Skip to comments.
Saudi Cleric: The Sun Revolves Around the Earth
Washington FRee Beacon ^
| 18 February 2015
| Adam Kredo
Posted on 02/18/2015 5:21:30 AM PST by jda
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-46 next last
A Saudi cleric is garnering headlines for declaring that the sun revolves around the Earth, a clear rejection of all scientific evidence. There you have it - we have been wrong all these years!
Kind of funny - these people can't figure out running water, yet they tell us the way things are and want to rule the world and if we disagree, regardless of the facts, we're liable to be beheaded.
1
posted on
02/18/2015 5:21:30 AM PST
by
jda
To: jda
The Erf revolves around Mad Mo’.
2
posted on
02/18/2015 5:25:39 AM PST
by
Paladin2
To: jda
3
posted on
02/18/2015 5:26:16 AM PST
by
Iron Munro
(Mark Steyn: “fundamentally transformed” is a euphemism for “wrecked beyond repair.”)
To: jda
And to think according to The Messiah, The Great Zero, we need to welcome muslime contributions to space exploration and the sciences. . .and towards that end NASA has a muslime out-reach effort.
Yup. . .they've added much. . .
4
posted on
02/18/2015 5:28:45 AM PST
by
Hulka
To: Iron Munro
I can definitely see where this thread is headed!
LOL!
5
posted on
02/18/2015 5:29:16 AM PST
by
Jack Hydrazine
(Pubbies = national collectivists; Dems = international collectivists; We need a second party!)
To: jda
All motion is relative. To state that the sun is the stationary point in your frame of reference around which the earth revolves, or that the earth is the stationary point around which the sun revolves are entirely equivalent.
Neither is true, and neither is false.
The only thing that is true is that the math that describes the motion of the earth, when you make the sun the stationary point of your frame of reference, is simpler than the math that describes the motion of the sun, when you make the earth the stationary point of your frame of reference.
6
posted on
02/18/2015 5:30:09 AM PST
by
jdege
To: jda
Yes but what is his position on evolution?
To: jda
Get out the popcorn! When the “settled science” people chime in on this, it could get interesting!
8
posted on
02/18/2015 5:34:36 AM PST
by
knittnmom
(Save the earth! It's the only planet with chocolate!)
To: jda
Another great scientific breakthrough by the developers of the Bomb Belt and the Blazing Inferno Cage.
9
posted on
02/18/2015 5:35:21 AM PST
by
Iron Munro
(Mark Steyn: “fundamentally transformed” is a euphemism for “wrecked beyond repair.”)
To: jdege
All motion is relative. To state that the sun is the stationary point in your frame of reference around which the earth revolves, or that the earth is the stationary point around which the sun revolves are entirely equivalent. If I'm wrong, I'm sure someone will come along to correct me. But I don't think the above statement is correct. All motion is relative in inertial reference frames, but the Sun-Earth system is not an inertial reference frame due to the centripetal acceleration.
I think the only correct (physics) way to look at it is to say that the Sun and the Earth both orbit about their combined center of mass, which is located inside the Sun, because the Sun is so big.
Again, if I'm wrong I hope someone corrects me.
10
posted on
02/18/2015 5:39:11 AM PST
by
Leaning Right
(Why am I holding this lantern? I am looking for the next Reagan.)
To: jdege
The only thing that is true is that the math that describes the motion of the earth, when you make the sun the stationary point of your frame of reference, is simpler than the math that describes the motion of the sun, when you make the earth the stationary point of your frame of reference. Imagine the mathematical gymnastics required to describe the motion of the other planets in a geocentric solar system.
(or would it be a terra system?)
11
posted on
02/18/2015 5:42:39 AM PST
by
Iron Munro
(Mark Steyn: “fundamentally transformed” is a euphemism for “wrecked beyond repair.”)
To: jda
There is no fixed points in space. The sun is the best frame of reference for Earth though.
12
posted on
02/18/2015 5:43:03 AM PST
by
Bogey78O
(We had a good run. Coulda been great still.)
To: jdege
Quite so.
Good brevity while being entirely apt.
13
posted on
02/18/2015 5:43:52 AM PST
by
Bogey78O
(We had a good run. Coulda been great still.)
To: jda
Well bear in mind he also thinks its OK to marry 6 year old girls.
14
posted on
02/18/2015 5:58:01 AM PST
by
Georgia Girl 2
(The only purpose o f a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
To: Leaning Right
I think the only correct (physics) way to look at it is to say that the Sun and the Earth both orbit about their combined center of mass, which is located inside the Sun, because the Sun is so big. That at the smaller scale, but add to that the Sun is also orbiting the center of the Milky Way Galaxy, which itself is moving...
To: jdege
To state that the sun is the stationary point in your frame of reference around which the earth revolves, or that the earth is the stationary point around which the sun revolves are entirely equivalent. You must have gone to the same school of higher scientific knowledge as the cleric.
What you say is true, as long as you're only talking about the sun and earth - if you observe the sun from the earth, it appears that the sun is revolving around the earth, and vice versa. BUT, when you take into account the movement of the other planets, it is irrefutably clear (unless you deny the scientific method and rely on religious tradition) that the earth (and other planets) revolve around the sun.
16
posted on
02/18/2015 6:12:28 AM PST
by
jda
("Righteousness exalts a nation . . .")
To: 5thGenTexan
17
posted on
02/18/2015 6:12:54 AM PST
by
Alas Babylon!
(As we say in the Air Force, "You know you're over the target when you start getting flak!")
To: jda; jdege
To state that the sun is the stationary point in your frame of reference around which the earth revolves, or that the earth is the stationary point around which the sun revolves are entirely equivalent. I believe jdege is wrong about that (my post #10), but do not be too hard on him. For although I think it's wrong, the above statement is actually a very close approximation to reality!
And that's because the centripetal acceleration of the Sun-Earth system is small, so small that if you take it to be zero your science won't be off by much. So jdege's statement is very close to being correct.
I'm a chemist by training, not an astrophysicist. So if I'm wrong here, I hope someone corrects me.
18
posted on
02/18/2015 6:25:05 AM PST
by
Leaning Right
(Why am I holding this lantern? I am looking for the next Reagan.)
To: Leaning Right
“Again, if I’m wrong I hope someone corrects me.”
You almost got it correct, because the Sun and all other bodies of mass (planetary bodies, asteroids, comets, meteors, dust gas) in the Solar System orbit around their common barycenter of mutual gravitational attraction, which happens to be located within the Sun due to the Sun’s overwhelmingly greater proportion of mass versus the other matter in the Solar System.
19
posted on
02/18/2015 6:28:02 AM PST
by
WhiskeyX
To: WhiskeyX
Thanks for the reply. It's too early to look anything up, so in post #18 I just took a guess about the effect of centripetal acceleration. Your opinion?
20
posted on
02/18/2015 6:35:10 AM PST
by
Leaning Right
(Why am I holding this lantern? I am looking for the next Reagan.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-46 next 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson