Posted on 03/13/2007 12:35:30 PM PDT by truthfinder9
> The two sentences: “the sun is at rest and the earth
> moves” or “the sun moves and the earth is at rest” would
> simply mean two different conventions concerning two
> different CS."
BTW, this has jack squat to do with the influences of "the rest of the universe". This has to do with extending the definition of space into space-time and accepting non-Euclidean geometries.
The equivalent question under relativity, that couldn't even be formed by the people who wrote down the Bible (hell, that's barely understood by most college graduates today) would be "what is the curvature of space-time due to the presence of the sun at the earth versus what is the curvature of space time at the sun due to the presence of the earth?"
It seems rather obvious that local space-time curvature is definitely affected by the distribution of mass in the entire universe and that you cannot think of the solar system as an isolated system. It is only the heliocentrist's philosophical insistence on ignoring the rest of the universe that lends any credence to your statement.
"The equivalent question under relativity, that couldn't even be formed by the people who wrote down the Bible (hell, that's barely understood by most college graduates today) would be "what is the curvature of space-time due to the presence of the sun at the earth versus what is the curvature of space time at the sun due to the presence of the earth?"
Wrong question. See above.
> It seems rather obvious that local space-time curvature
> is definitely affected by the distribution of mass in the
> entire universe and that you cannot think of the solar
> system as an isolated system.
The effects of all the mass in the rest of the universe on the local curvature of space-time in our solar system is ridiculously small compared to the curvature caused by nearby bodies, most especially the sun.
Understanding, rather than assuming, would do you wonders in your arguments.
Try a thought experiment: suppose two observers were measuring the apparent motion of a star. Pick a star, any star. One observer is on the surface of the sun, the other on the surface of the earth. Thanks to a vast, magical power, let's call it "god", you have the ability to make either the sun or the earth wink out of existence briefly, so you do so, first with the sun, then with the earth. In which of these equivalent coordinate systems would there be a sudden, large change in the observed velocity of the distant star?
The observer on the sun would have to have very sensitive instruments indeed to note any change in the distant star's apparent velocity. Leaving aside that the observer on earth orobably would have died to the sudden acceleration when the sun winked out of existence, if his instruments survived they would record a large change in the apparent velocity of the distant star.
GR basically turned the "orbiting" problem into a geometry, albeit 4 dimensional, non-Euclidean geometry, problem rather than a force problem. That obsoleted the old, Newtonian and Copernican terminology, but you can't pretend it validates ancient Hebrew cosmology.
Someone did. The difference was that those guys had the "mickey". They had theories that actually worked, that proved productive in advancing scientific knowledge. (Galileo, at least. Copernicus' advocacy of heliocentrism was pretty vague on the specifics, but later elaborated by others.)
Heck, IDers don't even have a theory yet. And since they refuse, in principle, to consider, even speculatively, any question of mode or mechanism (i.e. how, when, where or in what specific forms "design" is actually instantiated) there is no foreseeable prospect that they ever will have a theory.
?
Where did you ever get that idea? That's completely inaccurate . . .
'heliocentrism' simply means that you understand the gravitational physics. And that after you understand that the sun, as the greatests mass in the solar system, has the dominant gravitational effect on the solar system.
So anyone who observes the motion of the planets, moons and sun is observing direct evidence of heliocentrism.
Which is as proven as almost anything.
Y'know?
IF ONLY creationists and IDers would be satisfied with this. Instead they insist on the modification of textbooks and curricula in advance of and without regard to their views earning scientific standing on merit.
And the distance that the center of gravity must be moved to conform to a geocentric model is likewise 'ridiculously small'.
Your logic is invalid in that you consider the space-time curvature in local terms when I have explained more than once that you must consider the space-time curvature in universal terms.
But you merely go back to error that heliocentrists always make. That is the error of ignoring the rest of the universe while the geocentrists always properly include it. That is something that Einstein and Hoyle properly understood, but heliocentrists try to avoid at all costs.
"GR basically turned the "orbiting" problem into a geometry, albeit 4 dimensional, non-Euclidean geometry, problem rather than a force problem. That obsoleted the old, Newtonian and Copernican terminology, but you can't pretend it validates ancient Hebrew cosmology."
Oh, it didn't 'obsolete' anything. What GR did was reconcile the lack of evidence for earth's *assumed* orbital velocity with the lack of evidence thereof.
And you can't honestly pretend that GR invalidates geocentricity either, but you'll try your best...
Not inaccurate at all.
zit just did it.
It's just as visible as it was in OJ's trial.
"You can't Handle the Truth!", comes to mind.
It depends on who you ask...
NEW YORK – Idaho resident Kathy Evans brought humiliation to her friends and family Tuesday when she set a new standard for stupidity with her appearance on the popular TV show, “Who Wants To Be A Millionaire.”
It seems that Evans, a 32-year-old wife and mother of two, got stuck on the first question, and proceeded to make what fans of the show are dubbing “the absolute worst use of lifelines ever.”
After being introduced to the show’s host Meredith Vieira, Evans assured her that she was ready to play, whereupon she was posed with an extremely easy $100 question.
The question was:
“Which of the following is the largest?”
A) A Peanut
B) An Elephant
C) The Moon
D) Hey, who you calling large?
It depends on who you ask...
NEW YORK – Idaho resident Kathy Evans brought humiliation to her friends and family Tuesday when she set a new standard for stupidity with her appearance on the popular TV show, “Who Wants To Be A Millionaire.”
It seems that Evans, a 32-year-old wife and mother of two, got stuck on the first question, and proceeded to make what fans of the show are dubbing “the absolute worst use of lifelines ever.”
After being introduced to the show’s host Meredith Vieira, Evans assured her that she was ready to play, whereupon she was posed with an extremely easy $100 question.
The question was:
“Which of the following is the largest?”
A) A Peanut
B) An Elephant
C) The Moon
D) Hey, who you calling large?
Oh!
Speaking of FABRIC.....
"But someone may ask: "Is not Scripture opposed to those who hold that heaven is spherical, when it says, 'who stretches out heaven like a skin?' "
I'M writing this line of code; leave me alone!
> What GR did was reconcile the lack of evidence for
> earth's *assumed* orbital velocity with the lack of
> evidence thereof.
Huh? Newton's old equations work just fine to explain earth's orbital velocity. In fact, they work just fine for the orbits of all the planets. The only thing they couldn't adequately explain was the precession of Mercury's orbit.
...came AFTER small, fuzzy dino's!
--EvoDude
Is the SUN rotating around something??
Yes, they DID come after small, fuzzy dinos! I'm gald to see that you're finally starting to understand.
Evidence suggests so, yes.
Using the same dynamic of gravity, the Sun is rotating around the galactic center, which some evidence suggests is a giant black hole.
And the Milky Way is rotating around a galactic center, also, if I remember correctl.
The sun is also orbiting a common center of mass. :-)
You've been taught some mighty inaccurate stuff.
(Probably at a college...)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.