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?