NASA EPIC LIES

This site is lunatic asylum, don't worry, i figured that out long time ago, so, i am coming here primarily to entertain myself talking with total imbeciles (huge majority (NASA shills)) and (along the way) to help those rare truth seekers (huge minority) who come by here occasionally and/or accidentally, to find the truth which they are looking for.

From your spamming copied, stolen video and random web pages you find, I can certainly believe you're just here to troll.

Maybe the first honest thing you've said here.

[nonsense removed]

More importantly than all of that nonsense above, why did you lie? Why did you feel the need to edit the Armstrong quote? Why did you deliberately go into the quote, remove the key context then replace it with a comma to make the sentence appear correct?

Why do you lie?

This site is lunatic asylum

And you are one of their main patients.

But at least you are now finally getting to part of the truth, admitting you are just here for entertainment, i.e. pathetic trolling, and not seeking or promoting the truth at all.
And you are bringing along total imbeciles (i.e. those in your youtube videos, promoting your crap) to help you.

INTRODUCTIN FOR MORONS :

A young teacher explains to her class of third graders that she is a born-again Christian.
She asks the class if any of them are born-again Christians too.
Not really knowing what it means to be born-again, but wanting to please and impress their teacher, many little hands suddenly shot up into the air.
There's just one girl who doesn't raise her hand.
So the teacher asks her why she has decided to be different.
The girl says, "Because I'm not a Christian."
The teacher asks, "So what are you then? "
The girl replies, "I'm an atheist."
The teacher's a little perturbed now, her face slightly red.
She asks the girl why she's an atheist.
The girl says, "It's just that my family isn't religious. My Mom's atheist, and my Dad's atheist, so I'm atheist."rnrnThe teacher is now angry. "
That's no reason." she says loudly.
"What if your Mom was a moron, and your Dad was a moron. What would you be then?"
"Then," says the girl, "I'd be a born-again Christian."

Alexander von Humboldt, the founder of modern geography and of whom Charles Darwin said that he was “the greatest scientific traveler who ever lived,” and, of whom, after his death, Geoffrey Martin said “no individual scholar could hope any longer to master the world’s knowledge about the Earth,” acknowledged geocentrism’s viability but also fear of revealing it:

I have known, too, for a long time, that we have no arguments for the Copernican system, but I shall never dare to be the first to attack it.Don’t rush into the wasp’s nest. You will but bring upon yourself the scorn of the thoughtless multitude. If once a famous astronomer arises against the present conception, I will communicate, too, my observations; but to come forth as the first against opinions which the world has become fond of – I don’t feel the courage.

Not only can it be demonstrated mechanically, mathematically and scientifically that the sun and stars can revolve around the Earth, but using already-performed scientific experiments it can also be demonstrated that the Earth is in the center of the universe and motionless in space. In fact, the evidence is so plain that, in order to hide this information from the public, there is, as you will see before your eyes, a drama of cover-up and obfuscation that perhaps not even Hollywood could have dreamt up. Beneath it all is an intellectual war occurring between two opposing scientific philosophies that have been waging their respective campaigns for well nigh 500 years since its revival by Copernicus.Yet so successful have the heliocentrists been in their propaganda machine that the average person is completely unaware there still might be a controversy. The main reason for the ignorance is that anyone who dares to question the
status quo of current cosmology has been successfully ridiculed and silenced, many being threatened with the fate like that of Ignaz Semmelweiss.

As in any high-stakes game, there will be lying, cheating, theft, murder, twisting of evidence, political intrigue, religious skirmishes, opposing philosophies, and fortunes and fame,which are all involved in the ongoing war between the sun-centered and Earth-centered systems. The stakes are indeed high; in fact, as we shall see, they are about as high as any stakes that history has to offer.

Various battles between the heliocentrists and the geocentrists continued many years after the Catholic Church’s confrontation with Galileo. As noted earlier, Tycho Brahe and Johannes Kepler sparked another skirmish, and this one, so say current historians, ended in the murder of Brahe at the hands of Kepler. --- Joshua Gilder and Anne-Lee Gilder, Heavenly Intrigue: Johannes Kepler, Tycho Brahe, and the Murder Behind One of History’s Greatest Scientific Discoveries
, 2004.

As we touched upon earlier, the next climactic point came when the interferometer was invented – a device that could measure minute differences in the speed of light. It was called an “interferometer” because it measured the interference of two or more light waves. The prevailing thought was: if the Earth is moving around the sun at 30 km/sec, this should have some effect on the speed of light discharged in the direction of that motion. A whole host of experimenters in the 1800s (e.g., Arago, Airy, Hoek, Fizeau, Fresnel, Michelson, Morley, Roentgen, Lodge, Rayleigh, Brace, et al.) confirmed to their satisfaction that the Earth was having no effect on the speed of light. In fact, it can be safely said that no experiment has ever been performed with such agonizing persistence and meticulous precision, and in every conceivable way, as that of determining whether the Earth is indeed moving through space. The haunting fact is: all of them have failed to detect any motion.

By the time of physicist Henrick Lorentz in the early 1890s, it was obvious to many what the experimental results were saying. In Lorentz’s own words:“Briefly, everything occurs as if the Earth were at rest…”

Lorentz knew the profound implications of his statement. He was very familiar with the dizzying world created by Einstein’s Relativity, which was desperately commandeered to answer the failure of the interferometers to detect any motion of the Earth. In a personal letter he wrote to Einstein in 1915, it is apparent that he was feeling the effects of the drift into which Einstein forced the human race. In a moment of seeming desperation Lorentz wishes for a divine being that could hold it all together and make it work. He writes to Einstein:

A “world spirit,” who would permeate the whole system under consideration without being tied to a particular place or “in whom” the system would consist, and for whom it would be possible to “feel” all events directly would obviously immediately single out one of the frames of reference over all others.

This is an amazing admission from Lorentz. Despite popular opinion, he was the impetus for Relativity, since it was his “transformation” equation that was the brains behind Einstein’s Special Relativity. In any case, it is obvious from the above quote that Lorentz could not live in the universe he created for himself.Consequently, he searched for a ubiquitous entity that could not only sense and coordinate all events instantaneously, but one that could also provide him with an absolute frame of reference. Why? Because Lorentz knew deep within his soul that it can work no other way. Things are an absolute mess without an absolute frame of reference from which everything else can be set and measured. As Einstein himself said:

It has, of course, been known since the days of the ancient Greeks that in order to describe the movement of a body, a second body is needed to which the movement of the first is referred.

But alas, once the Copernican system came into vogue, no longer was there a comforting reference point.

EINSTEIN MIXING UP REFERENCE FRAMES :
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=86036.msg2258401#msg2258401
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=86036.msg2259077#msg2259077

READ MORE :

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=86036.msg2254236#msg2254236
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=86036.msg2254388#msg2254388
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=86036.msg2254393#msg2254393
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=86036.msg2254727#msg2254727
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=86036.msg2254804#msg2254804
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=86036.msg2254840#msg2254840
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=86036.msg2254967#msg2254967
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=86036.msg2255299#msg2255299
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=86036.msg2255301#msg2255301
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=86036.msg2255963#msg2255963
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=86036.msg2256632#msg2256632
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=86036.msg2256769#msg2256769
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=86036.msg2257182#msg2257182
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=86036.msg2257753#msg2257753
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=86036.msg2257908#msg2257908
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=86036.msg2258086#msg2258086
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=86036.msg2258145#msg2258145
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=86036.msg2258684#msg2258684

How about answering simple questions :
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=86036.msg2258891#msg2258891
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=86036.msg2259070#msg2259070

The following "photo" is a composite and is made up of two photos from NASA:

Was this made by me or NASA :

Quote from: cikljamas on June 17, 2020, 04:42:22 AM

THAT'S A MOUSE

Prove it.
There is no justification for that claim at all.

You need more evidence of NASA's "credibility?"
Here we go :


NASA DESTROYED AGAIN (Small Mammal (rodent) On Mars) :

NASA DESTROYED AGAIN (Greenland portrayed as Mars) :

https://i.postimg.cc/C1BWXx9F/LEMMINGS.png

NASA IS FULL OF SHIT :

SAGNAC EFFECT : https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=86036.msg2261187#msg2261187
AETHER FIELD IS THERE : https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=86036.msg2264103#msg2264103

ENJOY THE TRUTH!!!

Was this made by me or NASA :

That's a really big mouse then. By the way, why would they make a CGI mouse?

You need more evidence of NASA's "credibility?"
Here we go :

That's some odd legs for a squirrel. It's not a squirrel.

INTRODUCTIN FOR MORONS :

Why did you deliberately falsify Armstrong's quote?

"rnrnThe teacher is now angry. "

Good story!

 :-[jamas, thanks for keeping the thread on topic😀😁😉.

INTRODUCTIN FOR MORONS

Or to summarise, when you can't defend your claims, just troll some more with completely irrelevant BS.

How does any of that justify your claims that the challenger disaster is fake.

You are just spamming completely off topic nonsense along with the same refuted garbage.

Repeatedly posting ice and rocks wont magically turn them into animals.

acknowledged geocentrism’s viability but also fear of revealing it:

Within the reference system tied to the Earth the Geocentrism at short range is ALMOST viable.

Why I said "almost"?

Meteorology wouldn't work.
Long range shots wouldn't work.
...

But the things like that don't affect the ordinary nine-to-five working people.

On the other hand, as soon as we expand the range, the system doesn't explain simple observations.

If we don't know how to measure something, it doesn't mean nobody does.

Distance to the Sun was measured in few different ways. For example in radar astronomy you can measure
exact distance to Venus at the moment of the greatest elongation and using simple trigonometry calculate
the Sun distance as 149 millio kilometers. Being that far the Sun would have to have periferal speed of
39 million kilometers per hour, or 10.8 thousand kilometers per second.

Looks fast?

What about Proxima Centauri?
4.24 light years away.
4 x 10¹³ km.
To revolve around static Earth it should have to travel at the speed of 5.2 x 10¹² km/s.
It is 17 million times faster than light.

Now compare those 4.24 light years of Proxima Centauri with nearly 2.5 million light years of the Andromeda galaxy.

Still trying to convince someone that the "static Earth" is "truth"?

Quote from: cikljamas on July 06, 2020, 06:26:26 AM

acknowledged geocentrism’s viability but also fear of revealing it:

Within the reference system tied to the Earth the Geocentrism at short range is ALMOST viable.

Why I said "almost"?

Meteorology wouldn't work.
Long range shots wouldn't work.
...

But the things like that don't affect the ordinary nine-to-five working people.

On the other hand, as soon as we expand the range, the system doesn't explain simple observations.

If we don't know how to measure something, it doesn't mean nobody does.

Distance to the Sun was measured in few different ways. For example in radar astronomy you can measure
exact distance to Venus at the moment of the greatest elongation and using simple trigonometry calculate
the Sun distance as 149 millio kilometers. Being that far the Sun would have to have periferal speed of
39 million kilometers per hour, or 10.8 thousand kilometers per second.

Looks fast?

What about Proxima Centauri?
4.24 light years away.
4 x 10¹³ km.
To revolve around static Earth it should have to travel at the speed of 5.2 x 10¹² km/s.
It is 17 million times faster than light.

Now compare those 4.24 light years of Proxima Centauri with nearly 2.5 million light years of the Andromeda galaxy.

Still trying to convince someone that the "static Earth" is "truth"?

Tycho's observations of stellar and planetary positions were noteworthy both for their accuracy and quantity. His celestial positions were much more accurate than those of any predecessor or contemporary.

Tycho was not a Copernican, but proposed a "geo-heliocentric" system in which the Sun and Moon orbited the Earth, while the other planets orbited the Sun. Shown right is a depiction of the 1577 comet observed by Tycho, which remained visible from November 1577 to January 1578.
His observations revealed no measurable parallax, implying that the comet was located beyond the sphere of the moon. His reconstruction of the comet's orbital path (left), from brightening and dimming and displacement with respect to the background stars, indicated that the comet moved across the concentric planetary crystalline spheres.

This supported the notion of a "fluid heaven" and contradicted the physical reality of these spheres as real, hard, transparent, and contiguous spherical shells.

The comet's path is drawn within *Tycho's* planetary system, where all planets orbit around the Sun, with the latter orbiting a fixed Earth. Note that the comet's path crosses numerous planetary spheres, from which Tycho concluded that the said spheres could not be crystalline, solid objects as assumed by *Aristotle.*



Although planet-like, the comets do not display retrograde motion, *Tycho* argued that the stations and retrogradations that we see in the motion of the planets must really be theirs rather than due to the motion of the earth as Copernicus claims:

_"In addition the two comets which were carried near the opposition of the sun showed clearly enough that the earth does not in fact revolve annually, since the motion of the earth did not detract in any way from their regular and established motion, as happens to the planets which Copernicus believes move backward because of the motion of the earth" (VII, 130). In short, if the earth revolved annually around the sun, why would the comets not also display retrograde motion?"_

Tycho's observations of stellar and planetary positions were noteworthy both for their accuracy and quantity. His celestial positions were much more accurate than those of any predecessor or contemporary.

Sure, "Tycho's observations of stellar and planetary positions were noteworthy both for their accuracy and quantity. His celestial positions were much more accurate than those of any predecessor or contemporary" but their resolution was not reliably better than one minute of arc.
The largest slellar parallax is under 0.8 arcseconds and that's for Cenauri that Tycho could not see so, of course, he never detected any.
Tycho's angular resolution was far short of that needed for any detection of stellar parallax.

Tycho was not a Copernican, but proposed a "geo-heliocentric" system in which the Sun and Moon orbited the Earth, while the other planets orbited the Sun. Shown right is a depiction of the 1577 comet observed by Tycho, which remained visible from November 1577 to January 1578.
His observations revealed no measurable parallax, implying that the comet was located beyond the sphere of the moon. His reconstruction of the comet's orbital path (left), from brightening and dimming and displacement with respect to the background stars, indicated that the comet moved across the concentric planetary crystalline spheres.

And that shows the limitation of Tycho Brahe's measurements, good though they were..

This supported the notion of a "fluid heaven" and contradicted the physical reality of these spheres as real, hard, transparent, and contiguous spherical shells.

Sure, we know all that but you go on and on about Copernicus and Kepler but the current Heliocentric Solar System is closer to that of Kepler and Newton.

You haven't made any attempt to answer the points raised by Macarios.

Although planet-like, the comets do not display retrograde motion, *Tycho* argued that the stations and retrogradations that we see in the motion of the planets must really be theirs rather than due to the motion of the earth as Copernicus claims:

_"In addition the two comets which were carried near the opposition of the sun showed clearly enough that the earth does not in fact revolve annually, since the motion of the earth did not detract in any way from their regular and established motion, as happens to the planets which Copernicus believes move backward because of the motion of the earth" (VII, 130). In short, if the earth revolved annually around the sun, why would the comets not also display retrograde motion?"_

"Tycho's argument is not entirely consistent: in his system no less than Copernicus's the stations and retrogradations of bodies revolving around the sun are due to the position of the observer on earth, which is either stationary while the sun is not (geoheliocentrism), or in motion while the sun is immobile (heliocentrism). Therefore comets that revolved like the planets around the sun would be expected to display retrograde motion in both systems. Furthermore, even if Tycho did not see this fundamental flaw in his argument, he might have noticed that it affected only the annual, not the daily rotation of the earth."

Quote from: cikljamas on July 07, 2020, 01:13:01 PM

Although planet-like, the comets do not display retrograde motion, *Tycho* argued that the stations and retrogradations that we see in the motion of the planets must really be theirs rather than due to the motion of the earth as Copernicus claims:

_"In addition the two comets which were carried near the opposition of the sun showed clearly enough that the earth does not in fact revolve annually, since the motion of the earth did not detract in any way from their regular and established motion, as happens to the planets which Copernicus believes move backward because of the motion of the earth" (VII, 130). In short, if the earth revolved annually around the sun, why would the comets not also display retrograde motion?"_

"Tycho's argument is not entirely consistent: in his system no less than Copernicus's the stations and retrogradations of bodies revolving around the sun are due to the position of the observer on earth, which is either stationary while the sun is not (geoheliocentrism), or in motion while the sun is immobile (heliocentrism). Therefore comets that revolved like the planets around the sun would be expected to display retrograde motion in both systems. Furthermore, even if Tycho did not see this fundamental flaw in his argument, he might have noticed that it affected only the annual, not the daily rotation of the earth."

If you think you know what is the true meaning of that gibberish, feel free to explain it...

Quote from: Stash on July 07, 2020, 02:27:43 PM

Quote from: cikljamas on July 07, 2020, 01:13:01 PM

Although planet-like, the comets do not display retrograde motion, *Tycho* argued that the stations and retrogradations that we see in the motion of the planets must really be theirs rather than due to the motion of the earth as Copernicus claims:

_"In addition the two comets which were carried near the opposition of the sun showed clearly enough that the earth does not in fact revolve annually, since the motion of the earth did not detract in any way from their regular and established motion, as happens to the planets which Copernicus believes move backward because of the motion of the earth" (VII, 130). In short, if the earth revolved annually around the sun, why would the comets not also display retrograde motion?"_

"Tycho's argument is not entirely consistent: in his system no less than Copernicus's the stations and retrogradations of bodies revolving around the sun are due to the position of the observer on earth, which is either stationary while the sun is not (geoheliocentrism), or in motion while the sun is immobile (heliocentrism). Therefore comets that revolved like the planets around the sun would be expected to display retrograde motion in both systems. Furthermore, even if Tycho did not see this fundamental flaw in his argument, he might have noticed that it affected only the annual, not the daily rotation of the earth."

If you think you know what that gibberish mean, feel free to explain it...

That gibberish? Hilarious. It's the paragraph after the quote in the paper, "Tycho Brahe's Critique of Copernicus and the Copernican System" by Ann Blair, Harvard University, that you copy and pasted without citing the reference, as usual. In other words, your own source shows you are wrong. You tend to do that a lot. The shoot yourself in the foot thing with the cherry-picking and/or thinking we won't catch you in a lie.

Quote from: cikljamas on July 07, 2020, 04:19:51 PM

Quote from: Stash on July 07, 2020, 02:27:43 PM

Quote from: cikljamas on July 07, 2020, 01:13:01 PM

Although planet-like, the comets do not display retrograde motion, *Tycho* argued that the stations and retrogradations that we see in the motion of the planets must really be theirs rather than due to the motion of the earth as Copernicus claims:

_"In addition the two comets which were carried near the opposition of the sun showed clearly enough that the earth does not in fact revolve annually, since the motion of the earth did not detract in any way from their regular and established motion, as happens to the planets which Copernicus believes move backward because of the motion of the earth" (VII, 130). In short, if the earth revolved annually around the sun, why would the comets not also display retrograde motion?"_

"Tycho's argument is not entirely consistent: in his system no less than Copernicus's the stations and retrogradations of bodies revolving around the sun are due to the position of the observer on earth, which is either stationary while the sun is not (geoheliocentrism), or in motion while the sun is immobile (heliocentrism). Therefore comets that revolved like the planets around the sun would be expected to display retrograde motion in both systems. Furthermore, even if Tycho did not see this fundamental flaw in his argument, he might have noticed that it affected only the annual, not the daily rotation of the earth."

If you think you know what that gibberish mean, feel free to explain it...

That gibberish? Hilarious. It's the paragraph after the quote in the paper, "Tycho Brahe's Critique of Copernicus and the Copernican System" by Ann Blair, Harvard University, that you copy and pasted without citing the reference, as usual. In other words, your own source shows you are wrong. You tend to do that a lot. The shoot yourself in the foot thing with the cherry-picking and/or thinking we won't catch you in a lie.

I have read the quoted source (long time ago) and i still claim that the paragraph after the quote (which i quoted - the sentence in red) in that paper is pure gibberish. So, i can only repeat : If you think you know what is the true meaning of that gibberish, feel free to explain it...

More Cikljamas Epic Lies. *sigh*

That quote asks a question as to why comets dont display retrograde motion, in respect to the earth's movement of orbit around the sun. (What year was this question posed?)

Retrograde motion is usually in respect to other planets in our solar system seen from Earth - an illusion caused by earth overtaking one of those planets in respect to differential orbital speeds as well as rotation.

All planets in our solar system orbit the sun in a counter clockwise direction and rotate on their individual axis in a counterclockwise direction, with the exception of venus and Uranus.

The questioner like you, cikljamas, is a dunce. Hasn't he ever heard of Haleys Comet, which does display retrograde motion?

Quote from: Stash on July 07, 2020, 04:28:51 PM

Quote from: cikljamas on July 07, 2020, 04:19:51 PM

Quote from: Stash on July 07, 2020, 02:27:43 PM

Quote from: cikljamas on July 07, 2020, 01:13:01 PM

Although planet-like, the comets do not display retrograde motion, *Tycho* argued that the stations and retrogradations that we see in the motion of the planets must really be theirs rather than due to the motion of the earth as Copernicus claims:

_"In addition the two comets which were carried near the opposition of the sun showed clearly enough that the earth does not in fact revolve annually, since the motion of the earth did not detract in any way from their regular and established motion, as happens to the planets which Copernicus believes move backward because of the motion of the earth" (VII, 130). In short, if the earth revolved annually around the sun, why would the comets not also display retrograde motion?"_

"Tycho's argument is not entirely consistent: in his system no less than Copernicus's the stations and retrogradations of bodies revolving around the sun are due to the position of the observer on earth, which is either stationary while the sun is not (geoheliocentrism), or in motion while the sun is immobile (heliocentrism). Therefore comets that revolved like the planets around the sun would be expected to display retrograde motion in both systems. Furthermore, even if Tycho did not see this fundamental flaw in his argument, he might have noticed that it affected only the annual, not the daily rotation of the earth."

If you think you know what that gibberish mean, feel free to explain it...

That gibberish? Hilarious. It's the paragraph after the quote in the paper, "Tycho Brahe's Critique of Copernicus and the Copernican System" by Ann Blair, Harvard University, that you copy and pasted without citing the reference, as usual. In other words, your own source shows you are wrong. You tend to do that a lot. The shoot yourself in the foot thing with the cherry-picking and/or thinking we won't catch you in a lie.

I have read the quoted source (long time ago) and i still claim that the paragraph after the quote (which i quoted - the sentence in red) in that paper is pure gibberish. So, i can only repeat : If you think you know what is the true meaning of that gibberish, feel free to explain it...

What's to explain? It's pretty self-explanatory. Your frame of reference regardless of system would show retrograde motion for an object (comet, planet, or otherwise) that orbits the Sun. And as mentioned above, Haley's is one such object and retrograde motion is observed. So his argument is flawed. And your use of it is moot.

Quote from: cikljamas on July 07, 2020, 05:18:26 PM

Quote from: Stash on July 07, 2020, 04:28:51 PM

Quote from: cikljamas on July 07, 2020, 04:19:51 PM

Quote from: Stash on July 07, 2020, 02:27:43 PM

Quote from: cikljamas on July 07, 2020, 01:13:01 PM

Although planet-like, the comets do not display retrograde motion, *Tycho* argued that the stations and retrogradations that we see in the motion of the planets must really be theirs rather than due to the motion of the earth as Copernicus claims:

_"In addition the two comets which were carried near the opposition of the sun showed clearly enough that the earth does not in fact revolve annually, since the motion of the earth did not detract in any way from their regular and established motion, as happens to the planets which Copernicus believes move backward because of the motion of the earth" (VII, 130). In short, if the earth revolved annually around the sun, why would the comets not also display retrograde motion?"_

"Tycho's argument is not entirely consistent: in his system no less than Copernicus's the stations and retrogradations of bodies revolving around the sun are due to the position of the observer on earth, which is either stationary while the sun is not (geoheliocentrism), or in motion while the sun is immobile (heliocentrism). Therefore comets that revolved like the planets around the sun would be expected to display retrograde motion in both systems. Furthermore, even if Tycho did not see this fundamental flaw in his argument, he might have noticed that it affected only the annual, not the daily rotation of the earth."

If you think you know what that gibberish mean, feel free to explain it...

That gibberish? Hilarious. It's the paragraph after the quote in the paper, "Tycho Brahe's Critique of Copernicus and the Copernican System" by Ann Blair, Harvard University, that you copy and pasted without citing the reference, as usual. In other words, your own source shows you are wrong. You tend to do that a lot. The shoot yourself in the foot thing with the cherry-picking and/or thinking we won't catch you in a lie.

I have read the quoted source (long time ago) and i still claim that the paragraph after the quote (which i quoted - the sentence in red) in that paper is pure gibberish. So, i can only repeat : If you think you know what is the true meaning of that gibberish, feel free to explain it...

What's to explain? It's pretty self-explanatory. Your frame of reference regardless of system would show retrograde motion for an object (comet, planet, or otherwise) that orbits the Sun. And as mentioned above, Haley's is one such object and retrograde motion is observed. So his argument is flawed. And your use of it is moot.

It's pretty self-explanatory only if you have no idea what you are talking about. In Tychonic system retrograde motion of planets is REAL motion. In HC system there is no REAL retrograde motion of planets, they are all APPARENT. Now, you have to study precise trajectory of "Tycho's" comet which is quite peculiar (in relation to the orbits of planets), and then after careful pondering on this problem you should be able to explain to us why exactly Tycho's argument is invalid. Your regurgitation of what has been said in that gibberish-quote won't help you because you have to go into details and show us precisely why and how what has been said in that gibberish-quote actually invalidates Tycho's argument.

Almost Tychonic.

But I find it difficult to grasp what Tycho has to do with NASA. Don't remember him claiming there are or aren't rodents on Mars or on rockets.

I did know a guy back in high school who ran over a cop here in Finland. His name is/was Tyko. Not sure if he is still alive.

Quote from: Macarios on July 07, 2020, 09:19:19 AM

Quote from: cikljamas on July 06, 2020, 06:26:26 AM

acknowledged geocentrism’s viability but also fear of revealing it:

Within the reference system tied to the Earth the Geocentrism at short range is ALMOST viable.

Why I said "almost"?

Meteorology wouldn't work.
Long range shots wouldn't work.
...

But the things like that don't affect the ordinary nine-to-five working people.

On the other hand, as soon as we expand the range, the system doesn't explain simple observations.

If we don't know how to measure something, it doesn't mean nobody does.

Distance to the Sun was measured in few different ways. For example in radar astronomy you can measure
exact distance to Venus at the moment of the greatest elongation and using simple trigonometry calculate
the Sun distance as 149 millio kilometers. Being that far the Sun would have to have periferal speed of
39 million kilometers per hour, or 10.8 thousand kilometers per second.

Looks fast?

What about Proxima Centauri?
4.24 light years away.
4 x 10¹³ km.
To revolve around static Earth it should have to travel at the speed of 5.2 x 10¹² km/s.
It is 17 million times faster than light.

Now compare those 4.24 light years of Proxima Centauri with nearly 2.5 million light years of the Andromeda galaxy.

Still trying to convince someone that the "static Earth" is "truth"?

Tycho's observations of stellar and planetary positions were noteworthy both for their accuracy and quantity. His celestial positions were much more accurate than those of any predecessor or contemporary.

Tycho was not a Copernican, but proposed a "geo-heliocentric" system in which the Sun and Moon orbited the Earth, while the other planets orbited the Sun. Shown right is a depiction of the 1577 comet observed by Tycho, which remained visible from November 1577 to January 1578.
His observations revealed no measurable parallax, implying that the comet was located beyond the sphere of the moon. His reconstruction of the comet's orbital path (left), from brightening and dimming and displacement with respect to the background stars, indicated that the comet moved across the concentric planetary crystalline spheres.

This supported the notion of a "fluid heaven" and contradicted the physical reality of these spheres as real, hard, transparent, and contiguous spherical shells.

The comet's path is drawn within *Tycho's* planetary system, where all planets orbit around the Sun, with the latter orbiting a fixed Earth. Note that the comet's path crosses numerous planetary spheres, from which Tycho concluded that the said spheres could not be crystalline, solid objects as assumed by *Aristotle.*



Although planet-like, the comets do not display retrograde motion, *Tycho* argued that the stations and retrogradations that we see in the motion of the planets must really be theirs rather than due to the motion of the earth as Copernicus claims:

_"In addition the two comets which were carried near the opposition of the sun showed clearly enough that the earth does not in fact revolve annually, since the motion of the earth did not detract in any way from their regular and established motion, as happens to the planets which Copernicus believes move backward because of the motion of the earth" (VII, 130). In short, if the earth revolved annually around the sun, why would the comets not also display retrograde motion?"_

I see you dodged Macarios' point entirely.  Just as you do every time I mention this.

Can't geocentrism explain the extreme speeds astronomical objects would have to travel?

Quote from: Stash on July 07, 2020, 07:55:36 PM

What's to explain? It's pretty self-explanatory. Your frame of reference regardless of system would show retrograde motion for an object (comet, planet, or otherwise) that orbits the Sun. And as mentioned above, Haley's is one such object and retrograde motion is observed. So his argument is flawed. And your use of it is moot.

It's pretty self-explanatory only if you have no idea what you are talking about. In Tychonic system retrograde motion of planets is REAL motion. In HC system there is no REAL retrograde motion of planets, they are all APPARENT. Now, you have to study precise trajectory of "Tycho's" comet which is quite peculiar (in relation to the orbits of planets), and then after careful pondering on this problem you should be able to explain to us why exactly Tycho's argument is invalid. Your regurgitation of what has been said in that gibberish-quote won't help you because you have to go into details and show us precisely why and how what has been said in that gibberish-quote actually invalidates Tycho's argument.

Who cares what you can or cannot understand? You never were any good at seeing rotation from a different viewpoint.

It's immaterial anyway because there's no way a whole massive Universe can rotate around a stationary Earth in under 24 hours!

Angular velocity can be measured quite precisely. .

I see you dodged Macarios' point entirely.  Just as you do every time I mention this.
Can't geocentrism explain the extreme speeds astronomical objects would have to travel?

As a popular scientist explains, in Relativity theory:
…it is permissible to assume that the Earth is a non rotating frame of reference. From this point of view, the stars will have a circular velocity around the Earth that is much greater than the speed of light. A star only ten light-years away has a relative velocity around the Earth of twenty thousand times the speed of light.

Another aspect of General Relativity that is directly related to whether something can travel faster than light is the so-called “expansion of space” in the Big Bang theory. According to the theory, the universe has always been expanding faster than the speed of light. The first phase came with what is known as “inflation” in which the universe came into being from an infinitesimally small point and blew out into trillions of miles of space in trillionths of a second. As Stephen Hawking describes it:

…during this cosmic inflation, the universe expanded by a factor of 1 ×10^30 in 1 × 10^‒35 seconds. It was as if a coin 1 centimeter in diameter suddenly blew up to ten million times the width of the Milky Way. That may seem to violate relativity, which dictates that nothing can move faster than light, but that speed limit does not apply to the expansion of space itself….physicists aren’t sure how inflation happened….But if you go far enough back in time, the universe was as small as the Planck size, a billion-trillion-trillionth of a centimeter…

After the initial inflation, the universe slowed down to an “expansion,” but which is also proceeding much faster than the speed of light.
The explanation for this apparent anomaly is that it is not the material substance of the universe that is expanding but only its “space,” whatever that is. In fact modern science has a number of reasons why it believes various entities can, indeed, go faster than light – all, of course, being disclaimed as ‘not defying the Special Theory of Relativity.’

But for the sake of argument, let’s limit the discussion to “space”expansion. If space is expanding faster than light, why can’t space rotate faster than light? There is simply no reason why the edge of the universe could not rotate at any speed above light if, indeed, modern physics allows it to expand at any speed above light. The only difference is that one path is curved and the other is linear.

you should be able to explain to us why exactly Tycho's argument is invalid.

Because just like all your GC BS, the garbage is made to exactly match the HC solar system so it can match reality.

But again, that has nothing at all to do with your lies regarding Challenger.

Quote from: Unconvinced on July 08, 2020, 09:17:54 AM

I see you dodged Macarios' point entirely.  Just as you do every time I mention this.
Can't geocentrism explain the extreme speeds astronomical objects would have to travel?

As a popular scientist explains, in Relativity theory:
…it is permissible to assume that the Earth is a non rotating frame of reference. From this point of view, the stars will have a circular velocity around the Earth that is much greater than the speed of light. A star only ten light-years away has a relative velocity around the Earth of twenty thousand times the speed of light.

Another aspect of General Relativity that is directly related to whether something can travel faster than light is the so-called “expansion of space” in the Big Bang theory. According to the theory, the universe has always been expanding faster than the speed of light. The first phase came with what is known as “inflation” in which the universe came into being from an infinitesimally small point and blew out into trillions of miles of space in trillionths of a second. As Stephen Hawking describes it:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
But for the sake of argument, let’s limit the discussion to “space”expansion. If space is expanding faster than light, why can’t space rotate faster than light? There is simply no reason why the edge of the universe could not rotate at any speed above light if, indeed, modern physics allows it to expand at any speed above light. The only difference is that one path is curved and the other is linear.

All totally irrelevant! In "Cosmic Expansion" nothing is travelling through space at those speeds.

It's not just the "edge of the universe" that would be circling us at above light speed.
Even the nearest stars, Centauri, would be moving at over 600 x light speed! I think even Ernest Mach would turn-in-his-grave at such a suggestion.

And one path being curved and the other linear makes a massive difference.
Many have suggested that the Universe might be moving or even rotating very slowly but on a cosmic time-scale not an idiotic once in under 24 hours.

Still, you never were one to think of the implications.

By the way, what are your "Laws of Physics" - the equations that control motion etc?  You obviously think that Newton was wrong.

Quote from: Unconvinced on July 08, 2020, 09:17:54 AM

I see you dodged Macarios' point entirely.  Just as you do every time I mention this.
Can't geocentrism explain the extreme speeds astronomical objects would have to travel?

As a popular scientist explains, in Relativity theory:
…it is permissible to assume that the Earth is a non rotating frame of reference. From this point of view, the stars will have a circular velocity around the Earth that is much greater than the speed of light. A star only ten light-years away has a relative velocity around the Earth of twenty thousand times the speed of light.

Another aspect of General Relativity that is directly related to whether something can travel faster than light is the so-called “expansion of space” in the Big Bang theory. According to the theory, the universe has always been expanding faster than the speed of light. The first phase came with what is known as “inflation” in which the universe came into being from an infinitesimally small point and blew out into trillions of miles of space in trillionths of a second. As Stephen Hawking describes it:

…during this cosmic inflation, the universe expanded by a factor of 1 ×10^30 in 1 × 10^‒35 seconds. It was as if a coin 1 centimeter in diameter suddenly blew up to ten million times the width of the Milky Way. That may seem to violate relativity, which dictates that nothing can move faster than light, but that speed limit does not apply to the expansion of space itself….physicists aren’t sure how inflation happened….But if you go far enough back in time, the universe was as small as the Planck size, a billion-trillion-trillionth of a centimeter…

After the initial inflation, the universe slowed down to an “expansion,” but which is also proceeding much faster than the speed of light.
The explanation for this apparent anomaly is that it is not the material substance of the universe that is expanding but only its “space,” whatever that is. In fact modern science has a number of reasons why it believes various entities can, indeed, go faster than light – all, of course, being disclaimed as ‘not defying the Special Theory of Relativity.’

But for the sake of argument, let’s limit the discussion to “space”expansion. If space is expanding faster than light, why can’t space rotate faster than light? There is simply no reason why the edge of the universe could not rotate at any speed above light if, indeed, modern physics allows it to expand at any speed above light. The only difference is that one path is curved and the other is linear.

The difference isn't between linear and curved paths.  Expanding would mean things getting further away, not spinning faster.

But I thought you didn't believe in either Relativity or the Big Bang anyway?  Bit weird to rely on them for your explanation isn't it?

I see that not only do you cherry pick what science you will quote, you cherry pick what arguments you will defend, and cherry pick whose posts you will respond to.

Cikljamas the cherry picker.

Your stationary earth in space argument rotates out the window, with just the smallest grain of common sense applied.

You're happy with the sizes and distances of the sun and the other planetary bodies in our solar system, worked out by scientists? Yes? You're also happy with how gravity works, yes? So, if the sun weighs 330,000 times that of the earth, how can you argue the sun is rotating in orbit around the earth? 

Is it not obvious the sun has a stronger gravitational pull than the earth, thus earth and the other planets in our solar system, are in orbit around the sun and not vice versa? Solar system means the system of the sun.

Gravity also dictates the orbits of the planets around the sun to be elliptical but close to circular, with our sun at the centre. Not the earth, our sun.

Gravity destroys your stationary earth in space model, cikljamas. It's a nice romantic sentiment, and I can see the childish appeal, but reality is far more satisfying.

The universe is constructed hierarchally. You will ultimately answer to this planetary body, which in turn must answer to our sun.

I asked dr Sungenis for his opinion on Tycho Brahe's argument :

Robert A. Sungenis (born ca. 1955)[1] is an American Traditionalist Catholic known for his Catholic apologetics and his advocacy of a pseudoscientific belief that the Earth is the center of the universe and conspiracy theories.[2] He has made statements about Jews and Judaism which have been criticized as being antisemitic, which he denies. Sungenis is a member of the Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation, a Catholic Young Earth creationist group.[3]

Robert Sungenis was brought up in a Roman Catholic household and converted to become a Protestant as a young man.[4] He obtained his B.A. in religion from George Washington University in 1979, an M.A. in theology from Westminster Theological Seminary, a Presbyterian and Reformed Christian seminary located in Glenside, Pennsylvania, in 1982.[4][5] He reverted to Roman Catholicism in 1992.[4][6]

In 2006 he received a Ph.D. in religious studies from the Calamus International University, an unaccredited distance-learning institution incorporated in the Republic of Vanuatu.[5][7]

Why would you ask some wingnut with religious studies degree about science?

Quote

Robert A. Sungenis (born ca. 1955)[1] is an American Traditionalist Catholic known for his Catholic apologetics and his advocacy of a pseudoscientific belief that the Earth is the center of the universe and conspiracy theories.[2] He has made statements about Jews and Judaism which have been criticized as being antisemitic, which he denies. Sungenis is a member of the Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation, a Catholic Young Earth creationist group.[3]

Robert Sungenis was brought up in a Roman Catholic household and converted to become a Protestant as a young man.[4] He obtained his B.A. in religion from George Washington University in 1979, an M.A. in theology from Westminster Theological Seminary, a Presbyterian and Reformed Christian seminary located in Glenside, Pennsylvania, in 1982.[4][5] He reverted to Roman Catholicism in 1992.[4][6]

In 2006 he received a Ph.D. in religious studies from the Calamus International University, an unaccredited distance-learning institution incorporated in the Republic of Vanuatu.[5][7]

Why would you ask some wingnut with religious studies degree about science?

So you want me to ask you the same question? Are you capable of answering my question in a proper way (going into details)