|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Underwaterbob
Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito
|
 Posted: Thu Apr 28, 2011 5:10 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| There's a reason philosophy and science are no longer the bedfellows they once were, and while there's still room in both for either, they've each gone beyond the other. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 28, 2011 5:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Underwaterbob wrote: |
| There's a reason philosophy and science are no longer the bedfellows they once were, and while there's still room in both for either, they've each gone beyond the other. |
I don't know what you mean. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 28, 2011 6:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Underwaterbob wrote: |
| There's a reason philosophy and science are no longer the bedfellows they once were, and while there's still room in both for either, they've each gone beyond the other. |
I'm kind of curious about what you mean by this as well. Can you give some examples? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 29, 2011 4:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Underwaterbob wrote: |
| you (geocentricity) assume that the sun, at a mean distance of 1 au (or 149'598'000km) from the Earth is moving at a whopping 39'165'000 kph (24'336'000 mph, 3.6% of the speed of light) . |
Such speeds are hardly remarkable. According to to astronomers at Cornell..whole galaxies are distancing themselves from ours faster than the speed of light.
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=575
http://www.askphilosophers.org/question/1714
Closer to home, the moon orbits the earth at a speed of 3683kph. Mercury moves at 107.000mph. And due to the general expansion of the cosmos, celestial bodies are supposedly moving apart at 255,600 kph.
Better tell these celestial bodies that Underwaterbob has decreed a speed limit according to his own imagination.
Your point is moot because in physics, the universe can be said to revolve around any arbitrary point. So then celestial bodies at the outer rim of such an orbit must be travelling at speeds, relative to the "centre", beyond human imagination or ability to transcribe- if the distances measured and conjectured by modern astronomers are correct.
Astrometry, the measurement of distances between celestial objects,and the foundation for all astronomy, is based on the assumption of heliocentricity. A star's parralax is measured relative to an earth that is assumed to orbit the sun. However if the theory of heliocentricity is wrong, then the alleged distances to those stars are also wrong.
Trigonometric parralax was first used to measure the distance of a star in 1838 by Friedrich Bessel. However he assumed that the earth changes position by 186,000,000 miles every 6 months due to its suposed orbit around the sun.
However, if you assume a stationary earth and use geometric parralax as a baseline ( ie the idea that any two observers on earth are only at max: 8000 miles from eachother) then the distances from earth for the same star decrease dramatically. In other words..the stars are orbiting the earth at a much slower speed, and are much closer than you think.
In fact if we assume heliocentricity, then the distances of objects in space are over 23000 times greater.
Such fantastical but imaginary distances are reminiscent of the incomprehensible timelines evolutionists have cooked up. A fictional mathematical mental backflip designed to overload and shutdown your senses just long enough for you to swallow their bold lies. Perversely- the more absurd and incomprehensible the lie (or theory), the more likely the masses are to believe. Because the mind instantly surrenders rather than try to apply comprehension.
So what you have here is a tautology. Based on an unproven assumption (that the earth rotates around the sun), we calculate a moving earth parralax that pushes even our closest stars 23000 times further out than they would be if a non-moving earth parralax were used. Then the light-year distances derived from this slight of hand are used to "prove" that the earth cannot be stationary because the stars are "too far away" to orbit us.
Added to that, it is impossible, by the laws of physics, to know which celestial bodies are at absolute rest. The heliocentric model, then, is simply an arbitrary paradigm that has been pushed upon the people for human reasons.
Humans are dealing with knowledge that is scientifically unknowable. The only potential source we could possibly have for truth, then, is divine revelation.
Which brings me to the bible, which uses a geocentric reference point when describing the heavens (in much the same way as modern astronomers do). There are two or three verses that appear to state that the sun is moving and the earth is fixed. There remains some controversy over the context and the translation of the original words used however. At any rate it seems logical that God would have made the earth, home to the beings he made in his own image, to be the centre of his creation.
Wether or not scripture describes a geocentric model is unclear, but unfortunately heliocentrism has still widely claimed to discredit the bible. It ate away at the publics belief in innerant scipture, and paved the way for the later acceptance of evolutionism. Yet both are unproven theories based on circular reasoning. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Space Bar
Joined: 20 Oct 2010
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Underwaterbob
Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito
|
| Posted: Sun May 01, 2011 4:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Underwaterbob wrote: |
| There's a reason philosophy and science are no longer the bedfellows they once were, and while there's still room in both for either, they've each gone beyond the other. |
I'm kind of curious about what you mean by this as well. Can you give some examples? |
Hrm... I'm not sure if I can give any examples, but I can try to explain.
Science and philosophy used to be the same thing: a mixture of the qualitative and quantitative. Over time science has come to deal more with the quantitative and philosophy more with the qualitative; however, they both still deal with the other though neither is describable under the terms of the other.
I guess that probably didn't clear anything up. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Underwaterbob
Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito
|
| Posted: Sun May 01, 2011 5:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Junior wrote: |
| Underwaterbob wrote: |
| you (geocentricity) assume that the sun, at a mean distance of 1 au (or 149'598'000km) from the Earth is moving at a whopping 39'165'000 kph (24'336'000 mph, 3.6% of the speed of light) . |
Such speeds are hardly remarkable. According to to astronomers at Cornell..whole galaxies are distancing themselves from ours faster than the speed of light. |
So, you have a problem with the earth moving a slight 67'000 mph, but none with whole galaxies moving faster than the speed of light. Your bias is beyond merely showing.
| Junior wrote: |
| Better tell these celestial bodies that Underwaterbob has decreed a speed limit according to his own imagination. |
You just expressed incredulity at the earth moving 67'000 mph, and are now blithely accepting speeds greatly in excess of that. I just suggested that maybe the earth rotating once per 24 hours was a little more reasonable than the sun zooming around the earth at 3.6% of the speed of light.
| Junior wrote: |
| In fact if we assume heliocentricity, then the distances of objects in space are over 23000 times greater. |
Source? Reasoning?
| Junior wrote: |
| Such fantastical but imaginary distances are reminiscent of the incomprehensible timelines evolutionists have cooked up. A fictional mathematical mental backflip designed to overload and shutdown your senses just long enough for you to swallow their bold lies. Perversely- the more absurd and incomprehensible the lie (or theory), the more likely the masses are to believe. Because the mind instantly surrenders rather than try to apply comprehension. |
This "I can't understand it, it must not be true." argument is getting you nowhere. Study and do some of the math. It's really not beyond a high schooler's level of understanding. Then come back and make this argument.
From a human-sized perspective, what's the difference between the couple of million of light years we estimate Andromeda to be from the Milky Way compared to your (seemingly arbitrary) model's thousands of light years anyway?
| Junior wrote: |
| So what you have here is a tautology. Based on an unproven assumption (that the earth rotates around the sun), we calculate a moving earth parralax that pushes even our closest stars 23000 times further out than they would be if a non-moving earth parralax were used. Then the light-year distances derived from this slight of hand are used to "prove" that the earth cannot be stationary because the stars are "too far away" to orbit us. |
Since you're so fond of this "23'000" you've plucked out of thin air, let's play with it a bit. Using heliocentricity, the sun is estimated to be 1 au from us, that's 149'598'000 kms. According to your random, unsupported model, 23'000 times closer puts it at 6504 kms, roughly the length of Russia.
The moon is 356'334 kms from the earth at perigee and 405'503 kms from earth at apogee. 23'000 times closer, it's 15.5 kms and 17.6 kms from the earth at perigee and apogee respectively. Climb to the top of Everest and you're halfway there!
| Junior wrote: |
| Added to that, it is impossible, by the laws of physics, to know which celestial bodies are at absolute rest. The heliocentric model, then, is simply an arbitrary paradigm that has been pushed upon the people for human reasons. |
What "human reasons" are these? If it's to deny the bible, then what about faiths that don't contradict heliocentricity? How is hundreds of years of successful observation, experimentation and prediction by and from the heliocentric model arbitrary? Do you have a better method?
| Junior wrote: |
| Humans are dealing with knowledge that is scientifically unknowable. |
Tell that to Neil Armstrong (I have no doubt you'll be denying that next) and your (unfortunately) working computer.
| Junior wrote: |
| The only potential source we could possibly have for truth, then, is divine revelation. |
How do we tell the divine revelation from the not-divine? Seems this has caused trouble in the past.
| Junior wrote: |
| Which brings me to the bible, which uses a geocentric reference point when describing the heavens (in much the same way as modern astronomers do). There are two or three verses that appear to state that the sun is moving and the earth is fixed. There remains some controversy over the context and the translation of the original words used however. At any rate it seems logical that God would have made the earth, home to the beings he made in his own image, to be the centre of his creation. |
Logical? To suggest we are the center of the universe because a god (and not even a universal one amongst our peoples) made us that way is just simple arrogance. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Underwaterbob
Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito
|
| Posted: Sun May 01, 2011 6:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Just because I like math.
The Andromeda galaxy is estimated to be about 2 million light years away.
Junior's theory says that it's 23'000 times closer: about 87 light years. So, according to his stationary earth model, it must pass through (approximately) a circle of radius 87 light years every 24 hours.
Circumference of said orbit = 2*pi*radius = 2*3.14*87 = 550 light years.
Tangential velocity at any given time in Andromeda's "orbit" = 550/24 = 23 light years per hour.
Twenty-three light years per hour! By definition, it takes light a year to pass through one light-year.
One light year = 9.46 *10^12 kms
23 light years per hour * 9.46*10^12 kms per light year = 220 * 10^12 kph = 220'000'000'000'000 kph.
Andromeda, an entire spiral galaxy, has to travel at 220 trillion kph to satisfy Junior's model, yet he feels the earth moving at 100'000 kph is an unreasonable, fantastical number derived through a "fictional mathematical backflip designed to overload and shut down your senses just long enough to swallow their bold lies."  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Mon May 02, 2011 6:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Underwaterbob wrote: |
So, you have a problem with the earth moving a slight 67'000 mph,
You just expressed incredulity at the earth moving 67'000 mph, and are now blithely accepting speeds greatly in excess of that. |
Actually you were the one who was incredulous at the thought of such high speeds. Until I pointed out they are nothing remarkable.
| Quote: |
| I just suggested that maybe the earth rotating once per 24 hours was a little more reasonable than the sun zooming around the earth at 3.6% of the speed of light. |
You see there you go again. You seem to think that 3.6% the speed of light is a big deal. That it is too much to contemplate. That it is "unreasonable".
Why should it be "unreasonable", when according to the head atheists in your gang, whole galaxies are moving faster than the speed of light?
What you're saying is, its OK for atheists to assert that whole galaxies move faster than light, but its not OK for a creationist to assert that a star could travel at a much slower speed?
Busted..once again.
have you not heard of the Machian model? According to him..any speed is possible.
And I thought you were a physics major?
| Quote: |
| Andromeda, an entire spiral galaxy, has to travel at 220 trillion kph to satisfy Junior's model |
Why is that astounding to you?
I just gave you a link earlier from astronomers at Cornell. They say that whole galaxies move faster than the speed of light.
In any case, as I already told you...in physics... the universe can be said to revolve around any arbitrary point.
So then celestial bodies at the outer rim of such an orbit must be travelling at speeds, relative to the "centre", or arbitrary point, , beyond human imagination or ability to transcribe.
- if the distances measured and conjectured by modern astronomers are correct.
If we assume geocentricity, however, the distances are much less.
Because parralax is calculated based on the assumption that the earth moves by X billion miles every 6 months ( the diameter of its orbit).
| Quote: |
| Source? Reasoning? |
here..
| Quote: |
"...trigonometric parallax, which depends on the apparent motion of nearby stars compared to more distant stars.
A conveniently long baseline for measuring the parallax of stars (stellar parallax) is the diameter of the Earth's orbit, where observations are made 6 months apart.
It is important to note that in this example we assume that both the Sun and star are not moving with a transverse velocity with respect to each other."
http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/T/Trigonometric+Parallax |
Take note: 6 months apart gives a baseline of 186,000,000 miles.
This is the dominant method to measure distances in astronomy:-
| Quote: |
| Over a 4 year period from 1989 to 1993, the Hipparcos Space Astrometry Mission measured the trigonometric parallax of nearly 120,000 stars |
Despite the fact that..
| Quote: |
| Trigonometric parallax is used to calculate distance to nearby stars. The usefulness of parallax in measuring distance to stars is limited ... that parallax is good only for the relatively small number of stars up to about 100 pc away. |
http://hsc.csu.edu.au/physics/options/astrophysics/3035/PHY972net.html
Method:
http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project_ideas/Astro_p019.shtml
However if the premise that the earth is not orbiting the sun is wrong, then all the alleged distances to the stars are baseless.
In fact these fantasized distances are the only thing holding up the copernican theory in the first place. More circular reasoning.
However if we measure distance using geocentric parralax
| Quote: |
| the parallax of a celestial body using two points on the surface of the earth |
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/geocentric+parallax
the baseline is only about 8000 miles- the furthest distance of any two observational points on the earth.
http://spiff.rit.edu/richmond/parallax/howto.html
186 000 000 miles (heliocentric parralax) is 23250 times larger than 8000 miles. (geocentric parrallax) .
Now do you see where all these fantastical distances are coming from? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HijackedTw1light
Joined: 24 May 2010
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Mon May 02, 2011 10:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Underwaterbob wrote: |
| There's a reason philosophy and science are no longer the bedfellows they once were, and while there's still room in both for either, they've each gone beyond the other. |
I'm kind of curious about what you mean by this as well. Can you give some examples? |
Physicists, in particular, tend to be annoyed by philosophers.
The philosophers are always on the outside, saying stupid things.
That's the general idea. Afraid I can't give you more than that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Mon May 02, 2011 11:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Underwaterbob wrote: |
| There's a reason philosophy and science are no longer the bedfellows they once were, and while there's still room in both for either, they've each gone beyond the other. |
I don't know what you mean. |
Well, if you subscribe to the writings of Martin Heideggar, science (aka technology) is physics, whereas philosophy is metaphysics. Simply put. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Koveras
Joined: 09 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Mon May 02, 2011 12:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Well, since metaphysics is the physics of physics, it obviously follows that there can be no discord between them, if they are properly understood. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Mon May 02, 2011 1:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Koveras wrote: |
| Well, since metaphysics is the physics of physics, it obviously follows that there can be no discord between them, if they are properly understood. |
I'm not an expert here... but I'll just comment that metaphysics literally means "beyond physics". In existential philosophy at least, metaphysics (concerned with the question of Being and what it means) is beyond the framework of science/logic/deontology, since they can only be understood by attaching representational or instrumental values to things ('enframing').
In layman's terms, there are some things that cannot be defined (or even expressed in the form of a question) in the context of science. For example, the question of "what exists" precedes scientific understanding.
Last edited by visitorq on Mon May 02, 2011 4:05 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon May 02, 2011 3:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Underwaterbob wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| Underwaterbob wrote: |
| There's a reason philosophy and science are no longer the bedfellows they once were, and while there's still room in both for either, they've each gone beyond the other. |
I'm kind of curious about what you mean by this as well. Can you give some examples? |
Hrm... I'm not sure if I can give any examples, but I can try to explain.
Science and philosophy used to be the same thing: a mixture of the qualitative and quantitative. Over time science has come to deal more with the quantitative and philosophy more with the qualitative; however, they both still deal with the other though neither is describable under the terms of the other.
I guess that probably didn't clear anything up. |
This isn't the way I see it, but thanks for the explanation of where you're coming from. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Underwaterbob
Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito
|
| Posted: Mon May 02, 2011 3:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Junior. All your misquoting and misrepresentation aside, I just used your model to calculate a number every bit as incomprehensible as any number cooked up by a heliocentric model. Perhaps even more so, I saw nothing in the galaxies moving faster than light article that indicated they're moving at 20'000'000% of the speed of light, a number required by a geostationary model. Your argument that heliocentricity is "fantastical" where geocentricity is somehow not, is moot.
Last edited by Underwaterbob on Mon May 02, 2011 6:22 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
