Still Earth Believers



18032013, 07:40 AM




RE: Still Earth Believers
It truly is amazing that some people will deny literal fact . . . just because a "holy book" says something different. Something that was actually written by uneducated humans [about the facts of the natural world and universe] who believed the "unknown" was a result of magic. If you had no idea about the facts, and weren't very observant, . . . it sure WOULD seem like the earth was motionless and celestial bodies were flying over you at night.


18032013, 07:44 AM




RE: Still Earth Believers
I think they're kidding


23032013, 01:41 AM




RE: Still Earth Believers
Quote:1) Einstein himself admitted that whether is the earth spinning or the sun rotating, is just a matter of perspectiveIf Einstein said this he was essentially correct, although saying it "is just a matter of perspective" is somewhat of an oversimplification. The most familiar system of mechanics is Newtonian mechanics, based on Newton's three laws of motion. However, there are two other systems of mechanics, Hamiltonian mechanics and Lagrangian mechanics, which are equally valid. Mathematically the three are said to be equivalent, meaning that if you accept the validity of any one of them then you can derive the other two. It sort of comes down to Occam's razor. For the problem at had use the method that is simplest. In most cases this is Newtonian mechanics but some problems lend themselves to one of the others. For example, some problems in celestial mechanics lend themselves to Lagrangian mechanics. The problem of the Foucault pendulum is most easily solved using Hamiltonian mechanics, using a nonspinning Earth model and introducing the concept of the Coriolis force. Quote:2) In the last 400 years, no experiments have ever demonstrated that the earth is spinning.Given my discussion of #1 above I would have to say that this is technically true but somewhat beside the point. For example, the Ptolemaic model of the solar system, with a nonspinning central Earth is mathematically valid, but you have to be willing to use Fourier series to describe planetary motions, and Fourier series have an infinite number of terms. To use a finite number of terms you have to accept less than absolute accuracy, an acceptable strategy given that the accuracy of real world measurements is limited. Still, it's not the simplest method. Quote:3) During the war in Crimea, there was a worldwide skepticism aboutI have not heard this one before. Still, the cannonballs were affected albeit the effect may not have been observed. I'd have to know more about where they got this idea to respond more fully. (21012013 11:01 AM)randomjen Wrote: 4) All the shuttles flight plans that Nasa compile, use maths model of still earth, and no movement is detected neither leaving the atmosphere, nor going back to earthIt's possible that NASA used Hamiltonian mechanics for some calculations. But as I discussed in #1 above, that would not invalidate the Newtonian model. The real problem with a nonspinning Earth model us not the idea that the sun goes around the Earth, but the ideal that the "celestial sphere" spins. This requires that even the nearest stars orbit the Earth at faster than light velocities, causing problems with Einstein's special theory of relativity. From a purely mathematically standpoint I'm certain that these problems can be dealt with (I haven't tried it) but from a physical standpoint a spinning celestial sphere is impossible. Sapere aude 



« Next Oldest  Next Newest »

User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)