tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post2492114486145097077..comments2023-11-19T19:19:12.773-05:00Comments on Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy: SpaceMath @ NASAW.T."Tom" Bridgmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10889134728080314165noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-38191696326106526842011-03-16T19:04:12.442-04:002011-03-16T19:04:12.442-04:00Sorry. Blogspot classified this comment as spam a...Sorry. Blogspot classified this comment as spam and it didn't show up in the unmoderated comments count, so I only just today looked in that section.<br /><br />The fallacy in this reasoning is that the science we use to build technologies is somehow different from the science we use to understand the universe. Creationists try to make a similar distinction (<a href="http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/2010/04/real-science-vs-cosmological-and.html" rel="nofollow">"Real" Science vs. "Cosmological" and "Origins" Science</a>, <a href="http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/2009/08/cosmos-in-your-pocket-expanded-revised.html" rel="nofollow">The Cosmos In Your Pocket: Expanded & Revised</a>)<br /><br />The analyses of gravity that suggest there is undetected ("Dark") matter use the same equations we use to compute the trajectories sending spacecraft to other planets. We apply the same Newtonian force laws as well (in non-relativistic cases).<br /><br />Where do you think these techniques and equations actually come from??? How did we know how to compute orbits before we ever launched a satellite?W.T."Tom" Bridgmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10889134728080314165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-51922602890197099322011-02-26T14:06:42.216-05:002011-02-26T14:06:42.216-05:00Interesting site by NASA with lots of info. Though...Interesting site by NASA with lots of info. Though, as probably expected, I’ll respond to this claim in your blog post:<br /><br />“Supporters of these 'alternative sciences' [herby Electric Universe] can't provide info on how to do even fundamental computations of things such as the fuel requirements of a rocket to make it to a given orbit (…)”<br /><br />One could surely provide info on it, and still hire a mathematician/engineer for the specific job position regardless of what cosmological model a future version of NASA used for data interpretation. Electric Universe supporters don’t refute that one needs people with relevant qualifications to specific job positions, don’t refute the effect of gravity within our solar system and surely wouldn’t refute the calculations needed for the amount of fuel required of a rocket for any given purpose (why the claim?). Does the Big Bang model itself have anything to do with rocket fuel calculations? Awaiting this kind of info from a cosmology, is like complaining that the political model utilized for a given society doesn’t provide detailed info on how to buy equipment at the office – or under which budget post to file it under. Also, the Electric Sun model doesn’t refute the amount of <b>radiation emitted by the Sun</b> (which could be used for calculation of radiation shielding) – but it has another take on the processes behind it, as you know. I understand you like to make a point, and underline the importance of mathematical calculation within engineering, but I don’t see how that is applicable as a general criticism towards the Electric Universe theory (supporters)?Siggy_Gnoreply@blogger.com