B
buffalo
Guest
- Status
H
hecd2
Guest
I’m sorry - how can anyone think that one frame of reference is ‘true’ and another ‘false’? That’s bizarre. Of course one can can transform between one and another using Lorentz transformations (or for transformations that are non-relative, Galilean transformations)
However inertial frames of reference are qualitatively and quantitatively very different from non-inertial frames of reference. The surface of the earth is a non-inertial frame, since it is subject to several sources of residual forces as a consequence of diurnal and planetary rotation. In fact the sun itself only approximates an inertial frame, as it is subject to the forces that result from galactic rotation in the universal frame and accelerations due to gravitational influences inter-galactic influences and from near stellar objects. Although the sun is not stationary in an inertial frame, the residual forces are low and it is a near inertial frame object.
The universal frame, against which the proper motions of stellar objects are measured is a true inertial frame - the fundamental physical difference is not determined by how useful a particular frame is ( using the universal frame when navigating down a highway in a car, or from Logan to Heathrow in a 747 is possible but extremely inconvenient) but by its physical properties. There are no resdual forces in a true inertal frame such as the universal frame and there are residual forces in a non-inertial frame such as we find on the earth’s surface.
If you disagree with this, how do you explain Foucault’s pendulum. Frankly this stuff is Mechanics 101 in a decent undergraduate physics course.
Alec
homepage.ntlworld.com/macandrew/Grenada_disaster/Grenada_disaster.htm
F
Flluffycat
Guest
I don’t think it matters.
H
hecd2
Guest
I meant, of course: ‘for transformations that are non-relativistic, Galilean transformations’
Alec
homepage.ntlworld.com/macandrew/Grenada_disaster/Grenada_disaster.htm
H
hecd2
Guest
Just refreshing this as I haven’t heard from Dave about this question of frames of reference:
itsjustdave1988:
However inertial frames of reference are qualitatively and quantitatively very different from non-inertial frames of reference. The surface of the earth is a non-inertial frame, since it is subject to several sources of residual forces as a consequence of diurnal and planetary rotation. In fact the sun itself only approximates an inertial frame, as it is subject to the forces that result from galactic rotation in the universal frame and accelerations due to gravitational influences inter-galactic influences and from near stellar objects. Although the sun is not stationary in an inertial frame, the residual forces are low and it is a near inertial frame object.
The universal frame, against which the proper motions of stellar objects are measured is a true inertial frame - the fundamental physical difference is not determined by how useful a particular frame is ( using the universal frame when navigating down a highway in a car, or from Logan to Heathrow in a 747 is possible but extremely inconvenient) but by its physical properties. There are no resdual forces in a true inertal frame such as the universal frame and there are residual forces in a non-inertial frame such as we find on the earth’s surface.
If you disagree with this, how do you explain Foucault’s pendulum. Frankly this stuff is Mechanics 101 in a decent undergraduate physics course.
Alec
homepage.ntlworld.com/macand…da_disaster.htm
I’m sorry - how can anyone think that one frame of reference is ‘true’ and another ‘false’? That’s bizarre. Of course one can can transform between one and another using Lorentz transformations (or for transformations that are non-relativistic, Galilean transformations)
However inertial frames of reference are qualitatively and quantitatively very different from non-inertial frames of reference. The surface of the earth is a non-inertial frame, since it is subject to several sources of residual forces as a consequence of diurnal and planetary rotation. In fact the sun itself only approximates an inertial frame, as it is subject to the forces that result from galactic rotation in the universal frame and accelerations due to gravitational influences inter-galactic influences and from near stellar objects. Although the sun is not stationary in an inertial frame, the residual forces are low and it is a near inertial frame object.
The universal frame, against which the proper motions of stellar objects are measured is a true inertial frame - the fundamental physical difference is not determined by how useful a particular frame is ( using the universal frame when navigating down a highway in a car, or from Logan to Heathrow in a 747 is possible but extremely inconvenient) but by its physical properties. There are no resdual forces in a true inertal frame such as the universal frame and there are residual forces in a non-inertial frame such as we find on the earth’s surface.
If you disagree with this, how do you explain Foucault’s pendulum. Frankly this stuff is Mechanics 101 in a decent undergraduate physics course.
Alec
homepage.ntlworld.com/macand…da_disaster.htm
S
SocaliCatholic
Guest
I’m sorry - how can anyone think that one frame of reference is ‘true’ and another ‘false’? That’s bizarre. Of course one can can transform between one and another using Lorentz transformations (or for transformations that are non-relativistic, Galilean transformations)
However inertial frames of reference are qualitatively and quantitatively very different from non-inertial frames of reference. The surface of the earth is a non-inertial frame, since it is subject to several sources of residual forces as a consequence of diurnal and planetary rotation. In fact the sun itself only approximates an inertial frame, as it is subject to the forces that result from galactic rotation in the universal frame and accelerations due to gravitational influences inter-galactic influences and from near stellar objects. Although the sun is not stationary in an inertial frame, the residual forces are low and it is a near inertial frame object.
The universal frame, against which the proper motions of stellar objects are measured is a true inertial frame - the fundamental physical difference is not determined by how useful a particular frame is ( using the universal frame when navigating down a highway in a car, or from Logan to Heathrow in a 747 is possible but extremely inconvenient) but by its physical properties. There are no resdual forces in a true inertal frame such as the universal frame and there are residual forces in a non-inertial frame such as we find on the earth’s surface.
If you disagree with this, how do you explain Foucault’s pendulum. Frankly this stuff is Mechanics 101 in a decent undergraduate physics course.
Alec
homepage.ntlworld.com/macand…da_disaster.htm
Hi Alec since Dave’s gone can I take a crack at it?
The theory of evolution is the result of the accumulation of knowledge of previous scientists, who’s frame of reference was relative to the knowledge and tools during their lifetimes.
Now apply this to modern day biology who can make much more precise observations becuase someone has discovered DNA. This is no way invalidates the usefulness of the discoveries made by previous biologists relative to their own time.
Wasn’t it Einstien that said that he was just standing on the shoulders of giants?
Agree or Disagree?
H
hecd2
Guest
Dear Socali,
Thanks for picking this up, and I don’t disagree with anything you say, but actually Dave and I were having a discussion about physical frames of reference - these are technical constructs used in classical mechanics and special relativity. Dave was commenting that one can convert between any one and any other frame (using Galilean transformations in classical mechanics and the Lorentz transformation in special relativity), and that’s true, but I was pointing out that the earth’s surface which is a non-inertial frame from which we observe the universe is very different from an inertial frame and in particular from the inertial universal frame defined by the stellar field after proper motions are averaged out.
No, actually it was Isaac Newton: ‘If I have seen farther it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants’ – Isaac Newton’s Letter to Robert Hooke, February 5th, 1675 or 1676. (He was engaged at the time in a bitter quarrel with Hooke, so we shouldn’t read this as necessarily representing modesty on the part of Newton)
I am actually snowed under at the moment, so will reply to the other threads as I have time
Alec
S
SocaliCatholic
Guest
Ok no problem. I prayed for your situation in the snow.
P
Pensees
Guest
Given that science is tentative, with new data overthrowing old conclusions, I understand why many hold to Genesis as a literal God-breathed history.
Peace.
P
PhilVaz
Guest
Hey you are resurrecting old threads. There are about 500 old evolution-creation threads to choose from. As you can see, the arguments haven’t changed much. We’re not evolving much in our discussion. Creationists stay creationists, evolutionists stay evolutionists, and the betweeners stay between. 
Phil P
Phil P
T
thistle
Guest
I see the photo on your post is of Jesus in The Last Temptation of Christ. That was a blasphemous movie and should not be shown in these forums.
G
Ghosty
Guest
Oy vey! What would Darwin say?Hey you are resurrecting old threads. There are about 500 old evolution-creation threads to choose from. As you can see, the arguments haven’t changed much. We’re not evolving much in our discussion. Creationists stay creationists, evolutionists stay evolutionists, and the betweeners stay between.
Phil P
I have to admit I’ve been a little suprised to see the Frankensteinization of the forum, though. It’s kind of fun to see all these old debates come back
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
I think Genesis is a “popular account,” a poem about creation. It pertains to historical events. However, it’s historicity is asserted when it touches upon the fundamentals of the Christian religion, for example, God’s act of creating the universe at the very beginning of time. It’s historical content is focused on salvation history, not profane history. As such, I don’t believe it is prudent to use Genesis in figuring out “when” man first walked upon the planet.
P
Pensees
Guest
On the issue of whether or not the film is ‘blasphemous’, I’d recommend this article:
The Last Temptation Reconsidered
Carol Iannone
firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9602/iannone.html
Hebrews 2:18
For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted,
he is able to succour them that are tempted.
Peace.
P
Pensees
Guest
Many church fathers, before modern science, asserted that the ‘days’ of the Hexaemeron are not to be interpreted as literal 24-hour days but indefinite periods of time. What matters to me is not when God created but how.
T
thistle
Guest
Who is Carol Iannone? Does she speak for the Catholic Church?
The film is blasphemous!!
P
Pensees
Guest
Have you even seen the film?
Peace.
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
T
thistle
Guest
I haven’t really been reading this thread until today but now I have because my sister in law who is also Catholic asked me if Adam and Eve were real people. She said a priest had said they were not real people and that Genesis should not be taken literally but did tell the truth in figurative language about man’s relationship with God.
I’ve read through this thread but there does not seem to be a consenus of opinion. I’ve also read the relevant sections in the CCC.
What I can’t find in this thread is any link to a document or in the CCC which has a specific statement saying Adam and Eve were real historical people. The CCC talks about Adam and Eve (but does not state they are real historical people) and it talks about figurative language in Genesis.
My first question therefore is, is there is a Church document which specifically states they were real people (CCC doesn’t) and that we must believe all of us were descended from these two people?
Second question is even if they were real people does the Church say officially if there were other humans living at the same time and before them and that God decided to give a particular pair of humans (we now call Adam and Eve) a soul and we are descended from that pair.
Third question is if Adam and Eve were the only two living humans at one time how did we descend from them? Was it through incestuous relationships?
I’ve read through this thread but there does not seem to be a consenus of opinion. I’ve also read the relevant sections in the CCC.
What I can’t find in this thread is any link to a document or in the CCC which has a specific statement saying Adam and Eve were real historical people. The CCC talks about Adam and Eve (but does not state they are real historical people) and it talks about figurative language in Genesis.
My first question therefore is, is there is a Church document which specifically states they were real people (CCC doesn’t) and that we must believe all of us were descended from these two people?
Second question is even if they were real people does the Church say officially if there were other humans living at the same time and before them and that God decided to give a particular pair of humans (we now call Adam and Eve) a soul and we are descended from that pair.
Third question is if Adam and Eve were the only two living humans at one time how did we descend from them? Was it through incestuous relationships?
P
PhilVaz
Guest
thistle << What I can’t find in this thread is any link to a document or in the CCC which has a specific statement saying Adam and Eve were real historical people. >>
Many of these questions have been addressed, the relevant documents have been cited, hundreds if not millions of times since May 2004 when the forums started.
I think the Catechism is clear when it talks about “Adam and Eve” and “the first couple” and “the first man” being literal and historical, etc. Relevant paragraphs: 359 (two literal, historical men: Adam and Christ), 375-377 (“our first parents, Adam and Eve,” “the first couple,” “the first man”), 379 (“our first parents”), 388 (“we must know Christ as the source of grace in order to know Adam as the source of sin”), 390-392 (“our first parents”), etc.
While there is indication that there is symbolical or figurative “language” in Genesis 1-3 (especially paragraphs 337, 362, 369, 375, 390, 396), there is no indication in the Catechism that “our first parents, Adam and Eve” is symbolical. However, there are a few dissenters here if I remember.
The Church also recognizes modern science (paragraphs 283-284) including the validity of human evolution (International Theological Commission 2004 statement, paragraph 63 especially). The problem is fitting that all together as we’ve unsuccessfully and desperately tried in many threads.
Chant with me now…
No…more…evolution…threads
No…more…evolution…threads
Phil P
Many of these questions have been addressed, the relevant documents have been cited, hundreds if not millions of times since May 2004 when the forums started.
I think the Catechism is clear when it talks about “Adam and Eve” and “the first couple” and “the first man” being literal and historical, etc. Relevant paragraphs: 359 (two literal, historical men: Adam and Christ), 375-377 (“our first parents, Adam and Eve,” “the first couple,” “the first man”), 379 (“our first parents”), 388 (“we must know Christ as the source of grace in order to know Adam as the source of sin”), 390-392 (“our first parents”), etc.
While there is indication that there is symbolical or figurative “language” in Genesis 1-3 (especially paragraphs 337, 362, 369, 375, 390, 396), there is no indication in the Catechism that “our first parents, Adam and Eve” is symbolical. However, there are a few dissenters here if I remember.
The Church also recognizes modern science (paragraphs 283-284) including the validity of human evolution (International Theological Commission 2004 statement, paragraph 63 especially). The problem is fitting that all together as we’ve unsuccessfully and desperately tried in many threads.
Chant with me now…
No…more…evolution…threads
No…more…evolution…threads
Phil P
- Status