Your hero of ralativity Einstein seems to have understood. Even he had to admit....
When all else fails, why not sneer at what you imagine to be the level of my admiration for Einstein (whose name I have not even mentioned in my posts, as far as I can recollect)?
Nope. No mention of 'relativeness' of time and motion. He sees it as simply an explanation for Coreolis and why the pendulum is dragged around. A GEOCENTRIC explanation. Are you so blinded by your indoctrination that you cannot accept this?
I am sure it was simply an oversight that you chose to offer your quotation from Einstein's 25 June 1923 letter to Ernst Mach without the last seven words:
with a practically unmeasurably small angular velocity. As I'm certain you wouldn't want to be accused of quotemining, perhaps you can account for the difference between this ‘unmeasurably small angular velocity’ that apparently provides good evidence for a geocentric (I don’t think capitalization is really necessary, as it neither adds to nor detracts from the validity of the idea, even if it appears that it might) and the measured angular velocities at different latitudes that provide good evidence for a rotating Earth and, by inference, a heliocentric explanation.
Name one law of physics that our geocentric Earth doesn't comply with.
Umm, conservation of angular momentum?
There is when you say that the Bible does not provide evidence of the existance of God.
The point is that the Bible’s claim that it provides evidence of the existence of God cannot be used to validate that the Bible provides evidence of the existence of God. This is the nature of the question begging being illustrated and actually says nothing at all about the validity of that evidence. I guess heresy is in the eye of the fervent believer.
It's the same thing unless the hypotheses can be scientifically tested. Which makes it a scientific hypotheses.
And how is this hypothesis not scientifically tested? The tests are applied and used to determine whether or not the hypothesis is supported or falsified.
Yeah...It's an assumption because no real science has ever proved it.
As they say, proof is for mathematics and alcohol; science deals with evidence and there is quite a lot of evidence for Earth orbiting the Sun.
That aside, you appear to be terminally confused as to the distinction between an hypothesis and an assumption, but I can see why you would want to muddy the waters in this case. In philosophy, an hypothesis is a proposition made as a basis for reasoning without any assumption as to its truth. In science a hypothesis is a proposed explanation for an observable phenomenon, in this case that the complicated movements of the planets seen from Earth and the slower eastward circle of the Sun over the year, for example. The scientific test is to take multiple measurements of the apparent positions of particular stars over the course of a year and to draw inferences from the observed data. That data supports the hypothesis and the hypothesis is therefore strengthened. I still await your better explanation of that data; simply repeating ‘circular reasoning’ is not an explanation.
The method uses the first assumption to collect the observed data. Circular reasoning.
Balderdash. The data is collected at different times of the year. How does this equate to a ‘method’ based on the ‘assumption’ that Earth moves? Will the data be different if the ‘assumption’ is made that Earth doesn’t move? If yes, why? If no, why not?
I’m afraid that’s what testing a hypothesis is about: as a general rule, a hypothesis can be falsified, but it is a great deal more difficult to show that it is absolutely true. The observed data gathered from measurements of stellar parallax could immediately disprove the hypothesis of a Sun-orbiting Earth, but they didn’t.
As I've shown, when the bedrock of the method of observation which supports the hypotheses......IS THE HYPOTHESES......it's circular. It's a perfect example of circular. You cant get more circular.....unlesss your talking about...um.....a circle
And you cannot be more mistaken. You have shown nothing of the assert, although you have asserted a great deal to the effect.
The cause of stellar parallax in your examples is false science and circular fallacies. I'm convinced your trolling now because no-one can be this dense.
When all else fails revert to ad hominems as it’s obvious that anyone who disagrees with and offers arguments against your assertions
must be ‘dense’ and can only be ‘trolling’ and purposefully antagonizing you by posting incorrect information (such as the evidence provided by measurements of stellar parallax), asking blatantly stupid questions (such as asking you to support various assertions you have made in respect of my arguments) and wise-crackery (such as this reply).
However, you are the only person willing to come up against me on this topic so I guess it gives me the opportunity to destroy your theoretical hornswaggle so others may see it for what it's worth. But just FYI......your overdoing the parallax thing now and making yourself look a tad silly.
I am sure you sincerely believe this, but then I suppose you have to.
Sure bud. They assume that the Earth is 186 million miles from where it actually is every six months which means all their calculations are off by a ratio of 23,250 to one. Simples.
Simply saying this explains nothing. The data from the observations are what drive the calculations. Please elaborate how your assertion about the calculations being ‘off by a ratio of 23,250 to one’ accounts for what the data from the observations actually demonstrates.
Its not simple trigonometry when one of the points that make up the baseline is a pure assumption. It's false trig.
Your resistance to this exercise is becoming increasingly desperate. There is no ‘assumption’; it’s an exercise to demonstrate the potential differences in observations made from (a) a theoretically non-moving Earth and (b) a theoretically moving Earth that orbits the Sun.
Lolz. Can you think of a less theoretical way? To your reasoning there IS no real science. When you measure the boiling point of a liquid, thats not real because it doesnt necessarily apply to a different batch of the same liquid? So everything is theoretical! Einstein seemed to be satisfied with the conclusions but your not? Why?
I have no idea what point you are trying to make. Some theoretical science has practical applications and consequences; other theoretical science doesn’t.
Theres no evidence for countless billions of anything. We can see 6,000 stars with the naked eye and a handful of planets. Hubble sees billions of reflections, nothing more. Earth is the centre of Gods attention and the centre of His universe. Stationary and fixed as per scripture.
You seriously expect me to swallow this unadulterated nonsense? You are aware that Hubble isn’t the only observational tool that shows far more than 6,000 stars exist? Weird how those ‘reflections’ are all, you know, different. We can’t see the moons of Jupiter, Saturn or Uranus with the naked eye. Do you imagine this means they don’t exist or that what we see through telescopes are just reflections? Does anything that we can’t see with the ‘naked eye’ ipso facto not exist?
Do you believe in God Kalvan? I ask in all sincerity.
How is this relevant? Maybe you should take it up with the Christian Association of Stellar Explorers who have no trouble at all in reconciling their faith and their observations.
Most christian churches are apostate so that doesn't worry me in the slightest. They follow all manner of funky doctrines.
Talking of fallacies, glad to see you espousing one of your own.
