Posted on 08/25/2008 7:26:38 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
The only thing missing is an observation made to me when someone saw I saved several “letters to the editor” I had published in various newspapers.......
“Only cranks write in letters to the editor!”
(in my defense several were to correct blatant errors such as a legislator who opposed “Black History Month” on the grounds that it “separated people based upon genetic and chromosomal differences”; couldn't let that one stand.)
Welcome to FR! U R fun.
Can't have that now can we GDan? Why it might even mean that the Earth (a small object) circles the Sun (a large object)! GDan doesn't seem to like that! It seems like the Earth has to be the center and the Sun has to circle it for all to be right in GDan world.
So you propose electromagnetism as the “ruling force” that offsets this huge gravitational disparity and makes the Sun circle the Earth? Last time it was the ‘gravity of the other planets and the rest of the universe’. I guess you abandoned that one when I laughed, showed you the equation for gravity and did the calculations that showed everything else was too small and/or too far away to counteract the calculated force that the Sun exerts upon the Earth.
So now it is “strong electric currents in plasma”? How strong?
No, it means that there may be forces other than gravity that produce synchrotron radiation in the universe (namely electricity) and that black holes are merely mathematical constructs. I know that's difficult to grasp.
"So you propose electromagnetism as the “ruling force” that offsets this huge gravitational disparity and makes the Sun circle the Earth? Last time it was the ‘gravity of the other planets and the rest of the universe’. I guess you abandoned that one when I laughed, showed you the equation for gravity and did the calculations that showed everything else was too small and/or too far away to counteract the calculated force that the Sun exerts upon the Earth."
No, you merely misrepresent (or cannot understand) what I wrote then or what I wrote just now.
I abandoned my belief in a 'kinetic earth' after finding that eminent scientists such as Einstein, Hoyle, Born and Ellis all understood that geocentrism is an equally valid way of looking at the evidence, leaving no reason to accept the words of men over the clear geocentrism in the Word of God.
“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 Corpenicus 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
And yet they do. I guess there's one reliable constant in science.
So then, what force offsets the gravitational force that the Sun exerts upon the Earth such that the reality is turned on its head and the massive object of the Sun is brought under the sway of the relatively tiny object of the Earth?
If gravity isn’t the “ruling force” what force offsets it such that it would make the Sun circle the Earth?
Saying I don’t understand what you never explained is the only gambit you advance when questioned on this.
One of my Bibles has neat icons printed in it but it does not have cool pictures of Jesus riding around on dinosaurs! Even when I was in Sunday School, we didn’t have coloring books of Bible characters frolicking with dinosaurs. And my childhood was many years ago, the earth was much younger then and we were closer to the days of the dinosaur than we are now. Still, no Jesus and dinosaur pictures. Seriously, somewhere there is a child who is fearful of going to hell because he cannot believe that dinosaurs were roaming the earth during Roman times, and this and other peculiar things are all his “church” teaches.
If you won't accept the words of Einstein, Hoyle, Born and Ellis; you won't accept anything from me.
Proverbs 27:22
Fallacy: false dichotomy.
Jer. 5:21 “Hear ye, I pray you, this, O people, foolish and without heart, Eyes they have, and they see not, Ears they have, and they hear not.”
Gravity likely is an electro-magnetic phenomenon.
That is why Mercury is assumed to have such a large iron core. That assumption is required to account for Mercury's orbital behavior given it's small size. Alternatively, it may be the strong magnetic fields near the sun that cause the effect.
Likewise, the anomalously high orbital speed of stars in galactic arms, which must be accounted for by invoking huge amounts of invisible 'matter' to make the standard gravitational model 'work'.
Who knows if Humphreys' White Hole Cosmology is true. But what it does do is demonstrate that it is at least theoretically possible for the Earth to be young and the Universe to be old, and yet owe their existence to the same creation event. Having said that, the thought carried in the last line of what follows is nothing short of sublime:
Here is a simple comparison between the Big Bang and White Hole Cosmologies.
| Bounded | + | Relativity | = | Young Earth Theory. |
| Unbounded | + | Relativity | = | Big Bang Theory. |
The basics of this theory are scientifically sound. If the universe is bounded, clock rates must be different and if the universe was much smaller in the past, clock rates were very different. Time dilation allows plenty of time in deep space for other physical processes to occur, such as most of the theoretical stellar life cycles of galactic collisions and galactic wind-up.
Essentially God used relativity to let us see a young universe...
Perhaps we have identified your mistake.
I never said that geocentrism was MORE valid. As you, Einstein, Hoyle, Born and Ellis note, it is EQUALLY valid. Geocentrism is EQUAL to 'geokineticism'. EQUAL.
As I noted in my previous post, I have no reason to accept the pronouncements of men over the Word of God in this area and choose not to. You choose the opposite. That's fine w/ me.
Wow! Instant demonization by association with Communism! (Of course, anyone educated enough to see these crank theories is a Communist!) That's an automatic +15! GodGunsGuts takes a definitive lead with 65 points! Yeehaw!
Yeah, the same result as a VSL.
So what force acts upon the Sun to drag it around the Earth while leaving the nearby Earth absolutely untouched?
How strong is it? How is it generated? How does it avoid acting upon the Earth?
If your model is “equally valid” then no doubt you should have an explanation for this. The “equally valid” coordinate system that has the Earth circle the Sun has an explanation.
Force of Gravity = (mass one)(mass two)(G)/d ^2
It seems to have the explanatory power that your Geocentric model is completely lacking.
What was your previous screen name?
What part of the Word of God necessitates a Geocentric universe? Once again you have failed to provide substantiation.
Me neither. I think the 6000 year-old universe idea has appeal to people who follow Darby's ideas (made popular in the Scofield Bible and later, in the "Left Behind" novels) that Jesus will set up an earthly kingdom for 1000 years at the end of which the old universe will be destroyed. This idea makes much use of numerology - 7 is the "perfect" number, Christ will rule the earth for a literal 1000 years, the earth existed for 6000 years before that, therefore, God "has" to destroy the old universe and create a new one after 7000 years. So if you want a neat system where everything "fits" and you have a thing for numerology and your faith demands that every obscure matter be explained in great detail, this has great appeal. If you think the earth is very old, you are questioning the timeline of what God "must" do next according to this system of numerology. Thus Christianity is reduced to something little more than astrology.
Looks like Cranky got his wings clipped.
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.