Galileo

[mich2]

If a balloon is expanding, the speed of recession of points on the surface of the balloon over the surface, measured from any point on the surface, is directly proportional to the distance that the receding points are from the reference point.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

Quite true…since the baloon is expanding at a rate of r^2…thanks.

Andre

 

[mich2]

I’ll wait for the maths.

As far as Ellis goes, I have no idea what model he is talking about in this popular article. If he published a paper on it and you give me a reference, I’ll get hold of it and give you a response. What you need to understand is that without the paper containing the maths, the claim is empty, just as the geocentrists claim is empty until the quantitative mathematical description can be produced to be checked against observation. Hand-waving arguments don’t cut it in cosmology.

From what I understand, he is saying that according to the physical laws of nature (which would include the Coriolis effect I assume), to claim the earth as central to the universe is not erronious, and to assume otherwise is to simply use a different reference frame based on philosophical grounds only and not scientifically. …I certainly may be wrong in understanding it in such a way, so I will await your comment.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

Andre

 

[StAnastasia]

Dear StAnastasia, That is very interesting. What politically and religious turbulent times Servetus lived in. The person I found was William Harvey (1578-1657) with 1628 as the date of his discovery of human blood circulation. He was described as one who emphasized the use of experiment, observation and dissection in medicine, rather than relying on classical authorities. Blessings,granny

grannymh, the first discoverer of pulmonary circulation was the Muslim scholar Ibn Nafis (1213-1288), whose full name was Ala al-Din Abu al-Hassan Ali ibn Abi-Hazm al-Qurashi al-Dimashqi. A contemporary of Thomas Aquinas, Nafis worked in Egypt and published the discovery in his Commentary on Anatomy in Avicenna’s Canon (1242). Servetus and Harvey lived respectively three and four centuries later, and built upon Nafis’ work, Servetus employing the idea for theological purposes.

StAnastasia

 

[hecd2]

hecd2:

I don’t think so. We seem to located on a planet orbiting a star 3/4 of the way out on an unremarkable spiral arm of an ordinary galaxy, which is part of a loosely bound group of galaxies, one of hundreds of billions of galaxies within our observable horizon, and who knows how many beyond. In other words, if we appear to be anywhere, we seem to be in an insignificant backwater of the universe.

Not according to Stephen Hawking **
"Now at first sight, all this evidence that the universe looks the same whichever direction we look in might seem to suggest there is something special about our place in the universe. In particular, it might seem that if we observe all other galaxies to be moving away from us, then we must be at the center of the universe. **

Note the words “at first sight…might seem to suggest”. This is the same Stephen Hawking who writes: “We now know that our galaxy is only one of some hundred thousand million that can be seen using modern telescopes, each galaxy containing some hundred thousand million stars…we live in a galaxy that is about one hundred thousand light years across and is slowly rotating; the stars in its spiral arms orbit around its centre about once every several hundred million years. Our sun is just an ordinary, average-sized yellow star, near the inner edge of one of the spiral arms. We have certainly come a long way since Aristotle and Ptolemy, when we thought that the earth was the centre of the universe.” In other words your quote merely reflects Hawking pointing out that what appears to be so according to a superficial perspective, is not so.

I am not ridiculing Galileo’s hypothesis, but am sharing my position against those who accept the biased position of ridicule over the church in accepting a static earth model but very sympathetic upon Galileo’s static sun model, on the grounds that absolute frames of reference were the only model understood up until the 1900s, something that I personally don’t accept, by the way.

Knowledgeable people don’t ridicule the hypothesis that the earth was the static centre of the universe - it was a valid hypothesis given the data available until observations leading up to Galileo and Galileo’s own observations made it untenable. What knowledgeable people deplore (rather than ridicule) is the Church’s official insistence on geocentrism as a matter of faith, when it is a matter for science not faith ; and its insistence on that position long after the evidence had made geocentricism intellectually untenable.

In the writings during the time of Copernicus,
the use of the term " appearances" were used often to differentiate between absolute frames and what we call today relative frames.

I have no idea what you mean by absolute and relative frames. As far as I know, there are no such things (although there are physical models that rely on Euclidean and others that rely on non-Euclidean space). I recommend your learning what a frame of reference is.

[With regard to the alleged disturbance of the precession of Foucault’s pendulum during a solar eclipse]Since it centers your argument of an absolute rotationary movement of the earth,I believe that it’s worth mentioning it.

Here’s a review of the 1999 eclipse, for example.

plus.maths.org/issue9/xfile/

Would you have more recent information of this? Notice how such deviation of Foucault’s pendulum raises interest on the concept of gravity, which ought not to affect the pendulum in the first place.
For this reason, Alec, I do think it is of great interest.

There is, as far as I know, little further information. I am not aware of any anomalous data from the 1999 eclipse in spite of there being dozens of Foucault pendulums in the path of the eclipse; measurements during the 2005 eclipse in Panama, Colombia and Australia showed no significant effect. As I said, until there are reliable measurements there is little to discuss, since we don’t even know whether the phenomenon really exists.Apart from Allais (who was an economist, not a scientist by the way) I know of no supporting measurement. Can you refer me to a paper with one? I think that the claimed measurements arose from experimental errors and artefacts, but am willing to change my mind if someone can produce some decent unambiguous data.

I certainly accept your explanation, although I don’t understand it. If a photon is released from a source having a transverse velocity relative to the observer, there will be no abberation index, while if the observer has a transerse velocity relative to the source,there will be an abberation observed? Is this what you are basically saying?

No, that would violate the equivalence principle established in GR. The effect arises from the transverse component of the velocity of the observer perpendicular to the light path from source to the observer. This path is independent of the transverse velocity of the source.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

But were not talking of mearly a surface of a sphere anymore. We’re speaking of a sphere within a sphere within a sphere…my model puts the earth in the middle of the sphere and the rest of the sphere rotates around the earth…this is used as a model only in order to try to achieve a form of equivalence principle…not as an absolute reality.

But your model violates reality in that we and the earth are part of the same space-time continuum as the rest of the universe. In other words, we are analogically on the surface of the balloon.

This was my very easy to imagine scenario, or thought experiment, if you wish.Just imagine a quiet sea of massless particles…at one point upon the sea, some energy particle forms a massive particle. The energy deplenishment to create such a particle is what comes to be what we call gravity, or spacetime curvature…again, I was not trying to sell such an idea, but mearly to implement a simple thought which could give a very basic form of visualization as to why we could actually be central to the universe, if at some point in time some evidence would point to it.
Philosophy is much more pleasant to deal with than science… Anything goes.

Just so, but “anything goes” is completely uninteresting. Such speculations are trivial (and trivially wrong). Interest arises from propositions that fit the observations. Einstein’s most famous and popular insight was the mass energy equivalence, so you are a little late on the “energy is equivalent to mass” phenomenon. In any case, all this is irrelevant to geocentrism as the earth’s mass (and its gravitational effect on other bodies) is a tiny fraction of that of the sun’s. It is not in any way exceptional in the universe - in fact, it is terribly puny.

While I would understand a catholic as being frustrated at my posts, I wonder why you would be.

Because we are discussing a natural, not a religious idea (so I don’t really undersytand why a Catholic would be more frustrated than I am), and if we are to continue in dialogue, your constant stream of ad hoc ideas to rescue geocentrism, all of which are false given a moment’s thought, still require effort to refute. Speculations which are immediately false because they utterly fail to fit the evidence are not fun - they are tedious. I am frustrated because you seem to be an intelligent guy who is prostituting his intelligence in the service of a bankrupt idea.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

On the other hand, two of the worse possible mistakes ever were deftly avoided either through the shrewdness of some theologians who recognized the value of science or by the guidance of the Holy Spirit–most likely a combination of both.

The first big mistake that did not happen was to have the Church, in its official position of authority in the areas of faith and morals, declare that the literal word by word interpretation of Scripture could be applied infallibly to science. Despite all the church-type words like heretical, dogma, declarations, abjuration, degrees,and very impressive titles. etc. which are used in the various documents, the requirements for official authoritative infallibility are missing. (There is plenty of evidence on other threads regarding infallibility.) Instead, the Church stayed in step with the Church Fathers regarding creation. The Catholic Church’s formal statement of doctrine on creation dates to 325 and following when the Nicene Creed was adopted. It is that God is the maker of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen. The “how” is still being freely explored by science. Thankfully, it is not being explored by me.

The second big mistake that did not happen was to have the Church isolate itself from science. Apparently, high ranking theologians were given the task of looking into Galileo’s situation. While these individual men made awful mistakes, the precedent was set forever that the Catholic Church could use its resources such as talented individuals and university facilities to advance science’s development. The understanding, which still exists today, is that when it comes to matters of scientific theory and scientific fact, members of the Church, including its Pope, are speaking as individuals and should be regarded individually. They are not speaking infallibility as a public official of the Church. However, their opinions have the right to be respected.

I think that this is a very interesting way to look at things. Mistakes were made, but they were not the worst mistakes that could have been made (in contrast, for example, to the history of Islamic science after the 12th century). I hadn’t thought of the affair in these terms before, and I think that this is a very insightful way to view it. With regard to the second mistake that was not made (the Church distancing itself from science) the positive consequences of that are clear (and manifest in the work of many well regarded Catholic scientists and in my own liberal Catholic education in the sciences -and the arts).

However, if we look at the history in detail things are less simple and the mistakes took a long time to not be made . Galileo’s works (all of them) were on the Index for a long time (including all of his fundamentally important works of theoretical and empirical science) as was De Revolutionibus. Some of the toxic influences of the 17th century reached an apogee in the 19th century in Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors. More recently, Cardinal Schoenborn has resurrected the attitude that led to the mistakes that were made in 1616 and 1633 in his attacks on mainstream science (not about how scientific knowledge is used but about specific matters of theory and fact). Those of us who enjoyed superb Catholic high school educations might be complacent about the reconciliation between faith and science, but the desire of the Church to regulate the theories and findings of science is still present in some of its leaders although, of course, it now lacks the civil authority to impose such regulation.

The reaction of different Catholics to ideas that challenge traditional religious beliefs is hugely varied. Some regard such challenges as an affront to the dignity of the Church, to be rejected out of hand and to be fought with every weapon available. Others, perhaps more comfortable and at home in the world of ideas, can see beyond literalism to encompass the underlying truths within the paradigm that results from the new evidence and understanding of how things actually are.

The evidence of this forum and the proclamations of those like Schoenborn, is that the great mistakes that were not made, have not been not made definitively. They still can be made, and many on this forum and in every parish church hanker for them to be made. It falls to those of us who care for these things, to make sure that they are not made.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

From what I understand, he is saying that according to the physical laws of nature (which would include the Coriolis effect I assume), to claim the earth as central to the universe is not erronious, and to assume otherwise is to simply use a different reference frame based on philosophical grounds only and not scientifically. …I certainly may be wrong in understanding it in such a way, so I will await your comment.

There is no comment I can make until you point me to a mathematical development of his ideas. Einsteinian equivalence on which these things depend does not say that all frames are equivalent merely through a co-ordinate transformation. It says that the laws of physics are the same in all frames of reference including free falling and accelerating ones. So it remains to show how these so called fictitious forces can arise on a static earth. With regard to equivalence, note that frames in which these forces are zero (these are known as inertial frames) are somewhat special - if you were to be let loose in space in a spaceship that you can steer with blacked out windows, you can still put yourself into an inertial frame by steering the craft until the so-called fictitious forces are zero - interestingly you would then be in a frame that is not rotating with respect to the average star-field or with respect to the CMB. I think that is significant.

People often claim that all frames of reference are identically equivalent in GR, but that is not what GR claims. But I can’t comment on Ellis specifically until you reference the paper that describes his model.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

Well, first, as Alec has told me, I maybe misunderstanding the experiment. So I will simply explain it the way I believe it implies.

The thick walled hollow sphere, represents everything in the universe experiencing an orbit.
The space in the middle, if it was mearly empty space, would not be affected by the rotational sphere. However, observation does show that the space inside does experience effects that would be identified on a medium type of space, which GR calls spacetime. If another smaller sphere would be placed, static, inside the hollow sphere,
it would ecperienced the same effect as if it would be rotating and the hollow sphere would be that which is at rest.
Again, I’m waiting for Alec to correct me as to where I’m wrong in assuming this.

OK, there are a few points to make here.

First, there is no experiment (well only an initial one) - this is all theory based on solutions of Einstein’s field equations.(Actually the Lense-Thirring effect - frame dragging - has been just about measured by satellites near the earth - so it does seem to exist.)

Second, since the whole thing is based on GR, absolute space is excluded and any-centrism is meaningless

Third, Thirring modelled the effect not of a rotating universe, but of a thin massive shell rotating with respect to the rest of the universe.

Fourth, the model shows that that for a rotating mass in the slow rotation and weak field condition, the inertial frames of reference are dragged in the plane of the rotating body at an angular velocity equal to 2J/R^3 where J is the angular momentum and R is the distance from the centre of mass of the body. Within a thin massive shell, the inertial frames are dragged with an angular velocity = 4M.omegadot/3R in geometric units where c=G=1, M is the mass of the shell in centimetres, R is its radius in centimetres, and omegadot is the angular rotational velocity of the shell. The theory shows that there is the flat Minskowski metric within such a rotating shell. It is possible to derive the accelerations on a moving test particle – these accelerations can be shown to be of the same *form *as Coriolis and centrifugal accelerations, but not necessarily of the same magnitude. In fact the M/R term comes into the expression for the second derivative of all three space-like dimensions – the magnitude of the Coriolis and centrifugal accelerations. In other words, and this is intuitively obvious, the magnitude of the effect depends on the mass and radius of the shell. However the magnitude of the Coriolis and centrifugal forces predicted by a rotating body (as opposed to the forces on a putatively static body arising from the rotation of the universe) depend only on the properties of the body and not of the universe.

Alec
hrrp://www.evolutionpages.com

 

[mich2]

But your model violates reality in that we and the earth are part of the same space-time continuum as the rest of the universe. In other words, we are analogically on the surface of the balloon.

ok; but since we do not observe nor experience,
as in the case of gravitational influences, every mass that is on the sphere, it would be irrelevant, in my opinion, to use the sphere as a model. Since we observe the universe in the way that the farthest galaxies represent a time closer to the beginning of the big bang, it would seem that instead of a sphere, the model ought to be a form, having a curvature which continously reduces in radius as distances increases, which,at first thought, would be something like a cone instead of a sphere. However, the cone shape has a center, and I do agree that according to observations we fail to observe any center.

Just so, but “anything goes” is completely uninteresting. Such speculations are trivial (and trivially wrong).

I fully agree with you, I should not have written any of such speculations but ought to have kept them to myself. Unfortunately, Alec, that’s not the way I see it. I like better to throw any ideas and wait for replies from people such as you or warpspeedpetey to see where or why such reasoning is false.

Interest arises from propositions that fit the observations. Einstein’s most famous and popular insight was the mass energy equivalence, so you are a little late on the “energy is equivalent to mass” phenomenon.

I know I shouldn’t continue along my line of thoughts…but I can’t resist. Now don’t be offended or frustrated or whatever. I’m asking you these retarded questions because I know that you have the answers and I’m only a laymen asking questions…not pretending to know science.
My thoughts on the energy producing mass centered on what I would believe to be an exponential component of the energy expenditure in creating increasingly heavy atomic mass elements. In other words, while a hydrogen atom is half the mass of the helium atom, I would think that a much greater amount of energy is used in the process of fusion in order to create a helium atom than simply twice the energy to create a hydrogen atom. The energy expenditure would, in my opinion be responsible for gravity and not simply the mass.
For example, while you did mention that the sun is
400000 times the mass of the earth, it’s surface gravity is 28 times, which doesn’t seem to correspond with the ratio of mass/ gravity.
Anyway, let me assure you this to be the last time I’ll mention this issue.

Because we are discussing a natural, not a religious idea (so I don’t really undersytand why a Catholic would be more frustrated than I am), and if we are to continue in dialogue, your constant stream of ad hoc ideas to rescue geocentrism, all of which are false given a moment’s thought, still require effort to refute. Speculations which are immediately false because they utterly fail to fit the evidence are not fun - they are tedious. I am frustrated because you seem to be an intelligent guy who is prostituting his intelligence in the service of a bankrupt idea.

I think if you would look through my posts, the geocentric value I give is purely philosophical in essence. The models I’m trying to use to identify a
geocentric universe is mearly for equivalence purposes, and nothing more. I am however, totally against an absolute heliocentric model. Everytime I read someone claiming that geocentrism is erronious, it assumes that such a one uses the heliocentric model as an absolute frame.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

Andre

 

[wildleafblower]

The first big mistake that did not happen was to have the Church, in its official position of authority in the areas of faith and morals, declare that the literal word by word interpretation of Scripture could be applied infallibly to science. Despite all the church-type words like heretical, dogma, declarations, abjuration, degrees,and very impressive titles. etc. which are used in the various documents, the requirements for official authoritative infallibility are missing. (There is plenty of evidence on other threads regarding infallibility.)

Grannymh, I just wanted to touch base on your usage of the word “infallibility”. I noted you were replying to Alec, a scientist. If you make a pronouncement such as you have, Alec is highly likely to assume you are speaking on behalf of the church so most likely will proceed by distorting the truth! I’ve asked before of people to please be careful when talking to scientists. More often then not they will poke fun at our FAITH. I’ve taken snippets from the following document that might give you a fuller grasp of “infallibility”:

Excerpt from the MOTU PROPRIO
for the approval and publication of the Compendium
of the Catechism of the Catholic Church
by BENEDICTUS PP. XVI

The great value and beauty of this gift are confirmed above all by the extensive and positive reception of the Catechism among Bishops, to whom it was primarily addressed as a sure and authentic reference text for teaching Catholic doctrine and, in particular, for formulating local catechisms. But it was also confirmed by its vast favourable reception in all segments of the People of God, who have come to know and appreciate it in more than fifty translations which to date have been published.
Given on 28 June 2005, the vigil of the Solemnity of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, in the first year of my Pontificate.

Compendium OF THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
Sacred Scripture

1. When is the infallibility of the Magisterium exercised?
   890-891
   Infallibility is exercised when the Roman Pontiff, in virtue of his office as the Supreme Pastor of the Church, or the College of Bishops, in union with the Pope especially when joined together in an Ecumenical Council, proclaim by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. Infallibility is also exercised when the Pope and Bishops in their ordinary Magisterium are in agreement in proposing a doctrine as definitive. Every one of the faithful must adhere to such teaching with the obedience of faith.

CHAPTER TWO
God Comes to Meet Man
The Revelation of God
7. What are the first stages of God’s Revelation?
54-58
70-71
*

*The Transmission of Divine Revelation

1. To whom is given the task of authentically interpreting the deposit of faith?
   85-90
   100
   The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the deposit of faith has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone, that is, to the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome, and to the bishops in communion with him. To this Magisterium, which in the service of the Word of God enjoys the certain charism of truth, belongs also the task of defining dogmas which are formulations of the truths contained in divine Revelation. This authority of the Magisterium also extends to those truths necessarily connected with Revelation.
2. What is the relationship between Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium?
   95
   Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium are so closely united with each other that one of them cannot stand without the others. Working together, each in its own way, under the action of the one Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.

CHAPTER THREE
Man’s Response to God
I Believe

1. Why is there no contradiction between faith and science?
   159
   Though faith is above reason, there can never be a contradiction between faith and science because both originate in God. It is God himself who gives to us the light both of reason and of faith.
   “I believe, in order to understand; and I understand, the better to believe.” (Saint Augustine)
   http://www.vatican.va/archive/compe...hive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html#MOTU+PROPRIO

 

[wildleafblower]

Regarding Post 159

Dear Wildleafblower,

The next time a family member wonders why I have a lot of books, I will say that I have a friend who has over 3,000 books–so there

If you truly wish to be my friend please read its entirety the **Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church ** (msg. 170) THEN please in the of name of GOD (whom we love) go over to the topic “Evolution:A Catholic Solution” and see what Alec (hecd2) has just written (!) THEN proceed to agree with what I have written on that topic dear Catholic woman, my friend.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=301907&page=10
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=301907&page=10

 

[StAnastasia]

Because we are discussing a natural, not a religious idea (so I don’t really undersytand why a Catholic would be more frustrated than I am), and if we are to continue in dialogue, your constant stream of ad hoc ideas to rescue geocentrism, all of which are false given a moment’s thought, still require effort to refute. Speculations which are immediately false because they utterly fail to fit the evidence are not fun - they are tedious. I am frustrated because you seem to be an intelligent guy who is prostituting his intelligence in the service of a bankrupt idea.Alec
evolutionpages.com

Alec, not only is it bankrupt from a scientific point of view, but geocentrism is theologically pointless.

 

[buffalo]

How so?

 

[StAnastasia]

How so?

Because it makes no theological difference what our cosmic geography looks like.

 

[mich2]

Note the words “at first sight…might seem to suggest”. This is the same Stephen Hawking who writes: “We now know that our galaxy is only one of some hundred thousand million that can be seen using modern telescopes, each galaxy containing some hundred thousand million stars…we live in a galaxy that is about one hundred thousand light years across and is slowly rotating; the stars in its spiral arms orbit around its centre about once every several hundred million years. Our sun is just an ordinary, average-sized yellow star, near the inner edge of one of the spiral arms. We have certainly come a long way since Aristotle and Ptolemy, when we thought that the earth was the centre of the universe.” In other words your quote merely reflects Hawking pointing out that what appears to be so according to a superficial perspective, is not so.

Knowledgeable people don’t ridicule the hypothesis that the earth was the static centre of the universe - it was a valid hypothesis given the data available until observations leading up to Galileo and Galileo’s own observations made it untenable. What knowledgeable people deplore (rather than ridicule) is the Church’s official insistence on geocentrism as a matter of faith, when it is a matter for science not faith ; and its insistence on that position long after the evidence had made geocentricism intellectually untenable.

I fully agree that Steven Hawkins does not believe the earth is the center of the universe.
However he chooses to believe the earth isn’t special in any way because of his philosophical outlook, not scientific. He is simply repeating what others like George Ellis are saying.

"Now at first sight, all this evidence that the universe looks the same whichever direction we look in might seem to suggest there is something special about our place in the universe. In particular, it might seem that if we observe all other galaxies to be moving away from us, then we must be at the center of the universe. There is, however, an alternative explanation: the universe might look the same in every direction as seen from any other galaxy too. This, we have seen, was Friedmann’s second assumption. We have no scientific evidence for, or against, this assumption. We believe it only on grounds of modesty: it would be most remarkable if the universe looked the same in every direction around us, but not around other points in the universe!" - A Brief History of Time: Tenth Anniversary Edition, p. 44 –

I have no idea what you mean by absolute and relative frames. As far as I know, there are no such things (although there are physical models that rely on Euclidean and others that rely on non-Euclidean space). I recommend your learning what a frame of reference is.

From what I understand, motion through space
was identified as absolute because space was believed to be an absolute, stationnary frame. However, since space cannot be detected (although some experiments did try to look for such a medium) there was always the option in thinking that a certain body was stationnary,relative to this absolute space, making the body itself an absolute static frame. The earth was believed to be such a body by some, while Galileo opt for the sun.

here’s a quote from Newton :

**“ Absolute space, in its own nature, without regard to anything external, remains always similar and immovable. Relative space is some movable dimension or measure of the absolute spaces; which our senses determine by its position to bodies: and which is vulgarly taken for immovable space …
Absolute motion is the translation of a body from one absolute place into another: and relative motion, the translation from one relative place into another
**

No, that would violate the equivalence principle established in GR. The effect arises from the transverse component of the velocity of the observer perpendicular to the light path from source to the observer. This path is independent of the transverse velocity of the source.

I will try to get some info on this, for I’m still not certain what you’re saying. While you seem to be saying that the path is independant of the transverse velocity of the source, you still seem to be saying, from what I understand, the effect arises from the tranverse velocity of the observer, perpendicular to the path of light. However, it seems that if the star (source of light ) has also a
transverse velocity (relative to the observer) the path of light cannot be perpendicular to the observer, unless we re- introduce the concept of an luminous ether.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

Andre

 

[mich2]

OK, there are a few points to make here.

First, there is no experiment (well only an initial one) - this is all theory based on solutions of Einstein’s field equations.(Actually the Lense-Thirring effect - frame dragging - has been just about measured by satellites near the earth - so it does seem to exist.)

Second, since the whole thing is based on GR, absolute space is excluded and any-centrism is meaningless

Third, Thirring modelled the effect not of a rotating universe, but of a thin massive shell rotating with respect to the rest of the universe.

Fourth, the model shows that that for a rotating mass in the slow rotation and weak field condition, the inertial frames of reference are dragged in the plane of the rotating body at an angular velocity equal to 2J/R^3 where J is the angular momentum and R is the distance from the centre of mass of the body. Within a thin massive shell, the inertial frames are dragged with an angular velocity = 4M.omegadot/3R in geometric units where c=G=1, M is the mass of the shell in centimetres, R is its radius in centimetres, and omegadot is the angular rotational velocity of the shell. The theory shows that there is the flat Minskowski metric within such a rotating shell. It is possible to derive the accelerations on a moving test particle – these accelerations can be shown to be of the same *form *as Coriolis and centrifugal accelerations, but not necessarily of the same magnitude. In fact the M/R term comes into the expression for the second derivative of all three space-like dimensions – the magnitude of the Coriolis and centrifugal accelerations. In other words, and this is intuitively obvious, the magnitude of the effect depends on the mass and radius of the shell. However the magnitude of the Coriolis and centrifugal forces predicted by a rotating body (as opposed to the forces on a putatively static body arising from the rotation of the universe) depend only on the properties of the body and not of the universe.

Alec
hrrp://www.evolutionpages.com

Thank you for this very detailed explanation. I have a question however. What if the earth does not rotate on it’s own, but is totally dependant to the spacetime gravitational effect upon the body?
In such a case, it would seem the magnetude would be equivalent as well. That is, since the space time would be causing the earth to rotate, to claim the
Coriolis effect is caused by the earth rotating, which itself is caused by the spacetime curvature close to the body, or to claim the earth is at rest and the Coriolis effect is caused directly by the spacetime seems to be a case for equivalence principle…Again, I’m not sure I’m understanding this properly.

Andre

 

[grannymh]

If you truly wish to be my friend please read its entirety the **Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church **(msg. 170) THEN please in the of name of GOD (whom we love) go over to the topic “Evolution:A Catholic Solution” and see what Alec (hecd2) has just written (!) THEN proceed to agree with what I have written on that topic dear Catholic woman, my friend.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=301907&page=10
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=301907&page=10

Dear wildleafblower,

I am reading both your posts and found the Compendium on the Vatican website. Is this the same as the* Compendium, Catechism of the Catholic Church*, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops? I was going to order the U.S. one but would like to make sure that it is the correct one.

My use of the word infallible was in reference to what the Catholic Church teaches as infallible. As you know, these teachings concern faith and morals. When high ranking Church officials address matters of scientific theory and scientific facts, they are not infallible even though they may be experts. Their opinions have the right to be respected.

It is society’s use of scientific knowledge or how society applies scientific knowledge to daily living which should be examined from the Catholic moral perspective. For example, the Catholic Church teaches that all human life is worthy of profound respect. That is the basic reason that FOCA needs to be defeated.

Thanks for the link to the other thread. I will respond to it later this evening. I will print out that one and your material so that I can compare. I should at least look over the other posts. The difficulty is to distinguish between stealth attacks on Catholicism and generalizations. I’ve seen both. Of course, I will take time to pray and think.

Blessings,
granny

All human life is worthy of profound respect. Human life is sacred.

 

[buffalo]

Dear wildleafblower,

I am reading both your posts and found the Compendium on the Vatican website. Is this the same as the* Compendium, Catechism of the Catholic Church*, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops? I was going to order the U.S. one but would like to make sure that it is the correct one.

My use of the word infallible was in reference to what the Catholic Church teaches as infallible. As you know, these teachings concern faith and morals. When high ranking Church officials address matters of scientific theory and scientific facts, they are not infallible even though they may be experts. Their opinions have the right to be respected.

It is society’s use of scientific knowledge or how society applies scientific knowledge to daily living which should be examined from the Catholic moral perspective. For example, the Catholic Church teaches that all human life is worthy of profound respect. That is the basic reason that FOCA needs to be defeated.

Thanks for the link to the other thread. I will respond to it later this evening. I will print out that one and your material so that I can compare. I should at least look over the other posts. The difficulty is to distinguish between stealth attacks on Catholicism and generalizations. I’ve seen both. Of course, I will take time to pray and think.

Blessings,
granny

All human life is worthy of profound respect. Human life is sacred.

\

The compendium is exactly that a compendium. Get a full Catechism.

 

[grannymh]

\

The compendium is exactly that a compendium. Get a full Catechism.

Thanks for replying.

I have the full Catechism, second edition, plus a 975 page Companion to the Catechism which has the referred texts.
I heard that a “Compendium” was in the works and I want to make sure that the U.S. Bishop’s one I found on Amazon is the same as what is on the Vatican website – Compendium, Catechism of the Catholic Church.

All human life is worthy of profound respect. Human life is sacred.

 

[hecd2]

ok; but since we do not observe nor experience,
as in the case of gravitational influences, every mass that is on the sphere, it would be irrelevant, in my opinion, to use the sphere as a model.

Three points - first, the model is a model of the universe as it is now, not how we observe it through the phenomenon of finite light speed. It is not irrelevant. Second, all mass that is on the sphere has a gravitational influence, however infinitesimal, on earth. Third, in the Machian view, it is the influence of the weighted average of all the masses in the universe that determines the orientation of an inertial frame, which is very important - Mach says “mass there determines inertia here”.

Since we observe the universe in the way that the farthest galaxies represent a time closer to the beginning of the big bang, it would seem that instead of a sphere, the model ought to be a form, having a curvature which continously reduces in radius as distances increases, which,at first thought, would be something like a cone instead of a sphere. However, the cone shape has a center, and I do agree that according to observations we fail to observe any center.

This is good - you are basically reconstructing the idea that leads to the concept of the CMB being pervasively present from all directions. Note that in the sphere model, as the surface retracts to a point, information comes to us from all directions on the surface of the distorted “sphere-bob” - ie in three dimensions, information from the origin comes to us from all directions of space. We don’t observe the centre because it is masked by the opacity of the coupling of photons and matter before decoupling occurred at about 379,000 years after Big Bang. At that time photons were released and we observe the CMB in whatever direction we look.

I fully agree with you, I should not have written any of such speculations but ought to have kept them to myself.

No, you shouldn’t necessarily keep them to yourself, but I think you should do a basic sense check on them before you post them. It’s unfair to rely on others to do your basic sense checking for you.

My thoughts on the energy producing mass centered on what I would believe to be an exponential component of the energy expenditure in creating increasingly heavy atomic mass elements. In other words, while a hydrogen atom is half the mass of the helium atom, I would think that a much greater amount of energy is used in the process of fusion in order to create a helium atom than simply twice the energy to create a hydrogen atom.

Well actually, no - the helium atom is slightly less massive than the sum of its parts, so the fusion of hydrogen into helium releases energy, rather than consuming it, because in the creation of a hydrogen atom, mass is annihilated and energy is released. That is how a hydrogen bomb works and how fusion reactors to produce energy for society by the fusion of hydrogen into helium will work. In every case, no matter what the mass of the atom, the total energy that can be released by the annihilation of the atom is equal to mc^2 where m is the mass of the atom and c is the speed of light.

For example, while you did mention that the sun is
400000 times the mass of the earth, it’s surface gravity is 28 times, which doesn’t seem to correspond with the ratio of mass/ gravity.

In other words, you are suggesting that the Newtonian conception that links the mass, the distance and gravitational force between objects, F=(G x m1 x m2)/r^2, is flawed. Now don’t you think that if there was an anomaly between the mass and the surface gravity of the sun, a few scientists might have noticed? As I have said, you are an intelligent guy, who seems to spending his energy in producing hopeless hypotheses to save geocentrism. I’d like to help you use your energy more effectively, so I’m not going to tell you why the fact that the mass of the sun is 333,000 times that of earth while its surface gravity is 28 times that of the earth is entirely consistent with well understood classical theory. Having answered so many of your hypotheses, I think I am entitled to ask you to do some homework. You are perfectly capable of doing it, and in doing it, you will learn some real physics.

So here is my request - tell us why the mass and the surface gravity of the sun are entirely consistent with the idea that gravity is proportional to mass. It’ll do you good.

Everytime I read someone claiming that geocentrism is erronious, it assumes that such a one uses the heliocentric model as an absolute frame.

Well, that’s a false dichotomy. I think that geocentrism is wrong, but that doesn’t mean that I think the sun occupies an absolute rest frame.

Alec
evolutionpages.com