OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 27, 2014, 03:12:06 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: The Cosmos?  (Read 8104 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 9,485



« Reply #135 on: July 13, 2013, 04:06:19 PM »

While I disagree, and frankly do so strongly, this is not the point. What I was responding to mostly was this idea that atheists were somehow painted into a corner and "the only way left to them" was to postulate multiple universes. A quick google search brings up a dozen or more different answers to the fine tuning argument. And most atheists don't even worry about it. Hence my reference to a straw man. My point is not that atheists are right, merely that they aren't being represented fairly.
Sorry, I'm confused, you disagree with me or with the atheist argument?

I do agree that atheists are not "painted into a corner".  There are many responses to the fine tuned argument, some better and some worse, which is why I don't necessarily find the "proofs" for or against God to be all the beneficial or helpful.  There is no set of premises that can be established that both sides would agree to.
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
xariskai
юродивый/yurodivy
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,437


יהוה עזי ומגני


« Reply #136 on: July 13, 2013, 04:23:22 PM »

While I disagree, and frankly do so strongly, this is not the point. What I was responding to mostly was this idea that atheists were somehow painted into a corner and "the only way left to them" was to postulate multiple universes.
The arguments presented in academic contexts fall into two classes: those arguing from a premise of one universe, and those positing multiple universes. The point of the article is regarding the difficulties for a single universe premise and/or models positing a finite number of alternate universes.
« Last Edit: July 13, 2013, 04:29:18 PM by xariskai » Logged

Silly Stars
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #137 on: July 13, 2013, 06:13:23 PM »

My point is not that atheists are right, merely that they aren't being represented fairly.

Chris Hedges analyzes the trend of aggressive atheism which echoes the worst aspects of the religious far right and shares its fascist politics. 
This movement does not represent all atheists, but it does a have disproportionate representation in media that squelches the views of both moderate atheists as well as religious people whom it stigmatizes.

'I Don't Believe in Atheists'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXG4WJ1GKr4
Logged
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #138 on: July 13, 2013, 06:28:50 PM »

My point is not that atheists are right, merely that they aren't being represented fairly.

Indeed.  Writers like Jean Paul Sartre are underrepresented while voice is given to rogues like Christopher Hitchens. 
I consider it unfortunate that Sartre was an atheist, but I respect much of what he said. 

As to Christopher Hitchens, at least he was consistent.
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #139 on: July 15, 2013, 09:58:18 PM »

Contemporary thinkers who remain atheists attempt to escape this conundrum in the only way left to them: they postulate a hypothetical infinite number of unobservable universes from which a highly ordered one could have been a random occurrence. Contemporary atheism is thus forced to argue for the actuality of an essentially zero-probability event by postulating something in principle unobservable (non-scientific/metaphysical).

I was going to tell you to stop knocking down straw men, but maybe you are just unaware of what many atheists say. Something like: "The universe is here. Life is here. That's great. Problem solves itself. Who says we need to explain why we are lucky enough to be here? The universe is the way it is, who decided that there had to be some mystical reason that it was exactly this way? Because it's unlikely? So what? The universe makes our type of life possible, and perhaps probable, and voila, we're here. If it wasn't possible we wouldn't be here. No need to assume some magic reason for any of this."
The problem I see that that argument, and I've heard it many times, is that if I were to roll a 6 sided die 1000 times and it always came up 6, I could say "Well that is the way it happened, that is great, there is no need to explain why that happened and no further investigation is needed.  It was the way it was and there is no other explanation needed". Or, I could say: "I wonder if this die is weighted, or perhaps every side of the die has a 6 on it.  Perhaps, I should inspect this die a bit more closer".  Some atheists do this, and they resolve the problem by postulating a multi-verse in which there are an infinite number of universes and we just happen to be in one that was randomly good enough to sustain life and for the physical laws to work consistently.  I can respect that position; it is at least an attempt to explain even if it is just a hypothesis, but to put blinders on and say there is no reason to try and understand the "why" seems the very antithesis of the scientific method that they love to trumpet.
The problem with the multiverse is that other universes are beyond our ability to observe and test their existence. But if science is supposed to organize knowledge by observation and testable explanations, then the untestable multiverse theories would be more in the line of mythology and not science.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,365


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #140 on: July 15, 2013, 10:01:13 PM »


I consider it unfortunate that Sartre was an atheist, but I respect much of what he said. 


I'll give Sartre this. He consistently lived and spoke about atheism. He and Nietchze (always misspell that) are what I consider real atheists.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
davillas
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 89



« Reply #141 on: August 21, 2013, 08:05:02 PM »

This is an interesting video about the geocentric universe :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYClYUEVeg0

"People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations. For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations. 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." - George Ellis
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,365


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #142 on: August 21, 2013, 08:46:25 PM »

This is an interesting video about the geocentric universe :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYClYUEVeg0

"People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations. For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations. 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." - George Ellis

We do that a lot in science without realizing it.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #143 on: August 21, 2013, 09:19:49 PM »

This is an interesting video about the geocentric universe :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYClYUEVeg0

"People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations. For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations. 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." - George Ellis
What the geocentric people forget to mention are the gravitational forces in play. Also, under geocentrism, it would mean that all the stars and galaxies rotate about the earth in a 24 hour period.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,365


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #144 on: August 21, 2013, 09:25:21 PM »

This is an interesting video about the geocentric universe :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYClYUEVeg0

"People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations. For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations. 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." - George Ellis
What the geocentric people forget to mention are the gravitational forces in play. Also, under geocentrism, it would mean that all the stars and galaxies rotate about the earth in a 24 hour period.
That I am a geocentricist (I most certainly am not) but can you explain to me what a gravitational force is? We do not know that there are any such things. We only know that objects move in a uniform way according to the inverse square law. We come up with the idea of "forces" in order to explain that movement.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
davillas
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 89



« Reply #145 on: August 21, 2013, 09:29:25 PM »

What the geocentric people forget to mention are the gravitational forces in play. Also, under geocentrism, it would mean that all the stars and galaxies rotate about the earth in a 24 hour period.

Strange ! I thought that people who were quoted in the video know something about astronomy.  Smiley
If they say there is no evidence to reject such a model, why do you think they never thought about these things ?

Here is George Ellis`s profile from wikipedia :

George Francis Rayner Ellis, FRS, Hon. FRSSAf, (born 11 August 1939), is the Emeritus Distinguished Professor of Complex Systems in the Department of Mathematics and Applied Mathematics at the University of Cape Town in South Africa. He co-authored The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time with University of Cambridge physicist Stephen Hawking, published in 1973, and is considered one of the world's leading theorists in cosmology.
« Last Edit: August 21, 2013, 09:35:01 PM by davillas » Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #146 on: August 21, 2013, 09:36:33 PM »

...can you explain to me what a gravitational force is? We do not know that there are any such things. We only know that objects move in a uniform way according to the inverse square law. We come up with the idea of "forces" in order to explain that movement.
Gravity is an attractive interaction between massive bodies. We know that it exists since if you throw a basketball up in the air, it will come back down.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,365


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #147 on: August 21, 2013, 09:53:15 PM »

...can you explain to me what a gravitational force is? We do not know that there are any such things. We only know that objects move in a uniform way according to the inverse square law. We come up with the idea of "forces" in order to explain that movement.
Gravity is an attractive interaction between massive bodies. We know that it exists since if you throw a basketball up in the air, it will come back down.

No, all we know is that if we throw a ball up in the air, it will come back down according to the inverse square rule. We have no idea why.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
davillas
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 89



« Reply #148 on: August 21, 2013, 10:05:14 PM »


No, all we know is that if we throw a ball up in the air, it will come back down according to the inverse square rule. We have no idea why.

Is the ball coming down or is the Earth moving up ?  Smiley
Logged
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,436



« Reply #149 on: August 21, 2013, 10:09:21 PM »

"People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations. For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations. You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. - George Ellis

I don't think that is true; that is, I don't believe he can construct such a model. One need only go back to Brahe's final attempts at keeping the Ptolemaic model going: he basically laid the earth's orbit as an epicycle on each planet, so they revolved around the sun as it revolved around the earth. That's what you would have to do to make a geocentric model which fit the Newtonian predictions, except that the math is so much harder that I don't that that, in practice, it quickly becomes too complex to actually be calculated. Throwing relativity into the mix only makes it worse.

You can construct a "range of models", but that range is entirely constrained by "producing behavior consistent with relativity and Newtonian mechanics." I doubt that someone can construct geocentric model which produces the same behavior because I think the complexity of substituting the motion of the sun for that of the earth would be too hard to handle in the end. And Ellis, of all people, is probably as qualified as any to give it a try. But I don't think he could make it work.

Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,365


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #150 on: August 21, 2013, 10:13:16 PM »


No, all we know is that if we throw a ball up in the air, it will come back down according to the inverse square rule. We have no idea why.

Is the ball coming down or is the Earth moving up ?  Smiley

Or do objects move towards one another from some other mechanism that is not "A force." In fact, many philosophers of science object to the use of the term "force" because it comes from anthropomorphizing thinking. In fact, Russell believes that the theory that objects move to the location of least possible kinetic energy has just as much explanatory power as the concept of a gravitational force.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #151 on: August 21, 2013, 10:19:49 PM »

...can you explain to me what a gravitational force is? We do not know that there are any such things. We only know that objects move in a uniform way according to the inverse square law. We come up with the idea of "forces" in order to explain that movement.
Gravity is an attractive interaction between massive bodies. We know that it exists since if you throw a basketball up in the air, it will come back down.

No, all we know is that if we throw a ball up in the air, it will come back down according to the inverse square rule. We have no idea why.
??
The modern post Einstein explanation for gravity is that it is curvature in space time caused by massive bodies. According to Newton, force is defined as Mass x acceleration, so even if you postulate that gravity is space time curvature, a basketball thrown up in the air will experience a force given by mg, where g is the acceleration due to gravity on the earth, excluding of course the lesser force of air resistance. 
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #152 on: August 21, 2013, 10:21:49 PM »

"People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations. For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations. You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. - George Ellis

I don't think that is true; that is, I don't believe he can construct such a model. One need only go back to Brahe's final attempts at keeping the Ptolemaic model going: he basically laid the earth's orbit as an epicycle on each planet, so they revolved around the sun as it revolved around the earth. That's what you would have to do to make a geocentric model which fit the Newtonian predictions, except that the math is so much harder that I don't that that, in practice, it quickly becomes too complex to actually be calculated. Throwing relativity into the mix only makes it worse.

You can construct a "range of models", but that range is entirely constrained by "producing behavior consistent with relativity and Newtonian mechanics." I doubt that someone can construct geocentric model which produces the same behavior because I think the complexity of substituting the motion of the sun for that of the earth would be too hard to handle in the end. And Ellis, of all people, is probably as qualified as any to give it a try. But I don't think he could make it work.


Right. You can draw a couple of eccentric curves with the sun and the various planets going around the earth, but this does not take into account the force of gravity.
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #153 on: August 21, 2013, 10:27:22 PM »

That I am a geocentricist (I most certainly am not) but can you explain to me what a gravitational force is? We do not know that there are any such things.
I can prove to you that gravitational force exists. Simply come with me to the top of the empire state building and step forward. I won't try it, since I know that there is a force which will pull you down. I am just as certain that there is a gravitational force as I am sure that the sun will not shine all day long at the equator.
Logged
davillas
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 89



« Reply #154 on: August 21, 2013, 10:32:25 PM »

Oh boy, this reminds me of the " it must be old because otherwise there isn`t enough time for the chemicals to evolve."  Smiley

Such a model certainly changes a lot of things in cosmology. If you ask what makes everything to move then my answer is dark energy.  Grin

Here, i`ve found another interesting quote :

" Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central Earth…This hypothesis cannot be disproved, but it is unwelcome and would only be accepted as a last resort in order to save the phenomena. Therefore we disregard this possibility…. the unwelcome position of a favored location must be avoided at all costs…. such a favored position is intolerable…Therefore, in order to restore homogeneity, and to escape the horror of a unique position…must be compensated by spatial curvature. There seems to be no other escape” - Edwin Hubble
« Last Edit: August 21, 2013, 10:33:28 PM by davillas » Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #155 on: August 21, 2013, 10:43:24 PM »

Oh boy, this reminds me of the " it must be old because otherwise there isn`t enough time for the chemicals to evolve."  Smiley

Such a model certainly changes a lot of things in cosmology. If you ask what makes everything to move then my answer is dark energy.  Grin

Here, i`ve found another interesting quote :

" Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central Earth…This hypothesis cannot be disproved, but it is unwelcome and would only be accepted as a last resort in order to save the phenomena. Therefore we disregard this possibility…. the unwelcome position of a favored location must be avoided at all costs…. such a favored position is intolerable…Therefore, in order to restore homogeneity, and to escape the horror of a unique position…must be compensated by spatial curvature. There seems to be no other escape” - Edwin Hubble
Simple observation shows that there are no known cases anywhere in the universe of large massive objects circling around small light objects.
Logged
davillas
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 89



« Reply #156 on: August 21, 2013, 10:51:23 PM »

And here is Stephen Hawking :

Now at first sight, all this evidence that the universe looks the same whichever direction we look in might seem to suggest there is something special about our place in the universe. In particular, it might seem that if we observe all other galaxies to be moving away from us, then we must be at the center of the universe. There is, however, an alternate explanation: the universe might look the same in every direction as seen from any other galaxy too. This, as we have seen, was Friedmann’s second assumption. We have no scientific evidence for, or against, this assumption. We believe it only on grounds of modesty: it would be most remarkable if the universe looked the same in every direction around us, but not around other points in the universe!

So i don`t understand why we are arguing anymore. If any person wants to read more on this subject here is a nice article :

http://harmoniaphilosophica.wordpress.com/2011/02/11/earth-at-the-center-of-the-universe-2jszrulazj6wq-39/
Logged
davillas
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 89



« Reply #157 on: August 21, 2013, 10:55:16 PM »

Simple observation shows that there are no known cases anywhere in the universe of large massive objects circling around small light objects.

Again, another " it must be old because"...some naturalistic nonsense argument . The theory is that the EARTH IS SPECIAL. You won`t see anything like it anywhere in the universe.
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #158 on: August 21, 2013, 11:08:02 PM »

Simple observation shows that there are no known cases anywhere in the universe of large massive objects circling around small light objects.

Again, another " it must be old because"...some naturalistic nonsense argument . The theory is that the EARTH IS SPECIAL. You won`t see anything like it anywhere in the universe.
A fixed earth would not explain the fact of the  coriolis force of rotation according to which weather systems always rotate counter clockwise in the northern hemisphere and colckwise  in the southern hemisphere.
Logged
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,432



« Reply #159 on: August 21, 2013, 11:09:06 PM »

This is an interesting video about the geocentric universe :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYClYUEVeg0

"People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations. For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations. 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." - George Ellis

OK. I watched it. That quote seems to be conflating at least two passages and I strongly suspect that it is being taken out of context.   Other quotes used have ellipses which would mean, if the person doing the citing is being careful and truthful about the quote, that some words have been left out. That can change the meaning of a supposed "quote" radically.  

The computer simulation of the Sun orbiting the Earth is only a human constructed set of drawings. It does not "prove" anything.  
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
davillas
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 89



« Reply #160 on: August 21, 2013, 11:15:26 PM »



OK. I watched it. That quote seems to be conflating at least two passages and I strongly suspect that it is being taken out of context.   Other quotes used have ellipses which would mean, if the person doing the citing is being careful and truthful about the quote, that some words have been left out. That can change the meaning of a supposed "quote" radically.  

The computer simulation of the Sun orbiting the Earth is only a human constructed set of drawings. It does not "prove" anything.  

I was not talking about the drawings. I did not pointed to what Sir Fred Hoyle and the other one have said. The only thing that interested me was the idea of rejecting the geocentric model on philosophical grounds only. As you see Hawking is saying exactly the same thing : "There is, however, an alternate explanation: the universe might look the same in every direction as seen from any other galaxy too. This, as we have seen, was Friedmann’s second assumption. We have no scientific evidence for, or against, this assumption. We believe it only on grounds of modesty "
Logged
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,432



« Reply #161 on: August 21, 2013, 11:22:02 PM »

What the geocentric people forget to mention are the gravitational forces in play. Also, under geocentrism, it would mean that all the stars and galaxies rotate about the earth in a 24 hour period.

Strange ! I thought that people who were quoted in the video know something about astronomy.  Smiley

From what I know of them, they did or do. (Though that does not prevent them from having unusual ideas or eccentric opinion.  Sir Fred Hoyle for example thought that the fossil archeopteryx was a fake.  But he wasn't a paleontologist, so he was out of his area of expertise).    http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/birds/archaeopteryx.html
 
 The quotes are not complete nor in context and since they say things that sound exceedingly peculiar for astronomers/cosmologists I am dubious as to whether that video is being 1) honest as to what was really written or 2) snipped things to fit what the creator of the video things or 3) they don't really understand what they're quoting.


Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #162 on: August 21, 2013, 11:30:18 PM »



OK. I watched it. That quote seems to be conflating at least two passages and I strongly suspect that it is being taken out of context.   Other quotes used have ellipses which would mean, if the person doing the citing is being careful and truthful about the quote, that some words have been left out. That can change the meaning of a supposed "quote" radically.  

The computer simulation of the Sun orbiting the Earth is only a human constructed set of drawings. It does not "prove" anything.  

I was not talking about the drawings. I did not pointed to what Sir Fred Hoyle and the other one have said. The only thing that interested me was the idea of rejecting the geocentric model on philosophical grounds only. As you see Hawking is saying exactly the same thing : "There is, however, an alternate explanation: the universe might look the same in every direction as seen from any other galaxy too. This, as we have seen, was Friedmann’s second assumption. We have no scientific evidence for, or against, this assumption. We believe it only on grounds of modesty "

The precession of the Foucault pendulum is easily described by the coriolis force of a rotating earth.
Logged
davillas
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 89



« Reply #163 on: August 21, 2013, 11:35:27 PM »



From what I know of them, they did or do. (Though that does not prevent them from having unusual ideas or eccentric opinion.  Sir Fred Hoyle for example thought that the fossil archeopteryx was a fake.  But he wasn't a paleontologist, so he was out of his area of expertise).    http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/birds/archaeopteryx.html
 
 The quotes are not complete nor in context and since they say things that sound exceedingly peculiar for astronomers/cosmologists I am dubious as to whether that video is being 1) honest as to what was really written or 2) snipped things to fit what the creator of the video things or 3) they don't really understand what they're quoting.




You know, when you find a quote or a part of a quote on internet you can put the words on Google and see if you can find it somewhere else. So go to Google and write George Ellis Geocentrism or put a part of the quote on Google and search for results. I don`t undestand why you express your doubts about the maker of the video before doing that.

http://www.chemistrydaily.com/chemistry/Geocentric_model

I agree that Fred Hoyle was an excentric individual but that doesn`t mean he didn`t understood astronomy.
Logged
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,432



« Reply #164 on: August 21, 2013, 11:48:05 PM »

And here is Stephen Hawking :

Now at first sight, all this evidence that the universe looks the same whichever direction we look in might seem to suggest there is something special about our place in the universe. In particular, it might seem that if we observe all other galaxies to be moving away from us, then we must be at the center of the universe. There is, however, an alternate explanation: the universe might look the same in every direction as seen from any other galaxy too. This, as we have seen, was Friedmann’s second assumption. We have no scientific evidence for, or against, this assumption. We believe it only on grounds of modesty: it would be most remarkable if the universe looked the same in every direction around us, but not around other points in the universe!

So i don`t understand why we are arguing anymore. If any person wants to read more on this subject here is a nice article :

http://harmoniaphilosophica.wordpress.com/2011/02/11/earth-at-the-center-of-the-universe-2jszrulazj6wq-39/

The quote is incomplete, lacking context and the "citation" in the long article "(10)" doesn't for me go to a place where there is an actual source given.  Do you really think that the scientists think that the Sun really is orbiting this planet every 24 hours?  

I apologize for being blunt by the way, but Dr. Gerardus Bouw is not in the same class as Sir Fred, or Dr.s Hubble and Hawking.
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,436



« Reply #165 on: August 21, 2013, 11:56:09 PM »

The only thing that interested me was the idea of rejecting the geocentric model on philosophical grounds only.

They say that, but as I said above, I don't think it's really true. I don't think anyone can handle the mathematics of making a geocentric model imitate the behavior that a relativistic/Newtonian model produces. In the standard model, a spot on the earth takes a quite complex path summing the resultant motion of the galaxies, the sun within the galaxy, the earth around the sun, the rotation of the earth, and the precession of the poles; superimposing the inverse of that motion on everything else, when every other celestial body is following its own path due to the same principles, is too complex to compute; and needlessly so to boot. In practice such an attempt would have to calculate the earth's path as if it moved, and then invert that motion to add to everything else, because that's the only model we actually have.
Logged
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,432



« Reply #166 on: August 21, 2013, 11:57:32 PM »



From what I know of them, they did or do. (Though that does not prevent them from having unusual ideas or eccentric opinion.  Sir Fred Hoyle for example thought that the fossil archeopteryx was a fake.  But he wasn't a paleontologist, so he was out of his area of expertise).    http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/birds/archaeopteryx.html
 
 The quotes are not complete nor in context and since they say things that sound exceedingly peculiar for astronomers/cosmologists I am dubious as to whether that video is being 1) honest as to what was really written or 2) snipped things to fit what the creator of the video things or 3) they don't really understand what they're quoting.




You know, when you find a quote or a part of a quote on internet you can put the words on Google and see if you can find it somewhere else. So go to Google and write George Ellis Geocentrism or put a part of the quote on Google and search for results. I don`t undestand why you express your doubts about the maker of the video before doing that.

http://www.chemistrydaily.com/chemistry/Geocentric_model

I agree that Fred Hoyle was an excentric individual but that doesn`t mean he didn`t understood astronomy.

Indeed.  But I don't think that the creators of the video actually understand the subject.   I doubt the maker because of the the out of context quotes, the pictures that don't really have anything to do with the words being said, the clips taken from other people's work like the ones from Star Trek and what looks like a film about telescopes, and that the simulation of the planets orbiting the Sun are going clock-wise which would be from the south.  

And I assure you that I know about research and finding information.  I've found mangled quotes that others have shaped to their own ends here on OC.net.  But when someone doesn't give a proper citation when they're supposed to be really quoting someone that is also suspicious.
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
davillas
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 89



« Reply #167 on: August 22, 2013, 12:01:45 AM »



The quote is incomplete, lacking context and the "citation" in the long article "(10)" doesn't for me go to a place where there is an actual source given.  Do you really think that the scientists think that the Sun really is orbiting this planet every 24 hours?  

I apologize for being blunt by the way, but Dr. Gerardus Bouw is not in the same class as Sir Fred, or Dr.s Hubble and Hawking.

I didn`t even bothered to remember the name of Dr. Bouw because i`ve never heard of him.  Smiley

The quote is from A brief history of time. Again, if you put a part of the quote on internet you will find the whole book online.
No, i don`t believe they think the Sun is orbiting Earth, on the contrary, but what i am asking is if this is because there is strong evidence to suggest that or because they don`t want the Earth to be considered special ? I mean the idea that the universe might look the same from whatever point in space we look at it. Did we built models of the universe based on that idea ? As you see, Hawking is saying that there is no evidence for or against it.
Logged
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,432



« Reply #168 on: August 22, 2013, 12:08:26 AM »



OK. I watched it. That quote seems to be conflating at least two passages and I strongly suspect that it is being taken out of context.   Other quotes used have ellipses which would mean, if the person doing the citing is being careful and truthful about the quote, that some words have been left out. That can change the meaning of a supposed "quote" radically.  

The computer simulation of the Sun orbiting the Earth is only a human constructed set of drawings. It does not "prove" anything.  

I was not talking about the drawings. I did not pointed to what Sir Fred Hoyle and the other one have said. The only thing that interested me was the idea of rejecting the geocentric model on philosophical grounds only. As you see Hawking is saying exactly the same thing : "There is, however, an alternate explanation: the universe might look the same in every direction as seen from any other galaxy too. This, as we have seen, was Friedmann’s second assumption. We have no scientific evidence for, or against, this assumption. We believe it only on grounds of modesty "


"Now at first sight, all this evidence that the universe looks the same whichever direction we look in might seem to suggest there is something special about our place in the universe. ... There is, however, an alternate explanation:  the universe might look the same in every direction as seen from any other galaxy, too.  ... We have no scientific evidence for, or against this assumption.  We believe it only on grounds of modesty:  it would be most remarkable if the universe looked the same in every direction around us, but not around other points in the universe!"

    S. Hawking, A Brief History of Time, 1988, p 42."
http://www.unm.edu/~hdelaney/ultimate.html

So that gives a citation which can at least then be looked up in the book itself, which I think we have a copy of on the shelves, but it'll take a while to find and it's late right now.  Please note the rest of the final sentence that was left off in the first reference to this passage. I will also note that there is an ellipsis in this one, too.  But at least now the source material can be checked for context and accuracy.


Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
davillas
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 89



« Reply #169 on: August 22, 2013, 12:17:26 AM »



OK. I watched it. That quote seems to be conflating at least two passages and I strongly suspect that it is being taken out of context.   Other quotes used have ellipses which would mean, if the person doing the citing is being careful and truthful about the quote, that some words have been left out. That can change the meaning of a supposed "quote" radically.  

The computer simulation of the Sun orbiting the Earth is only a human constructed set of drawings. It does not "prove" anything.  

I was not talking about the drawings. I did not pointed to what Sir Fred Hoyle and the other one have said. The only thing that interested me was the idea of rejecting the geocentric model on philosophical grounds only. As you see Hawking is saying exactly the same thing : "There is, however, an alternate explanation: the universe might look the same in every direction as seen from any other galaxy too. This, as we have seen, was Friedmann’s second assumption. We have no scientific evidence for, or against, this assumption. We believe it only on grounds of modesty "


"Now at first sight, all this evidence that the universe looks the same whichever direction we look in might seem to suggest there is something special about our place in the universe. ... There is, however, an alternate explanation:  the universe might look the same in every direction as seen from any other galaxy, too.  ... We have no scientific evidence for, or against this assumption.  We believe it only on grounds of modesty:  it would be most remarkable if the universe looked the same in every direction around us, but not around other points in the universe!"

    S. Hawking, A Brief History of Time, 1988, p 42."
http://www.unm.edu/~hdelaney/ultimate.html

So that gives a citation which can at least then be looked up in the book itself, which I think we have a copy of on the shelves, but it'll take a while to find and it's late right now.  Please note the rest of the final sentence that was left off in the first reference to this passage. I will also note that there is an ellipsis in this one, too.  But at least now the source material can be checked for context and accuracy.




http://sqentropy.dyndns.org/ebook/Stephen%20Hawking%20-%20A%20brief%20history%20of%20time/b.html

There are no pauses, i took it from here.
Logged
Opus118
Site Supporter
Warned
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,673



« Reply #170 on: August 22, 2013, 12:21:01 AM »



OK. I watched it. That quote seems to be conflating at least two passages and I strongly suspect that it is being taken out of context.   Other quotes used have ellipses which would mean, if the person doing the citing is being careful and truthful about the quote, that some words have been left out. That can change the meaning of a supposed "quote" radically.  

The computer simulation of the Sun orbiting the Earth is only a human constructed set of drawings. It does not "prove" anything.  


I was not talking about the drawings. I did not pointed to what Sir Fred Hoyle and the other one have said. The only thing that interested me was the idea of rejecting the geocentric model on philosophical grounds only. As you see Hawking is saying exactly the same thing : "There is, however, an alternate explanation: the universe might look the same in every direction as seen from any other galaxy too. This, as we have seen, was Friedmann’s second assumption. We have no scientific evidence for, or against, this assumption. We believe it only on grounds of modesty "

The precession of the Foucault pendulum is easily described by the coriolis force of a rotating earth.


I am replying to you Stanley as a friendly face (so to speak) instead of generally.

This topic happens to be an interest of mine since it generally diverges from my education. Some might call it a fetish, but really, all I am looking for is a peer reviewed article that refutes what I am going to say.

When I took astronomy and physics in college, I learned that all frames of reference are valid, including systems that involve rotating bodies. The issue is Einstein's theory of general relativity. I already had an unsatisfying debate about this with Sauron in the DEAD HORSE thread because I did not learn of any paper against generally relativity, only that I am a math deficient nerd (I am due to the invasion of Cambodia, but that is another story). In that thread I cited Einstein's description how a donkey pulling a merry-go-round, which serves as the frame of reference, can cause the entire universe to move. There is no fixed speed of light in general relativity, only that nothing can move faster that the speed of light, which is why neptune can move faster than speed of light set by special relativity.

In regard to coriolis forces and Foucault's pendulum. There is a good thread on CAF explaining this (just search for coriolis). The thread date back to around 2004.

Logged
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,432



« Reply #171 on: August 22, 2013, 12:21:46 AM »



The quote is incomplete, lacking context and the "citation" in the long article "(10)" doesn't for me go to a place where there is an actual source given.  Do you really think that the scientists think that the Sun really is orbiting this planet every 24 hours?  

I apologize for being blunt by the way, but Dr. Gerardus Bouw is not in the same class as Sir Fred, or Dr.s Hubble and Hawking.

I didn`t even bothered to remember the name of Dr. Bouw because i`ve never heard of him.  Smiley

The quote is from A brief history of time. Again, if you put a part of the quote on internet you will find the whole book online.
No, i don`t believe they think the Sun is orbiting Earth, on the contrary, but what i am asking is if this is because there is strong evidence to suggest that or because they don`t want the Earth to be considered special ? I mean the idea that the universe might look the same from whatever point in space we look at it. Did we built models of the universe based on that idea ? As you see, Hawking is saying that there is no evidence for or against it.


I mean no disrespect to you, and I know that you are new here on OC.net, but making assumptions about other posters' knowledge or abilities can come across as rather patronizing.  Perhaps it is the crossing of messages that led to you repeating yourself on the concept of research.

Have you read  A Brief History of Time ?  One short quote does not mean that Dr. Hawking ideas should be based on just that portion.

And on the matter of evidence, there's the "Ulysses" Solar-Polar space probe that among other things was sent out to Jupiter so that the gravity field there could bend the path out of the ecliptic so that it could go around the Sun over its poles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulysses_%28spacecraft%29

The positions of the planets in their orbits are part of the calculations to make the probe go where it is supposed to go.

Edited for better sentence structure
« Last Edit: August 22, 2013, 12:30:11 AM by Ebor » Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
davillas
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 89



« Reply #172 on: August 22, 2013, 12:26:37 AM »


They say that, but as I said above, I don't think it's really true. I don't think anyone can handle the mathematics of making a geocentric model imitate the behavior that a relativistic/Newtonian model produces. In the standard model, a spot on the earth takes a quite complex path summing the resultant motion of the galaxies, the sun within the galaxy, the earth around the sun, the rotation of the earth, and the precession of the poles; superimposing the inverse of that motion on everything else, when every other celestial body is following its own path due to the same principles, is too complex to compute; and needlessly so to boot. In practice such an attempt would have to calculate the earth's path as if it moved, and then invert that motion to add to everything else, because that's the only model we actually have.


What is not true ? Hawking is saying that : " We believe it only on grounds of modesty ". It means that based on our current knowledge of the universe geocentric models can be built just like the other models can be built. Why do we need to complicate things bringing tons of other notions into play ?

http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Sept01/Ellis/Ellis5_2.html
Logged
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,436



« Reply #173 on: August 22, 2013, 12:38:53 AM »


They say that, but as I said above, I don't think it's really true. I don't think anyone can handle the mathematics of making a geocentric model imitate the behavior that a relativistic/Newtonian model produces. In the standard model, a spot on the earth takes a quite complex path summing the resultant motion of the galaxies, the sun within the galaxy, the earth around the sun, the rotation of the earth, and the precession of the poles; superimposing the inverse of that motion on everything else, when every other celestial body is following its own path due to the same principles, is too complex to compute; and needlessly so to boot. In practice such an attempt would have to calculate the earth's path as if it moved, and then invert that motion to add to everything else, because that's the only model we actually have.


What is not true ? Hawking is saying that : " We believe it only on grounds of modesty ". It means that based on our current knowledge of the universe geocentric models can be built just like the other models can be built.

I'm saying that I think he's wrong, and I'm guessing that the reason he can permit himself to think otherwise is because he hasn't actually tried to construct such a model and work it. The only models we do have are Newtonian/relativistic, so to construct a geocentric model we would have to use the real model we have now to work out the motion of the earth, and then apply the inverse of that motion to the Newtonian/relativistic motion of everything in order to get their apparent geocentric motion. But besides questioning whether we could actually work the math and still get a useful model, the other point is that it is still a non-geocentric model, because the part of it that is doing all the work is the classic Newtonian/relativistic model! I won't admit that someone can come up with a geocentric model that is actually workable and which doesn't contain the current non-geocentric model with in it until some actually does such a thing.
Logged
davillas
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 89



« Reply #174 on: August 22, 2013, 12:44:49 AM »



I mean no disrespect to you, and I know that you are new here on OC.net, but making assumptions about other posters' knowledge or abilities can come across as rather patronizing.  Perhaps it is the crossing of messages that led to you repeating yourself on the concept of research.

Have you read  A Brief History of Time ?  One short quote does not mean that Dr. Hawking ideas should be based on one short quote.  

And on the matter of evidence, there's the "Ulysses" Solar-Polar space probe that among other things was sent out to Jupiter so that the gravity field there could bend the path out of the ecliptic so that it could go around the Sun over its poles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulysses_%28spacecraft%29


No, i didn`t read it, i read The grand design and i was disappointed. I know that his idea is that the Earth has no special place, i am not interested in his idea but rather in what made them to follow this path. I am sure that today you can bring a lot of other ideas into play, you can say that dark matter doesn`t allow a geocentric universe or that dark energy or whatever. Or that there was no Earth in that thing that came into being 13.5 billions years ago.
But the problem is this is like having a train in A station. And we make a theory that the train came through B, C, D and E. Then i say : wait a minute, maybe the train came trough F, G, H, and E. No you say, that`s stupid, that will mean the train never passed through C and D and we already know that.
The thing is such a view can change a lot of what we know today ( or what we think we know ) about the universe. But somewhere in the past we had to choose the path. So why did we choosed this B, C, D and E path ? This is the question.
Logged
davillas
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 89



« Reply #175 on: August 22, 2013, 12:47:51 AM »



I'm saying that I think he's wrong, and I'm guessing that the reason he can permit himself to think otherwise is because he hasn't actually tried to construct such a model and work it. The only models we do have are Newtonian/relativistic, so to construct a geocentric model we would have to use the real model we have now to work out the motion of the earth, and then apply the inverse of that motion to the Newtonian/relativistic motion of everything in order to get their apparent geocentric motion. But besides questioning whether we could actually work the math and still get a useful model, the other point is that it is still a non-geocentric model, because the part of it that is doing all the work is the classic Newtonian/relativistic model! I won't admit that someone can come up with a geocentric model that is actually workable and which doesn't contain the current non-geocentric model with in it until some actually does such a thing.


Again, we are not talking about a guy on internet who thought it will be fun to make some noise. He is a real scientist. Here is his model :
http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Sept01/Ellis/Ellis5_2.html
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #176 on: August 22, 2013, 03:21:03 AM »

There is no fixed speed of light in general relativity, only that nothing can move faster that the speed of light, which is why neptune can move faster than speed of light set by special relativity.
I thought that the speed of light in a vacuum is constant with a value of exactly 299,792,458 meters per second.
Logged
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,436



« Reply #177 on: August 22, 2013, 10:56:41 AM »



I'm saying that I think he's wrong, and I'm guessing that the reason he can permit himself to think otherwise is because he hasn't actually tried to construct such a model and work it. The only models we do have are Newtonian/relativistic, so to construct a geocentric model we would have to use the real model we have now to work out the motion of the earth, and then apply the inverse of that motion to the Newtonian/relativistic motion of everything in order to get their apparent geocentric motion. But besides questioning whether we could actually work the math and still get a useful model, the other point is that it is still a non-geocentric model, because the part of it that is doing all the work is the classic Newtonian/relativistic model! I won't admit that someone can come up with a geocentric model that is actually workable and which doesn't contain the current non-geocentric model with in it until some actually does such a thing.


Again, we are not talking about a guy on internet who thought it will be fun to make some noise. He is a real scientist. Here is his model :
http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Sept01/Ellis/Ellis5_2.html


You don't understand the article. It's not discussing Ptolemaic geocentrism; it's talking about resolving the apparent problems in reconciling the standard big bang models with what we can actually see from where we are. These problems have been around ever since it was realized that the internal motion of galaxies couldn't be explained by the mass associated with what they could see in those galaxies: they rotate as if they were much more massive than they visually appear to be. So that's how we got saddled with the notion of "dark matter" that we cannot see. That in turn gives problems with explaining how fast the universe appears to be expanding (I think-- I have to admit that for reasons I'm about to explain I haven't kept up with the field as much as I used to). So there is a great deal of debate about what is happening at these huge scales.

This has nothing to do with what's going on in a local neighborhood scale. The sun orbits the center of the galaxy, apparently held on course by whatever mass there is locally; the earth moves around the sun, like any other planet, and the moon orbits this rotating orb. Our artificial satellites move through the solar system as dictated by mass and thrust and the movement of these bodies. Ellis does not say that all this is illusory and that the earth itself is immovable.
Logged
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 9,485



« Reply #178 on: August 22, 2013, 11:10:32 AM »



I'm saying that I think he's wrong, and I'm guessing that the reason he can permit himself to think otherwise is because he hasn't actually tried to construct such a model and work it. The only models we do have are Newtonian/relativistic, so to construct a geocentric model we would have to use the real model we have now to work out the motion of the earth, and then apply the inverse of that motion to the Newtonian/relativistic motion of everything in order to get their apparent geocentric motion. But besides questioning whether we could actually work the math and still get a useful model, the other point is that it is still a non-geocentric model, because the part of it that is doing all the work is the classic Newtonian/relativistic model! I won't admit that someone can come up with a geocentric model that is actually workable and which doesn't contain the current non-geocentric model with in it until some actually does such a thing.


Again, we are not talking about a guy on internet who thought it will be fun to make some noise. He is a real scientist. Here is his model :
http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Sept01/Ellis/Ellis5_2.html


You don't understand the article. It's not discussing Ptolemaic geocentrism; it's talking about resolving the apparent problems in reconciling the standard big bang models with what we can actually see from where we are. These problems have been around ever since it was realized that the internal motion of galaxies couldn't be explained by the mass associated with what they could see in those galaxies: they rotate as if they were much more massive than they visually appear to be. So that's how we got saddled with the notion of "dark matter" that we cannot see. That in turn gives problems with explaining how fast the universe appears to be expanding (I think-- I have to admit that for reasons I'm about to explain I haven't kept up with the field as much as I used to). So there is a great deal of debate about what is happening at these huge scales.

This has nothing to do with what's going on in a local neighborhood scale. The sun orbits the center of the galaxy, apparently held on course by whatever mass there is locally; the earth moves around the sun, like any other planet, and the moon orbits this rotating orb. Our artificial satellites move through the solar system as dictated by mass and thrust and the movement of these bodies. Ellis does not say that all this is illusory and that the earth itself is immovable.

+1
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
Opus118
Site Supporter
Warned
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,673



« Reply #179 on: August 22, 2013, 11:18:26 AM »

There is no fixed speed of light in general relativity, only that nothing can move faster that the speed of light, which is why neptune can move faster than speed of light set by special relativity.
I thought that the speed of light in a vacuum is constant with a value of exactly 299,792,458 meters per second.

It is in Special Relativity and E does equal MC^2.
From my limited understanding Special Relativity is limited to inertial systems (no acceleration/gravity).
General Relativity, which came later, adds acceleration/gravity.
A rotating earth as a frame of reference is an accelerated frame and is explained by General Relativity and not Special Relativity.

This is about as far as I can go without pounding my head against a wall.
Logged
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.171 seconds with 72 queries.