vendredi 13 mars 2015

Debate with John Médaille on Geocentrism

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 on wall of John Médaille:
This might interest you, if you know anything about Chris Ferrara:

New blog on the kid : Chris Ferrara the Conspirator

John Médaille
If the earth is stationary, how do geocentrists explain weather, tides, the coriolis effect, etc., all of which are artifacts of a rapidly rotating Earth. And at what distance do they place the sun?

Looks legit from here. May click, may not.


Ryan Grant, in the following RG
@AS, can you cite anywhere where they say that?

[in answer to a comment no longer there, unless the A is another A than AS, in which case that also holds true.]

Have you read any of Sungenis' anti-Semitic rants?

Well, as an ethnic Jew who is friends with Sungenis, a) I have never found his rants anti-semitic, merely anti-Israel (though sometimes he went too far or used less than reliable sources) b) I have never read anywhere in any of Sungenis' work on this subject that Jews are responsible for the rejection of geocentrism.

I don't have time or the desire to post his conspiracy theories (really kooky stuff - moon landing faked, etc). You may want to read Karl Keating's book on those folks - it's excellent

I read Keating's book through kindle unlimited, I found it rather pathetic and mostly directed at attacking the Remnant. Apart from employing numerous logical fallacies Keating never addresses the scientific questions seriously.

Ok, oh well.

John Médaille, listen to this interview I did with Rick Delano, the producer of the Principle, which is a fantastic talking heads documentary with discussions of the Copernican Principle, with mostly scientists against geocentrism who point out the problems modern physics is encountering.

Athanasius Contra Mundum : Interview 007 – Rick Delano on the Principle and Geocentrism
Posted on 3 February, 2015 by rubens7


Or, read Hans Thirring's paper on the effects of rotating bodies on stationary objects:

On the Gravitational Effects of Rotating Masses: The Thirring-Lense Papers
Dedicated to Professor Josef Lense on the occasion of his 92nd birthday.

[Institut für Theoretische Physik, Universität zu Köln,

D-5000 Cologne 41, Federal Republic of Germany,

Received May 30, 1982


The purpose of this work is to provide a critical analysis of the classical papers of H. Thirring [Phys. Z., 19, 33 (1918);Phys. Z., 22, 29 (1921)] and J. Lense and H. Thirring [Phys. Z., 19, 156 (1918)] on rotating masses in the relativistic theory of gravitation and to render them accessible to a wider circle of scholars. An English translation of these papers is presented which follows the original German text as closely as possible. This is followed by a concise account of the significance of the results of these papers as well as the possibility of measuring the gravitational effects of rotating masses.]

A must read to gain an understanding where these folks are coming from.

The New Geocentrists (Paperback)
Karl Keating

And again, I say a pretty lousy book that relies on sleeze tactics to poison the well. How far Keating has fallen from the good ol' days of Catholicism and Fundamentalism.

Keating goes into great detail exposing the anti-Semitism, conspiracy theories, and very questionable education credentials.

Again, its a must read.

[OK, let us get this straight : the obvious question is whether Galileo was right or wrong, whether Pope Urban VIII or Pius VII was the more Orthodox Pope in his concrete utterances, how the Universe works. The major arguments are whether Sungenis is Anti-Semite, is a Conspiracy theorist, is well or ill qualified as per his education. Do we sense any kind of ad hominem here?]

John Médaille
RG does he talk about the weather?

Yes, I bring up the objection. The whole interview is me more or less challenging him and bringing up objections.

Basically, if the earth is the center of Mass for the whole universe, you will see the same effects. This is also what Einstein, Thirring and Mach also observe, because the problem was what people expected to see based on Newtonian mechanics they did not see. Thus the argument based on the weather is based on Newtonian mechancis, which only takes into account forces in the solar system. Once you factor in effects outside the solar system, the whole Newtonian system falls apart. This is why Newton was entirely left behind in the 20th century, and why Einstein developed relativity, as an alternate explanation apart from arguing the earth really is the center of mass.

It was a great interview, even if you come away saying "these people are nuts."

John Médaille
The paper does not mention weather.

No, I was talking about the interview I did with Delano, not Thirring's paper. The principles in that paper supply the answer on weather, which I provided above.

John Médaille
Where in the interview does he address that problem?

Alas, I don't recall, somewhere in the middle maybe?

John Médaille
The paper seems to be talking about rotating spheres.

The bigger problem is, under Relativity, the question of the weather is irrelevant, because all effects are relative. Everything we see in the universe will look the same no matter what direction you look. So if one could disprove say geocentrism, or the opposite that the earth moves, one at the same time disproves relativity whose central tenant is that we can't prove one thing in any direction because all forces are relative to whatever coordinate points one uses.

John Médaille
Pardon me, RG, that's nonsense. But I ask again, how far is the sun from the earth?

John its not. You need to read more on relativity. Read this:

Einstein: The Life and TimesPaperback– April 10, 2007
by Ronald W. Clark(Author)

As far as the sun's distance, I don't know off the top of my head. I could look it up on wikipedia and pretend I know, but it is irrelevant to the question.

John Médaille
Found it. Total nonsense. Weather is caused by the cosmos and not the rotation of the Earth? Weather forecasts are highly accurate, yet they do not involve any astronomical calculations. How is that possible, that calculations that involve something that is not the cause turn out to be so accurate? It would be the equivalent of predicting the daily change in the stock market by the daily changes in my weight. If the forecasters are using a factor that does not in fact exist, how do they get it so right?

Fascinating! My father was one of the world's experts on PTOLEMY in the 1950s/60s and my "godfather" Giorgio de Santillana wrote this . . . !!

The crime of GalileoHardcover– 1958
by Giorgio DE SANTILLANA(Author)

John Médaille
The significance of the distance to the sun means that you can calculate the speed of the sun as it travels around the earth. If that radius is 93 million miles, the speed it is moving would be pi x 93M/24. That's an unbelievable speed, but that's just for the nearest star. Very quickly, you would have stars moving faster than the speed of light.

[He is presuming distance to α Centauri or 63 Ophiuchi, or Sirius is known by same method as distance to Sun and therefore very well - it is not the case.]


Not at all. The effects work locally the same. What you are saying is that Einstein is also wrong in his assessment, albeit Einstein used that to argue all fores are relative, not that the earth is stationary. Part of that assessment is that the forces work the same in a stationary earth with the universe rotating around it as where the earth moves in a solar system at the arm pit of the galaxy in the rear end of the universe.

John Médaille
RG, what you are saying is that you can accurately calculate effects not only without reference to the cause, but with reference to a cause that does not in fact exist. This strains all credulity.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
John Médaille, red herring "weather":

"Weather is caused by the cosmos and not the rotation of the Earth? Weather forecasts are highly accurate, yet they do not involve any astronomical calculations. How is that possible, that calculations that involve something that is not the cause turn out to be so accurate?"

Rotation of Earth and rotation of cosmos predict exactly the same phenomena : winds going westward along the equator.

All the rest of the weather forecasts is based on much more humdrum and detailed observation than on Earth rotating.

John Médaille, red herring "the coriolis effect,"

Again, a rotating cosmos explains exactly the same phenomenon.

Especially with a rotating aether and not just rotating celestial bodies.

"what you are saying is that you can accurately calculate effects not only without reference to the cause, but with reference to a cause that does not in fact exist. This strains all credulity."

No, but with reference to a cause understood backwards. And its workings understood with another backwards leap of faith compensating for it.

John Médaille
Hans-Georg, whatever the resolution of the problem of weather, it is not a "red herring," but a problem that has to be addressed.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
John Médaille, red herring "tides":

deretour : Sir George Darwin corrected Galileo Galilei on tides, you know ...

Triviū, Quadriviū, 7 cætera : F = GMm / R2

The Plot Thickens ...

"'The high tide,' King Alfred said...

... 'The High Tide and the Turn.' "

Correction to Previous

For Math Freaks: I take it the gravitational constant is below zero ...

Some Experimental Challenges

As to red herring weather, I meant [that] your position [that] geocentrism lacks an explanation is a red herring.

John Médaille
Let us say that we disagree on the definition of "red herring."

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"And at what distance do they place the sun?"

Probably RG already answered this, but unlike distance to alpha Centauri, the trigonometry to distance to sun is not "trigonometry over time assuming earth is moving" but, as any decent trigonometry simultaneous such and based on where sunlight hits the moon to which we know the distance by another perfectly legitimate trigonometry by observing it from opposite points of equator.

Fact is though, that since our worldview shifted from geocentric to heliocentric, the social climate shifted in reverse from theocentric to egocentric.

John Médaille
So how far is it?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Look it up in wikipedia, John Médaille! That is what I use whenever I have to make a calculation involving distance of Sun.

Like here, if you know Spanish:

En lengua romance en Antimodernism y de mis caminaciones : Parece que me equivoqué sobre contemporaneidad de la rotación del Eter al nivel del Sol y de la Luna?

Didn't actually quote distance, only that Sun is 389 times further out and up than Moon.

John Médaille
It's 93 million miles. From that you can calculate the speed. That alone is enough to debunk the theory. And that's the closest star. The others must be moving faster than the speed of light.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"It's 93 million miles. From that you can calculate the speed."


"That alone is enough to debunk the theory."

Why, if it wasn't to Riccioli?

John Médaille
The question is, why isn't it to you?

[Most generally, I could have answered: if it wasn't to Riccioli, why should it be to me? He was not much off on either distance or daily speed of Sun, so it is not as if the argument if such a one had been unknown to him. But my answer was:]

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Because God who is rotating the universe is not submitted to a speed limit.

Now, we have another part.

"The others must be moving faster than the speed of light."

Possibly or possibly not. As "parallax" distances are taken by assuming Earth moves, they are moot.

This means, they need only be further away than furthest object in Solar System. And no, I have not found this involves a speed of light, but even if, so what? I am not bound to the theory of Einstein.

I will cite a paragraph, which I wrote while refuting someone else, namely Heliocentric Creationists, on distance of Pluto and its speed:

Neptune is directly centred on Sun. Sun on Earth. This means that radius of Neptune around Earth involves at any moment either sum or difference between the distances Sun-Neptune and Sun-Earth. Or in some cases Hypothenuse, which is a kind of both sum and difference (in 3-4-5 triangle, hypothenuse 5 is greater than difference 1 and smaller than sum 7). Say Sun was towards Virgo of us and Neptune toward Pisces, Neptune's distance from us would be SN - SE. Or both were to Virgo or both to Pisces (automatically implies Neptune is beyond Sun, unlike with Venus and Mercury), Neptune's distance from us would be SN + SE. A case where they were neither in opposition nor in conjunction would like hypothenuse case for triangle lie in the range SN - SE < x < SN + SE. This means that maximal radius of Neptune around Earth is SN + SE. Maximal distance SN = 4,537,580,900 km + maximal distance SE = 151,930,000 km = 4,689,510,900 km. Let us multiply by π = 14,732,532,992 km/day, let us divide by 24 = 613,855,541 km/h. Divide by 3600, you get km/sec = 170,515. Which is less than 299,492 km/sec. Perhaps by "any object beyond the orbit of Neptune" means "any object approching orbits further away"? Now, Pluto has a calculated aphelium of 7,311,000,000 km from Sun, but a perihelium of 4,437,000,000 km from Sun. And it seems this perihelium was reached in 1989 Sep 05. If its Orbital period is 247.68 years, the aphelium is reached 123.84 years before or after 1989 Sept 5th. But after = in future way beyond us. Before = before it was discovered in 1930. So, the aphelium of Pluto has never been observed. We have never seen Pluto in a position to move faster than light around us if Geocentrism is true.

Here is where I wrote it:

New blog on the kid : And CMI also felt a need to "refute Geocentrism" ...

[Part of a series, btw : see links in top of each message.]

John Médaille
" Because God who is rotating the universe is not submitted to a speed limit." I am speechless.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Before God's power, or before my belief in it?

You should be before God's power, not before me!

How about reading the paragraph I quoted from where same problem was brought up?

"Neptune is directly centred on Sun. " etc.

John Médaille
" Neptune is directly centred on Sun. Sun on Earth. " Does this mean that Neptune is rotating around the Sun while the Sun is rotating around the Earth?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Yes. While the Sun is rotating Eastward through the aether at a proper speed taking a year full circle, and Westward WITH the aether, sharing its speed minus its proper speed and therefore making it Westward around Earth in 24 hours.

John Médaille
Okay. This is weirder than I thought.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Well, Tycho Brahe and Riccioli believed in this socalled weirdness.

You may agree it won't work as a Universe without God and angels, right?

John Médaille
No, I don't. God establishes laws which govern the universe, and we can study the material causes apart from God. The final cause of course is God, but that is not a part of our observations. This principle is directly out of Scholasticism and Thomas Aquinas.

Huh? ALL *causality* -- as a part of CREATION -- depends on the *creator* (and cannot be "apart" from Him) . . . !!

[He was citing from interview with Rick DeLano, but it was so apt, I thought he was answering John Médaille.]

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"God establishes laws which govern the universe, and we can study the material causes apart from God."

Sure. But we cannot exclude God from being a DIRECT cause in any part of the Universe.

Eucharist and Creation of souls at each human conception you already admit. Two more, Creation Week plus Day and Night (which the Bible consider as proclaiming His glory).

"The final cause of course is God, but that is not a part of our observations."

God is also First EFFICIENT cause, and if He Himself is not observed, His effects are. That is from I, Q2, A3.

Meaning, daily rotation of Universe can very well be, and St Thomas Aquinas thought it was, a direct effect of God's power.

"It's all about our place in the UNIVERSE" . . . !! -- Rick Delano

Hans-Georg Lundahl
New blog on the kid : Proximate causes are not always secondary

// "It's all about our place in the UNIVERSE" . . . !! //

That was not from my links, from which link was it, please?

I'm listening to the interview with Rick Delano (where he emphasizes this just before the question about Bruno @ around 40 minutes) . . .

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Ah, ok.

John Médaille, if you want some more reading while I am offline, here are two wiki, plus a Latin quote on my blog from Riccioli:

English Wikipedia : Tycho Brahe

English Wikipedia : Giovanni Battista Riccioli

New blog on the kid : What Opinion did Riccioli call the Fourth and Most Common One?


John Médaille
Are all the other planets rotating around the sun or is it just Neptune.

In the model of Tycho Brahe, all the planets rotate around the Sun, which orbits the earth like the moon. When Brahe's calculations are followed out, the movements of the planets are exactly the same as Kepler's model. Then again, Kepler got all his data from Brahe and just re-worked it.

Mic'd Up "The Principle: Is Earth Really the Center of the Universe?"
Church Militant

The argument of geocentrists (stationary earth) currently is that from the perspective of standing on the earth, Einstein's theories can correctly predict all the perceived motions. And it's true. Scientists have devised a theory that shows the earth is not the center of the universe based on the preformed conclusion that the earth is not the center of the universe. That is the point of geocentrists' objections. This sort of thing happens all the time in science; come to a conclusion and then only entertain discussion about data and observations that support the goal of supporting the preformed conclusion. It's not scientific at all. But, it happens all the time. Just my two cents.

Basically, scientists are saying "geocentrism is crazy because we don't want to consider it might be correct". And while that is insulting to the scientists because it shows they aren't really thinking scientifically, it's accurate.

I don't understand what's happening in this thread.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
John Médaille, "Are all the other planets rotating around the sun or is it just Neptune."

As answered by RG, Tycho Brahe considers visible three things orbit Earth directly: stars, fastest, sun, mid fast, 24 h per circuit, moon slowest. Then a lot of bodies circle the Sun. That would include Neptune and Pluto.

Some of these - Mars, Jupiter, Saturn have objecs circling them.

The kind of Geocentrism St Thomas considered to be correct was the Ptolemaic one, in which all objects directly circle Earth. This one was also believed, pardoxically, by Epicurus. I think the Tycho Brahe model is less easy for Epicurus to explain atheistically.

As has been known since antiquity, the PREMISES of any argument *cannot* be provided by LOGIC. Instead, the *premises* come from what is often called "metaphysics" or what is more accurately called GRAMMAR (as it was understood for roughly 2000 years.)

This ANCIENT QUARREL is the topic of Marshall McLuhan's 1943 Cambridge PhD Thesis -- The Classical Trivium (not published until 2006) . .

The Classical Trivium: The Place of Thomas Nashe in the Learning of His Time Hardcover – April 1, 2006*
by Marshall McLuhan (Author), W. Terrence Gordon (Editor)

*[Note month and day!]

Hans Georg Lundahl
You mean the first premises.

I should declare one of mine : believing senses as long as not proven illusory in a matter.

If I were atheist, Tychonian Geocentrism would be proven illusory to me. Since its possibility would imply a God. And probably angels too.

Since I am not an atheist, observations confirming Geocentrism up to Tychonian and more precisions, with intricacy of motion, is NOT proven impossible, and so I stay with senses.

Which is why McLuhan, who converted to Catholicism in 1937 (at age 25) was so interested in the BALANCE of our senses -- as constructed by the communications technologies we use . . . !!

McLuhan on Maui : An Ancient Quarrel in Modern America

Hans Georg Lundahl
Will have a look.

St Thomas was concerned with two senses confirming same impression to have certainty. But for geostasis we have that.
McLuhan was a "protege" of Etienne Gilson, and a close friend of Bernard Muller-Thym, from whom he learned great deal about St. Thomas (and a few others) . . .

Amazon : Establishment of the University of Being in the Doctrine of Meister Eckhart of Hochheim Paperback – March 10, 2003
by Bernard J. Muller-Thym (Author), Etienne Gilson (Introduction)

Ah, Étienne Gilson rings a bell.

The Thomist who was historian of ideas rather than contemporary philosopher.

How come Étienne Gilson and Duheim never became Geocentric?

Jacques Maritain, the other Thomist, was of course too busy applying Thomistic concepts to new knowledge to check whether it was really knowledge against Thomistic epistemology, I guess.

Yes, Gilson was the man who put MEDIEVAL *philosophy* on the dinner plate (working from the Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies in Toronto) . . .

Interesting question as to whether it ever occurred to him that Relativity drives us to reconsider GEO-CENTRISM . . .

Alas, my father would have been *very* interested in this discussion (as a historian of ancient mathematics and leading expert on Ptolemy), as would Giorgio de Santillana, my "godfather" who brought roses to my mother the day after I was born . . . <g>

Amazon : Solar and planetary longitudes for years -2500 to 2000 by 10-day intervals Paperback – 1963
by William D Stahlman (Author)

Amazon : An Account of the Astronomical Discoveries of Kepler. a Reprinting of the 1804 Text With a Foreword By William D. Stahlman Hardcover – January 1, 1963
by Robert Small (Author)

[Relinked to Crime of Galileo]

Yes, Maritain was far more interested in "modern" philosophy and needed to be "lectured" by McLuhan in a remarkable letter sent him in May 1969 (as detailed on my FB "homepage") . . .

"Whereas the Renaissance print-oriented individual thought of himself as a fragmented entity, the electric-oriented person thinks of himself as tribally inclusive of all mankind. Electric information environments being utterly ethereal fosters the illusion of the world as spiritual substance. It is now a reasonable facsimile of the mystical body, a blatant manifestation of the Anti-Christ. After all, the Prince of this World is a very great electrical engineer.

"May I suggest that just as the Roman clergy defected in the Gutenberg era on the illusion of inner light, even greater numbers may be expected to defect under the mystical attractions of the electric light. Since our reason has been given to us to understand natural processes, why have men never considered the consequences of their own artefacts upon their modes of self awareness? I have devoted several books to this subject. There is a deep-seated repugnance in the human breast against understanding the processes in which we are involved. Such understanding involves far too much responsibility for our actions."

(Marshall McLuhan to Jacques Maritain, May 6, 1969)

Amazon : Letters of Marshall McLuhan Hardcover – March 1, 1987
by Marshall McLuhan (Author), Corrine McLuhan (Editor), Matie Molinaro (Editor), William Toye (Editor)

Ah, ok. Noted.

I have wondered about electricity too, but Satan is not the only electrical engineer.

Other aspect : print to TV = passive information culture for most, activity reserved to a few.

Internet : interactivity restored somewhat.

But McLuhan is promoting a bit of "nosce teipsum", which I do not think we are meant to do.

We are created to get to know God, not ourselves, except as a means of knowing God, except as a means of loving God and neighbour.

McLuhan is *difficult* on his own -- owing to the problems of his own times and his place in them -- but he then becomes IMPOSSIBLE when seen though his many "interpreters."

In 2011, honoring the centenary of his birth, I guest-edited a special issue of RENASCENCE magazine on him, many parts of which have now been posted here . .


And McLuhan had what exact take on the problem here at hand?

You see, I looked a little bit up. And I got it - was it McLuhan? - took the position premisses are derived from metaphyics, i e from grammar. But that is misunderstanding the position of grammar in the older curricula to identify it with metaphysics.

It was more like general knowledge enough to know what you are talking about. Enough, even more directly important, to know what Homer or Virgil is talking about.

So, grammar sets us with experience rather than with metaphysics. As source of first premisses. Just as St Thomas does.

For my part, I see no merit in mastering McLuhan for his being difficult, unless he be also true.

As to Kepler, whom you also linked to the discoveries of, he did a few. Riccioli incorporated his elliptic orbits.

However, not all of his ideas were genuine and proven discoveries, i e Heliocentrism and Electric Universe (revived by Missler) were not.

He be also true (so, if you're interested, start with his PhD and then move on his last work) . . . !! <g>

Amazon : Laws of Media: The New Science Paperback – September 16, 1992
by Marshall McLuhan (Author), Eric McLuhan (Author)

What was linking to was my *father's* preface to a book regarding Kepler (which does *not* mean that my father "be also true") . . .

To the best of my knowledge, McLuhan didn't have anything to say about GEO-CENTRISM but I'll ask his son Eric . . . <g>

Ah, I'll be looking forward!

Btw, your Father made a foreword to the book on Kepler, but it was really from 1804.

2 commentaires: