Getting Back to Tom Trinko on Geocentric Satellites and Some Other Things, Especially Whether Literal Belief is Protestant

1) New blog on the kid : Chris Ferrara the Conspirator, 2) HGL's F.B. writings : Debate with John Médaille on Geocentrism, 3) Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : Getting Back to Tom Trinko on Geocentric Satellites and Some Other Things, Especially Whether Literal Belief is Protestant, 4) With David Palm and Sungenis, 5) With David Palm, Sungenis, Robert Bennet and Rick DeLano, 6) Christopher Ferrara Bumps In And I Get Angry, 7) Aftermath of the Quarrel, 8) Diatribe with Robert Bennett (Two Teas), 9) HGL's F.B. writings : Continuing Debate with Mark Stahlman and John Médaille and Others (sequel I), 10) Continuing Debate with Mark Stahlman and John Médaille and Others (sequel II), 11) Where I Get a Dislike to Mark Stahlman

Me to Tom Trinko

24 février 18:11

Now, you made ample excuses for not explaining sth better than you did about me being wrong*, but it seems you needed no shame, since Keating, a man publishing himself on the subject, did no better than you. As I gathered from Sungenis' review:

Keating tries to dismiss this simple solution by the following statement: Keating: In Galileo Was Wrong…he offers a quite different explanation. He says that in fact the satellite is moving swiftly though space at ‘7000 miles per hour eastward against the westward rotating universe, which will allow the satellite to remain stationary over a particular location on Earth.’ Keating contends that, “this explanation will not do. If it is a centrifugal force that keeps the satellite at a certain level, the force can exist only if the satellite itself is moving. Motionless objects are not subject to centrifugal force.” Apparently Mr. Keating doesn’t understand that in Newtonian mechanics a satellite moving at 7000 mph, even in the geocentric system, will seek to go in a straight line in the medium of space against which it is moving, and thus the gravity of the Earth is needed to pull the satellite downward if the satellite is going to stay above one place on the Earth. To perhaps understand this better, take the Earth out of the picture for the moment. So now we have a satellite traveling 7000 mph against a space that is rotating 7000 mph. According to Newton, what will the satellite seek to do? It will seek to avoid rotating and want to go off in a straight line into deeper space since there is no centripetal force to make it go in a circle.

Top of p. 27 here:

I couldn’t have done better for Geocentrism than Karl Keating did on Catholic Answers Live!
Copyright © Robert Sungenis February 23, 2015
http://galileowaswrong.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Karl_Keatings_Kosmology_website_version.pdf

Tom Trinko to me

25 février 02:59

Space is not a medium Nothing Sungennis says has anything to do with real science or experiments. The universe does not rotate westwards. And motionless objects are subject to gravity. So the geostationary satellite will fall. Everything Sungenis says is made up. You can buy into his fantasies but that doesn't change the fact that the guy is faking physics in order to defend a Protestant literal Bible interpretation doctrine.

Me to Tom Trinko

25 février 10:30

"Space is not a medium" Newton one one hand, Aristotle, Einstein, Sungenis and me on the other hand differ on that one. Supposing space is not a medium, where do you get the "firmament"?

"Nothing Sungennis says has anything to do with real science or experiments." - "Everything Sungenis says is made up." Sounds more like bashing than refuting.

"The universe does not rotate westwards." It looks like it if you look at sky, if you check about winds of passage, Equatorial Oceanic streams, Coriolis related.

"And motionless objects are subject to gravity. So the geostationary satellite will fall." The assessment "motionless" depending here of course on saying "space is not a medium" and "the universe does not move westward" - which as you are well aware are not thing either I nor Sungenis would by.

"You can buy into his fantasies" - rather than yours.

" but that doesn't change the fact that the guy is faking physics" - I am not all sure about his proposed mechanics of gravitation, and I am indeed proposing a mechanics of angelic movers instead - which he knows, but on this one he beats you.

"in order to defend a Protestant literal Bible interpretation doctrine." Trent condemned "Sola Scriptura", not "Scriptura secundum literam". How about letting heresies be condemned for what they are condemned for and making association to heresies when someone (not officially tied to them) says something the heresy was condemned for? Like, I seem to catch a little whiff of Socinian denial of Biblical inerrancy, which was condemned by Trent. Socinians are Protestants too. They are called Unitarians.

By the way "Everything Sungenis says is made up" and "the guy is faking physics" - when it comes to observations, you might give an example. If you mean explanations, that argues you have a very naive grasp of what physics is. There is no such thing as observed unobserved explanations. An unobserved explanation is by definition unobserved. What you get is:

• making up explanations;
• drawing conclusions from them;
• drawing them so far that one or more would be observable;
• observe matches or mismatches with actual observations.

Some have argued this does away with the need for logic. No. the parts that say anything of drawing conclusions mean that you have to draw them logically. Like Keating and you are drawing one illogically when together you say basically:

• since space is not a medium, a satellite standing locally still would not be moving through any medium;
• so, even if space were a medium, the satellites would have to move against empty coordinates rather than against the medium in order to have a vector other than gravitation of earth.

And you just basically admitted this illogicality yourself. This means that the subsequent step - observing that geostationary satellites stay in place - constitutes no mismatch against the theory of Sungenis.

Me to Tom Trinko

25 février 13:23

I am also unpleasantly reminded in your high airs against Geocentrism of a certain "Didymus" on Catholic Answers Forums ... a guy who gave a very von oben answer to me on a debate a few years which I linked to on this essay:

Creation vs. Evolution : Creation Ministries International - a Galileo Fan Club?
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2015/02/creation-ministries-international.html

Didymus means Thomas - is that you Tom Trinko?

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

Tom Trinko to me

25 février 19:46

No I'm not didymus. However I don't have high airs. I have facts, experimental data, and proven science while geocentrists have their belief that the Bible has to be interpreted literally. To be honest it's clear that geocentrists don't care about reality since they define reality based on their Protestant like belief that the Bible is a literal document on all things. Augustine and Bellermine condemn that viewpoint--both were geocentrists only because that's what the scientific data of the time showed. The Church has never defined the orbits of the planets as a theological issue but geocentrists don't seem to care. It's not by accident I think that most Catholic geocentrists tend to reject Vatican II--properly interpreted-- and the current Mass.

Me to Tom Trinko

26 février 11:13

Thanks for clarifying you were not didymus.

"I have facts, experimental data, and proven science while geocentrists have their belief that the Bible has to be interpreted literally."

Correction : you have a belief literal Bible interpretation has been proven wrong, we have a belief it hasn't, we both use some facts and such things. A somewhat interesting debate starts the moment you realise that and look away from religious issue and start looking at scientific. Might do you good. You might even get back to the letter of the Bible with a healthy renewed respect.

"To be honest it's clear that geocentrists don't care about reality since they define reality based on their Protestant like belief that the Bible is a literal document on all things."

On all things it contains, and you lack documentation for calling that Protestant. If you want to cite all Prots who have supported it, it's like citing Prots who support Christmas and Easter : that doesn't make Christmas and Easter Protestant feasts, nor does it oblige Catholics to celebrate Hanukkah and Passover after Jewish rite and calendar instead. Cuvier was a Prot. Lyell was a Prot. Darwin was a Prot up to becoming an apostate. Wallace arguably had Protestant background, though he was more New Ageish. Galileo was not a Prot, but his early supporters (apart from those who ceased in 1633 and apart from his daughter) were Milton and the Prots who after reading Milton's words he had visited "Galileo a prisoner to the Inquisition" or "of the Inquisition" flocked to idolise yet another "martyr" to the Inquisition as in Foxe's tradition they had already done with Albigensians. Foxe, who helped to demonise Inquisition and therefore glorify its victims, was a Prot.

"Augustine and Bellermine condemn that viewpoint--both were geocentrists only because that's what the scientific data of the time showed."

• 1) the data (as opposed to current interpretations) still show it;
• 2) no, they did NOT condemn that view, you quote whatever quotemining you want to do from them and I'll quote context more fully and we'll see about that.

"The Church has never defined the orbits of the planets as a theological issue but geocentrists don't seem to care."

Indeed, if Tycho or Ptolemy were right is no theological issue. But if, after Ptolemy was proven wrong on detail (by Galileo's observations and these were not condemned), the truth lies with Galileo, Kepler, Newton or with Tycho, St Robert Bellarmine, Clavius and Riccioli was according to the lights of St Robert a theological enough issue to condemn a book.

"It's not by accident I think that most Catholic geocentrists tend to reject Vatican II--properly interpreted-- and the current Mass."

As far as I know Sungenis is with you there. And your words are - if I were to apply same principle - not a good publicity for "Vatican II properly interpreted". So, what field do you want first? Texts and history of ideas? Or Science as in observations and as in conclusions from them?

Tom Trinko to me

27 février 03:28

The Church has stated that the Bible is not always to be interpreted literally and Augustine and Bellarmine say that geo vs helio centrism is an issue of natural law not theology.

On the other hand the only Bible literalists around are Protestants, usually fundamentalists. so the Church says no to Bible literalism and Prots say yes that makes it a Prot doctrine. Prots were actually more upset about heliocentrism than the Church was. Any support for Galileo, which I haven't heard of by the way, was driven by hatred of the Church not theological agreement. The data does not show geocentrism is true. That's simply not correct. We see stellar parralax, we send probes to Venus that get there on the assumption that both Venus and Earth circle the sun etc. No one who knows anything about experiments could say what you do. That the folks who reject the Church's approval of heliocentrism also break with the Church on theological issues is a clear condemnation of the judgement of those people.

Me to Tom Trinko

27 février 10:25

"The Church has stated that the Bible is not always to be interpreted literally"

Reference needed.

"and Augustine and Bellarmine say that geo vs helio centrism is an issue of natural law not theology."

Again reference needed.

By reference I mean exact locus in exactly named document and exact quote.

Latin will, do, as long as it is written (I am not fluent enough to converse orally in Latin).

"On the other hand the only Bible literalists around are Protestants, usually fundamentalists."

Proven false : Sungenis and Pope Michael and I are not Protestants.

Fundamentalists is a somewhat rubber defined word.

Original meaning referred to certain conservative Protestants who agreed with some tracts called The Fundamentals - and who rejected Catholics as much as Atheists and more than Evolutionist Protestants.

These were however NOT the original literalists.

Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary, 1859 edition. GENESIS - Introduction.
http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id326.html

GENESIS - Chapter 1
http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id327.html

GENESIS - Chapter 2
http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id328.html

GENESIS - Chapter 3
http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id329.html

No where can you see Fr George Leo Haydock even flirt the slightest with long age creation. Or with non-literality of Biblical time frame.

On Joshua's miracle, the commenter ...

JOSUE - Chapter 10
http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id545.html

... leaves open whether Geocentric or Heliocentric explanations are best - this last is from Haydock himself, he could find no such clemency toward Heliocentrism in Tirinus or Calmet or Worthington.

The Oxford debate where one participant was Huxley, his opponent was pseudo-bishop Sam Wilberforce, a High Church Anglican, whose brother converted to the Catholic Church. Their father was the famous abolitionist.

"so the Church says no to Bible literalism"

Reference once again needed.

"and Prots say yes that makes it a Prot doctrine."

I am an ex-Lutheran. Lutheran and Anglican mainstreams say no to Biblical literalism - does that make them Catholic or just Modernist?

"Prots were actually more upset about heliocentrism than the Church was."

Earlier, yes. More, not so certain. Calvin and Luther made a good point about Copernicus. But St Robert made better ones about Galileo.

"Any support for Galileo, which I haven't heard of by the way, was driven by hatred of the Church not theological agreement."

Milton visited Italy. He came back, fuelled a support for Galileo. A few decades later the support is full fledged in Newton.

Were Milton and Newton English or Irish? Protestant or Catholic?

And since by then the Protestants were about 100 sects, how can you tell each and all of them were more literalists than Catholicism?

Socinianism was very certainly LESS literalist and condemned for it by Trent. Liturgically it is, like JW/Russellians and unlike 4th C. Arians (though otherwise of similar doctrine) a Protestantism.

"The data does not show geocentrism is true. That's simply not correct."

They do not show Heliocentrism true, that is simply not correct "either" - and there might be a few data making Heliocentrism more than problematic.

Sungenis points to a syllogism made by the experiments of Mitchelson Morley on the one hand and Sagnac on the other hand:

• Either earth is not moving or there is no luminiferous ether [MM];
• There is a luminiferous ether [S];
• Therefore the Earth is not moving [Sungenis et al.]

The conclusion is quite as solid if you discount Sungenis as a fraud as long as you don't do it to Sagnac and Mitchelson Morley.

Or the negative parallax of 63 Ophiuchi.

Catholic Answers Forums : Negative Stellar Parallax - Proof of Geocentrism and a smaller universe
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=462165&page=1

"We see stellar parralax,"

Supposing the movement we see is parallactic and not a proper movement. If our observation is caused by Earth moving around the Sun, then this observation is so far a kind of confirmation that Earth is doing so. But to make it a strong one, one needs to establish it cannot be anything else. Hasn't been done. Angel of Sun takes his fireball on a tour round the Zodiac each year. He has a special place in the economy of salvation, like standing still for Joshua (a namesake of Our Lord), like going back two lines for Hezechias (an ancestor of Our Lord), like going dark over Calvary, like dancing over Fatima. That argues he might be somewhat admired by other angels holding smaller and further off fireballs who are permitted to make movements in time with him, but not so great as to be perceived by naked eye.

"we send probes to Venus that get there on the assumption that both Venus and Earth circle the sun etc."

In faulty assumtions, there is a possibility they add up, but there is also a possibility they cancel out. A geocentric would obviously argue, and I do argue, the faulty assumptions cancel out and therefore do not matter.

"No one who knows anything about experiments could say what you do."

Trying to sound as if you were more in the know than I? Not with me. You show an experiment really refuting Geocentrism, I'll maybe look at it. But adding two or four or six experiment not really refuting Geocentrism is not making Geocentrism any more refuted than it was to start with.

"That the folks who reject the Church's approval of heliocentrism also break with the Church on theological issues is a clear condemnation of the judgement of those people."

What exact APPROVAL do you find of Heliocentrism? And perhaps, if you cite Vatican II, you may be making a clear condemnation of that.

Wasn't there one document which approved basically of enforced schooling by calling teachers "representatives of humanity"? What a horrid Communist thing to say!

Btw, on the Prots-Literalists and Caths-Antiliteralists Theory of recent Church History (since reformation), what do you make of Grotius and Calmet?

"Many have called in question this miracle, with Maimonides, or have devised various means to explain it away, by having recourse to a parhelion or reflection of the sun by a cloud, or to a light which was reverberated by the mountains, after the sun was set, &c. (Prœdam iv. 6.; Spinosa; Grotius; Le Clerc) --- But if these authors believe the Scriptures, they may spare themselves the trouble of devising such improbable explanations, as this fact is constantly represented as a most striking miracle. If St. Paul (Hebrews xi. 30,) make no mention of it, he did not engage to specify every miracle that had occurred. He does not so much as mention Josue, nor the passage of the Jordan, &c., so that it is a matter of surprise that Grotius should adduce this negative argument, to disprove the reality of the miracle. (Calmet)"

Antoine Augustin Calmet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antoine_Augustin_Calmet

Hugo Grotius - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Grotius

"While in Paris, Grotius set about rendering into Latin prose a work which he had compiled in prison, providing rudimentary yet systematic arguments for the truth of Christianity. (Showcasing Grotius' skill as a poet, the earlier Dutch version of the work, Bewijs van den waren Godsdienst (pub. 1622), was written entirely in didactic verse.) The Latin work was first published in 1627 as De veritate religionis Christianae.

"It was the first Protestant textbook in Christian apologetics, and was divided into six books. Part of the text dealt with the emerging questions of historical consciousness concerning the authorship and content of the canonical gospels. Other sections of the work addressed pagan religion, Judaism and Islam. What also distinguished this work in the history of Christian apologetics is its precursor role in anticipating the problems expressed in Eighteenth century Deism, and that Grotius represents the first of the practitioners of legal or juridical apologetics in the defence of Christian belief. Hugely popular, the book was translated from Latin into English, Arabic, Persian and Chinese by Edward Pococke for use in missionary work in the East and remained in print until the end of the nineteenth century."

Grotius was non-Fundy (Calmet quote from Haydock comment). Grotius was used by Prots up to XIXth C. or close to XXth. Normal conclusion : Protestants these years would tend to go non-Fundy. As for other reasons I knew about Lutherans in Sweden after a certain heighday of "Lutheran Orthodoxy".

Me to Tom Trinko

28 février 13:32

"and Augustine and Bellarmine say that geo vs helio centrism is an issue of natural law not theology."

Again reference needed.By reference I mean exact locus in exactly named document and exact quote. "[silence, no reference given per internet]" Then I opened a book, De Genesi ad Litteram Libri XII. Don't tell me you meant - for St Augustine - book one, chapter 19 paragraph 39. Because that argues you are quotemining. Take a look at same book, chapter 20, paragraph 40. It contains a passage which reads in Latin, starting with the words: Periculosius autem errant quidam infirmi fratres. Because, you see, the attitude which St Augustine described as the more dangerous error, is pretty precisely the same which Kent Hovind would have considered so, if confronted.

Me to Tom Trinko

13 mars 9:30 env.

Bumping up thread. Btw, some reading if you like:

New blog on the kid: Chris Ferrara the Conspirator
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2015/03/chris-ferrara-conspirator.html

HGL's F.B. writings: Debate with John Médaille on Geocentrism
http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2015/03/debate-with-john-medaille-on-geocentrism.html

*

My initial words in this renewed dialogue concern the statement I on his request added on the topmost part, right under the links to the series (of our previous correspondence), of its first part:

[same blog] : With Tom Trinko on Physics of Geocentrism, First Rounds
(part 1 of 6)
http://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2014/06/with-tom-trinko-on-physics-of.html

Asking an Erudite for Optical Proof

From : Name: Hans Georg, Status: other, Grade: other, Location: Outside U.S., Country: Sweden

Sent: Sunday, August 31, 2014 11:52 AM

To:/Subject: Ask-A-Scientist Question

Has optical confirmation been given for Earth rotating Sun?

The option that stellar parallax as observed from or near Earth has done so is hampered by the fact it depends on an astrophysics in which, unlike older theories (Medieval and Early Modern) stars etc. are just bodies and just moved by physical powers.

One more purely optical might be observing apparent zig zag of a space mission from an Earth shifting place in and out of origo of it, or observing independently same stellar distances by parallax oberved from Mars.

Has any such thing been done?

From : Ask-A-Scientist

31/08/14 à 19h21

To: Hans Georg (etc.)

Your question is incomplete, or we do not understand the context. We cannot answer your question as submitted.

Your question is incomplete and you need to provide more information. The problem may be one or more of the following:

• 1) You have not provide enough background information so we understand what you already know.
• 2) Your question is too vague to address and we need specific guidelines to address your request.
• 3) You have not provided enough information to understand what you are requesting.
• 4) In submitting your question, you have left out one or more of the following: status, grade, location, country which is important for our scientists to adjust their answers.
• 5) We need to know why you are asking this question, so we can justify the time and effort to reply. The reason for the question is not clear to us.

Please re-word or elaborate and re-submit at our web site. Do not reply to this message.

From : Name: Hans Georg, Status: other, Grade: other, Location: Outside U.S., Country: Sweden

"At 05:25 AM 09/01/14, you wrote:"

Question:

It has come to my attention that if one could imagine angels were somehow moving not just planets but also stars around space, parallax as observed from Earth or from near to Earth would NOT be proving either that Earth moved around the Sun, nor how far the stars were. In a Heliocentric perspective, the 0.76 arcseconds observed as to alpha Centauri would be of a triangle with apex in star and a side along Earth's orbital axis around the Sun (known distance). But in a Geocentric perspective, the apex would be on Earth and a side along the star's own axis of movement (unknown distance).

So ... has Heliocentrism been optically confirmed in some other way?

Have stellar distances been confirmed by observing parallax from Mars?

Has Earth getting in and out of a locality in space been confirmed by observing Earth from the space probes? Or by visually observing the probes going in an apparent zig zag, as Earth were itself moving in and out of the place from where the straight line would look like a straight line?

And why would this question be answered differently if I were nine years old and in grade three or when I am (as is the case) 45 and have studied at university (though not astronomy)?

NEWTON / Nathan A. Unterman

02/09/14 à 11h42

Re: Ask-A-Scientist Question

Angels fall outside of our domain.

From me to NEWTON / Nathan A. Unterman

02/09/14 à 13h07

Re: Ask-A-Scientist Question

Angels were NOT what I was asking about. They were part of the occasion, since you asked for the occasion.

What I WAS asking about, as you will find by rereading the question is:

• have stellar distances as "measured by parallax" been confirmed by parallax on Mars (whether Geocentrism or Heliocentrism are true, Mars would have a parallax)
  
  
• has movement of Earth in and out of a place, the supposed reason for observed parallax according to Heliocentrism, been confirmed by either seeing Earth as filmed from Apollo 10, or by observing Apollo 10's straight line outward in an apparent zig zag due to observer moving in and out of place?

That and that only is my actual QUESTION.

Hans Georg Lundahl

From: "DO NOT REPLY"

date : 04/09/14 à 16h00

objet : NEWTON Ask A Scientist Program

[replying to my second above, the one in which I state I have studied at University though not astronomy and am 45, just so it be noted ...]

You need to enroll in an astronomy course. We can not answer because your background is too limited.

[No shit! I thought their service was supposed to be mainly for guys still in compulsory school and gals as well! They haven't taken University courses in Astronomy either!]

Inter nos latinistas dictum

Mihi videtur illi aliquid carere de primordiali educatione antequam de hac re disputandum sit: sicut lectura, exempli gratia, alicuius Riccioli, Jesuitae et Astronomi. Pagina ducentesima quadragesima septima exordiens, finiens autem pagina ducentisima quinquagesima est caput primum sectionis II libri IX, quæ sectio II intitulatur De Motoribus et Motis Cælorum, quod autem caput I intitulatur An Cæli aut Sidera Moueantur ab Intelligentijs, An verò ab intrinsecò à propria Forma vel Natura.

Can Someone Help the Bewildered Man Out?

HGL's F.B. writings : 1) At Leaving the Group Creationism [the discussion], Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : 2) Can Someone Help the Bewildered Man Out?

HGL to SO

Wednesday 27-VIII-2014, 09:54

HGL's F.B. writings: At Leaving the Group Creationism [the discussion]
http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2014/08/at-leaving-group-creationism-discussion.html

SO to HGL

Wednesday 11:21

Ye it has occurred to me that EVERY belief system is a "closed system of thought", that is why, if you had read any of my other contributions to the FB page, you would have realised that I reject all beliefs.

I maintain the view that there is NOTHING of which we can be certain, even this statement.

That's MY starting point. However, a lack of certaintain does not need to mean a complete state of ignorance. Experience with the world tells us that there are certain features of the world which appear to be repeatable and regular; these allow us to make predictions, and allow us to check these predictions. We also learn that our brains ou wired to form hypotheses or conjectures about the world, and check whether these have any validity. We also learn that sometimes this process fools us, so the methodology is by no means foolptoof. However, it appears that this methodology is all we have, we are adrift in a sea of uncertainty, and we only have this faulty methodology to steer us.

All this might be an illusion, and the reality might be something completely different, but if it is, we have no way of knowing, and to hold such a view invites madness. Therefore, we must work with what we have, and that is uncertainty.

I don't know how any other person could come to any other conclusion than this.

HGL to SO

Wednesday 14:11

Saying "our brains are evolved to develop hypotheses" presupposes evolution to be true.

By the phrase "developed". It also presupposes conscience to be a product of entirely the brain.

I have a hunch of how even other materialistic persons could come to other conclusions than you: since materialism breaks down into your position, some will take less consistent versions of materialism, at least as far as epistemology is concerned.

As for me, I am not a materialist. I think our brains are part of but not all of what God gave us to find out the truth among options. I also believe God clearly marked out the truth among other options.

I know very well why I would rather be Catholic or Orthodox than Protestant or Muslim or Jew. Meaning in each case a religious believer - a secularist would of course feel free to have a preference for his non-believing cultural attachment independent of this question.

Apostolic Succession.

That is also a parallel to why I would rather go by the Hebrew tradition than by Babylonian or Hindoo or Greek Paganism or Norse Paganism or Egyptian Paganism :

A clear succession of a genealogy and a clearheaded view of where the rest of humanity came from.

Egyptians had a theory that shepherding nomads were the creatures of Seth, an evil divinity. The Hebrews (from which come Jews and Samarians on non-Christian sidealleys and Christians on the main way) had a genealogy in which they were included as clearly shepherding and in which Egyptians were included as cousins ... and a story - not completely told in Genesis, but Sepher ha Yasher (or the book so called) confirms the views of Josephus which Western Scholasticism thrived on - how non-Hebrews and even some Hebrew tribes evenually (such as descendants of Lot) came to be idolaters.

As to astronomy. If I believed as you, about ultimate uncertainty of everything, I would see no reason to call Heliocengtrism more certain than the Geocentric alternative. Since I believe an Eternal and Infinite Spirit created us in His image and stars for His glory, I can also find it credible he placed us where a normal person normally equipped as through the centuries would be better equipped than anyone elsewhere to find out even by reason how the universe is. This means Geocentrism is default since it is wysiwyg version of Cosmology.

YOU believe parallax is an illusion of the same type as when trees rush by the train you sit in. I believe parallax is a proper movement of the star - and whether it is ensouled or only carried by an angel makes very little difference as to how come it is able to have a proper movement such as the 0.76 arcseconds yearly of alpha Centauri. So it is I and not you who is taking our observations the most realistically.

SO to HGL

Wednesday 16:31

When did I say "our brains are evolved to develop hypotheses"???

If you READ what I said, I mused that "We also learn that our brains ou wired to form hypotheses or conjectures about the world" (sic) and this is a completely different statement.

I was merely observing that this is what happens. We DO form hypotheses, AND we can check them out. This happens all the time, it's what we do. I make no assumption about how this process got to be there, I am just observing that this APPEARS to be the case.

The point I am making is that this procedure is all we have, THERE IS NOTHING ELSE. What you might consider to be logic, or science or anything else is merely an outgrowth of the basic hypothesis-test-confirm-or-reject process, which as far as I can tell seems to be inbuilt in all humans, and in animals as well. I see my cat doing it all the time, and I conjecture (but am not certain) that the same sorts of behaviour applies to other creatures as well.

I also think that you completely misunderstand me - just because we can't be CERTAIN of anything, that does not mean we cannot be more confident that some descriptions of the world are MORE LIKELY to be accurate than others. I will discuss Bayesian reasoning with you if you like.

Finally, you have completely misunderstood the issues concerning SN1987A. This is nothing to do with parallax.

I find your concern with medieval notions of whether stellar bodies have souls or are being pushed around by angels somewhat perplexing. The medievals who believed that the stars were being moved by intelligences, debated as to whether the moons, stars, sun & planets were themselves living beings. I have no idea why, when we send rockets to Mars, put men on the moon, and have probes exiting beyond the reach of our solar system, you would even think that planets need angels to move them around. We might not know the root cause of gravity, but we know sufficient about it to know HOW it functions, and that no angels are required to move things around. Gravity acts equally on ALL bodies of any size, a fact which can be confirmed experimentally, and the fact that we can calculate trajectories round the planets to meet up with with comets tells you that it works. If you deny this, then you are not being honest - either with me, or with yourself.

For those who did not read our discussion on SN 1987 A:

Instead of a movement of say 0.76 arcseconds being interpreted as a parallactic illusion due to earth's supposed movement and this being a known distance (the distance is known, only difference is whether it is Earth - Earth around Sun or Sun - Sun around Earth) therefore involved in the triangle - which it is not if it really is the star that is moving - in this case the "known distance" is supposed to be calculated by speed of light times time between one light showing up (the supernova) and another one showing up eight months later (the ring, supposedly lit up by the nova and not anything like independently). In this case, though the angels would not be moving anything around, like the 0.76 arcseconds of alpha Centauri, they would be lighting up the ring with an eight month delay and that also would mean no evidence of its distance, since delay would not be related to speed of light.

"Gravity acts equally on ALL bodies of any size"

I missed answering this one.

Gravity does indeed work on a pen also, and yet the pens movement on the paper is decided by a will and not by gravity. Because to my fingers the pen's gravitational pull toward centre of the earth is not strong enough to be an obstacle.

My point is that whatever the gravity might be of any planet toward the Sun, or of the Sun itself even towards either centre (place of Earth) or periphery (dome of stars), God can have given the angel moving it enough might over matter to make that move as easy for it as moving a pen is for me. And this does not involve any contradiction in terms.

HGL to SO

Wednesday 18:07

"We also learn that our brains [are] wired to ..."

OK. Developed may have to go, but you are at least attributing this process to the brain.

"The medievals who believed that the stars were being moved by intelligences, debated as to whether the moons, stars, sun and planets were themselves living beings."

Debated as to whether, not concluded that. A difference.

St Thomas and Bishop Tempier concluded that they were NOT themselves living beings. Thereby perhaps preparing humanism as this position (especially since denying angels have some kind of bodies as well) makes man the highest life-with-a-body. But the denial of life to a star did not involve denial of an angel moving it.

"I have no idea why, when we send rockets to Mars, put Men on the Moon, and have probes exiting beyond the reach of our solar system, you would even think that planets need angels to move them around."

Well, one reason is that the mechanism given by materialists has been tested in MIR or somewhere where gravitation of earth is lesser, on water drops orbitting knitting needles of plastic which were charged with static electricity - to mimick the gravitational part of the process Newton and Laplace gave - and the resulting orbits are on video, I counted ten to twenty orbits per water drop. Not 7200. Not 4.5 billion. And the Earth is clearly older than fifteen years.

Another reason is, I do not understand your problem unless (as I think) you are holding something back.

1) Angels pushing about celestial bodies does NOT equal these being alive. You could have taken the space craft collected evidence, if you had liked, as a denial of celestial bodies being living organisms with souls. You cannot as easily argue from the evidence thus collected that they are not moved by angels.

2) You may be synthesising Modern Times as much as you synthesise Byzantium before the times of Photius with Sorbonne around 1277 into a non-extant generation called "the Middle Ages".

Celestial bodies being pushed by angels rather than ensouled by them may have been as minoritarian as Indocopleustes in one of the surroundings and still be totally mainstream from 1277 to 1700 (or maybe even beyond in some countries). And modernity may well be totally successful in putting men on the Moon while being totally wrong in considering celestial bodies as BOTH lifeless in themselves AND devoid of any kind of living movers.

"We might not know the root cause of gravity, but we know sufficent about how it functions ..."

Not really. The falling of bodies and even (supposing the Moon landing to be true) the attractive force being proportional to each mass acting and inversely proportional to distance between masses in the square and dealing with inertias proportional to mass acted on does NOT equal the theory of Newton and Laplace need to work, and least of all that it would work so flawlessly as to need no living regulator like God or an angel. You know the water drops and the knitting needles, ten to twenty orbits, in the medium 15 orbits per drop before it attached itself to the needle.

You also forget a Christian could return the point: we know sufficiently about angels to know they could do it and that graviation of the Newtonian type is not required.

The calculus of planetory orbits involves a vicious circle of demonstration between masses and theory where only orbits are observed directly.

SUN is the mass most relevant for the theory and it has not been studied through trajectories of spacecraft flying by or landing.

The theory may work very well on one side of its predictions, while at the same time being erroneous on another side. If accurate technology is here coupled with inaccurate theory of what makes it work, it would very much not be the first time in history.

Besides, the space craft are so easy to fake photos of (watch Star Wars if you do not believe me) that their trajectories are definitely not easy to check unless you are involved in NASA. And some of the guys who are so most directly have such an anti-Christian bias, they could reasonably be suspected of faking.

On another side, here is what I wrote about myself if I were an agnostic Pagan (acknowledging I have not been so as an adult, so I haven't tried it out):

New blog on the kid: If I were a Pagan
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2014/08/if-i-were-pagan.html

HGL to SO

Thursday c.16:20

As I sneeked on the thread I left, I can add, fancy you living on Mykonos and not knowing Baruch is canonic with Orthodox - and therefore presumably (as is indeed the case) with us Catholics.

Since the chapter ends with a reference to Incarnation you can imagine why Christ-rejecting Jewry wanted to stamp the book as un-canonical. And unfortunately theirs is the canon followed for OT by Protestants, mostly.

And since stars being either themselves endowed with souls (as per older view) or moved by angels (as per view promoted by St Thomas Aquinas and not opposed by Tempier, as per view cited by Riccioli in support of Geocentrism) is a truth, it is hardly to the point that the other Biblical passages are not exact synonyms to the one in Isaiah commented on by Tertullain (was it?).

Tertullian is obviously the spelling, but it was you who cited the man [on the discussion thread, not this correspondence], if it was he or another.

HGL to SO

Thursday c.18:20

Oh, in case you were anything like prone to state I made the Riccioli reference up, here is the exact quotation:

New blog on the kid : What Opinion did Riccioli call the Fourth and Most Common One?
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2014/08/what-opinion-did-riccioli-call-fourth.html

SO to HGL

Somewhere between that and the next:

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Can you tell me what is supposed to the point of all this? You cannot seriously expect anyone to accept at face value the contention that you believe that stars, planets and other objects in space are being manipulated by angels?

Is this some sort of intellectual exercise to try to get inside the mind of those writing in the 1st millennium or what?

The problem is here, I simply can't get my head around what you are trying to do here.

HGL to SO

Friday 13:13

I) The namedropping done by Riccioli refers, for the position I share, mostly to second millennium.

Suárez and the Coimbra Jesuits hardly have any kind of claim to be first millennium!

II) It is NOT my fault you pretend to take my words facietiously as if even that would dispense you in honour from giving a answering argument.

Suppose I were facetious. In fact I am not, but that is beside the point. Suppose I were. Would not that at least be a good chance for you to check if your beliefs could be proven to the satisfaction of someone NOT raised as you were?

One thing is certain. I once believed as you do. I then became a Christian. I have had occasions galore to defend Christianity intellectually, and it does not feel anything like bad to take St Thomas Aquinas' (or St Augustine) or any other premodern into my argumentation.

You see, I do not think rational thought started in a minute portion of mankind after Newton made it possible by "dispensing" you from needing angels to explain celestial movements.

If you can't respect that, so much the worse for you. That is at least not my fault.

Tom Trinko, Third Rounds, Broadening Discussion on Aether

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

At least I am trying to, as you can see from my response.

Illustrating a pont raised below [But see also diagrams message, now].

X - - > - > - - > X'                                                                                                                                                                         O

Tom Trinko

Vendredi/Friday/4th of July 21:44

No I didn't get it because it doesn't make sense. Sorry.

I understand that if you believe in a mythical aether then the motion of the aether would cancel the motion of the satellite.

Unfortunately for you the aether would not cancel the motion of the satellite towards the earth, downward, caused by the force of gravity, which means the satellite would soon fall to earth.

Basically east west and up down are orthogonal so the east west velocity of the satellite will only determine where on earth the satellite will fall. Given that the geostationary satellite is stationary above a point on the earth gravity will cause it to fall down to that point on the earth unless the aether exerts and upward--not westward--force on the satellite.

Hans Georg Lundahl

Saturday, 5th of July

No, you did not get it.

You did not get that aether ONLY cancels the local movement part of the eastward momentum.

It is the eastward momentum the balances out gravitation to an orbit (through the aether, but locally cancelled out) around earth.

As to mythical, a scientific theory does not become a myth when abandoned.

Let us see.

According to everyone light is a fact. According to modern physics gravitation is a fact (in Aristotelian ones, heavy objects being heavy means them having a predominant tendency down to the middle of the universe, the centre of the earth, light objects being light means them having a tendency upward to the periphey of the universe, towards stars and Heaven beyond them).

If there is no aether, then gravitation and light are action at a distance, and for light also wavemovements in a void.

I have discussed - years ago - the concept of wavemovements in a void, and the science expert who was, as an Atheist, defending modern science, said photons could fix that. Here the action at a distance part would also be fixed. It is less easy to fix gravitational action at a distance problem by gravitons.

Photons first: yes, a wavemovement would be conceivable as photons are emitted in waves rather than continuously. But if so, it should be theoretically possible to have a continuous (high or low) rate of emission of photons, and we do not find that.

Gravitons next: if a graviton moves from earth toward the sun, how would that make sun move closer to earth? If one thousand times as many gravitons move from sun to earth, how would that draw earth closer to the sun?

Remember, if gravitons are emitted from the masses concerned, they are moving right opposite the way they are supposed to work the attraction.

For close range forces, this is even more conspicuous: if electrons and protons (supposing these to both exist though neither has been observed even under electronic microscopy) are moving in a void, where is the substrate transmitting their forces of attraction from one body to other?

Here you see perhaps why aether was a very usual model in scientific worldviews until of course Michelson Morley showed this entailed Geocentrism.

And this means, some Geocentrics would be such, simply because aether makes sense scientifically.

One more: westward movement of aether would be a curved movement. Around earth.

Eastward momentum of satellite would in each moment be a straight momentum. In a tangent from earth, unless gravitation were counteracting it. It is thus in each moment the momentum of the satellite which counteracts the gravitation of the earth.

HGL adding

on Sunday 6-VII-2014

I think YOUR position on why Sungenis must be wrong on Geostationary satellites is that:

satellite has eastward momentum, vector arrow eastward, aether imparts equal westward momentum, vector arrow westward (same length), earth imparts momentum down to its centre, by gravitation, arrow down. W & E arrows cancel, arrow down is NOT cancelled, so, acceleration takes place downwards to the ground.

My understanding of Sungenis' explanation (if he doesn't agree, it may unconsciously even be my improvement on it) is rather this:

There is an eastward arrow for the vector of satellite's momentum, there is a downward arrow, for the vector of earth's gravitation, BUT there is no westward arrow.

Aether imparts NO acceleration to the West.

It only displaces the space in which these vectors work out.

Therefore the eastward vector and the downward vector can balance out in a series of balanced vectors which, in empty space, would be of orbital type.

Except that empty space would have no way, without aether, to transmit the pull of eartyhmass onto satellite mass (and, extremely slightly, the reverse), and the aether that is transmitting it is displacing itself. That is at least one theory.

Tom Trinko Sunday 22 :25

Uh no that makes no sense. If you add an eastward vector to a downward vector you bet a vector pointed down and to the east at some angle which will vary with time as the Satellite accelerates down. Given that we're assuming the earth isn't rotating here then what would happen would be that the satelite would follow a roughly parabolic trajectory and impact the earth to the east of the normal sub satellite point.

You can't balance a downward force with a eastward momentum vector over a stationary earth. Math doesn't work.

Hans Georg Lundahl Monday 7/VII/2014

The orbit you assume to be there is a very high version of the parabolic trajectory.

The Sungenis theory as I understand does not deny the orbit as such. It only says it is displaced, because the coordinate system of space - the aether - is displaced.

And that orbit and displacement balance out into a more or less stationary position.

Added a few hours later by HGL

Maybe you simply are mixing up the vector question with the geosationary question. How a downward vector is accounted for while same hight is acheived is a bit tricky. Here I am spelling it out step by step:

I) What the vectors (acc. to Newtonian physics) make for an orbit:

a) Imagine you have one satellite "above" earth. Draw it above on paper or on whatever material your mind can follow (including your memory, if it is good).

b) Identify a spot as centre of earth, draw the line between it and the satellite. Divide the line into four equal "units".

c) Imagine the satellite is moved by exactly ONE vector (in an otherways stationary universe, like during the long day of Joshua). Draw a line to the right, meaning eastward. Mark off three units.

d) Identify the spot of the third unit as new position of satellite. Draw a line from it to centre of earth and remember, this line is FIVE units long.

e) But in order for the satellite to move "due east" (in an orbit) it should be only FOUR units above the centre of the earth. Identify that spot, then dot the lines of the triangle that are outside that cake slice. NOW you have identified the action of gravitation as the vector responsible for satellite being one unit lower than expected. And still exactly as high as it was to begin with.

II) Now, this was a satellite "during Joshua's long day". It was neither Geostationary according to aether and Geostasis, nor according to empty space and turning earth.

III) How to make a satellite geostationary (outside Joshua's long day), there are two models.

a) Empty space remains in place, so satellite really moves locally that curve, but earth eastward also, at same angular speed. Turning of earth neither affects the gravitational vector of the satellite, nor the eastward momentum vector. Therefore orbit of satellite is real, though from the dot on earth it is seen as stationary, because that dot also moves in an orbit around the centre of the earth, that orbit having a turn of same angle in same time.

b) Turning aether moves westward, at same speed as satellite orbits eastward. Aether affects neither vector. It is only that its turning cancels out, locally, the eastward turning of the satellite. Here too the satellite has a real eastward orbit, but in a space that (as it is aether and not empty) displaces itself at same angular speed in opposite angular turn. Leaving the satellite in same local position.

[IV] There is one problem with this restatement of Sungenis without looking at his book.

Can aether be truly non-vectorial and yet cause movement?

As in the movement it imposes, if I am right, on spacecraft spiralling outward with the "linear" outward / upward movement and the "circular" daily movement of the aether.

Or in the movement it imposes on winds of passage, which, once set in motion by the moving aether, are very vectorial, as any sailor would agree, or the one it imposes indirectly at least on oceanic currents, like the ones used by Christopher Columbus between Açores and Hispaniola and by Thor Heyderdahl between Perú and Polynesia.

That is the problem with my theory. Does it suggest any solution to you?, for if so, you might be right I understand no physics compared to your grasp of the subject.

Tom Trinko
early in the morning Paris time
8-VII-2014

Ok nothing you said makes sense with respect to anything we know to be true.

We agree that the geostationary satellite stays staionary above the earth.

We agree that things that are stationary in a gravitational field fall down The only way for a satellite to be stationary then is for the satellite to be moving.

But if the earth isn't rotating then the satellite can't be stationary.

Hence the satellite will fall.

The simple fact is that either the aether exerts an upward force on the satellite or the satellite will fall.

Your "vector" discussion was kinda useless since I have no idea why you arbitrarily set the vector magnitudes the way you did.

Hans Georg Lundahl
9 :07 Paris time

"We agree that things that are stationary in a gravitational field fall down The only way for a satellite to be stationary then is for the satellite to be moving."

OR for the gravitational field (a k a aether) to be moving.

"Your "vector" discussion was kinda useless since I have no idea why you arbitrarily set the vector magnitudes the way you did."

I gave no magnitudes for the vectors. I gave distances.

And I gave them in PROPORTIONS to original distance, which I am not trying to find out, because any original distance will work.

It is the vector eastward that is a vector upward. Nothing else on either theory. And that SHOULD have been obvious if you had not balked back from the discussion with a misunderstanding of what I did so stupid as to give the impression it was deliberate.

But perhaps geometry was not your best part of maths?

Tom Trinko
Tuesday c. 21 :20

Uh perhaps if you knew vector math you'd know that the magnitude of a vector is the length of the vector ie what you call the distance.

Here's what Augustine says about people like Sungenis: " 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

Uh where did this upward vector come from? You said that the aether exerts no force on the satellite so there is only a downwards vector due to gravity

Hans Georg Lundahl
Wednesday c. 9 :20

No, if you had paid attention, you would have seen that the eastward vector of the satellite is really also an upward vector.

What I called the distance was NOT length of the vector, but a theoretical distance it could get east IF the eastward vector had been the only one. So, you are the one who lacks understanding of math, it is not me that St Augustine is ashamed of so far.

Resumé of vectors / distances: Original position, satellite is four units (distance) above centre of earth. Theoretical eastward distance (if eastward vector had been the only one) - let us cut that travel short three units east of original position. What is it height now? Remember, it is the new position and its distance to the centre of earth that is the height. You have two sides, one of four units, one of three units, so satellite will be now five units above centre of earth. Remember, the diagonal on the diagram is the perpendicular of the satellite. WHY is the satellite in its new position ONLY four units (like before) above centre of Earth in reality? Because of the downward vector of gravity. Which proves that the eastward vector, rightly considered, is an upward vector. Because tangential = up.

Btw, there is no such thing as Volume two of St Augustine of Hippo's On the Literal Meaning of Genesis. There is such a thing as BOOK two. Volumes refer to material objects, and how many such you divide his work in or how many works you assemble in one such varies from edition to edition.

So, referring to a Volume for any work ONLY makes sense if you define the edition. I therefore assume, you are not talking about St Augustine of Hippo's On the Literal Meaning of Genesis an Incomplete Book, but of book two in his other work On the Literal Meaning of Genesis in Twelve Books.

Exchange

Seen from here Thursday morning

Tom Trinko

Irrespective of the source Augustine condemns what Sungenis is doing.

As to vectors you can insult me all you wish but what you're doing is wrong.

First if by east you don't mean perpendicular to the nadir vector you should say so.

Second you still haven't explained what counteracts the downward pull of gravity. You say the eastward vector is also an upward vector which means the aether must be exerting a force on the satellite.

In any case the simple fact you keep ignoring is that if we look up and see the satellite stationary in orbit above us and we are not moving then the satellite will fall down unless you apply a force to the satellite.

Hans Georg Lundahl

"Irrespective of the source Augustine condemns what Sungenis is doing." Or what you are doing. You see, that quote is not the only, nor even the most general quote from even just that work on relation between Bible and secular knowledge. Have you tried to see same work, book one, chapter one?

As you mentioned Sungenis, I sent him our conversiation, and he gave this reply:

Quoting mail from Robert Sungenis

"Hans, excuse me for getting to this so late. I think your explanation is good. Let me just add that, in the geocentric version, the Geostationary Sat is traveling 7000mph against the space, because space is traveling 7000mph around the fixed Earth. So the same equations that are used to send the Geo Sat up in the heliocentric system are going to be the same in the geocentric system."

Back to my own words

"if by east you don't mean perpendicular to the nadir vector you should say so." I do very exactly mean strictly straight angles to the nadir. That is the VERY REASON why any eastward vector is also an upward vector, since tangential.

"You say the eastward vector is also an upward vector which means the aether must be exerting a force on the satellite." No, it means that the satellite is exerting a force on itself. Inertia.

When we travel "due east," we travel on a circle on the globe that has axis for centre, like equator, and we take one of two available turns. But in each moment "due east" is also a vector tangential to earth's circular surface. This means that if that vector were all there were to our moves, we would be travelling upward, because we would be travelling tangentially.

Do you realise now, WHO of us two or you one it is who merits the scorn of not knowing anything about the universe?

Tom Trinko
Thursday 10/VII/2014, 23:00 Paris time

Yes sadly not only don't you understand the universe you think you do.

First inertia is not a force and the satellite doesn't exert it on itself.

Second in order for the eastward vector of the satellite to be constantly changing direction a force is required. Now in reality with the satellite orbiting the earth gravity exerts that force which constantly changes the direction of the satellites velocity vector. However if the satellite is stationary above the earth that means that relative to the earth the satellite has no component of velocity perpendicular to the nadir vector. If it did then the satellite would not be stationary above the earth. Hence when gravity acts on the satellite it pulls it straight down.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Friday 11/VII/2014, 11:00 Paris time

"First inertia is not a force and the satellite doesn't exert it on itself."

Forces in that strict meaning are things exerted on others. Inertia would be the corresponding thing, but exerted on oneself.

"Second in order for the eastward vector of the satellite to be constantly changing direction a force is required."

The force that would do so if it were not geostationary is gravity.

It is precisely because the eastward vector is NOT constantly changing direction (except in relation to a rotating aether that changes the direction back) that it is a tangential and therefore upward vector.

"However if the satellite is stationary above the earth that means that relative to the earth the satellite has no component of velocity perpendicular to the nadir vector."

It has, as already explained above, previously, a component of velocity in relation to the rotating aether.

" If it did then the satellite would not be stationary above the earth."

It is not stationary per se, but orbiting through an aether which is itself orbitting the other way round at same speed. So, it is only stationary per accidens.

I agree it would fall down if stationary per se.

Would you, before answering again, go through our discussion, the protocol on my blog, because I begin to fear you are about to lose memory of part a) of my argument while arguing against part b) and of part b) of my argument while arguing against part a). It reminds me of a behaviour - in their case presumably deliberate - which I have seen in not so nice persons around my life. You know, Jews, Communists, Atheists, No Popery Prots and some others like that?

[Sent him the three so far extant blogposts that are protocol of our discussion.]

EPILOGUE

Saturday Morning 12/VII/2014 I found the end of this discussion:

Tom Trinko

Uh I would like it if you'd post the following:

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.

Hans Georg Lundahl

No problem, will be posted.

No apologies needed. From my p o v.

Done: [linking to first message, where I put the statement on top of it all.]

Sin respuesta

Desde yo al Gobierno de Méjico y al eso de Chiapas

date : 22/08/13 à 10h00

objet : Libertad por el cura Manuel Pérez Gómez, párroco de Chenalhó

Ya las matanzas de curas en tiempos de represión de los Cristeros fue odiosa, también las matanzas de curas en Escocia en la Reforma.

Que no siga hoy aún más!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Desde yo a una diócesis vecina

date : 22/08/13 à 16h07

objet : al propuesto del cura secuestrado por "evangelicos" en chiapas, al obispo

1) Hé escrito a autoridades Mexicanas de gobierno central y de Chiapas invocando que las matanzas de curas en la Reforma de Escocia y después la represión de los Cristeros fue cosa azca.

2) Sinembargo, visto que hay hoy ciertos puntos de visto "teológicas" antibíblicas, como él de Teilhard de Chardin o él de Georges Lemaître, me preocupo que quizás algunos de esos han provocado apostasías al protestantismo.

Exemplo histórico: Guido de Bres hizo la conclusión que sea antibíblica la Iglesia Católica por le hecho que al lado de libros de Erasmo, de Melanchthon y otros, fueron quemados también Biblias o partidas de la Biblias en Flamenco y Francés. A esta época, la Inquisición Española hizo un poco más tarde Biblias en traducciones no heréticas. Peró Guido ya apostasió y más tarde fue pendido a muerte como hereje tras ser condenado por la Inquisición.

Hoy, no hay Inquisición, hay el pocadumbre de católicos que almenaza la Iglesia con la última persecución. Hay que hacer dos cosas:

• mostrar que el culto de imagenes y de santos es bíblico, como defendido por Nicea II y por Trento (y entre ortodoxos por Yaci y por Jerusalén)
  
  
• mostrar que el creacionismo y inerrantismo hasta mismo geocentrismo no son ni serán condenados como herejías por la Iglesia.

Yo quedo católico, peró no seguro que sea Francisco en Roma el papa y aún menos que Andrés Vingt-Trois sea el obispo de París.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

(En otro frente de batallas: al matrimonio gay, sí, tenemos de ser contra el pseudomatrimonio entre hombre y hombre [o] entre mujer y mujer, peró de eso no resulta que personas homosexuales - psiquicamente - sean excluidos del matrimonio: hay hombres quienes pués una juventud amorosa de otros hombres son llegados al matrimonio con una mujer, como Josh Weed.

Cosa más personal: que sea por el celibado de sacerdotes, bueno, peró no me prenda por un monje, yo no busco el sacerdocio, yo busco el matrimonio, soy escritor, no pastor y tampoco profeta. Hay quienes aquí me consideran como si no tuve el derecho de casarme o de observar una chica en intención de posiblamente casarme.)

Three or Ten Dimensions, with Bubbaman

Correspondence started with video comments:

Trin80ty : Kent Hovind vs Hugh Ross (Part 1, disc 1 of 2)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNuHuG517lI

Hans-Georg Lundahl

10 space time dimensions ...

I hold with good old St Augustine that there are three dimensions and they are spatial. Time has no different dimensions, but three parts: present, surrounded by past and future.

Now, supposing there were such a thing as space time and more than three dimensions, if space is three of them, time a fourth, what are the other six supposed to be?

bubbaman235

dimensions in which the first four dimensions operate and interact. If you try to enact more, the collapse into the first ten dimensions.

in follow up question to your kind answer

Sent from HGL to : bubbaman235 25/VIII/2013

(I was blocked from posting on the videos of Trin80ty):

Oh ... the three dimensions of space need other dimensions to interact?

And what do you mean by a dimension operating?

Re:in follow up question to your kind answer

Sent from Bubbaman to : Hans-Georg Lundahl 25/VIII/2013

I might add i'm only describing them as interacting as means of description, not that they are entities or anything. This is my description of them in lamens terms, describing them in great detail would take some time lol the three dimensions that we perceive are the first three, the dimensions we can view, and can observe. The fourth is time, in which the first three operate. The fifth and sixth dimensions have to deal with the future, and how the first four dimensions interact with each other to create possible outcome of those events. The fifth and sixth dimensions deal with the branching of each of these possibilities from the combinations of the first five dimensions, in an even higher space of existence in which these possible outcomes can become reality if given variables become actual. The dimensions 7 through 10 deal with universes. It basically states that there are several universes that each have their own progressions of dimensional reality and possible outcomes. The tenth and final dimension is actually the sum of all universes and all their possible outcomes. Anything higher than the tenth will cause it to collapse back into the first ten dimensions because the tenth dimension combines everything into a universal cover as it were. With me so far?

Objet :Re:in follow up question to your kind answer

Sent from HGL to : bubbaman235 25/VIII/2013

Well, yes.

Problem one: time is not at right angles with the three dimensions of space, so it is not a dimension.

Problem two: what acts in time is substance, material or spiritual, not the three dimensions that hold material substance.

Problem three: the future and the possible are not extra dimensions.

Problem four: there is no clear indication of a multiverse.

Thus, dimensions 4 to 10 go and we are left with three.

Re:Objet :Re:in follow up question to your kind answer

Sent from Bubbaman to : Hans-Georg Lundahl 25/VIII/2013

i think your misunderstanding. time is, as you put it, at right angles with physical things. As we perceive it, objects can only be contained with a time dimension, and thusly can only exist with a time dimension. It may be perceived else where at different intervals or at different rates, but if doesn't take away the fact of it's necessity in dimensional space time. Your second problem is stating that things that fall within the first three dimensions are not physical, which they are. You can't have a three dimensional object without a time dimension, and you can't express a time dimension without a three dimensional object within to verify it's appearance as a dimension. I don't know where you got spiritual, there isn't any proof of that lol Your third problem is just wrong, future events and the correlating possible events are dimensions of space time. They are apart from time as we perceive it because it isn't linear, yet still present, and thusly create their own presence as dimensions of space time along side time and the first three dimensions. And your fourth, it is counter intuitive. when i say that the tenth dimension is a blanket statement, and thusly covers everything, i saying that there is the possibility of a multiverse which would reside within the first nine, and it simply conjectures as to the possibility.

Objet :Re:Objet :Re:in follow up question to your kind answer

Sent from HGL to : bubbaman235 26/VIII/2013

It is actually your starting point of time being "at right angles" with physical things which is the first counterintuitive point, the second being your denial of spiritual things despite the fact that you think.

Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:in follow up question to your kind answer

Sent from Bubbaman to : Hans-Georg Lundahl 26/VIII/2013

you can't deny that time is co-reliant with the first three dimensions, if you don't think so then your irrational. My denial of things spiritual is because there isn't any proof for the claim, its a completely different argument.

Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:in follow up question to your kind answer

Sent from HGL to : bubbaman235 27/VIII/2013

I was not speaking about co-reliant.

I was speaking about "at right angles".

A lump of matter cannot think, that is the very simplest proof for spirit, that you are thinking.

Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:in follow up question to your kind answer

Sent from Bubbaman to : Hans-Georg Lundahl 27/VIII/2013

no, physical neuronic activity in the physical brain is proof that i think, nothing spiritual. This lump of matter thinks, and it is purly physical. I still don't understand what you mean by right angles, please clarify.

Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:in follow up question to your kind answer

Sent from HGL to : bubbaman235 28/VIII/2013

there is nothing to actually prove that the physic neuronic activity is identic with the thoughts and there is lots - once you think about thought instead of imagining you study it by studying the brain - to disprove it.

Time is not at an 90° with [any of the three] dimensions.

Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:in follow up question to your kind answer

Sent from Bubbaman to : Hans-Georg Lundahl 28/VIII/2013

um, no? lol There has been thousands of studies done on the brain which have fine tuned the fact. There is an entire science field dedicated to the study, it's called neurology. certain thought processes are active when certain parts of the brain becoming stimulated. The neuro-receptors within each neuron receive a variety of chemical molecular compounds which cause this thing that we perceive to be a consciousness to exist. Our cognitive process can be completely explained though science, making your claim of a mind or spirit or whatever, ridiculous. You still are not explaining you thought on right angles in relation to time as well. Time is not a physical entity, but rather an aspect that physical entities posses that grant them a physical nature, you can't state that time somehow has an angle in relation to physical objects, that would be absurd. They simply are co-reliant to each other to exist, or rather to have a perceived existence.

Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:in follow up question to your kind answer

Sent from HGL to : bubbaman235 28/VIII/2013

"Our cognitive process can be completely explained though science, making your claim of a mind or spirit or whatever, ridiculous."

Does not follow from any fact of neurology, nor from all of them taken together.

Whether a certain part of the brain is active at a certain thought because the activity is that thought or because it accompanies that thought cannot be deduced from the activity as studied.

Your Theory of Knowledge is faulty.

"Time is not a physical entity, but rather an aspect that physical entities posses that grant them a physical nature, you can't state that time somehow has an angle in relation to physical objects, that would be absurd."

I was speaking of right angles to the other dimensions - the three real DIMENSIONS. As you admit, it is absurd to claim it has right angles to them, so it is absurd to correlate time to them as another dimension like them.

Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:in follow up question to your kind answer

Sent from Bubbaman to : Hans-Georg Lundahl 28/VIII/2013

I am not the one saying they are at right angles of each other. they correlate to each other because they are reliant on each other to exist. Beside the point, correlation doesn't equal right angles, i am not making that claim, your using a straw man argument. also, what we perceive at thought accompanies the physical stimulus, not the other way around. It would be like me saying an earth quake occurs because a town was demolished. The effect is the physical neurological stimuli, and the effect is what we perceive as thought. You can't have mental cognitive thought without the stimuli. I think you might have a slightly miscued idea of the scientific process if your conclusion is the mind and not the brains neuronic activity.

Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:in follow up question to your kind answer

Sent from HGL to : bubbaman235 30/VIII/2013

"correlation doesn't equal right angles,"

My point is that dimension does equal right angles. Which is why space-time is at best a misnomer.

Space contains substance (with action), time contains action (of a substance). They measure different aspects of reality that correlate in action being attribute of substance.

Future and possibility do not correlate to space and time as these to each other (or as action and substance).

"what we perceive at thought accompanies the physical stimulus, not the other way around."

That is what we perceive at perception. I was speaking of thought.

Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:in follow up question to your kind answer

Sent from Bubbaman to : Hans-Georg Lundahl 30/VIII/2013

future, and possibilities still measure substance within space, and actions of substance, and since time is relative, it isn't any great feat to included them as dimensions of space-time.

"That is what we perceive at perception. I was speaking of thought." right, which is physical, not spiritual. What we perceive is physical, even at what we would consider thought. If you argue that fact, then you also can't claim that the first three dimensions exist, so it would be non-sensical to amend it to your argument.

Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:in follow up question to your kind answer

Sent from HGL to : bubbaman235 31/VIII/2013

1) Future as future does not measure substance or its actions.

A dimension like "how long" is not "not yet". However "not yet" is a direction within time.

2) If I perceive an apple, clearly the apple is physical and exists before I see it. If I realise that 2 and 2 always make four, there is nothing physical to the "always", and there is nothing to prove this realisation is only from physical processes in the brain. If that were so, that would discredit every thought that "two plus two is always four" but also every thought of the - supposedly - fact itself or any other proven fact or any other proof.

Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:in follow up question to your kind answer

Sent from Bubbaman to : Hans-Georg Lundahl 1/IX/2013

lets focus on one issue at a time, we can get to cognitive interpretation after our discussion with dimensions, is that ok?

Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:in follow up question to your kind answer

Sent from HGL to : bubbaman235 1/IX/2013

I was ok with having first half on one and second half on other subject. And second half was not "cognitive interpretation", it was thought.

Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:in follow up question to your kind answer

Sent from Bubbaman to : Hans-Georg Lundahl 2/IX/2013

cognitive interpretation is thought, i don't want to argue terminology lol so, basically, explain to me why you are denying that time and the proceeding dimensions do not exist.

Sent from HGL to : bubbaman235 3/IX/2013

Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:in follow up question to your kind answer

I am not arguing that time does not exist.

I am arguing it is not a dimension, because it is not at right angles with the three dimensions that are at right angles with each other.

I am not arguing the future does not exist (unless you add "yet"), either.

I am arguing that it is a part of time. Thus not another dimension even if time were a dimension, which for said reason it is not.

I am not arguing there is no such thing as the merely possible unrealised.

I am arguing that as long as it is not anything more than just possible it is neither substance nor time nor space, and therefore no dimension (even if anything other than space and corporeal substances in it were dimensions).

Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:in follow up question to your kind answer

Sent from Bubbaman to : Hans-Georg Lundahl 3/IX/2013

i think what you are misinterpreting is when some says "dimension", they are not talking about an entity, or a separate thing. it's all the same state of being, and time, sub-sequent events, and possible sub-sequent events are aspects of the same entity of the three dimensional universe/multiverse/what ever you want to call it. Just because possible succeeding events, and future events haven't happened yet, or when they reach us they are the present, doesn't mean that they don't exist before the reach our perceived existence. Hyperspace is very vast and complex system, and to understand it, you have to be able to look at all aspects of the three-dimensional world besides the obvious.

Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:in follow up question to your kind answer

Sent from HGL to : bubbaman235 3/IX/2013

My dear, time and space are separate aspects of substance. Interconnected through substance but separate.

The three dimensions of space are very much not separate. Stating any one direction pair as first dimension is arbitrary. It could have been set any amount of degrees further here or there in two dimensions of the circle, in full globe.

Setting the second dimension 90° to first is less arbitrary. Only one circle is there for alternative settings of it, in relation to the first.

Only third dimension is invariably a function of first two, what angle it is set in.

So, three dimensions are three very interconnected aspects of space.

My point is that the other supposed dimensions do not interconnect with these three that way at all.

The past and future are not places in hyperspace. An object's dimension in time cannot swing over 90° into a space dimension and get replaced by a space dimension (unless God makes a miracle, but I think He would not do that).

Present, past and future are three parts of time, and are as Trinitarian as three dimensions of space.

Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:in follow up question to your kind answer

Sent from Bubbaman to : Hans-Georg Lundahl 3/IX/2013

That is why it is called space-time, not separate space and time. don't be condescending. The first three dimensions are interconnected as we perceive them to be, as well as time, future events and possible events, they are simply extensions of the postulates you are stating on the first three physical dimensions. However, i agree that they cannot be replaced by one another, but you cannot simply lump present, past and future by that logic and not call them a dimension.Also, your cop-out on how God can disregard space-time, because he is God, is ridiculous. It's like saying, here are the established rules of the physical universe, but i can amend them by saying there is a magic being who can manipulate them at will, thus making any claim i make valid, even though i have no proof of this being. It's nonsensical.

Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:in follow up question to your kind answer

Sent from HGL to : bubbaman235 4/IX/2013

First of all, God is the Creator of Space and of Time. He made every rule and decided in advanace every possible exception and for whom (Himself alone, Himself and angelic beings etc) the exceptions are accessible to. You will hardly claim a Christian ought to talk AS an atheist or agnostic because he is talking TO one. I was not making a cop-out, I was merely guarding myself against saying too much, like stating anything contrary to my faith.

But second, I take exception to this:

"they are simply extensions of the postulates you are stating on the first three physical dimensions."

That is precisely what they are simply not.

"i agree that they cannot be replaced by one another"

Precisely, which up-down, front-back and left-right certainly can. I stand and my head is up. I lie down on my stomach or back and my head is front or back. I lie down on my side and it is left or right.

Objects turn their three dimensions within three-dimensional space. Turning can by some mathematicians be considered or - on my view - artificially constructed as "half-dimensions" (for turns of 45°) or any other part of a dimension for any other angle of turn.

Integrating time into that is simply not possible. I cannot turn my future into my back or my past into my front. I cannot have a plane of righ-left per past-future and turn my left side into my past and my future into my right side and my right side into my past and my past into my left. Unlike what is the matter with space.

Past - present - future are not exactly as the two directions of any dimension. The difference is that for one thing the "origo" is moving - on one view every instance of it from future into past and in another way the title itself from the past into the future. That is not parallelled in the dimensions of space. And for another thing, this means that time, unlike any dimension of space, has a single direction.

But this is a difference between time and space which added to the separateness (quite unlike the non-separateness of space dimensions) makes it non-sensic as in unnecessarily imprecise terminology to regard time and space as four dimensions.

Rather, they are two different categories around substance, and time has three parts, space three dimensions.

Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:in follow up question to your kind answer

Sent from Bubbaman to : Hans-Georg Lundahl 4/IX/2013

What proof do you have that god is the Creator of Space and of Time? or that He made every rule and decided in advance every possible exception and for whom (Himself alone, Himself and angelic beings etc) the exceptions are accessible to? Also, i am not saying that past, present, and future can be interchangeable for each other, i don't understand why you can't understand that i am not saying that. I am saying that without time relative to an object's position in space, that object will not have existence. when you say that there is a linear timeline for the physical universe, that is false.

Declaring absolute knowledge relative to time, or anything for that matter, is ignorant, hence why there is the other 7 dimensions of space-time. it's not imprecise to say there is combination of space and time, it's universalizing and finding a more fluent way in which the universe works. We don't look at a car piece by piece and then except that it could work by only looking at each piece separately. We combine them and find that the different components work together to preform a common task, or in the case of the universe, simply to exist with physical matter and energy.

Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:in follow up question to your kind answer

Sent from HGL to : bubbaman235 5/IX/2013

You seem not to get that I was not for the moment inviting a debate about God's existence.

I was informing you that according to any view that can be called theistic, God is above these things we are debating, and that includes my Christian view.

"universalising" and "more fluent" tend to go hand in hand with less precise, when it comes to sci/maths terminology.

Number line is a scary example, leading to "complex numbers" and calling pi a number when it is a size relation (or other magnitude relation).

"Declaring absolute knowledge relative to time, or anything for that matter, is ignorant"

I am declaring ordinary knowledge. The kind you might label as "naive" or "pre-scientific".

"hence why there is the other 7 dimensions of space-time."

Complete non sequitur. Me having no absolute knowledge of the kind of space and time I believe in from experience does not equal some other guy having an absolute knowledge or even relatively better knowledge for the opposite.

"I am saying that without time relative to an object's position in space, that object will not have existence."

Time as in time extension? Or time as in point of time?

Either of which is of coruse false for the eternal being who created time.

But in space a point cannot exist in itself. A point is a limit between existing extensions of a line, which is a limit between existing extensions of a surface, which is a limit between existing extensions of a volume.

In time, the present - which is precisely punctual - is all that really totally exists. The future only exists potentially so far, the past only in traces.

Time and space reverse the extension / point relation when it comes to what exists.

" We don't look at a car piece by piece and then except that it could work by only looking at each piece separately."

Nor do we confound steering system with ondriving system.

"We combine them and find that the different components work together to preform a common task, or in the case of the universe, simply to exist with physical matter and energy."

I was not denying that time and space are categories around substance. I was saying that time is to space as another category and not to the three dimensions of space as another dimension.

Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:in follow up question to your kind answer

Sent from Bubbaman to : Hans-Georg Lundahl 5/IX/2013

""universalizing" and "more fluent" tend to go hand in hand with less precise, when it comes to sci/maths terminology." No they don't, combinations of foundational theorems that are already in themselves precise cannot create anything that is anything less than that. When you ask, "Time as in time extension? Or time as in point of time?", The answer being both, neither or one or the other, sometimes lol i would need it in context. Both of which are valid, since, your claim that time is somehow created by a creator, is again, not scientifically accurate. You could look at it as time coming into existence at the same time that our universe did, or that if the universe is truly infinite, time would follow suite.

"I was not denying that time and space are categories around substance. I was saying that time is to space as another category and not to the three dimensions of space as another dimension." By what other means could time be when it is reliant on space-time and vice versa? the only answer is that it is another dimension of the same existence that the first three dimensions fall under.

Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:in follow up question to your kind answer

Sent from HGL to : bubbaman235 6/IX/2013/2013

"combinations of foundational theorems that are already in themselves precise cannot create anything that is anything less than that."

They can. They can that by mixing apples and oranges.

" By what other means could time be when it is reliant on space-time and vic versa? the only answer is that it is another dimension of the same existence that the first three dimensions fall under."

More precisely (and more aristotelically) time (with its three parts) is another category in the same reality where also place (with its three dimensions) is a category.

"When you ask, 'Time as in time extension? Or time as in point of time?', The answer being both, neither or one or the other, sometimes lol i would need it in context."

The context was which aspect of time, punctual or extansional, that was a condition for substance to exist.

Now the aspect of space that is conditional for a corporeal substance to exist with its quantity (aka volume) is extensional. But the aspect of time that is conditional for any created substance (corporeal or otherwise) to exist is punctual, since only the point called present is at any time real. Which is one of my key reasons for coordinating space and time rather than time with each dimension of space.

We can get back to discussing whether substance, time and space are created by a God above them, when you have shown some precision of terminology about space and time, and about dimension and category.

Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:in follow up question to your kind answer

Sent from Bubbaman to : Hans-Georg Lundahl 6/IX/2013

i'm sorry to say, but physics is nowhere near the analogy of "apples and oranges", for instance; Uniform acceleration and constant velocity are both consistently correct formulas for their respective fields of physics, yet, when both are combined and used in a different manner, behold, newtons second law of motion and uniform friction are created, and both are consistently valid. It's an example, but the idea works for most branches of physics, making precise outcomes from precise formulas.

If your going to say that it depends on the different context of time, and your claiming that only the present is real at any given time, then there would be no past and future under your definition, they cannot fade in and out of existence as you have suggested, they are absolute and finite, relatively speaking. Just because the present may be currently real, doesn't mean the other frames of time can be disregarded as something of the same dimension, they are different frames of the same dimension, sure, but they are not the same.

"We can get back to discussing whether substance, time and space are created by a God above them, when you have shown some precision of terminology about space and time, and about dimension and category." Do you know what i do for a living? and implying you didn't just google that five minutes before we started talking. Get over yourself.

Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:in follow up question to your kind answer

Sent from HGL to : bubbaman235 7/IX/2013

"Do you know what i do for a living?"

U R a Phycisist? Might make you biassed for your paradigm.

"and implying you didn't just google that five minutes before we started talking."

Google what? I am not aware of anything I would just have googled, and if you think otherwise, provide me with key words of plausible search and with the relevant passage.

"Get over yourself."

Sounds like a cop out from serious discussion to me.

Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:in follow up question to your kind answer

Sent from Bubbaman to : Hans-Georg Lundahl 8/IX/2013

You're right, i am. Does that give me a bias on the matter? no. I have a good understanding of how the mechanics of the universe work, and with that knowledge and with given evidence, it would seem more plausible for ten dimensions to exist rather than your standpoint, i'm not giving any special pleading for any view. When i said you googled "that" in five minutes, i was referring to the terminology and physics principles you are using to support your argument, and i am not copping out of anything, but being rude and condescending by saying i need to obtain a more broad set of terminology and understanding before we continue a discussion, is no means for good discussion., that's all i was implying.

Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:in follow up question to your kind answer

Sent from HGL to : bubbaman235 8/IX/2013

I was maybe condescending, but I was not asking you for a broader terminology, rather for a more precise one.

A distinction between category and dimension (the latter being a feature of category quantity=volume, category place - closest you come to space in Aristotle, category situs=sitting, standing, lying, standing on your head, and of course, with time as other relevant category, of either action or passion involving movement). So as to understanding what I mean by it being more precise to say that time and space are correlated categories, but time is no more a fourth dimension of space than an eighth colour of the spectrum (category quality, subcategory visible quality, sub-subquality directly per se visible quality = colour) or a thirteenth half tone to the octave (also quality, this time audible).

And I was not implying you needed that before doing your job, just before we discuss whether there is a God who created time and place, body and action, and is above all of these and can do whatever he wants with all of these.

Now, before the quarrel, if you like to call it that, you said something of time not just existing in the present, but also in past and future - i e you are implying that in a way the past and the future are as real as the present.

You may want to argue how this follows from your view of mechanics.

If all you mean is that if the past ceases to exist by becoming the past, then why is it relevant for present and future, I sympathise with you, I even submit there ought to be an ideal world in which past, present and future are all eternally present. But that is not the material world in which we live, that is only the mind of God.

If God could nowise already see the future as we see the present, then the only way the Biblical God could foretell the future would be by programming it and knowing how his programme will work out. I disagree, God created us free, and if He still knows our future, it is because He sees our future decisions as in an eternal present. As we make them, not as he calculates from His programming it.

Actually the idea of space as independent of body - in Aristotle place means "surrounding bodies in relation to a body" - as a kind of empty coordinate system was born of a purely theological debate - the conclusion of which was not that such a space actually exists, but that God could make it exist by moving all of the material universe sideways - by leaving behind the mere coordinates of the places where the part was that moves inward and by moving it into the coordinates of the places moving outward to the other side and creating new coordinates for the further strech on that outer side. St Thomas Aquinas and Avempace (Ibn Bajja) both answered that to Averroës who had denied that even God Himself could (if He bothered) move the Universe out of its place.

Were you saying the coordinate system (in the sense of St Thomas Aquinas, Avempace and Newton) has to exist before bodies can be created by God in it, or were you saying it has to exist before they can form in it without any God, or were you saying because it has to exist, time has to be a coordinate just like the other three of space? And future and possibilities two more on top of time?

Sorry, how would you convince a Theist of either of these?