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: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Scientific errors in the Bible
w_fortenberry
Member (Idle past 6189 days)
Posts: 178
From: Birmingham, AL, USA
Joined: 04-19-2002


Message 76 of 163 (22544)
11-13-2002 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by John
11-12-2002 9:07 AM


quote:
Originally posted by John:
Well, we observe the smaller thing to orbit around the bigger thing (or about the common center of gravity, more accurately)
hmmmm... tie a golf ball to a bowling ball and throw them like a bolo. Note which orbits the other.
The light thing orbits the heavy thing, right? Lets say the less massive orbits the more massive. This is measurable in the lab.
Well, Earth is smaller than the Sun. Add up all the mass in the solar system, factor in its distibution and you get an center of gravity that is definitely not the Earth.
The same can be done with the galaxy. By far the most massive area is the galactic core and we are far from it.
You appear to have a good concept of gravity, so let me ask you what would happen if you were to attach a bowling ball to either end of the string and place the golf ball in the middle. If the whole were rotated, which ball would end up as the center of the system?
Going back to your original model, what type of orbit would the orbiting body prescribe around the object orbited, circular, eliptical, hexagonal?
quote:
And secondly, the math doesn't work with geocentrism.
Please provide proof of this statement.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by John, posted 11-12-2002 9:07 AM John has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Percy, posted 11-13-2002 7:38 PM w_fortenberry has replied

  
w_fortenberry
Member (Idle past 6189 days)
Posts: 178
From: Birmingham, AL, USA
Joined: 04-19-2002


Message 77 of 163 (22548)
11-13-2002 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Percy
11-12-2002 9:53 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Percipient:
Let's assume that your pose is not really a pose, but that you're really and truly ignorant of the evidence against the geocentric view. In that case the truly interesting question is how this dismaying lapse in your education could have happened. Were you excused from all science classes? Raised by bears in the woods? Did you recently suffer some mysterious brain malady? Come on now, tell us, we want to know! I'm sure there must be an intriguing story behind this.
If such evidence is so readily available as you seem to imply, it should not require any great effort on your part to clearly state that evidence. That you do not do so, resorting to cynicism instead, does not support your claims.

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 78 by Mister Pamboli, posted 11-13-2002 6:57 PM w_fortenberry has replied
 Message 80 by Percy, posted 11-13-2002 7:53 PM w_fortenberry has replied

  
Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7659 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 78 of 163 (22558)
11-13-2002 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by w_fortenberry
11-13-2002 6:02 PM


quote:
Originally posted by w_fortenberry:
If such evidence is so readily available as you seem to imply, it should not require any great effort on your part to clearly state that evidence. That you do not do so, resorting to cynicism instead, does not support your claims.
That he does not do so, does not negate his claims.
That you do not give your evidence does not negate your claims either.
However, note the following. You do say "I am aware of much evidence which is claimed to support heliocentricity" in post 59. You admit to being aware of evidence, even much evidence - so you are merely asking for either repetition or supplementation.
We all freely admit to knowing of [b][i]no[/b][/i] evidence for your position: emprically, and through common politeness, the ball is in your court.
That you admit to knowing of evidence yet refuse to address that which you already admit to know while demanding more, does not augur well for your bona fides in any discussion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by w_fortenberry, posted 11-13-2002 6:02 PM w_fortenberry has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by w_fortenberry, posted 11-14-2002 8:27 AM Mister Pamboli has replied

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


Message 79 of 163 (22567)
11-13-2002 7:38 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by w_fortenberry
11-13-2002 5:50 PM


w_fortenberry writes:
You appear to have a good concept of gravity, so let me ask you what would happen if you were to attach a bowling ball to either end of the string and place the golf ball in the middle. If the whole were rotated, which ball would end up as the center of the system?
Four fatal problems with this:
  • Two bowling balls are no longer an analogy to the solar system, which has only one dominately massive body.
  • The bowling balls would do just about the same thing with or without the golf ball, which only reinforces John's point that the more massive body or bodies dominate.
  • Both the one and two bowling ball systems behave in a manner consistent with the mathematics for dynamic mechanical systems.
  • The orbits of planets around the sun and moons around planets is consistent with the mathematics of orbital mechanics.
quote:
And secondly, the math doesn't work with geocentrism.
Please provide proof of this statement.
One proof can be found by examining the earth/moon system. We know from observation that the moon doesn't really orbit the earth, but rather that both orbit a point about 1000 miles beneath the earth's surface on a direct line between their centers. This agrees completely with the math for gravitational attraction between two objects:
F = Gm1m2/r2
F = force
G = gravitational constant (6.673x10-11 N-m2/kg2)
m1 = mass of earth (5.976x1024 kg)
m2 = mass of moon (7.351x1022 kg)
r = distance between centers of earth and moon (3.844x108)
Clearly the common orbital point will be rm2/(m1+m2) from the earths center, and plugging in the numbers we get 4671 km. The earth's radius is 6378 km, so that's 1707 km beneath the earth's surface, which is 1060 miles.
This check is very simple, but you can use the same equation, along with F=ma, to verify the observed motions of all bodies within the solar system.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by w_fortenberry, posted 11-13-2002 5:50 PM w_fortenberry has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by w_fortenberry, posted 11-14-2002 8:35 AM Percy has replied

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


Message 80 of 163 (22568)
11-13-2002 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by w_fortenberry
11-13-2002 6:02 PM


w_fortenberry writes:
If such evidence is so readily available as you seem to imply, it should not require any great effort on your part to clearly state that evidence. That you do not do so, resorting to cynicism instead, does not support your claims.
Cynicism? I think derision is more like it. You're professing ignorance of common knowledge. I answered your math question because the basic equation underlying orbital motion is not common knowledge, but I'm wondering why you feel the need to go on and on trying to force someone into answering questions about things you already know. If you're trying to make some point why don't you just go ahead and make it?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by w_fortenberry, posted 11-13-2002 6:02 PM w_fortenberry has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by w_fortenberry, posted 11-14-2002 8:50 AM Percy has replied

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


Message 81 of 163 (22587)
11-13-2002 9:28 PM


I'm new here - so Hi! I have been an amateur astronomer for years, and have read a lot on history of astronomy, though in a piecemeal fashion. The big proofs for a heliocentric solar system were all worked out well before 1900 - annual parallax of stars, aberration of starlight, the excellent fit of observed planetary orbits to simple elliptical orbits around the sun (instead of several nested epicycles if you're geocentric.) But a pretty good clincher is: how many space probes have been sent outside the Moon-Earth system now? A hundred? 150? A lot, anyway, and with perfectly astonishing accuracy, like close enough to orbit a twenty-mile asteroid for months, 100 million miles from here. Can you really imagine that this could have been accomplished with the wrong model for how things orbit each other?

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by John, posted 11-14-2002 1:07 AM Coragyps has not replied
 Message 83 by Quetzal, posted 11-14-2002 1:10 AM Coragyps has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 82 of 163 (22627)
11-14-2002 1:07 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by Coragyps
11-13-2002 9:28 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Coragyps:
I'm new here - so Hi!
Howdy,
I'm in Texas too.
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Coragyps, posted 11-13-2002 9:28 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5954 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 83 of 163 (22628)
11-14-2002 1:10 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by Coragyps
11-13-2002 9:28 PM


Hi coragyps,
Welcome to evcforum! Assuming you're the same coragyps from II, double welcome. I look forward to seeing some of your famous incisive posts. (Check out the "Faith and Belief" forum - you'll have a ball.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Coragyps, posted 11-13-2002 9:28 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
w_fortenberry
Member (Idle past 6189 days)
Posts: 178
From: Birmingham, AL, USA
Joined: 04-19-2002


Message 84 of 163 (22658)
11-14-2002 8:27 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Mister Pamboli
11-13-2002 6:57 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Mister Pamboli:
That you do not give your evidence does not negate your claims either.
What claims have I made that require evidence?
quote:
However, note the following. You do say "I am aware of much evidence which is claimed to support heliocentricity" in post 59. You admit to being aware of evidence, even much evidence - so you are merely asking for either repetition or supplementation.
You do not appear to comprehend. Immediatley after making the statement which you quoted (and the qualifier which you did not quote), I stated, "What I have been unable to find is proof of the supposed falsity of geocentricity."
quote:
freely admit to knowing of [b][i]no[/b][/i] evidence for your position: emprically, and through common politeness, the ball is in your court.
Again, what position have I stated that demands evidence?
quote:
That you admit to knowing of evidence yet refuse to address that which you already admit to know while demanding more, does not augur well for your bona fides in any discussion.
Let me repeat, I am not aware of any evidence of the falsity of the geocentric view found in the Bible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Mister Pamboli, posted 11-13-2002 6:57 PM Mister Pamboli has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Mister Pamboli, posted 11-14-2002 9:48 AM w_fortenberry has not replied

  
w_fortenberry
Member (Idle past 6189 days)
Posts: 178
From: Birmingham, AL, USA
Joined: 04-19-2002


Message 85 of 163 (22661)
11-14-2002 8:35 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by Percy
11-13-2002 7:38 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Percipient:
  • Both the one and two bowling ball systems behave in a manner consistent with the mathematics for dynamic mechanical systems.
  • The orbits of planets around the sun and moons around planets is consistent with the mathematics of orbital mechanics.

quote:
One proof can be found by examining the earth/moon system. We know from observation that the moon doesn't really orbit the earth, but rather that both orbit a point about 1000 miles beneath the earth's surface on a direct line between their centers. This agrees completely with the math for gravitational attraction between two objects:
Where is the point about which you propose the sun and the earth orbit?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Percy, posted 11-13-2002 7:38 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Percy, posted 11-14-2002 10:50 AM w_fortenberry has replied

  
w_fortenberry
Member (Idle past 6189 days)
Posts: 178
From: Birmingham, AL, USA
Joined: 04-19-2002


Message 86 of 163 (22663)
11-14-2002 8:50 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by Percy
11-13-2002 7:53 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Percipient:
Cynicism? I think derision is more like it.
According to the forum rules:
Respect for others is the rule here. Argue the position, not the person. The Britannica says, "Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to maintain a coolly academic approach."
quote:
You're professing ignorance of common knowledge. I answered your math question because the basic equation underlying orbital motion is not common knowledge, but I'm wondering why you feel the need to go on and on trying to force someone into answering questions about things you already know. If you're trying to make some point why don't you just go ahead and make it?
Let me once again repeat, I am not aware of any evidence of the falsity of the geocentric view found in the Bible.
I hope you do not mind my use of your format. The table adds a variety which makes the reply a lot easier to follow than the monotony of three quotes in a row.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Percy, posted 11-13-2002 7:53 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Percy, posted 11-14-2002 11:03 AM w_fortenberry has not replied

  
Karl
Inactive Member


Message 87 of 163 (22667)
11-14-2002 9:47 AM


But you must be aware of it - it's listed in this thread. You need to show why the consensus of scientific opinion is wrong and why it isn't evidence against geocentricity.
Oh - and the point around which the sun/earth system would orbit would, I imagine, be on a line between the centres of each body, and many, many times closer to the centre of the sun. Whether it's below or above the surface is easily calculated, but I don't see the need.

  
Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7659 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 88 of 163 (22668)
11-14-2002 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by w_fortenberry
11-14-2002 8:27 AM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by w_fortenberry:
[B][QUOTE]What claims have I made that require evidence?[/B][/QUOTE]
The claim that you are unaware of evidnce against the geocentric position, for one.
[B][QUOTE]Let me repeat, I am not aware of any evidence of the falsity of the geocentric view found in the Bible.[/B][/QUOTE]
So let's get this clear.
You admit to being aware of much evidence for the claims of heliocentricity.
You profess to be unaware of any evidence against the claims of geocentricity.
Therefore, we can conclude one of the following:
(a) You believe geocentricity and heliocentricity are compatible.
(b) You believe that they are incompatible, but you believe in general terms that evidence for a proposition is not evidence against an incompatible position. It is like asking for proof that Seattle is not the capital of Washington state, but refusing to admit in the supporting argument any evidence that Olympia is the capital of Washington.
(c) You are a sophist.
If (a) then you are likely not going to comprehend any discussion on the matter.
If (b) you are unlikely to be able to follow any logical demonstration anyway.
If (c) you are not worth presenting any evidence or argument to.
We should probably have a vote. At this point I am not sure if its (a) with some yet-to-revealed-in-all-its-irrefutable-glory demonstration of a multi-centric solution, or (b).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by w_fortenberry, posted 11-14-2002 8:27 AM w_fortenberry has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Primordial Egg, posted 11-14-2002 9:54 AM Mister Pamboli has not replied
 Message 90 by John, posted 11-14-2002 9:58 AM Mister Pamboli has not replied
 Message 91 by Percy, posted 11-14-2002 10:17 AM Mister Pamboli has not replied

  
Primordial Egg
Inactive Member


Message 89 of 163 (22670)
11-14-2002 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by Mister Pamboli
11-14-2002 9:48 AM


(c)
------------------
It's good to have an open mind, but not so open that your brains
fall out. - Bertrand Russell

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Mister Pamboli, posted 11-14-2002 9:48 AM Mister Pamboli has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 90 of 163 (22671)
11-14-2002 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by Mister Pamboli
11-14-2002 9:48 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Mister Pamboli:
We should probably have a vote. At this point I am not sure if its (a) with some yet-to-revealed-in-all-its-irrefutable-glory demonstration of a multi-centric solution, or (b).
c) follows from either a) or b) so I am going with c) too.
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Mister Pamboli, posted 11-14-2002 9:48 AM Mister Pamboli 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