tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post4238338311369078256..comments2023-10-05T08:25:13.232-04:00Comments on Biblical Evidence for Catholicism: "No One's Perfect": Scientific Errors of Galileo and 16th-17th Century Cosmologies Rescued from ObscurityDave Armstronghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comBlogger108125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-54185089476204274402010-09-12T12:40:57.554-04:002010-09-12T12:40:57.554-04:00Rick DeLano:...and for you to co-sign as surety fo...Rick DeLano:...and for you to co-sign as surety for your nephew.<br /><br />Adomman: Deal's off.<br /><br />Thanks anyway.Adomnanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15746373228302022418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-86349944175658009352010-09-12T03:08:05.906-04:002010-09-12T03:08:05.906-04:00Well, I suppose in light of your very helpful post...Well, I suppose in light of your very helpful post I ought to consider, in Christian charity, a gesture in response to your request. After all, Our Lord asks us to give to those who ask.<br /><br />I am not a wealthy man (in terms of this world's measure of wealth) and so I can offer only a small loan.<br /><br />Since your nephew is not among the poor, however, I would have to ask for standard documentation of the loan, and for you to co-sign as surety for your nephew.<br /><br />I will loan precisely one tenth of one ounce of gold, and will require just that much- nothing more-in return, in ten years' time.<br /><br />You may, if you wish, repay the loan at any time prior to its due date without incurring any penalty at all (since there is no usury attached).<br /><br />Please contact me at catholicdad@gmail.com in order to effectuate the necessary paperwork.<br /><br />Thanks again- your very clever post was supremely helpful.<br /><br />I hope your nephew is able to secure deliverance from his unwise subjection of himself to the usurers through this loan, and I sincerely hope that it will not work too much of a hardship for him to repay the loan, since I am not wealthy, and only offer this in light of your very helpful post, and your subsequent request.<br /><br />Cheers!Rick DeLanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02470890457089673315noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-2936982033675339202010-09-12T00:12:35.466-04:002010-09-12T00:12:35.466-04:00ROFL
Adomnan, you're becoming the resident co...ROFL<br /><br />Adomnan, you're becoming the resident comedian. You've been on a real roll lately. Hilarious stuff . . . <br /><br />I think I'll opt for an Enloecentric cosmology. That would explain a lot.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-15722908572040671662010-09-11T23:13:36.144-04:002010-09-11T23:13:36.144-04:00Rick DeLano:
Thanks for the opportunity Adoman. Ex...Rick DeLano:<br />Thanks for the opportunity Adoman. Excellent observation.<br /><br />Adomnan:<br />You're most welcome. Now how about that interest-free loan for my nephew?Adomnanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15746373228302022418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-31811863704346975682010-09-11T22:48:24.509-04:002010-09-11T22:48:24.509-04:00Welcome back, Adoman, and while I get the nice att...Welcome back, Adoman, and while I get the nice attempt at sarcasm there, you have actually raised a very significant point.<br /><br />It is a very troubling aspect of Einstein's Theory that *it absolutely requires* that, in your delicious phraseology:<br /><br />"Thus, to paraphrase Einstein, the two sentences, "the street is at rest and Rick moves", or "the street moves and Rick is at rest", would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS [coordinate systems].<br /><br />And if Rick does a pirouette, he isn't really twirling at all, but it's actually the universe revolving around him in a very complex (and rapid) motion."<br /><br />You see, Adoman, it is not Rick, but Einstein who *absolutely insists* that the laws of physics do not permit us to assign one or the other reference frame as absolute.<br /><br />In fact, poor Albert is required to go *even further*.<br /><br />He is *required, by the necessary logic of his Theory*, to assert that there is *no physical difference whatsoever* between the two statements:<br /><br />1. "the street is at rest and Rick moves", or<br /><br />2. "the street moves and Rick is at rest", <br /><br />since, as Einstein assures us, this<br /><br />"would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS [coordinate systems]."<br /><br />Now.<br /><br />Why in the world would a fellow as smart as Einstein- a man with an entire *wall* full of scientific credentials- be compelled to embrace a Theory which absolutely *requires* him to assert that which you find so absurd, above?<br /><br />And that's not all, Adoman.<br /><br />He requires you to believe that rods shrink in the direction of motion, that time elapses at different rates for bodies in different states of motion......it just goes on and on.<br /><br />Now if you were interested in getting to the real meat of the matter (not that I expect that you are, but....) you might ask yourself:<br /><br />What drove Einstein to propose such apparent absurdities, and *what drove the scientific establishment to adopt them*?<br /><br />The answer is:<br /><br />The utter failure of every terrestrial experiment to show the motion of the Earth in its orbit that had been assumed by every scientist since Bessel's identification of the first stellar parallax.<br /><br />They had to reinvent physics, you see, because none of their experiments were showing that motion.<br /><br />Know why the rods shrink?<br /><br />They have to, in order to explain the results of the Michelson Morley experiment.<br /><br />Know why time moves at different rates?<br /><br />It has to, and for the same reason.<br /><br />And the cost of these shrinking rods and different rates of time?<br /><br />You guessed it: This means that Rick pirouetting or the Universe pirouetting around "would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS [coordinate systems]."<br /><br />That's the price they paid to keep the Earth from standing still.<br /><br />Thanks for the opportunity Adoman. Excellent observation.Rick DeLanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02470890457089673315noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-86953421687470559942010-09-11T22:01:15.316-04:002010-09-11T22:01:15.316-04:00I see some validity to the theory that the center ...I see some validity to the theory that the center of the universe is not the earth or the sun or some other place, but is, in actuality,...Rick!<br /><br />Given that, as Einstein says, we can choose any coordinate system we wish, then why not opt for a Rickocentric universe? Thus, when Rick walks down the street, as we say using conventional language, we should instead regard Rick as standing still and the street (with the rest of the world) moving past him. <br /><br />Thus, to paraphrase Einstein, the two sentences, "the street is at rest and Rick moves", or "the street moves and Rick is at rest", would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS [coordinate systems].<br /><br />And if Rick does a pirouette, he isn't really twirling at all, but it's actually the universe revolving around him in a very complex (and rapid) motion.Adomnanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15746373228302022418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-2098068431522969622010-09-11T20:27:28.024-04:002010-09-11T20:27:28.024-04:00Well, just trying to help, Dave. After all, your e...Well, just trying to help, Dave. After all, your excellent work in areas where you possess actual expertise ought not be compromised by your regrettably monumental blunders with regard to geocentrism.<br /><br />Next time, I suggest you ask Bob Sungenis to help you out before you post on this issue.<br /><br />It'll save a lot of bother.Rick DeLanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02470890457089673315noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-25444687793651509982010-09-11T20:20:42.780-04:002010-09-11T20:20:42.780-04:00Fare thee well and thanks for stopping by. One tre...Fare thee well and thanks for stopping by. One treasures all these precious moments of instruction from a profound intellectual and expert on science such as yourself.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-10793841588536116792010-09-11T20:08:59.198-04:002010-09-11T20:08:59.198-04:00Oh, just a bit of housekeeping Dave...you posted r...Oh, just a bit of housekeeping Dave...you posted regarding the test of Einstein in Gravity Probe B, remember?<br /><br />Umm, I got some news...<br />http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13938-gravity-probe-b-scores-f-in-nasa-review.html<br /><br />The short version: It failed.<br /><br />Cheers!Rick DeLanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02470890457089673315noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-47603933104749548722010-09-11T19:58:22.988-04:002010-09-11T19:58:22.988-04:00Well, there you have it sports fans.
Always a ple...Well, there you have it sports fans.<br /><br />Always a pleasure Dave.<br /><br />Til next time :-)Rick DeLanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02470890457089673315noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-90598067327935996752010-09-11T19:51:22.837-04:002010-09-11T19:51:22.837-04:00So what's it gonna be Dave?
I'm gonna go ...<i>So what's it gonna be Dave?</i><br /><br />I'm gonna go back to working on my new book about Mary, and then on to the next one about soteriology. You can rant and insult and make a fool of yourself here if you wish.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-87016117289688555882010-09-11T19:41:09.126-04:002010-09-11T19:41:09.126-04:00Dave, I think I see the problem here. You say &quo...Dave, I think I see the problem here. You say "Einstein believes the Earth rotates".<br /><br />But that is completely irrelevant, isn't it?<br /><br />Since science establishes its credibility based on experimental demonstration, not belief, to merely "believe" one or the other possible explanation for an experimental result is a matter of philosophical preference, not scientific proof, isn't it Dave?<br /><br />Remember what George Ellis tried to teach you, earlier, Dave?<br /><br />“People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations,” Ellis argues. “For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations.” Ellis has published a paper on this. “You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.”<br /><br />Now if you wish to say that you philosophically prefer the possible explanation that the Earth rotates, then say so, and we can proceed to an examination of Catholic teaching on this score.<br /><br />If you wish to claim that you can scientifically prove the Earth's motion, then you are going to continue to get creamed here by a tenth grade dropout :-)<br /><br />So what's it gonna be Dave?Rick DeLanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02470890457089673315noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-7874964867103824212010-09-11T19:35:46.600-04:002010-09-11T19:35:46.600-04:00DAVE AGAIN: In 1851, French physicist Léon Foucaul...DAVE AGAIN: In 1851, French physicist Léon Foucault provided an experimental demonstration of the rotation of the Earth on its axis. This was achieved by considering the rotation of the plane of oscillation of a freely suspended pendulum in the Panthéon in Paris.<br /><br />>>Uh oh, here comes that pesky Einstein feller again, Dave. Do you suppose he might have some of them thar' scientific credentials you wuz talkin about earlier?<br /><br />“One need not view the existence of such centrifugal forces as originating fromthe motion of K’ [the Earth]; one could just as well account for them as resulting from the average rotational effect of distant, detectable masses as evidenced in the vicinity of K’ [the Earth], whereby K’ [the Earth] is treated as being at rest.”<br /><br /> --Albert Einstein, quoted in Hans Thirring, “On the Effect of Distant Rotating Masses in Einstein’s Theory of Gravitation”, Physikalische Zeitschrift 22, 29, 1921<br /><br />That's Strike Four.<br /><br />Am I getting through to you Mr. Armstrong?Rick DeLanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02470890457089673315noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-62214520546092804872010-09-11T19:22:06.467-04:002010-09-11T19:22:06.467-04:00More evidence of the earth's rotation from a s...More evidence of the earth's rotation from a satellite in space:<br /><br />"Testing the spin effect: how far the the world turns according to Einsteinian physics," Steve Jones, <i>Telegraph</i>, 18 May 2010.<br /><br />"If Einstein is right, the spinning discs would – like Foucault's pendulum – drift slightly over time in response to the space-time distortion caused by the Earth's mass and rotation."<br /><br />http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/steve-jones/7734055/Testing-the-spin-effect-how-far-the-the-world-turns-according-to-Einsteinian-physics.html<br /><br />See also Paul Davies, "Einstein, the first spin doctor," <i>The Guardian</i>, 10 April 2004.<br /><br />http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2004/apr/10/spaceexploration.commentDave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-78585776472077345362010-09-11T19:15:23.250-04:002010-09-11T19:15:23.250-04:00Poor Dave. You just don't seem to get it yet, ...Poor Dave. You just don't seem to get it yet, but I have high hopes for you.<br /><br />It's 0 and 2 for you big fella, but maybe you can pull one out here in the bottom of the ninth...let's see:<br /><br />Dave swings again: ... as is polar motion:<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_motion<br /><br />>>This one is truly hilarious, since your own source admits: "This is measured with respect to a reference frame in which the solid Earth is fixed (a so-called Earth-centered, Earth-fixed or ECEF reference frame)."<br /><br />Needless to say, this does not bode well for your third swing, Dave, since you are attempting to prove that the earth centered earth fixed reference frame is nonexistent.<br /><br />That's a big Strike Three for ya there pardner, but let's continue and give you another swing at the ball.....Rick DeLanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02470890457089673315noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-77680770961787546122010-09-11T19:09:37.068-04:002010-09-11T19:09:37.068-04:00Dave tries again:
***********
DA: Precession of th...Dave tries again:<br />***********<br />DA: Precession of the equinoxes is another indication:<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precession_%28astronomy%29#Astronomy<br /><br />>>No it isn't. Precession is merely the change of orientation of the rotational axis of a rotating body. Equinoctial precession is therefore explainable as:<br /><br />1. The change of orientation of the Earth's rotation with respect to the Universe over time, or<br /><br />2. The change of orientation of the Universe's rotation with respect to the Earth over time.<br /><br />To claim that 1 can be proven, while 2 cannot, will win you the Nobel Prize, as Einstein already told you, remember?<br /><br />"The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS [coordinate system] could be used with equal justification. The two sentences, 'the sun is at rest and the earth moves', or 'the sun moves and the earth is at rest', would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS [coordinate systems]."<br /> <br />---"The Evolution of Physics: From Early Concepts to Relativity and Quanta, Albert Einstein and Leopold Infeld, New York, Simon and Schuster 1938, 1966 p.212<br /><br />Now get busy there Dave and tell us why 1 above must be true, while 2 above cannot.<br /><br />Hint: You can't.<br /><br />Strike Two.Rick DeLanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02470890457089673315noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-75348059228044595022010-09-11T19:05:37.583-04:002010-09-11T19:05:37.583-04:00For info. on the earth's rotation being incorp...For info. on the earth's rotation being incorporated into Einstein's relativity, see:<br /><br />"Spacetime and Spin," by James Overduin (January 2008)<br /><br />http://einstein.stanford.edu/SPACETIME/spacetime4.html<br /><br />Einstein (like virtually all scientists) believed that the earth rotates:<br /><br />"Such displacements may take place as the consequence of comparatively slight forces exerted on the crust, derived from <b>the earth’s momentum of rotation</b>, which in turn will tend to alter the axis of rotation, which in turn will tend to alter the <b>axis of rotation</b> of the earth’s crust.<br /><br />"In a polar region there is continual deposition of ice, which is not symmetrically distributed about the pole. The <b>earth’s rotation</b> acts on these unsymmetrically deposited masses, and produces centrifugal momentum that is transmitted to the rigid crust of the earth."<br /><br />(Foreword to <i>The Path of the Pole</i>, by Charles Hapgood)<br /><br />http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/ends-of-the-earth-einstein<br /><br />http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/ends-of-the-earth-einstein#ixzz0zGSvEG4J<br /><br />"<i>Einstein's drag: two satellites reveal how Earth's rotation warps space-time</i>"<br /><br />Article Abstract:<br /><br />"An international team of Italian, Greek-American and Spanish researchers have hit upon a novel idea to measure the Lense-Thirring effect. The researchers utilized two satellite systems which accounted for gravitational perturbations to measure space-time warp as the Earth rotates.<br />author: Ariza, Luis Miguel<br />Publisher: Scientific American, Inc.<br />Publication Name: Scientific American<br />Subject: Science and technology<br />ISSN: 0036-8733<br />Year: 1998"<br /><br />http://www.faqs.org/abstracts/Science-and-technology/Einsteins-drag-two-satellites-reveal-how-Earths-rotation-warps-space-time.htmlDave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-63840983119214113662010-09-11T19:04:07.585-04:002010-09-11T19:04:07.585-04:00I gotta give you credit for working the old google...I gotta give you credit for working the old google button pretty hard at least, but you just don't get it yet.<br /><br />Every. Single. Example. You. Post. Must. Be. Explainable. From. A. Geocentric. Reference.<br /><br />Otherwise. You. Have. Experimentally. Disproven. The. Theory. Of. Relativity.<br /><br />You would win a Nobel Prize if you could do that, Dave, even given your lack of scientific credentials.<br /><br />But let's see why you won't, shall we?<br /><br />DAVE: As for the earth's rotation, one evidence of that is nutation:<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutation<br /><br />. . . discovered by James Bradley in 1728. <br /><br />>>What do you suppose makes nutation *only possible to explain* from within the context of a rotating Earth. Dave?<br /><br />Come on use your own words now, or else google up somebody else's.<br /><br />Let me save you the time.<br /><br />Nutation is explainable as:<br /><br />1. The slight wobble of the Earth as it rotates upon its axis.<br /><br />2. The slight wobble of the Universe as it rotates about its barycenter.<br /><br />To claim that 1 can be proven, while 2 cannot, will win you the Nobel Prize, as Einstein already told you, remember?<br /><br />"The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS [coordinate system] could be used with equal justification. The two sentences, 'the sun is at rest and the earth moves', or 'the sun moves and the earth is at rest', would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS [coordinate systems]."<br /> <br />---"The Evolution of Physics: From Early Concepts to Relativity and Quanta, Albert Einstein and Leopold Infeld, New York, Simon and Schuster 1938, 1966 p.212<br /><br />Now get busy there Dave and tell us why 1 above must be true, while 2 above cannot.<br /><br />Hint: You can't.<br /><br />Strike One.Rick DeLanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02470890457089673315noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-7636179187852550542010-09-11T18:45:37.590-04:002010-09-11T18:45:37.590-04:00As for the earth's rotation, one evidence of t...As for the earth's rotation, one evidence of that is nutation:<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutation<br /><br />. . . discovered by James Bradley in 1728. <br /><br />Precession of the equinoxes is another indication:<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precession_%28astronomy%29#Astronomy<br /><br />... as is polar motion:<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_motion<br /><br />In 1851, French physicist Léon Foucault provided an experimental demonstration of the rotation of the Earth on its axis. This was achieved by considering the rotation of the plane of oscillation of a freely suspended pendulum in the Panthéon in Paris.<br /><br />In 1913, American physicist Arthur Compton devised another demonstration method for the Earth's rotation:<br /><br />http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/citation/37/960/803<br /><br />See also:<br /><br />"Experimental Proofs of the Earth's Rotation," William M. McKinney, <i>Journal of Geography</i>, Volume 61, Issue 4 April 1962 , pages 171-174.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-66148262133508542832010-09-11T18:40:15.378-04:002010-09-11T18:40:15.378-04:00Oh, here's just one more for you, Dave:
“Peo...Oh, here's just one more for you, Dave:<br /><br /><br />“People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations,” Ellis argues. “For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations.” Ellis has published a paper on this. “You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.”---cosmologist George Ellis, quoted in Scientific American, George Ellis, a famous cosmologist, in Scientific American, "Thinking Globally, Acting Universally", October 1995<br /><br />Now isn't it remarkable that a tenth grade droupout knows this, and you don't?<br /><br />Perhaps this will assist you to grasp more sensuously why the "Argument from Academic Credential" is among the most pathetic of all logical fallacies......Rick DeLanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02470890457089673315noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-6663801281585661052010-09-11T18:24:03.849-04:002010-09-11T18:24:03.849-04:00Here is some food for thought, Dave, the next time...Here is some food for thought, Dave, the next time you go foolishly chirping about "99.9% of scientists". Or, for that matter, about whether astronauts can "see the Earth rotating beneath them from space"<br /><br /><br />"The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS [coordinate system] could be used with equal justification. The two sentences, 'the sun is at rest and the earth moves', or 'the sun moves and the earth is at rest', would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS [coordinate systems]."<br /> <br />---"The Evolution of Physics: From Early Concepts to Relativity and Quanta, Albert Einstein and Leopold Infeld, New York, Simon and Schuster 1938, 1966 p.212<br />***************************<br /><br /><br />"...Thus we may return to Ptolemy's point of view of a 'motionless earth'...One has to show that the transformed metric can be regarded as produced according to Einstein's field equations, by distant rotating masses. This has been done by Thirring. He calculated a field due to a rotating, hollow, thick-walled sphere and proved that inside the cavity it behaved as though there were centrifugal and other inertial forces usually attributed to absolute space.<br /><br />Thus from Einstein's point of view, Ptolemy and Corpenicus are equally right."<br /><br />Max Born "Einstein's Theory of Relativity",Dover Publications,1962, pgs 344 & 345:<br />******************************<br /><br /><br />"We know that the difference between a heliocentric theory and a geocentric theory is one of relative motion only, and that such a difference<br />has no physical significance." <br /><br />Sir Fred Hoyle,Astronomy and Cosmology - A Modern Course, (San Francisco:W. H. Freeman & Co.), p. 416,1975. <br /><br />Now examples can certainly be multiplied Dave, but for a guy like you, who has dug himself into such a deep hole here (and against a mere tenth grade dropout no less!), may I suggest to you first that you put down the shovel..........Rick DeLanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02470890457089673315noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-90850649394297728342010-09-11T18:20:50.561-04:002010-09-11T18:20:50.561-04:00DA: I see. Thanks! So you don't even have a hi...DA: I see. Thanks! So you don't even have a high school diploma, let alone a college degree, and the requisite courses in science. Yet you fancy yourself equipped to take on 99.9% of the world's scientists (if not more) who are arrayed against you?<br /><br />>>Actually, Dave, it is 99.9% of the world's scientists who are arrayed against *you*. Unlike you, they understand the basic principle of Relativity, which renders your claim that the astronauts could observe the Earth's rotation from space an appalling blunder. 99.9% of the world's scientists know that this blunder is precisely the same blunder by which one assumes one can determine merely from observation whether the Sun is rising, or whether the Earth is rotating upon its axis.<br /><br />Now even if 99.9% of the world's scientists *were* to say that it has been experimentally demonstrated that the earth is moving, *they would, all of them, each and every last one, be wrong, and their credentials could do nothing at all to save them*, Dave.<br /><br />But 99.9% of the word's scientists do *not* say this, Dave.<br /><br />Any scientist that *did* say it would be a drone, an incompetent.<br /><br />Let us examine what *actual* scientists have to say about this, shall we, Dave?Rick DeLanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02470890457089673315noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-56233948597754136792010-09-11T18:07:08.539-04:002010-09-11T18:07:08.539-04:00I am a tenth grade dropout, Dave.
I see. Thanks! ...<i><b>I am a tenth grade dropout, Dave.</b></i><br /><br />I see. Thanks! So you don't even have a <i>high school</i> diploma, let alone a college degree, and the requisite courses in science. Yet you fancy yourself equipped to take on 99.9% of the world's scientists (if not more) who are arrayed against you?<br /><br />Did you at least take biology and dissect a frog before you dropped out of high school?; perhaps a bit of chemistry? Didja have a chemistry set at home, as I did?<br /><br />I had three years of science in high school: chemistry, biology, and physics (also a year of geometry and two of algebra: four semesters), and took geology and biology in college (as well as philosophy of space and time). <br /><br />That doesn't particularly prove anything at all, as to levels of expertise on this specific question, and I'm as big of an advocate of self-eduction via books and other means as anyone is, but I think it is <i>relevant</i>, given your grandiose, melodramatic claims, and I think it gives me <i>enough</i> scientific education to know that you are full of hot air on this topic (to use a "helium-centric" metaphor).Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-89472699889071689042010-09-11T17:53:38.034-04:002010-09-11T17:53:38.034-04:00One more dodge and your readers will have confirme...One more dodge and your readers will have confirmed what they already know, Dave. What they already know is that you are a blustering and ill-qualified blunderer, who doesn't know enough to be able to understand the reason why we cannot tell, just by looking, whether it is the Sun that is rising above the horizon, or whether it is the Earth that is rotating upon its axis.<br /><br />The matter of your grotesque ignorance in this regard is not a great thing: it would have been fine to have admitted it and corrected the blunder.<br /><br />Instead you have resorted to the typical tactics of the Pharisee and the fakir: since you know you are wrong on the facts, attack the opponent who has so inconveniently caught you out.<br /><br />I am a tenth grade dropout, Dave, and as I have truthfully reported, and hereby repeat, and openly invite all readers of any scientific background or none at all:<br /><br />I am qualified to address the scientific aspects of the question of whether geocentrism has been experimentally disproven (it hasn't).<br /><br />Dave Armstrong is not qualified to address this question, not merely because of his inability to grasp the basis principle of Relativity which renders his foolish example of astronauts "seeing the Earth turn beneath them" such a blunder, but also because Dave Armstrong would rather attempt to obfuscate his own blunder, than to ameliorate or defend it.<br /><br />As for me, I stand ready at any time, to address the scientific questions associated with geocentrism, with any one, regardless of academic credential or lack thereof.<br /><br />Christ, after all, did not limit His Wisdom to the recipients of degrees, and certainly not to those whose credentials depend upon the maintenance of a scientific falsehood: to wit, that it has ever been demonstrated by any scientific experiment in all of human history that the Earth is in motion, either translational or diurnal.<br /><br />It has never been so demonstrated.Rick DeLanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02470890457089673315noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-17927888822490017632010-09-11T17:48:18.067-04:002010-09-11T17:48:18.067-04:00While we're waiting for a response, it looks l...While we're waiting for a response, it looks like Our Boy Rick doesn't have an MA or MS degree, since he is listed on a page with a bunch of folks who have their degrees listed, and there is no such listing for his name:<br /><br />http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2009-second_international_declaration_pope_benedict.htm<br /><br />Perhaps it was an oversight, or he obtained a degree in the interim . . .Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.com