mercredi 9 avril 2014

Geocentric Yes, Flat Earth No

Paul Michael Bales
(at least according to the FB profile)
Paul Michael Bales‎ > Robert Sungenis

Cheers for the accept Rob, I was tweeting to Phil Plait, for I am a geocentrist and flat earther and he blocked me, then posted this straight afterwards. It mentions your documentary.

The Principle: A Documentary About Geocentrism. Yeah, I Know.
By Phil Plait

I think the flat earthers and geocentrits are starting to touch a nerve of the powers that be, the scientists and astronomers and NASA are getting nervous up there in their tower of babel, for it is trembling and about to collapse.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Paul Michael Bales - how do you argue the earth as a whole is NOT bent surface going at least full circle Paris - New York - San Francisco - Peking - Moscow - Paris in face of travel?

(Btw, this is the kind of evidence that factually is lacking but in imagination is supplied by pop culture for Heliocentrism : Star Trek, Star Wars, Agent Spatio-Temporel Valérian and some more)

And Phil Plait is not new to this controversy, btw:

That NASA look
By Phil Plait | July 26, 2010 12:00 pm
On Discover Magazine, his blog Bad Astronomy
Paul Michael Bales
There is no curvature of the Earth, people do not live on top of a ball, and Australians certainly don't live underneath the ball hanging upside down by their feet.

[Link to Flat Earth Cartoon showing impact of a Globe if Centre of Gravity were outside earth, very opposite North Pole]
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Nice cartoon, if "down" were same direction counted from Paris and Australia. It is rather opposite directions.
Paul Michael Bales
NASA's cartoon paintings and drawings of a globular spinning earth are not very convincing. They are about as convincing as this picture.

Link to Geocentric Cartoon lampooning diagrams of Earth spinning around its axis or orbitting the Sun.]
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Paul, in case you missed it, I was not arguing from a cartoon being convincing. I am arguing from known travels. MANY of them.

(If Heliocentrics would want a similar argument, we would need Han Solo to be fact. Newsflash : he is fiction.)

[On link to Phil Plait, quoting from it:]

"The trailer does seem to be making a case for Geocentrism (it's mentioned specifically), but given the title, I would guess they're going to try to make a broader point that the Universe itself was made—created, if you will—purposely for us."

I thought the title referred to the Copernican Principle which is being debunked.
Paul Michael Bales
I am going to take that Pied piper Phil Plait down, he is a pied piper misleading people, with his flute like telescope. He is not a real skeptic, he is paid to ridicule anything that goes against orthodox sciences cherished dogmas.

[Link tp Marvel Style Cartoon of Pied Piper]
Hans-Georg Lundahl
I already did some of that under his post and I was blocked from combox, I think, or thread was closed:

That NASA look
By Phil Plait | July 26, 2010 12:00 pm
On Discover Magazine, his blog Bad Astronomy
Paul Michael Bales
They never circumnavigate pole to pole, only east to west, which you can do on a flat surface, for example a formula one car going around the racing track, or you can walk around your table, but they never go up and under the so called globe, because they can't, for we don't live on a globe, there is no south pole, only a north pole in the center.

[Link to seriously taken Flat Earth map with North POle in the Middle and "Outer Rim of Ice" instead of South Pole.]
Hans-Georg Lundahl
That map would make quite a few distances illusory.

Going from Australia to Chile, for instance is a shorter way than it would be according to that map.

Of course, God can create dimensions. Emmaus may have been already 160 stades from Jerusalem and Jesus and two disciples still have walked it in only 60 stades (32 vs 12 km, do not know about miles so well, say 20-21 vs 8)*. Now, on the Day of Resurrection this could have happened so as to spare the disciples fatigue. I do not think this happens regularly in what Globe Believers like myself call Southern Hemisphere.
Paul Michael Bales
It would be impossible to travel anywhere on a ball, you would slip right off. We are not flies who have suckers on our feet and who can walk on the ceiling.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Once again, your argument is from believing "down" is same direction here as in Australia.

Down is INTO the centre of the Earth.

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: ... on Hell Fire (Yes, it Exists) (=short link=works in adress bar)
Paul Michael Bales
Of course it is, our beloved Creator, who is perfect in all ways, created this world perfectly, with all countries being level, he did not create the racist globe theory which suggests Europe and North America are on top of everyone and Africa and South America below.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
In Medieval Maps the direction of UP was Jerusalem upwards.

In Spanish voyagers' discoveries, there was a constellation opposite Pole Star called Southern Cross.

If your concern is about saving vercaity of certain passages in Holy Writ, my take is that there is a very roughly square piece of land (as in a square on a globe), which does have four corners, but which is not all there is to the globe.

That rough "square on a globe" has the corners of England - Good Hope - Australia - Sachalin/Japan.

Americas and most of Oceania are a kind of "island world" outside the main square.
Paul Michael Bales

[If clicking this works, even outside FB, you should be opening or downloading a word document with title given above - other links with such square brackets as these are inside FB.]
Hans-Georg Lundahl
As to your link, it seems to have been taken down

Did you write the following? Here :

[On FB profile of Paul Michael Bales]

"At his present stage of evolution man depends upon food solely because he has not become conscious of the Law governing the Force which gives atomic action to all parts of his organism. FOR THERE IS A LAW WHICH GOVERNS THE ACTION OF THIS EVER FLOWING STREAM OR REGENERATING CURRENT DIRECTED UPON MATTER. When man, in time, becomes conscious of this Law he will be able to assimilate this Force and will no longer be dependent upon matter for the support of his physical organism."

Is that what you believe or were you only quoting someone for the fun of seeing a discussion about it?
Paul Michael Bales
That was from a book.

The link works, it should download a word document straight to your computer.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
I am not downloading, only opening on this computer, and when I tried I got an mt word doc
Paul Michael Bales
I will try to tag you to my post, I have it on facebook also.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
It works now, here are my replies to the first five:

1. The aeronaut can see for himself that Earth is a Plane. The appearance presented to him, even at the highest elevation he has ever attained, is that of a concave surface - this being exactly what is to be expected of a surface that is truly level, since it is the nature of level surfaces to appear to rise to a level with the eye of the observer. This is ocular demonstration and proof that Earth is not a globe. Have not checked. At least I had the impression horizon was round, as is to be expected on a convex, and especially is this a good explanation if one country disappears from the round horizon and another appears in it. But I have not been flying for years.
2. Whenever experiments have been tried on the surface of standing water, this surface has always been found to be level. If the Earth were a globe, the surface of all standing water would be convex. This is an experimental proof that Earth is not a globe. The apparent flatness of water surfaces are a participation in the VERY huge convex with a VERY far off centre of radius.

Thus, INSOFAR as globe theory needs it, water surfaces can be assumed to be convex.

Note that this is just an explanation allowing Earth to be a globe. Not a positive proof that it is.
3. Surveyors' operations in the construction of railroads, tunnels, or canals are conducted without the slightest "allowance" being made for "curvature," although it is taught that this so-called allowance is absolutely necessary! This is a cutting proof that Earth is not a globe.  For railroads this is not so, since the distances taken into account are distances on a globe.
4. There are rivers that flow for hundreds of miles towards the level of the sea without falling more than a few feet - notably, the Nile, which, in a thousand miles, falls but a foot. A level expanse of this extent is quite incompatible with the idea of the Earth's "convexity." It is, therefore, a reasonable proof that Earth is not a globe. Not so.

It is quite compatible if, as earth-globe-believers including myself and Aristotle and St Thomas Aquinas between us argue, down equals at each point the direction of centre of earth globe.
Since in that precise case, the curvature does not constitute a deviation upward from the level.
5. The lights which are exhibited in lighthouses are seen by navigators at distances at which, according to the scale of the supposed "curvature" given by astronomers, they ought to be many hundreds of feet, in some cases, down below the line of sight! For instance: the light at Cape Hatteras is seen at such a distance (40 miles) that, according. to theory, it ought to be nine-hundred feet higher above the level of the sea than it absolutely is, in order to be visible! This is a conclusive proof that there is no "curvature," on the surface of the sea - "the level of the sea,"- ridiculous though it is to be under the necessity of proving it at all: but it is, nevertheless, a conclusive proof that the Earth is not a globe. I have not seen Cape Hatteras, I suppose you may be wrong on the facts or have calculated for too small a globe.
BOTTOM LINE: we have proof from travel against absolute flatness of Earth.

As far as I know we have no similar proof for Heliocentrism.
Paul Michael Bales
Aristotle's 5 arguments for the Earth being a globe have all been debunked before. I am not going to continue this discussion, for I have had this same discussion many times before, it gets boring having to repeat myself. If you want to continue being the little prince living on top of your ball, fine, enjoy it. Don't waste my time.

[Link to a charming cartoon of The Little Prince - manga style and all!]
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Aristotle's argument number four was factually false, but principally right, it was replaced, factually, with the Vasco da Gama circumnavigation and all the other travels I referred to.

Being "the Little Prince" is quite a charming way of putting it.** Fare well, thanks for the compliment!
Update on St Fulbert of Chartres' Day
I got a mail from the guy.
His mail to me
Did I give you my permission to use my name and words on your blog? I have reported this to Facebook, and unless removed I will take this further.
My mail back
OK, do. As to your words, I find this a scoop not to be missed. A Flat Earther who is embarrassing Geocentrics shows up as having an interest in "spiritual evolution". As to your name, since I saw you described yourself as a poet, I considered you a public person, hence one whose name can be publically shown. With friends who are just friends of mine in private, I tend to use initials. Remove from my blog? You dream.
His second mail
What a sad and pathetic man you are, you need to copy and paste my material into your blog from Facebook, because nobody goes to your blog to talk with you there. aww poor Hans, he has no friends. But it is understandable, if you treat people like you do. I on the other hands have lots of friends, if people want to talk with me they can, for there is trust and love there, they know that I am not the type of person to scoop so low as you and try to use their conversation against them. Get a life mate. I just checked your facebook page, it seems that nobody ticks like on any of your posts, you are unliked, and for a good reason. You are not a likeable person. What a loser.
My second one
My dear, if you think I am "using our cnversation against you" when I am an fact copying it, is not that an admission that you did not make the best impression in it and you know it? Wouldn't you otherwise be spreading the blogpost, if you thought you had argued well?
A bit later
It seems he has forgiven me. He gave me a link to a book on Geocentrism and Flat Earth:

Zetetic Cosmogony; Or, Conclusive Evidence that the World is Not a Rotating-revolving-globe, But a Stationary-plane-circle***

I expect for my part that there are some arguments for Geostationary Universe that are better than those for a plane Geography. Enjoy the read, but I will say in advance that 1899 the author of this book thought he had to hide his name behind the pseudonym Rectangle. Says something about attitudes, doesn't it?

* The most conservative estimate is that the Emmaus in Jesus' day was only 60 stades from Jerusalem. We know it was destroyed by Romans and later rebuilt, so the 160 stades could be same community rebuilding habitation 100 stades further away from Jerusalem. One could also consider as possible that a Syriac manuscript which has 160 stades is a survival of the correct reading.

** Excepting of course the end with the snake bite!

*** The book has some nonsense about perspective in its denials of a globe-formed earth, like on p. 25. On p. 65 it becomes brighter in logic, but some people to whom this was a reference may very well have been put off by p. 25 so as to be untattentive at p. 65. Sometimes it is good to skim over pages so as to get a picture of what is there in a work. But ok, on p. 67 he is not on top form.

If the earth is at a given point in space on say January 1st, and according to present-day science, at a distance of 190,000,000 miles from that point six months afterwards, it follows that the relative position and direction of the stars will have greatly changed, however small the angle of parallax may be ...

He is not a good geometer and does not realise what angle of parallax means. What Heliocentrics mean is that alpha Centauri would be making an apparent movement of 190,000,000 miles in six months, BUT this is due to the distance of 4 light years only visible as a very small angle of parallax, namely 0,76 arch seconds.

My own argument against Heliocentrism is NOT based on angle of parallax not being greater, but on angle of parallax not being uniform. It is not a proof of Heliocentrism being impossible as "Rectangle" would have it here, but a proof of stars moving being an equal possibility as explaining what we have optically. This would not be so if we had parallax measures from Mars, giving same stellar distances (for those "measured by parallax", i e for instance 4 light years to alpha Centauri) but a parallax dependent on Mars having a greater orbit around Sun and a longer "year" than Earth. As far as I know, we do not have that. Therefore stars being all of them far closer than 4 light years and the 0,76 arch seconds of alpha Centauri being due to its moving back and forth, is an equal optical possibility. As for the physical possibility thereof, I am not an Atheist and do NOT deny what St Thomas Aquinas said about stars moving material objects in general (I, Q110, A3) or stars more specifically (I, Q70, A3). But "Rectangle" who wrote that book was a bungler in geometry./HGL

Aucun commentaire:

Enregistrer un commentaire