E
- Status
S
StAnastasia
Guest
I realize that. Pope Benedict is not a scientist.
H
hecd2
Guest
I have no place to claim - all I am doing is pointing out the well known fact that the data that shows that the earth is not spherical is overwhelming. As I pointed out the deviation from sphericity (radially 21.385km, diametrically 42.772km) is hugely greater than the measurement accuracy and precision: there is no doubt whatsoever about the oblateness of the earth’s figure.
The equivalent flattening is 298.25642 (ie the difference between the polar and the equatorial radius is 1/298.25642 of the equatorial radius). Between 1830 and now, that measurement has a maximum of 299.3 and a minimum of 293.5. There has been no measurement outside that small range. All the rest of your post is a failed attempt to confuse this fundamental point by presenting third or fourth order effects that are tiny compared with the primary effect of an equatorial bulge.
Now either you are doing this because you don’t understand what you are reading and you genuinely think that an anomaly of a few feet on top of a basic phenomenon of 21.4 km is somehow significant. Or you understand what you are presenting, and you understand that it is irrelevant to the case, but you present it anyway because it is a spoiling tactic. If the latter is the case, then you are not doing your cause very much good. If you want to be taken seriously, you have to accept incontrovertible facts, and the oblateness of the earth is one of them. Furthermore, it seems to me that God would not want his case made by obfuscation and deceit.
Correct. There have been several since. They don’t change much. Here are some:
1910 Hayford 297
1924 International 297
1927 NAD 27 294.978698208
1940 Krassovsky 298.3
1966 WGS66 298.25
1967 New International 298.24961539
1967 GRS67 298.247167427
1972 WGS72 298.26
1979 GRS80 298.257222101
1983 NAD83 298.257024899
1984 WGS84 298.257223563
1989 IERS 298.257
2003 IERS 298.25642
None of these is anywhere near zero (which it would be for a spherical earth). We know the oblateness of the earth to a high accuracy.
But that is a subsidiary effect that would not affect the basic flattening, as the diameter of the earth at different longitudes at the equator is hugely more constant than the diameter between equator and pole.
Really? Asimov has rounded to whole numbers of kilometres because he is writing for a popular audience, but he has rounded up not down. The 1910 diametric oblateness is 42.948km which is less than Asimov’s 43km. Do you have difficulty multiplying by two?
Correct - see above. Asimov quotes the oblateness to two significant figures the same as the measured value.
Of course that doesn’t mean that the oblateness is 25 feet,. It means that overlying a basic oblateness of more than 21km or 69,300 feet there is a north to south asymmetry of 25 feet.
It does not, because they are tiny assymetries of the order of 25 - 50 feet on a first order flattening of nearly 70,000 feet. If you think these measurements show a first order flattening of 50 feet then you have real comprehension problems. Cassini’s measurements were rejected because they were wrong as every single measurement since 1830 has shown. Jean Cassini was simply wrong, the diameter across the equator is substantially (about 43 km) greater than the diameter across the poles.
You really have to do better than this nonsense.
Alec
evolutionpages.com/pink_unicorn.htm
H
hecd2
Guest
Do you have a authoritative source that shows that NASA always uses the geocentric frame? If they are putting up earth satellites, they might well do, but they do not for interplanetary missions such as the Cassini-Huygens
Saturn probe. In that case they might use a geocentric frame for the launch, but can you imagine any idiot using a geocentric frame to calculate the interplanetary trajectory (never mind the complete idiocy of using a geostatic frame)? And when it got to Saturn, sure as eggs is eggs, they used a Saturn-centric frame.But I thought you believed that NASA and all modern scientists were deceivers, and spawn of the devil?
Alec
evolutionpages.com
H
hecd2
Guest
There is no such thing as heliocentric physics. There is physics and there is fantasy.
You can believe in whatever you like. What I object to is your less than honest attempts to prove your faith beliefs using science-like statements. In that case it behoves you to get the science right and to present evidence fairly. So far, you have got the science spectacularly wrong and the best that can be said of your presentation of your case is that it is disingenuous.
Your attempt to poison the well is noted
If you mean to reject all of science, that is fine by me, but why not just stick to the faith position? “It is so because I believe God said it was so.” If you hold science in such contempt, why then do you attempt to “prove” your case with fabricated and misrepresented scientific data?
Alec
evolutionpages.com
H
hecd2
Guest
Ironically, cassini himself introduced this subject by claiming that the International Gravity Formula was based on work by Jean Cassini. When I challenged him on this, he simply ran away:
He obviously though better of debating me on a subject where the effect is caused by earth’s oblateness and the centrifugal force due to the earth’s rotation - about as bad a subject for his case as he could have chosen.
Alec
evolutionpages.com
S
StAnastasia
Guest
That the YEC modus operandi – bamboozle people with whom they can get away with it, and cut and run when they are confronted by someone who knows some real science.
They do the same with theology.
StAnastasia
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
H
hecd2
Guest
I should say that YEC has become more common since I have been on CAF. I also think that the community on CAF is skewed to creationists and bible literalism compared with the non-cyber community, but that is an impression and I don’t have hard data to back it up. (Which is not to say that there are not many very thoughtful, devout Catholics who accept mainstream science also present). There are various creationist “journals”, but none are accepted by the wider scientific community as being real science reporting. None are, as far as I know, specifically Catholic. No YEC adherent does serious research based on the YEC paradigm. I shouldn’t be surprised if there was the odd financial support for teaching YEC in obscure schools, but the endowment of chairs in prestigious institutions doesn’t happen.
The most notorious creationist body in Catholicism is probably the Kolbe Center. It includes cranks like Sungenis and Bennett, Wilders and Giertych, Berthault and Mastropaolo. You already know about my refutation of Sungenis’s nonsense. Here is an article refuting Berthault’s hubristic claims to have revolutioniosed geology single handedly - yes, really:
evolutionpages.com/berthault_critique.htm
Alec
W
wildleafblower
Guest
C
cassini
Guest
I ran nowhere pal, I have to eat and sleep you know, I quoted a source that you say is writing nonsense. Well if you feel so strongly that they are writing in error let them know, I’m sure they will correct their encyclopaedia to include your findings. This thread is getting out of hand up there now and running far too wide for anyone to reply in detail to all that heliocentric maths. Let me come back to this so-called proof for a spinning earth,
here is another bit of information I found that might interest readers.
Jupiter and Saturn, two rapidly rotating planets (Jupiter in 10 hours, and Saturn in a little over that), were said to be elliptical rather than circular spheres, that is, bulging at their ‘equators’, Newton’s theory and evolutionary cosmology were incontrovertibly proven, yes? No way, for such affirmations prove nothing. The sun, a body rotating 8,500 miles an hour at its ‘equator’ – many times faster than they say the earth does - has no belly at all: why not? Moreover, Venus and Mercury, also spinning, have no bellies either, why not? But again to Newton and his Pythagorean reasoning went the credit for sorting out this little paradox. The basis why some have it and others do not, he said, is because of the differences in the gravity of each cosmic body as well as the speed of rotation. The sun and planets, he asserted, all have their own rotation and gravity. The slower the rotation and the greater the inward pull, the lesser the bulge, if any, understand?
‘Experimental evidence supporting this idea [that the earth is shaped like an orange] came in 1672 as a result of a French expedition to Guiana. The explorer [Jean Richer (1630-96)] found that a pendulum clock that kept good time in Paris lost 2½ minutes a day at Cayenne near the Equator. At that time no one knew how to interpret the observation; but Newton’s theory that gravity must be larger at the poles (because of its closer proximity to the Earth’s centre) than the Equator was a logical explanation.
It is possible to determine whether or not the earth is an oblate spheroid by measuring the length of an arc corresponding to a geodetic latitude differences at two places along the meridian (the ellipse passing through the Poles) at different latitudes, which means at different distances from the Equator.’
What we are not told is that there was one anti-bulge sceptic at least, the astronomer Domenico Cassini, ‘a determined opponent of the theory of universal gravitation’ (C.C. Gillispie: Dictionary of Scientific Biography, New York, C. Scribner & Sons, p.103.) , perhaps the only man capable of refuting Newton and the geodesists hell-bent on imposing hermetic Copernicanism on the world. Cassini, who believed the measurements made by Jean Picard in 1672 were not accurate enough, as a true empiricist, decided to measure for himself.
So it was in 1700 King Louis XIV of France approved Cassini’s last great expedition. With the aid of his son Jacques Cassini and others, he measured the arc of meridian from Paris north to Dunkirk and south to the boundary of Spain, and, in addition, he conducted various associated geodesic and astronomical operations that were reported to the Academy. The Cassinis knew that it would be virtually impossible to measure every kilometre of meridian from Pole to Pole at the time. At best, all that could be achieved was a partial measurement. Consequently they decided to measure where it was most convenient, restricting their efforts to Europe in the northern hemisphere.
The results showed the length of a meridian degree north of Paris was 111,017 meters or 265 metres shorter than one south of Paris (111,282 meters). This suggested that if this trend occurred in the southern hemisphere, the earth has to be a prolate spheroid, not flattened at the poles as Newton proposed, but the opposite, slightly pointed, with the equatorial axis shorter than the polar axis, that is, kind of egg-shaped.
C
cassini
Guest
Is this a trick question or am I supposed to say because the earth is spinning and orbiting the sun at 72,000 mph. Now let me guess the answer, I know, because the earth does not spin and does not orbit the sun. Do I win the prize?
W
wildleafblower
Guest
C
cassini
Guest
Can you imaging any idiot using heliocentric maths when sending men into space?
‘Perturbation theories: Of great interest in the further development of the subject is the celebrated three-body problem. Lagrange’s elegant solutions of the restricted problem, the n-body problem and a discussion of integrability. The groundwork is thus laid for the exposition of perturbation theories, which consist of two fundamental types: general perturbation theory and special perturbation theory. (Kramer: The Nature and Growth of Modern Math, P.211.)
With a stroke of pragmatic genius, Newton accounted for these ‘small’ discrepancies in his Keplerian orbits by saying they must be caused by the (subtle) gravitational ‘pull’ of the other bodies within the solar system. But little did he know what he was letting himself in for. When he first fell for Hooke, Wren and Hally’s theory of gravitation, Newton began with simple earth-moon relationship mathematics; one that presumed the moon orbited the earth in an elliptical curve. With his rescue theory the maths got harder, infinitely harder, for he then had to extend the maths to include a third influence, the sun, then a fourth, etc.
‘Here is the beginning of the famous “three-body problem.” Kepler’s ellipses are only valid when a planet moves around the sun, or a satellite orbits around a planet, without the presence of a third body nearby in the heavens.’ ( Kramer: The Nature and Growth of Modern Maths”.)
‘The so-called three-body problem of mechanics is extremely complex. Although equations expressing the relative motions can be written, no general solution was possible before the development of the high-speed digital computer.’ Encyclopaedia Britannica, book 19, p.46.
And Newton didn’t have a high-speed computer, did he? But more, for Newton’s theory had to be extended to the other planets of the solar system, with each body pulling on every other body according to their masses and distances. In other words, Newton’s solar system no longer consisted of six one-on-one combinations but had grown into a gigantic seven-body problem.
‘Newton also proposed that since any object that has mass is attracted to every other object that has mass, the orbits of each planet is influenced not only by the sun, but by all the other planets as well.’
How then, one might ask, could Newton in 1687, or any one else after him until high-speed computers, calculate the interactions of six bodies - their moons and the sun - a multi-body solar system, each according to Newton, both attracting and attracted by every other globe in the system while continuously changing by the second as each planet or moon moves to a different place at different speeds relative to the others? Indeed, given that it takes each planet different times to complete an orbit, it is probable that there are never two similar combinations, thus no possibility of consistency wherein any such a multi-variable multi-forces multi-speeds formula could be used to trace the positions of planets.
They tell us Newton solved this problem by giving science 15,000 mathematical variables. This too has to be moonshine, for as we have pointed out above, even if we invented 15,000,000 variables we could not cover the number of variables that are present in the sky one hour to the next
What StA is saying here is that NASA are using the formula below. I looked up the history of this formula and here is what I found is needed to plot where the planet will be to land an object on it.
‘Perturbation theories: Of great interest in the further development of the subject is the celebrated three-body problem. Lagrange’s elegant solutions of the restricted problem, the n-body problem and a discussion of integrability. The groundwork is thus laid for the exposition of perturbation theories, which consist of two fundamental types: general perturbation theory and special perturbation theory. (Kramer: The Nature and Growth of Modern Math, P.211.)
With a stroke of pragmatic genius, Newton accounted for these ‘small’ discrepancies in his Keplerian orbits by saying they must be caused by the (subtle) gravitational ‘pull’ of the other bodies within the solar system. But little did he know what he was letting himself in for. When he first fell for Hooke, Wren and Hally’s theory of gravitation, Newton began with simple earth-moon relationship mathematics; one that presumed the moon orbited the earth in an elliptical curve. With his rescue theory the maths got harder, infinitely harder, for he then had to extend the maths to include a third influence, the sun, then a fourth, etc.
‘Here is the beginning of the famous “three-body problem.” Kepler’s ellipses are only valid when a planet moves around the sun, or a satellite orbits around a planet, without the presence of a third body nearby in the heavens.’ ( Kramer: The Nature and Growth of Modern Maths”.)
‘The so-called three-body problem of mechanics is extremely complex. Although equations expressing the relative motions can be written, no general solution was possible before the development of the high-speed digital computer.’ Encyclopaedia Britannica, book 19, p.46.
And Newton didn’t have a high-speed computer, did he? But more, for Newton’s theory had to be extended to the other planets of the solar system, with each body pulling on every other body according to their masses and distances. In other words, Newton’s solar system no longer consisted of six one-on-one combinations but had grown into a gigantic seven-body problem.
‘Newton also proposed that since any object that has mass is attracted to every other object that has mass, the orbits of each planet is influenced not only by the sun, but by all the other planets as well.’
How then, one might ask, could Newton in 1687, or any one else after him until high-speed computers, calculate the interactions of six bodies - their moons and the sun - a multi-body solar system, each according to Newton, both attracting and attracted by every other globe in the system while continuously changing by the second as each planet or moon moves to a different place at different speeds relative to the others? Indeed, given that it takes each planet different times to complete an orbit, it is probable that there are never two similar combinations, thus no possibility of consistency wherein any such a multi-variable multi-forces multi-speeds formula could be used to trace the positions of planets.
They tell us Newton solved this problem by giving science 15,000 mathematical variables. This too has to be moonshine, for as we have pointed out above, even if we invented 15,000,000 variables we could not cover the number of variables that are present in the sky one hour to the next
H
hecd2
Guest
That’s no excuse for running away from egregiously wrong assertions.
No - you selectively quoted a source. Why don’t you give us the rest of the entry, without editing, because I am sure that no respectable dictionary would state that Jean Cassini was responsible for deriving the International Gravity Formula.
If it’s getting out of hand for you, try to stick to and defend the spurious evidence you have produced, rather than producing yet more nonsense.Oh, and I haven’t produced any maths yet. Just you wait.
It’s angular velocity that matters here, mate, not surface velocity. The sun rotates once per 25 days so its angular velocity is 1/25th that of the earth.
Venus has a sidereal day 243 days long and Mercury 59 days long. They are spinning very slowly.
And your problem with this is what exactly? It predicts the flattening of the sun and planets, including earth very well.
Thank you. Not only is it a logical explanation, but we know now, by far finer and more accurate measurements that the acceleration due to gravity is higher at the poles than at the equator (as represented by the International Gravity Formula) by about 0.53% and it is explained, quantitatively by the fact that the poles are closer to the centre of the earth and by the centrifugal force of the earth’s rotation at the equator. Why would that be, cassini?
On the contrary, we *are *told that. I told it earlier in the thread.
Just so. And it turned out that they made measurement errors and they were wrong. Every single measurement since 1800 shows they were wrong and confirms that the earth is oblate with a flattening of about 298.
So your point is? That Cassini got it wrong? Or that Cassini got it right and everyone else since then, including measurements using technology undreamt of in Cassini’s day has got it wrong? Do pull the other one.
When are you going to support your assertion that Cassini’s work is the foundation of the International Gravity Formula?
Alec
evolutionpages.com
H
hecd2
Guest
No, because you haven’t given an answer. Why is the acceleration due to gravity higher at the poles than at the equator? Your statement fails to answer the question. It is not a viable hypothesis for the observation.
Alec
evolutionpages.com
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
no, he wants you to say that gravity decreases as a square of distance.
H
hecd2
Guest
The clue is in the word “perturbations”. The effect of other planets on the orbit of any planet is a perturbation on the pure ellipse. So to begin with, you can get a very good approximation by ignoring the other planets. Next, although there isn’t an exact analytical solution (do you know what this is?) to the three-body problem, that doesn’t mean that you can’t improve your approximation to reality analytically. What effects do the presence of other planets have? They don’t cause wild deviations from the two-body ellipse, but they do cause effects such as perihelion precession. In fact, Newton’s predictions based on these techniques predicted precession, which we observe but the observed precession is somewhat greater than Newton’s result. This long standing anomaly was resolved by GR. Your problem is a non-problem.
Oh, and why we’re on precession, do you know what causes the precession of the earth’s axial pole around the ecliptic pole with a period of 25,800 years?
Alec
evolutionpages.com/berthault_critique.htm
G
grannymh
Guest
E
edwest2
Guest
How is his not being a scientist relevant? On this forum, various individuals, some claiming to be scientists, make various claims. Their point appears to be for Christians to simply accept the “science,” but it goes beyond that. Various Catholics here have been criticized for bringing magical thinking into science. Or that science and religion are realms where one cannot comment on the other. This is false.
“Science can purify religion from error and superstition; religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes.” Pope John Paul II
Clearly, there is a complementary and shared relationship between faith and reason. I currently believe the Church has identified the relatively recent corruption of science by scientists who embrace scientism and atheism, and who go on television and/or write books based on the same ‘mountains of evidence’ that supposedly underpin the current theory of evolution to proclaim there is no god.
This is relevant to discuss on a Catholic forum. I believe the Pope can, and should, speak authoritatively on scientific subjects. Since science teachers pass on scientific knowledge to other human beings so that they too can speak with full knowledge of their subject, so can the Pope speak with full knowledge about certain scientific theories.
Peace,
Ed
- Status