Understanding through Discussion

QuickSearch

 Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ] EvC Forum active members: 57 (9054 total)
 65 online now: (65 visitors) Newest Member: EWolf Post Volume: Total: 888,326 Year: 5,972/14,102 Month: 120/438 Week: 52/112 Day: 7/8 Hour: 0/0

EvC Forum Science Forums Is It Science?

# New Geocentrist Blunder

Author Topic:   New Geocentrist Blunder
Member (Idle past 120 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006

 Message 1 of 53 (746169) 01-03-2015 4:46 PM

A topic for the "Is It Science" section, obviously.

I thought I'd seen every mistake geocentrists can make, but there's a new one that's been getting a bit of traction on the internet lately. I hereby dub it the Headwind Blunder.

It takes just as long to travel 100 miles by air due east of Oslo, Norway (traveling at a set air speed) as it does to travel 100 miles by air due west, at the same air speed and altitude, if it is a calm day without wind. And, what is more, that is the same length of time it takes to travel 100 miles due east or due west of Quito, Ecuador on a wind-free day, given the same altitude and air speed!

How is that possible?

The earth is not rotating at all.

And consider the following:

We are told that he earth is moving very fast but that we do not feel the motion. If that was true, it would mean that the air is moving at the same speed as the part of the Earth that it is next to. Thus, the air at Quito, Ecuador is moving twice as fast as the air at Oslo, Norway.

But if the air at Quito is moving twice as fast as the air at Oslo, that would create the following “problems” that are not supported by reality:

An airplane that took off from Oslo on a clear day, heading west, would be going into a headwind of about 834.9 km/hr (= about 519 mph). Thus, it would need to travel at least the speed of a fast passenger jetliner to make even a few miles of headway. But if it took off heading east, it would hardly need to be using its jets to travel an expected distance for the time it was airborne.

Can you all spot the mistake? Answer in my next post ...

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

 Replies to this message: Message 3 by Coragyps, posted 01-03-2015 7:22 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded Message 5 by Minnemooseus, posted 01-03-2015 8:17 PM Dr Adequate has responded Message 6 by Theodoric, posted 01-03-2015 8:20 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded Message 10 by RAZD, posted 01-04-2015 10:52 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded Message 24 by Pressie, posted 01-08-2015 5:13 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded Message 29 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 02-01-2015 8:42 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Member (Idle past 120 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006

 Message 7 of 53 (746181) 01-03-2015 9:22 PM Reply to: Message 5 by Minnemooseus01-03-2015 8:17 PM

Yup, Minnemooseus gets the cigar. The geocentrist is, up to a point, perfectly right. The pilot is heading into a 500 mph headwind, and therefore does, in fact, stay in the same place. So far, so good. But meanwhile Oslo is headed east at 500 mph.

To put it another way, the geocentrist's attempt to model what would happen if the Earth was rotating is vitiated by overlooking one crucial factor ... the rotation of the Earth.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

 This message is a reply to: Message 5 by Minnemooseus, posted 01-03-2015 8:17 PM Minnemooseus has acknowledged this reply

 Replies to this message: Message 8 by William Rea, posted 01-04-2015 3:52 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Member (Idle past 120 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006

 Message 20 of 53 (746456) 01-07-2015 12:26 AM Reply to: Message 19 by NoNukes01-07-2015 12:05 AM

I've often thought it would be great fun to watch a geocentrist try to explain geostationary satellites. Apparently there's a certain height above the Earth were things will just sit still if you put them there, OK, fair enough. But then you have to think about the rocket that gets it there --- it attains all that lateral velocity so that ... when you release the satellite, it stays in one place?

 This message is a reply to: Message 19 by NoNukes, posted 01-07-2015 12:05 AM NoNukes has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 21 by NoNukes, posted 01-07-2015 1:18 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Member (Idle past 120 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006

 Message 35 of 53 (749169) 02-02-2015 3:01 PM Reply to: Message 33 by Faith02-02-2015 1:58 PM

Re: Geocentrists I have known.
 What Galileo said doesn't contradict the way things look from earth anyway, it just explains the observable movements more exactly.

Well, not just more exactly. The thing is, if you have a Copernican universe, than certain facts, in particular the retrograde motions of the planets, how and when and where they occur, follow naturally from Copernicism. But if you have a Ptolemaic universe, then there are more degrees of freedom, the solar system could look Copernican, or it could look completely different. It takes a knife-edge balance of the figures to make a Ptolemaic universe look Copernican --- a mere hair's breadth adjustment to a single figure, and it wouldn't.

So, we live in a universe that looks Copernican. To say that it is really Ptolemaic, we would need to suppose either:

(1) The Ptolemaic universe is a result of natural causes, and the reason it looks Copernican is the result of a coincidence which is literally infinity to one against.

(2) The Ptolemaic universe was made as is by God, who carefully fine-tuned every single one of its parameters so as to make it look like Galileo is right, because he really likes fucking with physicists.

That's an argument that could have been --- and was --- made in Galileo's time. Today, we have an actual theory of gravity, and the parallel argument with respect to that is still stronger. If we're not right, then we're either the victim of an enormous naturalistic coincidence, or of vast supernatural malice.

 This message is a reply to: Message 33 by Faith, posted 02-02-2015 1:58 PM Faith has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 37 by Faith, posted 02-02-2015 3:10 PM Dr Adequate has responded Message 41 by herebedragons, posted 02-02-2015 9:24 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Member (Idle past 120 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006

 Message 38 of 53 (749177) 02-02-2015 3:28 PM Reply to: Message 37 by Faith02-02-2015 3:10 PM

Re: Geocentrists I have known.
 So what am I missing?

Well, for example, consider the planets Venus and Mercury. We never see these very far from the Sun. In the Copernican system, this is because they never are very far from the Sun. But in the Ptolemaic system, the system has to be very exactly fine-tuned for any planets to behave like that. Change just one figure, and we'd always see them opposite the Sun, or 90 degrees round from it. Change another figure even by a fraction, and their position relative to the Sun would change century by century. EIther way, if we change the figures, they stop looking Copernican.

Again, consider the retrograde motion of the outer planets. In the Copernican system, they must go retrograde when, and only when, we see them as being in the opposite direction to the Sun. But in the Ptolemaic system, if you change one figure, we could always see them going retrograde when they're near the Sun, or at 90 degrees to it, or whatever, which would be inexplicable in the Copernican system; change another figure even very slightly, and the angle would shift year on year, which again wouldn't look Copernican.

So someone creating a Ptolemaic system would have to choose all these figures very precisely to make it look as though we were living in a Copernican system. It would amount to deliberate fraud.

 This message is a reply to: Message 37 by Faith, posted 02-02-2015 3:10 PM Faith has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 39 by Faith, posted 02-02-2015 3:31 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded Message 40 by Faith, posted 02-02-2015 3:59 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Member (Idle past 120 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006

 Message 42 of 53 (749201) 02-02-2015 9:50 PM Reply to: Message 41 by herebedragons02-02-2015 9:24 PM

Re: Geocentrists I have known.
 I don't think that anyone who subscribes to geocentricism is going to be concerned about fine-tuning. In fact, many see this fine-tuning as evidence that the universe was created by God in a miraculous way (read that: in the way they believe it was done). So I'm not sure that going from fine-tuning in the nth degree to fine-tuning in the (n*n)th degree is going to make any difference.

But the point is that it would have to be fine-tuned to look Copernican. In effect, the solar system would have to be a big lie carefully designed to catch us out.

 This message is a reply to: Message 41 by herebedragons, posted 02-02-2015 9:24 PM herebedragons has not yet responded

Member (Idle past 120 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006

 Message 45 of 53 (749271) 02-03-2015 2:36 PM Reply to: Message 44 by Faith02-02-2015 10:52 PM

Re: Geocentrists I have known.
 Yes I know more or less what the Ptolemaic system is, I just don't see how it fits into a discussion of the Bible's geocentric views which aren't a scientific system, just a description of what is observed of the sky from Earth.

Well, OK, if that's all you want to say, then great. We shouldn't say that the Bible presents us with a "scientific system"? That's fine by me. The Catholic Church, being evil, wanted to interpret the Bible too literally? Maybe they did.

You want to be an evolutionist now?

 This message is a reply to: Message 44 by Faith, posted 02-02-2015 10:52 PM Faith has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 46 by Faith, posted 02-03-2015 2:42 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Member (Idle past 120 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006

 Message 47 of 53 (749313) 02-03-2015 4:32 PM Reply to: Message 46 by Faith02-03-2015 2:42 PM

Re: Geocentrists I have known.
 Um. Non sequitur.

Well, you should read the writings of the geocentrists we're talking about. None of them refer to Aristotle, and a huge majority of them are Protestants rather than Catholics, and they keep thumping the Bible and saying that they're the only true Biblical literalists and that you're compromising with Satan. Welcome to my side.

 This message is a reply to: Message 46 by Faith, posted 02-03-2015 2:42 PM Faith has not yet responded

 Replies to this message: Message 48 by JonF, posted 02-03-2015 5:04 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

 Date format: mm-dd-yyyy Timezone: ET (US)
 Newer Topic | Older Topic Jump to:Board Administration     The Public Record     Announcements     Proposed New Topics     Suggestions and Questions Science Forums     The Bible: Accuracy and Inerrancy     Big Bang and Cosmology     Dates and Dating     Education and Creation/Evolution     Biological Evolution     Geology and the Great Flood     Human Origins and Evolution     Intelligent Design     Is It Science?     Creation/Evolution Miscellany     Origin of Life Social and Religious Issues     Bible Study     Comparative Religions     Social Issues and Creation/Evolution     Faith and Belief     Theological Creationism and ID Side Orders     Coffee House     The Great Debate     Free For All     Post of the Month     Links and Information     Creation/Evolution In The News     The Book Nook     Columnist     Practice Makes Perfect Archives     Topic Proposals Archive     Showcase Retired Forums     Short Subjects (No new topics or messages)     Welcome visitors