Jump to content


Photo

Is Natural Selection A Mechanism Of Evolution?

Evolution Refuted

  • Please log in to reply
172 replies to this topic

#141 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 963 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 01 April 2018 - 03:51 PM

This is were to find these gems  :acigar: https://bibleevidences.com/science/


I've read all these before via the link on the EFF homepage. If God really wanted to show the divine nature of the Bible with scientific facts then there should be something in there far better than these rather vague examples, not sure why you consider them "gems". The first thing they state is something I already mentioned, the circle of the earth. A circle is not a globe !! Its a bit desperate to cite this as divine knowledge. If you are positioned in a high place with a low horizon and you have a 360 degree panoramic view then the vista is circular. That is probably what the writer was referring to.

Of course, not only are these claims tenuous as evidence, they are also cherry picked as there are plenty of other passages that show the Bible to be in error, such as the four legged insects I mentioned. In Ecclesiastes 1:5 it states:

"The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose."

If the sun orbited the Earth you would be citing this as evidence of wondrous Biblical knowledge, however as we know the Earth orbits the sun then this passage is a clear error as it very heavily suggests a geocentric view.



#142 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,094 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 02 April 2018 - 08:10 AM

i wonder if anyone realizes the implications of what "no plausible scenario" means in regards to abiogenesis.

one possible scenario would be catalysis, but according to the above it isn't plausible in regards to abiogenesis.

so, what else can it be?

the only explanation i can think of is irreducible complexity.

 

we have already seen that science papers will edit out allusion to ID.

 

what kind of scientist will refuse to acknowledge something simply because it's absurd or they don't want to believe it.

how absurd is it to say the effects can precede the cause, but that's exactly what quantum physics says can happen.



#143 KillurBluff

KillurBluff

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 160 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:S.W. Indiana
  • Interests:Theology, Acoustics, Planting Fruit Trees on my Property.
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • In.

Posted 02 April 2018 - 12:19 PM

wibble,      As i have clearly stated in prior post, here at this most appreciated site, the Scientific Data received from the CoBe probe, Sloan Digital Sky Survey, WMAP and the Planck Satellites all show 'The Copernicus' worldview is not accurate by any means. This is exactly why they called these scientific Data readings 'THE AXIS OF EVIL'. Because it showed beyond any and all doubt that we are in fact in the center of our known universe. The Copernican Cosmology is more a philosophical ideology of a particular metaphysical worldview that has forced the scientist to confirm this worldview as versed to merely doing research upon observations of the 'known data'  and not trying to conform the known Data into a particular worldview. Modern scientist in these particular fields of study would be absolutely jobless and mere court jesters of the modern atheistic worldview if the Copernican Principle could be uprooted, which in fact has been utterly crushed! That's clearly why they must fight tooth and nail to ridicule a 'Geocentric Cosmology'. Our Biblical narrative says God created us as a special creation and the Earth also our special environment. Seeing how i'm sure to differ from many of my Christian Brothers and Sisters in Yeshua Yahweh, of whom my comfort and soul surely rest, because of my most 'LITERAL' understanding of scripture. By no means am i attributing my ideologies upon them and should not be considered nor inferred. "The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose. We can also add Joshua 10:13 here also, and for that matter all other Biblical scriptures that read the Earth stays its ground, as far as i'm concerned. "The Biblical narrative STANDS its GROUND!" All supposed and outdated Cosmology suggestions from the likes of Neil deGrass Tyson, Lawrence Krauss, Michio Kaku, etc are ALL unproved assumptions which is based in their own ideological and metaphysical worldview! This is why it is called 'Theoretical Physics'. Modern Cosmologist and Astrophysicist must make up new and ever more elaborate metaphysical sciences such as 'The No Boundary Proposal', and the 'Quantum Entanglement' etc. ideas as to somehow connect what we actually observe and what those whom continue to postulate eg. the Copernican worldview, 'MUST' adhere to. The utter travesty of the never ending equations afforded to try and come up with an also never ending hypothetical means to discredit the Biblical narrative is expected.  By the way, all the 'New' Cosmology and Astrophysical presumptions typically violate the Einsteinian model. "People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations"    George Ellis Quote "For instance, i can construct you spherically symmetrical universe with the Earth at it's center, and you can NOT disprove it based on any observations. You can only exclude that on philosophical grounds. In my view there is nothing wrong in that. What i want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that"    Sir Fred Hoyle Quote "We know that the difference between a Heliocentric Theory and a Geocentric Theory is one of relative motion only, and that such a difference has no physical significance."  Albert Einstein Quote " 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."  Max Born Quote " .... 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 Einsteins's field equations, by distant rotating masses. This has been done by Thirring. He calculated a field due to a rotating, hallow, thick-walled sphere and proved 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 right."   Lubos Motl Quote "Well, all the fictitious forces are still there, together with all of their conceivable general relativistic corrections that need us to use the complicated metric tensor field (all components)... Philosophically, the geocentric system is "equally good" in GR because in all coordinate systems, the Solar System and the Earth are given by some curved metric tensor field. Some quasi-inertial and heliocentric fields are still a bit simpler which makes the geocentric system "more true" from a pragmatic viewpoint. – Luboš Motl May 4 '12 at 18:08]   The now antiquated Copernican Principle started in 1543.  Lerner, Eric. (1993). The Case Against the Big Bang. 89-. 10.1007/978-1-4899-1225-1_7. Despite its widespread acceptance, the Big Bang theory is presently without any observational support. All of its quantitative predictions are contradicted by observation, and none are supported by the data. Its predictions of light element abundances are inconsistent with the latest data. It is impossible to produce a Big Bang “age of the universe†which is old enough to allow the development of the observed large scale structures, or even the evolution of the Milky Way galaxy. The theory does not predict an isotropic cosmic microwave background without several additional ad hoc assumptions which are themselves clearly contradicted by observation. By contrast, plasma cosmology theories have provided explanations of the light element abundances, the origin of large scale structure and the cosmic microwave background that accord with observation. It is time to abandon the Big Bang and seek other explanations of the Hubble relationship.



#144 StormanNorman

StormanNorman

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,159 posts
  • Age: 46
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Pittsburgh, PA

Posted 02 April 2018 - 01:57 PM

wibble,      As i have clearly stated in prior post, here at this most appreciated site, the Scientific Data received from the CoBe probe, Sloan Digital Sky Survey, WMAP and the Planck Satellites all show 'The Copernicus' worldview is not accurate by any means. This is exactly why they called these scientific Data readings 'THE AXIS OF EVIL'. Because it showed beyond any and all doubt that we are in fact in the center of our known universe. The Copernican Cosmology is more a philosophical ideology of a particular metaphysical worldview that has forced the scientist to confirm this worldview as versed to merely doing research upon observations of the 'known data'  and not trying to conform the known Data into a particular worldview. Modern scientist in these particular fields of study would be absolutely jobless and mere court jesters of the modern atheistic worldview if the Copernican Principle could be uprooted, which in fact has been utterly crushed! That's clearly why they must fight tooth and nail to ridicule a 'Geocentric Cosmology'. Our Biblical narrative says God created us as a special creation and the Earth also our special environment. Seeing how i'm sure to differ from many of my Christian Brothers and Sisters in Yeshua Yahweh, of whom my comfort and soul surely rest, because of my most 'LITERAL' understanding of scripture. By no means am i attributing my ideologies upon them and should not be considered nor inferred. "The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose. We can also add Joshua 10:13 here also, and for that matter all other Biblical scriptures that read the Earth stays its ground, as far as i'm concerned. "The Biblical narrative STANDS its GROUND!" All supposed and outdated Cosmology suggestions from the likes of Neil deGrass Tyson, Lawrence Krauss, Michio Kaku, etc are ALL unproved assumptions which is based in their own ideological and metaphysical worldview! This is why it is called 'Theoretical Physics'. Modern Cosmologist and Astrophysicist must make up new and ever more elaborate metaphysical sciences such as 'The No Boundary Proposal', and the 'Quantum Entanglement' etc. ideas as to somehow connect what we actually observe and what those whom continue to postulate eg. the Copernican worldview, 'MUST' adhere to. The utter travesty of the never ending equations afforded to try and come up with an also never ending hypothetical means to discredit the Biblical narrative is expected.  By the way, all the 'New' Cosmology and Astrophysical presumptions typically violate the Einsteinian model. "People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations"    George Ellis Quote "For instance, i can construct you spherically symmetrical universe with the Earth at it's center, and you can NOT disprove it based on any observations. You can only exclude that on philosophical grounds. In my view there is nothing wrong in that. What i want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that"    Sir Fred Hoyle Quote "We know that the difference between a Heliocentric Theory and a Geocentric Theory is one of relative motion only, and that such a difference has no physical significance."  Albert Einstein Quote " 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."  Max Born Quote " .... 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 Einsteins's field equations, by distant rotating masses. This has been done by Thirring. He calculated a field due to a rotating, hallow, thick-walled sphere and proved 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 right."   Lubos Motl Quote "Well, all the fictitious forces are still there, together with all of their conceivable general relativistic corrections that need us to use the complicated metric tensor field (all components)... Philosophically, the geocentric system is "equally good" in GR because in all coordinate systems, the Solar System and the Earth are given by some curved metric tensor field. Some quasi-inertial and heliocentric fields are still a bit simpler which makes the geocentric system "more true" from a pragmatic viewpoint. – Luboš Motl May 4 '12 at 18:08]   The now antiquated Copernican Principle started in 1543.  Lerner, Eric. (1993). The Case Against the Big Bang. 89-. 10.1007/978-1-4899-1225-1_7. Despite its widespread acceptance, the Big Bang theory is presently without any observational support. All of its quantitative predictions are contradicted by observation, and none are supported by the data. Its predictions of light element abundances are inconsistent with the latest data. It is impossible to produce a Big Bang “age of the universe†which is old enough to allow the development of the observed large scale structures, or even the evolution of the Milky Way galaxy. The theory does not predict an isotropic cosmic microwave background without several additional ad hoc assumptions which are themselves clearly contradicted by observation. By contrast, plasma cosmology theories have provided explanations of the light element abundances, the origin of large scale structure and the cosmic microwave background that accord with observation. It is time to abandon the Big Bang and seek other explanations of the Hubble relationship.

 

I'm not sure what you are saying here...but, the laws of gravity do not support in any way the theory that the sun orbits around the earth....



#145 KillurBluff

KillurBluff

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 160 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:S.W. Indiana
  • Interests:Theology, Acoustics, Planting Fruit Trees on my Property.
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • In.

Posted 02 April 2018 - 03:43 PM

 Storman Norman, I'm not sure what you are saying here...but, the laws of gravity do not support in any way the theory that the sun orbits around the earth... I am merely stating my literal understanding of Biblical scripture. And that the Creation of the universe is a supernatural act that is simply beyond the understanding of any and all skeptical Cosmologist, Astrophysicist, Physicist and anybody else. Just as shown i'm by no means saying we should slam the door of scientific inquiry, rather that some things we as humans will NEVER know, and i for 1 shall stand upon that which the word of God thru his inspired word eg. the Bible tells of. The main idea is that indeed we are a 'Special Creation' in the likeness of him and that this place we find ourselves in is comparatively 'Special'. As knowing what i do of frequencies i can appreciate how the word, 'Jesus Christ', literally spoke ALL things into being.



#146 KillurBluff

KillurBluff

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 160 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:S.W. Indiana
  • Interests:Theology, Acoustics, Planting Fruit Trees on my Property.
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • In.

Posted 02 April 2018 - 03:52 PM

 Storman Norman, I'm not sure what you are saying here...but, the laws of gravity do not support in any way the theory that the sun orbits around the earth... I am merely stating my literal understanding of Biblical scripture. And that the Creation of the universe is a supernatural act that is simply beyond the understanding of any and all skeptical Cosmologist, Astrophysicist, Physicist and anybody else. Just as shown i'm by no means saying we should slam the door of scientific inquiry, rather that some things we as humans will NEVER know, and i for 1 shall stand upon that which the word of God thru his inspired word eg. the Bible tells of. The main idea is that indeed we are a 'Special Creation' in the likeness of him and that this place we find ourselves in is comparatively 'Special'. As knowing what i do of frequencies i can appreciate how the word, 'Jesus Christ', literally spoke ALL things into being.

Just as 1 Corinthians 3:19 "For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness." 



#147 KillurBluff

KillurBluff

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 160 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:S.W. Indiana
  • Interests:Theology, Acoustics, Planting Fruit Trees on my Property.
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • In.

Posted 02 April 2018 - 05:15 PM

Storman Norman



#148 StormanNorman

StormanNorman

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,159 posts
  • Age: 46
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Pittsburgh, PA

Posted 02 April 2018 - 05:51 PM

Storman Norman


Honestly, I haven't a clue as to what the bible says about such things. Regardless, the sun does not orbit the earth....

#149 KillurBluff

KillurBluff

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 160 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:S.W. Indiana
  • Interests:Theology, Acoustics, Planting Fruit Trees on my Property.
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • In.

Posted 03 April 2018 - 09:08 AM

 

Storman Norman


Honestly, I haven't a clue as to what the bible says about such things. Regardless, the sun does not orbit the earth....

 

What i'm saying is that if every honest Cosmologist, Astrophysicist and Physicist will tell the Facts from the Data received from the CoBe, Sloan Digital Sky Survey, WMAP, and the Planck Satillites ALL of them show, without doubt mind you, that all of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation shows the EARTH to be literally the unique center of our known universe. NOT the Sun, NOT Jupiter, NOT mars, NOT another Galaxy of some vast light years away but indeed right HERE upon this special planet of Gods construction. NO i DO NOT by any means believe in a FLAT earth lol. But i do believe if these so called Far Superior Intellectuals such as Neil deGrass Lyson, Lawrence Crock of Krauss, Mitchio full of Kaku, Julian Barbour, Max Tegmark etc, etc, etc, would be as they should rightfully be, delegated to mere court jesters, whom prance around the earths stage regurgitating utter nonsense. They would be out of jobs!! They are nothing more other than High Priest of this Darwinian Delusion of Modern Mans lack of wisdom and knowledge. They MUST constantly seek out new, fanciful fairytales to support their consistently and ever crumbling worldview.



#150 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,932 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 03 April 2018 - 10:46 AM

Even piasan agreed when i fist posted in regards, but he merely stated it did nothing for the billions of millions of yrs worldview per light yrs. But even he acknowledged my contention against the Copernican worldview of which i compliment. There is no reason to believe in what this worldview has to offer, eg. absolutely Nada but a grotesque, unguided symphony of utter futility. For surely even the most die hard atheist, when awaking in the morn knows he has a purpose and direction which by this alone should make him realize the Darwinian worldview is rendered null and void.

If I recall correctly, I pointed out that whether or not the Earth is at the center of the universe, the evidence of billions (not thousands) of years is untouched.

 

I may have also pointed out that, in an expanding universe it is impossible to determine the center because each point will look like the center from its own perspective.  This is because each point is moving away from every other point.

 

 

What i'm saying is that if every honest Cosmologist, Astrophysicist and Physicist will tell the Facts from the Data received from the CoBe, Sloan Digital Sky Survey, WMAP, and the Planck Satillites ALL of them show, without doubt mind you, that all of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation shows the EARTH to be literally the unique center of our known universe. NOT the Sun, NOT Jupiter, NOT mars, NOT another Galaxy of some vast light years away but indeed right HERE upon this special planet of Gods construction. NO i DO NOT by any means believe in a FLAT earth lol. 

The Earth is clearly not the center of the solar system.  The solar system is not the center of the Milky Way.  The Milky Way is not the center of the local (Virgo) cluster of galaxies.   How can you possibly justify the Earth is the center of the universe?

 

 

 

 But i do believe if these so called Far Superior Intellectuals such as Neil deGrass Lyson, Lawrence Crock of Krauss, Mitchio full of Kaku, Julian Barbour, Max Tegmark etc, etc, etc, would be as they should rightfully be, delegated to mere court jesters, whom prance around the earths stage regurgitating utter nonsense. They would be out of jobs!! They are nothing more other than High Priest of this Darwinian Delusion of Modern Mans lack of wisdom and knowledge. They MUST constantly seek out new, fanciful fairytales to support their consistently and ever crumbling worldview.

The evidence of astronomy without reference to COBE, Sloan, WMAP, Planck, etc., is the the Earth is NOT the center of the universe.  The jobs of astronomers have nothing at all to do with evolution or anything "Darwinian."  The findings of astronomy and physics are totally independent of evolution.

 

The evidence is STILL the universe is billions of years old, not thousands ..... despite the constant efforts of YEC who "MUST constantly seek out new, fanciful fairytales to support their consistently and ever crumbling worldview."

 



#151 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,094 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 03 April 2018 - 11:44 AM

i'm not sure about sun/ earth, but most will say the moon orbits the earth which is wrong.

they orbit each other about a common center.

if i'm not mistaken, this "common center" lies beneath the earths surface by some miles.



#152 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,932 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 03 April 2018 - 12:13 PM

i'm not sure about sun/ earth, but most will say the moon orbits the earth which is wrong.

they orbit each other about a common center.

if i'm not mistaken, this "common center" lies beneath the earths surface by some miles.

It is.  I recall having to work the problem when I took physics.  This time, I just "Googled" the answer.   From Wikipedia:

Rather than appearing to orbit a common center of masswith the smaller body, the larger will simply be seen to wobble slightly. This is the case for the EarthMoon system, where the barycenter is located on average 4,671 km (2,902 mi) from the Earth's center, well within the planet's radius of 6,378 km (3,963 mi)

 

So, it's a bit more than half-way from the center of the Earth to its surface.



#153 KillurBluff

KillurBluff

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 160 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:S.W. Indiana
  • Interests:Theology, Acoustics, Planting Fruit Trees on my Property.
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • In.

Posted 03 April 2018 - 12:20 PM

piasan. "The evidence of astronomy without reference to COBE, Sloan, WMAP, Planck, etc., is the the Earth is NOT the center of the universe.  The jobs of astronomers have nothing at all to do with evolution or anything "Darwinian."  The findings of astronomy and physics are totally independent of evolution.

 

The evidence is STILL the universe is billions of years old, not thousands ..... despite the constant efforts of YEC who "MUST constantly seek out new, fanciful fairytales to support their consistently and ever crumbling worldview."                                                    My statement stands as a fact. You cleverly say 'without reference to COBE, Sloan, WMAP, Planck, etc.' I say why would any wish to discount this Data? Clearly for the reasons i have shown. As i have shown which all can go find is that even Einstein himself stated Albert Einstein Quote " 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."  Along with all my other cited quotes. I have stated nothing myself more than most all current Cosmologist, Astrophysicist and Physicist have a based ideology that promotes the current worldview that the Earth is nothing special in our universe. As they are continually chasing equation after equation pursuing a basis by which they can literally dismiss and defraud the Biblical account for the Creation of everything by God Almighty's spoken 'Word'. Irregardless of whatever increasingly sophisticated methodology of which they will chose to devise for a non Biblical worldview, the BIBLICAL narrative Shall Always Stand Correct! As i have stated in previous posting here and subsequent 'Topics' We Biblical Christians have NEVER changed our stance in accordance from 'Biblical Scripture'. We have NEVER tried to subject or adjust the Biblical narrative for an interpretation which fits our worldview. It is indeed rather the atheist and everybody else in the entire history of man that MUST and are indeed FORCED to adjust their world view to accommodate their ever changing assumptions and equations. This spans the ENTIRETY of the known sciences. All those antiquated atheist whom have pasted have indeed pasted in utter ignorance, Distinctly opposite of all Christians that have relied upon the word of GOD for their worldview and salvation. Just think of it, piasan, absolutely NO Christian has had to adjust their basic Fundamental Foundation in the 'WORD' to accommodate any of mans sciences! Now Christians may 'Chose' to change their worldview but indeed it is NEVER REQUIRED!



#154 KillurBluff

KillurBluff

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 160 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:S.W. Indiana
  • Interests:Theology, Acoustics, Planting Fruit Trees on my Property.
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • In.

Posted 03 April 2018 - 03:42 PM

  The actual facts in regards to any and ALL scientific fields of inquiry can easily be boiled down to 2 things. 1st is indeed the observable as in the ability to use our God given '5 Senses'. The 2nd is where it always takes a sharp turn into actually a 'Theory' or 'Reason' as in the 'Grandiose' stories of which we tell our selves that could and could not be true based about our observations!  Now clearly these are rather different from each other. Now in our concerns for our universe both camps indeed have the exact same observations even tho many chose to bury their heads in the sand so to speak. And as such the end result has ALWAYS been that of 'Underdetermination', hence all given data NEVER nails down a theory eg, the Big Bang, Darwinian evolution the Heliocentric vs Geocentric etc. This by no means is to imply that everything and anything goes. Rather there is leeway. Which leads us to our God given ability to 'Reason' together, yes with him and ourselves. We can infer this logically to be 'The Law Of Rational Inference', but this is also dependent upon our given presuppositions. And may i be clear in stating that I indeed have them lol. Because i indeed base all things upon the 'Word'. No matter what may come! And everything and anything i have stated will not go against any Biblical scripture. As do atheist to a 'Natural' explanation of all things eg. time and chance. I often equate this, in my mind, as to Darwin's ideology around his time as believing the cell was nothing more than merely a glob of hemoglobin which was all so very simplistic. But oh how catastrophic this was to all whom believed in such. So, let us not believe for any moment that we all are oblivious to our presuppositions please. This being said do not come to me please, stating that we have any 100% proof as to the earth, sun and other planets racing through our universe at breakneck speeds. For what is indeed 'Known' is that there has NEVER been any experimental observations that we have ever done to 100% prove this inference or 'Theory'. Now as to us having the actual data from these CMBR satellites does show beyond any doubt is that Earth is at the center of our universe as they ALL point to our own 'Axis". Carl Sagan and all other atheist, to me, is best summed as to this quote  "We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a hum-drum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people. This perspective is a courageous continuation of our penchant for constructing and testing mental models of the skies; the Sun as a red-hot stone, the stars as a celestial flame, the Galaxy as the backbone of night." But indeed nay, i say, be gone!! On the 29th of March 1641, Galileo responded to a letter that he received from his colleague Francesco Rinuccini. Galileo wrote: “The falsity of the Copernican system should not in any way be called into question, above all, not by Catholics, since we have the unshakeable authority of the Sacred Scripture, interpreted by the most erudite theologians, whose consensus gives us certainty regarding the stability of the Earth, situated in the center, and the motion of the sun around the Earth. The conjectures employed by Copernicus and his followers in maintaining the contrary thesis are all sufficiently rebutted by that most solid argument deriving from the omnipotence of God. He is able to bring about in different ways, indeed, in an infinite number of ways, things that, according to our opinion and observation, appear to happen in one particular way. We should not seek to shorten the hand of God and boldly insist on something beyond the limits of our competence…. D’Arcetri, March 29, 1641. I am writing the enclosed letter to Rev. Fr. Fulgenzio, from whom I have heard no news lately. I entrust it to Your Excellency to kindly make sure he receives it.” I find it rather intriguing that even as i type, this statement holds true. I'm not particularly endorsing Catholicism but merely the essence of this letter. I can do no more for today but will be back, God, Yeshua Yahweh Bless and permit me to do so.


  • Sleepy House likes this

#155 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,932 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 04 April 2018 - 09:24 AM

The evidence of astronomy without reference to COBE, Sloan, WMAP, Planck, etc., is the the Earth is NOT the center of the universe.  The jobs of astronomers have nothing at all to do with evolution or anything "Darwinian."  The findings of astronomy and physics are totally independent of evolution.

 

The evidence is STILL the universe is billions of years old, not thousands ..... despite the constant efforts of YEC who "MUST constantly seek out new, fanciful fairytales to support their consistently and ever crumbling worldview."

 

My statement stands as a fact. You cleverly say 'without reference to COBE, Sloan, WMAP, Planck, etc.' I say why would any wish to discount this Data? Clearly for the reasons i have shown.

Your statement that we are at the center of the universe stands refuted.  As I pointed out, in an expanding universe, ALL points on which you stand will seem to be the center.  I again provide a link that demonstrates this fact.

 

There was nothing "clever" about my discounting of COBE, Sloan, WMAP, Planck, etc.  The reason was explained in my preceding comment where I pointed out: 

"The Earth is clearly not the center of the solar system.  The solar system is not the center of the Milky Way.  The Milky Way is not the center of the local (Virgo) cluster of galaxies.   How can you possibly justify the Earth is the center of the universe?"

 

The simple fact is we don't need to go to the edges of the universe with multi-billion dollar space missions to show the Earth isn't the center of the universe.  It can be shown that the Earth is not the center of the universe without looking at anything beyond our local "neighborhood."

 

I ask again .... if the Earth isn't the center of the solar system; the solar system isn't the center of the galaxy; and the galaxy is not the center of the cluster, how can you possibly justify that the Earth is at the center of the universe?

 

BTW, in terms of exactness, the precision of the measurements taken by those experiments (+/-1%) is greater than the size of the local group (about 10 million light years).  In other words, those instruments wouldn't be able to determine if the Earth is actually the center of the universe anyway.

 

 

As i have shown which all can go find is that even Einstein himself stated Albert Einstein Quote " 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."  

Yes, we can place the reference point of a coordinate system wherever we wish.  It makes no difference to the relevant calculations and conversion from one reference point to another is a simple matter.  That does not mean that we can simply place the earth at rest in our coordinate system, and therefore the sun (with more than 99.8% of the mass in the solar system) ACTUALLY moves around the Earth.

 

So, from that perspective, you can place the Earth at the center of your coordinate system if you so desire.  But whether we choose the views of Ptolemy or Copernicus is irrelevant to the results of the light-travel time problem.  Either way, it takes light a specific time to travel from point A to point B.

 

 

Along with all my other cited quotes. I have stated nothing myself more than most all current Cosmologist, Astrophysicist and Physicist have a based ideology that promotes the current worldview that the Earth is nothing special in our universe. 

OK.... I concur that all those experts will agree you can place your coordinate system wherever you wish.  I'm absolutely certain they will state with equal emphasis that regardless if you prefer Ptolemy or Copernicus it STILL takes light billions (not thousands) of years to reach us from the more distant objects.

 

 

As they are continually chasing equation after equation pursuing a basis by which they can literally dismiss and defraud the Biblical account for the Creation of everything by God Almighty's spoken 'Word'.

Do you really think the goal of these scientists is to "literally dismiss ... the Biblical account...?"  My wager is that they don't even consider the Bible (either way) in their work.  Frankly, I doubt they could care any less whether their findings confirm or refute Biblical claims.

 

 

 Irregardless of whatever increasingly sophisticated methodology of which they will chose to devise for a non Biblical worldview, the BIBLICAL narrative Shall Always Stand Correct!   As i have stated in previous posting here and subsequent 'Topics' We Biblical Christians have NEVER changed our stance in accordance from 'Biblical Scripture'. We have NEVER tried to subject or adjust the Biblical narrative for an interpretation which fits our worldview.

Right .... "The Bible says it, I believe it, end of discussion."  The Bible is not to be subjected to any kind of test.  It MUST be believed without question of any kind.   Got it.

 

 

 It is indeed rather the atheist and everybody else in the entire history of man that MUST and are indeed FORCED to adjust their world view to accommodate their ever changing assumptions and equations. This spans the ENTIRETY of the known sciences. 

Right .... those who work in the sciences are open to changing their position based on new evidence/data.    It is ONLY the YEC who claim to already possess absolute truth in all things.....

 

 

All those antiquated atheist whom have pasted have indeed pasted in utter ignorance, Distinctly opposite of all Christians that have relied upon the word of GOD for their worldview and salvation. Just think of it, piasan, absolutely NO Christian has had to adjust their basic Fundamental Foundation in the 'WORD' to accommodate any of mans sciences! Now Christians may 'Chose' to change their worldview but indeed it is NEVER REQUIRED!

I'm not sure how you can justify those who change their position based on new information hold an "antiquated" position compared YEC who base their conclusions on writings that date back thousands of years.

 

 

All those antiquated atheist whom have pasted have indeed pasted in utter ignorance, Distinctly opposite of all Christians that have relied upon the word of GOD for their worldview and salvation. Just think of it, piasan, absolutely NO Christian has had to adjust their basic Fundamental Foundation in the 'WORD' to accommodate any of mans sciences! Now Christians may 'Chose' to change their worldview but indeed it is NEVER REQUIRED!

I'm not sure how you can justify those who change their position based on new information hold an "antiquated" position compared YEC who base their conclusions on writings that date back thousands of years.

 

 

Just think of it, piasan, absolutely NO Christian has had to adjust their basic Fundamental Foundation in the 'WORD' to accommodate any of mans sciences! Now Christians may 'Chose' to change their worldview but indeed it is NEVER REQUIRED!

I'm not so certain an absolute unquestioning refusal to "accommodate" that which we can know from experience and direct observation is a good thing.



#156 KillurBluff

KillurBluff

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 160 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:S.W. Indiana
  • Interests:Theology, Acoustics, Planting Fruit Trees on my Property.
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • In.

Posted 04 April 2018 - 06:45 PM

 

The evidence of astronomy without reference to COBE, Sloan, WMAP, Planck, etc., is the the Earth is NOT the center of the universe.  The jobs of astronomers have nothing at all to do with evolution or anything "Darwinian."  The findings of astronomy and physics are totally independent of evolution.

 

The evidence is STILL the universe is billions of years old, not thousands ..... despite the constant efforts of YEC who "MUST constantly seek out new, fanciful fairytales to support their consistently and ever crumbling worldview."

 

My statement stands as a fact. You cleverly say 'without reference to COBE, Sloan, WMAP, Planck, etc.' I say why would any wish to discount this Data? Clearly for the reasons i have shown.

Your statement that we are at the center of the universe stands refuted.  As I pointed out, in an expanding universe, ALL points on which you stand will seem to be the center.  I again provide a link that demonstrates this fact.

piasan,  OH on the contrary you have refuted absolutely NADA, nothing at all other than proving my exact point lol. 1st let us recall the Michelson Morley experiment that, ummm what do you KNOW that the Earth did NOT MOVE!! Many Well know Physicist at the time had this following reaction lol.“There was just one alternative; the earth’s true velocity through space might happen to have been nil.” Physicist, Arthur Eddington “The data [of Michelson‐Morley] were almost unbelievable… There was only one other possible conclusion to draw — that the Earth was at rest.” Physicist, Bernard Jaffe  “Thus, failure [of Michelson‐Morley] to observe different speeds of light at different times of the year suggested that the Earth must be ‘at rest’…It was therefore the ‘preferred’ frame for measuring absolute motion in space. Yet we have known since Galileo that the Earth is not the center of the universe. Why should it be at rest in space?” Physicist, Adolph Baker “….The easiest explanation was that the earth was fixed in the ether and that everything else in the universe moved with respect to the earth and the ether….Such an idea was not considered seriously, since it would mean in effect that our earth occupied the omnipotent position in the universe, with all the other heavenly bodies paying homage by moving around it.” Physicist, James Coleman “The Michelson‐Morley experiment confronted scientists with an embarrassing alternative. On the one hand they could scrap the ether theory which had explained so many things about electricity, magnetism, and light. Or if they insisted on retaining the ether they had to abandon the still more venerable Copernican theory that the earth is in motion. To many physicists it seemed almost easier to believe that the earth stood still than that waves – light waves, electromagnetic waves – could exist without a medium to sustain them. It was a serious dilemma and one that split scientific thought for a quarter century. Many new hypotheses were advanced and rejected. The experiment was tried again by Morley and by others, with the same conclusion; the apparent velocity of the earth through the ether was zero.” Historian, Lincoln Barnett, foreword by Albert Einstein “What happened when the experiment was done in 1887? There was never, never, in any orientation at any time of year, any shift in the interference pattern; none; no shift; no fringe shift; nothing. What’s the implication? Here was an experiment that was done to measure the speed of the earth’s motion through the ether. This was an experiment that was ten times more sensitive than it needed to be. It could have detected speeds as low as two miles a second instead of the known 20mps that the earth as in its orbital motion around the sun. It didn’t detect it. What’s the conclusion from the Michelson‐Morley experiment? The implication is that the earth is not moving…” Physicist, Richard Wolfson“  This ‘null’ result was one of the great puzzles of physics at the end of the nineteenth century. One possibility was that...v would be zero and no fringe shift would be expected. But this implies that the earth is somehow a preferred object; only with respect to the earth would the speed of light be c as predicted by Maxwell’s equations. This is tantamount to assuming that the earth is the central body of the universe.” Physicist, Douglas C. Giancoli Oh but of course NOBODY would except that FACT so he wrote to some 'Friends' and 'Shazaam Wamboozal Bang'. Pop comes a new theory lol. 1st they said ummm OH I KNOW his apparatus shrunk by some unknown force of mystical thing a magigger, even with a supplied mathematical wizardry equation LOL!! This equation was called the Lorentz-Fitzgerald Contraction Theory lol. Mind you this was indeed merely an ad-hoc theory.The equations used in the calculation are as follows: calculates it: Δt - Δt΄ = (l1 + l2) v 2 /c 3 . Now we take v = 3.0 × 104 m/s, the speed of the Earth in its orbit around the Sun. In Michelson and Morley’s experiment, the arms l1 and l2 were about 11 m long. The time difference would then be about (22m)(3.0 × 104 m/s)2 /(3.0 × 108 m/s)3 ≈ 7.0 × 10-16 s. For visible light of wavelength λ = 5.5 × 10-7 m, say, the frequency would be f = c/λ = (3.0 × 108 m/s)/(5.5 × 10-7 m) = 5.5 × 1014 Hz, which means that wave crests pass by a point every 1/(5.5 × 1014 Hz) = 1.8 × 10-15 s. Thus, with a time difference of 7.0 × 10-16 s, Michelson and Morley should have noted a movement in the interference pattern of (7.0 × 10-16 s)/(1.8 × 10-15 s) = 0.4 fringe. They could easily have detected this, since their apparatus was capable of observing a fringe shift as small as 0.01 fringe.Length contraction wasn’t even contemplated previously, much less was it an established fact of science. But in this emergency situation, length contraction was invented on the spot so that the science establishment would have at least some hypothetical answer why Michelson’s experiment showed the Earth was motionless. Everyone could breathe a sigh of relief. The irony, as of this date, is that no one has ever detected a length contraction in a moving object. In fact, modern physicists can’t even agree on what length contraction is or how it would be manifested!!! Here are what some Physicist have thought lol. So far, there are eight different views of length contraction proposed, none of which have actually proven it exists: (1) “The contraction is real.” Lorentz stated in 1922 that the “contraction could be photographed” (Lectures on Theoretical Physics, Vol. 3, Macmillan, p. 203); C. Møller writes: “Contraction is a real effect observable in principle by experiment…This means the concept of length has lost its absolute meaning” (Møller, The Theory of Relativity, 1972, p. 44); Wolfgang Pauli: “It therefore follows that the Lorentz contraction is not a property of a single rod taken by itself, but a reciprocal relation between two such rods moving relatively to each other, and this relation is in principle observable” (The Theory of Relativity, Dover Publications, 1958, pp. 12-13); R. C. Tolman: “Entirely real but symmetrical” (Relativity Thermodynamics and Cosmology, pp. 23-24); (2) “The contraction is not real.” E. F. Taylor and John Wheeler write: “Does something about a clock really change when it moves, resulting in the observed change in the tick rate? Absolutely not!” (Spacetime Physics: Introduction to Special Relativity, p. 76); (3) “The contraction is only apparent.” Aharoni writes: “The moving rod appears shorter. The moving clock appears to go slow” (The Special Theory of Relativity, p. 21); McCrea writes: “The apparent length is reduced. Time intervals appear to be lengthened; clocks appear to go slow” (Relativity Physics, pp. 15-16); Nunn: “A moving rod would appear to be shortened” (Relativity and Gravitation, pp. 43-44); Whitrow: “Instead of assuming that there are real, i.e., structural changes in length and duration owing to motion, Einstein’s theory involves only apparent changes” (The Natural Philosophy of Time, p. 255); (4) “The contraction is the result of the relativity of simultaneity.” Bohn writes: “When measuring lengths and intervals, observers are not referring to the same events” (The Special Theory of Relativity, p. 59). See also William Rosser, Introductory Relativity, p. 37; and A. P. French, Special Relativity, p. 97; and Stephenson and Kilmister, Special Relativity for Physicists, pp. 38-39; (5) “The contraction is due to perspective effects.” Rindler writes: “Moving lengths are reduced, a kind of perspective effect. But of course nothing has happened to the rod itself. Nevertheless, contraction is no illusion, it is real” (Introduction to Special Relativity, p. 25); (6) “The contraction is mathematical.” Herman Minkowski writes: “This hypothesis sounds extremely fantastical, for the contraction is not to be looked upon as a consequence of resistances in the ether, or anything of that kind, but simply as a gift from above, – as an accompanying circumstance of the circumstance of motion” (“Space and Time,” in The Principle of Relativity: A Collection of Original Memoirs on the Special and General Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz, A. Einstein, H. Minkowski and H. Weyl, translated by W. Perrett and G. B. Jeffery from the original 1923 edition, Dover Publications, 1952, p. 81); (7) But then ole Einstein came about and Einstein says "I have come to believe the motion of the Earth cannot be detected by ANY optical experiment, though the Earth is revolving around the sun." :gilligan:  :cry:  :kaffeetrinker: WHAT!!! LOL Here good ole Einstein flat says um........ well although we can devise NO plan to prove any observable method to tell the Earth moves we MUST at ALL COST BELIEVE!!! Do you even recall why Hubble was so shocked at what he found?? Well let me tell everyone for us both. Hubble found that indeed all the red shifts of far space if taken backwards, pointed directly to EARTH!! LOL And of course ole Hubble could NOT accept that finding because indeed if the earth was in a perfectly preferred place then we all know what that meant lol, so he wrote to 'Friends' and 'Shazaam Wamboozal Bang! Pop comes a new theory lol. 

There was nothing "clever" about my discounting of COBE, Sloan, WMAP, Planck, etc.  The reason was explained in my preceding comment where I pointed out: 

"The Earth is clearly not the center of the solar system.  The solar system is not the center of the Milky Way.  The Milky Way is not the center of the local (Virgo) cluster of galaxies.  How can you possibly justify the Earth is the center of the universe?"

 

The simple fact is we don't need to go to the edges of the universe with multi-billion dollar space missions to show the Earth isn't the center of the universe.  It can be shown that the Earth is not the center of the universe without looking at anything beyond our local "neighborhood."

 

I ask again .... if the Earth isn't the center of the solar system; the solar system isn't the center of the galaxy; and the galaxy is not the center of the cluster, how can you possibly justify that the Earth is at the center of the universe? You are doing Nada piasan

 

BTW, in terms of exactness, the precision of the measurements taken by those experiments (+/-1%) is greater than the size of the local group (about 10 million light years).  In other words, those instruments wouldn't be able to determine if the Earth is actually the center of the universe anyway.

 

 

As i have shown which all can go find is that even Einstein himself stated Albert Einstein Quote " 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."  

Yes, we can place the reference point of a coordinate system wherever we wish.  It makes no difference to the relevant calculations and conversion from one reference point to another is a simple matter.  That does not mean that we can simply place the earth at rest in our coordinate system, and therefore the sun (with more than 99.8% of the mass in the solar system) ACTUALLY moves around the Earth.

 

So, from that perspective, you can place the Earth at the center of your coordinate system if you so desire.  But whether we choose the views of Ptolemy or Copernicus is irrelevant to the results of the light-travel time problem.  Either way, it takes light a specific time to travel from point A to point B.

 

 

Along with all my other cited quotes. I have stated nothing myself more than most all current Cosmologist, Astrophysicist and Physicist have a based ideology that promotes the current worldview that the Earth is nothing special in our universe. 

OK.... I concur that all those experts will agree you can place your coordinate system wherever you wish.  I'm absolutely certain they will state with equal emphasis that regardless if you prefer Ptolemy or Copernicus it STILL takes light billions (not thousands) of years to reach us from the more distant objects.

 

 

As they are continually chasing equation after equation pursuing a basis by which they can literally dismiss and defraud the Biblical account for the Creation of everything by God Almighty's spoken 'Word'.

Do you really think the goal of these scientists is to "literally dismiss ... the Biblical account...?"  My wager is that they don't even consider the Bible (either way) in their work.  Frankly, I doubt they could care any less whether their findings confirm or refute Biblical claims.

 

 

 Irregardless of whatever increasingly sophisticated methodology of which they will chose to devise for a non Biblical worldview, the BIBLICAL narrative Shall Always Stand Correct!   As i have stated in previous posting here and subsequent 'Topics' We Biblical Christians have NEVER changed our stance in accordance from 'Biblical Scripture'. We have NEVER tried to subject or adjust the Biblical narrative for an interpretation which fits our worldview.

Right .... "The Bible says it, I believe it, end of discussion."  The Bible is not to be subjected to any kind of test.  It MUST be believed without question of any kind.   Got it.

 

 

 It is indeed rather the atheist and everybody else in the entire history of man that MUST and are indeed FORCED to adjust their world view to accommodate their ever changing assumptions and equations. This spans the ENTIRETY of the known sciences. 

Right .... those who work in the sciences are open to changing their position based on new evidence/data.    It is ONLY the YEC who claim to already possess absolute truth in all things.....

 

 

All those antiquated atheist whom have pasted have indeed pasted in utter ignorance, Distinctly opposite of all Christians that have relied upon the word of GOD for their worldview and salvation. Just think of it, piasan, absolutely NO Christian has had to adjust their basic Fundamental Foundation in the 'WORD' to accommodate any of mans sciences! Now Christians may 'Chose' to change their worldview but indeed it is NEVER REQUIRED!

I'm not sure how you can justify those who change their position based on new information hold an "antiquated" position compared YEC who base their conclusions on writings that date back thousands of years.

 

 

All those antiquated atheist whom have pasted have indeed pasted in utter ignorance, Distinctly opposite of all Christians that have relied upon the word of GOD for their worldview and salvation. Just think of it, piasan, absolutely NO Christian has had to adjust their basic Fundamental Foundation in the 'WORD' to accommodate any of mans sciences! Now Christians may 'Chose' to change their worldview but indeed it is NEVER REQUIRED!

I'm not sure how you can justify those who change their position based on new information hold an "antiquated" position compared YEC who base their conclusions on writings that date back thousands of years.

 

 

Just think of it, piasan, absolutely NO Christian has had to adjust their basic Fundamental Foundation in the 'WORD' to accommodate any of mans sciences! Now Christians may 'Chose' to change their worldview but indeed it is NEVER REQUIRED!

I'm not so certain an absolute unquestioning refusal to "accommodate" that which we can know from experience and direct observation is a good thing.

 

I'm tired lol but will follow up on this nonsense from you.



#157 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,932 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 05 April 2018 - 12:10 AM

 

Your statement that we are at the center of the universe stands refuted.  As I pointed out, in an expanding universe, ALL points on which you stand will seem to be the center.  I again provide a link that demonstrates this fact

 

piasan,  OH on the contrary you have refuted absolutely NADA, nothing at all other than proving my exact point lol. 1st let us recall the Michelson Morley experiment that, ummm what do you KNOW that the Earth did NOT MOVE!! Many Well know Physicist at the time had this following reaction lol.“There was just one alternative; the earth’s true velocity through space might happen to have been nil.” Physicist, Arthur Eddington “The data [of Michelson‐Morley] were almost unbelievable… There was only one other possible conclusion to draw — that the Earth was at rest.” Physicist, Bernard Jaffe  “Thus, failure [of Michelson‐Morley] to observe different speeds of light at different times of the year suggested that the Earth must be ‘at rest’…It was therefore the ‘preferred’ frame for measuring absolute motion in space.....“The Michelson‐Morley experiment confronted scientists with an embarrassing alternative. On the one hand they could scrap the ether theory which had explained so many things about electricity, magnetism, and light.

It turns out that the reason Michelson-Morley's 1887 experiment failed to detect the motion of Earth thru the ether is that the ether doesn't exist.  The end result was that they did scrap the ether theory ... over a hundred years ago.

 

From the American Physical Society:

In the 19th century, physicists generally believed that just as water waves must have a medium to move across (water), and audible sound waves require a medium to move through (air), so also light waves require a medium, which was called the "luminiferous” (i.e. light-bearing) “ether”.

The Michelson-Morley experiment became what might be regarded as the most famous failed experiment to date and is generally considered to be the first strong evidence against the existence of the luminiferous ether. ....

Other versions of the experiment were carried out with increasing sophistication, but the Michelson-Morley measurements were the first with sufficient accuracy to challenge the existence of the ether. The explanation of their null result awaited the insights provided by Einstein’s theory of special relativity in 1905

 

 

Oh but of course NOBODY would except that FACT so he wrote to some 'Friends' and 'Shazaam Wamboozal Bang'. Pop comes a new theory lol. 1st they said ummm OH I KNOW his apparatus shrunk by some unknown force of mystical thing a magigger, even with a supplied mathematical wizardry equation LOL!! This equation was called the Lorentz-Fitzgerald Contraction Theory lol. Mind you this was indeed merely an ad-hoc theory

It was until Einstein's theory of Special Relativity.  I'm going to be lazy and cite Wikipedia on this one:

Special relativity implies a wide range of consequences, which have been experimentally verified,[3] including length contraction, time dilation, relativistic mass, mass–energy equivalence, a universal speed limit and relativity of simultaneity

 

 

 

But then ole Einstein came about and Einstein says "I have come to believe the motion of the Earth cannot be detected by ANY optical experiment, though the Earth is revolving around the sun." :gilligan:  :cry:  :kaffeetrinker: WHAT!!! LOL Here good ole Einstein flat says um........ well although we can devise NO plan to prove any observable method to tell the Earth moves we MUST at ALL COST BELIEVE!!! 

Well, it would be pretty hard to observe.  But it is a consequence of Newtonian mechanics.   It's really pretty simple.  Any system will rotate around it's center of balance.  There are gozillions of lab experiments demonstrating this.  The sun has about 99.8% of the mass in the solar system and most of the rest is Jupiter.  The center of mass of the solar system will be very near the sun.... not the Earth.

 

 

Do you even recall why Hubble was so shocked at what he found?? Well let me tell everyone for us both. Hubble found that indeed all the red shifts of far space if taken backwards, pointed directly to EARTH!! LOL And of course ole Hubble could NOT accept that finding because indeed if the earth was in a perfectly preferred place then we all know what that meant lol, so he wrote to 'Friends' and 'Shazaam Wamboozal Bang! Pop comes a new theory lol. 

Did you even look at that link showing how every point in an expanding universe will see itself as the center?

 

 

 

I ask again .... if the Earth isn't the center of the solar system; the solar system isn't the center of the galaxy; and the galaxy is not the center of the cluster, how can you possibly justify that the Earth is at the center of the universe?

 

 You are doing Nada Piasan

 

I'm tired lol but will follow up on this nonsense from you.

Well, you tried an idea that was discarded a century ago partly because of the experiment you used as an example. 

 

What's next? 

 

Phlogiston?

 

Once again.... If the Earth isn't the center of the solar system; the solar system isn't the center of the galaxy; and the galaxy is not the center of the cluster, how can you possibly justify that the Earth is at the center of the universe?



#158 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,139 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 05 April 2018 - 04:39 AM

Once again.... If the Earth isn't the center of the solar system; the solar system isn't the center of the galaxy; and the galaxy is not the center of the cluster, how can you possibly justify that the Earth is at the center of the universe?

 

I think it is through the "axis of evil" discovered by the WMAP. In simplified terms, at certain scales analyzing the CMB (at the quadrupole and octupole level), we find that half of the universe is slightly colder/hotter than the other half and that this difference is closely aligned with the ecliptic (the position in which the Earth goes around the Sun). IOW, when we look 'up' from the solar system the universe is colder than when we look 'down' from the solar system. The temperature difference is a fraction of a degree, but it is there as confirmed by the Planck satellite. This should not be happening according to the Copernican Principle, and in a loose sense, it means that Earth is the center of the universe.
 

As far as I know, no one really knows what this means. Although you could say scientists are biased in favor of the Copernican Principle, I think the general gut consensus is that the axis of evil is a statistical fluke of sorts. It could be a statistical coincidence, but even if it is, that explanation is underwhelming and not satisfying. Other explanations include not properly accounting for interstellar dust, Kuiper belt objects, anisotropies in the dark matter halo of the galaxy, and the effect other galaxies have on the energy of CMB photons traveling through it before reaching Earth.


  • KillurBluff likes this

#159 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 963 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 05 April 2018 - 04:59 AM

 

Once again.... If the Earth isn't the center of the solar system; the solar system isn't the center of the galaxy; and the galaxy is not the center of the cluster, how can you possibly justify that the Earth is at the center of the universe?

 
I think it is through the "axis of evil" discovered by the WMAP. In simplified terms, at certain scales analyzing the CMB (at the quadrupole and octupole level), we find that half of the universe is slightly colder/hotter than the other half and that this difference is closely aligned with the ecliptic (the position in which the Earth goes around the Sun). IOW, when we look 'up' from the solar system the universe is colder than when we look 'down' from the solar system. The temperature difference is a fraction of a degree, but it is there as confirmed by the Planck satellite. This should not be happening according to the Copernican Principle, and in a loose sense, it means that Earth is the center of the universe.

 


If the temperature profile of the Universe is divided in two halves as you describe couldn't anywhere along the line of the ecliptic (extending out to beyond our galaxy to infinity) be stated to be at the "centre" rather than just the Earth specifically ?
 



#160 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,139 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 05 April 2018 - 05:44 AM

If the temperature profile of the Universe is divided in two halves as you describe couldn't anywhere along the line of the ecliptic (extending out to beyond our galaxy to infinity) be stated to be at the "centre" rather than just the Earth specifically ?

 

I would think so. I have not read anything that would suggest the Earth, or the solar system as a whole, is the center along the plane of the ecliptic itself.
 






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users