physics debate getting to real interesting clarifications and side issues

From a side issue - on dating vs. Bible - the conversation between valencequark and neocatholic VLinvicus took this relevant turn, which I intersperse with my answers:

valencequark wrote:

vl meant that you believe that the sun revolves around the earth.

-vq

Oh - I was afraid that might very well be the case.

Hans Georg Lundahl

VLinvictus wrote:

Tell me:

Are the moon, sun, and plaents suspended in crystaline spheres concentrically arranged around the central point of earth until the sphere of the fixed stars and the primum mobile be reached?

Seems quite likely, as far as I know. If the Church Fathers exposing the Psalms or Work of Six Days or something unanimously say so, then so it is - if not it might be not the case. And before you ask me whether space travel should be explained by holes in the crystalline spheres or by not having occurred, I say: I do not know. I never claimed to know everything, you know.

Certainly space travel has NOT exploded the sphere of the fix stars. Rather it was supposing a certain annual very minute movement to have parallax as cause for its appearance and not occurring in most stars that gave heliocentric astronomers the impression that the fix stars had many different distances from earth.



HGL

Is Satan encased in ice at the core of the earth?

More probably in the fire that is not quenched. Location otherwise correct. Dante took some poetic liberties: Divina Commedia is science fiction of Theology (Eschatology of each soul) rather than Theology (Eschatology of each soul) pure and simple.

Hans Georg Lundahl

valencequark wrote:

i believe that he encounters several problems with his earth centered model of the solar system.

the gravitational attraction between masses is very well known and can be measured. we know that the sun is many orders of magnitude more massive than earth. how does he propose that the earth holds the sun in a stable orbit, given this little problem of the mass difference?

I do not believe that the earth holds the sun in orbit, nor do I believe the sun could hold the earth in orbit as Newton imagined and I learned in school. His (?)parallell of something being rotated on a string equates the supposedly equal centrifugal and centripetal forces of momentum and gravitation in supposed solar system with the obviously greater and static strength of the string keeping the stone (or whatever) in orbit.

the motion of other planets is documented to reverse itself now and then for smll increments of time (retrograde motion). to most people, this is due to the relative motion of earth and other planets as they both revolve about the sun. how does one account for the retrograde motion of the other planetsin an earth centered frame?

To Aristotle who knew this very well, this is due to them being directed directly by angels - or "gods" as the pagans would have called them. Argument mentioned by St Thomas. Though Aristotle was wrong in limiting angels to those directing the stars: he thought that everything below the moon orbit was directed by necessary influence from the stars.

how does one account for the redshift of distant objects as they recede from the milky way in an earth centered frame?

One possibility would be that the red shift is not due to any Doppler effect, but rather to greater redness in light source.

does he believe in ufos? if so where do they come from/

-vq

I believe the empiric facts attested by people claiming to have seen ufos. I do not believe them to come from outer space, more probably from Hell - in order to terrorise and entice people into accepting some sort of New Age or New World Order. Or in order to make physicians and authorities overestimate the occurrence of hallucinations.


HGL

valencequark wrote:

so you believe in a static universe? then you have major problems. it is the angular momentum of the earth about the sun which keeps it from crashing into the sun. in a static solar system there is nothing to keep the earth from being dragged into the sun, unless of course you don't beleive in gravity.

Did you miss that I do not believe in the SOLAR system at all?

then you encounter other problems, such as: how do you explain the result of cavendish's experiment?

Which is what?

what about baron von eotvos?

Which is what?

as for your second point: you find it more plausible that angels keep planets where they are rather than angular momentum? yeah, right.

Angular momentum would require planetary orbits of other shape than actual obserbations.

your last point about redshift doesn't wash. redder balckbody radiation is associated with cooler sources, which is possible to occur. however, cooler sources not only produce redder light but they produce less of it, so you would have detection problems. no, the redshift is due to the motion of far off objects, not to reduced temperature.


-vq

You are assuming that you already know all about the different causes of redshift. That you can rule them out one by one.

Considering your fantastic explanation of where the momentum goes when a body is standing still - turning into "potential energy" - you might be less picky about explanations being too fantastic or out of the way.

HGL

valencequark wrote:

what is your definition of the solar system, hans? by solar system i meant the arrangement of the earth, other planets and the sun. to me, saying that you do not believe in the solar system is like saying that you don't believe that the sun exists. is this what you beleive?

Not believing the earth to be a planet or the sun to be its centre, I do not believe that SOLAR system is a proper name for it. Nor do I belive that its outer limit is very far from the sphere of the fix stars - so I believe its limitation from "other solar systems" and the belief such exist to be bosh. So, you were asking me a question about the Universe, to call it by its proper name and skip the artificial limitation?

HGL

as for the experiments that i mentioned, they were two experiments to measure gravitational attraction. cavendish measured the gravitational attraction bewteen two lead spheres and eotvos measured gravitational mass and inertial mass to see if they are equivalent (somehitng einstein incorporated into general relativity).

All right (for now, though I might have some reservations) - and who has actually and directly measured the mass of the sun? Obviously the supposed mass of the sun is a conclusion of its supposed position in the centre of a system that is supposedly solar. Or do you have better evidence?

HGL

what do you mean by angular momentum would require different orbital shapes?

Different from the ones actually observed with their retrograde motion: more like the ones theoretically constructed but never actually proven by Kepler at al.

again, jsut because you do not understand the concepts of momentum and energy does not mean that nobody else does either.

Just because you do not understand the concepts of substance and relation, of act and potency does not mean nobody does so either. [That was ad hominem, but vq didn't offer any argument in this paragraph to be more rationally argued]

HGL

PS, from vq's previous argument:
vq wrote:

redder balckbody radiation is associated with cooler sources, which is possible to occur. however, cooler sources not only produce redder light but they produce less of it, so you would have detection problems.

Also if the distance to the sphere of fix stars is very small? I mean, a small amount of light may well be detected at closer hand which would be undetectable at the great distances that do not prove since they are supposed to be proven from the parallactic nature of certain annual motions in certain fix stars not to be detected by naked eye, nor even by Galileo's telescope.

HGL
…
If you are tempted to skirt the last issue raised on my message, here is the link to my last post on the other subthread, where it belongs: here

valencequark wrote:

i have not attempted to skirt anything, dear fool. i have, however wasted enough of my time on the likes of you. you refuse to believe experimental verification of the laws of physics, but you believe in the absolute truth of some mythical tale from a group of people who had virtually no understanding of their surroundings.

good day to you, sir!


-vq

As courteous in what he is saying as on a certain previous occasion - though somewhat more courteous in wording. Were you upset at seeing my little mistake in the html? I've corrected it.

A group of people with virtually no understanding of their surroundings you say: do you mean with no heliocentrism and Newtonism or what? I call that an advantage. Refuse to believe experimental verification of physical law? As when I refuse to call a bad verification a good one (Corioli effect for instance) or as when I refuse to agree to your question begging applications of physical laws supposed to be proven by experiments?

Well, at least the Apostles and their contemporaries knew:
a) only God can raise the dead, no natural cause can do so
b) only God or angels or the devil can cause lots of people to see the same thing that physically is not present
c) the devil has no power to heal miraculously, which God has
d) God doesn't support the testimony of madmen or liars by miracles and he puts narrow limits on the devil's power to do so
e) if people lie they do so to achieve an advantage and so they won't cling to a lie they made up or its moral correlates if it means death penalty
f) someone who has been fooled by a false original witness doesn't pretend to be the original witness, himself because he is by hypothesis honest
g) a physician can tell when someone who has fallen out of a window and broken his neck is stone dead - a man who has been buried in heavy swathings with lots of aromatic herbs and no air for three days (like Christ, minus the herbs) or four (like Lazarus) must be dead, at least from suffocation, even if he wasn't so to start with

and somehow or other some of you manage to deny either one or the other of these basics and deny the correlate following from them and historic record: that Christ is indeed risen, that he is indeed God, as he said. You are not the one to talk loud about believing myths and refusing experimental verification.

HGL
...
Is vq sulking because my point wasn't cluttered and because I hadn't misunderstood the terminology of modern physics? I wrote the post below the day before yesterday, and vq has previously lost his temper at least twice in this debate:


valencequark wrote:

your first point is totally cluttered. are you measuring kinetic or potential energy?

I was asking the question whether potential energy had ever been actually directly measured.

HGL
...et c as above

VLinvictus wrote:

Perhaps, like me, he found it impossible to communicate with you, since you appear to live in a completely different universe from either him or me. That can be quite frustrating.

I am constantly referring - also on this thread - to things that can be verified in the Universe we all - including himself and you - live in. Like no instrument directly measuring potential energy which furthermore cannot be identified with either force (because, unlike "potential energy" it does not increase with height above ground) nor momentum (because a non-moving object has none) nor with any other unitary entity or quality and the quantity of which is a postulate for theory of conservation of energy.

HGL

Don't you get frustrated when people refuse to believe that the earth is truly the center of the universe, that the sun revolves around it? When they refuse to believe that time is not a dimension? That John Paul II is not the Pope?

I know some things I am in for. People refusing to believe me is no great inconvenience, since I am not asking them just to take my word for it. I would be stupid if I did. People who shirk argument are more of a bother.

HGL

Actually, I would wager that you don't get upset at all. You can rely on your own superiority in possessing "the truth."

Well, I can do the same.

You have not commented on it, but many who reject Vatican II reject the decree of religious freedom. I support that decree wholeheartedly, and you are free to believe whatever you wish so long as you do not attempt to use the coercive power of the state to make me believe it. Since you are a Swede or a Norwegian or a Dane--I have not figured out which--I feel no political threat from you.

I am of course against the Dignitatis Humanae document in the meaning it obviously seems to have and is supported as having by JPII. The meaning which says it was a crime to burn Giordano Bruno or Valdensians and Albigensians. Nonetheless, you may be correct in feeling no political threat from me. You see, whatever right a Catholic state has to combat error, that gives Protestant and Secularised states (you could describe Scandinavia as both of them de facto, besides being de jure but since four centuries no longer de facto Catholic countries) no right whatsoever to combat each and every dissent including such as is based on truth. If you want to describe me as Swede, Dane or Norwegian, none is totally inaccurate as far as ancestry is concerned, but my citizenship is Swedish.

HGL

So, guess what, Hans? You win! Yes! The earth is the center of the universe! The sun revolves around it! Gravity is a lie! Copernicus and Gallileo roast in hell!

Copernicus gave us a hypothesis superficially useful for computing motions of planets by using a model simpler than reality. Galileo gave intellectual assent to the hypothesis as a reality, but withdrew that support. As far as I know both died as good Catholics - Galileo as a penitent. And why do you concede even more than I have asked you to concede?

Because I am no political threat to you? For no intellectual reason? And what about the thing this thread is about? Have you encountered the idea that threads are supposed to be about some subject and not just to be cluttered up with any subject that happens to come to your mind?

No, this was not so much an apology for vq's silence on the points I have raised as an ironically worded rebuke for raising these points or any at all in any rational manner.

HGL