tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post1271794361728488263..comments2023-11-19T19:19:12.773-05:00Comments on Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy: Geocentrism vs. Inertial FramesW.T."Tom" Bridgmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10889134728080314165noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-78987487561696050042012-02-06T05:08:49.029-05:002012-02-06T05:08:49.029-05:00Tom - If Geocentrists want to claim that certain d...Tom - If Geocentrists want to claim that certain devices work in these other remote locations because we've designed them to work that way, the statement carries with it the implied assumption that somehow human technology violates the laws of physics.<br /><br />JM – This statement does not establish its initial claim concerning what geocentrists claim. The statement is also a non sequitur, for to claim devices have been designed without a preferred reference frame, does not mean the non preferred reference frame universe really exists. All it means is that technology can be designed with local, non preferred reference frames, using a model that makes assumptions about inertia and mass attraction. The technology is then used on another planet, where the same assumptions are used and the technology seems to work well. So all Tom can conclude is a model can approximate the real in a local reference frame that produces some good results using local forces and local mass attraction.<br /><br />Geocentrists can do the same thing. We can claim the earth is the preferred reference frame with respect to the rest of the universe due to the large scale structure of the universe being structured around the earth. We can then approximate the forces and value of mass of an object and use Newtonian mechanics in a local frame. This does not remove, nor contradict the geo claim of the earth as a stationary object within the universe, for the earth can be used mathematically as an absolute reference frame and as a local reference frame. For mathematically the numbers work out the same.<br /><br />Tom - That is utter nonsense. The technological progress human society has enjoyed over the past three hundred years is an outgrowth of our ability to understand those physical laws and work within their constraints. <br /><br />JM – This is merely a claim made by Tom, based upon a false premise. Geocentrists can mathematically (according to Newton’s equations) use the earth as a preferred reference frame with respect to the rest of the universe, or as a local reference frame. When we see the large scale structure of the universe and several experiments that demonstrate the earth is stationary, we conclude that experimentally the earth is stationary. We can also use Newtonian mechanics is a local frame, knowing that gravity and inertial are really caused by earther flow and not mass attraction and the motion of a body.<br /><br />Even so, in Toms examples of constant velocity of say the plane, this assumes the body on then plane can act as though the plane is stationary. Just like Newtonians assume the earth is stationary when they make their technology. Just like geocentrists assume the earth is stationary the same way the Newtonians do. <br /><br />JMjohnmartinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06672413192359113485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-65262218223616124122012-02-06T05:08:26.053-05:002012-02-06T05:08:26.053-05:00Tom - If the Earth were physically preferred refer...Tom - If the Earth were physically preferred reference frame, as claimed by Geocentrists, we would expect these principles to function differently when moving relative to the Earth, or at great distance from the Earth.<br /><br />JM – This is a non sequitur statement. Why? Geocentrists claim the earth is a preferred reference frame for it alone is stationary in the universe. This does not mean the earth is a preferred reference frame in relation to the force of gravity as you insist it does.<br /><br />Tom - The fact that these devices function according to the same physical laws we've discovered on the Earth is evidence that the Earth is NOT a physically preferred reference frame. A scientist on Mars will derive the exact same physical laws as a scientist on the Earth. <br /><br />JM – These same physical laws are merely assumptions, geometry and maths. Those same assumptions and maths are used at other parts of the universe, then fine. Does this mean geocentrism is invalidated because a theory can assume no preferred reference frame? Definitely not, simply because the geocentric preferred reference frame is preferred in reference to the rest of the universe and not preferred in reference to another local reference frame. This means that according to geocentrism we should see the large scale structure of the universe centered on the earth. This is exactly what we see with the CMB quadropoles and octopoles and the axis of evil, which show the earth is at the center of the universe. We also see this with the large scale structure of the galaxies and other light sources that are focused in on the earth and located around the earth in concentric spheres. We also see this with the functioning of the lunar laser ranging experiment that is only satisfactorily explained by a stationary earth (relativity special pleads a deformation in the moon retro-reflector that causes the laser to trace out a triangular path back to the earth!!). I also note the lack of moon light aberration, which indicates the earth is stationary relative to the moon. Finally, Airy’s failure to detect the earths motion is also clear evidence for a preferred reference frame.<br /><br />Tom merely assumes that mass attraction and inertia as defined within Newtonian mechanics holds true always an everywhere and as Newtonian mechanics does not require a preferred reference frame, then when technology has some success on another planet, then this is supposedly evidence that the earth is not a preferred reference frame. But if we examine the ‘m’ in the F=ma equation we see ‘m’ is really not known as a cause within Newtonian mechanics at all. It is merely special pleaded to be a magic cause within all physical bodies. Also if we understand inertia not being caused by the motion of the body, but by a local aether flow around and with the body, then the Newtonian equations are merely convenient equations that approximate reality. As such, any special claims that such a model clearly indicates the earth is not a preferred reference frame, is to over estimate the power of the theory and ignore all the counter evidence against the geocentric preferred reference frame claim.johnmartinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06672413192359113485noreply@blogger.com