tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post8676346661950282031..comments2024-03-18T11:10:18.708-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: Why Modern Physics does Not Refute Thomistic PhilosophyVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger113125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-72579571817780723972017-10-30T02:46:44.734-07:002017-10-30T02:46:44.734-07:00Blogger ficino4ml said...
" Lots of the s...<br />Blogger ficino4ml said...<br /><br />" Lots of the same people as on other blogs; first time I've been here. Salvete, omnes."<br /><br />BTW, this thread is somewhat parallel to a much older, yet current, thread:<br /><br />http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2017/01/david-haines-defense-of-aquinas-first.html<br /><br />Come on over if you want to get into hot water :-)StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-42393722604913058912017-10-29T15:40:19.032-07:002017-10-29T15:40:19.032-07:00@bmiller:
"I don't think it's a good...@bmiller:<br /><br />"I don't think it's a good policy to share personal information with internet cranks. It could be harmful."<br /><br />True enough, but believe me when I say that there is very little a putative internet stalker could do to really hurt me.grodrigueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12366931909873380710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-75435785229361832832017-10-29T15:22:21.931-07:002017-10-29T15:22:21.931-07:00@grodrigues,
I don't think it's a good po...@grodrigues,<br /><br />I don't think it's a good policy to share personal information with internet cranks. It could be harmful.<br /><br />I notice when Strawdusty is stumped and wants to distract we get personal insults related to education and intelligence, probably 2 things he feels he lacks. He didn't understand my reference to general relativity so he felt he had to fling insults to divert the conversation. Looks like it worked for him this time.<br /><br />But the real problem is that if we really want to discuss how Thomism relates to science today the parties in discussion need to know the concepts used in both fields. So for instance when I brought up how instantaneous velocity is calculated or how free body diagrams are used in physics Strawdusty and Cal did not and still do not understand the concepts.<br /><br />Neither of them will read a book and expecting combox discussions to give one an competent education in physics or metaphysics is not a very promising expectation. The odds get even lower when you claim you know the topic and ignore the explanations given by those who actually do know the topic. bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-39179621949910499912017-10-29T14:53:15.587-07:002017-10-29T14:53:15.587-07:00@ficino4ml,
Welcome.
Would you like to answer St...@ficino4ml,<br /><br />Welcome.<br /><br />Would you like to answer Strawdusty's questions we've answered numerous times but denies it?<br /><b><br />I can't get anybody here, just like on the Feser blog, to explain to me<br />1.Why would a change of the material blinking out to nothing happen absent a changer?<br />2.Why does the continued existence of mass/energy and form call for any changer at all?<br /><br />Crickets.<br /></b><br /><br />Of course you yourself, mentioned the musician and the movement of the quantum components that partly constitute material objects. I've answered a couple times also over the last year. I suspect that he doesn't recognize it when he's been given an answer due to a lack of background.<br /><br />But as a warning, be prepared for equivocations once you start discussing particular motions.<br /><br />If you want to talk about the movement of an animal in the sense that one leg of an animal is moving and another is not, he will claim that every part of the animal is actually moving in some way. In that sense, every material object is in motion continuously and so must ultimately lead to an Unmoved Mover.<br /><br />But of course that contradicts his assertion that (his understanding of) conservation laws imply no change is taking place when he desires to deny the need for that Unmoved Mover.bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-29880731414514935842017-10-29T11:37:17.532-07:002017-10-29T11:37:17.532-07:00"Note, grod deleted a message above."
T..."Note, grod deleted a message above."<br /><br />The reason I deleted the message was because it had a typo, something I positively hate. More specifically, it missed the closing parenthesis.grodrigueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12366931909873380710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-28684755591086579822017-10-29T11:18:36.474-07:002017-10-29T11:18:36.474-07:00ficino4ml said..
October 29, 2017 10:40 AM.
&...ficino4ml said..<br /> October 29, 2017 10:40 AM.<br /><br />" Lots of the same people as on other blogs; first time I've been here. Salvete, omnes."<br /><br />Hi ficino4ml.<br /><br />I can't get anybody here, just like on the Feser blog, to explain to me<br />1.Why would a change of the material blinking out to nothing happen absent a changer?<br />2.Why does the continued existence of mass/energy and form call for any changer at all?<br /><br />Crickets.<br /><br />As a side issue, grod has a tiresome history of showing up to hurl insults, imply he has great knowledge in physics, state he does not have the time to actually enumerate his argument and then leave. In the past he has called himself a "mathematical physicist"<br /><br />Yet he went out of his way to agree with and even attempt to justify the statement "Since Einstein's theory of General Relativity people favoring the geocentric theory can no more be considered incorrect than those favoring the heliocentric theory". Obviously, any working physicist knows that statement is absurd and that a "geocentric theory" is vastly different than a "geocentric reference frame".<br /><br />So, on that basis alone, grod is an obvious liar regarding his asserted physics background.<br /><br />But, he decided to double down<br /><br />grodrigues said.. October 29, 2017 9:53 AM.<br />" You do realize that it is very easy to produce proof that I have a phd in mathematics, that I have published in peer-reviewed journals, etc., don't you?<br /><br /> Here is the citation for my published paper that was part of my phd work:<br /><br /> Homotopy Quantum Field Theories and The Homotopy Cobordism Category in dimension 1+1, Journal of Knot Theory and its Ramifications, vol 12, nr. 3, 287-319, 2003."<br /><br />--So, clearly grod increased his claim to being a published physics PhD, in addition to being a "mathematical physicist".<br /><br />But lies are difficult to keep straight. Trump has that problem. He tweets out a lie, but then he realizes that lie does not fit with some other story so he deletes it. Unfortunately for Trump various news organization archive every tweet he sends the moment it posts, so even if he deletes it immediately it is already captured and will be criticized in the news, and fairly so, because he wrote it.<br /><br />Note, grod deleted a message above. It read:<br />grodrigues <br /> <br />10:26 AM (42 minutes ago)<br /> <br />to me<br />grodrigues has left a new comment on the post "Why Modern Physics does Not Refute Thomistic Philo...":<br /><br />"That proves somebody published a paper, not that you have a PhD in physics."<br /><br />Just for the record, and because accusations of lying are being thrown about (serious accusations), I never said I have a phd in physics.<br /><br />--There you see grod now forgetting he just claimed to have a PhD, and now he backtracked and claimed he never said any such thing.<br /><br />It is unfortunate that these issues arise but grod is a tiresome sort who offers no rational arguments of merit in support of A-T. <br /><br />In my service for Truth, Justice, and the American Way I sometimes take the time to expose that sort of dishonesty.<br /><br />Victor is, on the other hand, obviously an experienced academic. I always enjoy engaging with him, even though I disagree with him, because he writes in a scholarly manner.<br /><br />Have you read the Feser book? Can you find anything in it, or any other A-T source that addresses my points 1. and 2. above directly and specifically?<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-25334354181730043992017-10-29T10:40:16.595-07:002017-10-29T10:40:16.595-07:00Lots of the same people as on other blogs; first t...Lots of the same people as on other blogs; first time I've been here. Salvete, omnes.ficino4mlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00805116221735364590noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-8701542439537562762017-10-29T10:26:42.746-07:002017-10-29T10:26:42.746-07:00"That proves somebody published a paper, not ..."That proves somebody published a paper, not that you have a PhD in physics."<br /><br />Just for the record, and because accusations of lying are being thrown about (serious accusations), I never said I have a phd in physics.grodrigueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12366931909873380710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-51200242556168165472017-10-29T10:04:15.975-07:002017-10-29T10:04:15.975-07:00grodrigues said.. October 29, 2017 9:53 AM.
...grodrigues said.. October 29, 2017 9:53 AM.<br /><br /> @Stardusty Psyche:<br /><br /> "Doubling down on your lie, I see."<br /><br />" You do realize that it is very easy to produce proof that I have a phd in mathematics, that I have published in peer-reviewed journals, etc., don't you?"<br />--That proves somebody published a paper, not that you have a PhD in physics.<br /><br />" Here is the citation for my published paper that was part of my phd work:<br /> Homotopy Quantum Field Theories and The Homotopy Cobordism Category in dimension 1+1, Journal of Knot Theory and its Ramifications, vol 12, nr. 3, 287-319, 2003."<br />--A paper published as part of one's PhD work is written before one is awarded the PhD. Since you have apparently published nothing in the 14 years since your alleged publication as a student it appears you were not granted a PhD, possibly because you told the reviewers " "Since Einstein's theory of General Relativity people favoring the geocentric theory can no more be considered incorrect than those favoring the heliocentric theory" ", and they decided such a crackpot would be an embarrassment to the university.StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-48083667972798389952017-10-29T09:53:04.029-07:002017-10-29T09:53:04.029-07:00@Stardusty Psyche:
"Doubling down on your li...@Stardusty Psyche:<br /><br />"Doubling down on your lie, I see."<br /><br />You do realize that it is very easy to produce proof that I have a phd in mathematics, that I have published in peer-reviewed journals, etc., don't you?<br /><br />Here is the citation for my published paper that was part of my phd work:<br /><br />Homotopy Quantum Field Theories and The Homotopy Cobordism Category in dimension 1+1, Journal of Knot Theory and its Ramifications, vol 12, nr. 3, 287-319, 2003.<br /><br />And I will stop here. Like Jesus said of Satan, you will believe whatever your whim fancies, regardless of the evidence that is brought forward. That you call me a liar, is itself a lie, but honestly I couldn't care less. Go in peace and may God have mercy on us all.grodrigueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12366931909873380710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-26414355256313142872017-10-29T09:38:39.720-07:002017-10-29T09:38:39.720-07:00grodrigues said...
@Stardusty Psyche:
&q... grodrigues said...<br /><br /> @Stardusty Psyche:<br /><br /> "Your claim to be a mathematical physicist is a transparent lie."<br /><br />" Since you are not competent judge of those things, your charge of lie is moot. The graduate advisors, the graduate jury, journal peer-revierwers, etc. are the competent judges of that and they say otherwise."<br />--Doubling down on your lie, I see.<br /><br />No physicist would mistake "geocentric theory" for "geocentric reference frame". Those 2 things are vastly different.<br /><br />If you had ever had a graduate review of your work and you stated "Since Einstein's theory of General Relativity people favoring the geocentric theory can no more be considered incorrect than those favoring the heliocentric theory" you would be denied graduation. <br /><br />No accredited university would award an advanced degree in physics to a student who made such a stunningly preposterous assertion.StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-73773958847385225122017-10-29T08:29:15.196-07:002017-10-29T08:29:15.196-07:00@Stardusty Psyche:
"Your claim to be a mathe...@Stardusty Psyche:<br /><br />"Your claim to be a mathematical physicist is a transparent lie."<br /><br />Since you are not competent judge of those things, your charge of lie is moot. The graduate advisors, the graduate jury, journal peer-revierwers, etc. are the competent judges of that and they say otherwise.grodrigueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12366931909873380710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-83279288565034425922017-10-29T07:40:13.727-07:002017-10-29T07:40:13.727-07:00grodrigues said.. October 29, 2017 7:31 AM.
...grodrigues said.. October 29, 2017 7:31 AM.<br /><br /> bmiller said this:<br /><br /> "Some of us know the latest theory, yes. Since Einstein's theory of General Relativity people favoring the geocentric theory can no more be considered incorrect than those favoring the heliocentric theory."<br /><br /> To which Stardusty Psyche, who thinks himself knowledgeable in physics (fall off the chair laughing), responded thus:<br /><br />SP "Truly stunning. You either enjoy making up bizarre lies or you are the most uneducated individual I have encountered on a forum."<br /><br />" Now, everybody who knows physics knows that bmiller is completely correct"<br />--Hilarious. You don't know the difference between a "geocentric theory" and a "geocentric reference frame" either.<br /><br />Your claim to be a mathematical physicist is a transparent lie.StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-82998841659220390022017-10-29T07:31:42.306-07:002017-10-29T07:31:42.306-07:00bmiller said this:
"Some of us know the late...bmiller said this:<br /><br />"Some of us know the latest theory, yes. Since Einstein's theory of General Relativity people favoring the geocentric theory can no more be considered incorrect than those favoring the heliocentric theory."<br /><br />To which Stardusty Psyche, who thinks himself knowledgeable in physics (fall off the chair laughing), responded thus:<br /><br />"Truly stunning. You either enjoy making up bizarre lies or you are the most uneducated individual I have encountered on a forum."<br /><br />Now, everybody who knows physics knows that bmiller is completely correct and that it is Stardusty that is an incorrigible ignorant buffoon. Pointing to a textbook in General Relativity would be useless, so let's try something easier shall we? Here it is: <a href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2005/10/03/does-the-earth-move-around-the-sun/" rel="nofollow">Does the Earth move around the Sun?</a>. The author is Sean Carroll, an expert in GR and a well-known atheist apologist.<br /><br />edit: now with the correct link.grodrigueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12366931909873380710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-24096867384722270962017-10-29T07:29:04.016-07:002017-10-29T07:29:04.016-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.grodrigueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12366931909873380710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-74565497125551011202017-10-28T18:52:08.760-07:002017-10-28T18:52:08.760-07:00@Strawdusty,
Someone familiar with general relati...@Strawdusty,<br /><br />Someone familiar with general relativity would have had no trouble understanding what I meant. Don't blame me when you bring up the topic of physics and don't have enough background to understand the response.<br /><br />I recall grodrigues had brought up a similar point in a different thread and you had a similar dumbfounded reply. Nothing's changed.bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-57791488349962589172017-10-28T15:16:16.584-07:002017-10-28T15:16:16.584-07:00bmiller said...
@Strawdusty,
" I exp...bmiller said...<br /><br /> @Strawdusty,<br /><br />" I explained exactly what I meant"<br />--You said "theory". That is not a "frame of reference".<br /><br />At least learn the meanings of basic terms before you employ them, OK?StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-36568254226569367812017-10-28T14:04:53.081-07:002017-10-28T14:04:53.081-07:00@Strawdusty,
I explained exactly what I meant and...@Strawdusty,<br /><br />I explained exactly what I meant and provided an example to illustrate what I meant.<br /><br />There is no preferred frame of reference. <br /><br />You did not read and/or understand the quote of mine you posted and indeed you left off the very next sentence:<br />"Observations depend on where you take your point of reference."<br /><br />So instead of asking for clarification or rebutting, you accuse me of being or being uneducated. Your habit of flinging those particular insults look like thin-skinned projection to me.bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-34036843889746389932017-10-28T11:54:52.381-07:002017-10-28T11:54:52.381-07:00bmiller
"Since Einstein's theory of Gene...bmiller<br /><br />"Since Einstein's theory of General Relativity people favoring the geocentric theory can no more be considered incorrect than those favoring the heliocentric theory."<br /><br />You then provide a link to a wikipage on geocentric theory and proceed to confuse the arbitrary choice of geometric origin with geocentric theory.<br /><br />In geocentric theory the Earth stands still and all the heavenly bodies orbit the Earth. This theory has no validity under modern science and leads to innumerable absurd results.<br /><br />Do you take some perverted pleasure in continually posting such conflated stupidity just to watch everybody else do facepalms, as it were, or are you really this clueless?<br /><br />Nor do astronomers choose the largest object in the solar system as being the center of the solar system, rather the common center of mass which is not the same as the center of mass of the sun.<br /><br />Yes, in principle, any point in space can be chosen as the geometric coordinate origin and all cancellations can be done from there in Cartesian, cylindrical, or spherical coordinates by applying the appropriate transforms.<br /><br />Choosing a geometric coordinate origin at the center of the Earth is vastly different than a geocentric theory.StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-83867426648983910792017-10-28T11:08:05.310-07:002017-10-28T11:08:05.310-07:00@Strawdusty,
--Truly stunning. You either enjoy m...@Strawdusty,<br /><br /><b>--Truly stunning. You either enjoy making up bizarre lies or you are the most uneducated individual I have encountered on a forum.</b><br /><br />I used to think your ignorance of science was truly stunning, but now I'm not surprised. But I am still surprised that you so loudly and proudly demonstrate that ignorance.<br /><br />I don't have the time nor the inclination to bring you up to speed on classical physics, much less general relativity especially when you can't even trouble yourself to google topics yourself. You'd have to actually start with those high school science and math classes you skipped.<br /><br />There simply is no preferred reference frame according to general relativity. The reference frame chosen for any particular analysis will yield the same results, but one frame may make the calculations easier.<br /><br /><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model" rel="nofollow"><br /><i><b>What the principle of relativity points out is that correct mathematical calculations can be made regardless of the reference frame chosen, and these will all agree with each other as to the predictions of actual motions of bodies with respect to each other.</b> It is not necessary to choose the object in the solar system with the largest gravitational field as the center of the coordinate system in order to predict the motions of planetary bodies, though doing so may make calculations easier to perform or interpret. A geocentric coordinate system can be more convenient when dealing only with bodies mostly influenced by the gravity of the Earth (such as artificial satellites and the Moon), or when calculating what the sky will look like when viewed from Earth (as opposed to an imaginary observer looking down on the entire solar system, where a different coordinate system might be more convenient).</i><br /></a><br /><br /><b>--Huh? Please find Newton's laws for animals and Newton's laws for other stuff. Are you intoxicated when you write this stuff?</b><br /><br />OK, I'm now just as sure you are ignorant of Newton's opinion of animal motion as you are of physics. Newton's laws of motion were meant to explain the motion of simple bodies having simple motion, ie. inanimate objects. That you are astounded by these facts is really funny, but also kind of pathetic.bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-75665703451900491252017-10-28T10:43:46.765-07:002017-10-28T10:43:46.765-07:00bmiller said.. October 28, 2017 10:39 AM.
&qu...bmiller said.. October 28, 2017 10:39 AM.<br /><br /><br />" In a way, all material things are moving toward each other due to what we call gravity."<br />--Some things are moving away from other things, duh.<br /><br />" But animate things move in an additional way. Plants grow roots in the direction of nutrients, animals move toward food sources and men pursue knowledge."<br />--Hydrogen moves toward a star. So what?StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-4769661563297432782017-10-28T10:39:26.234-07:002017-10-28T10:39:26.234-07:00@Joe Hinman,
Are you following? I think you will...@Joe Hinman,<br /><br />Are you following? I think you will find this interesting.<br /><br />Things that are moving at this present moment, are moving due to other existing things. <br /><br />In a way, all material things are moving toward each other due to what we call gravity. But animate things move in an additional way. Plants grow roots in the direction of nutrients, animals move toward food sources and men pursue knowledge.<br /><br /><br />bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-79074618661940474282017-10-27T22:20:28.900-07:002017-10-27T22:20:28.900-07:00bmiller said.. October 27, 2017 8:54 PM.
&quo...bmiller said.. October 27, 2017 8:54 PM.<br /><br /><br />" Some of us know the latest theory, yes. Since Einstein's theory of General Relativity people favoring the geocentric theory can no more be considered incorrect than those favoring the heliocentric theory."<br />--Truly stunning. You either enjoy making up bizarre lies or you are the most uneducated individual I have encountered on a forum.<br /><br />" Observations depend on where you take your point of reference. Consider yourself instructed now."<br />--A geocentric view of the universe would require the stars to be moving at thousands of times the speed of light.<br /><br /><br />" The principle of motion for animate things is different than for inanimate things. "<br />--Huh? Please find Newton's laws for animals and Newton's laws for other stuff. Are you intoxicated when you write this stuff?StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-43003093594710950712017-10-27T20:54:31.479-07:002017-10-27T20:54:31.479-07:00@Strawdusty,
--A great many sane people agreed fo...@Strawdusty,<br /><br /><b>--A great many sane people agreed for thousands of years that the Earth stands still and the sun and moon and stars circle around the Earth. They were not stupid, because ordinary naked eye observation leads to that obvious conclusion.<br /><br />We know better now, thanks to science.</b><br /><br />Some of us know the latest theory, yes. Since Einstein's theory of General Relativity people favoring the geocentric theory can no more be considered incorrect than those favoring the heliocentric theory. Observations depend on where you take your point of reference. Consider yourself instructed now.<br /><br />But I assess that non-sequitor tactic as an attempt to dodge the topics I've brought up.<br /><br />Inanimate existing material things cannot start and stop their movement by themselves.<br />Animate things appear to start and stop their motion.<br /><br />The principle of motion for animate things is different than for inanimate things. Inanimate things cannot start or stop their motion, but are drawn toward all other things. Animate things can start and stop their motion toward what is good for them.<br /><br />You equivocate when a particular sense of motion is discussed. When you want to argue that an Unchanged Changer is not needed to sustain things in existence, you claim that things are not changing (even though they are living and have a particular velocity). Now you want to claim that *all* parts of an animal are *all* responsible, simultaneously for an animal walking (just when I thought you opposed essentially ordered series)<br /><br /><br />Regarding your advise that I read your link:<br /><i> I doubt you took even high school physics and I'm sure you've never taken a calculus course from our past discussions. Looks like you're projecting your ignorance on others.</i><br /><br />Let me know if I'm wrong about your level of study. I don't think I am from what I've seen, thus your posturing.bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-15061250867491495262017-10-27T17:39:00.130-07:002017-10-27T17:39:00.130-07:00bmiller said...
:" When we see an animal...bmiller said...<br /><br /><br />:" When we see an animal move one leg and not the other, sane people understand the sense of movement under discussion and agree that part of the animal is moving and another is not."<br />--A great many sane people agreed for thousands of years that the Earth stands still and the sun and moon and stars circle around the Earth. They were not stupid, because ordinary naked eye observation leads to that obvious conclusion.<br /><br />We know better now, thanks to science.<br /><br />Study the link I provided and a bit of biology. All of every animal is always in motion, the general impression of simple naked eye observations notwithstanding.StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.com