Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9047 total)
95 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones*, kjsimons, Pollux, xongsmith (5 members, 90 visitors)
Newest Member: Wes johnson
Post Volume: Total: 887,574 Year: 5,220/14,102 Month: 141/677 Week: 26/90 Day: 2/1 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Galileo Was Wrong, Okay?
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 16 of 54 (761320)
06-30-2015 2:28 PM


Some good references on this silliness:

Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy: Biblical Geocentrism
Geocentrism Debunked

I've had quite a few conversations with geocentrists, and not a one has been able to do any of the math. They are great at saying "according to relativity, X must be true"; but when someone else or I do that math it turns out that X is false. This has been especially true when discussing the role of relativity in GPS. Alas, most of it is gone with the Theology Web crash. But I remember most of it.

Especially I remember Bob Bennet's alleged answer to the issue of "Ether Wind" in relation to the Foucalt pendulum and the fact that rockets launched towards the East get a speed boost. He said there were two ether winds; one electromagnetic blowing wets to east and one inertial blowing west-east. The inertial wind accounts for the rocket, the electromagnetic wind accounts for the pendulum by differences in the wind force between when the pendulum is at the north half of its swing and when it's at the south half of its swing (what happens when the pendulum is swinging in the east-west plane?). (Some geocentrists think that the electromagnet used to keep a Foucalt pendulum swinging is an integral part of the apparatus.) Obviously those are very select winds. It's hard to believe that someone with an earned PhD in physics could actually say something so stupid, but it was secondhand.

Some especially interesting takedowns of geocentrists other than GPS are:

Geocentrism: Flunking the Lagrange Point Challenge
Sungenis Followers Double Down

I'd love to have a substantive discussion with someone, but it's pretty unlikely that's going to happen here.


  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 17 of 54 (761322)
06-30-2015 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Suzanne Romano
06-30-2015 2:18 PM


Re: SYNOPSIS SCENE II
None of your synopses contain any evidence. This is an evidence-based forum; whether or not you can post your synopses is up to others, but everyone is going to expect you to defend the claims you are making with evidence, and that means doing the math.

If you are not going to defend your claims with calculations, you are wasting everyone's time.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Suzanne Romano, posted 06-30-2015 2:18 PM Suzanne Romano has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Suzanne Romano, posted 06-30-2015 3:32 PM JonF has responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 27 of 54 (761350)
06-30-2015 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Suzanne Romano
06-30-2015 3:32 PM


Re: SYNOPSIS SCENE II
I read you synopses.

No evidence.

Lots of unsupported claims.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Suzanne Romano, posted 06-30-2015 3:32 PM Suzanne Romano has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 29 of 54 (761352)
06-30-2015 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Suzanne Romano
06-30-2015 3:06 PM


Accelerating reference frames notnot 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!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Suzanne Romano, posted 06-30-2015 3:06 PM Suzanne Romano has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Suzanne Romano, posted 06-30-2015 4:41 PM JonF has responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


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: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


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: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


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

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021