Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - One-night stands: they're genetic!

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

One-night stands: they're genetic!
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 11, 12, 13, 14 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Junior

Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye

Posted: Thu May 05, 2011 9:01 pm Post subject:

Underwaterbob wrote:

Junior wrote:

There is nothing to prove heliocentrism I'm afraid.
But at least geocentrism has empirical evidence in its favor.

Again, you display your amazing ability to find the few bits of circumstantial evidence in your favor and completely ignore the overwhelming amount of evidence contradicting you. You've even admitted that a heliocentric system does a better job of determining the positions of the planets in our solar system, and yet here you deny it.

Your argument appears to be: "Heliocentrism is better, but because I deem it so, geocentrism is really the case." Which doesn't really hold up...

You're supposed to be able to prove that the earth goes round the sun.
You can't.
This pretty shocking for a theory that is basically the foundation, the cornerstone of science.
In fact you can't even find anything to indicate this is the case. You are simply saying that "because I want it to be so, then it is".

I thought you were a science major?

Quote:

you display your amazing ability to find the few bits of circumstantial evidence in your favor

You have no evidence in your favor. So obviously empirical evidence takes precedence.

Everyone can see the sun go round the earth every day.
Nobody feels the earth is moving.
Everyone can see the stars orbit the earth every 24 hours.

Quote:

You've even admitted that a heliocentric system does a better job of determining the positions of the planets in our solar system

The idea of elliptic orbits, not heliocentrism, is slightly better at explaining the positions of the planets. Elliptic orbits would be the same wether geocentrism is true or heliocentrism.

Elliptic orbits (which was Keplers only real addition to the accumulated knowledge)- do not prove heliocentrism. How many times do I have to say this?

The planets positions are relative to eachother. So even if kepler charted all their positions perfectly to within millimetres, it still would not indicate wether the earth revolves around the sun or not.

Quote:

you assume the Earth is at the very center of mass,

Why is that such a terrible assumption? Earth is exceptional. It is the only planet with life. It was obviously specially created. And we have scripture that suggests it was placed, immovable, at the centre of creation.

Not only that, everyone on earth can feel that the earth does not move, and see that the sun flies around the earth.

Quote:

even with a solar body a mere 149'598'000 kms away that is 1'000'000 times as massive.

Either you are totally ignorant of physics, or you are simply avoiding the obvious.
I repeat: if all that existed in space was the earth and the sun, then yes, the earth would have to orbit the sun because of its greater mass.

But that is clearly not the case.

You seem to be confused as to what the centre of mass is. let me help you. It is not necesarilly the biggest celestial object. It is the unmoving centre of the universe, a balancing point between all the other objects and their mass.
If you think it is simply the biggest object, then let me remind you there are numerous other stars out there that are thousands of times larger than the sun.
Once again...our system is not an isolated or independent system. Forces from outside act upon it.

Quote:

Have you ever studied any science?

Compared to the arts, very little. I just understand it better than you and Mix1. Laughing

Paper qualifications are no match for genuine interest in a subject.

Quote:

Two words: Occam's Razor.

It's not a matter of a system's complexity, it's a matter of the number, and degree, of assumptions required for the system to hold true.

Wow. Just wow.
Why then does that not stop you when it comes to evolution???
You've assumed that giraffes accidentally came to be by chance, descended from amoebas, by a process as yet unknown, without fossil evidence, via a theoretical mind-boggling number of mutations building one upon the other, which has never been observed, against massive humanly incomprehensible odds.

Getting back to geocentrism, it is more elegant and simpler to assume that the earth is the centre of mass for the universe. Because a) astonomy calculations make more sense to us from a geostationary frame. b) Empirical evidence indicates this is so. c) World belief systems say that it is so. And according to Kuros, elegance and simplicity = truth.

Until you can muster some evidence to prove otherwise, I'm afraid empirical evidence clearly says that the earth is stationary.

Underwaterbob

Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito

Posted: Thu May 05, 2011 9:48 pm Post subject:

Junior wrote:

You're supposed to be able to prove that the earth goes round the sun.
You can't.

I've easily proved that it's a far better model for our solar system than one where the sun orbits the Earth.

Junior wrote:

This pretty shocking for a theory that is basically the foundation, the cornerstone of science.

Heliocentrism is the cornerstone of science?

Junior wrote:

In fact you can't even find anything to indicate this is the case. You are simply saying that "because I want it to be so, then it is".

Are you a tape machine? I just said the same thing about your model. Remember Occam's Razor? You're going in circles, or more likely ellipses, haHA!

Junior wrote:

I thought you were a science major?

I thought I told you to study some science?

Junior wrote:

Quote:

you display your amazing ability to find the few bits of circumstantial evidence in your favor

You have no evidence in your favor.

Have you been asleep for the last couple of pages? You've already admitted that heliocentrism describes the motion of the planets better than any geocentric system. What more do you want?

Junior wrote:

So obviously empirical evidence takes precedence.

Of which there is more supporting heliocentrism than geocentrism.

Junior wrote:

Everyone can see the sun go round the earth every day.
Nobody feels the earth is moving.
Everyone can see the stars orbit the earth every 24 hours.

So, everything you see is true? Have I got a deal for you!

Junior wrote:

This is the first time you've said it in so many words. No, elliptical orbits don't prove heliocentrism, the fact that every planet/asteroid/comet in our solar system is in an elliptical orbit around our sun does "prove" heliocentrism.

Junior wrote:

Until you can muster some evidence to prove otherwise, I'm afraid empirical evidence says that the earth is stationary.

The last few pages, and your own admittance have shown that heliocentrism is the more likely scenario.

For you to continue to make the geostationary argument, you need to provide evidence that the rest of the entire universe somehow sees fit to revolve around it. Just because it looks that way is not empirical evidence.

Junior

Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye

Posted: Thu May 05, 2011 9:55 pm Post subject:

Patrick Bateman wrote:

So all creatures that ever existed or will ever exist were present at the creation?

The genetic material for them was present, in the original created forms.

Quote:

If we posses perfect DNA, how could genetic flaws ever occur?

Our DNA is no longer full and perfect, like it was at the beginning.

Quote:

If God created all creatures and their DNA, didn't God create the mutations which follow therein?

The creation is fallen due to human free will. Humans bear responsibility for the fact things have gone wrong. We were warned.

Quote:

Also, how could something occur that was not in God's original plan? Isn't that tantamount to saying God is fallible?

No, because God gave humans free will to do as they wished. God knew that they would make bad choices, but that does not make him responsible for their choices.
If you have children, are you then responsible for all and any mistakes or crimes they make in life?

Quote:

How do creatures select genetic material? Additionally, where and when would such an event occur?

Natural selection. Caused by environmental pressures.

Quote:

The problem with your theory is, it is solely based upon the belief in God.

As I said to UWBob earlier, a belief in a creator is the more simple and elegant assumption. It is more reasonable than the alternative.

Quote:

Further, it is reliant on the Bible not only being an infallible account of all time and things, but also divinely written.

It relies on physical evidence, which backs up and conforms to the biblical account.

Junior

Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye

Posted: Thu May 05, 2011 10:08 pm Post subject:

Underwaterbob wrote:

This is the first time you've said it in so many words. No, elliptical orbits don't prove heliocentrism

You finally got it? Amazing.

Quote:

the fact that every planet/asteroid/comet in our solar system is in an elliptical orbit around our sun does "prove" heliocentrism.

They could just as easily all be in orbit around the earth.

Quote:

You've already admitted that heliocentrism describes the motion of the planets better

No, I agreed that elliptical orbits describe the motion of the planets better than perfectly circular orbits.
Elliptical orbits do not equal heliocentrism.

Quote:

you need to provide evidence that the rest of the entire universe somehow sees fit to revolve around it. Just because it looks that way is not empirical evidence.

yes it is. That is precisely what empirical evidence is. What you can plainly see, hear, sense and feel.

It strongly appears that the universe revolves around us.

Why can't you point out some empirical evidence for heliocentrism?

Underwaterbob

Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito

Posted: Thu May 05, 2011 10:57 pm Post subject:

Junior wrote:

Underwaterbob wrote:

This is the first time you've said it in so many words. No, elliptical orbits don't prove heliocentrism

You finally got it? Amazing.

The first time you said it, I "finally" got it? What's amazing here is your quote mining.

Junior wrote:

Quote:

the fact that every planet/asteroid/comet in our solar system is in an elliptical orbit around our sun does "prove" heliocentrism.

They could just as easily all be in orbit around the earth.

Nope, see last two pages.

Junior wrote:

Quote:

you need to provide evidence that the rest of the entire universe somehow sees fit to revolve around it. Just because it looks that way is not empirical evidence.

yes it is. That is precisely what empirical evidence is. What you can plainly see, hear, sense and feel.

I can plainly see the sun is the size of a quarter, plainly feel that jumbo jets don't move when crossing the ocean and plainly sense that you're a bot spoon feeding me quotes from creationist and conspiracy theory websites, but I somehow doubt that any of those things are actually the case.

Junior wrote:

It strongly appears that the universe revolves around us.

It more strongly appears that the Earth is simply turning once every 24 hours.

Junior wrote:

What is the empirical evidence for heliocentrism? You are really taking a long time to come out with the obvious arguments.
If you don't put up some serious challenge soon I may have to get one of my socks to come on here and argue heliocentrism for you.

If you did, you might stand a chance. I'm sure you have all your discovery.org and reformation.org links fired up and ready for any geostationary satellite or coriolis force arguments.

As it is, I haven't needed anything more than simple reason to trounce everything you've brought up. You've now run the complete gamut from Bible to Ptolemy to Brahe and are left with: "My eyes tell me it is so!" Which is hardly an argument.

And anyhow, it's impossible to challenge someone with an irrational explanation ready for everything.

ED209

Joined: 17 Oct 2006

Posted: Thu May 05, 2011 11:09 pm Post subject:

Worst one-night stand ever!!

Junior

Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye

Posted: Thu May 05, 2011 11:22 pm Post subject:

Giving up so soon Bob? Oh wel. at least you lasted longer than Mix1.

Underwaterbob wrote:

I'm sure you have all your discovery.org and reformation.org links fired up and ready for any geostationary satellite or coriolis force arguments.

In other words you admit that you would not be able to counter them. That you cannot prove heliocentrism.. and that you choose to believe it for non-scientific reasons. Just as with evolution, you accept something without evidence ..simply because it is a popular view. If everyone jumped off a cliff, you would also.

Quote:

it's impossible to challenge someone with an irrational explanation ready for everything.

Says the man who believes that microbes gave birth to blue whales.

You've just been whipped by basic physics.

I assert that the earth is the centre of the universe, the unmoving centre of mass: as supported by every law of physics, observational data, and global belief systems.

Last edited by Junior on Fri May 06, 2011 12:06 am; edited 1 time in total

Underwaterbob

Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito

Posted: Fri May 06, 2011 12:04 am Post subject:

Junior wrote:

Underwaterbob wrote:

I'm sure you have all your discovery.org and reformation.org links fired up and ready for any geostationary satellite or coriolis force arguments.

In other words you admit that you cannot prove heliocentrism, and that you choose to believe it for non-scientific reasons.

Just as with evolution, you accept something without evidence ..simply because it is a popular view. If everyone jumped off a cliff, you would also.

Just because you have failed to read anything I've written in the past three pages now does not mean you can go stuffing words in my mouth and declaring victory.

There is plenty of hard, empirical evidence for a heliocentric solar system, certainly more than there is for geocentrism. Your denial of its existence does not make it go away.

Junior wrote:

I assert that the earth is the centre of the universe, the unmoving centre of mass: and every law of physics, observational data, and global belief systems agree with me.

You have clearly made up your mind regardless of the evidence. And you believe you know every law of physics, observational data and global belief system. Conceited much?

You may think you have reinforced your position on evolution with this nearly-pointless geo/helio-centrism debate, in actuality you have simply proved yourself even more irrational and unreasonable.

Junior

Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye

Posted: Fri May 06, 2011 12:27 am Post subject:

Underwaterbob wrote:

There is plenty of hard, empirical evidence for a heliocentric solar system, certainly more than there is for geocentrism.

Why don't you bring it then?

Quote:

Just because you have failed to read anything I've written in the past three pages

I read it all, but scientifically speaking...it's weak.

First up you stated that keplers system has proved reliable, and it is a heliocentric system. But that doesn't prove heliocentrism because if we add elliptic orbits to Brahe's system, it is just as reliable. Neither proves that the earth orbits the sun. Its just irrelevant to the point in hand.

Secondly you stated that because all the other planets in our system orbit the sun, that means earth does too. If most birds can fly, does that mean a kiwi must be able to as well?

Science is full of exceptions.
And the earth is an exceptional planet.

Quote:

You may think you have reinforced your position on evolution with this nearly-pointless geo/helio-centrism debate, in actuality you have simply proved yourself even more irrational and unreasonable.

What I have proved is that despite the heavy institutional bias of atheist scientists, actually a geocentric model is perfectly plausible.

Once again ...the assumptions brainwashed into the masses by popular culture are shown to be illusory.

Quote:

For you to continue to make the geostationary argument, you need to provide evidence that the rest of the entire universe somehow sees fit to revolve around it.

OK Then.

We know that the planets and sun orbit the earth, because sattelites are launched to the east. This is because they recieve an extra boost that helps them to achieve orbital velocity faster.
This boost is due to the rotating star/planet system around the fixed earth, which provides centrifugal, euler and coriolis force.

Underwaterbob

Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito

Posted: Fri May 06, 2011 1:40 am Post subject:

Junior wrote:

We know that the planets and sun orbit the earth, because sattelites are launched to the east. This is because they recieve an extra boost that helps them to achieve orbital velocity faster.
This boost is due to the rotating star/planet system around the fixed earth, which provides centrifugal, euler and coriolis force.

By definition, all of those forces are a product of a rotating frame of reference: suggesting that the Earth is rotating. There is no way for orbiting bodies to exert centrifugal, Euler or Coriolis forces on the body they are orbiting.

If you mean they are exerting a gravitational pull on a launched satellite, then maximum benefit would come from launching the satellite towards them, whichever direction they lay in the sky. Which is empirically not the case.

You're shooting yourself in the foot.

Your model asserts that the rest of the entire universe is balanced such that the Earth is its stationary center of balance. Such a grandiose claim requires some grandiose evidence does it not? The best you've got is that it briefly looks that way from a stationary observer on the Earth's surface...

Underwaterbob

Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito

Posted: Fri May 06, 2011 1:49 am Post subject:

I changed my mind. I am the stationary object around which the entire universe orbits, including the Earth. This is proved because when I take my motorcycle to school, the Earth moves relative to me and not the other way round.

Junior

Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye

Posted: Fri May 06, 2011 3:02 am Post subject:

Underwaterbob wrote:

Wrong.

You have no way to know wether the above effects are due to a rotating earth, or rotating stars acting upon a stationary earth.

The Mach principle tells us that matter out there affects inertia here.

Following from that we also have the Lense-thirring effect. The foucault pendulum'd plane of oscillation precesses when a shell of matter surrounding the pendulum is rotated.
The precession period matches the period of rotation- perfect frame dragging.

Thus..it is the rotating mass of the cosmos that causes the sattelite to be dragged.

Underwaterbob

Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito

Posted: Fri May 06, 2011 4:46 am Post subject:

Junior wrote:

Underwaterbob wrote:

Wrong.

You have no way to know wether the above effects are due to a rotating earth, or rotating stars acting upon a stationary earth.

Well, if they are the effects of rotating stars acting upon a stationary Earth, then they are not centrifugal, Euler or Coriolis forces. Rolling Eyes

My original statement stands.

The planets and sun in our solar system are much, much closer to Earth than any other star. Gravitational force is empirically observable as being a function of the inverse of the square of the distance from the object exerting the gravity. The effects of bodies in our solar system would be far more immediate than that of any other star. The planets' retrograde action would either diminish, negate or reverse the Coriolis effect measurable here on Earth if they were the cause. Since that does not happen, they are not.

Junior wrote:

The Mach principle tells us that matter out there affects inertia here.

Following from that we also have the Lense-thirring effect. The foucault pendulum'd plane of oscillation precesses when a shell of matter surrounding the pendulum is rotated.
The precession period matches the period of rotation- perfect frame dragging.

Please don't pretend you knew what any of those things were or their implications before you plagiarized them from whatever source you're not citing.

Lense-Thirring suggests that the rotation of the sun would effect the rotation of the Earth, something you claim doesn't exist. Not to mention that even admitting its existence means you concede that science knows a lot more about what's going on than you give it credit for.

Junior wrote:

Thus..it is the rotating mass of the cosmos that causes the sattelite to be dragged.

Thus nothing. Please cite.

Underwaterbob

Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito

Posted: Fri May 06, 2011 5:08 am Post subject:

The final nail in the coffin whether Junior admits it or not. For the Earth to be the stationary center of mass of the universe, the addition of all forces acting on it would have to add up to zero. There would be no benefit in launching a satellite in any particular direction. Junior admitted that there is a benefit in launching one east, therefore he admitted the Earth is not the stationary center of the universe. Time to stop embarrassing yourself?

Junior

Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye

Posted: Fri May 06, 2011 6:12 am Post subject:

Underwaterbob wrote:

Well, if they are the effects of rotating stars acting upon a stationary Earth, then they are not centrifugal, Euler or Coriolis forces.

You are so wrong! All 3 forces may be a result of either rotating cosmos or rotating earth.

Lets see what science actually says....:

Quote:

We can illustrate the central problem of explaining the nature of centrifugal force by examining how a spin drier removes water from clothes. We put wet clothes in, turn the machine on, and the drum spins around at high speed throwing out the water due to centrifugal force. Simple.
The question is how do the clothes 'know' that they are spinning? Easy, you say, the drum is spinning in relation to the drier, and the clothes rotate with the drum. If only it were that simple!
We can imagine an arrangement whereby the drum, and hence the clothes, are kept stationary while the drier rotates rapidly about the drum, the opposite to what normally happens of course. Now if the drum rotating in relation to the drier was all that was required for centrifugal force to draw the water out, then this arrangement would work in exactly the same manner as the more conventional arrangement. You do not, however, need to be a rocket scientist to be able to tell that this arrangement would not dry the clothes!
This very effectively destroys the argument that the clothes know they are rotating because of their movement in relation to the drier. The movement must be a movement in relation to something else. The next logical step is to argue that in the last example it was obvious that the drum was not really moving, only the drier was, so let's extend the area.

This time we will imagine the drum remaining still, just as before, but this time we will rotate not only the drier, but the entire room, around the drum. Will that make any difference? Again we can see that this arrangement wouldn't work either, because from our vantage point from outside the room we can see that the drum isn't 'really' rotating. This does present a problem though. Imagine that we have constructed a large spin drier and we sit inside the drum and the door is closed behind us. The drum again stays still but the drier, and the entire room rotate about us. The view that we see through the door would make us feel quite dizzy, but we would know that we are not moving because we would feel no forces acting upon us, we would not be pressed against the sides of the drum.
If we now return to our astronaut in the rotating space ship, he was pressed against the sides of the ship, so what is the difference? What in 'empty' space is the space ship rotating in relation to?
Isaac Newton thought about this problem of centrifugal force and came to the conclusion that there must exist a 'preferred frame of reference' in the Universe, defined by absolute space. This is just another way of saying that there must be a special place in the Universe that all motion can be related to. If this is the case, our wet clothes would know they are rotating, and hence fling out the water, because they are rotating in relation to this special fixed point in the Universe. This would also explain why it would not be possible to 'fool' the clothes into thinking they are rotating by rotating the drier instead. It is interesting to note however, that if we kept extending outward our rotating frame about the stationary drum, eventually the water would be thrown out because the entire universe would be rotating in relation to the drum, which is the exactly the same thing as the universe remaining stationary and the drum rotating! It may be that the same effect would happen if the rotating frame was just our galaxy instead of the entire universe, we don't know.
Enter Ernst Mach, an Austrian philosopher and physicist (1838-1916) whose ideas were to later influence Albert Einstein when he was developing his ideas on the general theory of relativity. It was Einstein who gave the name 'Mach's Principle'. It was in honour of Mach's work on shock waves associated with projectiles moving through the air that the Mach numbers of speed were named after him; a speed of Mach 1 is equal to the speed of sound, Mach 2 twice the speed of sound, and so on.
Mach proposed (Mach's principle) that inertia is caused by the interaction of an object with all of the other matter in the Universe. It will be remembered that Newton believed that all motion was relative to some universal preferred frame of reference. Thirty years later, George Berkeley, argued that all motion is relative, and must be measured against something. Since 'absolute space' cannot be perceived, that would not do as a reference point, he said. He argued that if only a single globe existed in the Universe it would be meaningless to talk about any movement of that globe. Even if there were two globes, both perfectly smooth, in orbit around one another, it would not be possible to measure that motion. But 'suppose that the heaven of fixed stars was suddenly created and we shall be in a position to imagine the motions of the globes by their relative position to the different parts of the Universe'. What Berkeley is arguing, is that in effect, it is because the clothes in your spin drier know that they are rotating relative to the distant stars that causes the water to be thrown out. Berkeley also argued that it is the same for acceleration in straight lines; Berkeley's reasoning would be that the push into the back of the seat that you feel when a car accelerates is because your body knows that it is being accelerated relative to the distant stars and galaxies.
Mach did not add a great deal to the ideas put forward by Berkeley, but did put forward the suggestion that if we want to explain the equatorial bulge of the Earth as due to centrifugal forces, 'it does not matter if we think of the Earth as turning round on its axis, or at rest while the fixed stars revolve around it'. It is the relative motion that is responsible for the bulge.'
What Berkeley and Mach suggest, that it is the 'fixed stars' which provide a frame of reference, raises another question. The 'fixed stars', as we are well aware today, are not in fact 'fixed', but are actually part of a system that is itself rotating - our own Milky Way galaxy. Even before Mach was born, William Herschel and other astronomers had provided good evidence that the Milky Way is a flattened disc of stars, its shape clearly determined by rotation and centrifugal force. Mach might well have argued that there was only two ways in which the whole galaxy could be seen to be under the influence of centrifugal force. Either Newton was right, and the whole system of 'fixed stars' is rotating relative to absolute, empty space; or Berkeley and Mach were right, and there must be some distribution of matter, far across the Universe, that enables a frame of reference against which the rotation of our Galaxy is measured.

http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/What%20is%20centrifugal%20force.htm

Sir Arthur Eddington, Einsteins contemporary...,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Eddington
.... explains it better:

Quote:

The bulge of the Earth�s equator may be attributed indifferently to the Earth�s rotation or to the outward pull of the centrifugal force introduced when the Earth is regarded as nonrotating.

Space, Time and Gravitation: An Outline of the General Relativity Theory, 1923, p. 41.
http://ebooksgo.org/physics/29782-pdf.pdf

Time to stop embarrassing yourself?

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 11, 12, 13, 14 Next
Page 12 of 14

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

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe