Ptolemaic Cosmology
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 сен 2024
- For 2,000 years prior to Copernicus, astronomers believed that the Earth was at the center of a cosmos, surrounded by a series of celestial spheres. John Hamer of Toronto Centre Place will outline how the Ptolemaic system worked (and did not work), why it proved so durable, and why the Catholic Church remained invested in the system even after scientists like Galileo began to argue in favor of heliocentrism.
A Q&A and discussion will follow the presentation. Please send your questions on the live chat.
Lecture topics include:
Heliocentric model, Heliocentrism,
Geocentric model, Geocentrism, Ptolemaic system,
Flat Earth,
Nicolaus Copernicus,
Galileo Galilei,
Religion and science
#lecture #cofchrist
How can this man know so much about so many diverse topics? I’ve done some teaching like this and each new topic requires weeks of intense research and preparation, yet he turns out these quality lectures weekly!
Illuminating video.
The cosmic joke is the undeniable fact that the geocentric-globe Earth model meets Occam's razor-like requirement when compared to the patchwork cosmology that results when you begin to imagine Earth moving.
Planets are never seen moving backward, by the way. The illustration of this fact is misleading. Look up something called the analemma. The Sun does the same thing. What happens is that the planets do not show up at the same spot in the sky at the same time. When you look for the planet at the specific time you expect to see it, you notice that it is either lagging or leading.
The same criticism we can apply to the Ptolemaic model applies to Copernicus and company. Kepler used numerous epicycles too.
And we know that Copernicus wasn't correct; Kepler had to come along to "fix" that. But Kepler couldn't quite meet the requirement, so Newton had to come up with his famed cannonball explanation while ignoring the demonstrable fact that the cannonball can do nothing but fall. Newton ignores the demonstrable projectile physics he claims to embrace on pages 512 and 513 of his Principia.
Newton's ideas couldn't meet the need, so Einstein dreamt up a more fantastic creed. This leads to eventual quantum maniacs creating unbelievable mathematical acts. And on and on it goes.
Meanwhile, nobody feels like they are moving when they sit still, despite the mathematical fact that a rotating and orbiting Earth would be in a constant state of acceleration that at the equator would be measurable. And since very few of us ever bother to look into the details of the various interferometer experiments, few of us understand how fudged science is. Even fewer know the undeniable truth regarding our existence. We, humans, do not have all the answers we think we have.
Only 1 like but the best comment.
Very great true statement love this comment. You’re absolutely spot on with the fudged sciences thinking they have all the answers but provide very few explanations and a simple coherent manner Isaac Newton seem to hide his theory behind an excess of over written way too complex unnecessary mathematical formulas, his critics claimed was purposely done to confuse most mathematicians somas to loose them in a web of complexity & confusion. Only a handful of mathematicians had put together and realized what he has done but there weren’t enough to combat his supporters which uses Formula as a means to justify the empirical English takeover of the world to be the leader in the the new uprising capitalist world economy. Simply put Isaac Newton renamed what was ancient Greek philosopher and concept of love and strife as gravity and inertia. Simply forces that are pulling upon you which is “gravity” and ultimately letting you go “inertia”. To this day no scientist can simply explain what gravity is it’s ridiculous
By far the best comment; the Catholic Church formally declared heliocentrism a heresy and there’s never been a change. The idea of relativity was used as a patchwork to avoid the only other explanation: that the Earth was in the center of the Universe. Einstein was an anti-Catholic who was reticent to agree with the pope or the Catholic Church. The Michelson-Morley experiment was consistent with a fixed Earth, but Einstein urged us in his special relativity paper to ignore the data because-as he wrongly explains-the ether does not exist and light travels in a vacuum. Such a ludicrous proposition! How do light waves propagate through empty space? What is space if it’s empty and devoid of all matter? Einstein said the math works out fine if you just imagine that there’s a cosmic speed limit of light (also wrong). Einstein needed to fix the Earth’s position in his equations; instead, he imagined the Earth was moving and the speed of light was constant (inconsistent with all physical experiments). Even now, the furthest stars in the sky must be traveling faster than Einstein’s imagined cosmic speed limit in order to complete the journey in 23 hours and 56 minutes. They’re clearly moving faster than Einstein’s hypothesis; Einstein wants us to ignore the evidence of Michelson-Morely, of our eyes, of the telescopes, etc. If I got in an Indy Car traveling 200 mph, I would definitely feel it. Yet, Copernicanism requires that we spin like a top at 1000 mph and we don’t feel it, and airline pilots don’t have to account for it in flight planning, and it’s not majorly faster to travel to California from Oklahoma. If the Earth is rotating at 1000 mph, and Los Angeles is 1500 miles west of Oklahoma City, could I hover over one spot and Los Angeles will travel to me as the world turns under my dangling feet? Einstein’s hypotheses say yes. Einstein was wrong. ❤️🔥🇻🇦🇺🇸
Nice talk. I'd just add that as a sometimes backyard stargazer, I find the geocentric view quite useful. I.e.
The stars go round once a day (actually a bit faster, once in 23 hours 56 minutes).
Stars go east to west (left to right as you look south in the Northern hemisphere).
Other things (Sun, Moon, planets) follow the daily motion but...
They dawdle or lag behind, seeming to go right to left against the stellar backdrop and
More distant objects lag less.
I.e.
Saturn takes 30 years to lag around the whole sky
Jupiter 12 years
Mars about 2 years
Sun 1 year
Moon 1 month
Venus and Mercury stay near the Sun.
Most things rise highest when they are due South from you.
These simple ideas are what you need out in the cold and the dark!
Super helpful. Thanks!
The geocentric model is helpful because it’s based on Truth and observations of Truth. The Copernican/Galileoan/Einsteinian models are all based in science fiction. ❤️🔥🇻🇦🇺🇸
@@ochem123 It's all a matter of perspective. They are called "models". Reality is inaccessible to us humans, we only use models to represent/approximate the truth in abstract terms. It happens to be that heliocentric model is much easier (and closer to truth, one could argue) to reason with than the geocentric model. Observing the sky and trying to understand the strange motion of planets, the occasional retrograde and strange dimming and brightening has been obscure phenomena for thousands of years. Once you see the "big picture", i.e. the heliocentric model, it suddenly becomes so much more easy to calculate the position of stars. It is because heliocentric model is closer to the truth than what your eyes made of flesh can see.
These lectures are awesome🙏❤️
Thanks John! The ship merchant itinerary lists sound like a subway/metro map.
The big bang was your mom. You are the center of the (your) universe. God is GOOD 🙏
Created in HIS image, The human brain is at the center of the universe
I do enjoy that this was tagged as a flat earth video.
Google is run by fragile woke fools. This funny though.
😂
God, again?! Slack robot.
Hibbeler productions channel may help
Well done again. Congratulations.
Great Lecture
Great presentation, thanks!
I appreciated the discussion but you weren't quite right about theories of gravity and the planets' motions. You are right that Kepler discovered the elliptical orbits. That was pretty much the end of the Ptolemaic Model. Kepler thought the orbits had something to do with magnetism, so there was a theory of gravity before Newton. It was just an incorrect one.
Are you aware of the original model of the ancient neo-Pythagorean astronomer Heraclides of Pontus whose model was revised by Aristarchus of Samos ?
I often hear the narrative that much of classic Greek thought such as Plato and Aristotle were lost when the Roman empire fell but preserved in the Islamic world and later reintroduced. Why is it that these works were not preserved in the Eastern Empire which survived and had a uniquely Greek identity? Did the early Orthodox leaders ironically follow Plato's advice to purge the classics?
Because the works were lost altogether. Only a small amount continued to survive in the Eastern Empire
@@dharmadefender3932 That's totally untrue -Byzantine society was highly literate by the standards of the time and most of the ancient corpus survived but Platonism and Aristotelianism were used to justify Christian philosophy.The first university was established in Constantinople by the emperor Theodosius the second and it was entirely secular so that all the ancient classics would have been studied.There were seminaries and religious schools that taught Christianity but these were kept separate from secular institutions.Byzantium had a proto Renaissance when ancient thought was intensely studied and when Constantinople fell to the Turks some of these scholars like Chrysoloras,Psellus and Bessarion fled to the west and influenced the Italian Renaissance.Technologically they were as advanced as the ancient Romans with splendid city planning,great aqueducts that supplied fresh water (See the Underground Palace in Istanbul)Architecture reached dizzying heights as in the Hagia Sophia,there were great amphitheatres and bath complexes(surviving as Turkish baths) and the sciences thrived allowing them to invent Greek fire which devastated the Islamic attackers especially in the two great sieges of Constantinople.The great city walls influenced the building of great medieval castles like the ones the English built in Wales.
I guess both responses explain my confusion. If there were scant copies, that seems odd itself among those who thought of themselves as the literate, cultured (pronounced "Greek") half of the Empire. Or, if on the other hand, they were present and influential, why did they need to be rediscovered?
@@kaloarepo288 No they didn't. We lost 99% of all ancient works including Aristotle's works. The works of Aristotle we have are just his field notes. They're not his original works. We don't have his most important work, his Dialogues. Completely lost.
@@paulrhome6164 They were preserved if they agreed with the Orthodox Church and not preserved if they didn't. Basil the Great explicitly says this in his letters. The West on the other hand, under the Catholic Church, hadn't had access to them at all and rediscovered them in the Renaissance.
This was awesome
Watched all of it 57:09 ends here
56:54 ends here
This is me...
Again, you demonstrate error. Infinite cannot be quantified to a language of mathematics in a determined sum, so the assumption of 0.1% makes the universe seem pretty small... Maybe its more like 0.000000000000000000000001% would be a better guess, but even that makes the universe seem limited.
So its best to not reduce it to the unknown, and state on the workable. Literally state it to children, that the vast emptiness of space is filled with a myriad of galaxies, which are beyond our ability to quantify as with planets, so in that sense, we are infintissemel iota of cosmic dust on this galaxy, called Milkyway, in a neighbourhood of friends. When putting a number to something for the sake of doing it, the philosophy behind it isn't taught, 0.1% or 99% are often errata numbers to mean incalculable tiny or a large near totality of something. Where we do use these as precise measurements in say mixing chemical together... but its often replicating already engineered data, meaning we don't see the quantified data spread sheets of every chemical relation to the mixture. Whatever it may be the recipe calls for x. The notion of a limitation is granted by numbers, so we need to state jumbersn o longer as a philosophy of example but a precision by use of words to state we do not know the entirety of the universe/cosmos.. its still incalculable... as we see and reach further and further into its regions..
I have done it also, but correcting this would probably serve us all better as a relation of communication .. in say an academic realm. So do we use numbers as a philosophical statement or as a measurement of definement, so other breeds humans or languages find this ambigious nonsense hard to unravel, since its not a relation to the statement of the language, but a artful play to jest the unknown... We mean nothing by it, so yeah.. all things are incalculable.. accept for the locality of our known experience... as individual and collective as a species.
The human ming is st the center of the universe
Eric dubay channel explains this better
🙏🙏🙏🙏👌👌👌👌👌🖖🖖🖖🖖🖖🖖