Monday, 30 June 2014

With Tom Trinko again, Second rounds

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

HGL to TT, added after last of previous
Quite other question: how come you made a proviso like the words: "unless you're going to butcher quotes of me to misrepresent what I say"? Is that your standard misanthropic misgiving about any stranger these days, or has someone been giving me a reputation, perhaps even without showing you what it is based on?

Here is how your words have been treated:

Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : With Tom Trinko on Physics of Geocentrism, First Rounds
http://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2014/06/with-tom-trinko-on-physics-of.html


TT to HGL, Dimanche/Sunday 20:03
No reason to suspect you of intentionally butchering my words. However I wanted to give fair warning that if that was your intent it would be ill advised. Sorry if I offended you. And by the way being cautious in an age where people do butcher words is not misanthropic.

By the way Augustine clearly condemns Sungennis's misuse of the Bible--and endorsements by saints for geocentrism-- when Augustine says:

" Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. [1 Timothy 1.7]Augustine of Hippo, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, Vol 2


As to the satellite issue even though the earths gravitation is less at geosychronos orbit it would still bring a satellite to the ground quickly. and of course if the satellite has eastward momentum it won't stay stationary over the earth

HGL to TT, Monday
[il y a 25 minutes ago]
"By the way Augustine clearly condemns Sungennis's misuse of the Bible ...."? Ghaaaaaa!

I condemn you misuse of St Augustine.

So does Sungenis. If you want to spell his name with two (three) N, it is the older Italian from Sangennisi you think of. His own Americanate form is Sungenis. With one (two) N.

Here is my refutation of that kind of misuse, go to my blog (linked to below) and search the beginning of that quote, i e the words "usually even". See what you find:

Triviū, Quadriviū, 7 cætera : Search usually even
http://triv7quadriv.blogspot.com/search?q=usually+even


Since other articles came up too, look here:

Triviū, Quadriviū, 7 cætera : Distant Starlight Problem - Answered by Geocentrism
http://triv7quadriv.blogspot.com/2012/11/distant-starlight-problem-answered-by.html


"As to the satellite issue even though the earths gravitation is less at geosychronos orbit it would still bring a satellite to the ground quickly."

Unless it has an eastward momentum.

" and of course if the satellite has eastward momentum it won't stay stationary over the earth"

Unless, as already said, the eastward momentum is within a westward turning aether.

Exchange
on Monday evening

Tom Trinko
And since of course there is no evidence for the aether your whole argument is without merit.
Hans Georg Lundahl
Except that there is doubly evidence for it:

  • a) by these effects (which can all be considered variants of Coriolis effect)
  • b) by the wavelengths of light in aether
  • c) by the Sagnac effect (as noted by Sungenis).


The only supposed evidence against it is a NON-Geostatic view of Michelson Morley, and that begs the question, you are arguing in circles.

Tom Trinko
Actually what you are doing is inventing an aether so you can reject all scientific evidence. There is no basis for the aether other than your need to figure out some way to support your bad Bible interpretations.

The Sagnac effect does not require an aether

The way science works is that you need to show something exists. You are arguing that since you claim I can't show the aether exists then it must exist.

Hans Georg Lundahl
No, I am not arguing that.

I am arguing that there are effects the cause of which is aether, and therefore it exists.

That is the way LOGIC works.

Btw, lear some logic instead of making a fool of yourself by wrongful analysis of my argument.

Tom Trinko
Uh you haven't shown any effect that can only be attributed to the aether and not to more well grounded concepts.

what you're doing is saying that this aether you're making up could explain certain things. You've not shown that aether is the explanation.

You reject Michaelson Morely because you reject, based on the bible not science something that Augusting condemns, the earths motion not because you've shown that the earth doesn't move.

Hans Georg Lundahl
  • a) I am not making aether up;
  • b) I am not rejecting Michelson Morley results;
  • c) Michelson Morley were "making aether down" because, not only were they correctly accepting their results, but INCORRECTLY accepting Earth's supposed orbit around the sun.
  • d) Augustin - who is a saint - was NOT condemning the use of Holy Writ as an authority in science. Read what he wrote in context instead of staring yourself blind or hypnotic on one single quote.


And, supposing no one had thought of aether before me, supposing I did not have Michelson Morley either very explicitly disproving IT or disproving Heliocentric tenets, supposing my take on Michelson Morley were original, as also the Coriolis effects.

That would NOT make my interpretation wrong and the aetherless and Heliocentric one right. How much is SCIENCE - as they call it - making up?

They made up electrons, for one, to account for their effects. Could be effects of sth else, no? Or have you directly observed them? In electronic microscopy, for instance? N O T. You cannot study electrons in electronic microscopy any more than you can study photons with a normal microscope. You can intensely study the supposed effects of either, but that is not direct observation.

Tom Trinko
(night to Tuesday, Paris time)
No one made up electrons. They proposed a theory and then tested the theory.

You've proposed a theory but there is no experimental evidence that your theory is right and a lot that it is wrong.
Hans Georg Lundahl
(Tuesday, Paris time)
I have proposed a theory and shown how available experimental evidence fits it.

And the theory of electrons fitting the observations is precisely NOT a direct observation of the electrons themselves.

If you have any evidence my theory is wrong that is NOT YET answered by me, feel free to mention it.

Or rather than proposing a theory of my own, I have reproposed one rejected too hastily by Michelson and Morley, since they were Heliocentrics.

Tom Trinko to me
Mardi/Tuesday 20:46 (Paris time, presumably)
Irrespective of the source of the theory the fact that there is no experimental evidence for it and no math to define it--you wave your hands about the force the aether imparts to the satellite but you're just saying it is exactly right to keep the satellite from falling with no equations showing why the force should be what you need it to be--means you're not doing science you're making up stories.

Me to Tom Trinko
Wednesday morning
"Irrespective of the source of the theory"

Thank you.

"the fact that there is no experimental evidence for it and no math to define it"

There is. Aether is getting aorund the universe same speed as the stars. Note I am not sure if this is slowing down or rather not when getting close to earth. That is the math of speed.

"--you wave your hands about the force the aether imparts to the satellite"

C'mon, you really have to make a strawmannus maximus, don't you? I already clarified I did not say that aether imparts any force to the satellite, I said it is where the momentum of the satellite counts in. That is different. And I did not wave my hands at all, I also clarified very clearly that if the satellite had had no eastward momentum to start with, the westward movement of aether would not be evening it down to keepining its spot in space. Rockets that go far beyond earth orbits are, due to only upward momentum and westward movement of aether spiralling daily around us. That is a set of very definite mathematical models.

"but you're just saying it is exactly right to keep the satellite from falling"

I said the westward speed of the aether is exactly right to keep an eastward heading satellite in spot (if it is heading eastward at the right speed of course). As for the maths for momentum and gravity evening out to a kind of orbit, that is taken from the maths of the heliocentrics. I am not saying their equations are wrong. I am only saying they do not reflect reality as best they could. That is very much NOT the same proposition. Which is of course why, if, as I, after Sungenis before me, have tried to show, the equations (implied in description) can be seen from the other side, then they cannot prove which side is the right. What CAN prove which side is the right one is our senses. Like eyes and inner ears. God gave us them. For free. Plus a Bible with passages to support that side.

"means you're not doing science you're making up stories"

Telling stories is not automatically lying. Doing science is not automatically being incorrect. Or correct.

"with no equations showing why the force should be what you need it to be"

Again, I take the eastward momentum of a geostationary satellite to be what it is to the Heliocentrics who say that it is turning and earth is turning at same angular speed. I only take the same momentum as taking place in a westward moving aether, in a westward turning universe. As to the technicalities of turning the equations around, I leave it to them. The thing is, if there were no aether, if there were only empty space, this could not work at all, and geostationary satellites would fall to the ground as you say. But the presence of aether explained things - like light having wavelengths for one. Its absense only serves to:

  • a) explain Michelson Morley without arriving at Geostasis as to annual orbit;

  • b) give you the above argument against Geocentrism.


It goes against, for instance, Aristotle's Natura abhorret a vacuo.

So, introducing the aether again also gives a substrate for qualities not directly derived from the geometry and arithmetic of protons and electrons in space. As in "empty space".

It also serves as one possible model on glorified bodies. Could they be same bodies as we have, minus the nuclei and the mass? Every quality, though coded in number of protons etc. would be realised throughout the aether in that body. That is one more use of aether, if you are a Christian.

If your concern is sucking up to the Atheist majority of Scientific community (or semi-Atheist if you count a pseudo-Catholic like Ken Miller into the lot, I am not quite sure pure Atheists would be singlehandidly in majority), that is your outlook, not mine. As far as I am concerned, the basic philosophy of the most important reality was given us in a book that is full of stories. And no, Christ did not leave his Church "without a book, but with a Magisterium", He left it with a complete Old Testament (Septuagint canon, like RC, Roum Orth or Ethiopian version of it) and a complete New Testament relevant exegesis of it (given in the Crash Course between Resurrection and Ascension). This one did not include a Heliocentric turning around of Joshua's miracle, nor and Old Age relativisation of Genealogy based and day=day based Biblical Chronology.

Tom Trinko thinks I forgot my argument from earlier on
Wednesday 18:26
Uh you really don't know anything about science do you?

If the aether doesn't impart a force to the then the satellite will not stay up. It will fall down under the force of earths gravity.

My answer, Thursday
repeating previous answer.
Except through the momentum eastward of the satellite through space. WHICH IS where the westward movement of the aether comes in: in Sungenis' theory (and he has done the equations too, or left them to a better expert) this momentum counts through the aether. Not through empty and therefore inert space. Got it this time?

Tom Trinko
Jeudi/Thursday 20:17
Uh no since you're not making sense. Even if the satellite somehow had an eastward momentum it would fall to the earth, though not straight down. Essentially gravity acting on the satellite will cause the satellite to accelerate towards the earth irrespective of eastward momentum. The only way to keep the satellite up is to provide a force equal and opposite to that of gravity. And I've seen Sungennis's equations and they're either misinterpreted or wrong.

Hans Georg Lundahl
4th of July
"Even if the satellite somehow had an eastward momentum it would fall to the earth, though not straight down."

And if the eastward momentum is big enough, the satellite "falls" so "not straight down" as to completely miss earth and stay in orbit again and again. That is how Heliocentrics say that satellites work. That is also how they say that Moon works around Earth and Earth around Sun. Who is not knowledgable on physics now?

"Essentially gravity acting on the satellite will cause the satellite to accelerate towards the earth irrespective of eastward momentum."

Yes, and the eastward momentum would push the satellite off at a tangent irrespective of gravity of earth. The concrete movement of the satellite is not irrespective of either. It is a balance between the eastward momentum and the downward momentum.

"The only way to keep the satellite up is to provide a force equal and opposite to that of gravity."

Provided by the eastward momentum. NOT by the aether.

"And I've seen Sungennis's equations and they're either misinterpreted or wrong."

Care to give an example? The very fact you cannot decide which of the two they are suggests you are not able to see if they are right or not. Sungenis' point is that the equations of the Heliocentrics are, not wrong, BUT misinterpreted.

Still 4th of July
Tom to me
19:24 - 19:29
Uh eastward momentum being perpindicular to the nadir vector cannot balance gravitational forces.

As to Sungennis's equations I was saying some were wrong and others were misrepresented not that I was unclear as to which they were.

I'm not going to bother with an example because I'd have to dig up my notes and it's not worth the time since if you don't understand why eastward momentum can't counter act a downward force it would be impossible for you to understand the problems with the equations.

Me to Tom
20:10 - 20:15
"Uh eastward momentum being perpindicular to the nadir vector cannot balance gravitational forces."

In that case, how do you account for planets orbiting sun in your Heliocentric worldview and physics?

"As to Sungennis's equations I was saying some were wrong and others were misrepresented not that I was unclear as to which they were."

My bad, could you give an example of each?

"it's not worth the time since if you don't understand why eastward momentum can't counter act a downward force"

But YOU are saying it can.

It is only, that if space is void, eastward momentum can only exist with an eastward movement, either with a place on earth, destroying the non-motion of earth, or from a place on earth, destroying the geostationary quality (some geocentrics have duly argued these satellites are frauds, partly by effects from landbased emitters, partly by effects of normal satellites).

BUT if space is an aether turning westward, the eastward momentum could be as real if exactly counterbalanced in speed by the westward movement of the aether to a net sum of geostationary non-movement.

Did you get it this time?

Saturday, 28 June 2014

Apparent Annual Zig Zag Question about Geo/Helio and Space Crafts

Document commented on:
"Here Comes the Sun"
How the new geocentrists persist in scientific and logical errors
by Alec MacAndrew
http://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Here-Comes-the-Sun-Alec-MacAndrew.pdf


After reading which I contacted Alec:
HGL to contact@evolutionpages.com
Sent: Friday, April 18, 2014 5:13 PM
Subject: does/did Pioneer 10 a yearly apparent zig zag?
You wrote:

"Is there any such evidence for the Earth’s daily rotation? Let’s look at Pioneer 10 and 11, two spacecraft that were launched in 1972 and 1973 respectively, to study the asteroid belt, Jupiter and Saturn. After completing their mission they continued on their trajectory out of the solar system at well above escape velocity. Pioneer 1034 remained in contact with earth stations until 2003 when it was some 12 billion kilometres away. You will remember that the Sun has by far the biggest gravitational field in the solar system and for that reason both Pioneers were slowed down by the Sun’s gravity as they flew away from the solar system. However measurements of the spacecraft position and speed indicated that both Pioneers were slowing down more than the models predicted and for several years this effect, known as the Pioneer anomaly, was a mystery. All we need to know about the anomaly is a) that it was tiny (~10-10 ms-2 - a hundred billionth of the acceleration due to gravity at the Earth’s surface) and b) that it has been explained with perfectly conventional physics35. What is relevant to us is the fact that the anomaly was so small and therefore, in order to measure it, physicists needed to know the position (range and direction) of the satellites with extreme precision. These measurements are made by Doppler measurements and timing of radio signals sent to the satellites and returned to Earth ground stations. There is a daily modulation of the Doppler signals caused by the fact that Earth’s rotation causes a daily change in the relative velocity between the spacecraft and the Earth which physicists must correct for. In fact this daily Doppler modulation is used to measure the direction of the spacecraft from the Earth (its amplitude gives declination and its phase gives right ascension)."


Is there a yearly one?

That is about the question I asked here:

Has Cassini-Huygens spacecraft earth flyby in 1999 disproven geocentrism
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?p=9120534#post9120534


"If earth is stationary, it ought to remain at the origo of the flight of a rocket (the spiral movement of which is explained by influence of daily movement of universe around earth). If it be moving around sun, it ought to return to it only once a year."


In other words, have the spacecraft been observed as zigzagging by parallactic observation from an earth rotating around the sun?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

HGL to : "geocentrismdebunked"
date : 25/04/14 à 18h42
objet : To Alec
New blog on the kid : Answering Alec MacAndrew
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2014/04/answering-alec-macandrew.html


Alec MacAndrew to HGL
date : 02/05/14 à 11h22
objet : Re: does/did Pioneer 10 a yearly apparent zig zag?
Of course. See ref 36 in the paper.

Best regards

Alec

Reference 36:
36 Anderson, John D., et al. "Study of the anomalous acceleration of Pioneer 10 and 11." Physical Review D 65.8 (2002): 082004.

HGL to Alec MacAndrew
date : 02/05/14 à 18h54
objet : Re: does/did Pioneer 10 a yearly apparent zig zag?
Thank you!

HGL to : help@aps.org
date : 02/05/14 à 19h00
objet : "Study of the anomalous acceleration of Pioneer 10 and 11." Physical Review D 65.8 (2002): 082004.
  • a) Can you identify this reference?
  • b) Is the paper in question available in the libraries of Paris (especially excepting Georges Pompidou)?

    Hans-Georg Lundahl

  • PS, c) is it available online?


[I got the correct adress, but I am not finding the kind mail, right now.]

HGL to : Philip.A.Laing@aero.org ; mmn@lanl.gov
date : 02/05/14 à 20h57
objet : Question passed on to you : Subject: does/did Pioneer 10 a yearly apparent zig zag?
+ identic one with following header:
HGL to : john.d.anderson@jpl.nasa.gov ; Eunice.L.Lau@jpl.nasa.gov ; turyshev@jpl.nasa.gov
date : 03/05/14 à 10h59
objet : On Pioneer .... (passing on a question)
Citing it as originally written to someone else (HGL to Alec -> HGL to you):

You [Alec MacAndrew*] wrote:

"Is there any such evidence for the Earth’s daily rotation? Let’s look at Pioneer 10 and 11, two spacecraft that were launched in 1972 and 1973 respectively, to study the asteroid belt, Jupiter and Saturn. After completing their mission they continued on their trajectory out of the solar system at well above escape velocity. Pioneer 10 remained in contact with earth stations until 2003 when it was some 12 billion kilometres away. You will remember that the Sun has by far the biggest gravitational field in the solar system and for that reason both Pioneers were slowed down by the Sun’s gravity as they flew away from the solar system. However measurements of the spacecraft position and speed indicated that both Pioneers were slowing down more than the models predicted and for several years this effect, known as the Pioneer anomaly, was a mystery. All we need to know about the anomaly is a) that it was tiny (~10-10 ms-2 - a hundred billionth of the acceleration due to gravity at the Earth’s surface) and b) that it has been explained with perfectly conventional physics. What is relevant to us is the fact that the anomaly was so small and therefore, in order to measure it, physicists needed to know the position (range and direction) of the satellites with extreme precision. These measurements are made by Doppler measurements and timing of radio signals sent to the satellites and returned to Earth ground stations. There is a daily modulation of the Doppler signals caused by the fact that Earth’s rotation causes a daily change in the relative velocity between the spacecraft and the Earth which physicists must correct for. In fact this daily Doppler modulation is used to measure the direction of the spacecraft from the Earth (its amplitude gives declination and its phase gives right ascension)."


Is there a yearly one?

That is about the question I asked here:

Has Cassini-Huygens spacecraft earth flyby in 1999 disproven geocentrism
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?p=9120534#post9120534


"If earth is stationary, it ought to remain at the origo of the flight of a rocket (the spiral movement of which is explained by influence of daily movement of universe around earth). If it be moving around sun, it ought to return to it only once a year."


In other words, have the spacecraft been observed as zigzagging by parallactic observation from an earth rotating around the sun?

* He referred to reference 36 which brought me to:

Physical Review D : Study of the anomalous acceleration of Pioneer 10 and 11
Phys. Rev. D 65, 082004 – Published 11 April 2002
John D. Anderson, Philip A. Laing, Eunice L. Lau, Anthony S. Liu, Michael Martin Nieto, and Slava G. Turyshev
http://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.65.082004
Not answering as far as I have seen since:
John D. Anderson, Philip A. Laing, Eunice L. Lau, Anthony S. Liu, Michael Martin Nieto, and Slava G. Turyshev

With Tom Trinko on Physics of Geocentrism, First Rounds

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

Statement from Tom Trinko:
I Tom Trinko have not really been spending too much effort refuting Hans for the simple reason that life is too short to spend the time necessary to refute every point raised by someone who knows nothing of what they are talking about.

As such I apologize for not having spent the time to explain in detail why Hans is wrong.
Wednesday 21:00 (supposing my profile is set on Paris time) - Saturday 10:30 sth (on Paris time) is the time for these first rounds.


Hans Georg Lundahl to Tom Trinko
TT or Tom Trinko?

I can change if you are a public figure. Private citizens have been given only in initials:

HGL's F.B. writings: Karl Keating had a Status, the Status a Debate
http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.fr/2014/06/karl-keating-had-status-status-debate.html
Tom Trinko to Hans Georg Lundahl
Uh I don't see any comment related to me on your page. I guess I'm a public figure--I'm not in hiding. But I'm not famous. I do publish articles on American Thinker under my name and unless you're going to butcher quotes of me to misrepresent what I say I'd go with my name.

By the way your arguments are all wrong. I know the math that is used to determine how to get a rocket to space and if the sun orbited the earth then none of our space vehicles would end up where they were intended to go.

Also the whole center of the universe concept is kinda silly. If Earth is the only planet God put men on then we're the center of the universe no matter what the geometry is.

As to satellites well if the sun orbited the earth satellites would be gone in a second due to the changing direction of the suns gravity.

All of your Bible based conclusions are perfect examples of how not to interpret the Bible and the fact you reject the Church's teaching--heliocentrism is fine it doesn't matter to our faith--says you're on the Protestant side of Bible interpretation. And no the Church, as opposed to some in the Church, has never dogmatically defined geocentrism to be tru.
Hans Georg Lundahl to Tom Trinko
" I know the math that is used to determine how to get a rocket to space and if the sun orbited the earth then none of our space vehicles would end up where they were intended to go."

Feel free to develop on diagrams, draw, scan, send me back.

[So far he hasn't done so.]

Btw, one of your comments is on that thread. That is why I am changing TT to Tom Trinko.

Your argument was:

"Now if the earth isn't rotating then geostationary satellites aren't moving. But we all know that if put something up in the sky and release it it will fall to the earth. But since geostationary satellites aren't falling to the earth they have to be moving and hence the earth has to be rotating. "

My answer to that - using Sungenis - was:

"Robert Sungenis would answer they are relatively moving as it is really aether that is moving around them.

A parallel would be an aeroplane wing. It lifts both in a test tunnel when air is blown onto its fore and in air when it is itself moving. "
Tom Trinko to Hans Georg Lundahl
That's absurd. There is no aether, that was demonstrated a long time ago, and even if there were it would not provide lift. Further if the aether is moving where the satellite is it's moving at the earths surface and should be measurable.
Hans Georg Lundahl to Tom Trinko
  • 1) The "long time ago" was 100 years ago, the occasion is well known, it is Michelson Morley.

  • 2) There are exactly TWO interpretations of experiment:

    • a) no aether (absurd enough)
    • b) geostasis, not so absurd, but out of fashion since a few centuries


  • 3) movement of aether at earth - cf Coriolis effects of any kind (i e any purported demonstrations of earth moving based on how things move on earth).

    Foucault's Pendulum, for instance, makes one circle at the poles in one day, at equator in two days, anywhere between in anymuch between 1 and 2 days in a careful gradation.

    How is the latter for "measureable"?


[Five minutes later, when he did not answer:]

Hello, did you swoon or go off to make calculations or what happened?
Tom Trinko to Hans Georg Lundahl (later/seen next day)
Uh I have a life. Ok you do realize you have no idea of what you're talking about right?

[Editor's note: A funny piece of intimidation used by some people I do not like. Fortunately he had arguments too:]

for the movement of the non-existant aetherto hold a multi ton satellite up it would have to be exerting a much greater force than anything we see related to corlios forces. It would be lifting cars off the ground. further given that the aether would be moving generaly perpendicular to the nadir vector it's hard to see how multi tons of lift could be generated pointing up.

Also note that many Geo birds have big long floppy solar panels that can't even be extended in 1g without special supports.

If there was a force acting on the satellite it would have to be nearly 1g and it'd bow the solar arrays up if it didn't break them off.

The other problem is explaining why the same aeither motion generates forces in opposite directions for geo birds on opposite sides of the world.
Hans Georg Lundahl to Tom Trinko
"for the movement of the non-existant aetherto hold a multi ton satellite up it would have to be exerting a much greater force than anything we see related to corlios forces"

  • a) further up its circular motion would be at greater speed and therefore exerting a greater force than on ground

    [Ha, I was - as he said later - saying aether was exerting a force, I meant the momentum required in opposite direction was greater to stay in same place. I was carelessly repeating his phrase, to answer his point rather than to clearly make mine.]

  • b) further up gravitation from Earth (on any Newtonian view at least) would inversely be less intense.


" further given that the aether would be moving generaly perpendicular to the nadir vector it's hard to see how multi tons of lift could be generated pointing up."

You are overdoing the parallel with aeroplane wings.

[Here I think I did after all make mine.]

If I get Sungenis right, aether is what the momentum counts in. Meaning that a momentum directly opposed to the westward movement of the aether would be a real momentum even if concretely that momentum with the movement of aether even out to a de facto stationary position. It would not be the same as a stationary position without a momentum.

"Also note that many Geo birds have big long floppy solar panels that can't even be extended in 1g without special supports. If there was a force acting on the satellite it would have to be nearly 1g and it'd bow the solar arrays up if it didn't break them off. "

You are treating aether as if it were a matter weighing down.

If it were that, it would hardly carry the wave movements of light, would it?

"The other problem is explaining why the same aeither motion generates forces in opposite directions for geo birds on opposite sides of the world."

The direction may be "right hand" and "left hand" turning, but it is Westward on either side.
Tom Trinko to Hans Georg Lundahl
You sadly don't know anything about physics right?

[Did he say sth like that before?]

Ok on the floppy wings thing there has to be a force pushing the satellite up that would tend to bow the solar arrays which have a much lower mass to area ratio than the satellite main body.

There is no evidence of this aetiher so basically Sunngenis is just making up something; he might as well make up hobbits.

You didn't explain how if the satellites motion through the aether is left and right it generates and upward directed force.

You haven't explained why if the force is generated by the satellite motion in the aether the force is in opposite directions on the two sides of the planet. the force has to be in opposite directions on the two sides of the planet.

I'm not treating the aether as waying down. You've said the aether generates a force on the satellite. I'm pointing out what the consequences of that are. You and Sungennis tend to simply make up a characteristic of the aether to fix a problem and then forget about the other consequences of that action.

And Michelson Morely showed there was no aether for light.
Hans Georg Lundahl to Tom Trinko
Michelson Morley WOULD have shown exactly that IF heliocentrism had been a proven fact.

"Ok on the floppy wings thing there has to be a force pushing the satellite up that would tend to bow the solar arrays which have a much lower mass to area ratio than the satellite main body."

According to heliocentrics, there is no force pushing upward. There is a momentum pushing eastward.

The point here is a momentum pushing eastward through an aether turning westward would still be a momentum. Even if the overall local effect were stillness rather than motion.

"There is no evidence of this aetiher so basically Sunngenis is just making up something; he might as well make up hobbits."

Hobbits of Tolkien do have a background not made up by Tolkien. Check out folklore. Also, check out Flores (but preferrably skip the "20.000 years before present" part).

"You haven't explained why if the force is generated by the satellite motion in the aether the force is in opposite directions on the two sides of the planet. the force has to be in opposite directions on the two sides of the planet."

It is not. South and North part of the GLOBE the coriolis force is per se WESTward and only per accidens right and left.

Similarily in the height of the satellite, the aether is NOT moving either right or left or up or down, but WEST.

Which means a momentum eastward (identic to Heliocentric explanations for void instead of aether and East turning globe instead of West turning universe) on part of the satellite remains such even if net result is no movement.

" You've said the aether generates a force on the satellite"

I think not. [See my admission above, though.]

I think I said yesterday exactly what I say today: since aether moves westward, the satellite can have a momentum eastward without actually moving from the location.

"You and Sungennis tend to simply make up a characteristic of the aether to fix a problem and then forget about the other consequences of that action."

Well not really, no.

I cannot speak for Sungenis, I have not read his book. For myself I can say that I am taking into account quetsions like how the aether can push a rocket heading out from earth in a spiral ("linear" path of it = spiral path but the movement westward wrongly attributed to the globe turning eastward). I came up with that the satellite had to have a momentum eastward. Which is also what we do find in the records of those sending them up. Without that momentum eastward, it would not have stayed in spot, but spiralled.

Of course the force LIFTING it from earth is the rocketry. And it is getting up to where, on Newtonian principles, earth exerts less gravitation on it. Meaning that a lesser eastward momentum is needed to keep it up.

Monday, 23 June 2014

Some Comments on Geocentrism Not Published, So Far

All tops to be read
HGL commenting under, etc.
CMI : John G. Hartnett
The largest structure in the observable universe, or cosmic variance?
19/06/14 à 10h44, in answer to commenter
"How big must God be? Need to come up with a not yet invented word to replace "big" in the question."

The problem that standard cosmology accepters seem to have if Theist is that they seem to think "the bigger the universe, the bigger the God who created it".

God certainly is present at any point of the Universe, and yet He is not extended in it and therefore not bigger if it is bigger or smaller if it is smaller.

A solution might be Geocentrism and small universe and this just one of the things pointing to it?
John Gideon Hartnett
The Cosmological Principle and geocentrism
June 19, 2014 at 6:37 pm
There is no difficulty here as already explained above. God is describing in the text all that is happening from the perspective of the agents on Earth. When God supernaturally stopped the heavens moving all He had to do (with little effort on His part) was stop the Earth spinning for one day. The passage of time of the one day is not determined by the Earth’s rotation but by the flow of time itself. God must have suspended inertia in the Earth itself to effect this.

That might account for verse 13, except for what Cardinal Bellarmine stated in the 1616 trial (over the book, not the man).

The Moon ALSO stopped.

Even further: modern cosmology has one full circle of the earth in absolute space as a few minutes shorter than one day. Namely, a stellar day. So, stopping the earth would involve some remaining movement of the sun AND – this is what St Robert pointed out – even more so of the Moon.

Sun and Moon would not have stopped still.

But my main difficulty is that you are not at all adressing verse 12. The words of Joshua while he performs the miracle.

This is not a description adressed to whatever understanding or lack thereof an astronomically uneducated reader might have.

It is an order to the angels who are – under God – running the Sun and Moon through the universe.

If the movement to be stopped had been that of earth, the order would have been adressed to the earth.

Commands followed by real divine miracles are not formulated as actual and factual falsehoods about the process.

And you are – for next time if you answer – wrong about certain details of the Galileo process.

One tidbit thereof: “the Church had supported Galileo and his work” … well, Heliocentrism was not all he had been doing!

His telescope was used by Clavius to partly confirm what he had said about the Milky Way – and that part, though Clavius thought he was scientifically wrong, remained uncondemned. His experiments in physics were supported as well. What has come to the fore is that these might have involved an atomism which might have been in conflict with the Dogm of Transsubstantiation. IF that is true, his being tried for a much lesser suspicion of Heresy (it is Corpus Christi feast today) was a way of saving him from the stake. A heresy about the Body and Blood of Our Lord was a much more serious matter. IF Galileo was suspect of anything like that, THEN the trial he was put through saved his life.
John Gideon Hartnett
Cosmology is Not Science
June 19, 2014 at 10:11 pm
In reality, cosmology is what we call historical science, because it tries to reconstruct the past history of the Universe from observations we make today.

Cosmo-GONY is historical. Cosmo-GRAPHY is how the cosmos is contemporaneously.

Like if it has a centre, where it is and so on.

That too is not immediately “observational science” – except if you base it on the observations we do have: earth being still, heavenly bodies moving around earth.

Monday, 16 June 2014

À la police municipale d'une ville française

date : 24/07/13 à 15h31
objet : Le mot que je cherchais: entrave à la liberté d'expression ...
... ce matin quand un policier municipal vient de jouer le caïd à propos le fait que je combinais ma mendicité avec une pancarte faisant la publicité pour deux de mes blogs.

Voici ce qu'en dit un site juridique:

Jurizine : article 431-1 du code pénal, Entrave à la liberté d'expression
http://www.jurizine.net/2005/09/07/145-article-431-1-du-code-penal-entrave-a-la-liberte-d-expression


10 CEDH Liberté d'expresion
http://www.jurizine.net/2005/09/03/35-article-10-cedh-liberte-dexpression


article 19 DUDH Liberté d'opinion et liberté d'expression
http://www.jurizine.net/2005/09/03/32-article-19-dudh-liberte-dopinion-et-liberte-dexpression


Quand à la mendicité, je suis au courant du fait que la mendicité aggressive est interdite.

Quand à mendicité agressive, un délit passable de trois mois de prison si j'en avais été coupable, il n'y a pas de trace d'un cas pour votre policier.

Il y a des arrêtés municipaux que la loi vous permet de faire. Je compare à un, peut-être en soi déjà illégal, de Marseille:

Un nouvel arrêté "Anti-Mendicité Agressive" passe inapperçu à Marseille
http://www.bondyblog.fr/201211020001/un-nouvel-arrete-%C2%AB-anti-mendicite-agressive-%C2%BB-passe-inapercu-a-marseille/


« toute forme de sollicitation ou appel à la quête de nature à entraver la libre circulation des personnes, la commodité du passage dans les voies et espaces publics, l’accès aux immeubles ou, de manière générale, à porter atteinte par ces comportements au bon ordre, à la tranquillité et à la sécurité publique. »

De nature à solliciter? Non, mais à:

"entraver la libre circulation des personnes,"

Inapplicable pour ce matin, comme le suivant:

"la commodité du passage dans les voies et espaces publics,"

car j'étais assis dans la portique d'une boutique fermée.

"l’accès aux immeubles"

Non plus, si le propriétaire était venu je me serais levé.

"ou, de manière générale, à porter atteinte par ces comportements au bon ordre, à la tranquillité et à la sécurité publique."

À part la possibilité que la sollicitation elle-même porterait atteinte au bon ordre etc. ce qui serait l'équivalent d'un interdit de mendicité, et à part la possibilité également théorique que la publoicité pour mon blog porterait atteint au bon ordre etc. ce qui serait l'équivalent d'une entrave à la liberté d'expression, mon comportment ne motivait en aucun cas l'intervention ce matin du policier qui était assis dans une voiture avec entre les lettres le groupe de chiffres 616. Et qui avait des cheveux gris et qui était obèse.

Si le policier voudra me renvoyer le panneau avec une excuse écrite, j'ai une boîte à lettres sur l'adresse suivante:

ESI St Martin
27 ter Bd de St Martin
75003 Paris

Et mon nom est le même sur la boîte à lettres (c'est à dire sa ma domiciliation) comme sur mes articles au blog, comme ici:

Hans-Georg Lundahl

date : 24/07/13 à 15h31 - maintenant, 16/ VI / 2014
réponses aucune.

With Christopher Dombrowski on Nauendorff and Genetic Testing

CD to HGL
Wednesday 2:20am
Hans-Georg, I have some questions for you about certain goings-on in the Legitimism group. Do you mind?
HGL to CD
Wednesday 12:25pm
Go on? I am posing or answering questions much of the time.
Wednesday 1:45pm
Ah, you are in another time zone. Well, guess I'll have to wait some time for your Qs ...
CD to HGL
Friday 11:32pm
Do you remember the numerous comments you made on a particular post in May? One of them was:

""Nos peines seraient bien épargnées si les descendants de Louis XVII se manifestaient avec des preuves indiscutables à l'appui, n'est-ce-pas ?"


On pourrait faire un test génétique pour le Nauendorff et les restes de Louis XVI. Tant que je sache, ça n'a pas été fait tant que tellement d'autres prélèvements l'ont été."
HGL to CD
Saturday 8:42pm
I do not recall the particular post. I do not recall the exact context of the first quote, unless I was quoting someone. I do very much recall recommending - now that tests have anyway been made on the head of Henri IV and the necktie of Louis XVI - asking oneself if the Nauendorff claim has the support of genetic evidence. To the best of my knowledge that has not been done. I can imagine a legitimist being against it because he is against such tests. I did not positively recommend that such tests be done. But I can see no reason why Nauendorff should be excluded from such testing. To any legitimist who accepts such tests, getting clarity about the Nauendorff claim by such would seem a very legitimate priority.
Monday a few seconds ago
I was of course referring to "les peines" mentioned in a 19th C. prophecy.* Which someone else was quoting but not believing as to the Nauendorff related part. Remembered it a bit after writing above.

And as for them [the comments, counted technically] being numerous, sometimes my internet connexions are such that I am better off posting each part of an answer as it comes to mind than writing a long one and perhaps having it lost in the last moment.


* Actually I wasn't, I was quoting, as I first thought./HGL

Tuesday, 3 June 2014

CMI / Carl Wieland on "Genetic Entropy" Theme

1) Creation vs. Evolution Number of Alleles Question (on Junior High Genetics Level), 2) Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl CMI / Carl Wieland on "Genetic Entropy" Theme

I had previously written an answer to their specialist - which by now seems to be John Sanford, though my shortsighted eyes wrongly identified him previously on the video (on a computer without sound). That answer is on the Creationist blog. Now I have gotten no answer on that one, but I did see one new article on their site on the topic.

Feedback archive → Feedback 2014
Is ‘devolution’ offensive to God?
Published: 31 May 2014 (GMT+10)
http://creation.com/devolution-offensive


Be it noted, I am not against saying some creatures have devolved, notably not when it comes to blind fish or featherless chickens or hairless dogs. It seems us whites have devolved skin melanine, if I went down to hot countries I would have to stay inside or get sunburns all the time, and it seems blacks have devolved the capacity of making vitamin D through exposure to sun. But it is one thing to say it happens and quite another one to say it threatens our survival.

Here is first my original comment on article, which was published, and then Carl Wielands, Medicianae Doctoris, response. After that come two non-published comments. I conflate them into one.

Ioannes Georgius L., France, 31 May 2014
Not linking, but search: Creation vs. Evolution Number of Alleles Question (on Junior High Genetics Level)

What I wrote:

In cancer victims we are dealing with 100 mutations per locus within the scope of one person. In the cells affected. With deleterious ones remaining until the victim of the cancer dies of these mutations.

In the human population we are dealing with a far less drastic mutation rate, since it is the mutation rate within humanity as a whole. We are also dealing with the fact that most mutations are either tolerable or weeded out, naturally. Without any human acts of eugenicism, thank you! Either by early death or by non-mating and non-reproduction.

...

I find it pretty faulty of the Creationist Geneticist to have said that genetics are dooming us. No, since most mutations are neutral and since those who aren't but are fatal are very easily weeded out by their own fatality. What he is indirectly doing is encouraging a kind of eugenic hysteria. Sorry, but that is about the upshot.
Carl Wieland responds
Goodness me, this is embarrassing to see you try to take on Dr John Sanford, a pioneer of gene engineering (inventor of the gene gun process while a professor at Cornell). Have you actually read the articles on our site about him and his genetic entropy work (supported by some secular geneticists, albeit unwittingly/unwillingly), let alone his actual book? If so you might have realised your many blunders. So a mutation rate of some 60-300 new mutations in every newborn is 'not drastic'? And about selection 'weeding them out'; the whole problem is that these mutations are overwhelmingly near neutral so are transparent to selection (not neutral as you say). Let me use a simplistic analogy to try to make the problem clearer; it is like a rust spot on a car; not bad at all when it's just that tiny spot, but have lots of them accumulating and suddenly it's a big problem. Check out 'Mendel's accountant' through googling so you can actually do your own modelling and hopefully the penny will drop.
My two unpublished comments, June 1:st 2014:
"Have you actually read the articles on our site about him and his genetic entropy work"

I have not found it so far.

8000 + articles is great but where do I find that or those specific ones?

Not having read them, I do not know the book either in advance.

Is there a preview on Amazon?

I bet Ken Miller thought it embarrassing when I took on him too.

Giving due credits to your article through which I found him out.

If you have sent links in the answer, or if you publish links, I will be glad to look at them.

[After looking at one of his articles:]

"6.* Genetic entropy is not obvious in lab experiments or in nature:

It is true that most lab experiments do not show clear degeneration. But Scott should realize that anything alive today must have been degenerating slowly enough to still be here, even in a young earth scenario. All three of the downward decay curves I show in my book indicate that degeneration slows dramatically as it becomes more advanced. If a species is alive today and has been around for thousands of years, the rate of degeneration must be very slow (too subtle to measure in most cases). Obviously, genetic degeneration is not going to be clearly visible in most lab experiments."


OK. Dawkins sees what some have called and some no longer call microevolution. He extrapolates and makes that mean macroevolution must also be possible.

Sanford does not even see genetic entropy happen in labs, extrapolates from that and makes that mean genetic entropy is a dooming fact.

That it is a fact explaining our inferiority to pre-flood man is one thing.

But I would find it hard to mean Harmageddon has to happen before man becomes too unfit to live. Harmageddon will happen, but not because of any fact God put into our nature, but because of ill-will of men.

*Critic ignores reality of Genetic Entropy
The author of a landmark book on genomic decay responds to unsustainable criticisms.
by Dr John Sanford
Published: 7 March 2013 (GMT+10)
http://creation.com/genetic-entropy
Any answers?
No.
Any more from me?
As to the computerised model "Mendel's Accountant", it is, like any other computerised model, about worth as much as the foundational assumptions of the one programming it or having it programmed.

As to the reference to Romans 8, here are links to Douay Rheims Bible Online, both with less comment by Challoner only and with more from the Haydock Bible Commentary, 1859:

Douay-Rheims Bible + Challoner Notes
Epistle Of Saint Paul To The Romans
Chapter 8
http://drbo.org/chapter/52008.htm


Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary, 1859 edition.
ROMANS - Chapter 8
http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id152.html


Nothing there indicates that genomes are dissolving. Even a Teilhardist reading, that we are evolving, by natural and supernatural selection towards "Point Omega", though gravely erroneous, even heretical, is less inappropriate than genetic entropy as a reading of the words of verse 22: For we know that every creature groaneth, and is in labour even till now. For the previous verse, the reverse is true: 21. Because the creature also itself shall be delivered from the servitude of corruption, into the liberty of the glory of the children of God. Between them, they leave both "Genetic-Entropism" and Teilhardism insufficiently supported in loco and possibly already there both falsified, or at least leaving the possibility for either or both to be falsified from other parts of Scripture, or even for one of them (they are mutually exclusive) to be confirmed. But there is no traditional reading either of this passage or of any other that supports a general genetic entropy dooming us to extinction.
Further consideration:
making the close reading of Carl Wieland's unanswered argument appear as a dialogue.
Wieland
So a mutation rate of some 60-300 new mutations in every newborn is 'not drastic'?
Lundahl
I did not accept that as an accurate count.

It is based on illogical application of mathematics.

On the one hand one counts the total number of mutations over the human population as a whole (calculated through extant alleles for instance), and would probably land somewhere near 60 - 300 new mutations per generation - but these diluted over the billions now and millions at least previously that have made up the new generations.

On the other hand one counts these together as if the generations bearing "all these mutations" consisted each of one person. THAT would, taken together, in a most illogical fashion, even ignoring that physical minimum for generations continuing at all is two persons, one of each sex, per generation, do spell out "60 - 300 new mutations in every newborn".

If that error is not how he reached the conclusion, I would like to know the exact method he did use for it.
Wieland
And about selection 'weeding them out'; the whole problem is that these mutations are overwhelmingly near neutral so are transparent to selection (not neutral as you say).
Lundahl
I would take it that any very grave dysfunction, like tetraploidy or trisomy of chromosomes 1 or 3, is weeded out in pregnancy by spontaneous abortion, or somewhat less grave ones, like trisomy of sex chromosomes or of pair 21, through lack of reproduction, either by infertility or by lack of social compatibility.

What is accumulating are either small diseases, like myopia, sickle cell anemia, bleeders' disease or haemophilia, or really neutral mutations, at least in environment. Like white men's white skin in the North or South or black men's lack of vitamin D production near the equator. Which would be problematic - and occasionally is now problematic - when getting under foreign skies. Or sometimes really neutral ones. Like the exact shade of brown or the exact angle of the eyelids, making for a variation with no medical significance.
Wieland
Let me use a simplistic analogy to try to make the problem clearer; it is like a rust spot on a car; not bad at all when it's just that tiny spot, but have lots of them accumulating and suddenly it's a big problem.
Lundahl
If a man has myopia, sickle cell anemia, and bleeders' disease, plus lacks both melanine and vitamin D production by being a black albino, plus has a weak heart due to some other genetic defect, it is either likely he will marry a woman healthier than himself and pass on his ailments in diluted form (and not directly pass on the bleeder's disease to any child, if you known Mendel's laws, haemophilia being recessive) and that his accumulation of diseases will spread out in dilution and revert to a harmless level, or that he will not marry at all, and thus the accumulation of mutations ends there.

If a man has one mutation making him slit eyed, one mutation making him blue eyed, one mutation making him fond of pepper and another making him fond of sugar ... will that hurt him? No, of course!

Think out the facts in some detail, at least by theoretical examples, not just by analogies like rust spots!

And after all, unlike the mutation for slit eyes, one rust spot is not neutral, but a very tiny minus. Which does add up with other very tiny minuses.


So much for this exchange ... which I now made available, adding further considerations.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre University Library
Queen St Clotildis
3 / VI / 2014