Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Intelligent Design Scientists Will Showcase Evidence Challenging Evolution
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=3916&program=DI%20Main%20Page%20-%20News&callingPage=discoMainPage ^

Posted on 03/13/2007 12:35:30 PM PDT by truthfinder9

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 201-250251-300301-350351-392 last
To: GourmetDan
Michelson-Morley failed to detect the motion of the earth around the sun.

Umm, not exactly. They failed to detect the motion of the earth relative to the ether - and so the concept of an ether was discarded. Though, of course, there were those who said that the earth and the ether moved in - let's say - divine harmony.

351 posted on 03/16/2007 2:23:37 PM PDT by si tacuissem (sapere aude!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 339 | View Replies]

To: si tacuissem
"Umm, not exactly. They failed to detect the motion of the earth relative to the ether - and so the concept of an ether was discarded. Though, of course, there were those who said that the earth and the ether moved in - let's say - divine harmony."

Yeah, you shouldn't cherry-pick your evidence like that. Michelson-Gale detected both the ether and motion and you shouldn't pretend that Michelson-Morley occurred in isolation.

Unless you are proposing a little pocket of ether that stays still around the earth so that Michelson-Gale can detect motion but follows the earth around the sun so the Michelson-Morley cannot?

Is that your solution?

352 posted on 03/16/2007 2:34:22 PM PDT by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 351 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
Where has a heliocentrist ever invoked the rest of the universe in a defense of heliocentricity?

:-)

Ok, look -- we're all in agreement here about this. If you're arguing *against* astronomers who don't believe that all mass in the universe is significant, then you win. We all agree with you.

That doesn't argue against "heliocentrism", but you did win the point in grand style.

In fact, the idea that the mass of the rest of the universe doesn't matter is a hallmark of "geocentrism", which believes that the Earth is fixed at the center of the universe and unaffected by all that gravity.

So if your point is that all the matter in the universe is important, that all that gravity has to be taken into account, you're actuallly arguing *against* geocentrists, and *for* the heliocentrist view.

Isn't that ironic?

353 posted on 03/16/2007 2:38:52 PM PDT by Dominic Harr (Conservative: The "ant", to a liberal's "grasshopper".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 349 | View Replies]

To: BrandtMichaels
If the above be so (with the Heliocentric model) then wouldn't we all feel a bit dizzy?

Nah, cuz we only feel changes in acceleration.

Like once you're on a merry go round. You feel like you're not moving, like the world is moving around you.

I *love* that song, btw!

354 posted on 03/16/2007 2:45:02 PM PDT by Dominic Harr (Conservative: The "ant", to a liberal's "grasshopper".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 350 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr
"Ok, look -- we're all in agreement here about this. If you're arguing *against* astronomers who don't believe that all mass in the universe is significant, then you win. We all agree with you."

I'm just trying to understand your statements. They simply aren't accurate and that isn't my problem. And are you sure that you have been anointed to speak for everyone? I don't remember that.

"That doesn't argue against "heliocentrism", but you did win the point in grand style.

As for arguing against heliocentrism, I don't see how ignoring all of the mass in the universe doesn't argue against it. Why not ignore the motions of distant galactic structures as as being evidence that the theory of gravity is wrong and invoke invisible mass to rescue the existing theory? Uh, never mind... already been done.

"In fact, the idea that the mass of the rest of the universe doesn't matter is a hallmark of "geocentrism", which believes that the Earth is fixed at the center of the universe and unaffected by all that gravity."

Again, you misrepresent geocentricity as something exactly the opposite of what I have been saying. Why don't you take your own advice and listen to what I'm telling you.

"So if your point is that all the matter in the universe is important, that all that gravity has to be taken into account, you're actuallly arguing *against* geocentrists, and *for* the heliocentrist view."

That's only true if your strawman misrepresentation of geocentrism is true. I have clearly explained to you that your misconceptions are wrong. Why won't you listen?

"Isn't that ironic?"

That you misrepresent geocentrism and won't listen?

355 posted on 03/16/2007 2:58:47 PM PDT by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 353 | View Replies]

To: truthfinder9

The Privileged Planet documentary is awesome.


356 posted on 03/16/2007 3:14:25 PM PDT by tang-soo (Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks - Read Daniel Chapter 9)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
Umm, for a second time...

Do you think that there is an ether? Michelson-Gale-Pearson doesn't indicate this....

Unless you are proposing a little pocket of ether that stays still around the earth so that Michelson-Gale can detect motion but follows the earth around the sun so the Michelson-Morley cannot?

No, though this was proposed, too. AFAIR, Lorentz invented his transformations due to the thought of moving bodies being somewhat compressed by the ether...

I prefer to think of ether as a kind of phlogiston...

357 posted on 03/16/2007 3:17:05 PM PDT by si tacuissem (sapere aude!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 352 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
Again, you misrepresent geocentricity as something exactly the opposite of what I have been saying.

Hmmm . . . I really am trying to understand you, honestly.

Ok, I hear you say you're a geocentrists. I've talked to other geocentrists before, on rare occasions. They believe something specific: That the Earth is the unmoving center of the universed.

I look it up:

Yet you tell me this is a misrepresentation of geocentrism.

Then what you *describe* as your version of 'geocentrism' actually describes 'heliocentrism'.

Can you see my confusion? It's literally as if you call yourself an "atheist" but say you believe in God.

Please, help me out here. At the very least, do you understand what others say is "geocentrism", and how you calling yourself that when you believe the opposite is possible?

358 posted on 03/16/2007 3:33:21 PM PDT by Dominic Harr (Conservative: The "ant", to a liberal's "grasshopper".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 355 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan

No, you're oversimplifying. The argument is that using exactly the same methodology that Biblical Numerists use to discover 'hidden' codes and prophesies in the bible can be used on any text with similarly prophetic results. This means that the codes found in the bible are almost certainly not placed there deliberately, or conversely, that God is speaking to us from every text ever written.

If you were to one day look down in your alphabits and find the complete Encyclopedia Britannica article on say, Botswana, spelled out in your bowl, then you would have some evidence that perhaps the encyclopeida entry had been written by random chance.


359 posted on 03/16/2007 3:56:38 PM PDT by 49th (This space for rent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 348 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
Our original exchange:

EVOLUTION is a demonstrably changable theory: proposed, written, re-written, organized by committee, translated, re-translated, re-organized, re-written, and re-organized again by the minds of men.

So?

That is the way science is done. Theories are modified to become increasingly accurate.

In some cases, theories can't be modified to account for new data, and are replaced by new, and more accurate, theories.

Why do you expect that a theory has to be unchangeable, and why do you criticize science when it modifies theories to be more accurate?

This is a serious question, and I would like to understand your reasoning.

Now you answer:

Simple: The other side says...

"This is how it works!"

and it gets engraved in stone.

And then later, in smal print says, "Uh, we changed how it works."


I think you are vastly underestimating how science works.

I have seen time and time again that you and others here disparage scientists for couching their research in cautious terms. "It seems," "appears," "may be interpreted as" and many other similar terms that are common in science, although perhaps not so common in science written for the layman by science writers.

Now you are criticizing science for, as you put it, saying "This is how it works! ... and it gets engraved in stone."

You can't have it both ways.

I think you just don't like the results of some scientific investigations, and that you are taking cheap shots.

If this is not the case, please answer the question I asked above: Why do you expect that a theory has to be unchangeable, and why do you criticize science when it modifies theories to be more accurate?

360 posted on 03/16/2007 9:32:34 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 306 | View Replies]

To: RadioAstronomer
For the earth this comes out to about a 4-min/day difference.

Ooh, you're right. I'd forgotten that 1 turn around the Sun every 'year'!

Then there's that goofy fact that the Earth's orbital time is not 365 days, but 365 days, 5 hours, 48 minutes, 45 seconds (and some stuff...)!

Does THAT mess things up?

361 posted on 03/17/2007 6:27:19 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 318 | View Replies]

To: RadioAstronomer
The stars need to be centered on the sun to generate the gravitational offset that the annual wobble of the universe's rotation generates to move the center of gravity away from the sun.

As the Gieco® caveman says....

What ?!?


362 posted on 03/17/2007 6:30:05 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 314 | View Replies]

To: atlaw
A small, if important, piece of the puzzle.

It could be the key piece....

363 posted on 03/17/2007 6:30:39 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 313 | View Replies]

To: RadioAstronomer

That had to be a big "Oh $h|t!" moment!!

I've written code I just COULD not debug before.

I finally threw away what I was working on and rewrote it, this time it worked right.

Eyeballing the old VS the new I could NOT see the difference - they looked the same!

I used a COMPARE function on both sources and the computer found what I could not, a comma where a Dp should be.

test, Test, TEST!!


364 posted on 03/17/2007 6:36:37 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 322 | View Replies]

To: MHalblaub
Coriolis effect

A really cool observation of this effect is at the playground!

hAVE A COUPLE OF FOLKS FACE EACH OTHER ACROSS this THING (Wanna buy a caps lock key?), spin it and toss a ball back and forth!


365 posted on 03/17/2007 6:43:55 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 326 | View Replies]

To: 49th

My bologna has a first name.....


366 posted on 03/17/2007 6:47:25 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 346 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
If this is not the case, please answer the question I asked above: Why do you expect that a theory has to be unchangeable, and why do you criticize science when it modifies theories to be more accurate?

You should ask, "Why won't you agree with us now; even though you know we will change our position later?"

367 posted on 03/17/2007 7:14:17 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 360 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
I used a COMPARE function on both sources and the computer found what I could not, a comma where a Dp should be.

All software has bugs. All software can be simplified.

Therefore all software in the world can be reduced to one line that does not work!

A good IDE like Eclipse or Visual Studio should help with things like that, but I know what you mean. Just last week I had a function that was incorrectly calculating a score for a survey. I wasted 4 hours trying to figure out why. Finally one of my new hires, a fresh-out-of-college fella, wanders by and I ask him to look at it, fresh eyes.

He leans over and says, "Right there, you used the wrong variable!

Some days . . . :-)

368 posted on 03/17/2007 11:10:40 AM PDT by Dominic Harr (Conservative: The "ant", to a liberal's "grasshopper".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 364 | View Replies]

To: si tacuissem

Um, for a second time.

Look at Michelson-Gale, don't look at Michelson-Gale-Pearson. That's a different experiment.

Michelson-Gale does indicate an ether.

Michelson-Gale-Pearson was another attempt at a Michelson-Morley experiment and again returned a null result for the motion of the earth around the sun.


369 posted on 03/17/2007 6:46:35 PM PDT by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 357 | View Replies]

To: 49th

You aren't even talking about Panin anymore.

You're talking something else entirely.


370 posted on 03/17/2007 6:47:43 PM PDT by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 359 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr
Therefore all software in the world can be reduced to one line that does not work!

At times it DOES seem this way! ;^)

371 posted on 03/17/2007 7:35:23 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 368 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
Look at Michelson-Gale, don't look at Michelson-Gale-Pearson. That's a different experiment. Michelson-Gale does indicate an ether.

There seems to be a mix-up of Michelson-Gale(-Pearson) and Michelson-Pease-Pearson. Do you have any links to them?

AFAIK, all of them tried to find an effect of lateral (MPP) or rotational (MG) movement relative to an ether (or aether, if you prefer so).

Michelson-Gale-Pearson was another attempt at a Michelson-Morley experiment and again returned a null result for the motion of the earth around the sun.

As I said, it's about a movement through the ether - the movement around the sun is something different.

But, to come closer to home:

Do you think that the moon revolves around the (center of the) earth? Or do you allow for earth and moon revolving around their center of gravity, i.e., the earth wobbles :-) ?

372 posted on 03/18/2007 6:08:23 AM PDT by si tacuissem (sapere aude!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 369 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
"That it is impossible to physically distinguish between geocentric and heliocentric models is the point of the work of Mach, Einstein and Hoyle and recognized by their published statements."

I have shown you several times that there are differences in the models.

"You do realize that Michelson-Morley was the experiment that was *desinged* to detect that *assumed* motion of the earth around the sun. You do realize that it found no motion."

Michelson-Morley's experiment just showed that the speed of light is constant. So the original intension had to fail.

The motion of the earth around the sun is not "*assumed*". You can calculate within an non-inertial coordinate system what ever you want but you got a moving center of mass to fix the earth in a sun-earth system. As I said before then you have to alter your physical laws. Einstein was well aware of this fact despite of you.

"This angle is assumed to be the result of the earth's motion, yet if you fill the telescope with water (which slows the speed of light and would require an increase in the angle of the telescope) that no increase in angle is required?"
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/bowdenmalcolm/geocexpl.htm

This is real BS you know? To aim at one point you need no telescope at all! The light will then always hit vertically. Then you won't have any refraction effect.
You really have a atmospheric refraction that change star positions the more you move to the horizon.
If you measure horizontal and after that you fill your telescope up with water the star has moved to zenith and the effect is gone.

"This is known as Airey's failure."
(Do you want to know what Sagnac's failure is?)

"You do realize that the only arguments against geocentrism are emotional?"

Your arguments are strict rational like the ones above?
You still lack to understand the difference between inertial and non-inertial systems. That's why you misinterpreted Einstein's comment.
373 posted on 03/19/2007 4:49:56 AM PDT by MHalblaub ("Easy my friends, when it comes to the point it is only a drawing made by a non believing Dane...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 336 | View Replies]

To: MHalblaub

Don't make the mistake of confusing models with reality. My point was that you cannot physically distinguish between the models, not that that models aren't different.

And MM didn't *show* that the speed of light was constant. The null result was 'interpreted' to mean that the speed of light was the same in all reference frames. It could also be interpreted as showing that the earth is not moving. The null result was entirely unexpected.

The motion of the earth is assumed. Calculating something does not mean that it represents reality. You assume that you have a moving center of mass. The evidence to support it is distinctly missing.

Airey's failure is another failure to find evidence that the earth is moving and Einsteins's comment about the different CS for heliocentrism and geocentrism being equivalent is accurate as stated.

Ernst Mach also showed that planetary orbit arguments are invalid because the laws geometry would have to be broken for their to be an essential difference between geocentrism and heliocentrism.

The evidence for heliocentrism just isn't there. It is a belief, not a fact.


374 posted on 03/19/2007 5:56:57 AM PDT by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 373 | View Replies]

To: si tacuissem

I find lots of information by just typing 'Michelson-Gale' into google.


375 posted on 03/19/2007 5:58:41 AM PDT by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 372 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
I find lots of information by just typing 'Michelson-Gale' into google.

No doubt about that! So, is the Michelson-Gale-experiment you refer to this one (from wikipedia):

The Michelson-Gale-Pearson experiment is a modified version of the Michelson-Morley experiment which tests the aether drag along the rotating frame of Earth. That is, if aether is dragged rotationally by the Earth, as was assumed by many, the Michelson-Gale-Pearson experiment would be able to detect this effect.

[snip]

Interestingly the experiment was expected to generate a positive result both for an entrained aether as well as due to relativistic effects. The main difference would be the magnitude of the effect. It was thus a surprise to everyone when the MGP experiment also returned what appeared to be a null result, or at least a rather inconclusive one. The results consisted of 269 measurements that showed an effect of -0.04 to +0.55 fringes, which could be seen as evidence of the rotational effects, but at the same time they were not statistically significant.

BTW - what's about the moon?

376 posted on 03/19/2007 9:08:34 AM PDT by si tacuissem (sapere aude!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 375 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan; si tacuissem
"I find lots of information by just typing 'Michelson-Gale' into google."

Just try to understand a ring laser gyroscope.
After that try reading this source Effect of Earth's Rotation on the Quantum Mechanical Phase of the Neutron
"Michelson-Gale does indicate an ether."
You erred again. light-speed and aether

"Don't make the mistake of confusing models with reality. My point was that you cannot physically distinguish between the models, not that that models aren't different. [...]The motion of the earth is assumed."

In the beginning I thought you tried to explain something else but now I see you really think of a fixed earth.
Here for beginners:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault_pendulum

"And MM didn't *show* that the speed of light was constant.[...]It could also be interpreted as showing that the earth is not moving."

So a space station performing the Michelson–Morley experiment should prove something else?

"Airey's failure is another failure to find evidence that the earth is moving [...]"

Your sources tried to prove some nonsense as I explained. There is an atmospheric aberrancy. "Airey's failure" shows your lack of competence on the field of physics.
"Si tacuissem, ..."

"Ernst Mach also showed that planetary orbit arguments are invalid because the laws geometry would have to be broken for their to be an essential difference between geocentrism and heliocentrism."

Do you really know what your are talking about? You remind me of most of the Muslims. They talk other the Koran without being able to read it in Arabic or even having knowledge in their own language about their hol(e)y book.

Mach's principle:

Statt nun einen bewegten Körper auf den Raum (auf ein Koordinatensystem) zu beziehen, wollen wir direkt sein Verhalten zu den Körpern des Weltraumes betrachten, durch welches jenes Koordinatensystem allein bestimmt werden kann. Voneinander sehr entfernte Körper, welche in bezug auf andere ferne festliegende Körper sich mit konstanter Richtung und Geschwindigkeit bewegen, ändern ihre gegenseitige Entfernung der Zeit proportional […] Die eben angestellten Betrachtungen zeigen, daß wir nicht nötig haben, das Trägheitsgesetz auf einen besonderen absoluten Raum zu beziehen. Vielmehr erkennen wir, daß sowohl jene Massen, welche nach der gewöhnlichen Ausdrucksweise Kräfte aufeinander ausüben, als auch jene, welche keine ausüben, zueinander in gleichartigen Beschleunigungsbeziehungen stehen, und zwar kann man alle Massen als untereinander in Beziehung bestehend betrachten […] auch ich erwarte, daß astronomische Beobachtungen zunächst nur sehr unscheinbare Korrektionen notwendig machen werden, so halte ich es doch für möglich, daß der Trägheitssatz in seiner einfachen Newtonschen Form für uns Menschen nur örtliche und zeitliche Bedeutung hat.
(Ernst Mach)


Mach's_principle

"...philosophus mansisses" Boethius, "Consolatio Philosophiae".
377 posted on 03/19/2007 11:05:28 AM PDT by MHalblaub ("Easy my friends, when it comes to the point it is only a drawing made by a non believing Dane...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 375 | View Replies]

To: si tacuissem

No that's not it.


378 posted on 03/19/2007 12:13:09 PM PDT by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 376 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan

So, which is it?


379 posted on 03/19/2007 12:15:38 PM PDT by si tacuissem (sapere aude!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 378 | View Replies]

To: MHalblaub

Michelson-Gale detected the relative rotation of earth and universe within 2%.

In order for your foucault pendulum to mean anything, you have to assume that the universe influences it in a heliocentric model but does not in a geocentric model. An inconsistency is necessary for your example to be valid. Not good.

A space station may generate a non null result for MM if the instruments are sensitive enough.

You remind me of a Muslim in that you pretend that science says one thing when you know it says something else.


380 posted on 03/19/2007 12:19:18 PM PDT by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 377 | View Replies]

To: si tacuissem

The fact that you cannot find it proves that you don't understand what I am trying to tell you.


381 posted on 03/19/2007 12:21:43 PM PDT by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 379 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
The fact that you cannot find it proves that you don't understand what I am trying to tell you.

So try to enlighten me - give me a link to the version of the Michelson-Gale experiment you are talking about.

From reading the posts I got the impression that you think that the model of a not moving earth is consistent with our observations and theories. Is this your opinion?

How still has such an unmovable earth to stand?

382 posted on 03/19/2007 12:40:33 PM PDT by si tacuissem (sapere aude!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 381 | View Replies]

To: si tacuissem
"So try to enlighten me ..."

I don't think it possible. You don't want to understand.

As far as I can tell, all you want to do is misrepresent the issue and stay confused.

383 posted on 03/19/2007 12:50:59 PM PDT by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 382 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
GD: As far as I can tell, all you want to do is misrepresent the issue and stay confused.

Was I misrepresenting your position by this sentence:

st: From reading the posts I got the impression that you think that the model of a not moving earth is consistent with our observations and theories. Is this your opinion?

384 posted on 03/19/2007 12:57:11 PM PDT by si tacuissem (sapere aude!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 383 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
"Michelson-Gale detected the relative rotation of earth and universe within 2%."

I doubt you know what they really measured within the experiment. With an error of 2 % you won't be able to navigate an aircraft with a laser gyroscope. The accuracy was 5 parts in 1000. "The Sagnac effect is not an artifact of the choice of reference frame. It is independent of the choice of reference frame,[...] "(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagnac_effect)


"In order for your foucault pendulum to mean anything, you have to assume that the universe influences it in a heliocentric model but does not in a geocentric model."

So what does move the pendulum in a geocentric model? The spinning universe? Ups, then some galaxies had to move faster than light. Can you explain this to us? And finally Foucault's pendulum experiment says straight the opposite of your claim. The pendulum isn't moving because there is no influence.


"A space station may generate a non null result for MM if the instruments are sensitive enough."

This experiment was already realised. It's called Global Positioning System. GPS works only without an aether.


"You remind me of a Muslim in that you pretend that science says one thing when you know it says something else."

Ever tried to answer a question?
You were wrong with your claim "Michelson-Gale does indicate an ether."
You were wrong with your claim " "And MM didn't *show* that the speed of light was constant.[...]It could also be interpreted as showing that the earth is not moving." (See GPS)
You were not able to grasp what "Airey's failure" was and claimed one time the opposite you claimed before.

Your Muslim finally knows something.
385 posted on 03/20/2007 8:09:24 AM PDT by MHalblaub ("Easy my friends, when it comes to the point it is only a drawing made by a non believing Dane...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 380 | View Replies]

To: MHalblaub
"Your Muslim finally knows something."

Physics Today (May 2002):

In Earth’s neighborhood, the field equations of general relativity involve only a single overall time variable. While there is freedom in the theory to make arbitrary coordinate transformations, the simplest approach is to use an approximate solution of the field equations in which Earth’s mass gives rise to small corrections to the simple Minkowski metric of special relativity, and to choose coordinate axes originating at the planet’s center of mass and pointing toward fixed stars. In this Earth-centered inertial (ECI) reference frame, one can safely ignore relativistic effects due to Thomas precession of Lense-Thirring drag... (Physics Today, p. 42)

The GPS is allowed to ignore relativistic effects to get the 'correct' answer.

Also note that they *assume* an earth-centered inertial reference frame and fixed stars to make the system work. The same thing that I am telling you is not just a convenient assumption, but reality. I love it when 'science' is forced to ignore their belief in heliocentricity and 'assume' reality in order to get their systems to work.

Course, then we get guys like you who try to claim that GPS supports heliocentrism when we actually find that GPS is *forced* to assume geocentrism to work. Ha Ha.

The muslim knows nothing and, worst of all, doesn't want to.

386 posted on 03/20/2007 12:43:09 PM PDT by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 385 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
"The GPS is allowed to ignore relativistic effects to get the 'correct' answer."

You are wrong again. The GPS can ignore the Lense-Thirring effect but GPS wouldn't work without relativity being true.

The Lense-Thirring drag is an effect anticipated by general principle of relativity. It is so small still today it is not quite proven. Final results for Gravity Probe B are expected for April 14, 2007.


"Also note that they *assume* an earth-centered inertial reference frame and fixed stars to make the system work. The same thing that I am telling you is not just a convenient assumption, but reality."

From the article you posted:
"In this Earth-centered inertial (ECI) reference frame, one can safely ignore relativistic effects due to Thomas precession of Lense-Thirring drag..."

You still didn't know what an inertial reference frame is, do you?


"While there is freedom [...] coordinate transformations, the simplest approach is [...] to choose coordinate axes originating at the planet’s center of mass and pointing toward fixed stars."

And your are still unable to understand what you read. They used a coordinate system with axes going to fixed stars but with a rotating earth as center.
"Did you catch that?! Let me translate for you."("About scientific (& theological) aspects of Geocentricity", page 7) Sorry, the translation there is wrong.


Lense-Thirring effect is a really awkward way to show the earth is rotating.


"The muslim knows nothing and, worst of all, doesn't want to."

That is true for all fanatics.
387 posted on 03/22/2007 4:38:45 AM PDT by MHalblaub ("Easy my friends, when it comes to the point it is only a drawing made by a non believing Dane...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 386 | View Replies]

To: MHalblaub
You are getting off track. We are discussing heliocentrism and geocentrism, not whether relativity is true or not. And GPS is a geocentric system, not a barycentric system.

http://web.mit.edu/mecheng/pml/spec_location.htm

"The GPS coordinate system is an earth-centered Cartesian system. The coordinates produced by GPS are geocentric coordinates based on the center of the earth with X, Y and Z components."

And apparently, were GPS a barycentric system, corrections would be required:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1988PhRvL..61..903R&db_key=PHY&data_type=HTML&format=&high=46027c70db15912

"The purpose of this paper is to clarify the effects of relativity in each frame and to demonstrate their equivalence through the analysis of real laser-tracking data. A correction to the conventional barycentric equations of motion is shown to be required."

Doesn't look like GPS is any support for heliocentrism.

Agreed that all fanatics know nothing and don't want to (including heliocentric ones).

388 posted on 03/22/2007 6:30:43 AM PDT by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 387 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
"You are getting off track."

Which track? You always jump on another track then running out of arguments.

"We are discussing heliocentrism and geocentrism, not whether relativity is true or not."

To do this, I have to know if you accept relativity. I'm still not sure about that topic.


"And GPS is a geocentric system, not a barycentric system."

From your link:
"The coordinates produced by GPS are geocentric coordinates based on the center of the earth with X, Y and Z components."
You have do distinguish between the system GPS is working with and the coordinates it produces. GPS uses geocentric and barycentric systems. On which system do you think a satellites orbit is calculated for flying around a planet with a moon?

From the abstract you posted:
"Whether one uses a solar-system barycentric frame or a geocentric frame when including the general theory of relativity in orbit determinations for near-Earth satellites, the results should be equivalent to some limiting accuracy."
And some keywords:
"CENTER OF GRAVITY, EARTH ORBITS, GEOCENTRIC COORDINATES, ORBITAL POSITION ESTIMATION, RELATIVISTIC THEORY, SATELLITE ORBITS, EARTH ROTATION, [...]"

"And apparently, were GPS a barycentric system, corrections would be required:"

Where did you read that? "conventional barycentric equations" is in physics a system there you neglect relativistic effects. A geocentric system is also a barycentric system as you may know. For some folks a very special one.


"Doesn't look like GPS is any support for heliocentrism."

Read my posts and you'll see I only claimed GPS is a hint for relativity.
Try to light another straw-man.

A straight question to you:
Do you think the earth is rotating?
389 posted on 03/23/2007 3:36:58 AM PDT by MHalblaub ("Easy my friends, when it comes to the point it is only a drawing made by a non believing Dane...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 388 | View Replies]

To: MHalblaub
"Read my posts and you'll see I only claimed GPS is a hint for relativity. Try to light another straw-man."

You are the one posting strawmen.

The subject has always been geocentrism vs heliocentrism.

Bye

390 posted on 03/23/2007 5:43:36 AM PDT by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 389 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
"The subject has always been geocentrism vs heliocentrism."

Just look at the top:
"Intelligent Design Scientists Will Showcase Evidence Challenging Evolution"

Your post #374
"And MM didn't *show* that the speed of light was constant. The null result was 'interpreted' to mean that the speed of light was the same in all reference frames. It could also be interpreted as showing that the earth is not moving."

Because GPS won't function without relativity the Michelson–Morley experiment (MM) is not a hint for non moving earth.


"You are the one posting strawmen."

In opposite to you I tried to answer your question or disprove some of your unverified claims. To disprove the one above is easy. Just read my posts in this thread.

You posted "Airey's failure" at #336. Real nonsense physics as I have shown.

You abused Ernst Mach at post #374 because you don't understood him.

You still failed to answer why you think a Foucault pendulum or any other gyroscope seems to move. But I think you dislike that track.


Have a nice weekend!
391 posted on 03/23/2007 1:04:36 PM PDT by MHalblaub ("Easy my friends, when it comes to the point it is only a drawing made by a non believing Dane...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 390 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
What amazes me is how similar evolutionists and Socialists really are. Both want to be able to define their own narrow set of "facts" as the "only" truth, and then rule everything else out of bounds.

Yes, and to support your point, here is a quote from Julian Huxley, the famous darwinian eugenicist and author of Evolution: The Modern Synthesis:

The probable result will be that in the Socialized State the relation between religion and science will gradually cease to be one of conflict and will become one of cooperation. Science will be called on to advise what expressions of the religious impulse are intellectually permissible and socially desirable, if that impulse is to be properly integrated with other human activities and harnessed to take its share in pulling the chariot of man's destiny along the path of progress.

Julian Huxley, Religion as an Objective Problem.


392 posted on 04/12/2007 3:48:53 AM PDT by Ethan Clive Osgoode
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 201-250251-300301-350351-392 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson