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

To: PatrickHenry

Except that Copernican theory requires a parallax, a phenomenon whereby a star seems to shift in position as the Earth moves. Kind of like if I were to hold up a ball directly in front of my face and you were to stand on my left--the ball would obscure my right ear; if you then shifted positions to my right (as the Earth might in orbit) the ball would obscure my left ear. Stars would, in the Copernican model, shift in relation to other stars. Distance also works into the equation--if the Earth is moving, the distance would change, however minutely.

It is OK to call it a fact--the Earth revolves around the Sun. There will not be any other evidence that shows otherwise, unless we get into wormholes or quantum theory or some other such discussion. Satellites revolve. Are you telling me that we can't have any other experiments to set as FACT or LAW that the Earth revolves, and so thus it is a "theory"?
Mind you, I don't dispute the definition of a theory--I don't confuse it with hypothesis. But you are saying that it is supported by evidence and makes useful predictions but is not conclusively proven? Forgive me if I sound incredulous, but I fail to understand your argument--the Earth has been "evidenced" to revolve around the Sun, not "proven"? Please clarify...


588 posted on 01/24/2006 4:34:15 PM PST by jcb8199
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 424 | View Replies ]


To: jcb8199
It is OK to call it a fact--the Earth revolves around the Sun.

Strictly speaking from my own point of view as an observer the earth does no such thing. That, too, is a fact. The statement applies as a "fact" depending upon one's conception of the relative bodies. Does that mean more than one fact can govern a particular phenomenon? Not necessarily. But the phenomenon may be described factually from more than one point of view with astonishing differences between them.

The leads to the philosophical consideration that the correlation between positive statements and objective reality - the concept of "fact" - is dependent upon both the observer and what resides outside of the observer. At what point does a positive statement merit the status of "fact?"

I can accept both statements as fact: The Sun rises. The Earth revolves. Is one of these statements more factual than the other? From an experiential standpoint the former is by far more obvious. From the standpoint of indirect evidence I am experiencing, and objectively viewing, a result of the Earth's revolution.

590 posted on 01/24/2006 5:10:36 PM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 588 | View Replies ]

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