[_ Old Earth _] the sun orbits the earth?

[lordkalvan]

Do you wanna join Coffeelover in the apologetics section?

Why? Is the Bible touted and accepted as 'scientific evidence' there?

Ok forget about Bowden's claims (we'll forgive your typo).

However you spell it, it still equates to baloney.

How about Michelson's evaluation?::

Stunned by the results that went counter to his own heliocentric reflex:

"This conclusion directly contradicts the explanation... which presupposes that the Earth moves."

Reference? What's in the ellipsis?

This is simply a bold faced lie. The experiment showed that Earth didnt move, as Michelson said (if you want I'll go and find his results table) and the only way you can nullify the results is to say that space is made up of nothing, which Einstein did with his theorys and occult math. Can you document please the problems with the equipment and measuring instruments?

So it's a lie that the experiment returned data that showed the measured velocity referred to and the Michelson and Morley themselves referred to in their American Journal of Science article? The problems referred to include the extent to which experimental errors could be detected and the relative shortness of the path over which the light used in the experiment travelled (modern versions of the experiment use methods to increase the effective path to many kilometres, as opposed to the 11 metres in the original experiment).

Have they indicated a moving Earth? Documentation please.

If a measured velocity is indicated, what do you imagine is being referred to? You may want to refer to Dayton Miller's 1933 paper, The Ether-Drift Experiment and the Determination of the Absolute Motion of the Earth.

According to you and you alone.

Nope, according to Michelson and Morley, apparently.

Lolz. We all make mistakes eh?

Not as big as the ones that Bowden is touting.

You dont know what it means probably cos you have no grasp of REAL science.

So why don't you explain it to me in terms of 'REAL science' then (as opposed to just ordinary, everyday science, which can't be taken seriously because it's not capitalized)?

There is no math to show regarding that because this statement "Earth's orbital speed around the Sun is about 30 km/sec" is a theoretical assumption based premise.

Well, why don't you try it as a theoretical exercise and see what you come up with? You wouldn't be concerned that the figures might show that the assertion made by Bowden is nonsense?

Lolz. Your not even saying anything in that quote. Theres alot of words but no point.

So perhaps you can explain how the experiment does not, in effect, neutralize relativistic effects by the nature of its construction, which rather seems to be the point that you imagine hasn't been made?

Referenced maybe. Used in current technology...no doubt.....but never taught in universities.

Well, if you by 'taught' mean promoted as an accurate and meaningful representation of the observed dynamics of the Solar System as touted by Bowden, then you're right. But you're wrong when you say that the work of these individuals is not 'taught', for indeed they are, in the same way that Ptolemaic and Copernican models of the Solar System are taught in astronomy classes.

Heeeeyyyy di you say Wolfgang Pauli?

[FONT=verdana,sans-serif]Wolfgang Pauli admitted....

You'll forgive me if I don't regard your 'summary' of Pauli's alleged comments as persuasive. I would be astounded if you can provide any documented evidence that indicates Pauli concluded that Earth was stationary and the Solar System orbited around it.

 

[jasoncran]

Dunno what is says cos the link doesnt work but I'll spill these accusations about Keplar.

1) He was raised by witches and his mum went to trial for poisining and killing someone.
2) Keplar thought that the Sun was God the Father, and that the light emanating from the sun was the Logos or Christ. [Sunworshipper]
3) Keplar probably murdered Tychoe Brahe using mercury poisening. Then he took all Brahe's work and used it to promote Heliocentricity.

Man of God? Hmmm.

Faces tell alot about a man:::

Tychoe Brahe. True Biblical Christian. Lauded as the best Astronomer of his day.

Johannes Kepler. Sunworshipper. Raised by witches. Probable murderer. Ratface.

really evidence for that then, and then why would brahe let kepler work for him?

 

[Strangelove]

and ships navigated by his [Keplers] discoveries for yrs. so i doubt that he was wrong.

Thats just plain wrong Jason. Navigation is indebted to GEOCENTRIC calculations and devices.

What is the basis of modern science and technology? According to science establishment historians heliocentrism is the cause. An online encyclopedia puts it this way: "the Scientific Revolution can be roughly dated as having begun in 1543, the year in which Nicolaus Copernicus published his De revolutionibus orbium coelestium...". But it turns out that the scientific revolution that took place in Europe in the slipstream of the Renaissance not only was not caused by heliocentrism but in fact the opposite: the knowledge of humans of the universe's geocentricity and the empirical application of that conclusion caused the scientific revolution!

Full story here - http://sites.google.com/site/abafte/antikythera-mechanism

 

[jasoncran]

blogs arent reliable for historical facts.

and what you are doing for him is called the posoining the well. if you do that then you best be a catholic, and nothing else as luther and calvin were possible murderers.

there enough evidence for that to be the case.

but with the men kepler, who was archived.

even darwin got somethings right.

 

[jasoncran]

Man of Science, Man of God: Johann Kepler
by Christine Dao *
Who: Johann (or Johannes) Kepler
What: Father of Physical Astronomy
When: December 27, 1571 - November 15, 1630
Where: Born in Weil der Stadt, Württemburg, Holy Roman Empire, of German nationality

Johann Kepler developed a love for astronomy at an early age. He observed the Great Comet of 1577 when he was six and the 1580 Lunar Eclipse, events that no doubt fueled his curiosity and enthusiasm for science. Although he originally wanted to be a minister and studied theology at the University of Tübingen, Kepler accepted a position in 1594 as a mathematics and astronomy teacher at a Protestant school in Graz, Austria. He later became an assistant to Tycho Brahe, the court mathematician to Emperor Rudolf II. Upon Tycho's death, Kepler inherited his position, as well as his extensive archive of planetary observations.

Kepler is best known for discovering the three mathematical laws of planetary motion ("Kepler's Laws") that established the discipline of celestial mechanics. He also discovered the elliptical patterns in which the planets travel around the sun. At a time when the sun and other celestial bodies were still widely believed to circle the earth (geocentrism), Kepler defended Nicolaus Copernicus' theory that planets orbit the sun (heliocentrism) and sought to reconcile it with Scripture.1 He revolutionized scientific thought by applying physics (then considered a branch of natural philosophy) to astronomy (seen as a branch of mathematics).

An "unorthodox" Lutheran, Kepler had a deep love for Christ and the inspiration and authority of Scripture. He is frequently quoted as saying, "O God, I am thinking Thy thoughts after Thee." Strong theological convictions prompted him to find a connection between the physical and the spiritual, and his scientific discoveries led him to believe he had uncovered God's geometrical plan for the universe. In Kepler's view, the universe itself was an image of God, with the sun corresponding to the Father, the stellar sphere to the Son, and the intervening space to the Holy Spirit.

Life, however, held many trials for Kepler. His Protestant beliefs won him little favor with the Catholic church, and the Lutheran church shunned him for his sympathies with Calvinist beliefs. He was forced to relocate more than once to avoid persecution, as well as to escape political dangers from ongoing wars. He suffered the deaths of his first wife and several young children. In addition, fellow scientists did not immediately accept his scientific discoveries. Galileo Galilei and the French mathematician and scientist René Descartes ignored his 1609 work Astronomia nova (A New Astronomy). Even his mentor Michael Maestlin objected to his introduction of physics into astronomy.

Yet Kepler stayed true to his faith, as evident in his written works, and his scientific discoveries would eventually win him acclaim, legitimize the discoveries of his contemporary Galileo, and serve as a major influence on the scientists who came after him. His famous work Harmonies of the World (in Latin, Harmonices Mundi) begins:

I commence a sacred discourse, a most true hymn to God the Founder, and I judge it to be piety, not to sacrifice many hecatombs of bulls to Him and to burn incense of innumerable perfumes and cassia, but first to learn myself, and afterwards to teach others too, how great He is in wisdom, how great in power, and of what sort in goodness.2
At the end, Kepler concludes:

Purposely I break off the dream and the very vast speculation, merely crying out with the royal Psalmist: Great is our Lord and great His virtue and of His wisdom there is no number: praise Him, ye heavens, praise Him, ye sun, moon, and planets, use every sense for perceiving, every tongue for declaring your Creator…to Him be praise, honour, and glory, world without end. Amen.3
References

1.An extensive chapter in Kepler's Mysterium Cosmographicum (The Cosmographic Mystery, the first published defense of the Copernican system) is devoted to reconciling heliocentrism with biblical passages that seem to support geocentrism.
2.Kepler, J. 1619. "Proem." Harmonies of the World.
3."Epilogue Concerning the Sun, By Way of Conjecture," ibid.
* Ms. Dao is Assistant Editor.

Cite this article: Dao, C. 2008. Man of Science, Man of God: Johann Kepler. Acts & Facts. 37 (3): 8.

 

[Strangelove]

post a verse that says the earth stood still that isnt considered poetry by the hebrews.

There is no such verse in the Bible. Bacause the Bible doesn't even acknowledge a moving Earth so how can it say the Earth stood still?? :

if not then my case rests.and i just debunked what the verse in joshua says about that. so it will have to be in psalms or the others.

Case Closed then! Well done Jason. You got me.

 

[jasoncran]

this short bio mentions nothing about his murdering others and being a sun worshipper

Johannes Kepler Biography - life, children, parents, wife, school, mother, son, book, old, information, born, marriage, time, year

while i have been guilty of that with the counter evo arguements i have given. does it really matter what the person believes (to a degree) with their discoveries?

i have learned not to attack a scientist personally but rather that statement or conclusion, while i do believe that darwin was racist. but he did get some things right, on a small scale we do change, but that is another debate.

believe as in world view does affect the conclusions of course.

 

[jasoncran]

i hate when i cant see the others posting or i would have stopped, i miss the phbb for that.

 

[Strangelove]

So it's a lie that the experiment returned data that showed the measured velocity referred to and the Michelson and Morley themselves referred to in their American Journal of Science article?

No the lie is that you say ALL the results taken together show that the Earth moves even after statistical analysis was applied. It's true that 1 or 2 INDIVIDUAL results shows very small indications of an aether wind (much much lower than you would expect) but those figures were rejected after statistical error was applied. You know they do that yeah???? In real science? Statistical error? You take all your individual results and then you take away the top few and the bottom few then you calculate the mean. Its called science.

The problems referred to include the extent to which experimental errors could be detected and the relative shortness of the path over which the light used in the experiment travelled (modern versions of the experiment use methods to increase the effective path to many kilometres, as opposed to the 11 metres in the original experiment).

Can you document these errors from a source rather than just saying it?

If a measured velocity is indicated, what do you imagine is being referred to?

A statistical error.

You may want to refer to Dayton Miller's 1933 paper, The Ether-Drift Experiment and the Determination of the Absolute Motion of the Earth.

Wow are you actually bringing real science to the table?

Can you summarise the experiment for me first and then I might look it up if its pertinent.

Well, why don't you try it as a theoretical exercise and see what you come up with? You wouldn't be concerned that the figures might show that the assertion made by Bowden is nonsense?

No thanks. I dont exercise quackery.

So perhaps you can explain how the experiment does not, in effect, neutralize relativistic effects by the nature of its construction, which rather seems to be the point that you imagine hasn't been made?

I dont need to explain it cos no-ones explained how it does'nt neutralize relativistic effects.

Well, if you by 'taught' mean promoted as an accurate and meaningful representation of the observed dynamics of the Solar System as touted by Bowden, then you're right.

Thanks but you forgot to mention that the representation is not just that of Bowden but of the scientists who actually carried out the experiments themselves. And also the entire real scientific community which excludes theoretical science falsely so called.

That reminds me.....whats your interpretation of this verse?

6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so
called:​

You'll forgive me if I don't regard your 'summary' of Pauli's alleged comments as persuasive. I would be astounded if you can provide any documented evidence that indicates Pauli concluded that Earth was stationary and the Solar System orbited around it.

He said what he said. Which is that there is no real scince which proves the Earth moves. Only theoretical science.

Regards//////

Doc.

 

[jasoncran]

lk isnt a christain but an athiest.

i am curious define theoritical for us.

 

[Strangelove]

lk isnt a christain but an athiest.

i am curious define theoritical for us.

Contemplation or speculation, musings.

 

[jasoncran]

ok, then how is science ever to be progressed. we cant test things first if we dont HYPOTHESIZE and that is based on observation first.

but lets see

define theory.

 

[Strangelove]

ok, then how is science ever to be progressed. we cant test things first if we dont HYPOTHESIZE and that is based on observation first.

For a hypothesis to be put forward as a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it.

define theory.

(**sigh**) You define it.

 

[jasoncran]

the hypothesis that that has been repeatable a few times in a lab or testable means but not enough to be a law

and you btw accept the idea of cell theory (how do we test that) or germ theory, never tested to my knowledge just observed as we cure diseases.

neither of those are laws btw. the same with the theory of electromagnetism.

we can launch things to the moon , so we know where its. we have observed via that other stars have orbits around stars,

is our sun not a star.

so why does the laws of physics not apply to the sol system and apply to alpha centauri (a binary star system that centauri promoxi and ultima orbit one another)

if one or more stars are observed having planets that have orbits and are observable why does that seem to be case and not the earth.

 

[Strangelove]

and you btw accept the idea of cell theory (how do we test that) or germ theory, never tested to my knowledge just observed as we cure diseases.

Who what? I never signed up for cell or germ theory. Dont even know what they are.

same with the theory of electromagnetism.

Electromagnetism isn't a theory its just a word that describes a force The word electromagnetism just describes an observable action just like the word gravity does.

we can launch things to the moon , so we know where its.

Well....you know my feelings on that.

we have observed via that other stars have orbits around stars,

?

is our sun not a star.

All I know for sure about our Sun is that its one of two "Great Lights" and its the "Greater" of the two. The stars are something else. They appear in Genesis to be something seperate.

so why does the laws of physics not apply to the sol system and apply to alpha centauri (a binary star system that centauri promoxi and ultima orbit one another)

if one or more stars are observed having planets that have orbits and are observable why does that seem to be case and not the earth.

We have no idea whats going on in other solar systems [not that our system is solar]. All we can see is lights in the sky. And most of those are probably reflections off the waters above the firmament.

 

[jasoncran]

do you believe in doctors? wash your hands? you are accepting germ theory. and also what about the idea of the make up any cells(cell theory)

 

[Sparkey]

thanks and i was trying to find where i could find that. as that is the way i was taught to exegesis. some parts are literal and others are literalistic. i wanted to engage strangelove on why he still believed in geocentrism.

he is the only person that i know that still accepts that.

My brother (quite brilliant, but not quite a genius) also believes in a version of Geocentrism. I've had many hours of very enjoyable discussion with him about it. The "key" is for me to set aside my thoughts and let him speak unopposed until he has made his point.

We can't do that here though - too many want to argue for the sake of argument only.

 

[Strangelove]

There was mention of a certain new astrologer [Nicolai Copernicus, 1473-1543, a near contemporary of Luther's (1483-1546)] who wanted to prove that the earth moves and not the sky, the sun, and the moon. This would be as if somebody were riding on a cart or in a ship and imagined that he was standing still while the earth and the trees were moving.

[Luther remarked,] “So it goes now. Whoever wants to be clever must agree with nothing that others esteem. He must do something of his own. This is what that fellow does who wishes to turn the whole of astronomy upside down. Even in these things that are thrown into disorder I believe the Holy Scriptures, for Joshua commanded the sun to stand still and not the earth [Josh. 10:12].â€

-Martin Luther

Table Talk, No. 4638: Luther Rejects the Copernican Cosmology, June 4, 1539; Luther's Works Vol. 54, p.358

 

[Sparkey]

As a starting point for the discussion(s) that I've had with my brother (who is Roman Catholic, not that it matters), what I had to understand can be summed up here:

Non-falsifiability of Geocentrism

If general relativity is true, then there is no way to prove that the Earth is not the immobile center of a non-inertial universe (see equivalence principle). An idea that is not falsifiable may be true, but it is not a scientific theory.

Modern geocentrists often point out when defending their beliefs that general relativity admits a geocentric description that can adequately describe the physical universe. However, as many of these geocentrists also reject modern physics including relativity, they often do not think that the true description of the universe is encapsulated by such a perspective.

For us to be ABLE to have intelligent, reasonable, peaceful discussions I had to make a choice first. There are specific references in the bible that helped though - and I chose to accept the "noble position" of trying to prove what he was saying and set my initial objections aside.

Did that hurt me? Not in the least. I don't personally believe in "Modern Geocentrism" but I do have a better understanding of the subject today because of our discussions.

Can we begin by agreement then? The statement has been made, "An idea that is not falsifiable may be true, but it is not a scientific theory." If it is not possible to admit this much, there is no possibility of profitable discussion.

~Sparrow

 

[Strangelove]

Can we begin by agreement then? The statement has been made, "An idea that is not falsifiable may be true, but it is not a scientific theory." If it is not possible to admit this much, there is no possibility of profitable discussion.

~Sparrow

Hi Sparra'

"An idea that is not falsifiable may be true, but it is not a scientific theory."
"An idea that is not falsifiable may be true, but it is not a scientific theory."
"An idea that is not falsifiable may be true, but it is not a scientific theory."
"An idea that is not falsifiable may be true, but it is not a scientific theory."

: 2

I must've read that line a hundred times and I still can't work out what it means/////////LOLZ!

I'm obviously no where near as brilliant as your bro.