Don’t Call it “Darwinism” [religiously defended as "science" by Godless Darwinists]

springerlink ^ | 16 January 2009 | Eugenie C. Scott and Glenn Branch

[Coyoteman]

We will see and hear the term “Darwinism” a lot during 2009, a year during which scientists, teachers, and others who delight in the accomplishments of modern biology will commemorate the 200th anniversary of Darwin’s birth and the 150th anniversary of the publication of On the Origin of Species. But what does “Darwinism” mean? And how is it used? At best, the phrase is ambiguous and misleading about science. At worst, its use echoes a creationist strategy to demonize evolution.

snip...

In summary, then, “Darwinism” is an ambiguous term that impairs communication even about Darwin’s own ideas. It fails to convey the full panoply of modern evolutionary biology accurately, and it fosters the inaccurate perception that the field stagnated for 150 years after Darwin’s day. Moreover, creationists use “Darwinism” to frame evolutionary biology as an ism or ideology, and the public understanding of evolution and science suffers as a result. True, in science, we do not shape our research because of what creationists claim about our subject matter. But when we are in the classroom or otherwise dealing with the public understanding of science, it is entirely appropriate to consider whether what we say may be misunderstood. We cannot expect to change preconceptions if we are not willing to avoid exacerbating them. A first step is eschewing the careless use of “Darwinism.”

[mrjesse]

Said LeGrande: I don't think you are stupid. You simply don't have a good grasp of basic concepts.

The problem with your statement above is that I've been able to support my understanding of things with scientific documents, and you haven't provided a single scientific document that supports your instantanious 2.1 degrees of displacement between the suns apparent and gravitational/actual direction. You have made numerous claims (like those about gyros and others) that were simply scientifically not true, and I have pointed them out. And did you come back each time and say "Oh, you're right?" Or did you come back with any scientific evidence that I was wrong? Nope. And then you refuse to answer my color coded questions even though they are simple easy questions. I mean, regardless of what I know or don't know, that doesn't prevent you from answering them - unless you know that your answers would be absurd. And furthermore, you have accused me of all sorts of things like lying, and being wrong and such, without ever providing a single evidence or example of where I did lie or made a false claim! (except perhaps the one case where I confused two terms but issued a correction and apology)

For example:
You said to me "Your ignorance is virtually limitless."

And you said to me "That should be no problem for a reprobate like yourself : )"

And you said to me "You already broke that word a long time ago. You are a reprobate and reprobates have no honor."

And you said to me "It does make you a reprobate and a serial liar though."

And you said to me "So lets sum you up. You are a liar."

And you said to me "You know that I am correct and that you are a liar."

And not once have you pointed out and provided links to where I actually lied - not once! Why would anyone believe that you're being honest about your 2.1 degrees or believe you when you say that I'm wrong, especially considering you have heretofore produced zero supporting evidence?

Well, maybe you like to call names and accuse people of lying, but let's look at your scientific understanding:

You claimed that there are places where a good laser ring gyro could not measure the earth's rotation. That was not a true claim and you provided no evidence for it.

You say that one cannot use light to measure absolute angular velocity. But a good laser ring gyro can measure the earth's rate of rotation - compared not to the sun, but even more absolute then that! See this or this or this or here and I could go on. These big laser ring gyros are so sensitive and accurate, that not only can they register the rotation of the earth each day, they can measure the length of each day and tell how many milliseconds any one day is longer then the other due to tides and such.(And you refuse to answer the question of "If the Foucault pendulum on the north pole isn't tracking absolute zero angular rate, what is it tracking?" question.)

And you claim that a laser ring gyro tells you nothing on the equator. But that's just wrong - all you gotta do is tip it up on its side to the correct orientation to measure the earth's rate of rotation.

You imply that Michelson didn't succeed in measuring absolute angular velocity with light -- again, you were wrong - He (and others) did succeed in measuring absolute angular velocity of the earth with light!

You said "Light is not a third body,..", but before that you said "Light, is the moving part in the LRG", and you say "the laser ring gyro is a third body" -- but may I say to you that not only is the light in the LRG the third body, the sun's light is a third body too!

And here are a bunch more of your absurd and contradictory claims. You claim both that the sun's apparent and gravitational positions are the same (at least close enough for government work) and you also claim that the sun is not where it appears to be.

And there are lots of more equally scientifically absurd things that you've claimed, but the night is running late and this is ample evidence anyway.

And you said "When someone shows me an error that I have been making, I thank them. I don't call them a liar." -- Well how about that. Look at the errors of yours I and others have pointed out. Look at how many times you've not thanked them or me. Look how many times you've called us a liars.

So, considering that you have such a poor grasp of science, and are so ready to accuse somebody of being a liar without providing evidence for your accusation, and considering your continued refusal to personally answer the below color coded questions, don't you think that I have reason to doubt not only your understanding of the matter at hand but also your honesty?

Please explain to me how I can logically come to any other conclusion then I have! -- Especially when you have not provided a single scientific document or evidence which supports your claim!

Thanks,

-Jesse



The Red question - 12 light hour away planet:

For an observer on earth who is looking at a bright and stationary planet that is 12 light hours away and is above the earth's equator, at the instant that said planet appears in the east will it really be in the west? Will its gravity be pulling in the opposite direction of where the light appears to come from at that instant?
LeGrande's Answer: Refuses to answer so far.

The Green question: Pluto

For an observer on earth who looks up and sees Pluto when it is overhead and when it is 6.8 light hours away, at that instant in time, will Pluto really be about 102 degrees away from where it appears? Will it really appear directly overhead at the moment it is really below the horizon?
LeGrande's Answer: Refuses to answer so far.

The Blue question: if the sun were 10 light days away

If the sun were 10 light days away, and the earth was suddenly stopped, do you believe that the sun would continue to appear to rise and set for another 10 days?
LeGrande's Answer: Refuses to answer so far.

The Yellow question: Turntable at north pole tracking the sun

Let's say that you are standing on a turntable at the North Pole. Lets also say that the turntable (and its pointer) is tracking and pointing at the Suns gravity field (its actual position). Will the pointer on the turntable be pointing at* the light that you see or will it be leading or lagging that light by 2.1 degrees? (*Note: by "at" I mean "within about 20 arcseconds")
LeGrande's Answer: Refuses to answer so far.

The Lavender question: 17 minute merry go around tilted toward Polaris

Let us say that I tilted up my merry go around so that it's top pointed directly at the north star (Polaris to be specific) and furthermore let us say that I got it spinning at exactly 180 degrees per 8.3 minutes with reference to the position of the sun -- at the instant that the sun appeared almost exactly in my face, would it really be behind my head? In other words, would the light be coming from about the exact opposite direction from where the sun's gravity would be pulling - at any instant in time?
LeGrande's Answer: Refuses to answer so far.

The Purple question: 17 minute merry go around on north pole

Let us say that I had a merry go around on the North Pole furthermore let us say that I got it spinning at exactly 180 degrees per 8.3 minutes with reference to the position of the sun -- at the instant that the sun appeared almost exactly in my face, would it really be behind my head? In other words, would the light be coming from about the exact opposite direction from where the sun's gravity would be pulling - at any instant in time?
LeGrande's Answer: Refuses to answer so far.

The Aqua question: 17 minute day vs 17 minute merry go around revolution.

You said that If the earth were turning at the rate of 180 degrees per 8.5 minutes, the sun's optical image would be lagged 180 degrees from its real position.

But then you say that if I was on a merry go around that was turning at the rate of 180 degrees per 8.3 minutes, and the sun appeared on the horizon, the sun's apparent position would not be 180 degrees displaced from its actual position.

So how come, by your theory, would the earth's hypothetical rotational rate of 180 degrees per 8.3 minutes, for an observer on earth at an instant in time, cause the sun's gravitational pull and light to come from opposite directions from eachother, when for an observer on a merry go around turning at the same rate, it would not?
LeGrande's Answer: Refuses to answer so far.

[gondramB]

Just curious - what’s the point of pinging someone who was banned a year and a half ago?

[gondramB]

I get it now. Sorry about that.

[wideminded]

The Red question ... For an observer on earth who is looking at a bright and stationary planet that is 12 light hours away and is above the earth's equator, at the instant that said planet appears in the east will it really be in the west?

No.

Will its gravity be pulling in the opposite direction of where the light appears to come from at that instant?

No.

The Green question: Pluto ... For an observer on earth who looks up and sees Pluto when it is overhead and when it is 6.8 light hours away, at that instant in time, will Pluto really be about 102 degrees away from where it appears?

No.

Will it really appear directly overhead at the moment it is really below the horizon?

No.

The Blue question: If the sun were 10 light days away, and the earth was suddenly stopped, do you believe that the sun would continue to appear to rise and set for another 10 days?

No.

The Yellow question: Let's say that you are standing on a turntable at the North Pole. Lets also say that the turntable (and its pointer) is tracking and pointing at the Suns gravity field (its actual position). Will the pointer on the turntable be pointing at* the light that you see

Yes.

The Lavender question: Let us say that I tilted up my merry go around so that it's top pointed directly at the north star (Polaris to be specific) and furthermore let us say that I got it spinning at exactly 180 degrees per 8.3 minutes with reference to the position of the sun -- at the instant that the sun appeared almost exactly in my face, would it really be behind my head?

No.

The Purple question: Let us say that I had a merry go around on the North Pole furthermore let us say that I got it spinning at exactly 180 degrees per 8.3 minutes with reference to the position of the sun -- at the instant that the sun appeared almost exactly in my face, would it really be behind my head?

No.

The Aqua question: ... You said that If the earth were turning at the rate of 180 degrees per 8.5 minutes, the sun's optical image would be lagged 180 degrees from its real position.

That's wrong. The optical image would show the real position of the sun. And the light and gravitational directions would match. Whether you were standing on a spinning Earth or a spinning merry-go-round wouldn't matter.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

And there are lots of more equally scientifically absurd things that you've claimed, but the night is running late and this is ample evidence anyway

You can add the following magnificent Legrandeic self-contradiction to your list.

First LeGrande said:

"The Sun is only 2.1 degrees behind strictly in relationship to an observer on the earth, in a two body model... Adding a third body invalidates the two body model." [LeGrande]

And then LeGrande said:

"You are lying. I never said that the 2.1 degree solar lag theory is only true if there is no moon." [LeGrande]

[LeGrande]

The sun only appears to move at 2.1 degrees per 8.3 minutes - it doesn't really move at that rate! It appears to move at that rate because the earth rotates at that rate.

That is correct. It is apparent motion, just like when you are driving and watching the trees go by. That is why I used the statement 'apparent' position. Why don't we define apparent, from the Merriam Webster Dictionary. "1 : open to view : visible 2 : clear or manifest to the understanding 3 : appearing as actual to the eye or mind 4 : having an indefeasible right to succeed to a title or estate 5 : manifest to the senses or mind as real or true on the basis of evidence that may or may not be factually valid — ap·par·ent·ness Listen to the pronunciation of apparentness \-nəs\ noun synonyms apparent , illusory , seeming , ostensible mean not actually being what appearance indicates. apparent suggests appearance to unaided senses that may or may not be borne out by more rigorous examination or greater knowledge (the apparent cause of the accident)."

Now let us look at what I said. I said that the apparent position and the actual position are not the same. Let me change that slightly. The apparent motion and actual motion are not the same. Both statements are synonymous.

Now let us look at what you said again.

The sun only appears to move at 2.1 degrees per 8.3 minutes - it doesn't really move at that rate! It appears to move at that rate because the earth rotates at that rate.

The 'apparent' rate of motion is an illusion (if we are using the sun as our reference point). So you are correct, the Sun only appears to move 2.1 degrees in 8.3 minutes. Which is essentially what I said in the first place. If it appears to be moving and it really isn't, you must be seeing it in a different place than where it actually is.

[mrjesse]

Thanks, wideminded. You and I are in perfect agreement on the answers to the color coded questions you answered! LeGrande would, however, most likely answer them differently — except he seems to be refusing to to answer them at all.

Thanks,

-Jesse

[mrjesse]

Said LeGrande: Now let us look at what I said. I said that the apparent position and the actual position are not the same. Let me change that slightly. The apparent motion and actual motion are not the same. Both statements are synonymous.

Give me a break. First you say that breeding and mating are the same thing, then you say that "see" and "appear" are the same thing, and now you're saying that "Apparent motion" is the same as "Apparent position?"

Unbelievable. Motion and position are two different things dude - I don't know what else to say. Didn't you also confuse mass with something? What was that? I don't remember now.

But seriously, position and motion are not the same thing.

And it was apparent position that you said. And if it had just been a little mistake, you'd have said "Oh, I meant motion not position" right away - but you didn't. But, you are welcome to change your views if you learn something new - just tell me what your new view is!

And besides, if you're right then how come not answer my color coded questions? And you still refuse to answer my question of how, considering your past behavour and wrong ideas, how I can logically come to any conclusion other then that you aren't honest?

-Jesse

[GourmetDan]

"Yes, but *I* am."

Well just because *you* are doesn't mean that *I* would be. Does that make sense to you?

"It's common courtesy when delaying a reply to mention why; and most people can relate to talk birthday dinners with a spouse."

Again, this all hinges on the definition of 'delay'. If you think I am expecting an immediate reply, you would be wrong. So if you believe that you must absolutely let me know, a simple, "I will get back to you in 2 days" is more than sufficient.

I don't need to know where you and your wife go to dinner, what you and your wife do or how much you enjoy it. Maybe you should consider that some people consider it (1) irrelevant and (2) gross to share such information.

"Maybe you should read some of Laz's posts... Cheers! (Laz, sorry to drag you into this, just a courtesy ping since your name was mentioned.)"

Now you are dragging some guy named 'Laz' into this? Dude, what does it take for you to catch on?

[grey_whiskers]

Well just because *you* are doesn't mean that *I* would be. Does that make sense to you?

It made sense even at the time, but you were being so cantankerous that I thought I might as well yank your chain for it.

I don't need to know where you and your wife go to dinner, what you and your wife do or how much you enjoy it. Maybe you should consider that some people consider it (1) irrelevant and (2) gross to share such information.

And many others don't. But now that I know what group to put you in, I won't ping you to any of the Sports Illustrated swimsuit threads...

Now you are dragging some guy named 'Laz' into this? Dude, what does it take for you to catch on?

You had taken issue with one of my earlier comments, remarking that you'd hate to see what I considered graphic.

If you had done as I suggested, and searched some of his posts, you'd have seen what I meant.

In the meantime, you might want to consider re-checking some of your earlier quotes...the quote from Ellis: he doesn't seem to be making reference to whether the Sun revolves around the earth, but to the apparent position of the Earth at the center of expansion of the known universe.

And that quote "One has to show that the transformed metric can be regarded as produced according to Einstein's field equations, by distant rotating masses. This has been done by Thirring. He calculated a field due to a rotating, hollow, thick-walled sphere and proved that 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 equally right."

Do you have a link to the article by Thirring, or only a reference to its existence? (What evidence is there of a rotating, hollow, thick-walled sphere enclosing the Earth and Sun, or the known universe, or whatever? In the absence of the actual presence of such a sphere, the equivalence of Ptolemy and Copernicus appears to break down.)

Cheers!

[LeGrande]

Give me a break. First you say that breeding and mating are the same thing, then you say that "see" and "appear" are the same thing, and now you're saying that "Apparent motion" is the same as "Apparent position?"

No, it is the relationship. Apparent motion to actual motion, Vs. apparent position to actual position.

You agree that apparent motion is not the same as actual motion, correct? Then is apparent position the same as actual position?

[GourmetDan]

"It made sense even at the time, but you were being so cantankerous that I thought I might as well yank your chain for it."

It doesn't make sense at any time that just because you are interested in your life that I or anyone else would be. If you really think so and felt you needed to 'yank my chain' for saying, "Trust me, I'm not interested in what you and your wife do, how much you enjoy it, where you went to dinner or when you'll reply", I find it curious that your definition of cantankerous seems to be quite the opposite of your definition of graphic.

"And many others don't. But now that I know what group to put you in, I won't ping you to any of the Sports Illustrated swimsuit threads..."

Wow, I don't think I will try to imagine the group that's interested in 'what you and your wife do and how much you enjoy it'. I certainly appreciate you not putting me in that group and no, I don't want to know who is in it.

" You had taken issue with one of my earlier comments, remarking that you'd hate to see what I considered graphic. If you had done as I suggested, and searched some of his posts, you'd have seen what I meant."

Now I guess we get to find out what your definition of 'take issue with' is. But it's pretty simple really. When I said I'd 'hate to see what you consider graphic', I meant I'd 'hate to see what you consider graphic'.

That wasn't an invitation for you to point me toward what you consider graphic in hopes that I will go running off to see it. And certainly not for you to suggest that I should have taken such advice when I specifically said that wasn't what I wanted to see. Make sense to you yet?

"In the meantime, you might want to consider re-checking some of your earlier quotes...the quote from Ellis: he doesn't seem to be making reference to whether the Sun revolves around the earth, but to the apparent position of the Earth at the center of expansion of the known universe."

You might want to consider re-reading those quotes. The Ellis quote says,

"People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations,” Ellis argues. “For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations.” Ellis has published a paper on this. “You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely 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.”

Ellis, George, in Scientific American, "Thinking Globally, Acting Universally", October 1995

He was talking about "a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center" that cannot be disproved based on observations. That is geocentrism. His point is that your choice of models is philosophically-driven and he is correct. You are thinking along the same lines as another poster who thinks the sun must be dragged around the earth and that simply shows a lack of understanding of the model.

"Do you have a link to the article by Thirring, or only a reference to its existence? (What evidence is there of a rotating, hollow, thick-walled sphere enclosing the Earth and Sun, or the known universe, or whatever? In the absence of the actual presence of such a sphere, the equivalence of Ptolemy and Copernicus appears to break down.)"

I stopped looking after I found references to the first couple that you said weren't there. If you read a little about geocentrism, you will find that the fixed stars replicate the effect of Thirring's thick-walled sphere enclosing the Earth and Sun. You would also find that centrifugal and coriolis forces arise naturally in geocentric models but are known as fictitious forces in geokinetic models.

"Cheers!"

Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

It doesn't make sense at any time that just because you are interested in your life that I or anyone else would be.

Not to you, apparently. But I have found from experience that most FReepers will open up a little, or engage in banter, even in heated threads. I didn't know *you* would be the exception.

Wow, I don't think I will try to imagine the group that's interested in 'what you and your wife do and how much you enjoy it'. I certainly appreciate you not putting me in that group and no, I don't want to know who is in it.

Your sarcasm detector is due for an overhaul.

Now I guess we get to find out what your definition of 'take issue with' is. But it's pretty simple really. When I said I'd 'hate to see what you consider graphic', I meant I'd 'hate to see what you consider graphic'.

It was not a posting of "what I consider graphic", still less did I post it in the hopes that you would go running off to see it.

Your remarks "hate to see what you consider graphic" were an overreaction, so I wanted to give you the opportunity to compare and contrast, to see just how far away from the label "graphic" my posting really was.

And certainly not for you to suggest that I should have taken such advice when I specifically said that wasn't what I wanted to see. Make sense to you yet?

It made sense all along, I just disagreed with your major premise.

I stopped looking after I found references to the first couple that you said weren't there. If you read a little about geocentrism, you will find that the fixed stars replicate the effect of Thirring's thick-walled sphere enclosing the Earth and Sun. You would also find that centrifugal and coriolis forces arise naturally in geocentric models but are known as fictitious forces in geokinetic models.

What I said, was that I was unable to find certain of your quotes from specific sources, not that "they weren't there".

In the meantime, I specifically asked *for* references, explaining (with specific sites) that I had so far been unable to verify your quotes. You declined to give them. So it is misleading of you to deny my request and cover your rudeness by making a false accusation against me to cover your tracks.

A little more intellectual honesty from you would be in order, even if you are too impatient even to re-check your words before posting.

You are thinking along the same lines as another poster who thinks the sun must be dragged around the earth and that simply shows a lack of understanding of the model.

No, I was concerned because the discussion of the Ellis quote which I was able to find, placed Ellis' quote in the context of "why are all the stars apparently receding from *the Earth*' more or less equally -- which is obviously a different question than a challenge to Ptolemaic models of the solar system.

So rather than making disparaging remarks about you, I pointed out the discrepancy, and asked if you had any links to the full Ellis article, or the Thirring article.

And I haven't *yet* been able to read about geocentrism, because I haven't been able *yet* to find full-text reproductions of the sources for your quotes. So the question about the effects of the thick-walled sphere remained a valid one, since I was not asserting "it won't work" -- rather, I was asking -- "how carefully had it been checked?"

This is in fact the *opposite* of your accusation that "You are thinking along the same lines as another poster who thinks the sun must be dragged around the earth and that simply shows a lack of understanding of the model."

Cheers, you lovable rapscallion, you!

[mrjesse]

Said LeGrande:No, it is the relationship. Apparent motion to actual motion, Vs. apparent position to actual position.

The two statements, "The apparent position and the actual position are not the same", and "The apparent motion and actual motion are not the same" are not synonymous because "position" and "motion" are not synonymous.

You agree that apparent motion is not the same as actual motion, correct? Then is apparent position the same as actual position?

I will agree to no such thing because the apparent motion sometimes is the same as the actual motion, and the apparent position sometimes is the same as the actual position -- so I will not agree to any such absurd statement as yours above.

However it is true that apparent position can be different then actual position, and apparent motion can be different then actual motion, but to say that they are always different is most absurd.

Now, back to my earlier question - why won't you even tell me why you haven't answered my simple color coded questions?

-Jesse

[mrjesse]

LeGrande, since I know you so much love talking about planets, I'm posting this picture just for you. I took it myself a few hours ago, by sticking my digital camera onto my "kids toy" class telescope.

This is, of course, Venus.

-Jesse



Camera: Canon 300d digital rebel.
Telescope: Meade DS90, 90mm diameter lens, 1 meter focal length.
The picture could have been better if I had taken the time to prop things up to hold still, and focus, and adjust exposure. But it was late, and Venus was about to set behind a bunch of trees, and my fingers were freezing to death, so this is the best I got this time.

[LeGrande]

However it is true that apparent position can be different then actual position, and apparent motion can be different then actual motion, but to say that they are always different is most absurd.

Ahh, my work is done. You now agree that apparent position and actual position aren't the same thing. I never said that they were always different, sometimes they appear to be the same : )

Nice picture of Venus. My wife loves looking at the rings and moons of the planets.

[GourmetDan]

"Not to you, apparently. But I have found from experience that most FReepers will open up a little, or engage in banter, even in heated threads. I didn't know *you* would be the exception."

No, to claim that because something is important to you that it will be important to some else does not make sense at any time. That's incredibly egocentric, nothing more. And this is already nothing more than banter. There's no substance to this point, what else are we doing?

"Your sarcasm detector is due for an overhaul."

As is yours.

"It was not a posting of "what I consider graphic", still less did I post it in the hopes that you would go running off to see it."

Well obviously it wasn't what you consider 'graphic'. I thought that was clear when I said it. And if you didn't want me to go look, why did you say, "If you had done as I suggested, and searched some of his posts, you'd have seen what I meant." Now you either wanted me to go look or you didn't. You have now claimed both sides of that argument.

"Your remarks "hate to see what you consider graphic" were an overreaction, so I wanted to give you the opportunity to compare and contrast, to see just how far away from the label "graphic" my posting really was."

No, it was your interpretation of my remarks that you define as an 'overreaction', just as you have defined me as being 'cantankerous', 'irascible', 'taking issue', etc. When do you realize that you are projecting emotions onto other people that simply aren't there? Ever?

"In the meantime, I specifically asked *for* references, explaining (with specific sites) that I had so far been unable to verify your quotes. You declined to give them. So it is misleading of you to deny my request and cover your rudeness by making a false accusation against me to cover your tracks."

No, I said I found them on google books on the exact pages referenced by the posted quotes but that the pages were restricted. That's a huge difference from 'declining to give them'. I gave you references, you just want me to find *online* references for you. That's a totally different thing. Now you project your emotions again and accuse me of 'rudeness'. Do you ever stop projecting?

"A little more intellectual honesty from you would be in order, even if you are too impatient even to re-check your words before posting."

How about a little more intellectual honesty from you? Projecting yet again, are you?

"No, I was concerned because the discussion of the Ellis quote which I was able to find, placed Ellis' quote in the context of "why are all the stars apparently receding from *the Earth*' more or less equally -- which is obviously a different question than a challenge to Ptolemaic models of the solar system."

Well maybe you should look at the quote itself and see what it says, rather than looking at a discussion of the quote by people who already believe in geokineticism and who are looking at it from the geokinetic perspective. They obviously aren't going to consider the geocentric angle because of their 'a priori' beliefs and the fact that they didn't is totally irrelevant.

Look, he said that he could construct a model of the universe with the earth at it's center and you could not disprove it based on observations. You can only exclude it based on philosophy. That is completely consistent with the other quotes by Einstein, Hoyle and Born. Is that not clear enough?

"People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations,” Ellis argues. “For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations.” Ellis has published a paper on this. “You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely 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.”

Ellis, George, in Scientific American, "Thinking Globally, Acting Universally", October 1995

Now, if you can't disprove a geocentric universe from observation, then you can't disprove a geocentric universe from observation. No matter that you don't believe it and are looking at it from the perspective of assumed motion. That's not relevant.

"And I haven't *yet* been able to read about geocentrism, because I haven't been able *yet* to find full-text reproductions of the sources for your quotes. So the question about the effects of the thick-walled sphere remained a valid one, since I was not asserting "it won't work" -- rather, I was asking -- "how carefully had it been checked?""

My goodness. Is typing 'geocentrism' and 'thirring' into Google really that much of a stretch. Wow.

"Cheers, you lovable rapscallion, you!"

Cheers, you lovable rapscallion, you!

[mrjesse]

Said LeGrande:Ahh, my work is done.

You keep saying that but you still haven't answered my color coded questions, and you haven't explained why not. How can your work be done when you're avoiding the issue?

You now agree that apparent position and actual position aren't the same thing.

The truth is that for months I have been arguing that the sun appears to be about 20 arc seconds displaced from its actual position, mostly due to the earth's transverse velocity of about 67K miles an hour as it flies through space on its yearly journey around the sun.

It is a lie for you to imply that I am just now for the first time agreeing that the sun isn't exactly where it appears!* Look at what you said to me: "You now agree that..." - but I have not only long agreed but have long argued that the sun is not exactly where it appears to be! (And I have argued for an apparent ~20 arc second displacement of the sun for an observer on the earth ever since you so kindly told me about Aberration! Thanks a million for that, by the way!)

It is clear to me that you are trying to shift the attention off of your refusal to answer my color coded questions or admit that you were wrong.

And you still have refused to answer this question: How can I logically come to any conclusion other then that you are lying and know it? Especially when you've called me a liar so many times and never produced one evidence? And when you've made so many clearly incorrect scientific claims?
(See a partial list here.)

And especially considering that you continue to refuse to answer some simple color coded questions?
(And one of them (the Yellow question) is even one you asked me! You refuse to answer even your own question!)

And especially since you haven't provided a single scientific resource supporting your claimed 2.1 degrees of apparent displacement?

How can I logically come to any other conclusion? Can you see a way? If you had been in my shoes, do you think you would have come to a different conclusion then I have? Is this whole thing just a matter of blind faith for you?

-Jesse

* Note: Before I knew about Stellar Aberration, when you first claimed that the sun appeared 2.1 degrees displaced from its actual position, I did say that the sun was exactly where it appeared - but you must remember that I was responding to your claim of 2.1 degrees - not 20 arc seconds. Now if you had only been claiming 20 arc seconds, you could have told me to go look up Aberration and I would have then agreed with you since I'm willing to follow the evidence. But you were always claiming 2.1 degrees which is enormously greater then 20 arcseconds, and you still have not provided any evidence or scientific document or research supporting your claimed 2.1 degrees. So please don't try to divert the subject about something besides your claimed 2.1 degrees. The way science is supposed to work is when you get new solid evidence you change your views. That's why I went from saying "The sun is exactly where it appears" to saying "The sun is about 20 arcseconds from where it appears." -- because the evidence shows 20 arc seconds, I changed my view accordingly. This is why I'm willing to answer the "What if" questions you have posed to me about the sun and the earth and light's behavior with objects in angular motion. But you, on the other hand, refuse to apply your beliefs to my color coded questions - why? because it would shatter your faith to know the truth? Isn't that the very thing that you'd complain about Christians doing?

[grey_whiskers]

No, to claim that because something is important to you that it will be important to some else does not make sense at any time. That's incredibly egocentric, nothing more. And this is already nothing more than banter. There's no substance to this point, what else are we doing?

You're conflating "will [necessarily] be important" with "will [is likely to be, based on past experience] be important." You have in effect accused me of the first, when I was doing the second.

As is yours. [sarcasm detector]

Now you either wanted me to go look or you didn't. You have now claimed both sides of that argument.

I wanted you to look, but NOT for the reasons you attributed to me.

When do you realize that you are projecting emotions onto other people that simply aren't there? Ever?

In order for projection to occur, two conditions must apply. First, the accuser must harbor the emotions; second, (probably) the accused must be free from the emotions.

I am not cantankerous, irascible, taking issue, etc.

If I were, I would not have been asking you for more details about your quotes, I would have dismissed the quotes out of hand.

No, I said I found them on google books on the exact pages referenced by the posted quotes but that the pages were restricted. That's a huge difference from 'declining to give them'. I gave you references, you just want me to find *online* references for you.

Well, yes, I had asked for that. Such a request is not inherently unreasonable. But, since you did bring it up, what do you mean "found them on google books" and then a sentence or two later say "you just want me to find *online* references for you"?? I thought google was online; could you explain a bit more clearly -- that way I'd be able to find the quotes in context, which remains my intent.

How about a little more intellectual honesty from you? Projecting yet again, are you?

No, no projection, nor yet dishonesty.

Well maybe you should look at the quote itself and see what it says, rather than looking at a discussion of the quote by people who already believe in geokineticism and who are looking at it from the geokinetic perspective.

Thats just my point, Dan. I'd love to see the original quote, and with it the original article in context. Because when I first tried to find the quote and article, all I found were duplications of the same few sentences you posted; but the discussion around those sentences made it sound like that Ellis was talking about Earth as the center of an expanding Universe, and not just the center of a solar system. Since those two topics ARE very different, I wanted to see the original article to see if the other people were taking his remarks out of context or not.

Look, he said that he could construct a model of the universe with the earth at it's center and you could not disprove it based on observations. You can only exclude it based on philosophy. That is completely consistent with the other quotes by Einstein, Hoyle and Born. Is that not clear enough?

Difficulty over words here -- yes it is clear in the sense that I can form the mental construct alleged in your last paragraph. Unclear, because of my prior paragraph, I wanted to make sure the the quotes you gave really were in context and not "cherry picked" or misunderstood: not necessarily by you, or out of bad faith. See your quote of Ellis below:

"People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations,” Ellis argues. “For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations.”

Emphasis mine.

You then went on :

"No matter that you don't believe it and are looking at it from the perspective of assumed motion. That's not relevant. "

The Ellis quote above, out of its context, does not tell me *which* observations he is talking about.

And the websites I found which *did* have this quote were not talking exclusively about the Solar System, which is how this back-and-forth between us got started.

So it is not in fact a matter of my beliefs either way -- it is a matter that the quote from Ellis looked a bit off-topic.

My goodness. Is typing 'geocentrism' and 'thirring' into Google really that much of a stretch. Wow.

I did and was not able to find his original article. I did find a few flamewars reminiscent of this thread, however :-)

Cheers!

[LeGrande]

I have an idea! You seem to think that it is possible to measure absolute angular acceleration. If that is the case, you should also be able to use a combination of laser ring gyros (three should be all you need) to precisely measure absolute velocity and direction too!

Why don’t you make one! We will call it Mrjesse’s Absolute Reference, MAR for short. You will get a Nobel prize (a good one for Physics, not like the s****y other prizes) You will become famous! Be worth Gazillions! I will be asking if I can come and work for you (would scrubbing your toilets be good enough for me?)

In fact, if you can make this wonderful device. I will become a Christian (or if you aren’t a Christian, I will sincerely try and believe in whatever God you believe in) isn’t that great? What higher incentive could you have? Is there anything better than doing Gods work and having fun too? Halelulujah! Praise the Lord. Mrjesse has found an absolute reference : )