[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Kamala Harris, reparations, and guaranteed income

Did Mudboy Slim finally kill this place?

"Why Young Americans Are Not Taught about Evil"

"New Rules For Radicals — How To Reinvent Kamala Harris"

"Harris’ problem: She’s a complete phony"

Hurricane Beryl strikes Bay City (TX)

Who Is ‘Destroying Democracy In Darkness?’

‘Kamalanomics’ is just ‘Bidenomics’ but dumber

Even The Washington Post Says Kamala's 'Price Control' Plan is 'Communist'

Arthur Ray Hines, "Sneakypete", has passed away.

No righT ... for me To hear --- whaT you say !

"Walz’s Fellow Guardsmen Set the Record Straight on Veep Candidate’s Military Career: ‘He Bailed Out’ "

"Kamala Harris Selects Progressive Minnesota Governor Tim Walz as Running Mate"

"The Teleprompter Campaign"

Good Riddance to Ismail Haniyeh

"Pagans in Paris"

"Liberal groupthink makes American life creepy and could cost Democrats the election".

"Enter Harris, Stage Lef"t

Official describes the moment a Butler officer confronted the Trump shooter

Jesse Watters: Don’t buy this excuse from the Secret Service

Video shows Trump shooter crawling into position while folks point him out to law enforcement

Eyewitness believes there was a 'noticeable' difference in security at Trump's rally

Trump Assassination Attempt

We screamed for 3 minutes at police and Secret Service. They couldn’t see him, so they did nothing. EYEWITNESS SPEAKS OUT — I SAW THE ASSASSIN CRAWLING ACROSS THE ROOF.

Video showing the Trump Rally shooter dead on the rooftop

Court Just Nailed Hillary in $6 Million FEC Violation Case, 45x Bigger Than Trump's $130k So-Called Violation

2024 Republican Platform Drops Gun-Rights Promises

Why will Kamala Harris resign from her occupancy of the Office of Vice President of the USA? Scroll down for records/details

Secret Negotiations! Jill Biden’s Demands for $2B Library, Legal Immunity, and $100M Book Deal to Protect Biden Family Before Joe’s Exit

AI is exhausting the power grid. Tech firms are seeking a miracle solution.

If you need a Good Opening for black, use this.

"Arrogant Hunter Biden has never been held accountable — until now"

How Republicans in Key Senate Races Are Flip-Flopping on Abortion

Idaho bar sparks fury for declaring June 'Heterosexual Awesomeness Month' and giving free beers and 15% discounts to straight men

Son of Buc-ee’s co-owner indicted for filming guests in the shower and having sex. He says the law makes it OK.

South Africa warns US could be liable for ICC prosecution for supporting Israel

Today I turned 50!

San Diego Police officer resigns after getting locked in the backseat with female detainee

Gazan Refugee Warns the World about Hamas

Iranian stabbed for sharing his faith, miraculously made it across the border without a passport!

Protest and Clashes outside Trump's Bronx Rally in Crotona Park

Netanyahu Issues Warning To US Leaders Over ICC Arrest Warrants: 'You're Next'

Will it ever end?

Did Pope Francis Just Call Jesus a Liar?

Climate: The Movie (The Cold Truth) Updated 4K version

There can never be peace on Earth for as long as Islamic Sharia exists

The Victims of Benny Hinn: 30 Years of Spiritual Deception.

Trump Is Planning to Send Kill Teams to Mexico to Take Out Cartel Leaders

The Great Falling Away in the Church is Here | Tim Dilena

How Ridiculous? Blade-Less Swiss Army Knife Debuts As Weapon Laws Tighten


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

International News
See other International News Articles

Title: Saudi Cleric: The Sun Revolves Around the Earth
Source: Washington Free Beacon
URL Source: http://freebeacon.com/national-secu ... sun-revolves-around-the-earth/
Published: Feb 18, 2015
Author: Adam Kredo
Post Date: 2015-02-18 11:13:59 by nativist nationalist
Keywords: None
Views: 4244
Comments: 20

A Saudi cleric is garnering headlines for declaring that the sun revolves around the Earth, a clear rejection of all scientific evidence.

The comments have sparked discussion about Saudi Arabia’s ultra-conservative religious authority, which holds sway over the nation’s newly enthroned monarch, King Salman.

The controversial cleric, Sheikh Bandar al-Khaibari, was caught making the comments in a short video clip posted to YouTube on Monday.

In response to a question posed by a student, al-Khaibari says the Earth is “stationary and does not move.”

While al-Khaibari’s remarks have been mocked on social networking sites such as Twitter, regional experts say his anti-science stance is embraced and promoted by leading Saudi clerics in charge of the country’s religious authority.

“It makes perfect sense for a Saudi cleric to be arguing that the sun revolves around the Earth because this is the sort of message they are getting from on high,” according to David Weinberg, a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD).

“Saleh al-Fawzan, one of the most influential members of the regime’s highest religious body, the Senior Ulema Council, said the same thing last year,” explained Weinberg, who has also tracked the new king’s past support for radical terror groups. “King Salman restructured most of his government last month after coming to power, but he kept Fawzan on the Ulema Council, dismissing only one member who was considered a relative moderate.”

This is a sign that Salman, who has been touted by many as a moderate, could continue to allow the country’s strict religious authority to clamp down on civil rights and other Western values.

Al-Khaibary’s lecture on astronomy took place in late January, during a government-sponsored lecture in the United Arab Emirates, according to sources provided by FDD. He has given similar lectures sponsored by the Saudi government.

In addition to promoting the notion that the Earth is stationary in space, al-Khaibary’s mentor cleric Fawzan has claimed that the Islamic State (IS) terror group is a creation of “Zionists, crusaders, and Safavids,” according to Weinberg.

“That’s the sort of message that Saudi religious officials are receiving from the state’s favorite clergy,” Weinberg said.

Al-Khaibary’s comments, while surprising to a Western audience, have been echoed in the past by religious leaders such as Fawzan, who is regularly cited by al-Khaibary as a “rational man.”

Other posts on a Twitter account appearing to belong to al-Khaibary claim that Shia Muslims, a minority population in Saudi Arabia, “are more insidious than Christians and equivalent to Jews.”

The cleric also states on Twitter that “Christians in all their three main sects—Catholics and Orthodox and Protestants—are infidels, and whoever doubted their infidel status is himself an infidel,” according to another positing.

Anti-science stances have long been promulgated by leading Saudi clerics, including one of the country’s most influential and celebrated religious leaders, the now deceased Grand Mufti Sheikh Abdul Aziz bin Baz.

Bin Baz is perhaps most notorious for his 1976 ruling that the Earth is flat.

FDD’s Weinberg said Fawzan’s position on Saudi Arabia’s religion council provides a sign of the direction that country is heading.

“This gives you an idea of where Saudi Arabia is headed under King Salman,” he said. “Salman kept Fawzan on the Senior Ulema Council while dismissing a relative moderate. He [enjoys close ties to] the current grand mufti, who says that all churches in the Arabian Peninsula should be destroyed. And he sat for years on the board of the foundation set up to honor the legacy of Abdul Aziz bin Baz, even though bin Baz also memorably suggested that women who study with men are akin to prostitutes.”

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: nativist nationalist (#0)

In truth, the Sun and the Earth both spiral forward in a curving arc across space with the center of rotation neither the center of the Sun nor the Earth, but a spot close to the Sun, within its atmosphere.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-02-18   11:37:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: nativist nationalist (#0) (Edited)

Saudi Cleric: The Sun Revolves Around the Earth

A trimaphant declaration of islamic science according to shiria law.

rlk  posted on  2015-02-18   14:12:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: nativist nationalist (#0)

Mr Bolden said: "When I became the Nasa administrator (2010), he [Mr Obama] charged me with three things.

"One, he wanted me to help re inspire children to want to get into science and math; he wanted me to expand our international relationships; and third, and

perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science, math, and engineering."

I guess the cleric was not in the loop

medicalmalcontent  posted on  2015-02-18   14:53:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: nativist nationalist, Vicomte13 (#0)

“It makes perfect sense for a Saudi cleric to be arguing that the sun revolves around the Earth because this is the sort of message they are getting from on high,” according to David Weinberg, a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD).

“Saleh al-Fawzan, one of the most influential members of the regime’s highest religious body, the Senior Ulema Council, said the same thing last year,” explained Weinberg, who has also tracked the new king’s past support for radical terror groups. “King Salman restructured most of his government last month after coming to power, but he kept Fawzan on the Ulema Council, dismissing only one member who was considered a relative moderate.”

There is a certain school of thought in Islamic theology regarding physics and metaphysics. So this is not any surprise at all. Many, perhaps most, Islamic clerics have a medieval conception of science, physics in particular.

I read an article about it in Foreign Policy or some wonk site one time.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-02-18   17:39:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: TooConservative (#4)

But the Sun DOES revolve around the Earth, and vice versa, sort of, because both revolve about a common point that is neither the Sun's center of mass nor the Earth's (which is much closer to the center of the Sun than it is to the Earth).

In truth they revolve around their center of mass, which is itself revolving about the localized galatic center of mass. The Sun, Earth and all the planets are corkscrewing forward around a local center of mass, that is itself corkscrewing about a local center of mass.

And the really interesting thing is that MAYBE mass has nothing to do with it, and it's driven by electromagnetic forces and not gravity at all. The science isn't there yet, but by the time many of us die, it will be. Gravity will be reduced to a surface effect, and things like "gravitational lensing" will be re- interpreted as the electromagnetic deflection of light.

And as that develops, there will be people screaming the orthodoxy of Newton and Einstein just as vociferously as the these clerics are howling their orthodoxy.

Galileo didn't really say "And yet it moves", but it makes it easier to tell stories like this if he is believed to, because it reduces everything down to a case that people understand.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-02-19   8:24:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: Vicomte13 (#5)

And as that develops, there will be people screaming the orthodoxy of Newton and Einstein just as vociferously as the these clerics are howling their orthodoxy.

I think you know we are a long, long way from any reevaluation of the reigning current orthodoxy in physics. String theory goes nowhere and the CERN accelerator isn't really producing the kind of results that were hoped for, other than finally confirming the Higgs boson which had been assumed true for decades already.

I think we lack adequate instrumentation and test equipment to make fundamental advances in physics.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-02-19   9:06:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: TooConservative (#6)

I think you know we are a long, long way from any reevaluation of the reigning current orthodoxy in physics. String theory goes nowhere and the CERN accelerator isn't really producing the kind of results that were hoped for, other than finally confirming the Higgs boson which had been assumed true for decades already.

I think we lack adequate instrumentation and test equipment to make fundamental advances in physics.

I agree that general society, and scientific society, is unready to re-evaluate anything fundamental. Fortunately, it doesn't really matter. For the most part, we will just sit here in our wrongness and be wrong, and be very self- satisfied about it.

I think that we can test some things about gravity with very simple equipment.

Example: want to test whether gravity is the result of mass or surface expansion?

Set up the original Cavendish Experiment that "proved" gravity. It needs to be done the original way, with the lead-weight-bearing board suspended by the wire, with the lead balls as "stators" to induce the "twist", thereby "proving" gravity.

Now innovate with one simple expedient: drill a hole in the stator balls and hollow them out, and fill them with mercury. The balls will remain very dense. Once the "twist" is "produced by the local gravity", open the stopcock and drain out the mercury. Observe. The balls will twist back, or relax from their twisted state, demonstrating that force-over-distance gravity DID cause the distortion. OR they will remain in place, demonstrating something very different - that the apparent gravity is a surface effect of objects.

To further confirm this, reoperate the experiment replacing the stator balls with larger balls of hollow metal. Look for the twist. If the twist is greater with larger, hollow balls you have demonstrated the second effect.

These tests always COULD HAVE been run using 18th Century equipment, but they WERE NOT. They WERE NOT RUN. The sought-for "force at a distance deriving from mass" was "found by the test", and that was "confirmed" by running the test many times in different places.

These other tests, which "prove" (really, which "indicate" or "correlate to") something else, were not run. They could be, and just on those results using 18th century equipment the physics could be confirmed on that vector, or overthrown.

Likewise, we could re-run the classical "Galileo" experiment of dropping objects of different sizes and weights greater distances than he did, and with more precise chronometers, but in vacuum. There is an expected answer, but if the answer differs in the same way that the modified Cavendish results differed from expected, we would have two-experiment corroboration of something meaningful using early 20th Century technology.

The third test would involve baseballs in a crosswind.

The fourth would involve baseballs in an intense particle-theory-of-light concentration of rays. The purpose would be to prove something about the nature of rotation and orbits.

There are things that could be done using very old tech that would revolutionize the world, but you'd need a mad scientist with some bucks and an unnaturally high degree of skepticism to do it.

So, here's hoping that I come into some money some day!

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-02-19   10:50:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: Vicomte13 (#5)

But the Sun DOES revolve around the Earth, and vice versa, sort of, because both revolve about a common point that is neither the Sun's center of mass nor the Earth's (which is much closer to the center of the Sun than it is to the Earth).

It's true that the earth's gravitational field is pulling on the Sun just as the Sun is pulling on the earth, and that the fulcrum point (called the "Barycenter" is not the absolute center of the Sun, but given the enormous difference in mass, that point is only about 280 miles from the Sun's center of mass.

The earth and moon are much closer in mass, but even so, and in spite of the moon being as far from the earth as it is, the fulcrum point / Barycenter is still about 900 miles below the earth's surface.

Pinguinite  posted on  2015-02-19   11:32:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: Pinguinite (#8)

It's true that the earth's gravitational field is pulling on the Sun just as the Sun is pulling on the earth, and that the fulcrum point (called the "Barycenter" is not the absolute center of the Sun, but given the enormous difference in mass, that point is only about 280 miles from the Sun's center of mass.

Of course neither the Earth nor the Sun revolve around that either. Rather, they all revolve about the barycenter of the whole solar system.

The open question (for me) is whether or not there really is a thing called "gravity" that is a "force over distance" causing this motion.

I don't personally believe that gravity exists at all, other than as a surface effect on objects.

But that is a different discussion.

Certainly we can agree on what occurs mathematically. The question of WHY is a different matter. Force at a distance? Warped space time? Or something else?

I think something else.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-02-19   11:47:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: Pinguinite, Vicomte13 (#8) (Edited)

It's true that the earth's gravitational field is pulling on the Sun just as the Sun is pulling on the earth, and that the fulcrum point (called the "Barycenter" is not the absolute center of the Sun, but given the enormous difference in mass, that point is only about 280 miles from the Sun's center of mass.

Even so, this clarification that Vic was hinting at does not contradict Newton or Einstein. To the contrary, it confirms both of their theories.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-02-19   11:48:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: TooConservative (#10)

Even so, this clarification that Vic was hinting at does not contradict Newton or Einstein. To the contrary, it confirms both of their theories.

It correlates to them, certainly

The modified Cavendish, vacuum-tube Galileo, flat table micro-measured Tefloned- table inertia test, and the baseballs in the solar wind tests would all negatively correlate to either Einstein or Newton, if what I suspect is true were to be empirically demonstrated by the results I expect:

To wit: objects in motion tend to move in curves, and have to be constantly accelerated to maintain straight line motion, but this is not due to gravity warping space-time, as space is just that: vacuum, emptiness, and there no "there" there for gravity to "warp" - and "gravity" is a surface acceleration of expanding objects.

It's fair to say that nobody will crowdfund those tests.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-02-19   13:00:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: Vicomte13 (#11)

I guess we'll never know the truth unless you win the lottery.     : )

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-02-19   18:17:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: TooConservative (#12) (Edited)

I guess we'll never know the truth unless you win the lottery. : )

These things are one of my projects, yes.

So is the Rolling Jubilee of debt forgiveness for middle and working class Christians.

And then there's the free energy device.

And the pictographic translation of the Scriptures,

And the artifacts project,

And the wild food nutritional analysis database,

And the no-kill dairy-and-lawn care service,

And the no-kill caviar operations

And the no-kill fur farm

And the domestication of white tail deer for dairy purposes.

And...

So much to do, so little money.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-02-19   18:36:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: Vicomte13 (#11)

but this is not due to gravity warping space-time, as space is just that: vacuum, emptiness, and there no "there" there for gravity to "warp" -

If the universe was completely empty, except for two weights tied together with a string, would it be possible to spin the weights around each other so fast that the string would break?

Keep in mind that there is nothing else in the universe by which to measure the rate of spin, so that it would be impossible to know if the weights were spinning at all.

If you answer "yes", as I would, then you must conclude that movement through space is not relative to other objects in the universe (since there are none in this thought experiment), but relative to space itself.

And if the movement is relative to space itself, then space cannot possible be empty. To me that satisfies the notion that even "empty" space must consist of something.

Pinguinite  posted on  2015-02-20   6:19:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: Pinguinite (#14)

If the universe was completely empty, except for two weights tied together with a string, would it be possible to spin the weights around each other so fast that the string would break?

Keep in mind that there is nothing else in the universe by which to measure the rate of spin, so that it would be impossible to know if the weights were spinning at all.

If you answer "yes", as I would, then you must conclude that movement through space is not relative to other objects in the universe (since there are none in this thought experiment), but relative to space itself.

And if the movement is relative to space itself, then space cannot possible be empty. To me that satisfies the notion that even "empty" space must consist of something.

This is a curious thought experiment for me, because I don't see a linkage between the four sentences.

Leaving aside the observer problem and the initiator problem (obviously if there were nothing else, and "you spin" the tied weights, then there IS something else - the "you" spinning the weights, so there's a reference point to see the weights spinning - but we're leaving that aside and assuming that the weights got there on their own and are spinning on their own), what you have is a free energy situation whereby one piece of mass is spinning about of its own accord, accelerating each of the atoms within the mass. Because the mass is of uneven structure, with the bulk of matter concentrated at each of two poles, eventually the acceleration of the spin will cause the thin thread connecting them to part - assuming that the accelerated mass has become sufficiently weighty to exceed the tensile strength of the material.

We are, of course, assuming that. So, we have assumed many things here, including an empty universe, an auto-created set of weights on a string and free energy that comes from nowhere to cause the object to spin, and we've assumed that the masses at the ends, when accelerated enough, will cause the opposed weights to exceed the tensile strength of the linking string.

So, once they part, what do I have? Well, I have two objects flying away from each other. That's what I have at the end of this experiment.

The next things don't follow from it, to my mind.

The thought experiment has difficulties with it, because it assumes much that is unreal - free energy, autonomously existing things, etc. That is why the second sentence is a non-sequitur for me. The notion that it is "impossible" to know if the weights are spinning is not really true. By measuring the internal stresses of the object it would be clear that the opposite poles are pulling apart. It would be impossible to SEE that the acceleration was caused by a spin, as opposed to the two poles simply pulling linearly apart: that's true. But it's not significant. That the object is spinning or stationary and pulling itself apart makes no difference to the experiment.

One cannot really object that an object will not pull itself apart on its own, because an object won't enter an accelerating spin on its own either. We have postulated a free energy machine here: one that accelerates and grows in the ability to do work without any input of energy. Spin doesn't impart anything, really, other than a visual of how the things would pull apart. Because there's no reference point external to the physical system, we may as well just look at it as an atom on the surface of it would be: the two ends are pulling apart from one another with ever greater force, and the energy to do it is spontaneously created to cause that to happen (as there is nothing else in the universe).

For this reason, the second sentence doesn't really do anything. It apparently seeks to re-insert this system into our universe, by making the fact of the spin, or the observation of the spin, important. In truth the spin is irrelevant and so is the fact of observation. So let's strike that sentence out, as it's a bit of a red herring that detracts from your point.

My answer is "yes", but the conclusion that I "must" conclude that movement through space is not relative to other objects in the universe.

The perception of movement is dependent on there being an observer, or a vantage point from which to see it. As we've discussed above, it is not MOVEMENT that is causing the separation here, it is the continuous acceleration of mass through the rise of spontaneous free energy that causes the masses to move apart. It is irrelevant to what is happening that the object is spinning - relative to some external third party - or pulling apart in a stationary configuration (which is what an atom on the object would see… if atoms COULD see).

The space in which all of this happens is really as irrelevant as the question of whether the object is moving or not, because everything that is happening here is happening within the object itself. The object is not moving. It is internally accelerating as free energy is created within it, by our will as experimenters, to cause it to happen.

It is only spinning if we introduce the third party observer platform. (The only way we can get a "spin" from the unitary object is to introduce that third party platform, even if it is just a notional point in space above it. Of course, introducing that point rather defeats the whole point of the thought experiment, so we can't do that).

To return, then, to the third sentence, the only thing that I must conclude is that sufficient free energy arose spontaneously within the object to accelerate the mass of its poles sufficiently to become weight that exceeded the tensile strength of the linking tether, causing it to part and for two objects to fly apart from each other.

The only way to get a "point" in space for all of this to be "relative" to is to postulate it. Unless there's an atom out there, or a speck of energy, there isn't anything. It is akin to asking where this experiment is relative to my thoughts about breakfast. How does one relate the position of thoughts to one another? One could devise a system to do that, but it would be as imaginary as the postulated point in completely empty vacuum space (that is, unless the physicists notion of "foam" below the Planck Distance is true, because if it is then there is the position of the "foam" relative to the object, and that gives you a grid for reference, albeit a transient and inconstant one).

So I cannot conclude, with you, that there is movement relative to space itself. There is still a real distinction between plus one and minus one on a number line a gogol units long, but there is no distinction at all between plus and minus one on a number line of infinite length, other than relative to something else.

You can PUT a "1" out there in space as a relative point, but now you've introduced something into your thought experiment.

Then you would have movement relative to SOMETHING, though notional. But in the absence of that introduced element, you don't even have movement. Your system is not spinning or stationary, it is simply pulling apart at the ends. Once it does, THEN there will be two reference points in space (and probably many, as atoms and energy particles split off and enter the void.

I recognize that you firmly believe that empty space must consist of something, because you see the thing in your universe as spinning. But it is only spinning if there is a reference point. The "spin" is a model.

One can, after all, place the earth at the center of the solar system and then have a perfect mathematical model of the sun and planets revolving about it. And that model will be correct if the math is correct.

It certainly can be done with any reference point. The problem is that such a model doesn't explain anything. You have things behaving inexplicably. They behave in a pattern, but the pattern doesn't have a comprehensible source. Track the path of Venus across the night sky as a spirograph, and over the course of time it draws out a lovely pentagram, a five-pointed star. When the ancient astronomers saw THAT, they were stunned and knew they were seeing the hands of gods. Of course that doesn't exist if you track Venus relative to the Sun.

In your thought experiment, you've got free energy driving something apart. That's the interesting part of it, the free energy. You can postulate that to make the system work. To say that it is SPINNING requires you to ALSO postulate a reference point above or below or alongside in order to have a detectable spin.

By saying it IS spinning, but not referring to the reference point by which one can say that - indeed, saying that the reference point doesn't exist - you've created a thought experiment that "proves" what you set out to prove, but you established the fact OF reference points in the first place by asserting a spin. No reference point, no spin. If the only thing is the object, then the object is pulling itself apart at the end and it isn't spinning.

If you assert a spin, you've asserted an external reference point. That's fine, but then you've created the object by which space is measured out - and we're back to where I am: that space is simply the empty nothing between objects.

To get something out of nothing you're going to have to go down to the Planck Foam, but that is, again, a mathematical artifact, not an observable thing.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-02-20   7:20:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: TooConservative (#4)

I knew a Morrocan college student that believed that the earth was flat and the sun revolved around it.

Pericles  posted on  2015-02-20   16:29:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: Pericles, redleghunter (#16)

I knew a Morrocan college student that believed that the earth was flat and the sun revolved around it.

A surprising percentage of the Mideast is about like this. Or they have some fundamental doctrinal reasons to reject principles of modern physics. It is anti-modern and tribal in a way that vastly exceeds the influence of creationism in the West.

This is why Obama gave NASA the mission of trying to include Muslims, to try to point them toward modern science. The academic establishment is also trying to unearth every last Islamic thinker who ever gave opinions on science and try to fit them into the modern scientific history. So you have articles about how Sufism is so remarkably similar to quantum physics and other such politically correct phony bilge.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-02-20   17:45:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: Vicomte13, All (#15)

One can, after all, place the earth at the center of the solar system and then have a perfect mathematical model of the sun and planets revolving about it. And that model will be correct if the math is correct.

I doubt that this is true given all of the data that we have about the motion/position of the planets, their moons and the Sun. I do not dispute that there can be and probably are cases where a mahematical model that is built upon a faulty premise can be tweaked to replicate onservations, just not in this case. Further such a model would not be correct (as in a valid representation of the real world) but would just replicate/predict observations (e.g. - a mathematical model that predicts that the Sun will rise in the East every 24 hours +/- based on the mechanism that the both the Earth and Sun sre flat).

потому что Бог хочет это тот путь

SOSO  posted on  2015-02-20   19:35:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: SOSO (#18)

You'd be wrong about that. All of the equations of motion of one object about another can be reversed. The problem is that to make the observation true, you have to add and subtract constants and sub functions - "epicycles", the astronomers used to call them - to account for the retrograde motion of planets. The easy mathematical case: Ellipses about the Sun, become ellipses with curlycues when the earth is put at the center.

Still, if you can model it from one reference point, you can model it from the other.

The problem with the earth centered models with all their epicycles is that it is mystifying. It shows the motions of things relative to the earth, but it doesn't even hint at why. With a heliocentric solar system, the model is cleaner, with no epicycles, and it looks like that must be how (because it looks like what the moons do about Jupiter, which Galileo saw through his telescope). Of course this begs the question WHY, and "gravity" was proposed by Newton as the answer.

There are problems with gravity, however. It may not actually exist outside of the model. With the epicycles, it was a mystery as to whatmade the planets do their strange forward and backward dance. With helicentrism, it's "gravity" as the "explanation", but "gravity" is really just the pace filler for "the thing that makes this go". It is assumed that there is a force at a distance at work to do it, but that may not be so.

Most people in the modern West are as fiercely and unquestioningly devoted to their scientific beliefs as medievals and Muslims were, and are, to their religious beliefs. Most Westerners will discuss religion in the abstract and calmly, philosophically, but start questioning the existence of gravity or the reality of the speed of light limit, or the evolution of species, and they will become as abusive and intellectually vicious as Muslims or medievals. By this, you can tell people's true religion of their hearts.

Any man who becomes angry or abusive about a denial of evolution or questioning of the reality of the physics is in fact a religionist: his religion is modern physical science, and he's as dogmatic about it as any Muslim or medieval - and all for the same reason: now we're dealing with "The TRUTH" (according to his beliefs), and getting "The TRUTH" wrong has actual consequences that MATTER (not really, but fanatics always believe that).

We've all seen it an hundred times.

For my part, the things I know are true as those things I have experienced empirically myself. I move out from there to models that incorporate those experiences. Models that cannot account for what I know directly are obviously false, because they don't incorporate facts that I myself know to be true.

Therefore, I am mild about scientific theory and mild about Christian religious denominational theory, but quite firm and even fanatic about things like the necessity of caring about fairness (and the illogic of saying it doesn't matter), or the existence of spirits, because these are things I know.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-02-21   7:47:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: Vicomte13 (#19)

All of the equations of motion of one object about another can be reversed.

Still, if you can model it from one reference point, you can model it from the other.

It's still the same model based on the same representative of reality. IDM from what prespective or reference you choose.

"The problem is that to make the observation true, you have to add and subtract constants and sub functions - "epicycles", the astronomers used to call them - to account for the retrograde motion of planets. The easy mathematical case: Ellipses about the Sun, become ellipses with curlycues when the earth is put at the center."

You just bolstered my case that given the data that we have you very, very likely will not be able to deal an incorrect mathematical model to match the data, observations and predictions.

потому что Бог хочет это тот путь

SOSO  posted on  2015-02-21   14:10:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com