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.