lundi 22 janvier 2018

On Geocentrism, Peer Review, Sungenis and Pearlman

Any evidence that the Earth is the center of our solar system or this is just a pseudoscience group?

Roger M Pearlman
I think a good chance Earth was the literal center until sometime day 3, see SPIRAL's 'SNAP' hypothesis.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Why would there even be a "snap"?

What's stopping Earth from still being the centre right now?

Roger M Pearlman
Hans-Georg Lundahl per SPIRAL's 'SNAP' hypothesis we were at one time , sometime ending day 3, the literal center of what is now the sun. we were snapped out like a solar flare by electro-magnetic radiation. obviously we are no longer the center of the sun, which acts like a central heating system for us among other things. so too we and the sun may have been snapped from the center of our Galaxy to a more optimal spot by or before day 4.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
OK, sounds exotic.

According to Geocentrism, we were and are the centre of the Universe and God Himself provided light for three days, the Created Sun on day four, above us.

Roger M Pearlman
Yes we are still the center of the universe, but now the sun is inside of us (our Earth-Sun ecliptic orbit..) instead of our being the center of it. :)

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Why would Sun be "inside our Earth-Sun ecliptic orbit"?

Do you have any proof or are you just following what you learned in school?

Roger M Pearlman
Hans-Georg Lundahl each year we do a loop around the sun w//it being about 93M miles toward the center, no?

that is how we do parallax..

to measure objects w/in x light years

Hans-Georg Lundahl
And if instead it is the sun which each year lags behind a full circle against the motion of aether around Earth?

Then the known distance is not one involved in any triangle involving any stars. They are not reflecting Sunlight.

This in turn means, we have no parallax (the Bessel phenomenon being misnamed so, but being another thing), and stars could be one or two light DAYS above us.

One or two light DAYS.

"You know, light has a fixed speed. If a star is 13.5 billion light years away, it shone 13.5 billion light years ago"

Yes, but if it is really no further up than 1 light DAY, it means it shone 24 hours ago. Or 23 hours 55 minutes and 4 seconds ago.

Do you see any difference in implications about Young Earth Creationism?

Roger M Pearlman
Hans-Georg Lundahl sounds like a legit alternate hypothesis if and until true falsification, that should get serious consideration. as should SPIRAL. The advantage of SPIRAL not only does it explain why distant starlight can align w/ 6k rounded years, it shows why the overwhelming empirical evidence assuming the cosmological redshift of distant starlight is real (as doe SCM and SPIRAL) falsifies all deep-time dependent scientific hypotheses.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
The advantage of Geocentrism with angelic movers is, you don't have that distant starlight to account for.

Also makes aliens very moot.

"If astronomers supposing it 1400 ly away say it is 5 times the volume of earth, that means it is in each dimension approximately 1.7 times the volume of Earth. However, if you divide this by 1400 to reduce to one light year and then further by 365 to reduce to one light day, you get a very small fraction, which multiplied with 12600 km as diameter of Earth give you a diameter of Kepler 452b as 41 meters and 91 centimeters. I checked on a converter to get 137.5 ft, that is 137 ft and six inches."

How Big is Kepler 452? A Geocentric Minority Report (comments' section)

Good luck trying to explain how aliens evolved on that small globe!

Roger M Pearlman
OK but SPIRAL also explains why we are the center of the universe, have by far the optimal view of the entire universe, that the entire universe is visible (the visible universe approximates the entire universe, all agree we are by the center of the visible thus the entire universe, that there is no visible starlight that had a departure point beyond 5778 years to date, ire the years elapsed subsequent to the end of the day 4 cosmic inflation expansion event...:)

so YeC science, Deep-time doctrine, assumptions, premise.. not valid science as falsified by the overwhelming empirical evidence that is the prevalent cosmological redshift of distant starlight (assuming real and that light speed limited to the speed of light.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
With some more exotic assumptions on the side of SPIRAL.

Roger M Pearlman
Hans-Georg Lundahl yet SPIRAL is/makes a far lesser claim than the current Standard Cosmological Model! (SCM)

We both agree in real science the greater the claim the greater the burden of proof! Thus SCM has a far greater burden of proof than either of our models!

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Oh, that is certainly true.

The proof for mine is mainly ocular evidence along with that of inner ears.

The only disproof would be proving God and angels do not exist.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Any evidence that the Earth is the center of our solar system"

Hmmmm ... of the visible universe.

Look up in the sky. A few days and a few nights. You see the heavenly bodies revolving from East to West. You can reckon on the other side of the earth they are also revolving from East to West, which would look like from West to East if you could look down through the earth and see it, because next day they are back.

"or this is just a pseudoscience group?"

I would say, the burden of evidence is clearly (after what I just mentioned, you can check it yourself any day you want) on the Heliocentric side, those saying Earth moves.

Anything peer reviewed?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
So, you believe in the superstition of peer review?

Like, a Geocentric has proven nothing as long as he hasn't got his article published after Peer review by Heliocentrics?

Gimmi a break!

Hans-Georg Lundahl why isn’t this geocentric earth common knowledge?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Look up in the sky, then study human cosmology over centuries and over geography.

The why is simple : a century of compulsory schooling a k a brainwashing.

Hans-Georg Lundahl brainwashing? I would rather trust generations of scientists such as Galileo, newton, bacon and all modern astronomers rather than an internet blogger.

The reason peer review exist is to ensure that all stupid claims are tested and then thrown out. That’s what happened to geocentrism.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
AM "I would rather trust generations of scientists such as Galileo, newton, bacon and all modern astronomers rather than an internet blogger."

Even while Galileo, Newton and Bacon all lacked certain knowledge we have? Including the internet blogger?

While "all modern astronomers" are into a mold, because if you don't accept that clue, you are not allowed to do the observational science at the institutions?

"The reason peer review exist"

Is a kind of Communism, yes. If you mean pre-publishing.

As to post-publishing, it has not debunked either Sungenis or me.

"is to ensure that all stupid claims are tested and then thrown out."

Sounds like what your science teacher would have told you some while ago.

With many people parrotting that, one can consider some masses as more or less brainwashed, not saying it is necessarily your own case.

"That’s what happened to geocentrism."

Sorry, it is not. Your history of science sucks badly. Books claiming that Columbus was up against a clergy that believed as dogma the Earth was flat are not history, they are historical novels.

If you think the kinds of science that are relevant to plumbing are comparable, you are wrong.

You won't bungle any house's drains by being wrong on what heavenly body is one and what is centre of universe and therefore not heavenly.

Precisely as you won't get the wrong water pressure by being wrong about age of the earth.

The kinds of disciplines that are relevant to plumbing are such that peer review also really works (mostly). You can in practise test what is being said, and what doesn't work can be thrown out until it is modified in a way that works.

AM in Sungenis books you will find only peer reviewed articles. But if you read it, effort is requested. For example: traditional cosmology says there is redshift ergo galaxies are moving away from earth (or from each other, if space is "curved"). Peer reviewed articles will show you: there are approximately 60 different ways to explain redshift.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
60 ways? I had heard of 4 ...

JH "in Sungenis books you will find only peer reviewed articles."

Not sure AM would recognise them as such.

Tons of evidence in Sungenis' Galileo was wrong, and on this website:

The Copernican Principle: Door Number One or Door Number Two?
February 27, 2017, by Rick DeLano

That ain’t evidence. It’s nonsense.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
JH - Sungenis and DeLano are generally mostly good.

They miss the mootness of parallax in Geocentrism (which is one big asset with it) and they have objected to angelic movers, at least to discussing them in a scientific context.

If heavenly bodies are moved by angels, scientific contexts don't get more accurate by pretending they are moved by Newtonian vectors alone.

Hans-Georg Lundahl sungenis got his doctorate via mail order.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
AM - that is first of all not relevant for his argument, and second, a perfectly licit procedure.

Aucun commentaire:

Enregistrer un commentaire