Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 114 (8796 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-22-2017 1:26 PM
351 online now:
DrJones*, granpa, halibut, Meddle, Modulous (AdminModulous), PaulK, Tangle (7 members, 344 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Upcoming Birthdays: willietern
Happy Birthday: Flyer75
Post Volume:
Total: 821,042 Year: 25,648/21,208 Month: 1,275/2,338 Week: 32/364 Day: 32/57 Hour: 0/2

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
4Next
Author Topic:   Galileo Was Wrong, Okay?
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5104
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.2


(2)
Message 31 of 54 (761356)
06-30-2015 4:33 PM


Well, surprisingly enough, Star Trek and Wired sorted this out for us lay people.

Phew...

http://www.wired.com/...-do-we-know-the-earth-orbits-the-sun

Btw, Jupiter and Venus are in total alignment tonight - it was pretty amazing last night but tonight will be special if you have clear skys

http://www.universetoday.com/...nus-and-jupiter-meet-at-last


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


  
Suzanne Romano
Member (Idle past 741 days)
Posts: 58
Joined: 06-17-2015


Message 32 of 54 (761358)
06-30-2015 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by JonF
06-30-2015 4:19 PM


JonF:
quote:
Accelerating reference frames not a fact? Never spun a top or threw a Frisbee?

Accelerating frames exist and can be detected by those in them in many ways.

Let's get specific. Foucalt pendulum. Explained in your own words. Go!


1. Tops and Frisbees move; wherefore they may be included in a class of accelerating objects. The Earth does not move; wherefore it cannot be categorized as an accelerating reference frame.

2. The following are my words based on my research:

Newton represents a second generation of heliocentrists striving to break out of the inverse identity stalemate between the rival geocentric and heliocentric systems. In 1687 Newton published a book entitled Principia Mathematica, in which he set forth three postulated laws of motion which could be applied to the movement of celestial bodies like the Sun and the Earth in a cosmological model. These laws of motion were accepted by the scientific establishment as the ironclad proof of the heliocentric thesis. Newton's laws were predicated on a philosophical presumption he called Absolute Space - an intellectual abstraction needed to make his laws demonstrable. In Absolute Space, nothing moves and nothing contributes any force; and this becomes the backdrop for the motion of the bodies being measured. The only things moving in a Newtonian demonstration are the bodies plugged into a mathematical formula, for example the Earth and the Sun. Wherefore Newton's equations for measuring motion have a limited utility; they only work in closed systems in which a limited number of bodies are present. For example, his equation for determining force (FORCE = mass X acceleration) can be demonstrated in a laboratory, but falls apart on large (universal) scales; and his equation for gravitation is also limited by being a closed system in which the forces produced by two isolated bodies are determined to account for the entirety of the observed motion (FORCE OF GRAVITY = the mass of the first body TIMES the mass of the second body DIVIDED BY the square of the distance between them).

Newton's theory of gravitation applied to a cosmological model had both the Sun and Earth in motion and exerting force. The force of the Sun's gravity pulls the Earth toward itself; while the Earth, by its own circular motion, produces an equal and opposite acceleration away from the Sun. According to the theory, these contrapuntal forces maintain the Earth in a safe-distance orbit around the Sun. The Sun, however, was hypothesized to be itself revolving around a center of gravity or center of mass, which is not a geometric center. [The center of gravity is the point at which the entire weight of a body may be considered as concentrated so that if supported at this point the body would remain in equilibrium in any position: Merriam Webster definition.] Newton taught that both the Earth and the Sun were revolving around the same center of mass, and that, the center being so close to the Sun, the Earth could be deemed to be revolving around the Sun for practical purposes, even if this is not strictly the case. The postulate that the Earth and the Sun shared a center of gravity was hailed as the clinching argument for heliocentrism in the cosmological debate.

Fatally, Newton completely left the stars, and their modalities, out of his equations. Whether they exerted force or contributed in any way to the theorized movements of the Earth and Sun, could not be answered within the philosophical context of Absolute Space. Technological advances in the mid-19th century, however, caused a profusion of speculation on the nature and operations of the stars. Enter physicist Ernst Mach, who reasoned that if the huge mass of the Sun had a great force of gravity, then it followed that the combined masses of the stars had a corresponding force of gravity; and this force must influence other bodies in the universe. Contrary to Newton, Mach argued that no place or object in our own solar system escapes the force of the stars. Newton proposed that the relative motion of the Earth and the Sun occurred in an Absolute Space absolutely devoid of force and motion; on the other hand Mach held that the backdrop of space is filled with bodies, motion, and gravitational force. To Newton's Absolute Space, Mach opposed his own concept of Absolute Gravity, which is based on the theoretical principle that matter (in this case the combined matter of the stars) produces gravitational force. This "force field," and not an empty, immobile, fixed space, is, he argued, the correct context within which to measure any terrestrial or celestial movement. According to Mach, the influence of the stars is everywhere experienced on Earth, for example in such things as centrifugal force-employing amusement park rides, and in the motion of other vehicles. Essentially whenever a terrestrial body changes direction or accelerates, it is subject to the gravitational force or tension caused by the combined masses of the celestial bodies.

The consequences of Mach's Absolute Gravity model were unfavorable for Newtonian physics and the heliocentric cosmology; for Mach concluded that identical forces would be created in either of two cases. In the first case, the Earth rotates in a fixed star field; and in the second case, the star field rotates around a fixed Earth. Both systems would produce identical forces. There are fundamental differences in the postulates of Newton and Mach, and the implications inherent in this divergence are problematic for Newton's laws. Newton's "enlightened" ideas were upheld as the "objective proof" for the heliocentric model, and the "evidence" that put the heliocentrism versus geocentrism debate to rest. But Mach's theories rocked the boat; and his contribution to science reopened the debate. If there was no difference between a rotating Earth in a fixed star field as opposed to a rotating star field around a fixed Earth, how could we determine which was the reality?

Furthermore, if one had the notion, it is also possible to use Newton’s laws of motion in support of a geocentric model of the cosmos: simply have the whole starfield rotating around one central point, namely the Earth. According to Newton’s laws, if the stars were rotating around a fixed Earth, the Earth would act as the center of mass for the entire universe. The ultimate implication is this: Using the laws of physics as postulated by either Newton or Mach, the whole universe can rotate around a motionless Earth. Both Newtonian and Machian mechanics can be used to build a geocentric model of the universe.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Reset signature


{Too spammy video promotion banner/link replaced with this message - Adminnemooseus)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by JonF, posted 06-30-2015 4:19 PM JonF has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Suzanne Romano, posted 06-30-2015 4:42 PM Suzanne Romano has not yet responded
 Message 41 by JonF, posted 07-01-2015 8:22 AM Suzanne Romano has not yet responded

    
Suzanne Romano
Member (Idle past 741 days)
Posts: 58
Joined: 06-17-2015


Message 33 of 54 (761359)
06-30-2015 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Suzanne Romano
06-30-2015 4:41 PM


JonF:
quote:
Accelerating reference frames not a fact? Never spun a top or threw a Frisbee?

Accelerating frames exist and can be detected by those in them in many ways.

Let's get specific. Foucalt pendulum. Explained in your own words. Go!


The following are my words based on my research:

Stellar Parallax: Stellar parallax is the observation from the Earth of a shift in the position of a nearby star. Over the course of a year, the star appears to change its location vís a vís a fixed, more distant background star. Stellar parallax was detected by Fredrich Bessell in 1838. Prior to this discovery, the scientific consensus was that if stellar parallax could be observed from Earth, heliocentrism would have its conclusive proof, since an Earth revolving around the Sun would produce this phenomenon. In response to the discovery, the geocentric model was simply recalibrated, so that the star field previously aligned with the Earth is now aligned with the Sun (with both Sun and star field rotating around the Earth). This realignment results in the star field being offset from the Earth by 1 astronomical unit; so that the Earth is not the geometric center, but rather the center of mass for the entire universe. In the realigned geocentric model, the same exact stellar parallax is produced. Thus the two rival systems remain theoretically equivalent.

Stellar Aberration: Stellar aberration is a celestial phenomenon observed from the Earth involving a single star. It is an apparent motion or star trail that can have a circular, linear, or elliptical shape, depending on the star's location in relation to the Earth. The occurrence of stellar aberration was first observed by James Bradley in 1725. A star located near the north celestial pole appeared to move in a small circle over the course of a year. Heliocentrists argue that the Earth’s motion around the Sun accounts for the appearance of this circular track. In fact the recalibrated Tychonic model, in which the stars are aligned with the Sun, provides just as valid an explanation. The star field, offset by 1 astronomical unit, rotates around the Earth, causing the star to make the exact same circular trail. Thus the two rival systems remain theoretically equivalent.

Foucault Pendulum: Anyone who has visited a science museum is familiar with the exhibit wherein a giant pendulum swings back and forth inside a circular perimeter and changes direction almost imperceptibly over a span of time - as if the floor beneath it was slowly turning. The heliocentric explanation for this observed directional change is the rotation of the Earth on its axis beneath the pendulum. The geocentric explanation is that the Earth does not rotate on its axis; rather the universe rotates around the earth once per day. This diurnal rotation of the universe will produce three kinds of dynamic force: Centrifugal, Coriolis, and Euler. The directional changes observed in the pendulum mainly result from the Coriolis force. As Mach demonstrated, this force can be created either by a rotating Earth in a fixed star field, or by the star field rotating around a fixed Earth. Thus the Foucault Pendulum does not constitute proof that the Earth is rotating on its axis, nor does it prove the heliocentric thesis. Rather the two rival systems remain theoretically equivalent.

Bulge of the Earth: Modern science reports that the Earth’s equatorial circumference is slightly larger than its circumference around the north and south poles, so that a slight bulge appears at the equator. Heliocentrists claim that the equatorial bulge is the result of centrifugal force caused by the Earth’s rotation. However, as it is not possible to determine whether the centrifugal force results from a rotating Earth in a fixed star field or a star field rotating around a fixed earth, the two rival systems remain theoretically equivalent.

Retrograde Motion: Over the course of several months, Mars, as viewed from Earth, appears to make an S-shape in its orbit, as if it were reversing its course. The heliocentrist model posits that the Earth moves faster around the Sun than Mars and actually overtakes it at certain times of the year. At these times the angle from which we view Mars from Earth abruptly reverses, creating the illusion that the planet reverses course. But the same retrograde motion of Mars will be seen from the Earth if the Earth is fixed and the Sun and Mars revolve around it. The two systems are inverses of one another and, therefore, theoretically equivalent.

Starlight Experiment I of Dominique Arago: This experiment was based on four presuppositions. The first, that, as the Earth revolves around the Sun, it comes closer to and then farther away from a given star. The second, that, as the focus of a camera must be adjusted if the subject moves closer or farther away, so the focus of a telescope must be adjusted incrementally when viewing the given star over the course of a year, to account for changes in distance. The third presupposition, that the speed of light from the star is fixed. And the fourth, that the star is many light years away from Earth. In accordance with these suppositions, Arago hypothesized that the telescope would need to be refocused when the Earth was receding from the star. However the results did not confirm the hypothesis: There was no need to adjust the focus any time during the year. The heliocentrist interpretation of the experimental results would locate the star so far away that its light would be unaffected by the changes in distance caused by an orbiting Earth. The geocentrist explanation is that there is very little relative linear movement between a non-moving Earth and a given star, so that there is no need to adjust focus.

Starlight Experiment II of Dominique Arago: This experiment was intended to test the results of the former, and is based on the following presuppositions: First that the speed of light depends upon the medium through which the light passes. For example, when passing through glass or water, light travels slower. Secondly that the space between the Sun and the Earth is not empty but rather filled with a rarified material substance called aether, through which medium light passes at a uniform speed. Arago hypothesized that, because the Earth was revolving around the Sun, it was moving against the aether, and this movement would impede or slow down the speed of a light beam pointed in the same direction, as if the light were passing through glass or water. Arago's experimental procedure consisted in pointing a light beam through glass in two directions, one the direction of the Earth's supposed movement along its orbital path, and two the opposite direction. Arago expected the speed of light to be impeded or slowed by the presence of the aether in the orbital direction. The experimental results, however, falsified the hypothesis. Whether the light beam was pointed in the direction of the Earth’s supposed movement around the Sun or in the opposite direction of that movement, there was no effect on the speed of the light. It remained uniform. Further testing revealed that a light beam pointed toward or away from the Earth’s presumed orbit had the same refraction in glass as the refraction of starlight in glass. In whatever way Arago tested for the incidence of light, it always pointed to a non-moving Earth, at rest in the aether. Arago's experiment is the first confirmed scientific proof that the Earth does not move. Prior to this experiment, the science had to call the geocentric and heliocentric systems theoretically equivalent. With this experiment dawned a new chapter in the debate; the scales were now tipped in favor of a non-moving Earth.

Fresnel Aether Drag Hypothesis: This theory is Augustin Fresnel's attempt to provide a heliocentric explanation for Arago’s outcomes. It should be noted at the outset that, contrary to the demonstrable, observable, repeatable results of Arago's experiment, the Fresnel hypothesis remains an exercise in speculation without any direct empirical evidence to support it. The presuppositions for this hypothesis are as follows: First that aether permeates all substances, including the magnifying glass of a telescope. Secondly that the aether in the magnifying glass is denser and independent from the aether in the surrounding air. Thirdly that the aether outside the magnifying glass is immobile, and thus serves as an absolute reference frame from which to measure any other movement. Fourthly that the magnifying glass moves with the Earth’s presumed motion around the Sun and against the immobile aether outside of it. Fifthly as the magnifying glass moves with the Earth and against the immobile outside aether, it will “drag” its trapped aether with it in the same direction. The trapped aether inside the glass moves, while the aether outside is fixed. The hypothesis posits that when the light is pointed in the direction opposite the Earth's movement, it will pass through the "dragged" aether trapped inside the magnifying glass and traveling in the orbital direction; and this will be equivalent to the effect of moving against the aether in the orbital direction. This "drag," claimed Fresnel, accounts for Arago's experimental result that there is no directional difference in light incidence. According to heliocentrists, "drag," and not a fixed Earth, is the great equalizer. Fresnel invented an equation, known as his "drag coefficient," to measure the speed of the "dragged" aether inside the glass against the immobile aether reference frame. This theoretical equation, known as the “drag coefficient,” supports Fresnel's hypothesis by duplicating the results of Arago's experiment. It must be understood, however, that the entire hypothesis rests on a speculative manipulation of the hypothesized properties of aether, a substance Fresnel could not observe or measure. Fresnel conducted no physical experiments of his own; he did no more than try to explain away the results of Arago's labors.

Fizeau Water Tube Experiment: This was an attempt by Armand Fizeau to prove the Fresnel drag theory by means of an experiment. The experimental procedure consisted of filling two tubes with rapidly moving water. The water made the equivalent of a circuit so that it went in one direction in one tube and the opposite direction in the other. Using mirrors to refract light beams sent into the tubes, measurements of the light traveling both in the same direction of the water and in the opposite direction of the water, could be taken. Fizeau correctly hypothesized that the light beam moving against the water would take more time to travel through its tube than the light beam moving in the same direction as the water; but his subsequent interpretation of these findings is highly questionable. Fizeau's interpretation requires tagging a series of presuppositions onto the data. The first presupposition is that the water is permeated with aether. Secondly the aether in the water is being moved by the Earth's motion around the Sun. Thirdly in the direction going against the current, the aether in the water moves against the light beam, retarding its speed. Ironically Fizeau's experiment fails both to save Arago and to bolster Fresnel because, if aether is a factor in the conclusion, then it must be accounted for in the analytical process: If the Earth is moving through aether, then the speed of the light beam moving with the water must be a combination of the speed of the water and the speed of the Earth’s motion around the Sun. Fizeau did not factor in both velocities; hence he had no basis for his supposition that the Earth moves through the aether. And, as water moving in tubes on a non-moving Earth can easily account for the results of this experiment, it does not constitute a valid proof of the heliocentric thesis.

Airy's Failure: George Airy conceived of an experiment which would test Arago’s results by another method. His experimental procedure consisted in setting up two telescopes, one filled with air and the other filled with water. The experiment was based on several presuppositions. First that the Earth is revolving around the Sun. Secondly that starlight coming through the water-filled telescope will move slower and thus refract more. Thirdly that as the slower moving, more refracted starlight hits the water-filled telescope, it will bend outward, hitting the side of the telescope and missing the eyepiece. Fourthly that in order to compensate for this bending of the light, the water-filled telescope must be tilted to enable the beam to hit the eyepiece (as one must tilt an umbrella forward in order to prevent rain from hitting the body). The experimental results, however, falsified the hypothesis. It was not necessary to tilt the water-filled telescope, as it captured the same amount of light from the same direction as the air-filled telescope. The starlight did move slower through the water, but it did not refract. It went straight into the eyepiece. This stands as a dramatic proof that the Earth is at rest. In fact, Airy’s failure is one of the strongest evidences of geocentrism to date.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Reset signature


{Too spammy video promotion banner/link replaced with this message - Adminnemooseus)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Suzanne Romano, posted 06-30-2015 4:41 PM Suzanne Romano has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by NoNukes, posted 06-30-2015 5:30 PM Suzanne Romano has not yet responded
 Message 37 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-30-2015 9:22 PM Suzanne Romano has not yet responded
 Message 39 by AZPaul3, posted 07-01-2015 8:00 AM Suzanne Romano has not yet responded
 Message 40 by Admin, posted 07-01-2015 8:06 AM Suzanne Romano has not yet responded
 Message 42 by JonF, posted 07-01-2015 8:25 AM Suzanne Romano has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9998
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 34 of 54 (761365)
06-30-2015 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by PaulK
06-30-2015 3:41 PM


The issue is whether relativity undermines itself by making a stationary Earth equivalent to an orbiting Earth, as you claimed. It does not. And the reason is that an orbiting Earth is accelerating, and therefore a frame of reference that takes the Earth as stationary cannot be equivalent because of that acceleration.

All correct PaulK.

People promoting geocentric ideas play lip service to relativity as a way of introducing their topic, but they cannot actually accept either Galileo's or Einstein's version of relativity nor can they accept Newtonian mechanics. To the extent that the contend that the sun is not the center of the universe, they are right. But the rest of this stuff is silly.

If the geocentric picture of the world is correct, then the sun orbits the earth daily with each orbit varying in distance from the earth, inclination to the ecliptic, and orbital speed in ways that cannot be predicted or explained by any coherent theory of the universe. And yet these exact same phenomena are easily explained by assuming a rotating earth and planetary orbits as explained by Newton/Einstein.

That alone would be enough to make most people discard the geocentric philosophies. But a select few people are actually attracted toward thinking which invalidates the very idea of trying to do science.

Only someone willing to pitch all of physics would spend the least bit of time with this crap, and guess what group is already well out on that limb? A certain group of YEC, Bible literalists who believe their religion if biology, physics, geology, paleontology, etc. are correct.

As for an electrical engineer being a particular competent expert witness, that is of course pretty silly. EvC appears to be littered with people that have similar credentials. FWIW I have an electrical engineering degree too.

I wanted to second Tangle's comment. For people who have never seen Venus or Jupiter you can view the two of them in conjunction tonight. Look in the Western sky after sunset. The two planets are near the ecliptic which is the path the sun travels across the sky. (I know. Spoken like a geocentric idiot).

You've got a couple more days after tonight if you miss the show. But tonights the best night.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by PaulK, posted 06-30-2015 3:41 PM PaulK has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9998
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 35 of 54 (761366)
06-30-2015 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Suzanne Romano
06-30-2015 4:42 PM


Just how fast would stars have to move in order to orbit the earth in one day? Alpha Centauri is about 4.2 light years from earth. Tau Ceti is just under 12 light years away. Does your research indicate that faster than light motion in a circle is possible?

Why is it that your system leaves us with no theory of planetary motion while applying non geocentric motion allows very simply models that can make accurate predictions?

In fact, Airy’s failure is one of the strongest evidences of geocentrism to date.

The problem with this being evidence is that the result is completely consistent with Special Relativity. At best what you've done here is suggest some experiments that do not allow us to distinguish between geocentricism and reality.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Suzanne Romano, posted 06-30-2015 4:42 PM Suzanne Romano has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by JonF, posted 07-01-2015 8:27 AM NoNukes has responded

    
Diomedes
Member
Posts: 664
From: Central Florida, USA
Joined: 09-13-2013
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 36 of 54 (761374)
06-30-2015 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Suzanne Romano
06-30-2015 4:26 PM


Re: RICKER BIO
There is such a thing as an expert witness.

Correct. The keyword is expert.

In court, the appeal to authority is a valid maneuver when backed up by real expertise.

Correct again. And the keywords here are real expertise.

Of course this man is not setting himself up as an expert, though he is certainly affirming he has the competence to judge a science documentary about physics

Wrong. He is attempting to subversively give credence to his pet theories by citing his scholastic acumen, even though that background is not consistent with the subject matter at hand.

Yes there does exist the logical fallacy you cite, and yes it is perfectly appropriate to list one's credentials when publishing an article.

If the logical fallacy exists, then the argument is undermined. So why are you continuing to cite it as reference if you acknowledge this individual is not a subject matter expert on the topic at hand?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Suzanne Romano, posted 06-30-2015 4:26 PM Suzanne Romano has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15962
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 5.0


(1)
Message 37 of 54 (761376)
06-30-2015 9:22 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Suzanne Romano
06-30-2015 4:42 PM


It seems to me one could "recalibrate" any hypothesis that way.

"There's an elephant in the back yard."

"An elephant?"

"Yeah, big gray thing, plain as the nose on your face."

"But if you look in the back yard, you'll see there is no big gray thing."

"OK, let me recalibrate the theory. The elephant's there, all right, but it's not gray, it's invisible."

"So the evidence for an elephant being there ... is that we see what we'd see if an elephant wasn't there?"

"Exactly!"

---

In fact, instead of "recalibrating" your hypothesis one bit at a time to hide from the evidence piecemeal, you could do it in one fell swoop by saying this:

The Earth stays still, but contrives to do so in such a way that whenever we put this hypothesis to the test we see exactly what we'd see if it was moving.

There, that's the whole of geocentrism done. You don't need any more arguments. It covers all the evidence against geocentrism found in the past, and all the evidence that will be found against it in the future. And yet this will not convince anyone who doesn't already have a strong religious prejudice in favor of being convinced, just as the "invisible elephant" excuse would leave you cold unless you were really desperate to believe in the elephant.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Suzanne Romano, posted 06-30-2015 4:42 PM Suzanne Romano has not yet responded

  
AdminPhat
Administrator
Posts: 1816
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-03-2004


Message 38 of 54 (761377)
06-30-2015 9:34 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Suzanne Romano
06-30-2015 3:32 PM


Re: SYNOPSIS SCENE II
My request for permission to post my own work product has been ignored.
You may post articles and/or posts written by you.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Suzanne Romano, posted 06-30-2015 3:32 PM Suzanne Romano has not yet responded

    
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3428
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006


(1)
Message 39 of 54 (761399)
07-01-2015 8:00 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Suzanne Romano
06-30-2015 4:42 PM


The evidence shows that geocentrism and Celestial Sealism are theoretically equivalent.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Suzanne Romano, posted 06-30-2015 4:42 PM Suzanne Romano has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12533
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 40 of 54 (761400)
07-01-2015 8:06 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Suzanne Romano
06-30-2015 4:42 PM


Suspension Reversed
Hi Suzanne,

I have reversed your suspension on a technicality - current policy is that a warning be issued about a specific Forum Guidelines violation, and that the violation persist, before a suspension is issued. The only exception is obvious spammers.

EvC Forum is a discussion forum, with the emphasis on discussion. The Forum Guidelines state:

  1. Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references.

  2. Avoid lengthy cut-n-pastes. Introduce the point in your own words and provide a link to your source as a reference. If your source is not on-line you may contact the Site Administrator to have it made available on-line.

The request that you respond in your own words refers to words that you actually type into the response box, not words that you cut-n-paste from elsewhere, even when those words are your own. This is for three reasons. First, previously composed messages or articles are often only obliquely relevant to the precise point, question or issue raised. Second, there's no way to establish provenance, i.e., to establish that those words are actually your words. And so, third, there's no guarantee that you understand the words you're posting and can respond competently to questions and issues raised in reply.

So please respond to messages in your own words that you type right now, and please start acting more like someone sincerely interested in discussing the topic and less like Sungenis' publicity director.

AdminPhat is the moderator for this thread, I likely won't post to this thread again.

Please, no replies to this message.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Suzanne Romano, posted 06-30-2015 4:42 PM Suzanne Romano has not yet responded

    
JonF
Member
Posts: 3974
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 41 of 54 (761403)
07-01-2015 8:22 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Suzanne Romano
06-30-2015 4:41 PM


Your reply had no relationship whatsoever to my message.

Foucault pendulum. Explanation in your own words and within your paradigm. Go!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Suzanne Romano, posted 06-30-2015 4:41 PM Suzanne Romano has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 3974
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 42 of 54 (761404)
07-01-2015 8:25 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Suzanne Romano
06-30-2015 4:42 PM


Again no relationship to my message.

Foucault pendulum In your own word and within your paradigm. Personally, I'll accept a cut 'n paste if it actually addresses the issue, which means showing the calculations.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Suzanne Romano, posted 06-30-2015 4:42 PM Suzanne Romano has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 3974
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 43 of 54 (761405)
07-01-2015 8:27 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by NoNukes
06-30-2015 5:30 PM


Just how fast would stars have to move in order to orbit the earth in one day? Alpha Centauri is about 4.2 light years from earth. Tau Ceti is just under 12 light years away. Does your research indicate that faster than light motion in a circle is possible

It's pretty obvious that you won't get an answer from her, but there is an "answer". Just as space itself is expanding in mainstream astronomy, space itself is rotating and the stars do not move faster than light within that space.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by NoNukes, posted 06-30-2015 5:30 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by NoNukes, posted 07-01-2015 10:35 AM JonF has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19093
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 44 of 54 (761406)
07-01-2015 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Suzanne Romano
06-30-2015 12:45 PM


GIGO
In this reviewer's(*) judgment the arguments presented for the geocentric model are convincing. ...

(*) - electrical engineer's. Appeal to authority: a logical fallacy that is only potentially valid if the authority is speaking in their realm of authority and then is discussing facts not their opinions.

... The fact is that the relativity principle obviates the heliocentric model just as much as it supports that model. ...

Because both are wrong\incomplete and neither explains all the facts.

... But if the universe is infinite and unbounded and has no center, then neither geocentrism nor heliocentrism is valid. ...

Showing that heleocentrism is invalid does not magically make geocentrism valid.

... The problem for science is that there are inconsistencies within the heliocentric system of thought, and these need to be corrected. Adopting geocentrism is a simple way to fix the problems. The film is a step towards accomplishing this.

Adopting the geocentrist concepts does in no way solve the relativistic problems of the heliocentric model. Neither of these models explained the orbits of the planets, because they used circles for the orbits. When Newton figured out the orbits were elliptical it was a step forward, but that still did not explain the orbit of Mercury.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity

quote:
At its introduction in 1915, the general theory of relativity did not have a solid empirical foundation. It was known that it correctly accounted for the "anomalous" precession of the perihelion of Mercury and on philosophical grounds it was considered satisfying that it was able to unify Newton's law of universal gravitation with special relativity. ...

This relativistic approach works because of the extreme mass of the sun relative to the planets, distorting space. Thus the "correction" of the mercury orbital anomaly is evidence of the mass of the sun, a "correction" that is not possible to explain with either the heliocentric model or the geocentric model, but which does show that the heliocentric model is closer to reality than the geocentric model.

Science builds on former knowledge, each step taken is made possible by the advances of the previous steps, by taking what is not fully explained by the previous models and finding an explanation that takes care of the anomolies and incorporates the valid elements of the previous models.

The relativistic model incorporates the Newtonian model and resolves the mercury anomoaly, the Newtonian model incorporates the Copernician model and resolves the epicycle anomaly. The Copernician model incorporates the planets of the geocentric model and resolves the retrograde anomalies.

The thesis of the film is that the most current scientific research does not support the heliocentric model that is accepted as correct by the scientific community. ...

Which is a strawman fallacy problem -- the heliocentric model has been discarded by science, just as the geocentric model was discarded, because it was incomplete in explaining all the evidence -- and problems with the heliocentric model certainly does not make the geocentric model more valid than current scientific theory.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Suzanne Romano, posted 06-30-2015 12:45 PM Suzanne Romano has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by NoNukes, posted 07-01-2015 11:23 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9998
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 45 of 54 (761414)
07-01-2015 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by JonF
07-01-2015 8:27 AM


I was expecting that answer. However the answer must also apply to Neptune which is within the solar system and would have to travel faster than the speed of light.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by JonF, posted 07-01-2015 8:27 AM JonF has not yet responded

    
Prev12
3
4Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017