The Galileo Case

[xixxvmcm85]

why then - why not tell us something profound about gravity like say the mass of the sun etc - twinc

I’m still waiting for you to back up what you said earlier:

The last laugh it seems,as I read it,that NASA makes all its space calculations as if the earth were stationary and the results have been bang on target etc - twinc

I learned my lesson the hard way with prior threads on biological evolution: Don’t bother with dishonest posters. Now I’d like to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are genuinely desiring to learn something here, so I’ll wait patiently for your citation. In the mean time I’m not going to expend the energy explaining Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation or Kepler’s Laws of Orbital Motion.

 

[mackbrislawn]

But you’re begging the question: Do both hypotheses render the same result? No they do not. A geocentric model of the solar system cannot explain paralax. A geocentric model of the solar system cannot explain how massive bodies can orbit smaller ones while simultaneously factoring in gravity, unless you invoke some mysterious ‘aether’ which is neither well defined nor observed. A geocentric model of the solar system requires invoking more geometrically convoluted ‘epicycles’ to explain our observations from Earth of retrograde motion such as that of the outer planets and the Sun, so as parsimony would have it the heliocentric model of the solar system is indeed the better hypothesis, and both hypotheses are not equal.

If you have two hypotheses, do they render the same result?

Well, if they do not, then obviously one of them does not yield the right answer! They can’t both be right. It’s that simple.

We find out which answer is right by observation, by experience. If one model’s answers don’t correspond to observation, obviously it doesn’t give the right answer. So, develop another one that does

But what if both hypotheses or models do render the same results? Well, as you indicate, a model that is easier to calculate (parsimonious) is the one most likely to be used to get the answers. Less calculating to do. So, I guess in that sense, that hypothesis is the “better” one.

But, is that hypothesis True, with a capital T? Is there such thing? Do we care? Those are the questions.

.

 

[twinc]

I’m still waiting for you to back up what you said earlier:

I learned my lesson the hard way with prior threads on biological evolution: Don’t bother with dishonest posters. Now I’d like to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are genuinely desiring to learn something here, so I’ll wait patiently for your citation. In the mean time I’m not going to expend the energy explaining Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation or Kepler’s Laws of Orbital Motion.

you may have to patiently wait a long time for having definately read this somewhere in the past I regret I cannot now reproduce the source - perhaps someone else may verify this - twinc

 

[grannymh]

We see then both sides had good reason to distort the facts and different accounts of the case are a result of this, but more so by those composed over the centuries by the Catholic apologists, all trying hard of course to expurgate the Church from the responsibility and consequences of having defined and declared by papal decree the proposition of a fixed sun as formal heresy and for condemning Galileo accordingly.

While the situation of Galileo was very, very serious, please note that in the 17th Century, a local decree regarding the particular planet earth was not a formally defined dogma of any Church Council and therefore no formal heresy was involved with this decree.

Nonetheless, papal concern about Holy Scripture was valid. While Galileo could be individually censured for his interpretation of Scripture, the description of a heliocentric belief in a decree would not be considered a dogma of the universal Church.

Blessings,
granny

John 3: 16&17

 

[xixxvmcm85]

If you have two hypotheses, do they render the same result?

Well, if they do not, then obviously one of them does not yield the right answer! They can’t both be right. It’s that simple.

We find out which answer is right by observation, by experience. If one model’s answers don’t correspond to observation, obviously it doesn’t give the right answer. So, develop another one that does

But what if both hypotheses or models do render the same results? Well, as you indicate, a model that is easier to calculate (parsimonious) is the one most likely to be used to get the answers. Less calculating to do. So, I guess in that sense, that hypothesis is the “better” one.

But, is that hypothesis True, with a capital T? Is there such thing? Do we care? Those are the questions.

.

Parsimony is but one part of it. As I mentioned in the post you quoted, there are actual phenomena which a geocentric model cannot explain at all; not a more convoluted explanation, but no explanation whatsoever. Paralax is one such example, as is orbital motion with respect to the force of gravity which induces centripetal acceleration. The former is completely ignored by geocentrists and the latter necessitates the invocation of a mysterious entity which isn’t observed (the “aether”).

It’s similar to Einstein’s reluctance to accept the Big Bang due to his near dogmatic belief that the universe must be static. He had to invoke his “cosmological constant”, a purely mathematical construct in order to explain why the universe doesn’t collapse on itself (what we’d expect if the universe didn’t expand). He had no observation to back this up, and indeed once Hubble red-shift was observed, he correctly abandoned this belief and reluctantly accepted the Big Bang.

The difference between Einstein and 21st century geocentrists is that at the time, the static state model still explained one or two phenomena which the Big Bang couldn’t (one of which was a predicted red-shift), and like a good scientist once these were observed and the Big Bang came out the clear winner, he deferred to reality. There is absolutely nothing that a geocentric model of the solar system can explain that a heliocentric model cannot, so there’s really nothing we can chalk up 21st geocentrism to except either ignorance (on the part of the general population) or purposeful deception (on the part of the “professional” geocentrists).

 

[xixxvmcm85]

you may have to patiently wait a long time for having definately read this somewhere in the past I regret I cannot now reproduce the source - perhaps someone else may verify this - twinc

A long time indeed, as it just simply isn’t true. Every Earth-centric calculation NASA makes is performed with the assumption of a dynamic planet, and one need not go any further to see this than the prediction of eclipses.

 

[cassini]

I’m still waiting for you to back up what you said earlier:

Originally Posted by twinc
The last laugh it seems,as I read it,that NASA makes all its space calculations as if the earth were stationary and the results have been bang on target etc - twinc

I learned my lesson the hard way with prior threads on biological evolution: Don’t bother with dishonest posters. Now I’d like to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are genuinely desiring to learn something here, so I’ll wait patiently for your citation. In the mean time I’m not going to expend the energy explaining Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation or Kepler’s Laws of Orbital Motion.

Let me help you Twink:

First a letter in the New Scientist magazine of Aug. 16, 1979:

Royal Air Force College
Cranwell, Linclonshire, England.

‘Sir, …One can of course believe anything one likes as long as the consequences of the belief are trivial. But when survival depends on that belief, then it matters that belief corresponds to manifest reality. We therefore teach navigators that the stars are fixed to the Celestial sphere, which is centred on a fixed earth, and around which it rotates in accordance with laws clearly deducible from common-sense observation. The sun and moon move across the inner surface of this sphere, and hence perforce go around the earth. This means that students of navigation must unlearn a lot of confused dogma they learned in school. Most of them find this remarkably easy, because dogma is as may be, but the real world is as we perceive it to be. If Andrew Hill will look in the Journal of Navigation he will find that the Earth-centred Universe is alive and well, whatever his readings of the Spectator may suggest.
Yours, Darcy Reddyhoff.’

‘Not the least interesting thing in the passage just quoted is the officer’s use of the term “confused dogma” when speaking of modern astronomy. For the sake of completeness I shall now fill in any gaps he left that might interest readers by giving the following summary of the principles of celestial navigation. (1) Celestial navigation is based on the premise of two concentric spheres – one (celestial) larger than the other – sharing a common pole, with the smaller and inner sphere remaining stationary while the outer revolves about it. (2) Calculations are based on the laws of spherical trigonometry. The measurements used to translate the computations into a position or “fix” on the earth are done in nautical miles (even in these days of almost universal metrication). Each of these 360 degrees of the circle is divided into 60 minutes. The nautical mile is defined as the length of one minute of longitude on the equator, or 6,080 feet. (3) The tables used to reduce or compute the resultant observations are based on 360 degrees. (4) All the navigators of the world use the same basic system, their calculations and charts being based on a fixed earth and the basic unit of the nautical mile.’ – Martin Gwynne.

Yes, unbelievable isn’t it, they use the old geocentric system of navigation and it works for them. If any doubt how they calculate where the sun, moon, planets will be at any given time go to the Encyclopedia Britannica (Eclipse, p.869) and you will find the following propaganda:

‘For this purpose it is convenient first to consider the earth as fixed and to suppose the observer looking out from its centre…’

Of course it is, very convenient indeed. No doubt, for planetary flight, they could use a heliocentric system, taking into account all the moving bodies and the 15,000 Newtonian variables they say is necessary to work past the ‘perturbations’ in Kepler’s ellipse to find them, but, as the odds will confirm, there is no guarantee they would actually get their calculations right. I for one, if I were blasting off, would make sure they base their directions on geocentric reality, not heliocentric rhetoric.

 

[cassini]

Parsimony is but one part of it. As I mentioned in the post you quoted, there are actual phenomena which a geocentric model cannot explain at all; not a more convoluted explanation, but no explanation whatsoever. Paralax is one such example, as is orbital motion with respect to the force of gravity which induces centripetal acceleration. The former is completely ignored by geocentrists and the latter necessitates the invocation of a mysterious entity which isn’t observed (the “aether”).

It’s similar to Einstein’s reluctance to accept the Big Bang due to his near dogmatic belief that the universe must be static. He had to invoke his “cosmological constant”, a purely mathematical construct in order to explain why the universe doesn’t collapse on itself (what we’d expect if the universe didn’t expand). He had no observation to back this up, and indeed once Hubble red-shift was observed, he correctly abandoned this belief and reluctantly accepted the Big Bang.

The difference between Einstein and 21st century geocentrists is that at the time, the static state model still explained one or two phenomena which the Big Bang couldn’t (one of which was a predicted red-shift), and like a good scientist once these were observed and the Big Bang came out the clear winner, he deferred to reality. There is absolutely nothing that a geocentric model of the solar system can explain that a heliocentric model cannot, so there’s really nothing we can chalk up 21st geocentrism to except either ignorance (on the part of the general population) or purposeful deception (on the part of the “professional” geocentrists).

I am surprised a person as learned as you should also believe that there is no geocentric explanation for Parallax. A first year science student would understand that if the sun and stars are linked, that is consider the sun as one of the fixed stars, and both rotate around the earth, then you get a geocentric parallax of stars.

I note earlier you questioned the existence of ether. Do you know that in order to get the earth moving again after the 1887 Mitchel and Morley experiment, Einstein banashed ether. Then in order to have his GTR Einstein re-introduced ether. This shows modern cosmology is purely theoretical, with ad hocs replacing empirical experimentation to get the cosmology they want.

Thus I find such detailed exchanges between theories as a waste of time when seeking the ontological truth. I side with Osiander, the Protestant the Catholic Church agreed with when he said in his preface to Copernicus’s book De Revolutionibus that its ‘hypothesis’ was for calculation only and not as a truth of nature, ‘for such a truth can be known only if God reveals it.’

 

[twinc]

you may have to patiently wait a long time for having definately read this somewhere in the past I regret I cannot now reproduce the source - perhaps someone else may verify this - twinc

It seems NASA always fires its rockets eastwards - the geocentric explanation is that what they are really seeking to do is to get the speed of the rocket as fast as they can relative to the circling universe.They,therefore,launch it against the direction that the universe is rotating - It is also interesting to note that the orbits for the numerous spacecraft to other planets are all calculated using the earth as the centre of the co-ordinates -i.e.as though the earth were the centre of the planetary systempage 512 True Science Agrees With The Bible -Malcolm Bowden - ISBN 0 9506042 4 0 - check it out some very interesting stuff over looked and ignored by pseudo science and scientists it seems - twinc

 

[xixxvmcm85]

Let me help you Twink:

First a letter in the New Scientist magazine of Aug. 16, 1979:

Royal Air Force College
Cranwell, Linclonshire, England.

‘Sir, …One can of course believe anything one likes as long as the consequences of the belief are trivial. But when survival depends on that belief, then it matters that belief corresponds to manifest reality. We therefore teach navigators that the stars are fixed to the Celestial sphere, which is centred on a fixed earth, and around which it rotates in accordance with laws clearly deducible from common-sense observation. The sun and moon move across the inner surface of this sphere, and hence perforce go around the earth. This means that students of navigation must unlearn a lot of confused dogma they learned in school. Most of them find this remarkably easy, because dogma is as may be, but the real world is as we perceive it to be. If Andrew Hill will look in the Journal of Navigation he will find that the Earth-centred Universe is alive and well, whatever his readings of the Spectator may suggest.
Yours, Darcy Reddyhoff.’

This is a letter written to the editor of a popular magazine about aeronautics, not evidence that NASA assumes a static Earth in its calculations. Try again.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

I am surprised a person as learned as you should also believe that there is no geocentric explanation for Parallax. A first year science student would understand that if the sun and stars are linked, that is consider the sun as one of the fixed stars, and both rotate around the earth, then you get a geocentric parallax of stars.

Ah, but you’d also expect a relative parallax of the Sun itself, which isn’t observed.

I note earlier you questioned the existence of ether. Do you know that in order to get the earth moving again after the 1887 Mitchel and Morley experiment, Einstein banashed ether. Then in order to have his GTR Einstein re-introduced ether. This shows modern cosmology is purely theoretical, with ad hocs replacing empirical experimentation to get the cosmology they want.

No, it shows that real science adjusts theoretical concepts to match observation, not the other way around. It’s what’s characteristic of empirical based science compared to, say, dogmatic science adjusted to suit narrow theological interpretation.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

By the way, cassini, I think you’re conflating the luminiferous aether of the Michelson-Morley experiment designed to detect such, and gravitation aether which Einstein alluded to having a place in relativistic physics, but which is substance-less and motionless, and nonetheless unnecessary.So he didn’t exactly “reintroduce aether” as if he needed to fudge the math.

Without the classical aether which moves celestial bodies around the Earth, geocentrists are right back at square one trying to explain how massive bodies can orbit less massive ones in spite of gravity.

 

[twinc]

By the way, cassini, I think you’re conflating the luminiferous aether of the Michelson-Morley experiment designed to detect such, and gravitation aether which Einstein alluded to having a place in relativistic physics, but which is substance-less and motionless, and nonetheless unnecessary.So he didn’t exactly “reintroduce aether” as if he needed to fudge the math.

Without the classical aether which moves celestial bodies around the Earth, geocentrists are right back at square one trying to explain how massive bodies can orbit less massive ones in spite of gravity.

what exactly do you mean by massive - is the sun a mass of massive matter - twinc

 

[edwest2]

It seems NASA always fires its rockets eastwards - the geocentric explanation is that what they are really seeking to do is to get the speed of the rocket as fast as they can relative to the circling universe.They,therefore,launch it against the direction that the universe is rotating - It is also interesting to note that the orbits for the numerous spacecraft to other planets are all calculated using the earth as the centre of the co-ordinates -i.e.as though the earth were the centre of the planetary system[page 512 True Science Agrees With The Bible -Malcolm Bowden - ISBN 0 9506042 4 0 - check it out some very interesting stuff over looked and ignored by pseudo science and scientists it seems - twinc

NASA’s launch facility is closer to the equator and takes advantage of the spin of the earth to save energy when launching rockets.

Peace,
Ed
[/quote]

 

[CHRISTINE77]

hello people, the earth revolves around the sun, just as we revolve around God and Jesus. God does not revolve around us, no matter how much we would like it to be!

 

[twinc]

hello people, the earth revolves around the sun, just as we revolve around God and Jesus. God does not revolve around us, no matter how much we would like it to be!

There is a big difference we[earth]do not revolve around the sun of God but the son of God - btw in more ways than one it seems the son of God does indeed revolve around us His children on earth - twinc

 

[twinc]

Parsimony is but one part of it. As I mentioned in the post you quoted, there are actual phenomena which a geocentric model cannot explain at all; not a more convoluted explanation, but no explanation whatsoever. Paralax is one such example, as is orbital motion with respect to the force of gravity which induces centripetal acceleration. The former is completely ignored by geocentrists and the latter necessitates the invocation of a mysterious entity which isn’t observed (the “aether”).

It’s similar to Einstein’s reluctance to accept the Big Bang due to his near dogmatic belief that the universe must be static. He had to invoke his “cosmological constant”, a purely mathematical construct in order to explain why the universe doesn’t collapse on itself (what we’d expect if the universe didn’t expand). He had no observation to back this up, and indeed once Hubble red-shift was observed, he correctly abandoned this belief and reluctantly accepted the Big Bang.

The difference between Einstein and 21st century geocentrists is that at the time, the static state model still explained one or two phenomena which the Big Bang couldn’t (one of which was a predicted red-shift), and like a good scientist once these were observed and the Big Bang came out the clear winner, he deferred to reality. There is absolutely nothing that a geocentric model of the solar system can explain that a heliocentric model cannot, so there’s really nothing we can chalk up 21st geocentrism to except either ignorance (on the part of the general population) or purposeful deception (on the part of the “professional” geocentrists).

lets first see who the ignorant,misled,misleading and purposeful deceivers and conspirators have been and are with their hoaxes,frauds and cons of the past and present - anyone care to suggest a few,while I try to search out and list a few - meanwhile just try “True science agrees with the Bible” as already suggested - btw it seems one of the greatest achievements of science was the dematerialisation of matter - twinc

 

[mackbrislawn]

Parsimony is but one part of it. As I mentioned in the post you quoted, there are actual phenomena which a geocentric model cannot explain at all; not a more convoluted explanation, but no explanation whatsoever. Paralax is one such example, as is orbital motion with respect to the force of gravity which induces centripetal acceleration. The former is completely ignored by geocentrists and the latter necessitates the invocation of a mysterious entity which isn’t observed (the “aether”).

It’s similar to Einstein’s reluctance to accept the Big Bang due to his near dogmatic belief that the universe must be static. He had to invoke his “cosmological constant”, a purely mathematical construct in order to explain why the universe doesn’t collapse on itself (what we’d expect if the universe didn’t expand). He had no observation to back this up, and indeed once Hubble red-shift was observed, he correctly abandoned this belief and reluctantly accepted the Big Bang.

The difference between Einstein and 21st century geocentrists is that at the time, the static state model still explained one or two phenomena which the Big Bang couldn’t (one of which was a predicted red-shift), and like a good scientist once these were observed and the Big Bang came out the clear winner, he deferred to reality. There is absolutely nothing that a geocentric model of the solar system can explain that a heliocentric model cannot, so there’s really nothing we can chalk up 21st geocentrism to except either ignorance (on the part of the general population) or purposeful deception (on the part of the “professional” geocentrists).

Models or systems can be tested to see if they give the right answers, that is they can be compared to observaton and experience. Models that do not compare to observation of course do not give the right answer. For specific examples, the above quote is excellent in comparing the geocentric model and the heliocentric model. It makes it clear that the geocentric model simply doesn’t give the right answers, and the heliocentric does. It is also simpler, easier to calculate, parsimony.

For some people it might stop there–the heliocentric model is used because its answers correspond to observation and is easier to use. Now if Galileo had stopped there, he wouldn’t have gotten into trouble. But he presented it in such a way as to indicate he believed the earth actually DID go around the sun, not just as a convenient way of calculating.

So that’s the question I’m asking. Do our scientific models correspond to reality, are they true with a capital T, or are they merely useful devices for predicting? Analogies for a reality that keeps retreating as new theories come into being, to explain new observations?

I think most scientists believe that their theories actually do correspond in some way to “out there,” and don’t exist just as convenient methods for getting the right results. That is how they differ from engineers. The main concern of an engineer is to use a formula that will give the right results, that is, guarantee that the bridge he builds will not collapse, nor the airplane wing fall off. Whether or not his formula in some way describes a real “out there” isn’t to the point, in his view. twinc mentioned that NASA engineers used formulas that assumed the geocentric model, and those formulas give them the answers they need. I can’t imagine a NASA engineer actually holding a geocentric world view (Truth with a capital T), but he simply uses what is handy.

Now, Christianity starts out with the operating assumption that there is such a thing as absolute truth, with a capital T. God is its answer. In my opinion most scientists, even if they don’t believe in God, still use the operating assumtion that there is an absolute reality out there, and science can help find it.

For them, they Care.

 

[twinc]

Parsimony is but one part of it. As I mentioned in the post you quoted, there are actual phenomena which a geocentric model cannot explain at all; not a more convoluted explanation, but no explanation whatsoever. Paralax is one such example, as is orbital motion with respect to the force of gravity which induces centripetal acceleration. The former is completely ignored by geocentrists and the latter necessitates the invocation of a mysterious entity which isn’t observed (the “aether”).

It’s similar to Einstein’s reluctance to accept the Big Bang due to his near dogmatic belief that the universe must be static. He had to invoke his “cosmological constant”, a purely mathematical construct in order to explain why the universe doesn’t collapse on itself (what we’d expect if the universe didn’t expand). He had no observation to back this up, and indeed once Hubble red-shift was observed, he correctly abandoned this belief and reluctantly accepted the Big Bang.

The difference between Einstein and 21st century geocentrists is that at the time, the static state model still explained one or two phenomena which the Big Bang couldn’t (one of which was a predicted red-shift), and like a good scientist once these were observed and the Big Bang came out the clear winner, he deferred to reality. There is absolutely nothing that a geocentric model of the solar system can explain that a heliocentric model cannot, so there’s really nothing we can chalk up 21st geocentrism to except either ignorance (on the part of the general population) or purposeful deception (on the part of the “professional” geocentrists).

confusion to confusion - error to error - nonsense and non science to nonsense and non science for there was no big bang as I read it - but for sure,as creationists know it there will be a big bang that will do what big bangs really do - twinc

 

[xixxvmcm85]

Models or systems can be tested to see if they give the right answers, that is they can be compared to observaton and experience. Models that do not compare to observation of course do not give the right answer. For specific examples, the above quote is excellent in comparing the geocentric model and the heliocentric model. It makes it clear that the geocentric model simply doesn’t give the right answers, and the heliocentric does. It is also simpler, easier to calculate, parsimony.

For some people it might stop there–the heliocentric model is used because its answers correspond to observation and is easier to use. Now if Galileo had stopped there, he wouldn’t have gotten into trouble. But he presented it in such a way as to indicate he believed the earth actually DID go around the sun, not just as a convenient way of calculating.

I’m not understanding your point here. You concede that a geocentric model of the solar system doesn’t match observation yet it should be adhered to anyway? You seem to think that these models are nothing more than mathematical constructs which cannot tell us anything substantive about what we observe, and that simply isn’t the case. The heliocentric model works while the geocentric one does not, so we properly conclude that the Earth does orbit the Sun.

So that’s the question I’m asking. Do our scientific models correspond to reality, are they true with a capital T, or are they merely useful devices for predicting? Analogies for a reality that keeps retreating as new theories come into being, to explain new observations?

The heliocentric model of the solar system has not “retreated”. Modifications have been made to some specifics, such as Kepler’s laws concerning elliptical orbit, but these modifications have not changed the underlying principle that bodies of smaller mass orbit bodies of larger mass.

I think most scientists believe that their theories actually do correspond in some way to “out there,” and don’t exist just as convenient methods for getting the right results. That is how they differ from engineers. The main concern of an engineer is to use a formula that will give the right results, that is, guarantee that the bridge he builds will not collapse, nor the airplane wing fall off. Whether or not his formula in some way describes a real “out there” isn’t to the point, in his view.

That engineers apply theoretical physics to a practical setting doesn’t change the fact that the underlying theories do explain reality. I highly doubt you will find any engineer who says something along the lines of “I design my transistors with Lenz’ Law in mind (a law which relates the induced electrical current in a wire due to the magnetic field of another wire) but I don’t really believe that there’s some force called ‘magnetism’.”

twinc mentioned that NASA engineers used formulas that assumed the geocentric model, and those formulas give them the answers they need. I can’t imagine a NASA engineer actually holding a geocentric world view (Truth with a capital T), but he simply uses what is handy.

He has yet to substantiate his claim that NASA uses a geocentric model for all their calculations, and I’d safely bet my house that he won’t be able to as it’s complete rubbish. Despite the claim being false, it does touch on a matter that I think needs addressing: assumptive calculation.

Cassini, in an attempt to vindicate twinc’s claim, posted an op ed which addressed how pilots (not astronauts or astronomers) assume that the Earth doesn’t move when making certain calculations. I don’t know whether this is true, but I have no reason to necessarily be skeptical since it would make sense that someone for whom a problem’s scope doesn’t extend outside Earth would find the Earth’s orbit irrelevant. Saying that something is irrelevant isn’t the same as denying its existence.

We could use another physics example for this: It’s generally well known that Einsteinian physics has superseded Newtonian physics, yet physics students are still taught the basic Newtonian formulae for motion. Newton’s formulae do not take into account that space can contract and time can dilate as Einstein showed through relativity, so does that mean there’s an inherent contradiction in physics? Not at all. The effects of relativity matter only when an object is moving close to the speed of light, which as you could imagine doesn’t occur with most common objects. Since my car cannot travel even 1/100th the speed of light, I can completely ignore relativity and use x(t) = x₀ + v₀t + at² to model the motion of my car. Does that mean I don’t accept relativity since I’m seemingly ignoring it? No, it only means relativity makes a negligible contribution to my car’s motion in that situation.

In many cases, we also ignore that the Earth is round! Oh my we must be secret flat-Earthers too! The curvature of the Earth can be safely ignored in most scenarios since we aren’t typically calculating the motion of an object over a significant distance. While modeling a projectile, such as a baseball which will only go a couple dozen meters, I can assume that the Earth is flat even though I know well that it isn’t!.

Now I cannot make these assumptions if I’m modeling the motion of, say, a photon which travels at the speed of light, has no mass, and exhibits wave-particle duality. I cannot make these assumptions when modeling the motion of a rocket launched from North Korea to New York City. In these cases Newtonian mechanics would actually produce a wrong answer, which stands as more evidence that relativity is correct and that the Earth is not flat.