Does Science go against faith?

[AvalonXQ]

There is noticeable stellar parallax, but as I mentioned earlier there are several observations that show that the Earth is rotating. The easiest to do is Foucault's pendulum - it definitively disproves the notion that the Earth is stationary.

 

[Huckleberry]

Is that scriptural????? i dont see it anywhere in the bible. Gen 2: 12 is speaking abt Garden of Eden.

Read carefully.

There were four named "lands":
Eden, Havilah, Ethiopia, Assyria.

God's garden was in Eden.

Genesis 2:12 is referring to Havilah.

In Havilah, the gold was "good",
and it was found amongst other valuable resources,
namely onyx and bdellium.

It was there for the taking.
Didn't have to be mined or refined.

 

[Married_Richenbrachen]

There is noticeable stellar parallax, but as I mentioned earlier there are several observations that show that the Earth is rotating. The easiest to do is Foucault's pendulum - it definitively disproves the notion that the Earth is stationary.

As stated previously, I don't consider a 1/5000th of a single degree a suitably large stellar parallax. This is near enough to 0 for me to treat as 0, especially when considered alongside other evidence that also supports a stationary Earth, and scriptures that indicate the Earth is stationary (and hence does not rotate).

I've read that Foucault's pendulum isn't consistent across the globe, and even if it were, how does it prove the Earth rotates? I much prefer Airy's experiment - it relates directly to the motion of the Earth (or Heavens), it made a prediction about what should be found if the Earth rotated, and the result was in opposition to that prediction (i.e. experiment confirmed that Earth does not rotate).

Foucault's pendulum is more an unexplained phenomena that someone thought "Hey, we can tack this on as an alleged proof that the Earth rotates". It could be any number of phenomena that cause it - I read someone attributed it more to the Earth's magnetic field strength than any alleged rotation, but I'm not an expert.

 

[CoooCaw]

As stated previously, I don't consider a 1/5000th of a single degree a suitably large stellar parallax. This is near enough to 0 for me to treat as 0, especially when considered alongside other evidence that also supports a stationary Earth, and scriptures that indicate the Earth is stationary (and hence does not rotate).

I've read that Foucault's pendulum isn't consistent across the globe, and even if it were, how does it prove the Earth rotates? I much prefer Airy's experiment - it relates directly to the motion of the Earth (or Heavens), it made a prediction about what should be found if the Earth rotated, and the result was in opposition to that prediction (i.e. experiment confirmed that Earth does not rotate).

Foucault's pendulum is more an unexplained phenomena that someone thought "Hey, we can tack this on as an alleged proof that the Earth rotates". It could be any number of phenomena that cause it - I read someone attributed it more to the Earth's magnetic field strength than any alleged rotation, but I'm not an expert.

cringe......

 

[posthuman]

So you have some backyard gear that's accurate enough to measure the angle subtended by a 2cm coin, at a distance of 5.3km?

i didn't say it would be easy. you'll need to build yourself a meridian circle, and take multi-exposure photographs, but commercially available telescopes can be accurate enough to make such measurements, if the observer, too is accurate enough.

it was done in 1838 by eye -- wouldn't you agree that telescope technology has come a long way since then? also we now have digital photography & light collectors.

here is an article describing one such venture -- From Hipparchus to Hipparcos: Measuring the Universe -- which measured parallax in over 400 stars by combining the observations of many amateur astronomers, to 1% precision, and over 7,000 stars to within 5% precision.

re: focault's pendulum, whcih i am sitting next to one as i type this, actually, the pendulum precesses at an angle relative to the rotation of the earth. the fact that such a pendulum doesn't precess to the same degree at different latitudes establishes that the rotational speed of the earth varies according to latitude - and defines the characteristic of the equator (where such a pendulum doesn't rotate) as being the point where it the pendulum is at 0 angle to the rotational vector of the globe. at the poles, the pendulum experiences the maximum force derived from rotation.

the theory & verified results of focault's pendulums are available on 1000's of sites across the internet. such pendulums are set up in many museums across the country; you can go to one in Chicago, measure it's precession, then go to one in Texas or Florida and compare your measurements to see the different rate of precession, if you are careful enough with your measuring. i don't see how a flat, stationary earth can explain such a result.

 

[AvalonXQ]

I've read that Foucault's pendulum isn't consistent across the globe, and even if it were, how does it prove the Earth rotates?

Foucault's pendulum moves differently based on your lattitude, because your lattitude determines your movement around the axis of the planet. Because the pendulum shows rotation relative to the plane perpendicular to the pull of gravity, it will show no rotation at the equator and maximal rotation at the poles. It shows very pronounced rotation at the lattitudes I presume you live in.
Foucault's pendulum proves that the Earth rotates because it moves differently on a rotating body than on a stationary body. If the Earth were not rotating, then the pendulum would continue to move back and forth in a single, straight line. Because the Earth is rotating, the pendulum passes through different points as the day goes on.
You can see how this works yourself - put a free-swinging pendulum on a frame that is on a rotating pedestal (a lazy susan or whatnot), then rotate the base. The motion of the pendulum bob won't rotate with the frame; it will continue to move in the same straight line as before. The same thing is happening with Foucault's pendulum; because the Earth is rotating, but the laws of motion require the pendulum to stay in the same place, the pendulum motion appears to rotate as the day goes on.
And, in fact, the pattern of rotation predicted by the apparent motion of the pendulum is exactly consistent with a 24-hour rotation for Earth, which is the same that you get according to the apparent motion of the entire night sky around Earth. When we launch satellites, our trajectories and calculations take the rotation of the Earth into account.

What other explanation do you have for the motion of Foucault's pendulum, for the Coriolis effect, and for the success of every astronomical and aeronautical calculation that includes the Earth's rotation as we have measured it?

 

[Sanashankar]

Read carefully.

There were four named "lands":
Eden, Havilah, Ethiopia, Assyria.

God's garden was in Eden.

Genesis 2:12 is referring to Havilah.

In Havilah, the gold was "good",
and it was found amongst other valuable resources,
namely onyx and bdellium.

It was there for the taking.
Didn't have to be mined or refined.

Ok so u believe
God made the ground to bring forth everything the grass, herb yeilding seeds, fruit yeilding trees (Gen 1:11)
God made the water to bring forth moving creature, and fowl (Gen 1:20)
God made the earth to bring forth the cattle, creeping things, beasts an all (Gen 1:24)

but not gold. it was already there, or in another words God just put it there like some magician, without any process.

 

[Cycel]

pssstt.....he can't.
gone bye bye.

Thanks for the head's up.

 

[Starcrash]

"Hold your thumb up at arms length. Look at it with one eye. Then look at it with the other eye. Its position appears to change, with respect to the background. This is called parallax. If the earth moves around the Sun, then the apparent positions of the stars must change between January and June. (Even if all the stars are at the same distance, as if drawn on a wall, their positions with respect to one other must change as you get closer and farther away from one side.) The effects of parallax were known as far back as Babylonian times. But, no matter how hard people looked, no parallax could ever be measured. This was taken as proof that the earth did not move. The only alternative was that the Sun must revolve about the earth."

Geocentric vs. Heliocentric

Thank you for the citation. Here's the line just before the text you copied:

We've always been told that the earth goes around the Sun, but how do we know it? Is there a simple experiment we can think of that can actually prove that the earth moves? Yes, there is.

If you read on further, you'll notice that we have discovered ways to detect parallax, using bigger "thumbs" such as a land-based observatory and the Hubble telescope.

 

[Cycel]

; but beware what the Bible calls....

... profane and vain babblings....

I am familiar with this passage, I think, but it is warning again public displays of religion (the sort of thing Tebow is known for). It has nothing to do with science (unless you are thinking of a different passage?).

science falsely so called:

Which some professing have erred concerning the faith.

Can you direct me to the passage in the Bible that speaks against science?

These are people who hate God and will misinterpret any observation in that light

What sort of people hate God? Who are you talking about?

 

[jb]

Thousands, obviously. The Earth is only about 6000 years old.

 

[megaman125]

I am familiar with this passage, I think, but it is warning again public displays of religion (the sort of thing Tebow is known for).

I sure how you are joking about this because there is nothing in the Bible that even remotely forbids public desplays of religion. In fact, the Bible teaches the opposite.

but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven.
Matthew 10:33

 

[AvalonXQ]

I sure how you are joking about this because there is nothing in the Bible that even remotely forbids public desplays of religion.

From the greatest sermon ever preached:

“Take heed that you do not do your charitable deeds before men, to be seen by them. Otherwise you have no reward from your Father in heaven. Therefore, when you do a charitable deed, do not sound a trumpet before you as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory from men. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward. But when you do a charitable deed, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, that your charitable deed may be in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will Himself reward you openly.
“And when you pray, you shall not be like the hypocrites. For they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the corners of the streets, that they may be seen by men. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward. But you, when you pray, go into your room, and when you have shut your door, pray to your Father who is in the secret place; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you openly. And when you pray, do not use vain repetitions as the heathen do. For they think that they will be heard for their many words.
“Therefore do not be like them. For your Father knows the things you have need of before you ask Him.”

-Jesus, from Matthew 6

 

[Married_Richenbrachen]

Thank you for the citation. Here's the line just before the text you copied:
If you read on further, you'll notice that we have discovered ways to detect parallax, using bigger "thumbs" such as a land-based observatory and the Hubble telescope.

I don't agree with everything the page says, obviously, but the technique is called "using a hostile witness" - the page is clearly written from the perspective of a heliocentric believer, and even he admits that the stellar parallax is 0, or near enough to 0. And if the stellar parallax is essentially 0 between Summer and Winter (despite an alleged movement of 300 odd million kilometers at either side of the Earth's alleged orbit), why is it that the same parallax can be calculated within the baseline of a single meter at two adjacent points? (I am hesitant to trust findings reliant on the Hubble telescope or any such "space" agencies, since the exposure of NASA's moon landing hoax).

What other explanation do you have for the motion of Foucault's pendulum, for the Coriolis effect, and for the success of every astronomical and aeronautical calculation that includes the Earth's rotation as we have measured it?

I believe most astronomical or aeronautical calculations don't use the Earth's rotation (they assume it is stationary - pilots are taught to forget all beliefs they had of the Earth rotating). With regards to Foucault's pendulum, I'm not really sure it has anything to do with Earth rotating. The results of the Foucault pendulum experiment has been described as "quite variable", and in some cases "contrary to the anticipations suggested by theory" (i.e. it is not easily testable or repeatable as science requires, and the predictions don't align with the experimental data). I suggest it may have something to do with the Earth's magnetic field or other phenomena, but nothing to do with the alleged rotation of the Earth. Couldn't the Coriolis effect be caused just as easily by the rotation of the Heavens, as the rotation of the Earth? I don't know a great deal about this, so you'll need to elaborate more if you want a clearer answer.

 

[thecreationtutor]

Frankly, this claim is ridiculous, but if you think it's true back it up with some facts.

Have you read any of Darwins work? Haegel? The x-club? Huxley? even Darwin's grandfather


At that time it was not socially acceptable to not go to church, definitely not to be an atheist - Erasmus Darwin was an open atheist, but for the majority of the rest, if you read their work - they were definitely set on destroying the creation account, the Bible - as well as to find a way without God for there to be everything we see

 

[posthuman]

The results of the Foucault pendulum experiment has been described as "quite variable", and in some cases "contrary to the anticipations suggested by theory" (i.e. it is not easily testable or repeatable as science requires, and the predictions don't align with the experimental data).

you may have misread some results about how any pendulum behaves when it starts to run out of momentum, or read some websites where this was misrepresented to you. there is no frictionless mechanical system, so the pendulum eventually slows down and comes to a halt. the path of any pendulum is predictable, even accounting for friction, but when it is almost stopped small variations in the density & makeup of the pendulum itself and the environment it is in make big differences in the motion of the pendulum, and the motion becomes 'chaotic'
much like spinning a coin on a table top, its motion is well-understood while it is spinning quickly, but when it slows down to the point it is about to fall over, that motion stops following the regular pattern and small effects like the texture of the coins edge and slight differences in the surface of the table, even vibrations from nearby footsteps start to become dominant terms in its equation of motion, and describing its motion becomes futile as all these factors aren't accounted for in a simple approximation that worked well while it was spinning.



a focault's pendulum made of rubber and other non-conducting materials will exhibit the same behavior. it's not a magnetic effect.

 

[thecreationtutor]

I wouldn't say obviously - to a regenerated mind possibly - but to someone who is a slave to sin, and does not know the Lord, as well as a fortress by Satan, and the main secular teaching that get's pushed day in day out - it's not as obvious

 

[megaman125]

From the greatest sermon ever preached:

“Take heed that you do not do your charitable deeds before men, to be seen by them. Otherwise you have no reward from your Father in heaven. Therefore, when you do a charitable deed, do not sound a trumpet before you as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory from men. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward. But when you do a charitable deed, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, that your charitable deed may be in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will Himself reward you openly.
“And when you pray, you shall not be like the hypocrites. For they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the corners of the streets, that they may be seen by men. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward. But you, when you pray, go into your room, and when you have shut your door, pray to your Father who is in the secret place; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you openly. And when you pray, do not use vain repetitions as the heathen do. For they think that they will be heard for their many words.
“Therefore do not be like them. For your Father knows the things you have need of before you ask Him.”

-Jesus, from Matthew 6

This is the best thing I've ever seen you post, and it's in context, bravo. Indeed I support all of this. Tim Tebow praying before a game does not violate any of this, as he is praying for God's glory, not his own. There's nothing in Jesus' sermon here that forbids public prayer (Jesus prayed publicly many many times, like when He fed the 5,000 or in front of Lazerous' tomb). What's forbidden is making your public prayer a spectical and making it about how great you are instead of how great God is. It certainly does not forbid all public prayer, but all this is rather obivious by reading what you posted.

 

[Married_Richenbrachen]

you may have misread some results about how any pendulum behaves when it starts to run out of momentum, or read some websites where this was misrepresented to you.

"Subsequently experiments [in reference to Focault's pendulum] were made at the Pantheon, and repeated in almost every part of the civilised world, but with results so variable, and in many instances the very contrary to the anticipations suggested by theory, that many of the same Newtonian school of philosophy differed with each other, remained dissatisfied, and raised very serious objections both to the value of the experiments themselves, and to the supposed proof which they furnished of the earth's rotation."

I'm not saying Focault's pendulum doesn't have some sort of unexpected effect, but I am saying that the effect is not neatly described by latitude, and often as not has unpredicted results, sometimes even in opposition to the theory it allegedly proves. Even if the pendulum did behave exactly as described, how does this prove that it is the Earth that moves, and not the aether moving with the Heavens and dragging the pendulum with it?

a focault's pendulum made of rubber and other non-conducting materials will exhibit the same behavior. it's not a magnetic effect.

Magnetism is not well understood, and likely is related to vibrational effects, as well as electrical. To say a Focault's pendulum behaves the way it does due to magnetic effect is the same as to say it behaves in this way due to the Earth's rotation. Both are statements of belief, with little to no science to support them.

I don't believe Focault's pendulum can be used either to prove, or to disprove, the theory that the Earth rotates.

 

[CoooCaw]

"Subsequently experiments [in reference to Focault's pendulum] were made at the Pantheon, and repeated in almost every part of the civilised world, but with results so variable, and in many instances the very contrary to the anticipations suggested by theory, that many of the same Newtonian school of philosophy differed with each other, remained dissatisfied, and raised very serious objections both to the value of the experiments themselves, and to the supposed proof which they furnished of the earth's rotation."

I'm not saying Focault's pendulum doesn't have some sort of unexpected effect, but I am saying that the effect is not neatly described by latitude, and often as not has unpredicted results, sometimes even in opposition to the theory it allegedly proves. Even if the pendulum did behave exactly as described, how does this prove that it is the Earth that moves, and not the aether moving with the Heavens and dragging the pendulum with it?

Magnetism is not well understood, and likely is related to vibrational effects, as well as electrical. To say a Focault's pendulum behaves the way it does due to magnetic effect is the same as to say it behaves in this way due to the Earth's rotation. Both are statements of belief, with little to no science to support them.

I don't believe Focault's pendulum can be used either to prove, nor to disprove, the theory that the Earth rotates.

either the earth is spinning
or the entire universe is rotating around a stationary earth;

ever watched the sun sink below the horizon?

the law of gravity explains the first interpretaton

to embrace the second explanation is to throw out Occam's razor in a huge way!!