Posted on 09/25/2009 8:34:35 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
You are several hundred years behind the science, using the standard creationist technique of grabbing onto a tiny part of established science to say that confirms your 2,000+ year-old view of science.
Yes wrong. GR says that they are physically and observationally indistinguishable. That is far different from your claim that saying that "no one point of reference is preferable over any other" as you did.
This is why Hoyle said, "Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is ‘right’ and the Ptolemaic theory ‘wrong’ in any meaningful physical sense."
I gave you this quote already. Did you not understand it? You're back to claiming the exact thing that was already refuted.
"We have other observations that confirm the Earth revolves around the Sun."
No you don't. Ellis said, "For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations."
I gave you this quote already. Did you not understand it? You're back to claiming the exact thing that was already refuted.
"We couldn't have sent probes to Mars and the outlying planets if heliocentrism was incorrect."
Ernst Mach proved that idea wrong way back in the 19th century. Just who are you listening to? Surely you aren't thinking these things up all by yourself, are you?
Not really. In order to have geocentrism, you have to invent fictional forces.
Two ways of stating the same concept. If all are indistinguishable then no one is preferable over another.
But that's just GR musings. Sorry, but geocentrism violates the laws of physics. A more massive object does not orbit around a less massive object, look up conservation of momentum. The Earth would have to be by far the most massive object in the solar system, and it simply isn't. Plus I love the tortured explanations for the outer planets that would be going faster than light under the geocentric system.
And just because it's part of a theory doesn't mean it can actually happen. Archimedes rightly said he could move the Earth with a lever and a place to stand to describe general concepts, but that doesn't mean somebody's doing that, or that it's ever even going to happen in a practical sense. Sometimes cool theories run up against plain old reality.
Actually, you are wrong again. Coriolis and centrifugal forces arise naturally in a geocentric model. It is in the geokinetic model that these forces are fictional.
You have to make them up in the geocentric model. Please explain what causes the Coriolis in the geocentric model.
Nope. Not 'two ways of stating the same concept'. Physically and observationally indistinguishable is not 'no one point of reference is preferable over any other'. This is why you think there are observations that prove heliocentrism. There are none.
"But that's just GR musings. Sorry, but geocentrism violates the laws of physics. A more massive object does not orbit around a less massive object, look up conservation of momentum. The Earth would have to be by far the most massive object in the solar system, and it simply isn't. Plus I love the tortured explanations for the outer planets that would be going faster than light under the geocentric system."
Wrong again. These are not 'just GR musings'. As I have posted three times now, astronomers and physicists who are in a position to know say physically and observationally indistinguishable. The only place tortured explanations are required is in a mind that doesn't understand what it is talking about.
"And just because it's part of a theory doesn't mean it can actually happen. Archimedes rightly said he could move the Earth with a lever and a place to stand to describe general concepts, but that doesn't mean somebody's doing that, or that it's ever even going to happen in a practical sense. Sometimes cool theories run up against plain old reality."
Yeah, like geokineticism ran up against the plain old reality that it is physically and observationally indistinguishable from geocentrism. Oops.
Wrong again. You have to make them up in the geokinetic model. This was posted yesterday morning. You are just blabbering.
"...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 Copernicus are equally right."
Born, Max. "Einstein's Theory of Relativity",Dover Publications,1962, pgs 344 & 345:
Please explain what causes the coriolis winds in a stationary earth. And don’t go into “done by Thirring’ because his calculated effect is thousands of times smaller and we are spending millions trying to detect it.
Yes, they are. Simple English as I wrote before.
As I have posted three times now,
Yes, I know of your love for cut and paste. Now try actually thinking for yourself instead of copying scientists who were either 1) wrong, or 2) talking theoretically in a way that you are misusing.
Perhaps you should do a little research on inertial versus non-inertial reference frames and fictional forces.
I understand it fine. I also understand that identifying fallacies is not the be-all and end-all of rational thinking, which is the thing you don't seem to grasp.
Sorry, but it has been done by Thirring.
You're just trying to avoid the fact that coriolis forces are fictional in a geokinetic model and generated naturally in a geocentric one.
Just the opposite of your claim, but who's keeping track?
No, they are not. As I wrote before, there are no physical or observational differences between the geocentric model and the geokinetic model under GR according to Einstein, Hoyle, Born and Ellis.
"Yes, I know of your love for cut and paste. Now try actually thinking for yourself instead of copying scientists who were either 1) wrong, or 2) talking theoretically in a way that you are misusing."
Saves lot of time when dealing with people who won't face reality. Their consistent comments about no physical or observational differences make it quite clear that they were not speaking theoretically.
If you want to claim that Einstein, Hoyle, Born and Ellis are wrong about GR, go ahead. That's a 'winning' strategy, for sure. As far as I can tell, you just want to allude to the possibility while maintaining plausible deniability.
Perhaps you should admit that inertial forces are also known as pseudo-forces and are called pseudo-forces because they do not originate in interactions with other bodies.
Forces that originate in interactions with other bodies are called real-forces (vs pseudo-forces) for a good reason.
You are wrong to imply that it is geocentrism that must manufacture fictional forces when it has been shown that geokineticism is the model that must use pseudo-forces.
Actually, you don't. You don't understand the implications of evolution being based on the fallacy of affirming the consequent and others.
The implication is that evolution is a belief, not science.
This you either do not understand or simply refuse to admit because it would demolish the foundation of your belief.
Reality? The Sun orbits the Earth in opposition to basic laws of physics? That’s not reality, that’s dreaming the Bible is scientifically correct and using any amount of tortured logic and misrepresentation of science in order to convince yourself that it’s true.
You can twist scientists all you want, but it won’t make the Sun orbit the Earth.
And you still haven’t given a clear answer as to whether you think the Earth is flat. A simple yes or no will do.
Nope. That's what you don't understand about Einstein, Hoyle, Born and Ellis' comments about the physical equivalence of geocentrism and geokineticism under GR. Geocentrists always include the rest of the universe and geokineticists always ignore it. You ignore it and commit the classic error.
"You can twist scientists all you want, but it won’t make the Sun orbit the Earth."
You don't understand the model. The only person twisting scientists' words is you. This is what Einstein, Hoyle, Born and Ellis understand and you do not.
"And you still haven’t given a clear answer as to whether you think the Earth is flat. A simple yes or no will do."
And you still haven't given an answer as to whether you believe that garbage spontaneously generates rats or carcasses spontaneously generate maggots.
There's an error in being right?
And you still haven't given an answer as to whether you believe that garbage spontaneously generates rats or carcasses spontaneously generate maggots.
I asked first, but no. Now do you believe in flat Earth?
Perhaps you should admit that inertial forces are also known as pseudo-forces and are called pseudo-forces because they do not originate in interactions with other bodies.
Perhaps you should do a little research on inertial versus non-inertial reference frames and fictional forces.
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.