Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9174 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,603 Year: 4,860/9,624 Month: 208/427 Week: 18/103 Day: 7/11 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Scientific errors in the Bible
Percy
Member
Posts: 22610
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 151 of 163 (48511)
08-03-2003 11:06 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by Geodesic
08-03-2003 9:39 PM


Re: GC vs HC: meaningless
Hi Geodesic!
Thank you for quoting Einstein for us, bus as I just said in the very post you're replying to, "It is certainly valid to have an accelerating frame of reference."
I think you're confused about the question Mr. Fortenberry was addressing. It wasn't whether one could construct a physics for arbitrarily moving coordinate systems, but whether it is the sun or the earth which orbits the other. Since your stationary frame of reference with respect to the earth is experiencing not only acceleration but changing acceleration, it is clearly the one in orbit.
Try this thought experiment. Remove yourself a lightyear or two above the plane of the solar system, so as to for the most part eliminate the gravitational effects of the sun, and align your motion to the earth. You won't be able to do so without continually firing your rockets. This is because it is the earth that is in orbit because of a balance between acceleration and motion. If you instead align your motion to the sun you'll discover that once accomplished, your rockets can be turned off.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Geodesic, posted 08-03-2003 9:39 PM Geodesic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by Geodesic, posted 08-04-2003 3:21 AM Percy has not replied

  
Geodesic
Inactive Member


Message 152 of 163 (48521)
08-04-2003 3:21 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by Percy
08-03-2003 11:06 PM


Re: GC vs HC: meaningless
Percy, you are stubborn. Even after quoting Einstein, who specifically stated, that one could not tell whether the sun orbits the earth or vice versa, you continue to insist that you can. The distinction between geocentric and heliocentric simply does not exist. All of the effects cited as proof of the earth's orbital motion (and its rotation), remain unchanged in a fixed earth system ... that is Einstein's point. No experiment or observation can distinguish between the cases:
- the earth spins on its axis and orbits the sun
- the universe rotates and orbits the earth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Percy, posted 08-03-2003 11:06 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by mark24, posted 08-04-2003 3:56 AM Geodesic has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5277 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 153 of 163 (48524)
08-04-2003 3:56 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by Geodesic
08-04-2003 3:21 AM


Re: GC vs HC: meaningless
Geo,
- the universe rotates and orbits the earth
But it doesn't, from a terran frame of reference, the universe rotates around & orbits the sun. If you want to describe the universe relative to the earth, the entire universe wobbles 186 million miles every year as it rotates about us, which just so happens to be twice the distance from the earth to the sun. Evidence suggests then that even from an Einsteinian POV, either the universe rotates about the sun, or the sun rotates within the universe. Now, given the huge distance of other stars relative to a rotating sol, they must travel at many times the speed of light in order to describe a circle about the sun. The evidence is therefore consistent with a rotating sun, about which the earth revolves. Unless you are breaking General relativistic rules, that is.
Mark
[This message has been edited by mark24, 08-04-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Geodesic, posted 08-04-2003 3:21 AM Geodesic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by Geodesic, posted 08-04-2003 4:04 AM mark24 has replied

  
Geodesic
Inactive Member


Message 154 of 163 (48525)
08-04-2003 4:04 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by mark24
08-04-2003 3:56 AM


Re: GC vs HC: meaningless
Correct. That is why I said rotates AND orbits... to describe both motions.
"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."
-- Fred Hoyle, 'Nicolaus Copernicus' (London: Heinemann Educational Books Ltd., 1973), p. 78.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by mark24, posted 08-04-2003 3:56 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by mark24, posted 08-04-2003 4:46 AM Geodesic has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5277 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 155 of 163 (48536)
08-04-2003 4:46 AM
Reply to: Message 154 by Geodesic
08-04-2003 4:04 AM


Re: GC vs HC: meaningless
Geo,
Correct. That is why I said rotates AND orbits... to describe both motions.
The corollory of which is that stars are travelling faster than light in order to rotate about us and/or the sun.
Mark
[This message has been edited by mark24, 08-04-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Geodesic, posted 08-04-2003 4:04 AM Geodesic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by Geodesic, posted 08-04-2003 9:43 AM mark24 has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22610
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 156 of 163 (48544)
08-04-2003 5:40 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by Geodesic
08-03-2003 9:39 PM


Re: GC vs HC: meaningless
Geodesic writes:
Percy, you are stubborn. Even after quoting Einstein, who specifically stated, that one could not tell whether the sun orbits the earth or vice versa...
That you are not really a physicist is readily apparent. Reread your Einstein quote - here it is for your convenience:
"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? If this can be done, our troubles will be over. We shall then be able to apply the laws of nature to any CS. 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. Could we build a real relativistic physics valid in all CS; a physics in which there would be no place for absolute, but only for relative motion? This is indeed possible! [general relativity]."
Einstein is only making a point about frames of reference, and is definitely not saying that you cannot tell who orbits who. I agree with Einstein and disagree with your misreading of Einstein. Perhaps you are misinterpreting his wry reference to the Ptolemy/Copernican systems, perhaps intended as a sort of joke, because the difference between them is definitely not meaningless. You can very easily tell which frame of reference is experiencing acceleration and changing acceleration. And the situation where a body's motion and acceleration is in balance is defined as an orbit, the precise situation the earth holds with respect to the sun. Your choice of frame of reference cannot affect this fact.
Did you try the thought exercise from Message 151? Why don't you go back and think it through. The rocket that you have to keep firing tells you in no uncertain terms that your frame of reference is not maintaining a constant velocity or acceleration. And when your rocket runs out of fuel you won't be able to maintain your frame of reference anymore, and except for motion differences you'll suddenly find yourself in the same frame of reference as the sun. That's pretty much conclusive about who's orbiting who.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Geodesic, posted 08-03-2003 9:39 PM Geodesic has not replied

  
Geodesic
Inactive Member


Message 157 of 163 (48573)
08-04-2003 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by mark24
08-04-2003 4:46 AM


Re: GC vs HC: meaningless
Correct, Mark, but that is not a problem. Here is an entry from the physics FAQ addressing the issue.
-------------------
14. The moon revolves round my head faster than light!
Stand up in a clear space and spin round. It is not too difficult to turn at one revolution each two seconds. Suppose the moon is on the horizon. How fast is it spinning round your head? It is about 385,000 km away so the answer is 1.21 million km/s, which is more than four times the speed of light! It sounds ridiculous to say that the moon is going round your head when really it is you who is turning, but according to general relativity all co-ordinate systems are equally valid including revolving ones. So isn't the moon going faster than the speed of light? This is quite difficult to account for.
What it comes down to, is the fact that velocities in different places cannot be directly compared in general relativity. Notice that the moon is not overtaking the light in its own locality. The velocity of the moon can only be compared to the velocity relative to other objects in its own local inertial frame. Indeed, the concept of velocity is not a very useful one in general relativity and this makes it difficult to define what "faster than light" means. Even the statement that "the speed of light is constant" is open to interpretation in general relativity. Einstein himself in his book "Relativity: the special and the general theory" said that the statement cannot claim unlimited validity (pg 76). When there is no absolute definition of time and distance it is not so clear how speeds should be determined.
Nevertheless, the modern interpretation is that the speed of light is constant in general relativity and this statement is a tautology given that standard units of distance and time are related by the speed of light. The moon is given to be moving slower than light because it remains within the future light cone propagating from its position at any instant.
---------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by mark24, posted 08-04-2003 4:46 AM mark24 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by John, posted 08-04-2003 10:15 AM Geodesic has replied
 Message 162 by Percy, posted 08-04-2003 12:23 PM Geodesic has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 158 of 163 (48584)
08-04-2003 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by Geodesic
08-04-2003 9:43 AM


Re: GC vs HC: meaningless
I wonder if you've considered what your position does to knowledge in general?
We have two alternatives ( for the sake of argument ) 1) Heliocentrism and 2) Geocentrism. Why do we choose one over the other? We choose the more simple explaination-- easy enough. Easy enough. Now consider the position that you are taking, that even though the math of geocentrism is vastely more complicated it may still be correct. Now generalize. Any answer, however convoluted, to any question, could be true. We can't tell the difference. I can make any bizarre claim and if allowed an unlimited number of hems and haws, I can force it to work. If this is allowed every idea rests on equal footing.
I expect you to no longer debate any topic as we can no longer come to the truth of anything. Thanks.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Geodesic, posted 08-04-2003 9:43 AM Geodesic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by Geodesic, posted 08-04-2003 10:41 AM John has replied

  
Geodesic
Inactive Member


Message 159 of 163 (48589)
08-04-2003 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 158 by John
08-04-2003 10:15 AM


Re: GC vs HC: meaningless
I am shocked at these responses.
John,
I am not saying that geocentric "may be correct." To do so would make the same error that started this thread. GC is physically indistinguishable from HC. If you wonder what a GC universe is like, look around. If you wonder what an HC universe is like, look around. These are not competing views, they are simply coordinate shifts applied to the same relative motions. Neither is true or false, they are simply manmade conventions. This does not abandon the principle of non-contradiction, simply because GC and HC are not contradictory.
This is not "my view," this is the verdict of modern physics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by John, posted 08-04-2003 10:15 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by MrHambre, posted 08-04-2003 10:51 AM Geodesic has not replied
 Message 161 by John, posted 08-04-2003 11:29 AM Geodesic has not replied
 Message 163 by Percy, posted 08-04-2003 12:36 PM Geodesic has not replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1475 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 160 of 163 (48591)
08-04-2003 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 159 by Geodesic
08-04-2003 10:41 AM


Greedy Reductionism
quote:
GC is physically indistinguishable from HC.
Not if you're trying to predict planetary motion. I already noted that the GC model was undone (despite the 'confirmation' of its core hypotheses) due to its lack of utility in this area. Forget the motion of earth/sun/planets/stars. Just look at the positions of the planets at certain times and the way these positions are better predicted by the HC model. Does general relativity do away with empirical evidential inference?
------------------
En la tierra de ciegos, el tuerco es el Rey.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Geodesic, posted 08-04-2003 10:41 AM Geodesic has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 161 of 163 (48600)
08-04-2003 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 159 by Geodesic
08-04-2003 10:41 AM


Re: GC vs HC: meaningless
quote:
I am not saying that geocentric "may be correct."
Yes, you are, actually. You are saying we cannot tell. That, by default means 1) heliocentrism may be correct, 2) geocentrism may be correct, 3) neither-- ie., some other option. You apparently choose #3, but you can't, because we cannot tell.
quote:
To do so would make the same error that started this thread.
Agreed.
quote:
If you wonder what a GC universe is like, look around. If you wonder what an HC universe is like, look around.
You've completely missed the point. I won't argue that, from Earth and with limited equipment, the universe appears to rotate around us. This would be the case from any other planet or arbitrary location in space.
The point is that we choose between the coordinate systems based upon the simplicity of the explaination if we use a heliocentric solar system model and the enormous complexity of the explaination if we use the geocentric model. If simplicity is not considered then any string of ad hoc statements stands on equal footing with every, any, and all explainations. In other words, we lose the ability to distinguish true from false. You say gravity. I say invisible aliens push down on our head. You say medicine. I say God's will via the action of angels. There is no way to distinguish. Sure, your explaination may require five sentences and a conclusion, and mine may require 100,000 imagined magical entities, but it doesn't matter. Everything stands toe to toe.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Geodesic, posted 08-04-2003 10:41 AM Geodesic has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22610
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 162 of 163 (48616)
08-04-2003 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by Geodesic
08-04-2003 9:43 AM


Re: GC vs HC: meaningless
Geodesic writes:
Even the statement that "the speed of light is constant" is open to interpretation in general relativity. Einstein himself in his book "Relativity: the special and the general theory" said that the statement cannot claim unlimited validity (pg 76).
Your source is misleading you. Einstein isn't saying any such thing about the general theory of relativity. This is what Einstein actually says on page 76 about the special theory:
"We can only conclude that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain of validity."
You're giving the strong impression of not understanding the subject matter because you keep appealing to other authorities instead of directly addressing the issues raised.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Geodesic, posted 08-04-2003 9:43 AM Geodesic has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22610
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 163 of 163 (48620)
08-04-2003 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by Geodesic
08-04-2003 10:41 AM


Re: GC vs HC: meaningless
Geodesic writes:
Neither is true or false, they are simply manmade conventions. This does not abandon the principle of non-contradiction, simply because GC and HC are not contradictory.
This is not "my view," this is the verdict of modern physics.
The discussion has somehow diverged into two different topics:
  1. The arbitrariness of choice of coordinate systems. About this you are correct.
  2. Whether the earth orbits the sun, or the other way around. About this you are incorrect. By the definition of orbit, the earth orbits the sun. (For simplicity we'll skip the fact that they actually are both in orbit about a common point buried deep within the sun due to its much greater mass, and we'll also skip the fact that the orbits are ellipses rather than circles). You can choose a coordinate system fixed to a point somewhere on the earth if you like, but that doesn't change who orbits who.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Geodesic, posted 08-04-2003 10:41 AM Geodesic has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024