Newton was bemused by the concept of force at a distance without an intervening medium. It turns out he was wrong here. He was human...
It's good to know that you are not (just a human being), you are much more than that, you are Alpha2Omega...
So, we should believe that this clump, shaped as potato, is perfectly (artifically) tilted (to accommodate with the heliocentric explanation for seasons ("ecliptic-analema")), is perfectly spatially fixed (Potato's axis) with respect to nothing (to be aligned with Polaris), is perfectly sinhronized (Potato's rotation on it's axis) so to accomplish exactly one additional annual rotation per year (365 + 1) in its (Patato's)
925 000 000 km long orbit around the Sun, and rotates at the terrific speed of
1660 km per hour, fleeing through space round the orbit at
30 km per second(108 000 km/h), and hurtling
500,000 MPH around a galaxy as well as retreat from an alleged 'Big Bang' at over
670,000,000 MPH!
" We declare that this motion is all mere ' bosh,' and that the arguments which uphold it are, when examined by an eye that seeks Truth, mere nonsense and childish absurdity."And the crucial force in all this astronomical mumbo-jumbo affair, which allegedly helps to shape this Potato into a spherical form (uniformely-evenly pulling the water of all the oceans towards the "centre of the globe"), that helps us to be stuck to the surface of the Earth (and not to fly off the ground), and which also plays the crucial role in explaining the motion of the celestial "bodies" is again gravitation.
Shall we say something more about this mysterious, non-existing force?
Why not?
GRAVITATION - SO GREAT AN ABSURDITY:At this time the Copernican theory of astronomy was well established, and was accepted by all the scientific world, though it is probable that the public in general found it difficult to reconcile the idea of an earth careering through space at prodigious speed with common sense and reason.
Even the most ardent followers of Copernicus and Galileo recognised this difficulty, and some strove to find a satisfactory explanation. Two hundred years ago Kepler had suggested that some kind of unknown force must hold the earth and the heavenly bodies in their places, and now Sir Isaac Newton, the greatest mathematician of his age, took up the idea and built the Law of Gravitation.
The name is derived from the Latin word “gravis,” which means “heavy,” “having weight,” while the Law of Gravitation is defined as “That mutual action between masses of matter by virtue of which every such mass tends toward every other with a force varying directly as the product of the masses, and inversely as the square of their distances apart.”
Reduced to simplicity, gravitation is said to be “That which attracts every thing toward every other thing.”
That does not tell us much ; and yet the little it does tell us is not true; for a thoughtful observer knows very well that every thing is not attracted towards every other thing... The definition implies that it is a force; but i does not say so, for that phrase “mutual action” is ambiguous, and not at all convincing.
The
Encyclopaedia Britannica tells us that
“The Law of Gravitation is unique among the laws of nature, not only for its wide generality, taking the whole universe into its scope, but in the fact that, so far as is yet known, it is absolutely unmodified by any condition or cause whatever.”
Here again we observe that the nature of gravitation is not really defined at all ; we are told that masses of matter tend toward each other, but no reason is given why they do so, or should do so ; while
to say that “it is absolutely unmodified by any condition or cause whatever ”is one of the most unscientific statements it is possible to make. There is not any thing or force in the universe that is absolute, no thing that goes its own way and does what it will without regard to other forces or things.
The thing is impossible; and it is not true!!!Again, gravitation is spoken of as a pull, an agent of attraction that robs weight of its meaning, something that brings all terrestrial things down to earth while at the same time it keeps the heavenly bodies in their places and prevents them falling toward each other or apart.
The thing is altogether too wonderful, it is not natural; and the theory is scientifically unsound.In a letter to Dr. Bentley. Feb. 25th, 1692,
Newton says ;— “ That gravitation should be innate and inherent in matter, so that one body can act upon another at a distance — is to me
SO GREAT AN ABSURDITY, that I believe no man who has, in philosophical matters, a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it .” Yet many have fallen into this “great absurdity.” Such men therefore—according to
Newton — have not "a competent faculty of thinking” in philosophical matters. I am happy to be in agreement with
Sir Isaac on this important point.
Sir Robert Ball says: —
“The law of gravitation ... underlies the whole of Astronomy.” (Story of the Heavens, p. 122). It does not speak very well for the Astronomy, if it is founded on an acknowledged “
great absurdity.”
DISTANCES BETWEEN CELESTIAL "BODIES" :0f all the various methods of estimating the distance of the sun, that by means of the measurement to Mars is by far the most important, while the second in order of merit is the one we have just dealt with ; the computation by the transit of Venus, which, it will be remembered, was first used by
Encke in 1824. But there are, no doubt, many adherents of astronomy who will still hope to save the time-honoured dogma which hangs upon the question of the distance to the sun ; too egotistical to admit that they could have been mistaken, or too old-fashioned to accept new truths ; and so— while they cannot any longer defend the Mars and Venus illusions— they will say that they know the sun is 93,000,000 miles away because it has been estimated and verified by quite a number of other methods, with always the same result, or thereabouts.
In these circumstances it becomes necessary for us to touch upon these also. The brief examination we shall give to them will be illuminating, and Astronomers will probably be surprised in one way while the layman will be surprised in another. . . . There are some things which every man or woman of ordinary intelligence knows are nonsensical; but when such things have been permitted to pose for generations as scientific knowledge it is not sufficient merely to say that they are absurd ; they must— for the moment-
be treated as seriously as though they really were the scientific concepts they are supposed to be, and it must be shown just how, and why, and where, they are absurd. Then, when that is done, they can masquerade no more, and will no longer obstruct the road to knowledge. Any one of these means of estimating the sun's distance might be made the subject of a lengthy argument, for they are like "half-truths” which, as we all know, are harder to deal with than down-right falsehood.
Every one of these things which are believed to be methods of computing the distance to the sun, or means of verifying the 93,000,000 mile estimate, presumes the distance of the sun to be already known ; and in every case the method is the result of deductions from the figure “93,000,000 miles.” The verification of the sun’s distance by the measurements to the minor planets Victoria, Iris and Sappho, in 1888 and 1889, was done in the same manner as the measurement to Mars, and fails in precisely the same way, by the fallacy of
Dr. Hailey’s Diurnal Method of Measurement by Parallax.
There is the calculation of the sun’s distance by the “Nodes of the Moon,” which it is not necessary for me to dilate upon, because it has already been discredited, and is not considered of any value by the authorities on astronomy themselves. The computation of the distance to the sun by the ”Aberration of Light ” is based upon the theory that the earth travels along its orbit at the velocity of 18.64 miles per second. This velocity of the earth is the speed at which it is supposed to be travelling along an orbit round the sun,
18.64 miles a second,
66,000 miles an hour,
1,584,000 miles a day, or five hundred and seventy eight million miles in a year (
578 000 000 miles/year).
The last of these figures is the circumference of the orbit, half of whose diameter— the radius— is of course the distance of the sun itself, and it is from this (pardon the necessary repetition) distance of the sun, first calculated by
Encke in 1824, and later by
Gill in 1877, that the whole of the figures—including the alleged “velocity of the earth 18.64 miles a second”— were deduced.
The 18.64 miles is wrong, because the 93,000,000 is wrong, because neither Encke nor Gill obtained any measurement of the sun’s distance whatever; and the whole affair is nothing more than a playful piece of arithmetic, where the distance of the sun is first presumed to be known; from that the Velocity of the earth per second is worked out by simple division, and then the result is worked up again by multiplication to the original figure, “93,000,000,” and the astronomer then says that is the distance to the sun.That is why it is absurd.That is why all heliocentrists can kiss my ass, also! @AusGeoff, be free to quote this sentence as many times as you wish!
Finally the sun’s distance as 93,000,000 miles is said to be justified by the “Velocity of Light.” The Velocity of Light was measured by an arrangement of wheels and revolving mirrors in the year 1882 at the Washington Monument, U.S.A., and calculated to be 186,414 miles a second. N.B.— Experiments had been made on several previous occasions, with somewhat similar results, but Professor Newcomb’s result obtained in 1882, is the accepted figure.
Taking up this figure, astronomers recalled that in the 17th century Ole Roemer had conceived the hypothesis that light took nearly 8 1/2 minutes to travel from the sun to the earth, and so they multiplied his 8 1/2 minutes by Newcomb’s 186,414, and said, in effect — “there you are again— the distance of the sun is 93,000,000 miles.” It is so simple ; but we are not so simple as to believe it, for we have shown in diagram 4 how
Ole Roemer deduced that 8 1/2 - minute hypothesis from a mistaken idea of the cause of the difference in the times of the Eclipses of Jupiter’s Satellites ; and we know that there is no evidence in the world to show that light takes 8 1/2 minutes to come from the sun to the earth,
so the altogether erroneous and misconceived hypothesis of Ole Roemer can not be admitted as any kind of evidence and used in conjunction with the calculation of the Velocity of Light as an argument in favour of the ridiculous idea that the sun is ninety-three — or any other number of millions of miles from this world of ours.All the extraordinary means used by astronomers have failed to discover the real distance of the sun, and the many attempts that have been made have achieved no more result than if they had never bee done ; that is to say— that it is not to be suppose that they may perhaps be somewhere near the mark but it is to be understood, in the most literal sense the word, that the astronomers of to-day have no more knowledge of the sun’s real distance than Adam."God made the two great lights--the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night--and the stars. God set them in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth, to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good." Genesis 1:16-18Is there anything in this world which is even more stupid and more pathetic than the HC theory itself? Sadly, but we have to admit that there is: those who still believe in such stupidity are more pathetic and more stupid than HC theory!
Sorry, but that is the fact!
Or are they just a shills?