__________ About this Dialogue __________

A continuation of my dialogue with Catholic geocentrist Bob Sungenis. My words are in black, and Bob’s are in blue.

 

In the above figure, you can see that at the equilibrium point between the two magnets, the force of attraction on the ball is balanced, and therefore, as Bob says, the ball isn’t going to move. But if you move the ball closer to the 1,000 lb. magnet the force of attraction from the 1,000 lb. magnet is going to be stronger than the force of attraction from the 100 lb. magnet, and the ball will accelerate toward the 1,000 lb. magnet. (The same thing will happen, of course, if you move the ball closer to the 100 lb. magnet.)

No, that’s simply not true. You can go to a novelty store and prove this to yourself. They sell toys in which a object is suspended between two magnets.

Those magnets repel from each other. Are you claiming that the earth repels satellites?

The object just hovers in space. You can also rotate the object, and it will act as if its in zero gravity (except for the friction forces close to the surface of the earth which will cause it to slow down). For an additional $150, you can purchase a Jim-Dandy levitating world globe. It is a 9 inch diameter globe that levitates in mid air suspended between to electro-magnets. I like it because it gives a perfect picture of why Job 26:7 and Psalm 93:1 say that God “hangs the earth upon nothing” and that it “does not move.”

So, the earth is like a giant magnet that repels everything away from it, and yet somehow the whole universe is attracted to it and rotates around it every day? If you’re right that there’s an equilibrium point between the repulsive forces of the earth and the stars, why aren’t low-flying satellites pushed away by the stronger force from the earth until they reach this equilibrium point?

Previous:

You’re going to see the steel ball oscillate, left to right and right to left, indefinitely, because the unequal magnetic force on either side of it will constantly tug at it.

 

Nope, you’re going to see it accelerate toward the stronger magnet and smash into it. In order to oscillate, when you move the ball closer to the 1,000 lb. magnet, the force of attraction from the 100 lb. magnet would have to be stronger than the force of attraction from the 1,000 lb. magnet, in order to pull the ball back toward the equilibrium point. Obviously, that’s not the case, and therefore, oscillation is not physically possible in this scenario.

I suggest that Gary go to Sharper Image and play with the toy.

Oh, I don’t deny that you can suspend an object between two magnets that are both repelling that object. But if you want to propose that as an explanation of how geosynchronous satellites don’t fall, you’ll open up quite a can of worms for yourself. Let me know if that’s the direction you really want to go, and I’ll give you a list of phenomena you simply can’t explain. In fact, geosynchronous satellites would probably be the only thing you could explain in such a system.

Previous:

If you placed the steel ball just a little above the equilibrium point, then you would see it oscillate up and down, indefinitely. If on a diagonal, you would see it oscillate diagonally. This is precisely what is happening with the Geo satellites.

 

I’ve lost track: Is this Bob’s third or his fourth different attempt to account for the motion of geosynchronous satellites? It seems that each attempt is getting more absurd than the one before.

I don’t know what “third or fourth different attempts” Gary is referring to. If he thinks I have given a different explanation, then I think he is required to show the audience where I have done so, rather than make it appear as if I’ve been all over the map on this issue. I have never posited anything except the differential gravitational pull between the stars and the earth as the basis for my explanation.

Is it a “pull” or a “push,” Bob?

Previous:

If they are not placed precisely on the equator, but are inclined to one degree or another, then they will show some type of oscillation, indefinitely. They will oscillate with respect to the equator, since the equator is the balance point where all the forces cancel each other out.

 

Here’s another one of those unfounded assertions preceded by the word “since.”

See my previous answer on this question.

That wasn’t an answer. If anything, it was an explanation of why you feel you don’t have to answer.

Previous:

That is why all the diagrams Gary shows have the center point of the oscillation precisely on the equator.

 

No, the reason these satellites move an equal distance above and below the equator is because they are orbiting the earth in nearly circular orbits. As you can see from the above “inclination” figure, a satellite in such an orbit will always move equal distances above and below the equator. It has nothing to do with gravitational forces from the stars.

Mere assertion is not going to prove anything.

That was my line! :-)

The question Gary posed in his last post was how I could explain the up and down motion of Marisat in MY system. To deny the answer, Gary would have to show that my system doesn’t work, not that his works. My claim from the start is that both models work.

Well, your system doesn’t work. If gravity is a “pull,” then you can’t explain why the moon, which is hundreds of thousands of miles closer to the stars than the “equilibrium point” between the earth and the stars, doesn’t go flying off toward the stars. Nor can you explain how geosynchronous satellites like Hot Bird 2, which moves thousands of kilometers toward the earth each day, don’t just keep right on going. What turns them around? On the other hand, if gravity is a “push,” then you can’t explain why all orbiting objects aren’t pushed away from the earth until they get to the point where the push from the stars balances the push from the earth.

Previous:

The reason they are oscillating is because of the differential gravity between the stars and the earth.

 

Even if that explanation made sense, which it doesn’t, it still doesn’t account for the zigzagging satellites. Why do they move in a slow and steady zigzag while the others don’t?

I already explained this in the last post. The circumference of the loops is too small to show up on the graph, so they result in zig-zags.

I mean, what pulls them in a steady westerly direction? And why doesn’t that force pull other satellites to the west?

Previous:

Now, you’ll notice in Gary’s list that the satellites have either a zig-zag or figure-eight pattern. Why are they different? Since the satellite is placed in an elliptical position, not a circular position, with respect to the earth, this means that the satellite cannot maintain its position unless it moves faster or slower against the inertial frame.

 

Wait a sec, I thought these satellites weren’t orbiting. What’s this talk about “elliptical” and “circular”? These satellites are supposedly just levitating up there, remember?

I said they are in an elliptical position in respect to the inertial frame, which is the gravitational force between the stars and earth.

Sorry, this sounds like gibberish to me. Could you put it in plain English?

The gravitational force causes what in Gary’s system appears as an elliptical orbit around the earth, but what in my system is an oscillation back and forth between the earth and the stars.

How does it do that in your system? You can’t go to the Sharper Image and make the object suspended by that magnet toy move in a perfect figure-eight; nor can you make it zigzag. Therefore, your explanation fails.

Previous:

Thus, when the satellite is closest to the earth (the perigee) the satellite would be faster with respect to the inertial field (and from Gary’s perspective it would rotate around the earth in less than 24 hours); and when the satellite is farthest away from the earth (the apogee) the satellite would be moving slower with respect to the inertial field (or from Gary’s perspective it would take more than 24 hours to rotate around the earth).

 

Again, that’s only true if the satellite is in orbit. But Bob says it’s not orbiting, and therefore, he can’t appeal to the velocity differences at the perigee and apogee of an elliptical orbit. He needs to come up with an explanation that makes sense for an object that’s levitating, not orbiting.

It is not just levitating, it is oscillating across a levitation point.

How does an object oscillate across a “levitation point” in a perfect figure-eight?

Previous:

This movement is going to create various patterns. The closer the semi-major axis of the orbit lies along the apogee-perigee line, the wider the figure-eight pattern will appear, since it will be oscillating with greater force.

 

What orbit? If these satellites are orbiting, then the earth is rotating. Are you ready to admit that they’re really orbiting, Bob?

No, I’m using “orbit” to accommodate your system, not agree with it.

Then please explain how this works in your system. Don’t worry about accommodating mine.

Previous:

Now, let me add one more dimension to this picture. Against what background is the figure-eight pattern or zig-zag pattern measured? In Gary’s universe it is measured against a rotating earth. In the Geocentric universe it is measured against a rotating star shell.

 

No, they move in figure-eights and zigzags relative to the surface of the earth, whether the earth is rotating or not. It’s just that if the earth’s not rotating, there’s no way to account for that motion, as Bob has amply demonstrated.

No, Bob has amply demonstrated that the satellites can oscillate between the earth and stars, and Gary has shown no material evidence against that possibility.

Now I have. How do you account for it?

In fact, Gary has denied the physics that an object can remain at equilibrium between two magnetic forces, and he has denied that they can oscillate. I suggest Gary purchase the levitating globe and he will see that principle of physics readily at work.

I suggest you do the same and try to get the levitating object to oscillate in a figure-eight and a zigzag. I submit that you can’t.

Previous:

Let me explain: If the earth is stationary, the stars are rotating around the earth every 24 hours. They will come back to precisely the same point each 24 hour period (allowing a little movement for precession, which I don’t want to get into right now). We can see the satellites move against the background of the stars. On the first night we will see Marisat in a certain position against a particular star. But 24 hours later, we will see that Marisat did a figure-eight against the background of the star. (In case you’re wondering, it makes no difference whether the star rotates around the earth, because every 24 hours the star will always come back to the same position in the sky).

 

If we were at the equator, and if we were able to train our eyes on Marisat 3 for 24 hours, we’d see it move around our sky in a figure-eight pattern. That’s its motion relative to us. It has nothing to do with the stars. If we were somehow able to block our view of the stars and look only at Marisat 3, we’d still see it moving in a figure-eight pattern.

It has become apparent to me that Gary either doesn’t understand or won’t accept that a force outside the earth can affect an object placed above the earth. This is because he fails to accept the Machian principle that there is no difference between a rotating earth and a rotating star system, relative to US. Because of this, I believe this series of dialogues cannot progress any further, as I have stated previously.

I do accept that forces outside the earth can affect objects above the earth. I just don’t see how any known (or conjectured) force can make a satellite hover over the earth, while moving in a figure-eight pattern. Your attempts to explain this movement have so far depended entirely on theories you otherwise reject, and conjectures that raise more questions than they answer.

Is Marisat showing us real movement? Yes, it is real. Marisat is actually oscillating due to the fact that it is in a 10 degree inclination with respect to the earth’s equator. Being in that inclination, Marisat will experience opposing gravitational forces from the earth-star gravity field, and thus it must oscillate back and forth between the equilibrium point, which is at the equator.

Why is the alleged equilibrium point at the equator? Please explain what leads you to this conclusion.

Previous:

Let us say, for the sake of argument, that these “opposing gravitational forces” were able to account for the north-south oscillation of Marisat 3. What accounts for its daily east-west oscillation? There can be no imbalance of forces parallel to the direction of rotation of the stars, so what makes Marisat 3 oscillate east-and-west? And what makes Brasilsat 1 move in a steady westerly direction?

If it’s on an incline with respect to the equator, it will go east-west or northeast-southwest, or any combination of two compass opposite compass points.

I can easily show you that there’s no correlation between a satellite’s east-west oscillation and its inclination. Try again.

Previous:

But what does Marisat look like from Gary’s universe? Since for Gary the earth is rotating, then he cannot attribute the movement to an oscillation of the satellite itself, but to the rotation of the earth against the inclination of the satellite. That is why he says that the figure-eights are only there by “appearance.”

 

Yes, that way I don’t have to appeal to imaginary forces that control the movement of artificial satellites, but don’t effect the moon or the sun or the planets, all of which are allegedly able to orbit the earth every day, despite being well beyond the point of equilibrium between the gravitational forces of the stars and the earth. If Bob’s explanation were correct, every object beyond the equilibrium point where the geosynchronous satellites orbit - excuse me, levitate - should go flying off toward the stronger gravitational pull from the rotating shell of stars.

Again, this just shows Gary’s inability to address the issue because he doesn’t know the physics.

Then explain it to me. I have a degree in Engineering Science and Mechanics. I’m sure I’ll understand what you’re saying. But so far you’ve just asserted things. I’m sorry, but I’m not just going to take your word for it that things behave the way you say they do. And I don’t expect you to take my word for things, either. That’s why I’ve spent so much time creating elaborate figures to illustrate what I’m saying.

His understanding about opposing gravitational and magnetic fields is wrong.

Not if those forces are pulling, which they would be if they were analogous to gravitational attraction. If they’re pushing against each other then, yes, you could suspend something between them. Of course, then you’d no longer have a system that was analogous to the gravitational pull from the earth and the stars.

Moreover, notice that Gary does not try to answer my argument by showing that a gravitational field from the stars is impossible to happen, rather, he resorts to calling them “imaginary forces.” But I invite Gary to read the Lense-Thirring paper, and he will see that, even from his own science, they are not imaginary forces.

Fine, then they’re imaginary from your science, because you reject Relativity. So what forces really account for the motion of these satellites?

And in my science, they are very real, even though we don’t use Relativity theory to prove they exist.

Well, that’s all you’ve used so far. Please prove that these forces exist without reference to Lense-Thirring or Einstein.

Gary has no answer for this, except to stoop to ridicule, simply because he is not familiar with the science I am presenting to him.

I don’t mean to ridicule. Sometimes I like to use humor to make my point. If that’s coming across as ridicule, I apologize.

Previous:

But does that prove the earth rotates? Not by any means. Since, as I have shown above, the same satellite movements can be explained from the perspective of a rotating star shell as much as they can be explained from a rotating earth. Thus, using the “movements” of the Geo satellites proves nothing for anyone. All it proves is the same thing I’ve been saying all along - there is no proof for a rotating earth as opposed to a rotating star shell.

 

And I’ll say what I’ve said all along. Bob’s latest attempt to account for the motions of these satellites is no more plausible than any of his previous attempts. In each case he has to appeal to relativistic forces, which he otherwise says are “an absolute farce,” and he has to appeal to orbital mechanics even though he claims these objects aren’t orbiting. What he has not been able to do is come up with a credible explanation for this motion without borrowing from sources he claims not to believe.

Already answered sufficiently above.

I must have missed the part where you explained these forces without appealing to Lense-Thirring.

Previous:

What I have in my favor, however, is that because of the Lense-Thirring principle, which was supported by Einstein himself (a position which I laboriously detailed in one of my earlier posts),

 

In which case he can’t use it, because he says Einstein’s relativity theories, from which the Lense-Thirring effect was derived, are “an absolute farce.” You can’t have it both ways, Bob.

Again, I don’t use Lense-Thirring to explain my universe, but you need it to explain yours.

Don’t you find it strange, then, that you’ve constantly used Lense-Thirring to explain your universe, and I’ve never once used it to explain mine?

If you don’t accept it, then Relativity goes out the window and you are forced to explain everything from Newtonian mechanics, which can’t be done.

I can explain the motion of geosynchronous satellites from Newtonian mechanics, and thereby prove that the earth rotates. And that’s all I’m trying to do.

then I have a viable PHYSICAL explanation for the forces that would cause Marisat to oscillate in the figure-eight pattern, and therefore my assertion that no one can disprove that system still stands; and which also means that no one can prove that a rotating earth is the only explanation.

If you have a “viable physical explanation” for the forces that not only cause Marisat to levitate, but also to oscillate, I’d love to see it. So far you’ve appealed to Relativity (which you don’t accept) and you’ve treated gravity as a push rather than a pull.

Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5