Sun's Movement Through Milky Way... Comets Hurtling...Life Extinctions

Science Daily ^ | 5-2-2008 | Cardiff University

[GourmetDan]

"But the moon does rotate. It’s that it’s rotation is geosynchronous with the earth. If it didn’t we’d see its other side."

No, you assume that it rotates because you assume that the universe does not.

The point being that the guy basing his rotating earth argument on Occam's Razor now has more assumptions in his model and therefore can't use Occam's Razor as an argument.

[Huber]

YouTube Video Explains 'Global Warming' Like it or not, we are all in God's hands.

Off topic. The article was not about global warming or atheistic scientism.

[GourmetDan]

"Off topic. The article was not about global warming or atheistic scientism."

Scientism is, by definition, atheistic.

[Huber]

“Days of Future Passed”. It still sounds pretty good after all these years!

[Huber]

Scientism is, by definition, atheistic.

Agreed, the modifier was probably unnecessary. However the article was science, (in terms of research, analysis and a theory) not scientism.

[GourmetDan]

"Agreed, the modifier was probably unnecessary. However the article was science, (in terms of research, analysis and a theory) not scientism."

You're the one who correctly but inadvertently invoked scientism.

Not me.

[fr_freak]

But the moon does rotate. It’s that it’s rotation is geosynchronous with the earth. If it didn’t we’d see its other side.

I don't think that is correct. The moon does not rotate. If it did, we would see the other side of the moon regularly. It does orbit the earth, but it is not in geo-synchronous orbit. If it were, only the people on the part of the earth that the moon follows would ever be able to see it, and it would be visible 24/7 (except during an eclipse).

[Quix]

Thanks for the ping

[PreciousLiberty]

“OK, so how is assuming that there is no difference between the earth and rotating bodies we observe less an assumption than assuming that there is a difference between the earth and the rotating bodies we observe and therefore an argument for Occam’s Razor?”

It wasn’t “less of an assumption”, however it was a simplifying assumption.

BTW, one of the basic precepts of all science is that there are no “special” places in the Universe where things work differently than elsewhere. It would take a lot of good evidence to overturn that one. Occams Razor also applies there.

“What about objects that aren’t observed to rotate, like the moon. You assume they do rotate even though they appear not to? Where is Occam’s Razor now?”

What do objects that don’t rotate have to do with those that do? (Another poster made the point about the Moon rotating so I’ll leave that alone.)

I made no “assumption” about non-rotating bodies rotating... I was simply speaking of the numerous rotating bodies we do observe.

[PreciousLiberty]

“I don’t think that is correct. The moon does not rotate.”

Yes it does, as any basic astronomy text would tell you.

“If it did, we would see the other side of the moon regularly.”

No, if it DID NOT rotate we’d see the other side as it orbited the Earth. The Moon is tidally locked and rotates once per orbit, always keeping the same side facing the Earth.

I hope that cleared things up for you. If not:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon#Two_sides_of_the_Moon

[RightWhale]

LOL

[fr_freak]

“I don’t think that is correct. The moon does not rotate.”

Yes it does, as any basic astronomy text would tell you.

“If it did, we would see the other side of the moon regularly.”

No, if it DID NOT rotate we’d see the other side as it orbited the Earth. The Moon is tidally locked and rotates once per orbit, always keeping the same side facing the Earth.

I stand corrected. From what I gather on the wikipedia page (good write-up, by the way), they are defining rotation as movement about the moon's axis, which, I'm sure is the correct astronomical definition. However, relative to the Earth, the moon does not rotate, which is what I was trying to say.

[RightWhale]

Not so. Math is real, that is, not a matter of opinion..

[RightWhale]

Where is Occam’s Razor now?”

Ockham never actually enunciated the Principle of Parsimony and it wouldn't apply to the empirical anyway.

[GourmetDan]

"BTW, one of the basic precepts of all science is that there are no “special” places in the Universe where things work differently than elsewhere. It would take a lot of good evidence to overturn that one. Occams Razor also applies there."

This may be where you are having the problem. You think that there are fewer assumptions in a rotating earth model than in a rotating universe model. There are not and Occam's Razor does not apply.

You assume that the moon rotates because you assume that the universe does not. I observe that the universe rotates and observe that the moon does not.

There are fewer assumptions in a rotating universe model and Occam's Razor cannot be used as an argument in favor of a rotating earth.

[Yollopoliuhqui]

How many other moons are “tidally locked” with their parent bodies? What are the chances that a captured body would have the precise trajectory and rotation to become captured and tidally locked? Why is the Earth and all other planets not tidally locked with the sun?

[GourmetDan]

"However, relative to the Earth, the moon does not rotate, which is what I was trying to say."

Well, that's the whole of the argument. What standard of fixity will be used, the earth or the universe? That the universe does not rotate is an assumption that the astronomers make, not an observation.

The result of this assumption is the conclusion that the moon rotates once per orbit. If the universe is rotating, then the moon does not, as you note.

[onedoug]

Imagine your head is Earth and semi-circle your hand from one side to the other. If it wasn’t rotating you’d see each side with 1/4 rotation.

[Salamander]

[onedoug]

Sorry, fr_f: "Geosynchronous" is the wrong term. However, I'm sure I'm right overall. This is from Encyclopaedia Britannica 1970: "The moon always presents nearly the same face to the earth, from which it follows that, when referred to a fixed direction in space, it revolves on its axis in the same time in which it performs its revolution." (emphases mine)

Sorry for the confusion.