Albert, ever see the system of de Brahe. Well look it up. Now you on earth will see the planets loop as they orbit the sun, as the sun orbits the earth. It is simple if your brain allows you to see past your prejudice.
If that is all there is to your argument, then, as I previously indicated, you have no reasonable grounds for your position.Well, I’ve read a book about it recently, and actually, I’ve just noticed that it argues the Earth is 4.5 billion years old based on, erm, radiometrically testing a meteorite, which is assumed to have been created when the solar system and Earth were created. This was only pursued because the previous figure of 3 billion years didn’t match what the cosmologists thought it was. Why assume the meteorites came from the birth of the solar system? Best they could think of? Apparently…
The 13.7 billion year figure on the Universe comes from Sandage, examining the spectral characteristics of star clusters. The thing that gets me about cosmology is that ultimately, stars are far away, we can only really go on what we can see. We can’t verify that they are made of what we think they are, and I somehow doubt that we can even (genuinely) prove they are a) as far away as they are, b) as big as we think they are or c) have properties sufficiently consistent with our sun to allow us to calulate what goes on with them to any real degree of sufficiency. Didn’t the Universe shrink about 10 years ago (or rather, wasn’t it decided that it was smaller than previously thought about 10 years ago)?
Every time I encounter scientific fact, it reveals itself to be an assumption sitting on top of a whole lot of other assumptions. Hey-ho!
If by “Master” Darwin, you are referring to Charles Darwin, you are mistaken. Darwin was a naturalist, of course, but also a very significant scientist in the fields of biology, palaeobiology and geology. Quite apart from the facts that he discovered a number of important geological mechanisms (including the origin of coral atolls), that he was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society (Britain’s most prestigious scientific society) at a remarkably young age, and that he was a world expert on the anatomy, physiology and systematics of living and extinct barnacles, he also laid the theoretical foundation for modern biology that makes it more than mere description and “stamp collecting”. Furthermore, his work is a perfect example of the scientific method, including the linked steps of observation, hypothesising and empirical testing. If Darwin was not a scientist, then no-one is.
Yes i have seen it and it is utterly absurd. Prejudice has nothing to do with it, we know that system is NOT correct for a FACT.** Firstly mars NEVER is between the earth and the sun**, secondly we use the planets to “sling shot” probes into deep space, the calculations based on the **sun being in the center of the solar system. **
Albert the noner! Welcome back. I wish you would stop using logic and scientific truths to make your point!!!
You are fundamentally mistaken, and you misrepresent the phenomenon of stellar aberration. This phenomenon, which is an annual variation in the apparent direction of distant stars arises as a result of the relative changes in the motion of the earth with respect to the Poynting vector (the direction of propagation) of the light waves from the star as the earth orbits the sun (and not as a result of the relative motion of rthe earth and the stars). Consequently the apparent direction of a star at the ecliptic pole traces out a near-circle over the period of a year, whereas a star on the ecliptic traces out a line and a star between the ecliptic pole and the ecliptic traces out an ellipse more or less eccentric depending on its ecliptic latitude. This phenomenon is independent of the motion of the star itself and its distance from the earth. Its amplitude and orientation is exactly correlated with the orientation and diameter of the earth’s orbit. Contrary to what you claim, stellar aberration cannot be explained by the movement of the stars relative to the earth.
**
**
** to put the question back into SCIENTIFIC LIMBO.
**
lol, ty. I think i may have to change my sig to albert the nonerAlbert the noner! Welcome back. I wish you would stop using logic and scientific truths to make your point!!!
.Ed and Mystic demand evidence and then don’t engage with it when it is given to them.
Hiyas
Meteorites give an age for the condensation of material (including the earth) in the circumstellar disk early in the life of the solar system. In all sensible models of formation of the solar system, the earth accretes (within a few million years) after the initial formation of circumstellar material. The age of meteorites is measured not from one, but from dozens of different meteorites, with different compositional chemistries, using a number of different radiogenic species, and using isochron techniques which compensate for uncertainties in the original parent-daughter composition. All meteorites give a date for their origin which are very close around the 4.56 billion year mark.Well, I’ve read a book about it recently, and actually, I’ve just noticed that it argues the Earth is 4.5 billion years old based on, erm, radiometrically testing a meteorite, which is assumed to have been created when the solar system and Earth were created. This was only pursued because the previous figure of 3 billion years didn’t match what the cosmologists thought it was
No it is not. Although Sandage used the HR diagram to estimate Hubble’s constant and an age for the universe, the figure of 13.7 billion years is derived from measurements of the anisotropy in the cosmic microwave background by WMAP, distances measured by Type 1a supernovae and measurements of the baryon acoustic oscillations (acoustic vibrations in the early universe that were frozen into the CMB anisotropy and the distribution of matter). The data, calculations and reasoning are given in papers that I have already referenced for you plus Komatsu et al, Five Year WMAP observations: cosmological interpretations, Astrophys J Suppl 180, 330-376, available here which I missed from my list earlier. The age is based on the Lambda-CDM model with some parameters determined by Sn1a and BAO measurements, and is based on the angular size of the first acoustic peak in the CMB anisotropy used to derive the size of the surface at decoupling and the light travel time from that surface.
So you are choosing to challenge the validity of the physics of main sequence stars such as the sun. In order to do so rationally, you will need more than your personal doubt and lack of knowledge of the evidence. If you are claiming that the sun is not a typical hydrogen burning main sequence star, you’re going to have to do better than this - maybe you should look into how spectroscopy is used to detrmine stellar composition, temperature, luminosity, distance and mass.
No.
that, sir, is a confounded lie! :dts:
As I understand it from the bastion of Evolutonist apologism:
Thing is with dating, it all comes own to the question of - how long is a piece of string? If environmental factors can affect dating, then you have to assume they effect it in a particular way. Without having been there, you have to go backward from radiometric reading to determine what effects might have been. But in doing so, are you not inventing the flow of enviromental effects to satisfy your assumption of what the dating shows?
Reading up how the meteorite dating was the product of a search for something to make the stats add up between 2 divergent sciences, I can’t help but suspect that this may, for all we know, be a case of hammering square pegs into round holes in such profusity that we don’t easily notice that they’re square pegs at all!
I mean the original source of the dating - this paper is from 2006, and is corroborative in nature
The problem is, that we simply can’t verify in a realistic way, whether any of such readings are true. I realise that these readings all make sense according to their internal logics - but you simply can’t know that such carefully designed inferences genuinely reflect the nature of that which you observe - because you have no evidence beyond the visual.
Hmmm - funny - I really seem to remember it was… maybe they changed their minds, when they realised they’d have to recalculate everything again!
Ah - you mistake what being a scientist means, particularly before the 20th century. It doesn’t mean having a degree. It means doing science, and Darwin did great science in a number of fields, a fact that was recognised in his day by the professional scientific institutions (Fellow of the Royal Society, Member of the Council of the Geological Society, Fellow of the Linnean Society, winner of the Royal medal of the Royal Society, winner of the Wollaston medal of the Geological Society, their highest award for contributions to geology, and winner of the Copley Medal, the Royal Society’s highest award for scientific achievement - as the citation says: “For his important researches in geology, zoology, and botanical physiology”).Hiyas
Can you please cite where Master Darwin received degrees in biology, anatomy, physiology, geology, please.
You first in the queue Itinerant.
Yes, I do. The Catholic Church holds the fullness of the truth, both scientific and spiritual. She seeks to understand the world fully. That is why in regards to this subject, I will be obedient to clear Church teaching.
Oh Albert, you guys never give up PROVING geocentrism is impossible even though it is what you SEE ALL YOUR LIVES. Now if you SEE it maybe it could be TRUE. Now a word of advice. It is now an ESTABLISHED FACT that relativity prevails and thus science cannot prove or disprove G or H. So why do you guys keep trying to DISPROVE G? By all means you can try to defend why you PREFER H, and that is as far as you can go. I have already given EVIDENCE from TWO men whose profession it is to send probes into space. Both testified that this is done geocentrically.
Ed,
explained by the movement of the stars relative to the earth.]