Does Science go against faith?

[zone]

"Barbour and Bertotti proved that a large hollow sphere (representing the distant star fields) rotating around a small solid sphere inside (modeling the Earth) produced exactly the same pattern of Coriolis and centrifugal forces that are claimed as proof of Earth's spinning in space. If the hollow shell of matter accelerates or rotates, any object inside the shell will tend to be carried along with the acceleration or rotation to some extent. But they note this all-important fact: An object at the center of the hollow sphere will not be affected by the inertial forces. The space around the Earth will exhibit the inertial effects of the distant sphere, but not the Earth itself, if it is centrally located.

From Mach's principle we can conclude that inertia is a universal property, like gravity. But in Mach's principle the conventional interpretation of distant masses as causing inertial effects around the Earth is too restrictive. The cause of inertia could also logically be the properties of the space around each object, modified by the presence of the mass in or around that space. In other words the ether/firmament may be the source of inertia, which causes the gravity and inertial effects on bodies embedded in the ether. The ether's properties are changed by the masses (via feedback), but it is the ether that is the primary or first cause. Linear inertia is the resistance to motion of objects moving linearly caused by the ether drag."

Galileo was Wrong
Dr. Robert Sungenis
Dr. Robert Bennett

Galileo Was Wrong < click

 

[zone]

The Michelson-Morley experiment confronted scientists with an embarrassing alternative. On the one hand they could scrap the ether theory which had explained so many things about electricity, magnetism, and light. Or if they insisted on retaining the ether they had to abandon the still more venerable Copernican theory that the earth is in motion. To many physicists it seemed almost easier to believe that the earth stood still than that waves – light waves, electromagnetic waves – could exist without a medium to sustain them. It was a serious dilemma and one that split scientific thought for a quarter century. Many new hypotheses were advanced and rejected. The experiment was tried again by Morley and by others, with the same conclusion; the apparent velocity of the earth through the ether was zero.

Lincoln Barnett
"The Universe and Dr. Einstein", p. 44



LOLOLOLOL

 

[AvalonXQ]

To be honest, no. I've read the stars would be a matter of light-days away though, not light years. The sun and moon would be at similar distances.

We should calculate those distances; I bet they're close enough to allow us to take parallax measurements from here on Earth.

 

[CoooCaw]

The Michelson-Morley experiment confronted scientists with an embarrassing alternative. On the one hand they could scrap the ether theory which had explained so many things about electricity, magnetism, and light. Or if they insisted on retaining the ether they had to abandon the still more venerable Copernican theory that the earth is in motion. To many physicists it seemed almost easier to believe that the earth stood still than that waves – light waves, electromagnetic waves – could exist without a medium to sustain them. It was a serious dilemma and one that split scientific thought for a quarter century. Many new hypotheses were advanced and rejected. The experiment was tried again by Morley and by others, with the same conclusion; the apparent velocity of the earth through the ether was zero.

Lincoln Barnett
"The Universe and Dr. Einstein", p. 44



LOLOLOLOL

Their dilemma was caused by irrationally clinging to what is known as the Copernican principle or cosmological principle.

Because of this they did not draw the logical conclusion but were forced to throw out Occams razor and draw two erroneous conclusions-
1 - The universe has no edges
2 - there is no ether

The problem is WE NOW KNOW there IS an ether - this contains Zero Point Energy, which the Bibile predicts, and is now accepted as fact.

In light of this there is less reason to consider light as a particle rather than a wave.

* The Copernican Principle = there is nothing special about earth or its location in the universe = There is no god

The experimental results Michelson and Morley produced can be explained by the earth being CLOSE TO the centre of the universe; thus one can then conclude that the universe does have an edge. The experimental data did indicate a SMALL amount motion within error limits but not of the magnitude they expected; If the earth was truly motionless of there truly was no ether then one would expect absolutely ZERO motion detected from the experiment

 

[posthuman]

"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, or to disprove, the theory that the Earth rotates.

when your pendulum arm flexes, and your pendulum bob is not symmetric or uniformly dense, and your pendulum is not hung in a way to reduce as much friction as possible, yes, you get unexpected results.
however if you take care to get rid of other experimental variables, you get the expected results, within some error accumulated by the inability to eliminate all friction from the apparatus. even the density of the air the pendulum bob passes through has a measurable effect. the first experiments with this pendulum were in hindsight clumsy and naively engineered.
take a look into the results of the first human autopsies -- they were all mostly wrong about the way all the organs in the body work - does this "prove" that sickness is actually a result of an improper balance of the four humors? of course not. it means that the pioneers in the field didn't understand all the variables involved when they first started to experiment.

magnetism is quite well understood and has nothing to do with physical vibration. does your car still function when you drive over a pothole? you mean the vibrations don't throw the fuel injection timing off completely? for that matter the whole engine is vibrating the whole time it is operating, and yet the electrics still work. inconceivable?? the internet we are conversing with right now is not possible without the thorough understanding of EM dynamics that mankind enjoys these days.

as far as aether, Michelson-Morely proved pretty definitively that there is none. Even if there were, why would the aether move at a different speed at the poles, indeed, how could it, if the earth is a flat disc with the south pole at the edge and the north at the center?

 

[posthuman]

Sticking with the example of astronomy, many marine navigation schools still teach the geocentric model; not because they don’t realize the earth moves, but because navigation is simply easier when you pretend the earth is fixed and everything moves around it.

SCOTT WEINGART

note the spherical earth in this picture ^^

 

[posthuman]

one of the strongest arguments to discard the geocentric model was the fact that venus - also mercury, though not directly observed by Galileo - displays a full set of "phases" when viewed from earth. if both venus and the sun are orbiting the earth, this isn't possible.

the pictures above show the possible phases of venus in a geocentric model (on the left) and a heliocentric model (on the right). the phases of venus are observable with a telescope worth less than $50.

 

[thecreationtutor]

Ok, at first I thought the whole Earth being stationary idea was silly, but the more I read your posts and see your perspective, the more curious I'm getting about it.

Well, it's not like it affects my faith either way.

No Geocentrism was based on the daily experience - then something changed month to month the moon, then from 6 months to 6 months - the 'wanderers' - the stars did not move that much - we teach this to 7th graders in Earth and Space Science

 

[thecreationtutor]

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

Science and Hebrew Tradition (1893) - Thomas Henry Huxley - Google Books

if you can buy that or find it - it explains much

 

[weakness]

To be honest, no. I've read the stars would be a matter of light-days away though, not light years. The sun and moon would be at similar distances.

just where do you read this stuff?

 

[Married_Richenbrachen]

The experimental results Michelson and Morley produced can be explained by the earth being CLOSE TO the centre of the universe; thus one can then conclude that the universe does have an edge. The experimental data did indicate a SMALL amount motion within error limits but not of the magnitude they expected; If the earth was truly motionless of there truly was no ether then one would expect absolutely ZERO motion detected from the experiment

The small amount of motion detected, compared to many magnitudes greater if the Earth were traveling around the sun, can easily be put down to things such as experimental error and other explained or unexplained phenomena. You don't need to know whether a car is moving at 60km/h or 61km/h to know its moving, likewise with it being still - the car can be stopped with the radio up loud or something, the vibrations detectable by a probe. The vibrations due to the radio don't prove the car is moving.

when your pendulum arm flexes, and your pendulum bob is not symmetric or uniformly dense, and your pendulum is not hung in a way to reduce as much friction as possible, yes, you get unexpected results.
however if you take care to get rid of other experimental variables, you get the expected results, within some error accumulated by the inability to eliminate all friction from the apparatus. even the density of the air the pendulum bob passes through has a measurable effect.

It sounds to me as if you're saying if the pendulum bob conforms to expectations, you did the experiment right, but if it doesn't, throw out these results 'cause something must have been done wrong (afterall, its a difficult one to set up just right). I get a bit distrustful of such delicate experiments where undesired results can be explained away by these means. Especially with most scientists being the godless types that they are, and being dependent on a God-hating establishment for their very jobs, grants, tenures etc.

magnetism is quite well understood and has nothing to do with physical vibration. does your car still function when you drive over a pothole? you mean the vibrations don't throw the fuel injection timing off completely? for that matter the whole engine is vibrating the whole time it is operating, and yet the electrics still work. inconceivable?? the internet we are conversing with right now is not possible without the thorough understanding of EM dynamics that mankind enjoys these days.

With magnetism, I'm not denying that we understand some things about it, for the inventions you describe. However, I am saying I believe there is probably a lot more to it than is currently accepted. When Edward Leedskalin built his Coral Castle, or when John Keely lifted heavy weights, there are rumours that they used sound/vibration to do this. Hence my belief that magnetism/gravity is related to sound/vibration. Its just a belief - like your belief the Focault's pendulum phenomena is linked to the Earth's alleged rotation - neither is provable without more information.

as far as aether, Michelson-Morely proved pretty definitively that there is none. Even if there were, why would the aether move at a different speed at the poles, indeed, how could it, if the earth is a flat disc with the south pole at the edge and the north at the center?

The only reason people say Michelson-Morley proved there is no ether, is because were there ether, this would prove the Earth is not in motion, and the godless certainly don't want to admit the Earth is not in motion, as God had said. Greater scientists than these (e.g. Tesla) were quite confident there was an ether, and I see no reason to deny there is ether (other than a preconceived notion that the Earth must be rotating).

 

[posthuman]

The problem is WE NOW KNOW there IS an ether - this contains Zero Point Energy, which the Bibile predicts, and is now accepted as fact.

the proposed Higgs condensate only resembles the "aether" in that it is the substructure of "space" and serves as a conveyance for physical qualities such as wave energy and gravitational attraction. it cannot have any motion associated with it.

the idea that "empty space" is not entirely "empty" and devoid of potential energy is not the same as the idea that all of the heavens are filled with rigid (or moving, in the case that there is any such thing as a 'fixed point' in the universe) body.

i don't know why you think the Michelson-Morely experiment suggests the earth is near the center of the universe. it's true that it doesn't prove that vacuum is completely devoid of any characteristics; what it really shows is that if vacuum has anything in it, that something is not in motion relative to the earth. many other experiments showed that aether is not "dragged" by mass, so if it doesn't move relative to earth, and it doesn't move with earth, if there is anything such as aether, it doesn't interact with matter or energy.
the proposed aether, and also the Higgs condensate, are uniformly pervasive in the entire universe. being at the center or the edge of the universe doesn't make there be less aether, and even if it did, isn't the geocentric crowd trying to use stronger aether interaction as explanations for the effects of the rotation of the (oblate) spherical earth?

The experimental data did indicate a SMALL amount motion within error limits but not of the magnitude they expected; If the earth was truly motionless of there truly was no ether then one would expect absolutely ZERO motion detected from the experiment

i'm not sure you understand what "within error limits" means. it means that they could not completely eliminate the movement of the platform the entire apparatus was on, but they could account for how much it could possibly move, and the experiment was set up so that any results indicating the presence of an aether that the earth was in motion relative to (or was in motion relative to the earth) would be orders of magnitude larger than any uncontrolled movement of the experimental apparatus. they got as close to zero as they were able to measure.
they were trying to not get zero, so they had set this all up, and repeated it, with better set-ups, several times, with more accuracy, hoping to record some non-zero answer. the Michelson-Morely experiment is one of the most important scientific failures​ in the history of physics.

 

[Married_Richenbrachen]

if both venus and the sun are orbiting the earth, this isn't possible.

Easily explainable by stating that Venus orbits the sun, and the sun orbits the Earth. Zone has a computer model that demonstrates this, but I'm not sure if its been posted in this thread (refer to the Geocentric link earlier).

 

[Married_Richenbrachen]

the proposed Higgs condensate only resembles the "aether" in that it is the substructure of "space" and serves as a conveyance for physical qualities such as wave energy and gravitational attraction.

Heh, heh, heh. So it looks like ether, behaves like ether, but it isn't actually ether? Got it. Is this science you're telling us about, or that Kabbalah thing that Zone warned us about in her link?

i don't know why you think the Michelson-Morely experiment suggests the earth is near the center of the universe.

Because it proved the Earth isn't moving, devoid of any noise/experimental error. If you believe the Earth orbits the sun, believing that the Earth is in the center of the universe is the next best thing to denying the Earth actually moves.

i'm not sure you understand what "within error limits" means. it means that they could not completely eliminate the movement of the platform the entire apparatus was on, but they could account for how much it could possibly move, and the experiment was set up so that any results indicating the presence of an aether that the earth was in motion relative to (or was in motion relative to the earth) would be orders of magnitude larger than any uncontrolled movement of the experimental apparatus. they got as close to zero as they were able to measure.

When scientists talk of their experimental error, they have to make it smaller than their result, or people would say "Well, what was the purpose of your experiment?", and the scientists would soon find themselves in the unemployment queue. A scientist's estimate of his experimental error can be taken as a guide, but the true error can often be greater than this. Hence the reason they probably didn't measure total 0.

they were trying to not get zero, so they had set this all up, and repeated it, with better set-ups, several times, with more accuracy, hoping to record some non-zero answer. the Michelson-Morely experiment is one of the most important scientific failures​ in the history of physics.

So a scientific experiment is only successful if it proves the Kabbalah and goes against what God says, and is a failure if it proves what God says and commits sacrilege by falsifying Kabbalistic beliefs?

 

[posthuman]

It sounds to me as if you're saying if the pendulum bob conforms to expectations, you did the experiment right, but if it doesn't, throw out these results 'cause something must have been done wrong (afterall, its a difficult one to set up just right). I get a bit distrustful of such delicate experiments where undesired results can be explained away by these means. Especially with most scientists being the godless types that they are, and being dependent on a God-hating establishment for their very jobs, grants, tenures etc.

no, all i am saying is that the first foucault's pendulums that were built were of poor quality, so that the small effect they were designed to illustrate was overcome by larger inconsistencies in the construction of the pendulum.

other than poorly built pendulums, the only other unexpected result i can find is the "Allais effect " (most aberrations not explained by poor design can be attributed to seismic vibration, air density or other such effects, and are small) where in 1954 and 1959, his pendulums moved more than expected during the maxima of total solar eclipses. later experiments were performed during eclipses with mixed results - some reported aberrations, some didn't, and as far as i can find in the literature the question of whether there really is an effect isn't completely settled, though here is a paper from 2003 showing an effect in Bucharest during the eclipse: http://www.acad.ro/sectii2002/proceedings/doc3_2004/03_Mihaila.pdf

the Allais effect however indicates that gravity isn't exactly understood - that its effects are faster than the speed of light, or aren't the same in every direction, or that the moon "shields" some of the effects of gravity, not that the earth isn't rotating. a pendulum "works" by gravity, and the Allais effect implies a small, relative change in gravity takes place during an eclipse, coincident with the path of the moon's shadow & unaccounted for simply by the position of the pendulum-earth-sun-moon system.

gravity's not well understood. that i think we all agree on.

 

[Ariel82]

So I really do not believe in evolution and I am not sure how the dinosaurs fit in but does science really oppose faith? I mean what if science actually goes into faith?

science doesn't but some people who claim to be scientists do.......

you can't really put "faith" under microscope or create an experiment around true faith.

some body might try to "test your faith" by tempting you to sin but that isn't really science, that's just demonic temptation pretending to be "scientific"

by the way, I believe in some aspects of evolutionary theory and don't believe it affects my faith negatively at all.

For example the concept of natural selection is observable science and in no way contradicts the Bible.

what becomes a debate is when people start to theorize beyond what is observed and when both Bible scholars and scientist want to discuss dates and times.

neither of which are very convincing when closely examined.

 

[Ariel82]

I will simply state that I do NOT believe that the BIBLE takes a stance that the Earth is still and the center of the universe.

I believe its a false take on the Bible that Jews and others have taken in history much like their false belief that the Messiah would come as a conquering king to make them leaders of the world by force instead of a suffering servant.

It is part of what lead them to cruxify Christ and it will be part of what takes away from some people's message of Christ because they get distracted by such really poor science and logic.

I'm going to leave this discussion now. this isn't the "science discussion forum" and lessons on figurative language would be wasted on those who want to believe that the Earth is flat, that the universe revolves around the Earth, that God has a special genetic plan and is breeding a super race or anything else people want to claim the Bible says.

 

[posthuman]

Heh, heh, heh. So it looks like ether, behaves like ether, but it isn't actually ether? Got it. Is this science you're telling us about, or that Kabbalah thing that Zone warned us about in her link?

it's not aether in the sense that it doesn't exert a measurable force on matter. i don't believe empty space is precisely "empty" -- "empty" needs a precise definition before we can really use that word in a physical sense. by "measurable" it is meant 'able to be measured with the precision of the instruments used'

Because it proved the Earth isn't moving, devoid of any noise/experimental error. If you believe the Earth orbits the sun, believing that the Earth is in the center of the universe is the next best thing to denying the Earth actually moves.

it proved that if there is a all-permeating field in motion relative to the earth, it doesn't exert a measurable force (i don't know offhand the exact significant digits of the experiment) on light waves. this leaves open the possibility that the aether is not in motion relative to the earth, called "aether dragging." the presence of stellar aberration contradicts this idea, hence aether, in motion or not in motion, if it exists, does not exert a measurable force on matter. this is "classical aether" that is different from the idea of the higgs field - a non-interactive, all-pervasive potential energy well. you can call it "aether" but a scientist in the 1700's would not use the same word, because the properties of it are entirely different. the similarity is that it's an all pervasive field.

When scientists talk of their experimental error, they have to make it smaller than their result, or people would say "Well, what was the purpose of your experiment?", and the scientists would soon find themselves in the unemployment queue. A scientist's estimate of his experimental error can be taken as a guide, but the true error can often be greater than this. Hence the reason they probably didn't measure total 0.

now i am sure you don't understand what experimental error is. they measured as close to zero as the accuracy of their measuring stick. if you've got a meter stick that's only good to 1%, then when you measure 1 meter it might actually be anywhere from 0.99 to 1.01 meters. likewise, if you measure 0.99 meters it might actually be 1 meter.

So a scientific experiment is only successful if it proves the Kabbalah and goes against what God says, and is a failure if it proves what God says and commits sacrilege by falsifying Kabbalistic beliefs?

science is nothing more than a logical process.you have a question, you form a hypothesis, you design an experiment that will turn out one way if your hypothesis is true and another if it isn't. perform the experiment - if it turns out the way your hypothesis suggests, it's a "success," if it doesn't, your hypothesis "fails" - all what i said means is Michelson and Morley expected to see the laser beam slow down (believing there was an aether in relative motion with the earth) but it didn't.




when i throw a baseball into the air, why does it travel in a parabola instead of an cartoid? why don't satellites or water droplets in free fall orbit in epicycles?

 

[Married_Richenbrachen]

I will simply state that I do NOT believe that the BIBLE takes a stance that the Earth is still and the center of the universe.

Refer to Zone's post, #118. "NUMBER OF VERSES [in the bible] WHICH STATE THE SUN IS MOVING - 67 IN 37 BOOKS
NUMBER OF VERSES [in the bible] WHICH STATE THE EARTH IS MOVING - 0"

I believe its a false take on the Bible that Jews and others have taken in history much like their false belief that the Messiah would come as a conquering king to make them leaders of the world by force instead of a suffering servant.

Jesus will come as a conquering king - this isn't a false belief. The Jews just didn't expect Him to come as a suffering servant first of all.

It is part of what lead them to cruxify Christ and it will be part of what takes away from some people's message of Christ because they get distracted by such really poor science and logic.

Just as evolution takes away from the message of Christ because it takes away from the message of sin and death, so does Heliocentrism, because it takes away from God's special place for Earth and the importance He places on us. Also, unbelievers will often use Heliocentrism as a reason they can't trust the bible (e.g. refer to the difficulty most Creationists have answering the millions of light-year star distances). Evolution would not even have gained a foothold, had Christians not conceded that perhaps Earth is an insignificant speck in the universe, and perhaps God was wrong about the Earth being still.

this isn't the "science discussion forum" and lessons on figurative language would be wasted on those who want to believe that the Earth is flat, that the universe revolves around the Earth, that God has a special genetic plan and is breeding a super race or anything else people want to claim the Bible says.

Actually, the thread title is "Does Science go against faith?" The arguments put forward indicate that faith in God's word and that the Earth is still do not go against science. Indeed, science supports God's infallible word, in answer to the thread question.

 

[Ariel82]

1. Science agrees that the sun is moving.

2. Zone and I have already had this discussion. we have agreed to disagree on this point.

3. just because it does not say the Earth moves, doesn't mean the belief is false.

the Bible does not say heavier than air flight is possible, or mention the internet or TV either.

that type of reasoning is a logical fallacy.