The best evidence

DragonFriend View Profile

Spirituality

22 Feb '06 20:47

FreakyKBH
Unknown Territories
Joined
05 Dec '05
Moves
20408
26 Feb '06 23:29
Originally posted by bbarr
Right. Must be that secret decoder ring again!
Tyre would be absolutely and forever destroyed and unable to be found by man...
That Tyre, the once great city, is gone. The little that remains there today, are not remnants of the city it was, but rather, vestiges of those who conquered it and came years later.
With a natural reading of history, Tyre's influence has been eliminated from the globe. It cannot be found, as it no longer exists. It is akin to New York being reduced to Wall, South Dakota. When did this occur? It began with Nebby, and was completed by Alex. Were there varied attempts to bring her back to glory? Yes, but all were ineffectual, as she never regained her position of prominence in the world, by any stretch of the imagination.
bbarr
Chief Justice
Center of Contention
Joined
14 Jun '02
Moves
17381
26 Feb '06 23:37
Originally posted by no1marauder
In what model? The Sun contains 99.8% of the Solar System's mass anyway, so any deviation would be minor. For all practical purposes, the planets revolve around the Sun which is the center of the Solar System.
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=461
bbarr
Chief Justice
Center of Contention
Joined
14 Jun '02
Moves
17381
26 Feb '06 23:371 edit
Originally posted by no1marauder
In what model? The Sun contains 99.8% of the Solar System's mass anyway, so any deviation would be minor. For all practical purposes, the planets revolve around the Sun which is the center of the Solar System.
bbarr
Chief Justice
Center of Contention
Joined
14 Jun '02
Moves
17381
26 Feb '06 23:46
Originally posted by no1marauder
In what model? The Sun contains 99.8% of the Solar System's mass anyway, so any deviation would be minor. For all practical purposes, the planets revolve around the Sun which is the center of the Solar System.
You're right that this is a useful generalization, but it is still false.
bbarr
Chief Justice
Center of Contention
Joined
14 Jun '02
Moves
17381
26 Feb '06 23:501 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b] Tyre would be absolutely and forever destroyed and unable to be found by man...
That Tyre, the once great city, is gone. The little that remains there today, are not remnants of the city it was, but rather, vestiges of those who conquered it and came years later.
With a natural reading of history, Tyre's influence has been eliminated from the gl ...[text shortened]... she never regained her position of prominence in the world, by any stretch of the imagination.[/b]
Sure, and if you take the prophesy as metaphorical, any number of things could qualify as having fulfilled it. If the facts don't fit what Ezekiel actually says, then just whip out the secret decoder ring, engage in some creative interpretation (e.g., "absolutely and forever destroyed" = "decreased in prominence" ), and voila, prophesy fulfilled.
no1marauder
Naturally Right
Somewhere Else
Joined
22 Jun '04
Moves
42677
26 Feb '06 23:50
Originally posted by bbarr
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=461
Fair enough, but since the entire idea of revolution around a center mass is an abstraction anyway and since it is conceded that it makes no practical difference, saying the Sun is the center of the Solar System is certainly scientifically correct (i.e. true).
no1marauder
Naturally Right
Somewhere Else
Joined
22 Jun '04
Moves
42677
26 Feb '06 23:52
Originally posted by bbarr
You're right that this is a useful generalization, but it is still false.
You might as well say that the planets revolve around anything is false in relativistic terms.
bbarr
Chief Justice
Center of Contention
Joined
14 Jun '02
Moves
17381
26 Feb '06 23:561 edit
Originally posted by no1marauder
You might as well say that the planets revolve around anything is false in relativistic terms.
Without specifying an inertial frame, that is correct.
no1marauder
Naturally Right
Somewhere Else
Joined
22 Jun '04
Moves
42677
27 Feb '06 00:061 edit
Originally posted by bbarr
Without specifying an inertial frame, that is correct.
I'll admit I'm unclear as to what the term "inertial frame" means. It is my understanding that objects move in straight lines in space time, but that space time is curved by stress energy in the vicinity of matter. If that is so, then objects don't "revolve" around any point at all. It is also my understanding that according to Einstein's ultimate vision, matter itself is only a pronounced curvature of space time; thus, it would make no sense to say that one pronounced curvature of space time revolves around another.
bbarr
Chief Justice
Center of Contention
Joined
14 Jun '02
Moves
17381
27 Feb '06 00:21
Originally posted by no1marauder
I'll admit I'm unclear as to what the term "inertial frame" means. It is my understanding that objects move in straight lines in space time, but that space time is curved by stress energy in the vicinity of matter. If that is so, then objects don't "revolve" around any point at all. It is also my understanding that according to Einstein's ultimate visio ...[text shortened]... ake no sense to say that one pronounced curvature of space time revolves around another.
But the notion of 'straightness' in General Relativity is just that of the shortest distance between two points. So it is consistent with a planet revolving around an object that it also move in a 'straight line'.
no1marauder
Naturally Right
Somewhere Else
Joined
22 Jun '04
Moves
42677
27 Feb '06 00:28
Originally posted by bbarr
But the notion of 'straightness' in General Relativity is just that of the shortest distance between two points. So it is consistent with a planet revolving around an object that it also move in a 'straight line'.
I guess it's a semantic quibble, but if an object is simply moving in a straight line in the easiest path of space time is it "revolving" around anything?
bbarr
Chief Justice
Center of Contention
Joined
14 Jun '02
Moves
17381
27 Feb '06 00:43
Originally posted by no1marauder
I guess it's a semantic quibble, but if an object is simply moving in a straight line in the easiest path of space time is it "revolving" around anything?
That question doesn't have an answer unless you specify an inertial frame by taking some body as 'fixed'. That is, it makes sense to ask whether the planets are revolving around the sun relative to the sun (and the answer to that is 'yes'😉, but it doesn't make sense to ask whether the planets are revolving around the sun absolutely. Similar remarks apply to questions about, for instance, simultaneity.
no1marauder
Naturally Right
Somewhere Else
Joined
22 Jun '04
Moves
42677
27 Feb '06 00:47
Originally posted by lucifershammer
I'll get back to the "Galileo myth" once I've busted this bit of pseudoscience:

[b]the theory of heliocentrism - which you keep forgetting is true

Galilean heliocentrism simply isn't true. Neither is the Keplerian version (which, at least, has elliptical orbits). Both men placed the Sun at the centre of the Universe.

...[text shortened]... mply isn't true.

So, to put it quite bluntly - heliocentrism is not true.[/b]
From the site bbarr gave:

Is it true that Sun also revolves around the Earth? If yes, apart from convenience, is there another reason why we use the Solar-centered coordinate system ?

Technically, what is going on is that the Earth, Sun and all the planets are orbiting around the center of mass of the solar system. This is actually how planets orbiting other stars are often detected, by searching for the motion of the stars they orbit that is caused by the fact that the star is orbiting the center of mass of the system, causing it to wobble on the sky.

The center of mass of our solar system very close to the Sun itself, but not exactly at the Sun's center (it is actually a little bit outside the radius of the Sun). However, since almost all of the mass within the solar system is contained in the Sun, its motion is only a slight wobble in comparison to the motion of the planets. Therefore, assuming that the Sun is stationary and the planets revolve around its center is a good enough approximation for most purposes.

It appears that you are sooooooooooooooooo correct; heliocentrism isn't true! The center of the Solar System isn't the Sun, it's "actually a little bit outside the radius of the Sun". Grab a rack and an Iron Maiden; all those high school and college professors must be punished for their terrible "intellectual dishonesty".
no1marauder
Naturally Right
Somewhere Else
Joined
22 Jun '04
Moves
42677
27 Feb '06 00:50
Originally posted by bbarr
That question doesn't have an answer unless you specify an inertial frame by taking some body as 'fixed'. That is, it makes sense to ask whether the planets are revolving around the sun relative to the sun (and the answer to that is 'yes'😉, but it doesn't make sense to ask whether the planets are revolving around the sun absolutely. Similar remarks apply to questions about, for instance, simultaneity.
OK, I understand. My statement is accurate since the choice of the inertial frame is arbitrary (hence, "relative"😉 since all bodies are actually in motion.
no1marauder
Naturally Right
Somewhere Else
Joined
22 Jun '04
Moves
42677
27 Feb '06 00:531 edit
Originally posted by no1marauder
Some jerk tried to pretend all authorities agree on some imaginary point he was making:

Any student who's done A-level physics can tell you that all the bodies (including the Sun) that comprise the Solar System revolve around a common centre of mass.

I pointed out that this statement is yet another lie.
I'll withdraw the comment that LH's statement was a lie and replace it with his comment was insufferable, snotnose, petty nitpicking.