Skip to comments.
Don’t Call it “Darwinism” [religiously defended as "science" by Godless Darwinists]
springerlink ^
| 16 January 2009
| Eugenie C. Scott and Glenn Branch
Posted on 01/28/2009 11:36:17 AM PST by Coyoteman
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,121-1,140, 1,141-1,160, 1,161-1,180 ... 1,321-1,329 next last
To: Fichori
transit time in seconds = distance in meters ÷ speed of light in meters per second displacement in degrees = earth rotation speed in degrees per second × transit time in seconds Okay, I'm confused. In a geocentric model I wouldn't think there would be any Earth rotation speed.
1,141
posted on
02/03/2009 5:35:20 PM PST
by
tacticalogic
("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
To: tacticalogic
Do you think it might have anything to do with an absence of posters intentionally trying to make people mad, or throwing around accusations of satanism? Mainly the first.
Not to make to big a deal of it, but I notice that some of P.Z. Myers' and Dawkins more mawkish anti-Christian sentiment is not too soundly castigated from all sides on DC. There is a certain congruence between the attitude of the mainstream on FR towards some loudmouth posters of a certain proclivity, and that on DC towards loudmouths of the corresponding proclivity.
You can always ignore the most egregious posters on both sides.
Cheers!
1,142
posted on
02/03/2009 5:38:46 PM PST
by
grey_whiskers
(The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
To: Fichori
If the Earth were orbiting the Sun (heliocentric) the displacement would be calculated as follows: atan(Observer_speed_in_Meters_per_second / 299792485 ) * (180 / pi) Returns the angular displacement in degrees.I'm still not getting that to fit the model conceptually. This isn't a matter of orbiting the sun, but rotating in place at more or less a fixed distance from the sun.
1,143
posted on
02/03/2009 5:41:53 PM PST
by
tacticalogic
("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
To: grey_whiskers
There is a certain congruence between the attitude of the mainstream on FR towards some loudmouth posters of a certain proclivity, and that on DC towards loudmouths of the corresponding proclivity. IOW, there's a certain degree of civility that's expected from one side that the other side doesn't feel obligated to observe.
1,144
posted on
02/03/2009 5:45:07 PM PST
by
tacticalogic
("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
To: tacticalogic
LOL!
1,145
posted on
02/03/2009 5:45:54 PM PST
by
grey_whiskers
(The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
To: grey_whiskers
Go ahead, tell me it isn’t so! :-)
1,146
posted on
02/03/2009 5:47:43 PM PST
by
tacticalogic
("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
To: tacticalogic
Often, it depends on who's winning in that particular thread.
Neither side makes a partiularly gracious winner...or loser.
Cheers!
(...back to work to debug a code. G'night.)
1,147
posted on
02/03/2009 5:50:00 PM PST
by
grey_whiskers
(The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
To: grey_whiskers
Have fun. I gotta go hack at some PS script myself.
1,148
posted on
02/03/2009 5:51:11 PM PST
by
tacticalogic
("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
To: tacticalogic
“there's a certain degree of civility that's expected from one side that the other side doesn't feel obligated to observe”
The unintended consequence of which is that pro Science posters on FR are under heavy selective pressure, while many anti Science posters feel free to behave like spittle hurling whackadoo’s.
1,149
posted on
02/03/2009 5:52:30 PM PST
by
allmendream
("Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be redistributed?")
To: allmendream
The unintended consequence of which is that pro Science posters on FR are under heavy selective pressure, while many anti Science posters feel free to behave like spittle hurling whackadoos. I'm working on developing the theory that just because you can doesn't mean you ought to.
1,150
posted on
02/03/2009 5:55:18 PM PST
by
tacticalogic
("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
To: tacticalogic
But that would entail use of self restraint, logical deduction, and common courtesy.
1,151
posted on
02/03/2009 6:02:34 PM PST
by
allmendream
("Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be redistributed?")
To: Fichori
If you suppose that there are not Geocentric FReepers, your supposition is incorrect.
1,152
posted on
02/03/2009 6:04:56 PM PST
by
allmendream
("Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be redistributed?")
To: allmendream
But that would entail use of self restraint, logical deduction, and common courtesy.Yes, it would.
1,153
posted on
02/03/2009 6:11:19 PM PST
by
tacticalogic
("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
To: tacticalogic
Okay, I'm confused. In a geocentric model I wouldn't think there would be any Earth rotation speed.
Hmm, my bad.
Should be:
transit time in seconds = distance in meters ÷ speed of light in meters per second
displacement in degrees = Sun angular orbit speed in degrees per second × transit time in seconds
Angular orbit speed would be 360°/24 hours, or 0.00416°/second.
The math is the same, just a different name.
I'm still not getting that to fit the model conceptually. This isn't a matter of orbiting the sun, but rotating in place at more or less a fixed distance from the sun. [#1143]
I gave the heliocentric and geocentric models side by side.
If you're only interested in the geocentric model, you can ignore the stuff referencing the heliocentric model.
1,154
posted on
02/03/2009 6:42:57 PM PST
by
Fichori
(https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate <= Donate and show Obama how much you love him)
To: allmendream
If you suppose that there are not Geocentric FReepers, your supposition is incorrect.
I have yet to meet a FReeper who has said to me
The Sun goes around the Earth.
Now, I've heard lots of Evolutionists say in a pejorative way, that Creationists think the Sun orbits the Earth.
However, the only person I've met who seems to hold a view that is even remotely similar, is an Atheistic Evolutionist.
I suppose its possible that when an Evolutionist accuses a Creationist of thinking that the Sun goes around the Hollow Flat Earth, they are projecting...
Oh well.
Let me know when you find a FReeper who says the Sun orbits the Hollow Flat Earth.
1,155
posted on
02/03/2009 6:53:02 PM PST
by
Fichori
(https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate <= Donate and show Obama how much you love him)
To: Fichori
If you're only interested in the geocentric model, you can ignore the stuff referencing the heliocentric model. Comparing either one to an object rotating in place relative to the other seems an apples-to-oranges arrangement.
1,156
posted on
02/03/2009 6:53:15 PM PST
by
tacticalogic
("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
To: Fichori; GourmetDan
1,157
posted on
02/03/2009 7:02:27 PM PST
by
allmendream
("Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be redistributed?")
To: tacticalogic
Comparing either one to an object rotating in place relative to the other seems an apples-to-oranges arrangement.
By reducing an equation to the bare minimum of parameters greatly simplifies it.
Here is where that highly simplified model came from:
post 1362[Fichori] If the Sun and Earth were perfectly motionless in space, except the Earth was rotating 360° every 24 hours, would (at high noon, sans the atmosphere) the optical image of the Sun be lagged 2.1° behind its gravitational pull?
post 1415[LeGrande] Yes, up to 2.1 degrees.
Its neither the geocentric model nor the heliocentric model.
Its the LeGrandeic model.
It isn't comparing apples and oranges, it is merely about getting to the source of the 2.1° (which is apparently a byproduct of thinking that there is no difference between rotating and being orbited)
1,158
posted on
02/03/2009 7:05:58 PM PST
by
Fichori
(https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate <= Donate and show Obama how much you love him)
To: Fichori
It isn't comparing apples and oranges, it is merely about getting to the source of the 2.1° (which is apparently a byproduct of thinking that there is no difference between rotating and being orbited) It terms of the angular velocity between you and the reference point, there doesn't seem to be.
1,159
posted on
02/03/2009 7:10:21 PM PST
by
tacticalogic
("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
To: tacticalogic
It terms of the angular velocity between you and the reference point, there doesn't seem to be.
Thats why you use an absolute reference point to measure angular velocity against ;-)
1,160
posted on
02/03/2009 7:30:22 PM PST
by
Fichori
(https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate <= Donate and show Obama how much you love him)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,121-1,140, 1,141-1,160, 1,161-1,180 ... 1,321-1,329 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson