Posted on 01/28/2009 11:36:17 AM PST by 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.”
(Excerpt) Read more at springerlink.com ...
For a few minutes at dawn you would be correct, then you would be wrong for the rest of the day. At dusk the reverse would happen and you would still see the light after the sun had actually settled beyond the horizon .
At dusk you see light refracted in the atmosphere above you after the sun sets below the horizon. The last direct rays of the sun you see left the sun 8.3 minutes before you saw them, at an angle of 2.1 degees above your line of sight. By the time they got here, you had rotated into their path.
>>The ball is in your court mrjesse. Given that we know that it takes light 8.3 minutes to get to our observer on the equator from the Sun, how do you explain that the Sun is exactly where it appears to be if the earth is spinning, but 2.1 degrees off if the Sun is rotating the earth.<<
Just for the record...
Its traditional to think of the sun as fixed with the earth orbiting the sun in a circle while spinning on its axis.
The actually situation is more complicated.
The sun is not fixed; the sun and earth actually orbit each other in an ellipse.The reason we speak only of the earth orbiting the sun is that greater mass of the sun means it doesn’t move nearly as much.
And for the nerds among us:
The sun also rotates on its axis but the tops and middle of the sun rotate at different speed. Every 27 days at the equator but only every 31 days at the poles.
“Aberration is the result of moving perpendicular to the light source. That should mean that at sunrise and sunset aberration is effectively zero.” [excerpt]Tip,
“Mrjesse claims that the suns actual position is within ~0.005833° of where it appears to be from the perspective of a person on the earth.” [excerpt, corrected]I have corrected your statement to reflect what mrjesse has really said.
“but he objects to the idea that a spinning earth vs a stationary Sun is equivalent. They are : )” [excerpt]A spinning Earth versus a stationary Sun?
“Now back to our observer on the earths equator. As far as the observer is concerned, whether the earth is spinning or the Sun is orbiting the earth (or some combination) is equivalent. The observations for the observer will be identical.” [excerpt, bold emphasis mine]Unless those observations include looking at a Laser Ring Gyro.
“The fact is that it takes light apx. 8.3 minutes to get from itself to the observer. If the observer pounds a stake into the ground pointing at the sun, then waits 8.3 minutes and points another stake into the ground pointing directly at the sun, the measured angular difference will be apx. 2 degrees.” [excerpt]That only demonstrates the angular speed at which the Sun goes across the sky.
“What does this little experiment show the observer? A lot of things actually, but for our purposes the second stake is pointing at the suns actual position when the first stake was pounded in the ground pointing at the sun.” [excerpt]Only if the Sun orbits the Earth.
“MrJesse apparently believes that both stakes are pointing at the suns actual instantaneous position. The only way that could be true is if the speed of light is instantaneous, which of course it isn't.” [excerpt]You have misconstrued mrjesse's position beyond correction.
“The ball is in your court mrjesse. Given that we know that it takes light 8.3 minutes to get to our observer on the equator from the Sun, how do you explain that the Sun is exactly where it appears to be if the earth is spinning, but 2.1 degrees off if the Sun is rotating the earth.” [excerpt]Once again, this is an inaccurate representation of what mrjesse has been saying.
Have fun answering these:
“Can we formulate physical laws so that they are valid for all CS [coordinate systems], not only those moving uniformly, but also those moving quite arbitrarily, relative to each other? […] 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.”
Einstein, A. and Infeld, L. (1938) The Evolution of Physics, p.212 (p.248 in original 1938 ed.); Note: CS = coordinate system
“The relation of the two pictures [geocentricity and heliocentricity] is reduced to a mere coordinate transformation and it is the main tenet of the Einstein theory that any two ways of looking at the world which are related to each other by a coordinate transformation are entirely equivalent from a physical point of view.... Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is ‘right’ and the Ptolemaic theory ‘wrong’ in any meaningful physical sense.”
Hoyle, Fred. Nicolaus Copernicus. London: Heinemann Educational Books Ltd., 1973.
"...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 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."
Born, Max. "Einstein's Theory of Relativity",Dover Publications,1962, pgs 344 & 345:
"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
What force is capable of moving the massive Sun around a much less massive Earth while leaving the Earth motionless?
What Biblical passages do you think support Geocentricism?
Once again, the fact that you think that question means anything shows that you can't understand the quotes posted previously. Just because you can ask a stupid question doesn't mean anyone has to take it seriously.
"What Biblical passages do you think support Geocentricism?"
You can't even get past the scientific answer, much less the Scriptural one.
It is only a “stupid question” to someone without an answer.
I have an answer at the ready that explains the observation, all you have is trying to desperately hide behind “coordinate system”.
The fact is that there are FORCES at work, not just motion, but FORCES that explain that motion.
No force except for magical forces can explain your model, that is why you seem so apoplectic that I would DARE to ask such a simple and basic question.
“What force is capable of moving the massive Sun around a much less massive Earth while leaving the Earth motionless?”
Nope, a stupid question is a stupid question. The reason you ask it is because you can't understand the quotes I posted.
"I have an answer at the ready that explains the observation, all you have is trying to desperately hide behind “coordinate system”."
I just posted the answers. Particularly this one. You do exactly what George Ellis warns about.
"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
"The fact is that there are FORCES at work, not just motion, but FORCES that explain that motion."
Again, there is no physically-significant difference between a heliocentric solar-system and a geocentric universe according to Einstein, Hoyle, Born and Ellis.
"No force except for magical forces can explain your model, that is why you seem so apoplectic that I would DARE to ask such a simple and basic question."
You just keep demonstrating that you simply can't understand what has been posted in the statements by Einstein, Hoyle, Born and Ellis.
“What force is capable of moving the massive Sun around a much less massive Earth while leaving the Earth motionless?”
Keep going, no need to stop now...
A truck is heading into New York City at 80 miles per hour, that is a coordinate system.
An equally valid coordinate system would have New York City moving towards the truck at 80 miles per hour.
Either is equally valid AS A COORDINATE SYSTEM.
But an internal combustion engine explains the FORCES necessary to propel the truck towards NYC at 80 mph.
There is no equivalent explanation that you have provided that would supply the FORCE necessary to move New York City at 80 mph.
WHAT FORCE COULD MOVE THE SUN AROUND THE EARTH WHILE LEAVING THE EARTH MOTIONLESS?
Your inability to answer amuses me to no end.
Okay, I’m convinced. Now what?
Hmm, you might be right. I don't like the wording 2.1 degrees above the sight line though. I think we are in agreement.
I may be mistaken but my understanding is that is why the Suns magnetic poles flip. Which influences sun spots and possibly our weather.
What does a Laser Ring Gyro, aligned north to south at the equator, tell you? Inquiring minds want to know : )
That only demonstrates the angular speed at which the Sun goes across the sky.
True and the time lag for the speed of light.
Only if the Sun orbits the Earth.
The spinning earth or orbiting Sun are equivalent from the view point of the observer on the Earth. In other words it makes no difference to the observation.
Once again, this is an inaccurate representation of what mrjesse has been saying.
What has mrjesse been saying then?
The answer is quite clear. The force in question is God.
“Okay, I’m convinced. Now what?”Well, hopefully LeGrande will answer my questions in #1,186.
But we're done?
“But we're done?”I dunno...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.