E
edwest2
Guest
Regarding science, many things are still unclear. The close match between apes and men is really not that close. In the meantime, Church teaching is of first importance.
apologeticspress.org/articles/2070
Peace,
Ed
Why do fundamentalists believe the world is 6000-10000 years old?
- Status
apologeticspress.org/articles/2070
Peace,
Ed
H
hecd2
Guest
Good question, and like all good questions the short answer is “it depends”. The longer answer follows.
The photons emitted by the sun propagate through space until they are absorbed by interaction with matter. To the first approximation of a flat Euclidean space, they travel in straight lines forever (or until they are absorbed). In a curved, non-Euclidean space they follow geodesics, ie the shortest distance between points on a curved manifold. They go forever until they are absorbed. Will they come back round? That depends on whether the universe is closed, flat or open. If it is closed, they could in principle come round again, if is it flat or open they cannot. Current indications are that the universe is flat or close to flat. But even if the universe is closed, its current size and its rate of expansion are such that we would not expect to see photons arising at the sun propagating back towards the sun.
In a closed universe it might be possible to see the same very distant object looking at different directions in the sky, and astronomers have searched for such a phenomenon (unsuccessfully) to detect whether space is closed. There is no physics in which reflection occurs.
Alec
evolutionpages.com
C
cassini
Guest
Banana, do you want a serious answer to your moon question, or do you want to play jokes about a flat earth?Cool! Geocentricism!All very well back then, but what about the fellas who’ve stood on the moon? Or the ones on that space station for months? Surely they’d notice! Do you reject deep space probes, etc,? I suppose telescopic evidence can be partially explained away…
What about flat Earth theory? Job believed in it, and so, if I remember rightly, did David - it’s in the Psalms I think (and other less obvious places hint at it, but not so firmly, so I’ll leave them out)…
First your silly ‘moon’ question. What has men on the moon got to do with proving the earth moves and the sun is fixed? Or the ones on that space station for months? What do you think they would notice and why would I reject deep space probes? And what telescopic evidence is there that can show anything in the realm of G v H?
As for your flat earth rhetoric, well you guys always use that one as has been anticipated below.
The Earth: a Sphere or Flat?
Any mention of the pre-Copernican geocentric or earth-centred reality today would without a doubt be replied to with a reference to what moderns deem a sister ignorance or naivety, belief in a flat earth. This would be the standard reaction for a generation led to believe we are more intelligent and knowledgable than those ignoramuses of historic times and especially those Bible-thumping Churchmen of the Middle Ages and the seventeenth century. But the hard fact is that the only ‘flat-earthers’ among the great geocentricists of old exist in the sceptics’ prejudices, for it is a long time since that notion was seen off. The first recorded science-lesson as to the shape of the earth appeared in Isaias, yes, in the Old Testament, the Bible itself:
‘It is he that sitteth upon the globe of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as locusts: he that stretcheth out the heavens as nothing and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in.’ — Ch. 40:22.
That the earth is a globe was also the conclusion of ancient science. They knew the shape of the earth as seen on the moon during an eclipse is always a full sphere. That would not be the case if the earth were a flat disc. The shifting position of stars as man moved north or south also demonstrated to them a sphere and of course the fact that ships appear and disappear over the horizon illustrates the curved nature of the earth. So no, nobody had to show the Church or the philosophers and astronomers of 5,700 years something they didn’t know already, as the Copernican propagandists would have us believe.
C
cassini
Guest
Albert the noner - i,e,. for new posters, the man with no religion only science. As your domain is an intellect dominated with has-to-be-true science, and all scientific ‘truths’ are hypothetical, you have your limited ‘scientific truths’. Catholics like me have a second source of knowledge, God, and He revealed what your limited science cannot reach, a fixed earth/moving sun truth. That I can say.what can you say
.
H
hecd2
Guest
No they do not. The solar wind is composed of charged particles, mainly electrons and protons, *not *photons.
Although the earth is protected from the effects of the solar wind by its magnetic field, the magnetic field does not affect solar photons.
No, there is no such evidence.
No it does not. Lensing is caused by gravitational not magnetic fields.
No they do not. First of all most intergalactic high energy photon-matter interaction results in the inverse Compton scattering where photon energies are increased; secondly, most photons are not scattered and finally even if they are, the process does not result in the propagation of the ‘same’ photon.
No they haven’t observed such a thing, although there are perturbations in the Hubble flow towards the Great Attractor and the Shapley supercluster, they don’t affect anything like the whole universe and they are perturbations on expansion not movements towards a particular area.
No it isn’t assumed that the universe has a spherical shape (or a squashed spherical shape): all sensible options for the topology of the universe remain possible, although we can see that it is locally very close to flat. The topology could be infinite or it could be finite (compact) and connected. If it is connected, it could be simply or non-simply connected. There are many possible topologies other than spherical such as Luminet’s idea of a Poincare dodecahedron.
No there aren’t. “Reflection” is not an option (reflection at what?), and propagation “beyond the edge of the universe” is not an option. There is no such thing as a “void beyond the edge of the universe”. The universe is defined by the presence of the manifold on which there is matter and energy (including photons).
So apart from rather irrelevant comments about photon sails, I don’t think you got a single thing in this post right in spite of your confident tone.
Alec
evolutionpages.com
H
hecd2
Guest
Well reflection is not physical (reflection at what?), and what is wrong with an unbounded universe? It is a serious option.
See my reply to you above - the answer is yes, in principle, if the topology of the universe is compact and simply connected - but in practice, the size of the universe (it seems to be at least 92 billion light years across) and its current rate of expansion which results in the light horizon falling within the size of the universe means no in practice. That will continue to be the case unless the universe recollapses, which is not likely according to current evidence.
Alec
evolutionpages.com
A
AlbertBall
Guest
Well if the earth was fixed then space probes would never have reached mars. For the calculations would have been way off. Its not the same as calculating to the moon which IS in a orbit round earth.
You are correct i do limit myself to “has to be true”, for i live in a little place called reality.
M
Mystic_Banana
Guest
I can manage both, I hope!
The Space Station is probably better than the moon. It was manned for a lengthy period of time, wasn’t it? In which case, they could examine not only the movements of the Earth relevant to the sun from beyond the Earth, but also the other planets relevant to both, so they should be able to get a fairly external image of what’s spinning around what.
Actually, coming to think of it, with the plethora of astronomers around, I’d expect they can do the same better from Earth, really, can’t they? From just about every corner of the globe?
I wasn’t arguing what the Church believed. I’m arguing about whether everything in the Bible is meant to be literally true. In a lengthy defensive argument, I gave up on Job and the Psalms knowing the nature of things, as I recall, assuming that they either aren’t meant to be to expressing literal truths, or that their prayers are represented in the Bible for their spiritual fervour, regardless of the fact that they may not understand the physics of the Earth… now if I just find the relevant passages (I think they’re probably on this site here: answering-christianity.com/earth_flat.htm most of it’s nonesense, mind, but I’m sure some of the Job/Psalms aren’t quite)
I’m pretty sure we were taught that Jewish cosmology was explained to involve a flat Earth in (Catholic) school as well, but I suppose that could be rejected as being under the influence of fervent propaganist revisionists
E
edwest2
Guest
Think about it. Before the Big Bang, assuming it occurred, what was there? After the Big Bang, where did the energy from the explosion go?
Peace,
Ed
S
spn82756
Guest
Before the big bang there was God. He created the big bang. The energy is what has caused the universe to expand from the single point. Some energy has been converted to matter…we live on some it.
S
steve711
Guest
irishcolleen45,
You are correct, all life as we know it is made up of DNA. And even though the DNA in humans and apes is very similar, the DNA that is not can be radically different. This is a big puzzle to some in the science community as they were not expecting this big of a difference. As was noted in the Nova program some of the recent differences in DNA are extreme, and it is my feeling there will be more discovered.
Go with Gods Grace!
S
spn82756
Guest
Yes…DNA is very similar…but the 3% difference that some claim is enormous. But for me that doesn’t mean that God didn’t create us through evolution. BTW…how far from a human’s DNA are my 3 german shepherds? Probably not far…but very different where the differences are.irishcolleen45,
You are correct, all life as we know it is made up of DNA. And even though the DNA in humans and apes is very similar, the DNA that is not can be radically different. This is a big puzzle to some in the science community as they were not expecting this big of a difference. As was noted in the Nova program some of the recent differences in DNA are extreme, and it is my feeling there will be more discovered.
Go with Gods Grace!
J
JDaniel
Guest
E
ethical_honesty
Guest
The Earth is about 4.54 billion years old, within a margin of error of about +/- 1%. The universe is about 13.73 billion years old, within a margin of error of about +/-Hiyas
13.7 million years old, I think.
0.12 billion years. This has been accurately calculated and confirmed a long time ago.
I
itinerant1
Guest
Sidebar:
The Earth may possibly be at the center of our 13.73 billion years old universe after all.
Watch 5 min video. Fascinating!
Is Dark Energy an Illusion?
scientificamerican.com/video.cfm?lineup=1406165298&id=17285482001
Article:
Does Dark Energy Really?
The Earth may possibly be at the center of our 13.73 billion years old universe after all.
Watch 5 min video. Fascinating!
Is Dark Energy an Illusion?
scientificamerican.com/video.cfm?lineup=1406165298&id=17285482001
Article:
Does Dark Energy Really?
I
itinerant1
Guest
We can say that we probably have some Flat Earth Society members, or at least potential members, here on CAF.what can you say
The Flat Earth Society
“Deprogramming the masses since 1547”
Excuse me while I have a good hearty laugh.
C
cassini
Guest
On 2002-11-03 17:16, Prince wrote:
This from another Redcoat “geocentrist”!:
“One can believe whatever one likes as long as the consequences of that belief are trivial. But when survival
depends on belief, then it matters that belief corresponds to manifest reality. We therefore teach our navigators that
the stars are attached to the Celestial Sphere, which is centred on a fixed earth and around which it rotates in
accordance with laws clearly deduced from common-sense observation. Our students must thus unlearn a lot of confused dogma they learned at school. Modern astronomical
dogma is as maybe, but the real world is as we perceive it to be” (Darcy Reddyhoff, Senior Lecturer of Navigation, RAF
College, Cranwell)
All well and good for navigators as long as they stay tethered to Earth. However, it won’t cut the cheese once you leave this planet. Sorry, no dice.
Sound familiar; Next post:
03-November-2002, 10:39 PM
The equations & physics used by NASA to launch satellites & interplanetary probes are identical to the equations derived from a geocentric universe. All are planned & executed on the basis of a FIXED EARTH! They do not use the Copernican System! You can confirm this with them & the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration in Washington DC!
On 2002-11-03 17:39, Prince wrote:
Patently incorrect. When calculating tragectories for an interplanetary probe a fixed Earth is NOT assumed. Rather, the coordinate system is chosen that is most appropriate. Often this means fixed Earth for when we are in consort with the planet, but long range trajectories for interplanetary probes do not care about the “fixed” nature of Earth in the least. In fact, Earth MOVES with respect to the probe when we do the various slingshot maneuvers around the planet.
DTdNav
04-November-2002, 12:59 AM
As one of the few navigators left who happens to use the sun, planets, moon, and stars for celestial navigation, I can tell you that it is absolutely necessary to see the stars from a geocentric viewpoint (in relation to Aries) in order for them to be useful in global navigation. The sun, planets, and moon are also viewed that way but with their own unique motions and hour-angles as extracted from an almanac. Sight reduction calculations for use with a sextant would be near impossible if it wasn’t done that way. However, inertial navigation systems (INS) and global positioning systems (GPS) have made celestial navigation obsolete. Celestial navigation could maybe place you within a couple miles of your actual position if you did everything right, and your sextant was in good shape. GPS can place you to within 10 meters on a bad day.
Don Taylor da Navigator (DTdNav)
I
itinerant1
Guest
Looks like you just cut and paste stuff from the “Geocentrism support group.” I’m not impressed.
H
hecd2
Guest
Well, I don’t know about 3% and I don’t know about it being enormous. The difference in fixed single nucleotide substitutions is 1.06% or less, and 29% of orthologous proteins are identical with the average orthologue differing by only one substitution per lineage (The Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium, Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome, *Nature *437, 69 - 87). There are some areas of the genome which are either significantly more divergent or have undergone selective sweeps in one or other lineage, but the genomes are generally rather similar.
Roughly as ten times as far as your sequence is from a chimpanzee, reflecting the more than 55 million year divergence of primate and carnivore (versus the 6 million year divergence of human and chimpanzee) - see Table 2 of Lindblad-Toh et al, Genome sequence, comparative analysis and haplotype structure of the domestic dog, Nature 438, 803 - 819 and compare with Figure 9 of the chimpanzee sequencing paper above.
Alec
evolutionpages.com
C
cassini
Guest
Ever hear of the Copernican heresy Mystic? It is the Devil’s Greatest lie. It got the whole world - from popes to children in the classrooms to deny the credibility of what we see with our eyes in exchange for a mathematical image. It totally blocks out people’s love for truth by making them so prejudiced that they reject everything that can show the heliocentric theory is not an absolute scientific truth. It changed the hermeneutics of the Catholic Church so that scientific assumptions decide how the Bible is to be interpreted and not the Fathers.I can manage both, I hope!
The Space Station is probably better than the moon. It was manned for a lengthy period of time, wasn’t it? In which case, they could examine not only the movements of the Earth relevant to the sun from beyond the Earth, but also the other planets relevant to both, so they should be able to get a fairly external image of what’s spinning around what.
Actually, coming to think of it, with the plethora of astronomers around, I’d expect they can do the same better from Earth, really, can’t they? From just about every corner of the globe?
I wasn’t arguing what the Church believed. I’m arguing about whether everything in the Bible is meant to be literally true. In a lengthy defensive argument, I gave up on Job and the Psalms knowing the nature of things, as I recall, assuming that they either aren’t meant to be to expressing literal truths, or that their prayers are represented in the Bible for their spiritual fervour, regardless of the fact that they may not understand the physics of the Earth… now if I just find the relevant passages (I think they’re probably on this site here: answering-christianity.com/earth_flat.htm most of it’s nonesense, mind, but I’m sure some of the Job/Psalms aren’t quite)
I’m pretty sure we were taught that Jewish cosmology was explained to involve a flat Earth in (Catholic) school as well, but I suppose that could be rejected as being under the influence of fervent propaganist revisionists
As to the above, again I repeat, there is no way to prove or falsify either H or G absolutely.
And who in God’s name reads the Bible and takes every thing literally. This suggests the Church of 1616 and 1633 did not know when metaphor, poetry, allegory, symbol, expression etc., were being used by the bible writers.
- Status