Posted on 07/24/2003 1:55:39 PM PDT by Mr.Atos
That's good. Relativistically speaking, I can't find any fault with it. But I donno ...
My instinct--what, you're expecting calculations here?--is that there's no such stable orbit as "far above the ecliptic" and "fixed in position wrt the earth."
I do know the calculations and you are definitely correct. :-)
From my point of view, the universe revolves about me. Don't need no calculations!
Ulysses is in polar orbit around the sun. That's close.
Hold on. Doesn't have to be "far above the ecliptic." It just has to be geosynchronous. Then it's always making observations w/r/to the earth's position. It would mimic our own observations. What's wrong with that?
That part I know about. 30 years of organized basketball. We'll get a special dispensation to stand. ;)
My instinct--what, you're expecting calculations here?--is that there's no such stable orbit as "far above the ecliptic" and "fixed in position wrt the earth."
I do know the calculations and you are definitely correct. :-)
But couldn't you shoot a probe far above the ecliptic, in an "orbit" that's fixed relative to the Sun, and another fixed relative to the Earth, and then see which one takes more fuel to keep itself in position? Seems like that should be a valid proxy for finding the true "objective fixed observer". (Recognizing that the solar system itself is in transit towards - Vega, is it?)
Just what would a "fixed position" mean, anyway? Some least-squares summation of change in vectors between the object and every other visible object in the universe? (Or at least a representative sample of stars in this galaxy?)
In opera, it's the soparano. She stands still and the whole universe revolves around her.
But, but, .... I thought that species of pigeon is extinct!
;-)
Excuse me, but if you're talking about "fixed" and opera, you must be talking about a "castrato"..........
;-O
I know, I know ... I've just violated:
7. Decorum We will endeavor to be considerate to other posters and Lurkers.
I think your understanding is very wrong. The closest clause I can see in the link to posting guidelines at FR says the following:
# Don't violate poster privacy - Don't reveal online another poster's phone number, address, or other information that the person hasn't already made public for everyone on Free Republic. If you are asked for a friend's email address, the best advice usually is to forward the request to the friend. He or she can then decide whether to respond.
Now it seems pretty clear to me from the above that one should not post private e-mail. Which only makes sense, if one wanted all to read it, one would just post it on a thread. So unless one receives permission to do so, one should not do that.
Now, as I said, what's done is done, and this is not an attack on you. but we should not do this again.
I must strongly disagree with your statement about natural selection, the dead do not reproduce so their genetic information is lost - and not just the trait that brought destruction, but other traits that might have been beneficial. Further, since even the traits that caused destruction might have been useful if circumstances had been different (and circumstances always change) this is also a loss to the species.
Hmmm...I'm not sure I follow you on this point. "Normal" operation of an organism is survival, and the heterozygous resistance to malaria conferred by the Hb-S allele clearly facilitates survival in these individuals.
Yes, that is pretty much what it means. However, let's consider this - is malarial infection prevalent everywhere on earth? Clearly not. So outside of malarial areas, this mutation is bad since it may result in death to progeny if two people carrying it have children. We see that problem now with blacks in the US where it is of no benefit at all. So if this trait were spread throughout the whole human species, it would be seriously detrimental to humanity. That's what I meant.
No it is not. There are many modes of proof, and it has different meanings in different situations - in math, in courts, in science. Science is able to give some pretty strong proofs and that is why you and others have tried to evade the question I asked. It would look pretty foolish to deny that the Earth goes round the sun or that a parent's genes are the source of the child's. Another question that could be asked is how could science possibly have reaped such benefits to our lives if it was false?
It also seems very contradictory to me for evolutionists to say that evolution is a scientific fact and then say that science does not prove anything.
Seems to me that our trips to the Moon, and probes to other planets prove the theory quite well. If it was false we could not have made it. Let's remember that very accurate measurements had to be made to accomplish these tasks. In addition, present day instruments I think can certainly verify it (and have verified it) in various ways.
Hummm, just change that to "car".
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.