The earth is flat and we never went to the moon

[DFT_Dave]

The only way to define movement is to affirm it's antithesis which is that which is not moving, stationary.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[DFT_Dave]

Something in this universe must be stationary.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[chair]

They are not all rational . But don't let me keep you here any longer. You can keep your relativity, just don't try to pass it off as rational in my company.

--Dave


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

Some are rational. You ignore far too much. And it remains that the earth being flat or a globe is a question of fact. It makes no difference if quantum mechanics, relativity, space-time continuum, multiuniverses, Christianity or Jainism are true or not. It is all irrelevant. You are clouding up the discussion with things that are not directly related to the issue. And avoiding rational discussion.

You haven't even dealt with a simple thing like a sunset.

 

[chair]

Something in this universe must be stationary.

Sent from my iPhone using TOL

Why? And what do you mean by "stationary?"

 

[Clete]

This is not the place for such a discussion. Still, though I agree that they are mathematical constructs, and often do not explain "why", but only "how", I do not see it as some kind of flaw. Newton's gravity is "just a mathematical construct". So what?

Newton's Universal Gravity equations are mathematical but the math came from hard science. That's the difference. Newton did not BEGIN with math but rather with careful observation of the real world. The data he collected yeilded the math. The math then is just a formal description of what Newton observed and since nature is constistent, the math can be applied to things all over the place.

This transferability of mathematical principles is the only thing that makes what many physicists do today even related to science at all. Otherwise, they'd just be 100% mathematicians. So, it isn't the use of math that I have a problem with, its merely that physicist today charge head long into the math whether it has any practical use or relationship with reality or not and then when they get a result they think they've discovered something important and go spend gazillions of our tax dollars on experiments designed to test it. All based solely on the elegance of their mathematical contructs. It's as if they are just throwing mathematical ideas against the wall and seeing what sticks. It's backwards and isn't really science even if it does work from time to time.

 

[Clete]

The history of cosmology

The first cosmology in history is a flat stationary earth covered by a dome with the sun, moon, and stars moving above or at the top of the dome.

The next cosmology in history is a stationary globe earth at the center of the universe with the sun, moon, and stars/planets, circling it.

The next cosmology is the sun at the center of with a spinning globe earth, stars/planets circling it and the moon circling the earth.

The current cosmology has united time with space in an evolving/changing universe in which nothing is stationary and everything is moving in relation to everything else.

The current cosmology is a total departure from rational thought and most of you have accepted spacetime relativity as a logical extension of, what you think is, the Biblical Copernican reality of the universe God created.

Quantum physics and multi universe theory is the next step and flat earth is still here.

I question all it in order to find an answer.

Clete, knight, you both share the irrational cosmology of spacetime and relativity as far as I can tell. I intend to examine the above mentioned historical cosmologies and uncover where, when, and why we have come to this point.

--Dave

I do not buy into space-time. Time is not a thing, it's an idea. It is a convention of language used to convey information about the duration and sequence of events.
Likewise, I strongly suspect that space is also not a thing but an idea.

Ideas are not warped by an object's mass.

HOWEVER!

Light is, by some means, bent around massive objects. And it is so bent in perfect keeping with Einstien's math. So, whether it's space and time as we normally understand it or something else that merely has some correspondence with those ideas, there is something very important about Einstein's theories that he got right. To deny that is to simply stick your head in the sand and live in a pretend fantacy land. The confusion comes not from some conspiratorial deception but merely from having begun the scientific process from where it should have ended - with the math. Einstein began with the math and got a good result and so ASSUMED that the "t" in his equations means that time is a real thing that can be manipulated by gravity. The problem with that assumption is that it is, as you say, irrational because time isn't ontological, its an idea. Clocks are ontological, time is not. So, maybe its clocks that get effected by gravity wells and not time.

Clete

P.S. The point here is not to start a discussion about space-time. The point is that you don't have to throw out the baby with the bath water.

 

[Tambora]

Something in this universe must be stationary.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

Dave, you should switch to a theological view for a while.
Us Christians are always claiming that science theories and data are wrong if they conflict with scripture.
If we claim to take the bible literally (except of course where idioms are used), then does the bible teach a flat earth or a globe earth?
After all, scripture should be our final authority on what we believe about creation.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Dave, you should switch to a theological view for a while.
Us Christians are always claiming that science theories and data are wrong if they conflict with scripture.
If we claim to take the bible literally (except of course where idioms are used), then does the bible teach a flat earth or a globe earth?
After all, scripture should be our final authority on what we believe about creation.

Yes, I absolutely will do that.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Why? And what do you mean by "stationary?"

Stationary means not moving.

It's illogical to say "everything is moving" in relationship to everything else that is moving.

There are "some" things that are moving in relation to some other things that are also moving.

But, movement is the opposite of not moving--stationary.

Is the sun stationary while the earth and other planets move around it?

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

I do not buy into space-time. Time is not a thing, it's an idea. It is a convention of language used to convey information about the duration and sequence of events.
Likewise, I strongly suspect that space is also not a thing but an idea.

Ideas are not warped by an object's mass.

HOWEVER!

Light is, by some means, bent around massive objects. And it is so bent in perfect keeping with Einstien's math. So, whether it's space and time as we normally understand it or something else that merely has some correspondence with those ideas, there is something very important about Einstein's theories that he got right. To deny that is to simply stick your head in the sand and live in a pretend fantacy land. The confusion comes not from some conspiratorial deception but merely from having begun the scientific process from where it should have ended - with the math. Einstein began with the math and got a good result and so ASSUMED that the "t" in his equations means that time is a real thing that can be manipulated by gravity. The problem with that assumption is that it is, as you say, irrational because time isn't ontological, its an idea. Clocks are ontological, time is not. So, maybe its clocks that get effected by gravity wells and not time.

Clete

P.S. The point here is not to start a discussion about space-time. The point is that you don't have to throw out the baby with the bath water.

I agree with that, let's keep the baby. But I fear the flat earth baby may not be the one you want to keep. :baby:

--Dave

 

[Silent Hunter]

Stationary means not moving.

Well, DUH!

It's illogical to say "everything is moving" in relationship to everything else that is moving.

Are you sitting down? Are you moving relative to your computer screen?

The movement of the celestial bodies isn't like that.

There are "some" things that are moving in relation to some other things that are also moving.

Every celestial body, this includes the Earth, are in motion. All of them, no exceptions.

But, movement is the opposite of not moving--stationary.

:think:

Is the sun stationary while the earth and other planets move around it?

Nope.

 

[Tambora]

Dave, you should switch to a theological view for a while.
Us Christians are always claiming that science theories and data are wrong if they conflict with scripture.
If we claim to take the bible literally (except of course where idioms are used), then does the bible teach a flat earth or a globe earth?
After all, scripture should be our final authority on what we believe about creation.

Yes, I absolutely will do that.

--Dave

Oh goody!

I have heard a few debate that the Bible cannot be true if the earth is not flat. And it is very interesting how they put their dots together to prove that.

Of course there is an opposing side that says the Bible is true with a globe earth, and it is interesting to see how they put their dots together.

But the really interesting question that was asked ......... Are we relying on (or giving more authority to) the data from science experts or the data from the Bible?
I thought that was a very good question for Christians to ponder while they are putting their dots together.
Perhaps a test of faith?

 

[DFT_Dave]

Well, DUH!Are you sitting down? Are you moving relative to your computer screen?

The movement of the celestial bodies isn't like that.Every celestial body, this includes the Earth, are in motion. All of them, no exceptions.:think:Nope.

Explain then why the sun is not stationary in relation to the planets that move around it.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Oh goody!

I have heard a few debate that the Bible cannot be true if the earth is not flat. And it is very interesting how they put their dots together to prove that.

Of course there is an opposing side that says the Bible is true with a globe earth, and it is interesting to see how they put their dots together.

But the really interesting question that was asked ......... Are we relying on (or giving more authority to) the data from science experts or the data from the Bible?
I thought that was a very good question for Christians to ponder while they are putting their dots together.
Perhaps a test of faith?

The Biblical cosmology is the most important one.

--Dave

 

[Silent Hunter]

Explain then why the sun is not stationary in relation to the planets that move around it.

Well, Dave, it's because of that thing you claim doesn't exist... gravity. See, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrometry under "Applications".

 

[DFT_Dave]

Well, Dave, it's because of that thing you claim doesn't exist... gravity. See, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrometry under "Applications".

The "unseen" hand of "Gravity", keeping all movement of planets in controlled, orderly orbits, without deviation, since the origin of our galaxy.

While at the same time moving the whole galaxy through space with no trend toward chaos.

I don't think so.

--Dave

 

[Silent Hunter]

The "unseen" hand of "Gravity", keeping all movement of planets in controlled, orderly orbits, without deviation, since the origin of our galaxy.

That's an over-generalization. Planetary orbits, all orbits of celestial bodies for that matter, are far from controlled, orderly, and without deviation. For instance, the Earth's moon is receding, and Jupiter's gravity was responsible for changing the orbit of comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 leading to its break-up and demise.

While at the same time moving the whole galaxy through space with no trend toward chaos.

By all means, Dave, don't allow details from interfering with your continued use of faulty argumentation and notoriously poor logic.

I don't think

Well, there's your problem...

 

[JudgeRightly]

The "unseen" hand of "Gravity", keeping all movement of planets in controlled, orderly orbits, without deviation, since the origin of our galaxy.

Dave, how many times do we have to show you that gravity does exist, and it's measurable. We can measure the force of gravity to levels Newton could never have dreamed of.

By the way, have we mentioned that Newton was a creationist Christian?

While at the same time moving the whole galaxy through space with no trend toward chaos.

I don't think so.

--Dave

Dave, gravity only pulls (as far as we can tell, currently), it doesn't push. And celestial bodies (well, everything, for that matter) has inertia (which has nothing to do with gravity). Remember "an object in motion tends to stay in motion, and an object at rest tends to stay at rest"? That's practically the definition of inertia.

Stars, galaxies, nebulae, black holes, all continue in the paths they are traveling on because of inertia. Galaxies are billions of stars orbiting around a central point of gravity, (usually believed to be a black hole, but scientists still aren't 100% sure that's the case for all galaxies, as the centers of galaxies are so bright we can't see into them, typically) which keeps them from continuing in a straight line away from all the other stars. Gravity is what keeps them in orbit around a central point, just like the moon orbits the earth, the earth orbits the sun, and the sun orbits the center of the Milky Way.

There's a topic I want to discuss, but I won't just yet until I see that you can distinguish better between secular and Creationist cosmologies.

 

[Clete]

I agree with that, let's keep the baby. But I fear the flat earth baby may not be the one you want to keep. :baby:

--Dave

You're right about that! :up:

 

[JudgeRightly]

The "unseen" hand of "Gravity", keeping all movement of planets in controlled, orderly orbits, without deviation, since the origin of our galaxy.

While at the same time moving the whole galaxy through space with no trend toward chaos.

I don't think so.

--Dave

Dave, how many times do we have to show you that gravity does exist, and it's measurable. We can measure the force of gravity to levels Newton could never have dreamed of.

By the way, have we mentioned that Newton was a creationist Christian?



Dave, gravity only pulls (as far as we can tell, currently), it doesn't push. And celestial bodies (well, everything, for that matter) has inertia (which has nothing to do with gravity). Remember "an object in motion tends to stay in motion, and an object at rest tends to stay at rest"? That's practically the definition of inertia.

Stars, galaxies, nebulae, black holes, all continue in the paths they are traveling on because of inertia. Galaxies are billions of stars orbiting around a central point of gravity, (usually believed to be a black hole, but scientists still aren't 100% sure that's the case for all galaxies, as the centers of galaxies are so bright we can't see into them, typically) which keeps them from continuing in a straight line away from all the other stars. Gravity is what keeps them in orbit around a central point, just like the moon orbits the earth, the earth orbits the sun, and the sun orbits the center of the Milky Way.

There's a topic I want to discuss, but I won't just yet until I see that you can distinguish better between secular and Creationist cosmologies.

Bump for Dave