Yes, of course you are right here and what I wrote was gibberish - good catch - that’s what comes from not thinking straight - dementia?
Perhaps that is not a good assumption.
Observation falls well short of “being there” (with regard to other parts of the universe). It seems that “universal constants” have changed over time. Must they be the same everywhere? This is also an assumption that we cannot verify.
You keep insisting that I’m claiming that the Earth is at rest. I never made that claim. My only claim is that the Earth could be at the center of the universe, and you can’t prove otherwise. You probably have me confused with another poster - you seem to have more time than I do to read all the posts on the thread
Ditto.
At cosmological distances, a finite speed for gravity has an impact on the rotational structure of galaxies, as one example. And I’ve read lately that the internal structure of galaxies is NOT consistent with a purely gravitational model, even if one assumes infinite speed (and by infinite, are you really saying the speed of light, which over small distances appears to be infinite?)
Sorry - I haven’t been reading all the posts here. When I get time I’ll go back and try to catch up.
Me too.
Amen brother.
The purpose of Creation, and our purpose as well is to give glory to God. We are not here to give glory to science. And we are not even here to give glory to religion (unless you mean by that “Glory to God.” God didn’t tell us to give glory to him in all things, except science - that should be kept separate. Sorry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by **LogisticsBranch** [forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=7444796#post7444796)
* Bye the way Granny, the catechism isn't a science book. It is foremost an instruction book for Bishops (religion). From what I understand it is going to be updated this year. Foremost, science doesn't use God to explain the natural world.*Yes indeed, Logistics.
Shouldn’t that be “revolve” around the earth?
Ronnie and hecd. The underlined quote is correct and does not need correcting by either of you. The consequence of an immobile earth is that the sun must orbit (rotate) it (the earth) once a day. Don’t you guys know your geocentrism?
yes cassini I know geocentrism, that’s why I can claim that I am not a geocentrist
Yep - but I think you’re better than to quibble about that. Do you want to engage with the two points I made or shall we just abandon the discussion?
What it tells me is that we are no where near the end yet - humankind is going to overcome it and populate the whole thing some day, but so far, we haven’t even filled up one planet, yet.
The thing is, when your original statement said “the sun must ***rotate ***around the earth once a day”, followed by all this minutiae about Alpha Centauri’s field is about 1.5e-11, and Sgr-A the supermassive black hole at the centre of the galaxy is 1.6e-12 and a bunch of other bits that no one would know off the top of their head. I don’t really feel like spending the time researching for a reply, I fear it may be a goose chase. Besides. I still don’t think you’re getting the concept that since in Special Relativity there is no absolute state of rest, **any **object can be “considered at rest”. It’s that cut and dry
(wrt gravity dominating cosmological evolution)
This is a manifesto for terminating all cosmology because we never can be there. It does not however invalidate the point that what we see of physics billions of light years away and billions of years ago is entirely compatible to parts per million with the axiom of universality of physical laws.
References?
But we verify them all the time by observations of physical interactions at high z.
Well, you can claim that the earth is the centre of the universe by definition which is a metaphysical claim. Otherwise, for a physical claim, you have to define what you mean by the centre of the universe and so far we only have definitions where the defined point is at rest in an inertial frame (centre of mass, centre of geometry). Perhaps, you’d like to tell us what you mean by the earth being at the centre of the universe instead of hiding behind ambiguity. But if you come up with a definition where the centre of the universe is accelerating, you also have to explain why the earth’s acceleration exactly follows the centre of mass’s acceleration if the claim is to be credible scientifically.
Could you give us a reference for that as in the full formulation of GR, the lowest order of gravitational radiation is quadrupole, and the gravitational field effect of constantly accelerating or uniformly moving bodies is unaffected by the finite gravitational wave velocity (if this were not so, it would be impossible for orbits to be stable).
Again, reference?
No, by infinite, I mean infinite and by speed of light I mean finite, which remains finite even over small distances.
Yeah, right, suit yourself. I did think you were better than using this sort of way out of the discussion. Seems I was mistaken. Well now you know what I meant to write in the first place. This stuff isn’t minutiae - it demonstrates that at the earth, the sun’s gravitational field is hugely greater than the rest of the universe’s and that the idea of a non-accelerating earth as a consequence of the universe’s balancing the sun’s gravitational fields is not viable. Since the sun’s gravitational field dominates hugely then the earth has to accelerate as a result of that.
Wrong. *Any *object cannot be considered to be at rest or in uniform motion. An accelerating object cannot be considered to be at rest - by definition, since it’s accelerating (which in SR is an absolute state completely distinguishable from uniform motion) - an accelerating object has a time varying velocity in any inertial frame and cannot be at rest in any inertial frame. Your claim is that you can consider the earth to be at the centre of the universe and the challenge to you is the same as the challenge to ric - show how, in any reasonable definition of the centre of the universe, that centre’s accelerations and the earth’s are identical. Because in most definitions that I have seen, centre of mass, geometric centre, centre of momentum and so on, the centre is at rest in an inertial frame, but we know that the earth cannot be so for the reasons above that you have so far failed to engage with.
What I meant was: “you also have to explain why the earth’s acceleration exactly follows the centre’s acceleration however you define it…”
What a wonderful way to put it. For me, the beauty of Alaska is God’s majesty. Metaphysical poetry also reflects or rather brings us close to the beauty of God’s nature, His as well as ours and the world’s.
Two excellent talking points.
We’re only in the universe temporarily. No need to get comfortable. For those of the faith, the next life will be eternal peace, rest, and joy with God.