Author
|
Topic: Scientific errors in the Bible
|
w_fortenberry
Member (Idle past 6138 days) Posts: 178 From: Birmingham, AL, USA Joined: 04-19-2002
|
|
Message 86 of 163 (22663)
11-14-2002 8:50 AM
|
Reply to: Message 80 by Percy 11-13-2002 7:53 PM
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Percipient: Cynicism? I think derision is more like it.
According to the forum rules: Respect for others is the rule here. Argue the position, not the person. The Britannica says, "Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to maintain a coolly academic approach." |
quote: You're professing ignorance of common knowledge. I answered your math question because the basic equation underlying orbital motion is not common knowledge, but I'm wondering why you feel the need to go on and on trying to force someone into answering questions about things you already know. If you're trying to make some point why don't you just go ahead and make it?
Let me once again repeat, I am not aware of any evidence of the falsity of the geocentric view found in the Bible. I hope you do not mind my use of your format. The table adds a variety which makes the reply a lot easier to follow than the monotony of three quotes in a row.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 80 by Percy, posted 11-13-2002 7:53 PM | | Percy has replied |
Replies to this message: | | Message 93 by Percy, posted 11-14-2002 11:03 AM | | w_fortenberry has not replied |
|
w_fortenberry
Member (Idle past 6138 days) Posts: 178 From: Birmingham, AL, USA Joined: 04-19-2002
|
|
Message 98 of 163 (23402)
11-20-2002 4:22 PM
|
Reply to: Message 92 by Percy 11-14-2002 10:50 AM
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Percipient: I was talking about the earth/moon system, but the earth/sun system also orbits a common point. The sun is so much more massive than the earth, more than a million times, that that point is probably well within the sun's surface.
But the planetary orbits are said to be eliptical. This does not fit with your statement that "the earth/sun system also orbits a common point." Can you provide an explanation for the elliptical orbits of the planets?
This message is a reply to: | | Message 92 by Percy, posted 11-14-2002 10:50 AM | | Percy has replied |
Replies to this message: | | Message 99 by Percy, posted 11-20-2002 5:51 PM | | w_fortenberry has replied | | Message 101 by joz, posted 12-01-2002 4:28 PM | | w_fortenberry has not replied |
|
w_fortenberry
Member (Idle past 6138 days) Posts: 178 From: Birmingham, AL, USA Joined: 04-19-2002
|
|
Message 100 of 163 (25148)
12-01-2002 3:28 PM
|
Reply to: Message 99 by Percy 11-20-2002 5:51 PM
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Percipient: Sure, right after you give a straight answer for how you could possibly be ignorant of so much common knowledge,
I have not claimed such ignorance.
quote: and right after you address some of the evidence already presented to you.
You have presented the evidence of orbital mechanics. My question directly adresses that evidence. Please provide an explanation for the eliptical orbits of the planets.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 99 by Percy, posted 11-20-2002 5:51 PM | | Percy has replied |
|
w_fortenberry
Member (Idle past 6138 days) Posts: 178 From: Birmingham, AL, USA Joined: 04-19-2002
|
|
Message 104 of 163 (25460)
12-04-2002 3:56 PM
|
Reply to: Message 102 by Coragyps 12-01-2002 8:39 PM
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Coragyps: Oh please... Kepler and Newton put this in bed about three centuries ago! That's how everything orbits!
quote: Originally posted by joz All orbits are eliptical (apart from parabolic and hyperbolic ones at any rate) even circular ones which are just special cases of elliptical orbits where e = 0....
This is not in agreement with Percipient's formula of orbital mechanics. What causes all orbits to form elipses? What causes an eccentricity greater than zero?
This message is a reply to: | | Message 102 by Coragyps, posted 12-01-2002 8:39 PM | | Coragyps has not replied |
Replies to this message: | | Message 105 by joz, posted 12-04-2002 4:24 PM | | w_fortenberry has replied |
|
w_fortenberry
Member (Idle past 6138 days) Posts: 178 From: Birmingham, AL, USA Joined: 04-19-2002
|
|
Message 106 of 163 (25471)
12-04-2002 6:19 PM
|
Reply to: Message 105 by joz 12-04-2002 4:24 PM
|
|
quote: Originally posted by joz: It is... Try this explanation Object not found! Look through all 3 sections and then work through the math yourself...
The link provides a solution for determining the value of the eccentricity but it does not provide an explanation for the cause of the eccentricity. Can you tell me why the planetary orbits are eliptical?
This message is a reply to: | | Message 105 by joz, posted 12-04-2002 4:24 PM | | joz has replied |
Replies to this message: | | Message 107 by joz, posted 12-04-2002 6:44 PM | | w_fortenberry has not replied | | Message 109 by John, posted 12-05-2002 12:10 AM | | w_fortenberry has not replied |
|
w_fortenberry
Member (Idle past 6138 days) Posts: 178 From: Birmingham, AL, USA Joined: 04-19-2002
|
|
Message 118 of 163 (25951)
12-08-2002 3:50 PM
|
Reply to: Message 108 by Percy 12-04-2002 7:02 PM
|
|
Percipient writes: I see no point in replying until you respond to some of the data already presented. For example, you were offered the evidence that spacecraft find their way to where we send them, and star parallax, but you show no interest in discussing or even acknowledging this evidence. You just ignore it and ask another question. I don't see the point in offering you more responses to ignore. The evidence you are referring to is found in posts 58 and 81 and was presented by Karl and Coragyps respectively. In niether post did I find supporting arguments for that evidence. In contrast, the evidence of orbital mechanics has been presented with at least a minimal amount of supporting argumentation. I have not ignored the posts you and John have made regarding this evidence, nor have I ignored the other evidences mentioned. I recognized that the other evidences would be addressed through a discussion of orbital mechanics, and therefore, I have set them aside until such a time as they can be so addressed along supporting argumentation. With this explanation, I would like to continue our discussion on orbital mechanics. Could you please provide an explanation for the elliptical orbits of the planets?
This message is a reply to: | | Message 108 by Percy, posted 12-04-2002 7:02 PM | | Percy has replied |
Replies to this message: | | Message 119 by Percy, posted 12-08-2002 8:21 PM | | w_fortenberry has not replied | | Message 123 by Coragyps, posted 01-05-2003 4:44 PM | | w_fortenberry has replied |
|
w_fortenberry
Member (Idle past 6138 days) Posts: 178 From: Birmingham, AL, USA Joined: 04-19-2002
|
|
Message 121 of 163 (28448)
01-05-2003 3:58 PM
|
Reply to: Message 120 by gene90 01-01-2003 8:39 PM
|
|
What is the probability that one will develop an eliptical model of the solar system through attributing to the earth an effective gravity equivalent to a central position within a finite, bounded universe?
This message is a reply to: | | Message 120 by gene90, posted 01-01-2003 8:39 PM | | gene90 has not replied |
Replies to this message: | | Message 122 by mark24, posted 01-05-2003 3:59 PM | | w_fortenberry has not replied | | Message 128 by Coragyps, posted 01-11-2003 5:52 PM | | w_fortenberry has not replied |
|
w_fortenberry
Member (Idle past 6138 days) Posts: 178 From: Birmingham, AL, USA Joined: 04-19-2002
|
|
Message 124 of 163 (28815)
01-10-2003 10:50 AM
|
Reply to: Message 123 by Coragyps 01-05-2003 4:44 PM
|
|
What is the probability that this eliptical model developed through attributing to the earth an effective gravity equivalent to a central position within a finite, bounded universe will attribute to the other planets eliptical orbits around the sun of the same eccentricity as we currently observe in their orbits?
This message is a reply to: | | Message 123 by Coragyps, posted 01-05-2003 4:44 PM | | Coragyps has replied |
Replies to this message: | | Message 125 by Coragyps, posted 01-10-2003 3:29 PM | | w_fortenberry has not replied |
|