi was told to dance other way round, so as to help us get out of the error of Geokinetism. And if so, "parallax" as in "the earth’s orbit is 150 million kilometers in radius, thus, when we look at a star in the summer and in the winter, that is like having two eyes that are very, very far apart" is not the true meaning of the measured parallax, and that one gives us per se no information at all on how far each star is away. Keep this in mind:
If objects are rotating around the earth, we can calculate the speed at which they are moving, and the speed depends on their distance.
For Moon or Sun, where distance measure does not depend on "parallax" but on angle of sunlight reflection on Moon for the Sun, or on angle of Moon from two points opposite each other on Equator, there is no problem. We can. Sure. I did so in Spanish about how fast angel of Sun and angel of Moon were driving the heavenly bodies through the aether on Joshua's long day:
En lengua romance en Antimodernism y de mis caminaciones : Parece que me equivoqué sobre contemporaneidad de la rotación del Eter al nivel del Sol y de la Luna?
After calculating the problem through a few times, I concluded that I did not "me equivoqué", but meanwhile I did calculations (based on mean distance to Sun, mean distance to Moon). But when we get to objects whose distance is calculated by "parallax" ....
They must travel the circumference of their orbit every day. In big bang theory at least, there is nothing preventing stars from moving faster than the speed of light. This is called ‘superluminal speed’ and big bang cosmologists assume that anything outside one Hubble radius (about 14 billion light years) is receding from us at greater than c.
Well, 14 billion light years would perhaps not be the distance of the furthest objects, even if Robert Carter and Jonathan Sarfati didn't state the objection?
But in a geocentric universe any object beyond the orbit of Neptune would be moving faster than c, because it would take more than one day to travel a circle of that circumference at the speed of light. If geocentrism is true, there should be a ‘spatial Coriolis’ seen in the Pioneer probes and other objects we have sent into the heavens.
Neptune is directly centred on Sun. Sun on Earth. This means that radius of Neptune around Earth involves at any moment either sum or difference between the distances Sun-Neptune and Sun-Earth. Or in some cases Hypothenuse, which is a kind of both sum and difference (in 3-4-5 triangle, hypothenuse 5 is greater than difference 1 and smaller than sum 7). Say Sun was towards Virgo of us and Neptune toward Pisces, Neptune's distance from us would be SN - SE. Or both were to Virgo or both to Pisces (automatically implies Neptune is beyond Sun, unlike with Venus and Mercury), Neptune's distance from us would be SN + SE. A case where they were neither in opposition nor in conjunction would like hypothenuse case for triangle lie in the range SN - SE < x < SN + SE. This means that maximal radius of Neptune around Earth is SN + SE. Maximal distance SN = 4,537,580,900 km + maximal distance SE = 151,930,000 km = 4,689,510,900 km. Let us multiply by π = 14,732,532,992 km/day, let us divide by 24 = 613,855,541 km/h. Divide by 3600, you get km/sec = 170,515. Which is less than 299,492 km/sec. Perhaps by "any object beyond the orbit of Neptune" means "any object approching orbits further away"? Now, Pluto has a calculated aphelium of 7,311,000,000 km from Sun, but a perihelium of 4,437,000,000 km from Sun. And it seems this perihelium was reached in 1989 Sep 05. If its Orbital period is 247.68 years, the aphelium is reached 123.84 years before or after 1989 Sept 5th. But after = in future way beyond us. Before = before it was discovered in 1930. So, the aphelium of Pluto has never been observed. We have never seen Pluto in a position to move faster than light around us if Geocentrism is true.
There is another thing to "spatial Coriolis". To a Heliocentric, Coriolis as observed on Earth means that waters of Oceans "go West" at equator, because it is left behind in the West while Earth rotates to the East. But to a Geocentric of my school (if I have one), Coriolis means Ether, as moved by God, is moving Ocean waters West at the equator. Now, the rotating aether might also see to it that no light was left behind, but rather directed in relation to ether - stereoma indeed! In that case, the rotation of aether would match the rotation of, say, fixed stars (whereever they are, it's presumably beyond Pluto).
There should be a ‘spatial Coriolis’ as well, because objects leaving earth are starting with an inertial reference frame radically different from the one to which they are travelling. If we aimed them at a planet, they should miss—by millions of miles! Note that this argument is exactly the same as the one Copernicus quoted from Ptolemy above, only here instead of a curving falling object we have a curving rising object.
In curving rising objects, the daily rotation of aether means that the curve is spiralling upwards from Earth, generally upwards from where it left. Or, God and angels directed the mismatches so that they compensated. This is, of course, if these space travels have really taken place. They have another implication for Heliocentrics, and I have tried to see if it was verified:
Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : Asking an Erudite for Optical Proof
On another occasion, I got a kind of positive answer, but somewhat shilly-shallying about sources.
In order to get to a planet, the ship would have to accelerate to unbelievable speeds. Where does this extra propulsive force come from?
The rotationals speeds (as opposed to upwards, where initial acceleration is provided by propulsion at for instance Cape Canaveral), come from the rotating aether. Which gets its rotational speed from God. And movement WITH aether would, on my view, not constitute an acceleration in the Newtonian physical sense, it would only be moving locally faster, but since along with aether there is no acceleration needing vectors. The rotation is provided by God. This theory of aether also is behind my answer to (and hopefully expressed in answer to) Tom Trinko about Geostationary Satellites:
- 1) Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : With Tom Trinko on Physics of Geocentrism, First Rounds,
- 2) With Tom Trinko again, Second rounds,
- 3) Tom Trinko, Third Rounds, Broadening Discussion on Aether,
- 4) New blog on the kid : Was Not Doing My Best Either - Should have Referred to Tolkien,
- 5) Diagrams for Geostationary Satellites (Either Cosmology),
- 6) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Heliocentrism and Positive Claims Demanding Positive Evidence
Obviously, for those who are sufficiently interested in looking this debate up.
Here is another example of the speed problem: the moon orbits the earth at about 1 km/s, with an average distance from the center of the earth of 385,000 km (this is based on simple trigonometry). In a geocentric universe, instead of orbiting every 27.32 days, it orbits daily, meaning it must move about 27 km/s. This is much faster than the Apollo spacecraft sent to the Moon in the 1970s. In fact, it is faster than the 11.2 km/s required to reach escape velocity. The Moon should sail away into space, but it does not because it is not orbiting at that speed and is held nicely in place by the force of gravity.
Except that Moon is mainly moved by an angel, not by an equilibrium of centrifugal and centripetal. Or if the simple fact that Moon is moving WITH the aether rather than in relation to it (except the part which makes up its orbital period) takes care of the problem.
And think about what would be required to bring a long-period comet in from the apex of its orbit (aphelion) to a close approach with the sun (perihelion). We can estimate the mass of many different comets (and after the Rosetta/Philae rendezvous described above, we know the mass of one comet to a high degree of precision), and thus we know how much force it would take to account for the necessary acceleration to bring them closer in within a geocentric universe. To go from a speed greater than c to a speed much less than c, and then back again, comets would have to come with warp-drive.
Once again, moving with the aether, the rotational speed of which is taken care of by God, takes care of the problem.
Think about it. If the universe revolves around the earth, stars circle the earth 365 times a year. For a star exactly 10 light years away, the star would revolve 3,652.42 times before its light reached earth. In other words, the light beam should trace out a path that looks more like a very tight spiral, with arms 24 light-hours apart (assuming a finite and constant speed of light). This would be able to be measured easily. And, since we have sent multiple space probes (with cameras) far enough away from earth, this would have been discovered by now Thus, the stars do not rotate about a stationary earth.
See further my previous discussion of parallax. There are no stars that one must take as being 10 light years away (and that includes the Cygni star that Bessel observed), since "parallax" so taken is really a dance of its angel.
Also, detecting a spiralling passage of light, when the rotational component is simply the rotation of the aether, might be less than as easy as they think.
But my answer is already rather longish. Here I leave off. For now.
Hans Georg Lundahl
UL of Nanterre
Seven holy Founders
of the Servites of the BVM
Update 2-IX-2015: So, being wrong about 63 Ophiuchi, see square above, are there no great negative parallaxes which have same implication? See square below:
|The maximum negative parallax I found, at any rate, had rectascension 040.79214577 and declination +41.43010962. It is not 63 Ophiuchi, since that star has (according to wiki) Right ascension 17h 54m 54.04380s and Declination −24° 53′ 13.5413″. Even if the system of the catalogue did allow a totally different notation of rectascension, the declination would hardly vary between ... well, here is what the README has to say about ra and dec:
Right ascension (epoch J1991.25, ICRS): Field H8/T8 from the Hipparcos and Tycho Catalogues, range [0,360];
Declination (epoch J1991.25, ICRS): Field H9/T9 from the Hipparcos and Tycho Catalogues, range [-90,90]
T8 and T9 are the fields I copied. These should be identical for the H8 and H9 fields in the other catalogue.
Well, what do we get:
Catalogue Selected: Hipparcos Main Catalogue
Fields and parameter search limits:
ra (degrees): Min 040.791 Max 040.793
dec (degrees): Min 41.429 Max 41.431
0 entries satisfied your request.
But switching to Tycho Main we do get one, namely the one I started with. Parallax -904.4 mas. More than a thousand times greater negative parallax than the one I read (when rereading correctly) for 63 Ophiuchi.