The Official Perfection KOs Creationism Thread Part Four: The Genesis of Ire!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Stile said:
Random, without thinking, idiotic, pathetic, disrespectful, disingenuous, rude. Wow! For your next post I bet you'd need a thesaurus. You're definitely strung a little tight today.

I don't need credentials to post on this board, but I've done plenty of physics. I don't need to be a football player to comment that the Jets are going to suck this year, so I don't have to solve every problem to comment on this. I'm not trying to discredit scientists or scientific results.

So you have "done plenty of physics"? Is that supposed to make it ok to parade around with a completely unresearched viewpoint as science? And do it in an authoritative manner? And through it all you still do not understand what offense you made. It isn't about whether you tried to discredit scientists or scientific results, but that you did it with allegory rather than evidence, and all in a self-righteous manner. On the other hand, if you want to present actual physical evidence (or an honest attempt at evidence) for geocentrism, go ahead.

Stile said:
My point is motion is relative. Portraying the Bible as geocentrist is what I had a problem with, because it should be self-evident that someone standing in the holyland won't say "Wow, the earth has stopped rotating." Instead they'll comment that the sun has stopped in the sky, or moved backward if that was the case. And you don't need to know the sun is the center of the solar system and the Earth's tilt, rotation, and orbit, to carry about your normal stuff during the day or recognize seasons or years.

That is obviously a completely different claim than the one on that previous post.

Stile said:
Also, since scientists don't recognize a center to the universe, why not pick the Earth?

See TLC's post.
 
Pontiuth Pilate said:
It would be interesting to see what the orbital path of, say, Mars, looks like on an Earth-centered coordinate system.

Probably not pretty :p
It would look exactly as it does look from earth. Heliocentrisity is a way of explaining the odd paths the planets take as they travel the sky.

But you are right that these paths do look piculier. Venus, for example tends to turn arround, and travel in the near opposite direction every once in a while.
 
ironduck said:
Really? Well, I like to study Dalí's works, but god didn't do them, did he?
Well no, Dali did, that's why they are Dali's works. What's your point?

Pontiuth Pilate said:
It would be interesting to see what the orbital path of, say, Mars, looks like on an Earth-centered coordinate system.

Probably not pretty
Since when does something have to be pretty to be right. I know, I know, Occam's Razor! However, that just means we've picked one model because it's more elegant and simpler, it doesn't invalidate the other model (geocentrism), it's just a model. Heliocentrism is the most elegant model because the sun is by far the most massive body in the solar system. If the Earth was the most massive then geocentrism would be the most elegant.
brennan said:
The Earth is not at the centre of the Solar Sytstem, neither is the Solar System at the centre of the Galaxy. To assume that we can regard our location as special in any way (ie; the centre of the universe) is arrogance. to base this assumption on the words of a 2 thousand year old book is...
Does special relativity not show us the importance of the position of the observer? As all observers (that we know about) are currently on the earth does that not make our location special?
nihilistic said:
How do you feel 30km/s? I myself never ever felt 30km/s, though I may have seen .2 km/s. What you feel is not the speed, but the acceleration. That's why you can still fall asleep on a cruising airplane.
You can fall asleep on a cruising airplane (well I can't) because the air in the cabin is stationary. You couldn't fall asleep on the wing of a cruising airplane because you are moving relative to the air.

We're only moving at 30km/s relative to a stationary Sun (which obviously isn't actually stationary). We're not moving through anything (like air) which is why we can't feel it. If we still believed in the ether maybe we would feel it.

We can only measure speeds relative to something else. As there is nothing 'stationary' (like the ether) we can't measure the speed of the earth. As all the observers are on it we might as well say it is stationary.
 
Markus6 said:
You can fall asleep on a cruising airplane (well I can't) because the air in the cabin is stationary. You couldn't fall asleep on the wing of a cruising airplane because you are moving relative to the air.

Well, if the plane decelerated or begins to turn a corner you would feel it even when the air in the cabin is stationary. And technically the air resistance stuff is but air resisting your (relative) motion. You were not feeling the "motion" itself but only of air resisting your motion. Of course acceleration is also mostly felt as force (from the machine accelerating you) but it is also felt as changes in gravity and position in your inner ear.

Markus6 said:
We're only moving at 30km/s relative to a stationary Sun (which obviously isn't actually stationary). We're not moving through anything (like air) which is why we can't feel it. If we still believed in the ether maybe we would feel it.

You should explain that to stile.

Markus6 said:
Does special relativity not show us the importance of the position of the observer? As all observers (that we know about) are currently on the earth does that not make our location special?

You can view events from any observer you want. You can start doing physics viewing everything from the perspective of a particular dust particle in a hurricane if you don't mind. It's just that other perspectives are easier to deal with. And while your point of most of our actual equipment of observing the cosmos are on earth is correct, it doesn't mean that when we do calculations on them we do not first convert those measurements into a better coordinated system. It's easier to compensate for your observer wobbling than the whole universe wobbling.
 
Nihl: I think you're being a little too aggressive. I think his point (that he clarified) was clear in his first post; if you read his post for the intent of what he's saying.
 
Markus6 said:
Since when does something have to be pretty to be right. I know, I know, Occam's Razor! However, that just means we've picked one model because it's more elegant and simpler, it doesn't invalidate the other model (geocentrism), it's just a model. Heliocentrism is the most elegant model because the sun is by far the most massive body in the solar system. If the Earth was the most massive then geocentrism would be the most elegant.

There is inherent value in the geocentric system for observers who reside, as most of us do, on Earth: to this day, certain nautical navigational calculations are based on a geocentric universe in order to make them simpler. As per Wikipedia:
The geocentric (Ptolemaic) model of the solar system is still of interest to planetarium makers, as, for technical reasons, a Ptolemaic-type motion for the planet light apparatus has some advantages over a Copernican-type motion. The celestial sphere, used for teaching purposes and sometimes for navigation, is also still based on a geocentric system.
However, heliocentricism is the primary paradigm of modern astronomy-- why? Firstly, as you, Markus, have pointed out, it is elegant. No more messy epicycles! No need to calculate equants or eccentrics! Thanks to Kepler :)thumbsup:), we have three simple laws which govern the journeys of the wanderers through the empyrean:

1. Kepler's elliptical orbit law- The planets orbit the sun in elliptical orbits with the sun at one focus.
2. Kepler's equal-area law- The line connecting a planet to the sun sweeps out equal areas in equal amounts of time.
3. Kepler's law of periods- The time required for a planet to orbit the sun, called its period, is proportional to the long axis of the ellipse raised to the 3/2 power. The constant of proportionality is the same for all the planets.

While it's relativistically reasonable to say that the earth is still and all else is in motion, it's similarly valid for me to claim primacy and centrality for my left nostril, around which all else is in motion and which, alone, of all entities in the universe, remains still. Valid, but perhaps not acceptable. Aside from being rather selfish, it would also be impossible to write equations for things like planetary motion.
What is key, I believe, is the last sentence of Kepler's third law. With heliocentricism and eliptical orbits, we have a constant constant. This common factor groups all the planets into one category (of, well, planets...). The sun is not included in this group, so it is expedient, no, wise to consider the sun to be central when the fram of reference is "our solar system" (tautological nomenclature aside).
N.B. I hesitate to post the rest of this babbling, because it veers dangerously close to philosophy and away from science. So, I'll give you the choice. (See? Who said we don't have free will?) Sure it's an uninformed choice, but life's tough. Proceed at your own discretion.
Spoiler :

Plus, realizing that we're sitting on a wet, mossy rock somewhere between Venus (a dry, sulphurous rock) and Mars (a red, partially icy rock) is good for tempering our delusions of grandeur. That one is not the center of the universe is something that most of us are forced to learn as bratty 5-year-olds. As humanity matures, perhaps it is wise for us to recognize that we're really not all that great, in the cosmic scheme of things. Maybe we can get rid of our entitlement complex and stop destroying the environment, too . Philosophically, though, this should only serve to increase our awe of the Universe (or of God, if you are so inclined). Because, honestly, we (as a species) are pretty great. Read Pico to get a sense of what I mean, or just think about all the great things we can do (Oh, I know, I've revealed myself as one of those rotten humanists. :blush: Are you really surprised?). So, if we're pretty great, and we're also mostly marginal, doesn't that make the universe pretty darn spectacular? I don't know, that's just my armchair pontificating; take it or leave it.
 
Markus6 said:
Well no, Dali did, that's why they are Dali's works. What's your point?

From what you said about the universe being interesting to study because god made it, it sounded like it was only things that god had made that were interesting to study. Or are you just saying that god would never make something that's not interesting for us to study?

Markus6 said:
If we still believed in the ether maybe we would feel it.

Are you saying that people felt the ether back when it was considered a plausible theory?
 
Phlegmak said:
It's evolution I tell you!

Other thread
The thread has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. The creature in question is clearly a canine of some sort.

Tyical of evolutionists to proclaim this as evolutions without even looking properly at the thing in question.
 
Dang, are we still on heliocentrism here? :lol: It's funny how these threads seem to move towards physics and the creation of the universe rather than the origin of species, the diversity of life, etc. I guess it's all still 'creationism', but how far back can we go...? ;)
 
The Last Conformist said:
Methinks a joke flew above someone's head ...
...flapping it's wings like an über-bird. Or was it a pterosaur? ;)
 
Hey classical_hero, remember in that other thread I asked why you believe the bible is the word of god and you said it was because a) the bible said so and b) the bible had been preserved miraculously?

Then I asked why you single out this specific religion when other religions just as old or older have their scripture surviving as well (the vedas for instance), and on top of that we have non-religious texts that have survived just as long without even having a strong following to protect them, such as the Homeric stories.

Just wondering if you could clarify if you really base your belief that the bible is the word of god on the fact that it's old?
 
classical_hero said:
The thread has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. The creature in question is clearly a canine of some sort.

Tyical of evolutionists to proclaim this as evolutions without even looking properly at the thing in question.

joke_overhead.jpg

Click the thumbnail for a larger image.
 
Markus6 said:
Does special relativity not show us the importance of the position of the observer? As all observers (that we know about) are currently on the earth does that not make our location special?

I guess TLC missed this one, so I will chime in. Special Relativity (or even Galiliean Relativity) makes no such claim. In fact it makes a rather opposite claim. It says that that observer is completely unimportant and that all physics must be observer independent and hence all physics equations must be written in such a form that changing the observer does not change the form of the equation.

In that spirit, if we try to write out the equations of motion of the planets we are better off chosing a system that makes our work in that particular instance simpler. For most purposes it would be a heliocentric co-ordinate system.

Now there might be a really screwy planetary problem for which a geocentric co-ordinate system might be ideal - but what that problem might be currently eludes me.
 
betazed said:
Now there might be a really screwy planetary problem for which a geocentric co-ordinate system might be ideal - but what that problem might be currently eludes me.

IIRC, nautical celestial navigation still uses a geocentric system to ease certain calculations, but I have no real documentary support for this, just the word of a Princeton history professor and Wikipedia. So I could be mistaken.
 
Markus6 said:
We can only measure speeds relative to something else. As there is nothing 'stationary' (like the ether) we can't measure the speed of the earth. As all the observers are on it we might as well say it is stationary.

It depends on the context of the conversation.

If we're talking about Bob, who is sitting at his desk doing some paperwork, saying that he isn't moving makes the most sense. However, as soon as you start talking about the Earth as a whole, you'll have to describe its motion in terms of what is most relevant in the context of the conversation. So, saying The Earth is stationary doesn't really makes sense, since on that scale you'll have to take the sun & the other planets into account - and relative to them the Earth is in fact moving. The sun is the dominant gravitational influence on this scale - so it would make sense to say that the Sun is stationary - but it wouldn't make sense to make the same claim about the Earth.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom