Re: Copernican heliocentricity


Wakboth wrote:
oriel36 kirjoitti:

Wakboth wrote:
oriel36 kirjoitti:

Desertphile wrote:
oriel36 wrote:

With a little effort,Christians can enjoy seeing the faster Earth

"Christians?"

Did you not know that empiricists are quasi-geocentrists and do not
believe in Copernican heliocentric reasoning ?

No, I did not, because it isn't true.

Newtonians believe that the Sun around the Earth is just as valid as
the Earth around the Sun -

"PHÆNOMENON IV.
That the fixed stars being at rest, the periodic times of the five
primary planets, and (whether of the sun about the earth, or) of the
earth about the sun, are in the sesquiplicate proportion of their mean
distances from the sun."

As far as I understand, what Newton is talking here is about the
periods of the various planets, and saying that whether Earth goes
around the Sun, or Sun around the Earth (and the rest of the planets
around the Sun), that period depends on the distance from the sun.

Poor Isaac,wanted to create the AU but created a mess.This is what
happens when you follow that 17th century Arian heretic who tried to
set himself up as God;s scientific spokesman.

You're misreading Newton, you dolt.

Basing geological and biological evolution on the texts of Genesis is a
recent phenomena despite the unfortunate Ussher.Any geologists and
astronomer honest enough will acknowledge that while faith and natural
investigation may have sat together uncomfortably,it is most contrived
fiction that opposition was total and more often than not,men of faith
were at the center of investigative matters.

Yes, yes, I know that and more or less agree; the modern anti-science
fundies are not generally representative of Christians and Christianity
(thank God). What has this to do with either your original post or my
comments thereof?

Now my turm.

I generally support the peer review process and its ideals just as I am
a denominational Christian and support orthodox beliefs.The failure of
the peer review process cannot be levelled at the fraudulent agenda
created by Newton,in some ways his work created the peer review process
and therefore the process is exempt from blame.

What "fraudulent agenda"? You keep vigorously objecting to *something*,
but I can't for the life of me understand what, exactly, it is that you
object to. Please explain, in clear language, if you can.


<sfx:crickets.wav>

My father used to tell me that anything that couldn't be explained to a
fifth grader in plain language was probably not worth worrying about.
Now, I disagree with this rule of Dad's on some issues, but I've
found it to be a good rule of thumb.

If Oriel has something to say about Newton vis-a-vis Copernicus, I'd
like him to explain exactly what it is in plain language. No mucking
about with insinuations like 'fraudulent agenda' and stuff.




Turning towards the symptoms of the Newtonian disease rather than the
disease itself.How in God's name did a set of premises that could be
found in the science fiction section of a bookstore in 1898 become the
dominant ideology for over 100 years.The H.G.Wells novel the 'Time
Machine' is a wonderful work of fiction with the same breathless pace
as the Da Vinci code but to base ideas of the universe on it is very
unhealthy.

"THE NON-MATHEMATICIAN is seized by a mysterious shuddering when he
hears of "four-dimensional" things, by a feeling not unlike that
awakened by thoughts of the occult. And yet there is no more
common-place statement than that the world in which we live is a
four-dimensional space-time continuum."

http://www.bartleby.com/173/17.html

" 'Scientific people,' proceeded the Time Traveller, after the
pause required for the proper assimilation of this, 'know very well
that Time is only a kind of Space"

http://www.bartleby.com/1000/1.html

So, from opposing Newtonian physics and astronomy, you have now moved
to oppose Einsteinian space-time and relativity? How would you explain
the orbital behavior of Mercury, then, or the gravitational lensing, or
the way muons formed in the upper atmosphere can reach the ground even
though the trip takes far longer (for the unmoving observers) than
their half-life?

I operate as an independent astronomer,always have out of neccessity
rather than choice.

If you abandon Newton and Einstein, you are necessarily unqualified to
do any halfway serious or interesting astronomy.

To see my heritage reduced to science fiction takes
its toll ,much like if geologists suddenly decided that 'Journey To The
Center Of The Earth' wa the way to approach geology.

The difference here is that no-one has any evidence to support the
existence of an interior of Earth similar to that in "JttCotE", whereas
there is plenty of evidence to show that relativity works, and it has
been used to solve problems that are impossible to solve with only
Newtonian tools.

Maybe some will get tired of creationist baiting or eventually seen
that those people are just instinctively reacting to exotic nonsense
passing itself off as genuine terrestial and celestial investigations.

No; creationists are insistently spouting dull and boring, long-refuted
nonsense and trying to pass itself off as genuine science.

When it comes to a genuine astronomer,you really do not look well ,just
mean spirited people with a set of mantras to trundle out.That was
never my way and never could be.

I don't know about your mean-spiritedness or lack thereof, but you seem
to have a set of (remarkably incoherent) mantras that you keep
repeating.

-- Wakboth


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Panis Quadragesimalis of Kepler
    ... Galileo, or Kepler. ... Copernicus proposed that the Earth went around the Sun, ... hold on to the string or rope that restrains it; Newton showed that ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: Absolute space/relative space
    ... Jupiter and Saturn over the course of a year shows the faster Earth ... Nobody ever said anything about jumping to the Sun to explain the ... " For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct, ... always seen direct," NEWTON ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Poincare conjecture
    ... centre of the Earth revolves in an annual movement. ... " The 10th argument,taken from the periodic times, is as follows; ... apparent movement of the Sun has 365 days which is the mean measure ... Below Newton discussed *phenomema*. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Copernican heliocentricity
    ... primary planets, and (whether of the sun about the earth, or) of the ... You're misreading Newton, you dolt. ... I generally support the peer review process and its ideals just as I am ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Copernican heliocentricity
    ... primary planets, and (whether of the sun about the earth, or) of the ... I generally support the peer review process and its ideals just as I am ... found in the science fiction section of a bookstore in 1898 become the ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading