What exactly went wrong


#1

This sidereal astronomical point of view does not exist,it is a fiction created by John Flamsteed in order to reduce celestial sphere coordinates to terrestial longitude coordinates.

nordita.dk/~steen/fysik51/ast/astt8_files/AT40103_files/AACHCIR0.JPG

Newton built his Principia and ballistics agenda on that false astronomical format by converting Flamsteed’s terrestial/celestial circumpolar equivalency for axial rotation to a geocentric/heliocentric orbital equivalency.

All matters on time,space,motion,geometry,astronomy have now been reduced to self-congratulating pretensiousness that is anti-Christian at its root.You lot suck the virtue out of the accomplishments of the great astronomers for the pretensiousness of stupid and silly theories.

Astronomy stopped dead at Newton and was slowly replaced by celestial cataloguing.If nobody here can understand exactly what went wrong they need only take note of the words of Copernicus which applies to the vast majority here who have little understanding of these great matters just like Newton.

" . . . although they have extracted from them the apparent motions, with numerical agreement, nevertheless . . . . They are just like someone including in a picture hands, feet, head, and other limbs from different places, well painted indeed, but not modeled from the same body, and not in the least matching each other, so that a monster would be produced from them rather than a man. Thus in the process of their demonstrations, which they call their system, they are found either to have missed out something essential, or to have brought in something inappropriate and wholly irrelevant, which would not have happened to them if they had followed proper principles. For if the hypotheses which they assumed had not been fallacies, everything which follows from them could be independently verified." De revolutionibus, 1543

The horror at the destruction of the genius of Copernicus,Kepler and Roemer for Newtonian empiricalism may be lost on Catholics but the crime against inspiration was always the one that can never be forgiven or compromised with.Suspend me if you with like you did before but I reserve the right to be dissapointed and disgusted at this awful silence.


#2

[quote=oriel36]This sidereal astronomical point of view does not exist,it is a fiction created by John Flamsteed in order to reduce celestial sphere coordinates to terrestial longitude coordinates.

nordita.dk/~steen/fysik51/ast/astt8_files/AT40103_files/AACHCIR0.JPG

Newton built his Principia and ballistics agenda on that false astronomical format by converting Flamsteed’s terrestial/celestial circumpolar equivalency for axial rotation to a geocentric/heliocentric orbital equivalency.

All matters on time,space,motion,geometry,astronomy have now been reduced to self-congratulating pretensiousness that is anti-Christian at its root.You lot suck the virtue out of the accomplishments of the great astronomers for the pretensiousness of stupid and silly theories.

Astronomy stopped dead at Newton and was slowly replaced by celestial cataloguing.If nobody here can understand exactly what went wrong they need only take note of the words of Copernicus which applies to the vast majority here who have little understanding of these great matters just like Newton.

" . . . although they have extracted from them the apparent motions, with numerical agreement, nevertheless . . . . They are just like someone including in a picture hands, feet, head, and other limbs from different places, well painted indeed, but not modeled from the same body, and not in the least matching each other, so that a monster would be produced from them rather than a man. Thus in the process of their demonstrations, which they call their system, they are found either to have missed out something essential, or to have brought in something inappropriate and wholly irrelevant, which would not have happened to them if they had followed proper principles. For if the hypotheses which they assumed had not been fallacies, everything which follows from them could be independently verified." De revolutionibus, 1543

The horror at the destruction of the genius of Copernicus,Kepler and Roemer for Newtonian empiricalism may be lost on Catholics but the crime against inspiration was always the one that can never be forgiven or compromised with.Suspend me if you with like you did before but I reserve the right to be dissapointed and disgusted at this awful silence.
[/quote]

look, i’ve said this before - i simply don’t understand what you’re talking about. it sounds like you’re being programmatically vague and mysterious, or something, even though i know you’re not.

is there any way you can simply start right from the beginning and explain what you’re talking about as if you were trying to talk to a 10 year old? you write as though you’ve been thinking about this stuff for 30 years and assume that everyone else has, too, and is somehow privy to the inner workings of you reasoning.

i am not being obdurate here, i would love to engage you on this stuff. so please - go a little slower.

what, for instance, is the “sidereal point of view”? who is john flamsteed? what is the significance of the reduction of celestial to terrestrial longitude coordinates? what is “circumpolar equivalency for axial rotation”?

so. if you begin from the beginning, assuming that we know nothing, you are far more likely to get some traction with this stuff, since, otherwise, no one has any idea at all what you’rte talking about.


#3

Kepler was framed.


#4

Is this some sort of rant using a quote from 1543 to discredit modern astronomy and cosmology? :confused:

What portion of the sidereal “point of view” do you have objections to?

Apparent solar motion is just that
Apparent

Newton was quite right about many things

Relativity is far more accurate

Kepler was lost in his “music of the spheres” hypotheses and never realized his true contributions to the understanding of planetary motion

The horror at the destruction of the genius of Copernicus,Kepler and Roemer for Newtonian empiricalism may be lost on Catholics but the crime against inspiration was always the one that can never be forgiven or compromised with

Oy! :rolleyes:


#5

[quote=john doran]look, i’ve said this before - i simply don’t understand what you’re talking about. it sounds like you’re being programmatically vague and mysterious, or something, even though i know you’re not.
[/quote]

I asked something like this in this post, but I can’t say that I’m any more enlightened than I was before.


#6

Why don’t you and that guy who thinks Mulholland Drive is the Second Coming get together? Sounds like you are made for each other!

:whacky:


#7

[quote=john doran]look, i’ve said this before - i simply don’t understand what you’re talking about. it sounds like you’re being programmatically vague and mysterious, or something, even though i know you’re not.

is there any way you can simply start right from the beginning and explain what you’re talking about as if you were trying to talk to a 10 year old? you write as though you’ve been thinking about this stuff for 30 years and assume that everyone else has, too, and is somehow privy to the inner workings of you reasoning.

i am not being obdurate here, i would love to engage you on this stuff. so please - go a little slower.

what, for instance, is the “sidereal point of view”? who is john flamsteed? what is the significance of the reduction of celestial to terrestrial longitude coordinates? what is “circumpolar equivalency for axial rotation”?

so. if you begin from the beginning, assuming that we know nothing, you are far more likely to get some traction with this stuff, since, otherwise, no one has any idea at all what you’rte talking about.
[/quote]

Would you object to a teacher who teaches your children creationism is correct ?.

Would you object to a teacher who teaches your children the wrong value for the axial rotation of the Earth through a full rotation ?.

Sidereal point of view -

hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/JennyChen.shtml

Have you any idea just how truly awful the reasoning is behind tying the value of axial rotation directly to the position of a star and then determining that this proves the Earth rotates constantly on its axis.

"… our clocks kept so good a correspondence with the Heavens that I doubt it not but they would prove the revolutions of the Earth to be isochronical… "

John Flamsteed

www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/HistTopics/Longitude2.html

I guess you don’t know what the flaw is in Flamsteed’s reasoning even before the anti-Catholic Newton enters the picture and builds his grandiose sounding ‘universal laws of gravitation’ on that sidereal view.

I cannot drag people away from paper theories and to go outside and really attempt to put their motion on a spinning and rotating Earth into perspective as an experience rather than a dry ‘fact’.

The great astronomical alignment approaches within a day and is best appreceated at dawn or 6 hours before your position rotates to face the Sun directly (Noon).The arrows indicate the alignment from pole to pole as the (imaginary) lines of longitude swing parallel with the orbital orientation of the Earth at 90 degrees to the Sun.

mhhe.com/physsci/astronomy/fix/student/images/04f15.jpg

Do you at least understand why it is not a good idea to link the Earth’s rotation directly to a star as in the NMM explanation.

nmm.ac.uk/site/navId/00500300l005001000

Maybe try the Wikipedia version where 23 hours 56 min 04 seconds ‘wraps’ around as 24 hours.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_time

Either way I am no longer surprised at all the empirical bluffing and blustering,I am however dissapointed/disgusted at the lack of response from Catholics for ultimately the basis of the empirical ‘challenge’ to faith relies on the most shaky foundations.

Turns out that the guys who regard Christianity as nothing more than fiction have the broad based support of Catholics.


#8

I’m still not quite sure what your exceptions to sidereal time or Newton are.

Or how it (or empiricism) is necessarily “anti-catholic”

The wikapedia definition says that sidereal time and solar time differ by a constant
The “wrap around” effect is purely mathematical (24x15=360)

Are you saying that the sidereal day isn’t different form the solar day?
Or that the discrepancy between solar and sidereal time is some sort of conspiracy?

We have a pretty good grasp on orbital mechanics

We send spacecraft billions of miles with great accuracy


#9

The empirical mindset is anti-Christian and basically the worst possible way to approach investigation of natural phenomena.

Newton give himself a choice where none existed before in determining that the Sun around the Earth and the Earth around the Sun can be considered the same thing,I have news for you Steve,it is a stupid and silly nonsense.

“PHÆNOMENON IV.
That the fixed stars being at rest, the periodic times of the five
primary planets, and (whether of the sun about the earth, or) of the
earth about the sun, are in the sesquiplicate proportion of their mean
distances from the sun.”

members.tripod.com/~gravitee/phaenomena.htm

That little bit of Newtonian ‘framehopping’ was expanded in the early 1920’s to outright homocentricity or giving the observer ultimate choice or free-will.

Physical concepts are free creations of the
human mind, and are not, however it may
seem, uniquely determined by the external
world.
— The Evolution of Physics, Einstein

Your really silly attempt to wrap around 23 hours 56 min as 24 hours is an example of a ‘free creation of the mind’ .

The most fundamental issue is attributing the correct value for the axial rotation of the Earth which generates the notion of a 24 hour day.Presently scientists ,for very specific Newtonian reasons ,choose the altered value of 23 hours 56 min 04 sec .

The Equinox occurs presently and the astronomical significance of it remains absolutely lost even though the insight of Copernicus has been with us for over 500 years,celestial cataloguers (Flamsteed was one)and scientists mark the Equinox as a hemispherical seasonal division and that is it.The price humanity pays for chasing mathematical theoretical rainbows is that it loses the great intellectual and intuitive achievements of Copernicus,Kepler and Roemer and an astronomer would recognise how diluted their insights have become for novelistic-relativistic dross.


#10

[quote=Catholic2003]I asked something like this in this post, but I can’t say that I’m any more enlightened than I was before.
[/quote]

There is no astronomical or logical justification for the sidereal value,Newton built his ballistic agenda applied to planetary motion on that value.Is this statement concise enough ?.

nordita.dk/~steen/fysik51/ast/astt8_files/AT40103_files/AACHCIR0.JPG

Have you any idea how many astronomical rules were broken for Newton’s mechanical perspective for planetary motion ?.

Put the .986 degree orbital displacement that you see in the above graphic into a elliptical framework and then tell me what happens as the Earth moves towards the aphelion or the furthest point away from the Sun in its annual orbit.

Because the sidereal value erroneously determines a constant .986 orbital displacement,geometrically the Earth would need to cover a greater distance at the aphelion to make that .986 degree displacement work or what amounts to the same thing - in would need to go faster at the aphelion which is in direct conflict with Kepler’s second law.

mhhe.com/physsci/astronomy/fix/student/images/04f15.jpg

Newton broke rules,Newton broke very old rules which is why science ,at least in the area of astronomy, has become a tower of Babel.


#11

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.