Free Republic

"I am bored with the current exchange. Do you have something useful to add or should we just let it rest?"

If that's your criteria, you failed it from the start.

"A joke is only amusing the first time."

Good luck w/ your cognitive dissonance.

I am bored with the current exchange. Do you have something useful to add or should we just let it rest?

A joke is only amusing the first time.

"No, you have not substantiated in any way shape or form that Einstein bought into your notion that the Earth was at the center of gravity for the universe, or that this would in any way cause the Sun to orbit the Earth."

I have substantiated that geocentrism is equivalent to geokineticism under GR.

"All you did was blather on uselessly about coordinate systems after I had repeatedly acknowledged that they were equivalent as coordinate systems."

Again, trying to label opposing models with emotionally-charged terms and accusations is a fool's errand.

"But I expect nothing less than you to repeat the same tired old quotes about them being equivalent as coordinate systems, what else can you do now that you are caught in a lie?"

And we can expect nothing less than you to continue to deny that geocentrism is physically and observationally equivalent to geokineticism in the face of knowledgeable scientists who are telling you differently.

Again, trying to label opposing models with emotionally-charged terms and accusations is a fool's errand.

No, you have not substantiated in any way shape or form that Einstein bought into your notion that the Earth was at the center of gravity for the universe, or that this would in any way cause the Sun to orbit the Earth.

All you did was blather on uselessly about coordinate systems after I had repeatedly acknowledged that they were equivalent as coordinate systems.

But I expect nothing less than you to repeat the same tired old quotes about them being equivalent as coordinate systems, what else can you do now that you are caught in a lie?

None of which happened in my comment.

Your apparent anger seems to thwart your ability to discern the truth.

"You are unable to substantiate that the model described above is “according to Einstein”, this model is not “according to Einstein”, your contention that it is “according to Einstein” is a lie."

Actually, I have substantiated it. Your refusal to admit such notwithstanding.

Again, trying to label opposing models with emotionally-charged terms and accusations is a fool's errand.

"Yes, I know that it is hard to believe that I don't have all the answers. You will just have to learn to live with a little uncertainty in your life."

It isn't hard to believe that you don't have any answers at all. What I said was, "I am shocked, shocked that you refuse to explain anomalous orbital velocities using real scientific evidence." That you think that means it is "hard to believe that I don't have all the answers" only shows how uncertain your positions are.

"You seem to have a problem with living with uncertainty. Science doesn't provide certainty. I would rather live with a little uncertainty than 'know' something that isn't true."

You seem to have a problem with credulity. But I see that you characterize it as 'a little uncertainty' so that you can 'know' something that isn't true.

“So now once again you ARE saying that it is the gravity of the “rest of the universe” causing the Sun to move around the Earth. That is impossible. The gravity to cause the Sun to move around the Earth in such a way would sweep up the Earth like a leaf in a storm. Absolutely impossible.” allmendream
“Not according to Einstein” Gourmet Dan

You are unable to substantiate that the model described above is “according to Einstein”, this model is not “according to Einstein”, your contention that it is “according to Einstein” is a lie.

I am shocked, shocked that you refuse to explain anomalous orbital velocities using real scientific evidence.

Yes, I know that it is hard to believe that I don't have all the answers. You will just have to learn to live with a little uncertainty in your life.

Not having all of the answers doesn't disprove anything.

That's got to be the strongest argument you've made to date.

You seem to have a problem with living with uncertainty. Science doesn't provide certainty. I would rather live with a little uncertainty than 'know' something that isn't true.

"You are unable to substantiate that the model described above is “according to Einstein”, this model is not “according to Einstein”, your contention that it is “according to Einstein” is a lie."

You have misrepresented the issue yet again. And again, trying to label opposing models with emotionally-charged terms and accusations is a fool's errand.

Geocentrism is the model where the earth is the CG of the universe under GR. Einstein developed GR. Geocentrism can be used with "equal justification" according to Einstein. It is 'according to Einstein'.

"I acknowledged that they were equivalent as coordinate systems a long time ago, making your repeated argument of that point rather ludicrous."

Again, according to Hoyle:

“The relation of the two pictures [geocentricity and heliocentricity] is reduced to a mere coordinate transformation and it is the main tenet of the Einstein theory that any two ways of looking at the world which are related to each other by a coordinate transformation are entirely equivalent from a physical point of view.... Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is ‘right’ and the Ptolemaic theory ‘wrong’ in any meaningful physical sense.”

Hoyle, Fred. Nicolaus Copernicus. London: Heinemann Educational Books Ltd., 1973.

Again, according to Ellis:

"People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations,” Ellis argues. “For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations.” Ellis has published a paper on this. “You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.”

Ellis, George, in Scientific American, "Thinking Globally, Acting Universally", October 1995

You pretend that equality is limited to CS when both Hoyle and Ellis note that they are "entirely equivalent from a physical point of view" and "you cannot disprove it based on observations"

"What they are NOT equivalent as is as a model of gravitation."

Geocentrism is a models of the universe, not of gravitation.

"Your contention that your “gravitational imbalance” model causing the Sun to orbit the Earth is “according to Einstein” was what I have asked in post after post for you to substantiate."

You keep misrepresenting this point. Geocentrism is that the earth is the CG of the universe.

"Nice to see that after a dozen or so posts the point finally starts to sink in."

Your misrepresentation has been clear all along. That does not make it a 'point'.

"Are you now going to actually supply any support at all that your system is “according to Einstein”?"

Sure.

“Can we formulate physical laws so that they are valid for all CS [coordinate systems], not only those moving uniformly, but also those moving quite arbitrarily, relative to each other? […] The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS could be used with equal justification. 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.”

Einstein, A. and Infeld, L. (1938) The Evolution of Physics, p.212 (p.248 in original 1938 ed.); Note: CS = coordinate system

"No. Of course you are not, because it was a lie, and Einstein would have to be an absolute moron to buy into your ludicrous model."

Not a lie at all, as the quote from Einstein shows.

"The gravity necessary to drag the Sun around the Earth would not leave the Earth motionless, but would sweep it up like a leaf in a storm."

Einstein, Hoyle and Ellis do not agree with you.

"But you are incapable of addressing this issue with any facts or figures involving the equation for gravitational attraction or any peer reviewed literature; so I stand ready for your to post your drivel about them being equivalent as coordinate systems again."

Again, Hoyle said they are "entirely equivalent from a physical point of view" and Ellis said "you cannot disprove it based on observations".

"What else can you do other than to repeatedly repeat yourself, you certainly cannot substantiate your lie."

Again, trying to label opposing models with emotionally-charged terms and accusations is a fool's errand.

“So now once again you ARE saying that it is the gravity of the “rest of the universe” causing the Sun to move around the Earth. That is impossible. The gravity to cause the Sun to move around the Earth in such a way would sweep up the Earth like a leaf in a storm. Absolutely impossible.” allmendream

“Not according to Einstein” Gourmet Dan

You are unable to substantiate that the model described above is “according to Einstein”, this model is not “according to Einstein”, your contention that it is “according to Einstein” is a lie.

I acknowledged that they were equivalent as coordinate systems a long time ago, making your repeated argument of that point rather ludicrous.

What they are NOT equivalent as is as a model of gravitation.

Your contention that your “gravitational imbalance” model causing the Sun to orbit the Earth is “according to Einstein” was what I have asked in post after post for you to substantiate.

Nice to see that after a dozen or so posts the point finally starts to sink in.

Are you now going to actually supply any support at all that your system is “according to Einstein”?

No. Of course you are not, because it was a lie, and Einstein would have to be an absolute moron to buy into your ludicrous model.

The gravity necessary to drag the Sun around the Earth would not leave the Earth motionless, but would sweep it up like a leaf in a storm.

But you are incapable of addressing this issue with any facts or figures involving the equation for gravitational attraction or any peer reviewed literature; so I stand ready for your to post your drivel about them being equivalent as coordinate systems again.

What else can you do other than to repeatedly repeat yourself, you certainly cannot substantiate your lie.

"No. I asked you for your theory explaining it. I already gave you two possibilities."

I am shocked, shocked that you refuse to explain anomalous orbital velocities using real scientific evidence.

"And how do you know that isn't the case with the anomalous orbital velocities?"

So, please explain how these stars are using aerodynamic properties to generate anomalous orbital velocities in space.

"Not having all of the answers doesn't disprove anything."

That's got to be the strongest argument you've made to date.

"My denial is absolutely true."

It is absolutely true that you are in denial, yes.

"None of your regurgitated quotes that you do not understand supply any support at all for your lie that your ‘gravity imbalance of the rest of the universe causing the Sun to orbit the Earth’ is “according to Einstein”."

At least you no longer deny the equality of geocentrism and geokineticism under GR. That's good.

"Blathering on and on about coordinate systems does nothing to support your lie that your ‘gravity imbalance’ model is “according to Einstein”."

Again, trying to label opposing models with emotionally-charged terms and accusations is a fool's errand.

"To support your position you would need an actual quote from Einstein where he signs on to your “gravity imbalance” model, and there simply isn't any; because Einstein wasn't a moron."

I see that you have misrepresented your characterization of my position with my position. But I understand that is necessary for you to have a point.

We get to see LeGrande's explanation for anomalous orbital velocities using real scientific evidence. I can't wait to see your explanation proving anomalous observed orbital velocities using observable evidence. :-)

No. I asked you for your theory explaining it. I already gave you two possibilities.

Don't know about you, but last time I checked, no anomalous gravitational effects are observed during flight. Just normal aerodynamic properties counteracting normal gravitational effects.

And how do you know that isn't the case with the anomalous orbital velocities?

Not having all of the answers doesn't disprove anything.

While GGG and I have amicable exchanges, he and I agree on next to nothing. Merry Christmas, GGG.

That being said, GGG will admittedly (he has done so often) post any critique of Darwin’s theory, as anything that assists in tearing it down is seen as a good thing.

But have no fear, were Darwin’s Beagle to be sunk by said critiques (they’ve had 150 years to do so, so it does seem unlikely to happen), GGG would immediately turn on the IDers, grinding them into fine dust for their perceived apostasy. It’s the old, the enemy of my enemy is my friend, until I no longer need them.

Do I have that about right, GGG?

My denial is absolutely true.

None of your regurgitated quotes that you do not understand supply any support at all for your lie that your ‘gravity imbalance of the rest of the universe causing the Sun to orbit the Earth’ is “according to Einstein”.

You have supplied nothing but your own assertions that such is the case.

Blathering on and on about coordinate systems does nothing to support your lie that your ‘gravity imbalance’ model is “according to Einstein”.

To support your position you would need an actual quote from Einstein where he signs on to your “gravity imbalance” model, and there simply isn't any; because Einstein wasn't a moron.

"Again and again you supply the same quotes, none of which support your blatant lie that your ‘gravity imbalance that causes the Sun to orbit the Earth’ model is “according to Einstein”."

It is quite appropriate to present the evidence over and over when confronted with someone who uses serial denial as a form of argument.

Again, according to Einstein:

“Can we formulate physical laws so that they are valid for all CS [coordinate systems], not only those moving uniformly, but also those moving quite arbitrarily, relative to each other? […] The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS could be used with equal justification. 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.”

Einstein, A. and Infeld, L. (1938) The Evolution of Physics, p.212 (p.248 in original 1938 ed.); Note: CS = coordinate system

"But creationists must lie about science out of necessity."

Again, trying to label opposing models with emotionally-charged terms and accusations is a fool's errand.

"It hasn't disproven anything 'yet'. It may simply be evidence that the fabric of space is growing. The pioneer anomaly may support that idea too."

Exactly the point. Evidence contrary to theory is 'explained away' by conveniently-invisible, assumed 'dark matter' that is then 'identified' by the conveniently-circular appeal to the anomalous effect as evidence for the invisible evidence.

"When I go flying that doesn't disprove the theory of Gravity."

Don't know about you, but last time I checked, no anomalous gravitational effects are observed during flight. Just normal aerodynamic properties counteracting normal gravitational effects.

"First to test your theory you have to have a theory. What is your theory? Gee isn't this exciting? We get to see GourmetDan's theory! I can't wait to see your theory disproving gravity : )"

To be able to disprove a theory, anomalous evidence must be considered in light of scientifically observable evidence rather than 'explained away' by assumed, invisible matter that is invoked because the observations are off. Gee isn't this exciting? We get to see LeGrande's explanation for anomalous orbital velocities using real scientific evidence. I can't wait to see your explanation proving anomalous observed orbital velocities using observable evidence. :-)

Again and again you supply the same quotes, none of which support your blatant lie that your ‘gravity imbalance that causes the Sun to orbit the Earth’ model is “according to Einstein”.

But creationists must lie about science out of necessity.

You mean like anomalous orbital velocities of stars around the galactic center has disproved the current gravitational model?

It hasn't disproven anything 'yet'. It may simply be evidence that the fabric of space is growing. The pioneer anomaly may support that idea too. When I go flying that doesn't disprove the theory of Gravity.

If you aren't affected, then you have disproved 'dark mattter'. If you are affected, you have proved it.

First to test your theory you have to have a theory. What is your theory? Gee isn't this exciting? We get to see GourmetDan's theory! I can't wait to see your theory disproving gravity : )