First 19 Minutes with Carter

Creation vs. Evolution: Article Geocentricity on Creation Wiki · New blog on the kid: First 19 Minutes with Carter

First, why am I posting video link with comments here and not on Assorted Retorts? Well, comments are off, meaning, unlike when I comment one sided under the actual video, I cannot expect reactions even later on. Also, Geocentrism is a subject which I like to defend here.

And, yes, while purporting to attack Flat Earth, he is also attacking Geocentrism.

Flat Earth? The Bible And Science Say No!
Creation Ministries International | 5.IX.2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSTdZvs8upI

I'll start with the PS from an article over here:

PS, I have started watching Robert Carter's speech against Flat Earth.

I am where he is speaking of SOHO - which is gravitationally more or less "anchored" at a Lagrange point.

My earlier take on angelic movers was, with them, really no need at all for gravitation to be playing any role at all.

However, partly bc of SOHO (unless it's held in "place" by an angel or demon), I do think gravitation does exist on those scales. And then, an angel conducting a planet (including Sol or Luna, Sun or Moon) would be fulfilling a role similar to the motors which keep pushing SOHO back to the exact Lagrange point.

Starting at 0:51 of a video:

"... we humans, we have sent a satellite into outer space and we got it between the Sun and the Earth at a place called a Lagrange [point] - it's a point where the gravity from the Sun and the Earth are balanced and so, just with a little bit of finagling of little teeny rocket engines, you can keep a satellite right in one place"

Well, if so, dito for planets in one orbit, except angels of each planet need to handle some more force, which is no problem for angelic beings, and as Sun has a gravitational pull and is moved backwards, West to East, through the "zodiac" or ecliptic as the scientists call it, the gravitational points of exact balance would be moving, and hence Tychonic orbits. Angels and not engineered rockets doing the finagling./HGL

Now, I go on after this PS:

6:27 "you could accuse me of being a geocentric, I talk about sunrise and sunset"

• I while we live in a culturally very specific time, in which we don't say Earth turned down exposing us to the Sun or Earth turned up, hiding the Sun, but many believe this is what happens, most cultural periods we can really account of have no such discrepancy, but are both believers in Sun rising and setting (though even this is actually phenomenal on a Round Earth Geocentric view, since Sun is moving at approx same height above centre of Earth both morning and evening of a day) and therefore of Sun being in movement, while actually also believing this. Some have on top of that been Flat Earth.
• II Carter would hardly be elaborate enough to say "in its orbit" while using what he calls phenomenal language of the Sun, since Carter does not believe either in a yearly or a daily orbit of the Sun around Earth - well, take a look at Habaccuc!
• III Now, suppose JOshua wanted the Earth's rotation to stop, why didn't he say so? If on the other hand he believed Sun and Moon were moving, why didn't God at least potentially for the afterword correct him by delaying the miracle to after he had changed the wording and stopped adressing Sun and Moon, like Christ adressed waves and winds, as the moving agents of the storm?
• IV If you object God had no reason to instruct Israelites in cosmology, let's not forget that God's instructions to Israelites are partly His instructions to us. God had 40 years, God wanted to segregate Israelites from neighbours anyway, like by haircuts and foods and clothing items and so on, so, if Heliocentrism had been the right cosmology, God would have had two reasons to teach it during the 40 years, when He had ample opportunity:
  • a) to make sure Joshua adressed the right natural agent when commanding the miracle, in that manner precluding any Geocentric "erroneous" misreadings of Joshua 10:12-13;
  • b) to segregate Israelites even a bit more from neighbours.

So much for dismissing the Bible's wording as so much "phenomenal language". Therefore, while Joshua 10:13 might be in Carter's splendid words "non-discriminational", see Joshua 10:12 and Habacuc 3:11:

"The sun and the moon stood still in their habitation, in the light of thy arrows, they shall go in the brightness of thy glittering spear."

Btw, "in their habitation" is not just giving an extraterrestrial reference for the Geocentric nature of the miracle, but also giving another Biblical hint of seven classical planets and also stars not just being lifeless balls of rock or gas, but either animate or moved by angels who can be described in parallel with animate bodily beings.

7:12 Oh, he is going to adress Geocentrism .... fine, I'm not wasting my time!

7:30 While science indeed comes in a paradigm - that is a good one word equivalent for the phrase "interpretative filter of reality" - it is not one paradigm, but historically has come in a lot of different ones.

Some paradigmal shifts are based on very sound evidence. Harvey claimed that veins are not just air pumping through, but blood trasnporting oxygen. Well, since blood is transporting oxygen, everything vital which the older paradigm adressed by claiming veins transported air is still there in the new paradigm, while there is discriminatory information available even beyond what Harvey had. I could think of injections inserting and blood then transporting the liquid which makes X-rays of muscle tissue possible (contrast liquid?)

Also, there is no "Joshua 10" type of theological argument against Harvey's new paradigm, so, theology matches science perfectly.

8:49, I definitely do agree a correct filter will explain more than an incorrect one.

But some explanations are also non-discriminatory, so, while they were made after a paradigm shift, they can be successfully retroactively applied to older paradigm, or within a revived version of it.

9:07 "after centuries of work, it fell apart"

This is very non-specific, and it appeals to a "history of science" type of "summing up" rather than to arguments on which Geocentrism is supposed to have "fallen apart".

9:44 I would NOT classify trolls as falling within the category of James 3:1.

A troll, as internet jargon defines him, is more usually calling out someone else as a false teacher than setting up as a complete teacher.

Since I have been called nearly directly a troll at least once (I was arguing about Neanderthals being original trolls/elves of folklore, remembered through Mrs Japheth who was presumable part Neanderthal herself, on the subject of how their pronunciation of pre-Flood Hebrew would have sounded, and this was not quite appropriate in the view of the managers of that elf-lang group), I can assure you, I am not standing up in a pulpit, I am not showing slides, I am not taking fees from people coming to listen to me, so, I'd be an example of a "troll" but not a "teacher".

Hence, "The risk of being a troll" is a very inappropriate heading for quoting James 3:1.

10:13-14 "I do not see any accuracy coming at me from the Flat Earth comunity"

Technically, since I am not a Flat Earther, this does not concern my own behaviour, but in a way it does, and I don't think this is honest.

If he had said what accuracy he had seen coming at him from Geocentrics like Sungenis and myself, it would have been direct, and the statement would have directly been a lie, unless he is very blinded. But the direct lie about at least myself has been avoided since narrowing this particular statement down to "Flat Earth community".

10:20 "completely misunderstanding, deliberately maligning my words and twisting"

As with the science community's acceptance of Heliocentrism, you are content with a summing up. Then I would have liked an argument. Here I would like the kind of documentation that I give on the blogs on which I am debating someone.

While a lot of the posts on Assorted Retorts are in fact only my own comments under a video, with appropriate quotes from it to explain what I am arguing against, here is an example of when I was in an actual debate:

... in Defense of the Eucharist (to Another Commenter under Krauss)
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2018/09/in-defense-of-eucharist-to-another.html

and here, also on Catholicism:

... on Church Authority and Saints
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2018/09/on-church-authority-and-saints.html

and, here, on Creationism:

In Answer to Zack Kopplin, from 2013
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2018/09/in-answer-to-zack-kopplin-from-2013.html

Not all of the post, but under the "comment" part of comment I, I come into a debate with one William B - I was just today answering another comment, this morning or yesterday (sorry, I am a bit tired), and this other one has so far not yet given rise to any debate. But the debate with William B is there.

So, my readers can see whether I or William B is the one twisting the other one's position.

This kind of debate is a bit lacking with Carrier.

In the debate under Where was Eden? Part 2, he accuses Daniel P of being ungrammatical, and I think this says more of Carrier's streamlined writing education at science studies (I had the somewhat misfortunate opportunity to overhear a long discussion between a student and a teacher at med school in Nanterre at the computer just beside mine the other day, so I know science teachers give a lot advice on how to write, what words to used and so on - but they are not very well equipped on providing similar tools for reading what is not written in their jargon).

So, here I could see for myself - Carrier is not exactly an expert in judging other people's language skills. And I also failed to see any circulus vitiosus in either definiendo or arguendo on part of Daniel P.

Which one if any I agree with will perhaps be adressed when I answer that paper. But here, on the debate about Heliocentrism vs Geocentrism and more directly Round Earth vs Flat Earth, I only have Carrier's words about the other side.

10:56 Articles enumerated:

• Why the Universe does not revolve around the Earth
• Refuting absolute geocentrism
• A flat earth, and other nonsense
• A direct test of the flat earth model: flight times
• How to think (not what to think)

What is directed against a Flat Earth as such is not my concern, I am not a Flat Earther.

Refuting absolute geocentrism has been answered by me:

And CMI also felt a need to "refute Geocentrism" ...
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2015/02/and-cmi-also-felt-need-to-refute.html

I don't recall every detail from back in 2015, but I get a feeling Sarfati or Carter or both was or were notified, and so I waited for an answer and did not get one. However, this could also be bad memory on my part.

11:44 Just because Western Latin Christians were not Flat Earthers in Columbus' day doesn't mean nobody was. Jews and Muslims probably were. Of these, Jews have probably included the more conservative groups since. Plus, accepting Geocentrism but not Flat Earth is so obviously like Greek Philosophy, which they have a Hislop like ... near ban ... on.

As I was arguing for LXX superiority at least in chronology the other day, I wondered why Vulgate (which has Masoretic chronology) came to be - well, vulgate, that is vulgarised, put into common circulation. My answer for that one is, precisely as my answer on sudden Flat Earth interest, a lot of Jews have - in recent decades or in centuries between St Jerome and St Peter of Cluny (who discovered the Talmud, which soured relations) - converted. And some Jewish converts tend to bring with them a lot of stuff, as long as it's not seen as overtly in conflict with the Christianity they convert to.

12:59 I note with satisfaction you are giving Michelson Morley as an EITHER / OR result.

Either Earth is not moving or there is no aether.

It's not Michelson Morley alone, but Michelson Morley + Heliocentrism, which disproves aether. Meaning, a Geocentric can use aether in his explanations.

Which I do.

14:02 "For every true postulate that exists, there will eventually be at least one YouTube video claiming it is NOT true"

I did not know postulates could be true or false.

In geometry "divide a circle into two halves" is a postulate (if I recall correctly). After you've done it, you write QEF - quod erat faciendum - not demonstrandum.

And I recall some nightmarish half memory of Kant having pretended God's existence cannot be demonstrated, but it is a "postulate" ... sheesh!

14:31 "It is not possible online to know that person really believes what they are saying or not"

That is like arguing it is not possible from writing to know St Thomas Aquinas thought he had proven God exists. Of course he did.

OK, the fact he was a Dominican put some checks on his capacity to "troll" before the guys whom he wrote among. Some checks which do not exist between me and you - but neither do they exist between ourselves and that Dominican Convent!

The argument is radically anti-philological, antithetic to text based information about, among other things, other people.

And that leaves the arguer with a full freedom to imagine whatever he liked. St Thomas got hit on the head before writing Summa? No source says so, but I'll be happy with that, as long as it means I can deny God - or so some will argue. That is about the value of the idea someone might be trolling.

Then again, it does not matter very much for you. If you are arguing with a stranger, you are not obliged to catch his hints he is leading you on, you should answer in seriousness, even if he's not contesting in seriousness.

Therefore, claiming the internet can have a troll is an alibi for you to be not arguing but spreading disregard against those who are not agreeing with you.

You are doing so at the start also, and you are doing so at the end, when recommending not to engage with .... Flat Earthers (and perhaps also Geocentrics).

A Russian army retreating so Napoleon has neither confrontation nor sufficient food used a similar tactic, translating it to warfare.

If I am what I am claiming to be, perhaps I'll starve to death or die in diabetes or get provoked and put in a mental asylum before you need to catch up and actually engage with me. Because, you are unwilling and not using the strings you pull to keep my texts away from printed paper would land you in some kind of obligation to engage with me. OK, it may be someone else doing the string-pulling, but you are counting on it.

It's not just Flat Earth, but also such tactics that Jewish converts can at times bring into Christian contexts. Which reminds me:

Dishonesty at St Nicolas du Chardonnet?
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2018/09/dishonesty-at-st-nicolas-du-chardonnet.html

14:35 "and that's one of the hardest things about this I know"

Bc you are antiphilological in outlook, you do not feel you can judge anyone's position on verbal text, and you are also handicapped imagining a wide variety of outlooks.

Sorry, this says more about you than about the guys you have been up against.

15:15 While the purely scientific stuff at CERN might be innocuous, it seems they did put up a statue to Shiva there, and Krauss is citing CERN recruitment from all over Earth as a new model for international unity.

I think it is a very ... well, Babelic one:

... against Krauss, Ten Answers to his First Six Minutes (see comment IX about CERN)
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2018/09/against-krauss-ten-answers-to-his-first.html

There is certainly a difference between a cabale and an élite, but some times the latter strikes the former as one, and in certain cultural aspects, this élite is really revolutionising, much like a cabale.

15:54 Those two memes are among things I used myself (and probably came up with without seeing the memes) before I considered the role of the aether.

16:30 "the acceleration, not the velocity"

I am expecting here a reference to how wide the earth is, since in the physics I was taught, a curved trajectory always involves an acceleration, even at same velocity, since same velocity is not same if changing direction ...

Calculation of merry-go-round:

[360° *] 40 075.017 km / 24 h = [360° *] 6.28 m / 59 sec?

I'm estimating the radius of merry-go-round to 1 m, gives diameter of 2 m, * pi = tau meters.

= > 40 075.017 km / 6.28 m = 24 h / 59 sec

40 075 017 / 6.28 = 6 381 372.133 757 961 783 439 5 24 * 60 * 60 / 59 = 1 464.406 779 661 016 949 2

Hmmm ... no.

I think you have some explanations to do on the factors involved in the calculation?

You will admit that this meme is fairly opaque to a non-physicist. As you can see from my attempt.



17:22 Your explanation actually does show, it is a fairly reasonable one, with, as I predicted, a factor I had not taken into account.

However, your estimate of someone else's veracity is a bit less convincing.

"Flat Earth Mendacity"? Mendacity means lying. And Flat Earth was not the topic.

When I was refuting a real flat earth meme by Rob Skiba, namely how we could not see even very high stuff due to curvature of Earth, I came up with "oh, you took the formula that is correct for how much you see if you have your eyes where your toes are" - and incorrect for how much you see if your eyes are higher up.

But I did not accuse Rob Skiba of mendacity (perhaps I should now, if he's still promoting the Chicago skyline taken from across Lake Michigan (?) as evidence), I just notified him politely, he had got something wrong (as he also has with regards to Nicean Council - "Hislop squared", so to speak).

The meme is one I was using myself (not on picture as a meme, but verbally in my own words) to when I had kind of a shock a few years ago that I had been arguing basically for Round Earth and Geocentrism in a void, unlike what I believe, namely that we are in an aether which is spinning around Earth along with Sun and Moon, and therefore, an object falling from man high without previously, by being still, having a velocity through the aether, would be flying Westward about 500 meters at equator (or 300, I was nerdy enough to calculate, but don't recall), but really don't, since by being still at man height, they already have a corresponding eastward velocity through the aether.

Now, actually, the line between Hebrew and Greek Geostatic versions were not just on Flat (at least after Babylonian Talmud) vs Round, but also on whether the bodies are carried by angels:

• individually Westward through a void, God not physically moving anything, but just ordering their movements
• or Eastward within some kind of "solid" framework which God is turning Westward.

While I believe the latter, which is St Thomas' version, the merry-go-round meme shown actually is arguing for the former : Earth is still within a void which is if not still at least motionless bc a void cannot move.

18:03 "because you are moving"

OR because you are within an aether that is moving Westward.

19:00 "but the person who put this together probably did, a lot of this information is coming out of sceptical websites just for fun"

I was arguing that precise point in 2001 - 2002, bona fide.

THEN in February 2009 the MSN Group where I had saved lots and lots of my debates, disappeared with all other MSN Groups. Gates pretended one could easily transfer all the content of an MSN Group to the new feature "Multiply". I tried with a very much smaller group, without any other members, with very much less content on it, and all did not correctly transfer. Then I refrained from even trying with Antimodernism.

Now, this sounds a bit as if lots of my actual debates saved on that group had been lost. Perhaps not quite as bad. The debate part, I actually tried to save in priority, it is earliest in Assorted Retorts. But while having the debates on other media (Yahoo Groups, AOL Message Boards) I also had too little time on internet to correctly save what I was doing in debates on my MSN Group. Then a lot of what one could call small talk with short notices and essays and so on did get lost. I asked a FB friend for help in late 2008, he said "sure" and then I found out he hadn't and that he was a freemason.

This means, part of my lost stuff may well be recycled by lodges for fun at me. As well as at you.

Meanwhile, if you like the prospect of seeing stars from above and not from below as now, perhaps you might want to change tactics.

As for me, I nearly lied and by laziness wrote "first 20 minutes", but I stop this one here, at only 19:00.

For now.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Michael's Eve
28.IX.2018