HGL's F.B. writings: Quick Question on Geocentrism · Next Question on Geocentrism · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Levi Joshua Pingleton Nearly Right · Baronius is NOT Galileo · Moon Landing, Not TOTALLY Proven, and Even If Completely True, No Proof Against Geocentrism
- Carl Tan
- same group, 23.VIII.2024
- Hello, i am sure you have all heard about the theories saying the moon landings were fake. I have my own theories about what really happened. I have watched a few of the moon landing videos on youtube. Here is my conclusion. The moon landings were real, but they did not see what they wanted to see, instead they saw what they did not want to see. And that is why the moon missions ended, because if they had continued doing the manned moon missions, the truth would eventually spill into the public.
I believe that they saw a completely still earth when they were on the moon, and i also believe they saw the sun and the rest of the universe revolving around the earth. And both would be visible on the moon, since the moon revolves much more slowly around the earth compared to the sun and the universe.
- I
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
I believe that they saw a completely still earth when they were on the moon, and i also believe they saw the sun and the rest of the universe revolving around the earth. And both would be visible on the moon, since the moon revolves much more slowly around the earth compared to the sun and the universe.
No. The universe revolves around the Earth in 23 h 55 minutes, the Sun in 24 h, the Moon in 24 h 55 min.
The Moon would hide the universe revolving, since facing the Sun and revolving. Its movement would hide the stillness of Earth, since a moving train hides the stillness of trees.
The Moonlanding, if totally real, if totally honest and upright, is and remains irrelevant for the Heliocentrism / Geocentrism debate.
- Mil Sneler
- Hans-Georg Lundahl Exactly. It’s relativity and what moves as far as eyes can see is dependent on the perspective of the observer.
- Carl Tan
- Author
- Hans-Georg Lundahl The moon revolves around the earth once every 28 days, so it is much slower. So the motions of the sun and the universe would be visible, as would the rotation of the earth if that were true.
- Mil Sneler
- Carl Tan the motion will be visible from any vantage point, from the moon, from the earth, from the sun. Eyes can’t tell us if anything is actually standing still and which is standing still and which one is moving. It’s called relative motion.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Carl Tan "once every 28 days" - no, not around earth, but around the zodiac.
The Moon moves WITH the Zodiac, with a delay caused by that, so, while the Zodiac circles Earth once every 23 h 55 minutes, Moon does so once every 24 h 55 minutes. Have you seriously NEVER seen a moon rise and set the same night? THAT's the concrete movement the Moon has around Earth.
You looked up a fact, you didn't bother to translate it, and you consequently misapply it.
- II
- Simon Skinner
- Without an absolute (preferred, special) frame of reference, ALL motion is relative. A preferred frame of reference has never been detected, nor is one required to explain what we see.
Observations from the moon would just show the same relative motions we already see.
- II a
- Levi J. Pingleton
- Simon Skinner many experiments have aimed at detecting Earth's movement... they've all failed. Not once has their ever been experimental data they showed the Earth is moving. NOT ONE.
- Simon Skinner
- Levi J. Pingleton That's true, because as I wrote above 👆 there's no absolute / preferred frame of reference, meaning there's no such thing as absolute motion. Equally, there's no such thing as stationary in absolute terms.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Simon Skinner "there's no such thing as stationary in absolute terms."
If the universe is finite, there is.
- Simon Skinner
- Hans-Georg Lundahl No, there isn't. Your definition might be 'stationary relative to everything else' but that's still relative.
No measurable difference between any inertial frame has ever been found. This underpins general relativity which is one of the most accurately and widely validated theories in science.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Stationary relative to everything else would be stationary in absolute terms.
"No measurable difference between any inertial frame has ever been found."
A thing does not need to be measurable from our perspective to exist. The limits of (our) observation are not the limits of being.
- II b
- Carl Tan
- Author
- Carl Tan
- Simon Skinner If the earth is the center of the universe and is motionless, then the earth is the absolute frame of reference, it means no motion is relative.
- Simon Skinner
- Carl Tan "IF". However, in reality we find absolutely NO detectable difference in the laws of physics between inertial frames. No preferred frame of reference has ever been found. Ever.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Simon Skinner Reality and what we find are not identic circles of the Venn diagramme.
There are other implications than the kind of tests you think of which can help to determine between the "reference frames."
Generally: if I am Geocentric, I take the observations of Sun, Moon, Stars (by sight, and for Sun also heat sensation) and of Earth's stillness (equilibrial sense of the inner ears) at face value, because there is no sign it SHOULD be taken as an illusion (of the parallactic type, like trees seen moving from a train window). I then take this reality as basis for further conclusions, like God exists and moves the whole shebang around us each day, and angels exist and move individual celestial bodies even somewhat in relation to the whole shebang. BUT if I'm Heliocentric, I discount that explanation (though there is no reason other than Atheist prejudice to determine I should), and conclude from a complex speculation on celestian mechanics that I ALSO should discount the face value of observations. The former makes more sense.
To a Christian, specifically: if I am a Geocentric, there is no trigonometry by parallax of starlight, as the distance moved by the star need not be the same as the distance moved by the Sun in their relations to the Zodiac or Sideral dome. This allows me to posit the fix stars are a relatively close by collection (say, 1 light day up) of relatively small celestial bodies (Betelgeuse, if one light day up: The radius of Betelgeuse would be around the distance of flight between Paris and Belushya Guba, Arkhangelsk Oblast, Russia. The diameter would be a bit larger than half the diameter of earth.).
This involves:
a) there is a beyond this limited sphere of fix stars (that's where Jesus went on Ascension Day, and Our Lady at Her Assumption)
b) the starlight takes one day of our time to go from star to our eyes or optical instruments, there is no Distant Starlight problem to interfere with YEC.
[Betelgeuse quote is from: With Stars in a Sphere One Light Day Up, How Big is Betelgeuse?, from 2019, on my main blog. The post also involves calculations on how I got that result.]
- III
- Johnny Proctor
- Admin
- Johnny Proctor
- I'd love to hear more about this theory. At first blush it seems plausible. I wonder what counterpoints contradict it.
- Dolores Flynn
- Johnny Proctor It would be so awesome to see. I would probably faint.
- Carl Tan
- Author
- Johnny Proctor Ok, basically, the sun and the universe revolves around the earth once per day, while the moon revolves around the earth once per 28 days. So if you were on the moon, you would be able to see the sun and the rest of the universe revolve around the earth, because the moon's motion is much slower than the sun and the universe. Now if the earth were rotating once per day, then that would also be visible on the moon, since again, the moons orbit would be much slower than the so-called rotation of the earth. And i believed, the NASA astronauts did see a motionless earth and a moving sun and universe, and that is why they stopped the manned missions to the moon. They didn't want the Truth to get out.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Johnny Proctor If you have ever lived in a portal town with tides, I hope you know what to reply to "the moon revolves around the earth once per 28 days"
- IV
- Mike Fahy
- How could they see a still earth if the moon was moving? I think Dr. Sungenis has come up with the most likely scenario about both the moon landings and relationship between the earth and the other bodies in our solar system.
- Mil Sneler
- Mike Fahy Can you explain further? I am not aware of any possible scientific scenario that could within the system itself distinguish between relative and absolute? You would have to be that absolute in order to accurately describe motions relative to absolute. In other words, you would have to be observer outside of the universe
- Carl Tan
- Author
- Mike Fahy Because the moon moves much slower than the sun and the universe, and if the earth was indeed rotating then it would be visible from the moon because the moon revolves around the earth once every 28 days, whereas the sun is revolving around the earth once every day. If the earth was rotating then it would be rotating once every day, so such motion would be visible from the much slower moon.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Check the gif in this page by NASA, it's about tides:
https://science.nasa.gov/moon/tides/
The thing that's called "view from earth" in the lower left edge of it is what we as Geocentrics see the Moon doing. It is certainly NOT taking 28 days to cross the same horizon twice.
- V
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
since the moon revolves much more slowly around the earth compared to the sun and the universe.
I think you may be thinking of 27 d 7 h 43 min 11.5 s (sidereal) / 29 d 12 h 44 min 2.9 s (synodic).
To a Geocentric, this is not Moon's orbit around the Earth, it's Moon's orbit along the Zodiac or Ecliptic Plane.
As the Zodiac is rotating around Earth at 23 h 55 min (approx) in the opposite direction, Moon also has, concretely, a quasi-daily orbit around Earth. It's highly relevant for tides, and no Oceanographer is likely to ebb in information about the c. 24 h 55 minutes. Pun very certainly intended.
To clarify. Carl Tan is basically pretending that while the Sun circles Earth "28 times" (rough approximation), the Moon circles it once. He is very unlikely to have based this on direct observation. Direct observation would more like suggest that while Sun circles the Earth "28 times", the Moon circles it "27 times" ...
When I did, a failed, still attempt, at refuting tides as evidence reality is highly governed by gravity, I obviously learned about the Moon's daily movement in connexion with tides. The high tide, as opposed to the ebb, is when Moon is either in Zenith or Nadir, so, one circle of the Moon equals two high tides. There are very roughly speaking two high tides per day, but they don't come the same time each day. There are also solar high tides, coinciding with or getting in between the Lunar ones. At Full Moon and New Moon, a Solar Tide and a Lunar Tide will coincide. If they coincide for 12:00, any locality, the previous Solar one (there) was 00:00, but the previous Lunar one slightly before that, the next Solar one is 24:00, but the next Lunar one comes after that. Obviously, when a Solar and Lunar tide are separated by only 27 minutes, they will be the same tide, in a somewhat complex rhythm of prolongation combined with slight variations of maximal water height. This in turn is again an over simplification, since the gravitational pulls (of Moon or of Sun) on the water or backpulls on the earth are not directly tied to maximal height, but rather the gravitation difference is a tidal force which accelerates the movement of the water upward or earth downward, and this acceleration takes some time to get a tide actually effected.
But more realistically, when he admits the Sun circles Earth once every day, he's "applying the referential frame" of non-rotating Earth, and when he pretends the Moon circles Earth only once every 28 days, he's applying the incompatible "referential frame" of Earth rotating. If Geocentrism is in fact true, only the former applies, but whichever were true, or even if relativity were the only absolute, it's a mistake to mix the "referential frames."
