Posted on 06/18/2009 8:48:47 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Radiometric dating is often used to “prove” rocks are millions of years old. Once you understand the basic science, however, you can see how wrong assumptions lead to incorrect dates.
Most people think that radioactive dating has proven the earth is billions of years old. After all, textbooks, media, and museums glibly present ages of millions of years as fact.
Yet few people know how radiometric dating works or bother to ask what assumptions drive the conclusions. So let’s take a closer look and see how reliable this dating method really is...
(Excerpt) Read more at answersingenesis.org ...
You previously attempted to correct a reply of mine, which stated that Newton sought to prove Kepler’s equations with his own equations, and that he succeeded.
To be more precise, you stated that Newton disproved Kepler’s equations.
I then pointed out that Newton did, indeed, prover Kepler’s 1st Law, and that you seem to think that this never occurred.
And now, you retort that I’m implying something you never said, lol?
I don’t have a copy of your cited book handy. But I believe that you have mixed up theories. I do not believe that Einstein said what you said he said in the theory of general relativity.
Oh good grief, do you work for that batty leftie chick up in Alaska who's always after Sarah Palin or something, lol?
*Sigh.* You're very persistent in getting others to do your homework for you.
Here:
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.
- Albert A. Einstein, The Evolution of Physics, Einstein and Infeld, p. 212 (p .248 in the original 1938 edition.)
Note: CS = coordinate system
No. You implied that I said Kepler's 1st law was never proven. And I stand by the fact that Newton disproved Kepler's first law.
And now, you retort that I’m implying something you never said, lol?
Yes.
Your reference supports what I said.
“The existence of these fictitious forces apparently provides a means of detecting a non-inertial frame. In other words, accelerated motion appears have an absolute existence, whereas linear motion is always relative (to another object). Another example is provided by Newton’s water bucket experiment (C&N p. 403). If the bucket and its contents are rotating at the end of a long rope, the water surface will become curved, due to the centifugal force (according to ab observer rotating with the bucket). Observation of this curvature provides direct evidence that the system is rotating, without reference to any external object. However, Newton’s explanation was rejected on philosophical grounds by the German philosopher Ernst Mach (1838-1916), who maintained that motion of any kind (linear or rotational) can have no real existence unless specified with respect to other objects. So what other objects define the rotation of a water bucket and cause the water surface to become curved ? According to Mach, the rotation must be defined relative to the rest of the universe, including stars and galaxies at immense distances which together exert a force on the water. Satellite experiments designed to detect such a force, arising from the acceleration of one object relative to another, have been partially successful.”
That is not at all what you said at the beginning of this. But thanks for putting it in context.
“The existence of these fictitious forces apparently provides a means of detecting a non-inertial frame. In other words, accelerated motion appears have an absolute existence, whereas linear motion is always relative (to another object) ...."
Thanks for posting in the first line why the reference contradicts what you said.
I gave you a source and pointed out the exact sentence. Please.
My statement:
The use of a geocentric or heliocentric frame of reference is a matter of philosophical choice, and not a matter of scientific proof, basically, according to Einstein
The specific cite of Einstein from The Evolution Of Physics:
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.
Would you like for me to break it down for you, or would you prefer another set of quotes from several noted physicists who say pretty much what I've said, in reference to the above?
Note the use of the word “could” instead of “can”.
You claimed it was part of the theory of general relativity. Please cite that instead of his views on ancient physics.
Einstein was commenting upon general relativity in the quote provided.
The theory of general relativity states that all physical phenomena can be described and explained self-consistently in any frame of reference.
I went to two different geocentrists sites. Each had different wording than yours. Which site did you get yours from?
How do you know? You only have one snippet picked of some website.
The theory of general relativity states that all physical phenomena can be described and explained self-consistently in any frame of reference.
No it doesn't.
Note the use of "would" along with "could." The geocentric view had been regarded as outré in scientific circles for nearly three centuries at the time he made that observation. So, "could" and "would" make perfect sense in context. Did Einstein advocate geocentrism? No, it can't be said that he did. His work built upon science going back to Copernicus, and was of necessity heliocentric at a minimum. But, he declined to negate geocentrism as well, and went so far as to say that the difference has been rendered meaningless.
So you’re not incapable of looking things up for yourself. That’s nice to know. You’ll do your own homework from now on, as far as I’m concerned.
Well, ok then, if you're going to say it doesn't, then it's incumbent upon you to provide something to back it up. So, please do so.
You were wrong when you said it was in reference to the general theory. I found the context of your quote and it is definitely talking about special relativity.
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.