Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9174 total)
2 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
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5954 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 136 of 163 (40963)
05-22-2003 2:20 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by tamijudah
03-08-2003 10:49 PM


Re: Bible says
Hey Tami,
I think the response was that, according to some very stretched exegesis, insects don't "breathe" as vertebrates do, hence would not have fallen under the Gen 7:22 "kill 'em all, I'll sort 'em out later" description of the Flud. This also lets off things like earthworms. IIRC, when confronted with the fact that, yes, insects DO breath, the response was something along the lines of "But the Israelites wouldn't have understood that, and since the Bible was written for them..." etc etc. There was also an argument about whether or not fish breathe "air". It got fairly convoluted there for awhile.
It always amazes me the contortions literalists will undertake to "prove" the Bible is true from the very first word.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by tamijudah, posted 03-08-2003 10:49 PM tamijudah has not replied

  
Geodesic
Inactive Member


Message 137 of 163 (48394)
08-02-2003 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by Percy
11-12-2002 9:53 AM


GC vs HC: meaningless
There is no evidence to falsify geocentrism. There is no evidence in favor of heliocentrism. Any body in the universe may be considered at rest. No experiment or observation can distinguish which body is "really" at rest and which is moving. The geocentric vs heliocentric debate is a non-issue. It is as meaningless as arguing whether Canada is north of the USA or the USA is south of Canada.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Percy, posted 11-12-2002 9:53 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by MrHambre, posted 08-02-2003 11:36 AM Geodesic has not replied
 Message 140 by Percy, posted 08-02-2003 11:50 AM Geodesic has replied
 Message 142 by Coragyps, posted 08-02-2003 9:26 PM Geodesic has not replied

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


Message 138 of 163 (48395)
08-02-2003 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by Geodesic
08-02-2003 10:42 AM


quote:
There is no evidence to falsify geocentrism. There is no evidence in favor of heliocentrism.
Which theory best explains all the evidence, though? Using the geocentric theory, we can predict solar and lunar 'motion', and the constellations along the ecliptic are constant. All of these are also explained by the heliocentric theory. This is because (as you suggest) the relationships among sun, Earth, stars, and moon are consistent as far as we can tell even if we make no assumptions about which bodies are moving in reference to others.
The same cannot be said of planetary motion, which was the anomaly in the geocentric theory which finally invalidated it. Heliocentric theory alone makes consistently verifiable predictions about planetary motion.
------------------
En la tierra de ciegos, el tuerco es el Rey.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Geodesic, posted 08-02-2003 10:42 AM Geodesic has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by mark24, posted 08-02-2003 11:46 AM MrHambre has not replied

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


Message 139 of 163 (48396)
08-02-2003 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by MrHambre
08-02-2003 11:36 AM


And of course the rest of the universe remains "fixed" on the sun. Meaning the entire universe wobbles 186 million miles every years.
Mark

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by MrHambre, posted 08-02-2003 11:36 AM MrHambre has not replied

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


Message 140 of 163 (48397)
08-02-2003 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by Geodesic
08-02-2003 10:42 AM


Re: GC vs HC: meaningless
Geodesic writes:
There is no evidence to falsify geocentrism. There is no evidence in favor of heliocentrism. Any body in the universe may be considered at rest. No experiment or observation can distinguish which body is "really" at rest and which is moving.
While motion is relative, acceleration is not. When the relative velocity of two bodies is changing it is said that they are accelerating with respect to one another, and with acceleration, unlike motion, it can always be determined how much of the relative acceleration is contributed by each. Another aid to analysis is the presence of the forces causing the acceleration, which are often amenable to measurement.
Earth's velocity is constantly changing with respect to the sun due to the sun's gravitational pull, and a changing velocity is the definition of acceleration. Since it is earth's velocity that is in constant change while the sun's velocity is relatively constant, the earth must be in orbit about the sun and not the reverse.
Even though I'm in non-Admin mode, I'm going to issue my standard rubric that EvC Forum will not be playing host to stupid debates. Mr. Fortenberry was permitted to continue because for a while it was suspected he had an interesting point to make about the difficulty of establishing such things with certainty. If you have a point to make along these lines, or even along some other interesting line, then please continue. But if you really believe in geocentrism then I'll be closing this thread, as I should have done long ago.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Geodesic, posted 08-02-2003 10:42 AM Geodesic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Geodesic, posted 08-02-2003 12:28 PM Percy has not replied

  
Geodesic
Inactive Member


Message 141 of 163 (48398)
08-02-2003 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by Percy
08-02-2003 11:50 AM


Re: GC vs HC: meaningless
Very well. I will say one last thing. General Relativity requires the results of all experiments be independent of any reference frame. This may be argued apart from GR but, as GR is commonly accepted, Einstein's support for the idea makes it easier for some to swallow. A universe in which the earth (or Mars or Vega for that matter) is at rest is indistinguishable from the currently accepted heliocentric model. No experiment of any kind, can prove one over the others. It is true that the motions are simpler to visualize and calculate if the sun is taken as the center of the solar system, but neither heliocentrism nor geocentrism nor M31-centrism is any more or less valid ... or demonstrable.
Geodesic, physicist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Percy, posted 08-02-2003 11:50 AM Percy has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 816 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 142 of 163 (48416)
08-02-2003 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by Geodesic
08-02-2003 10:42 AM


Re: GC vs HC: meaningless
There is no evidence to falsify geocentrism.
Errrm...Annual parallax? Aberration of starlight? We've only known about these since the 1830's though....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Geodesic, posted 08-02-2003 10:42 AM Geodesic has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Rrhain, posted 08-03-2003 12:44 AM Coragyps has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 143 of 163 (48430)
08-03-2003 12:44 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by Coragyps
08-02-2003 9:26 PM


Re: GC vs HC: meaningless
Coragyps responds to Geodesic:
quote:
quote:
There is no evidence to falsify geocentrism.
Errrm...Annual parallax? Aberration of starlight? We've only known about these since the 1830's though....
No, that isn't sufficient. You've ignored the important point:
It is true that the motions are simpler to visualize and calculate if the sun is taken as the center of the solar system, but neither heliocentrism nor geocentrism nor M31-centrism is any more or less valid ... or demonstrable.
That's the thing: It is much easier to calculate things when we create the frame of reference as the sun being the center of the solar system.
For example, we can subtly adjust the spin of the earth by creating an "earthquake" by injecting high pressure water into geological features. In the reference frame of a spinning earth, the visual response of the change of the rotation of the stars around us is much easier to visualize and calculate but there's no reason to assume that such is the case. It strains our personal credulity that futzing with the earth would somehow affect the rotation of the universe around the earth, but that's just personal incredulity and insufficient to be a reason.
The reason we go with the idea that the earth is rotating is that it means we don't have to figure out how a force applied on earth can affect the distant stars. It would mean having to rewrite a whole lot of physics (including the limit on how quickly something can travel since the observed effect on the motion of the stars from these earthquakes is immediate), but that doesn't mean it is wrong to do so.
The Ptolomaic model of the solar system was abandoned, in part, because it was so frickin' complicated. Epicycles within epicycles. To change the model from a geocentric to a heliocentric one fixed an awful lot of problems (though Copernicus's insistence upon circular orbits had to wait for Kepler to do away with them).
------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Coragyps, posted 08-02-2003 9:26 PM Coragyps has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by Coragyps, posted 08-03-2003 10:41 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 816 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 144 of 163 (48455)
08-03-2003 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by Rrhain
08-03-2003 12:44 AM


Re: GC vs HC: meaningless
Agreed. We could be in a geocentric universe, but I would prefer that Geodesic work out the math to explain the simultaneous parallactic motion of the tens of thousands of stars from the Hipparcos database in one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Rrhain, posted 08-03-2003 12:44 AM Rrhain has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by Geodesic, posted 08-03-2003 1:55 PM Coragyps has replied

  
Geodesic
Inactive Member


Message 145 of 163 (48461)
08-03-2003 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by Coragyps
08-03-2003 10:41 AM


Re: GC vs HC: meaningless
One thing that made Ptolemy's complex was his belief that all heavenly motions must be circles or the superposition of circles. No such constraint is justified. Relative motion exists between the earth and the celestial bodies, and from this relative motion, all effects (aberration of starlight, annual parallax, Foucault pendulum, etc.) proceed. That is all that can be said. Now, lest we stray too far afield -- the original mention of geocentrism was made in an attempt to use the geocentric language of the Bible as proof of Biblical errancy. But, as geocentrism is a perfectly valid view, that approach to the errancy issue fails.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Coragyps, posted 08-03-2003 10:41 AM Coragyps has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by Coragyps, posted 08-03-2003 2:56 PM Geodesic has replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 816 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 146 of 163 (48462)
08-03-2003 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by Geodesic
08-03-2003 1:55 PM


Re: GC vs HC: meaningless
But geocentrism isn't a reasonable or rational view of reality, just an attempt to "save the phenomenon." The Sun has about 330,000 times the mass of the Earth. Newton's laws of gravity and Kepler's of orbital motion are very good approximations to how masses interact, and much better approximations are available if you want them. Suit yourself, Geodesic, as to which mathematical treatment you like, but I don't think the Voyager probes could have made their grand tours under a geocentric model using 1970's computers.
And let's not even start on the relative masses of the Sun and the Milky Way's central concentration of mass, or that mass relative to the Virgo Supercluster, or Virgo relative to the Great Attractor...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Geodesic, posted 08-03-2003 1:55 PM Geodesic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by Geodesic, posted 08-03-2003 3:31 PM Coragyps has replied

  
Geodesic
Inactive Member


Message 147 of 163 (48465)
08-03-2003 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by Coragyps
08-03-2003 2:56 PM


Re: GC vs HC: meaningless
There is a very great difference between what is rational/reasonable and what we find pleasing. The universe exists and it is, what it is. Relative motion occurs between the constituent bodies of the universe, and *all effects* due to motion are due to this relative motion. All reference frames are equally valid and yield the same laws of physics. The fact that some coordinate systems are simpler for the purpose at hand, does not make them more real or more true. All coordinate systems are equally valid, period. One cannot try to sneak in absolute reference frames by claiming the they are more rational. As children, we are taught that Copernicus "got it right" and "corrected" the "wrong" view of geocentrism. That statement has been known to be false for at least a century now, yet it continues to be drilled into us, during our elementary schooling. Little wonder that we cling to it as adults. Copernicus did nothing of any physical significance. He did not "get it right" nor did the geocentrists "get it wrong." The so-called "Copernican revolution" was, as we now know, much ado about nothing. Copernicus simply discovered a convenient coordinate system from which to discuss the solar system.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Coragyps, posted 08-03-2003 2:56 PM Coragyps has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by Coragyps, posted 08-03-2003 3:42 PM Geodesic has not replied
 Message 149 by Percy, posted 08-03-2003 6:09 PM Geodesic has replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 816 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 148 of 163 (48467)
08-03-2003 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by Geodesic
08-03-2003 3:31 PM


Re: GC vs HC: meaningless
As I said before, Geodesic, suit yourself. But I would still like to see the mathematical model that accounts for annual parallax for all stars for which it has been measured in a geocentric universe. And after you produce that, how about a physical mechanism to make them all wobble like that?
[This message has been edited by Coragyps, 08-03-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Geodesic, posted 08-03-2003 3:31 PM Geodesic has not replied

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


Message 149 of 163 (48480)
08-03-2003 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by Geodesic
08-03-2003 3:31 PM


Re: GC vs HC: meaningless
Geodesic writes:
Relative motion occurs between the constituent bodies of the universe, and *all effects* due to motion are due to this relative motion. All reference frames are equally valid and yield the same laws of physics. The fact that some coordinate systems are simpler for the purpose at hand, does not make them more real or more true. All coordinate systems are equally valid, period.
It is now apparent that you are not making the same argument as Mr. Fortenberry. His position was that there is no evidence for heliocentricity and that therefore the Bible is correct about geocentrism. Your argument seems to be that Mr. Fortenberry was as correct to argue for geocentrism as we are for heliocentrism. This is much more interesting, but still wrong.
If you're truly a physicist, as you claim in Message 140, then it's hard to fathom your failure to address the acceleration issue. After all, the question is one of whether the earth orbits the sun, or the reverse, and acceleration is key to the definition of orbit, a condition whereby the rate of falling is balanced by the rate of motion.
It is certainly valid to have an accelerating frame of reference - we use one all the time right here on earth. Byt the way, not only is earth an accelerating frame of reference, even the acceleration isn't constant! In other words, and keeping it simple by addressing only the one dimensional case, not only is there a δx/δt (changing position, or velocity v), not only is there a δv/δt (changing velocity, or acceleration a), but there is even a δa/δt (changing acceleration).
So you can choose the earth as your frame of reference, but that means your frame of reference is in orbit around the sun, because it is your frame of reference that is experiencing all the change of velocity and acceleration, and not the sun.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Geodesic, posted 08-03-2003 3:31 PM Geodesic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by Geodesic, posted 08-03-2003 9:39 PM Percy has replied

  
Geodesic
Inactive Member


Message 150 of 163 (48506)
08-03-2003 9:39 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by Percy
08-03-2003 6:09 PM


Re: GC vs HC: meaningless
"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]."
- Albert Einstein and Leopold, "The Evolution of Physics" - 1938, (p 212)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Percy, posted 08-03-2003 6:09 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by Percy, posted 08-03-2003 11:06 PM Geodesic has replied
 Message 156 by Percy, posted 08-04-2003 5:40 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