Posted on 03/13/2007 12:35:30 PM PDT by truthfinder9
I wonder if the Earth had a greater eccentricity of orbit, if thinkers of old would have been able to figure out astronomical truths sooner?
Since the KJV came out in 1611 it's no WONDER they weren't used!
I cannot remember correctly the problem that led to some spacecraft missing the target some years ago.
(I can't even find it on Google® 'cause I really don't know what to search for!)
Anyway, there was a comma instead of a decimal point, or metric measurment where an English system was expected. Some thing that our eyes, when doing multiple error checkings, never notice, for it is right in front of us.
Do you remember the incident?
Something we ALL can agree on!! ;^)
In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. So what is the bible anyway?
Simple: The other side says...
and it gets engraved in stone.
And then later, in smal print says, "Uh, we changed how it works."
At the rate we're going; it'll be WHEN!
Well guess what bucko. The stars also shift if they are centered on the sun and the sun orbits the earth. They also exhibit parallax if they are centered on the sun.
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.
If the stars were centered on the earth, there could be no gravitational offset from the universe's annual wobble and the gravity of the sun would not be offset. Parallax is the evidence that the stars are centered on the sun and the gravitational offset is generated by the annual wobble of the universe's rotation.
Capiche?
You have it backwards. In a geocentric model, so-called fititious or pseudo forces are generated naturally. It is GR that is forced to call them fictitious or psuedo forces, not geocentricity.
"You can stay with your geocentric model but I won't believe you'll be satisfied to calculate a flight to the moon properly with your physical laws."
Your ignorance is astounding. Geocentric models are used to calculate moon flights. The only time the sun is used is for interplanetary flights. Educate yourself.
"Einstein and Infield were talking about a mathematical trick."
Wrong again. They are talking about the foundation of GR. CS are interchangeable by definition.
Mars??
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1801589/posts
Around #75
I gotcha.
Since I can find words in my alphabits, that means that the encyclopedia is no more authoritative than my bowl of cereal.
No, they're not . . . unless you mean something *very* different by 'geocentric/heliocentric'.
'Geocentric' doesn't mean that you only use the earch in calculations . . . this is your error here, I see it now.
What do you think heliocentric means?
Of course not. The word I used was "confined". And the use was in response to the apparent contention that God's creation (the word of God writ large, if you will) is somehow not the "word" of God.
I find it peculiar that a certain sect of Christianity views scripture as somehow separate and apart from the physical world, adopting a kind of Biblical idolatry. God did not "speak" once and calcify his "word" between the covers of a book.
So what is the bible anyway?
A small, if important, piece of the puzzle.
Bwahahahahaha! OMG. This I need to share with some of my colleagues.
Thanks. I really needed the laugh this morning. :-)
Astronomer humor?!
:-D
So what are you saying? You don't get people that believe the bible is the Word of God, inspired and without error and that it contains an immeasurable wealth of truth that applies to all of life?
ping
The same applies for even a perfectly circular orbit (degenerate ellipse). It will still take that extra tiny bit of rotation for the body (Sun) being orbited to be in the same spot (noon) as apposed to the exact 360-degree rotation referenced to a "fixed" distant location (star/Vernal Equinox).
For the earth this comes out to about a 4-min/day difference.
Oh yes! The heliocentric model was proposed long ago. The primary reason it got shot down was the instruments of the time could not resolve the parallax.
Even thousands of years ago they knew parallax was one of the requirements for a heliocentric solar system.
Here's some more fun for you.
(N. M. Smerdlow and Otto Neugebauer, Mathematical Astronomy in Copernicus's De Revolutionibus, 1984).
"It has often been said that the Copernican heliocentric theory was superior to the Ptolemaic theory because it was simpler. However, Smerdlow and Neugebauer observe: "Anyone who thinks that Copernican theory is "simpler" than Ptolemaic theory has never looked at Book III of De revolutionibus. In a geocentric system the earth is at rest -- as indeed it appears to be -- and any apparent motions in the heavens that we know to result from its motions are distributed among a number of objects, i.e. the sun, the individual planets, the sphere of the fixed stars, everything in its proper place as it actually appears. But when Copernicus worked through the consequences of his own theory, he had to attribute to the earth no less than three fundamental motions and a number of secondary motions. That all these compounded motions forced upon a single and, to all appearances, quiescent body seemed implausible to his contemporaries is not to be wondered at, especially because the end result was nothing other than reproducing the same apparent motions in the heavens that had been accounted for all along (and without making assumptions that contradicted contemporary natural philosophy, common sense, and the most casual or most meticulous observations then possible of the behavior of the earth and of objects on or near its surface)." (Smerdlow and Neugebauer, ibid., p. 127.)
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.