Desperately Fleeing God in Cosmology

CEH ^ | November 17, 2008

[GourmetDan]

"Do you get paid a nickel every time you type the word “fallacy?”"

Do you get paid a nickel every time you ask a foolish question?

[Bosh Flimshaw]

Pardon me if I don’t take such a post too closely to heart when it comes from someone who believes the earth is the center of the universe.

[GourmetDan]

"Pardon me if I don’t take such a post too closely to heart when it comes from someone who believes the earth is the center of the universe."

Pardon me if I don't take such a post too closely to heart when it comes from someone who refuses to listen to Einstein, Hoyle, Born and Ellis.

“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

“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.

"...Thus we may return to Ptolemy's point of view of a 'motionless earth'...One has to show that the transformed metric can be regarded as produced according to Einstein's field equations, by distant rotating masses. This has been done by Thirring. He calculated a field due to a rotating, hollow, thick-walled sphere and proved that inside the cavity it behaved as though there were centrifugal and other inertial forces usually attributed to absolute space. Thus from Einstein's point of view, Ptolemy and Corpenicus are equally right."

Born, Max. "Einstein's Theory of Relativity",Dover Publications,1962, pgs 344 & 345:

"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

[Bosh Flimshaw]

Ah yes, the same snippets of text you post over and over again, removed from their context in those people’s body of work, and ultimately meaningless.

Honestly, I have to give you credit: I’m sure it’s not easy to cling to beliefs as batshit crazy as yours in the twenty-first century, but you manage to do so with no small amount of righteous indignation.

Refresh my memory—you’re the one that also thinks the earth (and the universe that revolves around it) is only a few thousand years old, right?

[GourmetDan]

"Ah yes, the same snippets of text you post over and over again, removed from their context in those people’s body of work, and ultimately meaningless."

If true then you should have no problem pointing to the work of those same people showing exactly which observable phenomena prove geokineticism. Otherwise, we can probably assume a total lack of either understanding or honesty on your part.

"Honestly, I have to give you credit: I’m sure it’s not easy to cling to beliefs as batshit crazy as yours in the twenty-first century, but you manage to do so with no small amount of righteous indignation."

So are you honest only when you preface your statement with that term? Can we then assume that any statement that is not prefaced with the term 'honestly', isn't?

Again, you simply refuse to listen to the written pronouncements of people who know that there is no physically-significant difference between heliocentric and geocentric models.

[Bosh Flimshaw]

God love ya. It’s the year 2008 and you want to argue about whether the earth revolves around the sun or vice versa. That’s the kind of commitment to quackery that you don’t find every day. For the record, I’m not going to try to convince you that you’re wrong; if hundreds of years of science and decades of observation from space-based platforms doesn’t convince you, I’m not sure that I am going to get the job done.

Out of curiosity, when did you first become convinced that the sun revolved around the earth, and the universe was only a few thousand years old?

[GourmetDan]

"God love ya. It’s the year 2008 and you want to argue about whether the earth revolves around the sun or vice versa."

You were the one who brought it up to ridicule me. Now you are trying to project your own behavior onto me. Interesting.

"That’s the kind of commitment to quackery that you don’t find every day. For the record, I’m not going to try to convince you that you’re wrong; if hundreds of years of science and decades of observation from space-based platforms doesn’t convince you, I’m not sure that I am going to get the job done."

I provided you with quotes from Einstein, Hoyle, Born and Ellis and said that you refused to listen to them. Now you try to again project your behavior onto me. You are the one who fails to consider evidence that does not fit your existing beliefs. Mine changed when confronted with new information. Yours never will.

I used to believe in geokineticism until I started finding quotes like those I supplied from Einstein, Hoyle, Born and Ellis. When I found them, I started looking at the issue and realized that science could not prove geokineticism and neither could observation. Einstein, Hoyle, Born and Ellis are knowledgeable of the subject and did not make those statements flippantly.

Ellis' quote in particular addressed the issue of using philosophical criteria to choose astronomical models. Your only contribution to the point you yourself raised is to ridicule that which you fail to understand.

[Bosh Flimshaw]

You were the one who brought it up to ridicule me.

To be fair, you do spend a great deal of your time on FR arguing that the sun revolves around the earth, so I hardly think I was I that "brought it up." I will admit that I mentioned it in no small part to ridicule your belief that the earth revolves around the sun. It is a ridiculous belief.

I used to believe in geokineticism until I started finding quotes like those I supplied from Einstein, Hoyle, Born and Ellis.

Did those same quotes lead you to believe the universe is only a few thousand years old, or did that belief come from other sources?

[Bosh Flimshaw]

I wrote: I will admit that I mentioned it in no small part to ridicule your belief that the earth revolves around the sun.

That sentence should read the other way around.

[GourmetDan]

"To be fair, you do spend a great deal of your time on FR arguing that the sun revolves around the earth, so I hardly think I was I that "brought it up.""

I presume that you use the term 'fair' like you use the term 'honestly'. IOW, if you do not use the term, we can assume you aren't.

It is easy to see that I said nothing about it until you brought it up in post # 62 in this thread. That you brought it up is documented. I also don't argue that the sun revolves around the earth. You don't understand the concept.

"I will admit that I mentioned it in no small part to ridicule your belief that the earth revolves around the sun. It is a ridiculous belief."

That would be your belief. If you consider it ridiculous, so be it.

[Bosh Flimshaw]

That would be your belief. If you consider it ridiculous, so be it.

This is slightly less clever given the fact that I corrected my own misstatement in the following post.

And you didn't answer my other question: was it those same quotes that led you to believe that the universe is only a few thousand years old, or was it something else that convinced you of that?

[GourmetDan]

"This is slightly less clever given the fact that I corrected my own misstatement in the following post."

This is slightly less clever given the fact that you must assume that I read posts that aren't addressed to me to have a point.

"And you didn't answer my other question: was it those same quotes that led you to believe that the universe is only a few thousand years old, or was it something else that convinced you of that?"

And in the same manner I can assume that you were being disingenuous in attempting to imply that you didn't "bring up" the concept of geocentrism in this thread? Apparently I can also assume that you aren't 'fair' or 'honest' unless you specifically say so since you didn't disagree w/ my presumption?

[Bosh Flimshaw]

I still don’t know when you decided that the universe was only a few thousand years old. I really am curious. If you aren’t ashamed to believe it, I’m not sure why you won’t share.

[GourmetDan]

"I still don’t know when you decided that the universe was only a few thousand years old. I really am curious. If you aren’t ashamed to believe it, I’m not sure why you won’t share."

You have been disingenuous through our whole conversation and now claim that you're "not sure why I won't share"?

[Bosh Flimshaw]

I haven’t been disingenuous about anything. I understand that you believe the sun and the rest of the universe revolve around the earth, and that the entirety of the universe is only a few thousand years old.

I have not attempted to disguise the fact that I find your beliefs ridiculous.

I am, however, very curious about how someone in the year 2008 comes to the conclusion that the universe is only a few thousand years old when every branch of science (physics, cosmology, astronomy, geology, archeology, etc.) demonstrates that such a contention is nonsense.

So, if you aren’t ashamed that you believe these things, I’d like to hear what led you to believe the universe is only a few thousand years old.

[GourmetDan]

"I haven’t been disingenuous about anything. I understand that you believe the sun and the rest of the universe revolve around the earth, and that the entirety of the universe is only a few thousand years old."

You have been disingenuous about everything.

"I have not attempted to disguise the fact that I find your beliefs ridiculous."

You brought the subject up, then tried to claim that you didn't.

"I am, however, very curious about how someone in the year 2008 comes to the conclusion that the universe is only a few thousand years old when every branch of science (physics, cosmology, astronomy, geology, archeology, etc.) demonstrates that such a contention is nonsense."

You don't know the difference between a demonstration and an inference.

"So, if you aren’t ashamed that you believe these things, I’d like to hear what led you to believe the universe is only a few thousand years old."

Keep crying wolf.

[Bosh Flimshaw]

You spend a lot of time an effort avoiding my question.

If you’re embarrassed to talk about it, just say so and we can move on.

[GourmetDan]

"You spend a lot of time an effort avoiding my question. If you’re embarrassed to talk about it, just say so and we can move on."

You have spent a lot of time refusing to listen to the written pronouncements of people who know that there is no physically-significant difference between heliocentric and geocentric models, avoiding the fact that you brought the issue up, then claiming that you hardly thought that you brought it up and screwing up your posts but criticizing me for not reading responses that weren't even addressed to me.

If you're embarrassed to talk about it, just say so and we can move on.

[Bosh Flimshaw]

Oh, bless your little heart.

We’re just going around in circles now, and its pretty clear you’re too ashamed to even talk directly about your belief that the universe is only a few thousand years old. Since you are under the impression that parroting a previous post is the height of cleverness, I’m not sure if you’re up to continuing.

The year is 2008 and you believe that the sun and the universe revolve around the earth, and the universe is only a few thousand years old. Wow.

[Yardstick]

Someone on another thread asserted that if a computer were powerful enough, it could become conscious, because “obviously”, the arrangement of our brains eventually caused consciousness.

What a joke. Consciousness is the undoing of the atheists and the materialists because it exists yet can't be proven. If an atheist demands proof of God, just demand that he prove the existence of his own mind first. The bottom line is we're all Lil Spaghetti Monsters.