Universal Laws of Heavenly Bodies

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
R

RachelBibleStudent

Guest
Honestly, I'm not so sure we can say there are natural laws per se, but rather things we have observed to be repetitive. Slightly un-related example, death. We don't know for a fact that we will die. (i can think of one who didn't, enoch i think is his name)
well some of the known natural laws have been mathematically derived from pure logic... noether's theorem is an example of that

question those laws and you would basically be saying that nothing can make sense
 

zone

Senior Member
Jun 13, 2010
27,214
164
63
well some of the known natural laws have been mathematically derived from pure logic... noether's theorem is an example of that

question those laws and you would basically be saying that nothing can make sense
nothing makes sense? we question "expert" freemasons and occultists and nothing "makes sense"?

does this make sense?

SCENARIO:

vaccinations are mandatory BECAUSE:

if you have not been vaccinated, you endanger people who HAVE been vaccinated from getting the disease they are now immune from.
 

zone

Senior Member
Jun 13, 2010
27,214
164
63
QUESTION:
what is Planck density?
 
Aug 18, 2011
971
7
0
QUESTION:
what is Planck density?

The Planck density is the unit of density, denoted by ρP, in the system of natural units known as Planck units.
≈ 5.1 × 1096
kg/m3where:
mP is the Planck masslP is the Planck lengthc is the speed of light in a vacuum
is the
reduced Planck constantG is the gravitational constantThis is a unit which is very large, about equivalent to 1023 solar masses squeezed into the space of a single atomic nucleus. At one unit of Planck time after the Big Bang, the mass density of the universe is thought to have been approximately one unit of Planck density.
 

zone

Senior Member
Jun 13, 2010
27,214
164
63
QUESTION:

what was the Michelson-Morely experiment?
 
Aug 18, 2011
971
7
0
Most famous "failed" experiment



Interference pattern produced with a Michelson Interferometer using a red laser.


After all this thought and preparation, the experiment became what might be called the most famous failed experiment to date.[6] Instead of providing insight into the properties of the aether, Michelson and Morley's article in the American Journal of Science reported the measurement to be as small as one-fortieth of the expected displacement but "since the displacement is proportional to the square of the velocity" they concluded that the measured velocity was "probably less than one-sixth" of the expected velocity of the Earth's motion in orbit and "certainly less than one-fourth." Although this small "velocity" was measured, it was considered far too small to be used as evidence of speed relative to the aether, and it was later said to be within the range of an experimental error that would allow the speed to actually be zero.
Although Michelson and Morley went on to different experiments after their first publication in 1887, both remained active in the field. Other versions of the experiment were carried out with increasing sophistication. Roy J. Kennedy and K. K. Illingworth both modified the mirrors to include a half-wave "step", eliminating the possibility of some sort of standing wave pattern within the apparatus. Illingworth could detect changes on the order of 1/300th of a fringe, Kennedy up to 1/1500th. Miller later built a non-magnetic device to eliminate magnetostriction, while Michelson built one of non-expanding invar to eliminate any remaining thermal effects. Others from around the world increased accuracy, eliminated possible side effects, or both.
Morley was not convinced of his own results, and went on to conduct additional experiments with Dayton Miller. Miller worked on increasingly large experiments, culminating in one with a 32 m (effective) arm length at an installation at the Mount Wilson observatory. To avoid the possibility of the aether wind being blocked by solid walls, he used a special shed with thin walls, mainly of canvas. He consistently measured a small positive effect that varied with each rotation of the device, the sidereal day and on a yearly basis. His measurements amounted to approximately 10 km/s instead of the nearly 30 km/s expected from the Earth's orbital motion alone. He remained convinced this was due to partial entrainment, though he did not attempt a detailed explanation.
Though Kennedy later also carried out an experiment at Mount Wilson, finding 1/10 the drift measured by Miller, and no seasonal effects, Miller's findings were considered important at the time, and were discussed by Michelson, Lorentz and others at a meeting reported in 1928 (ref below). There was general agreement that more experimentation was needed to check Miller's results. Lorentz recognised that the results, whatever their cause, did not quite tally with either his or Einstein's versions of special relativity. Einstein was not present at the meeting and felt the results could be dismissed as experimental error (see Shankland ref below). To date, no-one has been able to replicate Miller's results, and modern experimental accuracies are considered to have ruled them out.[7]
Also note, that the expected values are related to the relative speed between Earth and Sun of 30 km/s. With respect to the speed of the solar system around the galactic center of ca. 220 km/s, or the speed of the solar system relative to the CMB rest frame of ca. 368 km/s, the zero results of those experiments are even more obvious.
 
Aug 18, 2011
971
7
0
QUESTION:

what was the Michelson-Morely experiment?
The Michelson–Morley experiment was performed in 1887 by Albert Michelson and Edward Morley at what is now Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio. Its results are generally considered to be the first strong evidence against the theory of a luminiferous ether and in favor of special relativity. The experiment has also been referred to as "the moving-off point for the theoretical aspects of the Second Scientific Revolution".
 
A

Abiding

Guest
Just stopping by to say Hi Mr Musk. Cant stay because of the capacity of my brain verses the following scripture...
but its nice to drop in and see ya all proving the last part of the verse. :)


Eccl.8:16 When I applied my heart to know wisdom and to see the business that is done on earth, even though one sees no sleep day or night, 17 then I saw all the work of God, that a man cannot find out the work that is done under the sun. For though a man labors to discover it, yet he will not find it; moreover, though a wise man attempts to know it, he will not be able to find it.
 
Aug 18, 2011
971
7
0
Just stopping by to say Hi Mr Musk. Cant stay because of the capacity of my brain verses the following scripture...
but its nice to drop in and see ya all proving the last part of the verse. :)


Eccl.8:16 When I applied my heart to know wisdom and to see the business that is done on earth, even though one sees no sleep day or night, 17 then I saw all the work of God, that a man cannot find out the work that is done under the sun. For though a man labors to discover it, yet he will not find it; moreover, though a wise man attempts to know it, he will not be able to find it.
Wisdom from on high Abiding?

Solomons wisdom everything is meaningless! Truly I can Identify with this it's more apparent to me now thaan at any time earlier in my life.
Meaningless, meaningless everthing is meaningless
 

zone

Senior Member
Jun 13, 2010
27,214
164
63
Most famous "failed" experiment



Interference pattern produced with a Michelson Interferometer using a red laser.


After all this thought and preparation, the experiment became what might be called the most famous failed experiment to date.[6] Instead of providing insight into the properties of the aether, Michelson and Morley's article in the American Journal of Science reported the measurement to be as small as one-fortieth of the expected displacement but "since the displacement is proportional to the square of the velocity" they concluded that the measured velocity was "probably less than one-sixth" of the expected velocity of the Earth's motion in orbit and "certainly less than one-fourth." Although this small "velocity" was measured, it was considered far too small to be used as evidence of speed relative to the aether, and it was later said to be within the range of an experimental error that would allow the speed to actually be zero.
Although Michelson and Morley went on to different experiments after their first publication in 1887, both remained active in the field. Other versions of the experiment were carried out with increasing sophistication. Roy J. Kennedy and K. K. Illingworth both modified the mirrors to include a half-wave "step", eliminating the possibility of some sort of standing wave pattern within the apparatus. Illingworth could detect changes on the order of 1/300th of a fringe, Kennedy up to 1/1500th. Miller later built a non-magnetic device to eliminate magnetostriction, while Michelson built one of non-expanding invar to eliminate any remaining thermal effects. Others from around the world increased accuracy, eliminated possible side effects, or both.
Morley was not convinced of his own results, and went on to conduct additional experiments with Dayton Miller. Miller worked on increasingly large experiments, culminating in one with a 32 m (effective) arm length at an installation at the Mount Wilson observatory. To avoid the possibility of the aether wind being blocked by solid walls, he used a special shed with thin walls, mainly of canvas. He consistently measured a small positive effect that varied with each rotation of the device, the sidereal day and on a yearly basis. His measurements amounted to approximately 10 km/s instead of the nearly 30 km/s expected from the Earth's orbital motion alone. He remained convinced this was due to partial entrainment, though he did not attempt a detailed explanation.
Though Kennedy later also carried out an experiment at Mount Wilson, finding 1/10 the drift measured by Miller, and no seasonal effects, Miller's findings were considered important at the time, and were discussed by Michelson, Lorentz and others at a meeting reported in 1928 (ref below). There was general agreement that more experimentation was needed to check Miller's results. Lorentz recognised that the results, whatever their cause, did not quite tally with either his or Einstein's versions of special relativity. Einstein was not present at the meeting and felt the results could be dismissed as experimental error (see Shankland ref below). To date, no-one has been able to replicate Miller's results, and modern experimental accuracies are considered to have ruled them out.[7]
Also note, that the expected values are related to the relative speed between Earth and Sun of 30 km/s. With respect to the speed of the solar system around the galactic center of ca. 220 km/s, or the speed of the solar system relative to the CMB rest frame of ca. 368 km/s, the zero results of those experiments are even more obvious.

FAILED??? lol.....
we'll get to this later.

who was Albert Eisnstein?
 
K

keshka

Guest
This is a brilliant discussion. Whatever your point of view, I hope everyone is in agreement that this is a highly enjoyable and interesting debate.

Science was invented by Christians, made possible by their realisation that, because the Universe was made by God, that it has order.

If there was no order to the Universe, if if were not created by God, then science would not be possible at all.

So perhaps we shouldn't question science, because science in itself is proof of an ordered universe and by extension proof of God.

Let's not fear science, even if sometimes the results seem counter-intuitive. Let's embrace it, let us revel in new knowledge, for we know that all knowledge comes ultimately from God, and that He himself has allowed science to exist in the first place.

God created humanity. We are set above the animals not just by being in His image and our higher morals and intelligence, but also because we have a thirst for knowledge.

Whatever science throws up, we should never ever mock or attempt to quell mankind's insatiable quest to lean more about ourselves and our surrounings, because to do so is an attempt to learn more about this wonderful Universe that God has given us. Okay, so there might be a few fumbles along the way, but a quest for enlightenment can never be an ignoble cause.
 
K

keshka

Guest
i'm sorry dear.
children getting cancer is evidence that you are incorrect.
cancer is new.
Cancer is not new.

It was accurately described by the ancient Romans and Greeks.

Cancer survival rates are ever-increasing, compared to (for example) heart-attack survival rates, which have remained constant in recent years.

I'm not sure why you chose to pick up on my post about cancer treatment, but if you have a point to make, I seem to be missing it entirely! I'd be grateful if you could elucidate!

Cheers,

K.
 
Aug 18, 2011
971
7
0
FAILED??? lol.....
we'll get to this later.

who was Albert Eisnstein?
Albert Einstein (
/ˈælbərt ˈaɪnstaɪn/; German: [ˈalbɐt ˈaɪnʃtaɪn] (
listen)
; 14 March 1879 – 18 April 1955) was a German-born
theoretical physicist who developed the theory of general relativity, effecting a revolution in physics. For this achievement, Einstein is often regarded as the father of modern physics and one of the most prolific intellects in human history.[2][3] He received the 1921 Nobel Prize in Physics "for his services to theoretical physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect".[4] The latter was pivotal in establishing quantum theory within physics.
Near the beginning of his career, Einstein thought that Newtonian mechanics was no longer enough to reconcile the laws of classical mechanics with the laws of the electromagnetic field. This led to the development of his special theory of relativity. He realized, however, that the principle of relativity could also be extended to gravitational fields, and with his subsequent theory of gravitation in 1916, he published a paper on the general theory of relativity. He continued to deal with problems of statistical mechanics and quantum theory, which led to his explanations of particle theory and the motion of molecules. He also investigated the thermal properties of light which laid the foundation of the photon theory of light. In 1917, Einstein applied the general theory of relativity to model the structure of the universe as a whole.[5]
He was visiting the United States when Adolf Hitler came to power in 1933, and did not go back to Germany, where he had been a professor at the Berlin Academy of Sciences. He settled in the U.S., becoming a citizen in 1940. On the eve of World War II, he helped alert President Franklin D. Roosevelt that Germany might be developing an atomic weapon, and recommended that the U.S. begin similar research; this eventually led to what would become the Manhattan Project. Einstein was in support of defending the Allied forces, but largely denounced using the new discovery of nuclear fission as a weapon. Later, together with Bertrand Russell, Einstein signed the Russell–Einstein Manifesto, which highlighted the danger of nuclear weapons. Einstein was affiliated with the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey, until his death in 1955.
Einstein published more than 300 scientific papers along with over 150 non-scientific works.[5][6] His great intelligence and originality have made the word "Einstein" synonymous with genius.[7]
 
Feb 23, 2011
1,708
13
0
Einstein was an Ashkenazi.

(Ashkenazis are exceptionally intelligent, as a rule. They are also quite prone to neurological disease and a number of other physical maladies. Some have compared their overt brain-power to over-clocking a computer's processor.)
 
Last edited:
Feb 23, 2011
1,708
13
0
It seems that the discussion you have struck up with Musk seems more on topic for the "bible discussion forum" so I won't drag this out too much longer. I am just curious as to what you consider "hard" science. Metallurgy itself is not a science. Chemistry and physics are sciences that are used by metallurgists. At their core all science is equally susceptible to close-minded indoctrination.

That said, I wasn't attempting to imply that you were a scientific concordist. Only that the onus of proof falls on those who wish to introduce change. As such, in discussions bound by logic (as both philosophical and theological discussions are) the generally accepted ideas, by their very nature, will continue to be generally accepted until shown to be false.

So, I will try to more clearly split the two aspects of the discussion that I have been trying to address.

1) Is there sufficient scientific/experimental support for the idea that either the planets do not revolve around the sun, or that Earth is not a planet? (ie is the heliocentric view supported by good science?)

2) Is there sufficient biblical support for the idea that the Bible is intended to teach us about the physical/natural laws governing our universe? (ie is there reason to think that the Bible is more than a religious text?)

In logic, an argument can be sound while not true; such is the case with science. Science can be good but not necessarily provide Truth. Through this discussion yourself and several others have claimed that the scientific evidence for heliocentricity is not good science because it doesn't result in Truth. If you wish to argue against the science, you must demonstrate that it is bad science. If you wish to argue that science doesn't necessarily provide Truth, that's a philosophical discussion, not a scientific one like was previously presented. As such, I will abandon attempting to scientifically prove heliocentricity since you are seeking Truth, not scientific proof.

That leaves us with biblical arguments for geocentricity. As I have stated previously, I am under the impression that the majority of christians believe the Bible to be special because of its religious content and descriptions of the supernatural(God); they do not take it as a description of the physical laws that govern our universe. As such, in a philosophical (or in this case theological) discussion the onus falls on the person who wishes to make a claim (ie a person attempting to depart from the generally accepted belief). Your claim is that the generally accepted idea of heliocentricity is wrong and that the Bible should be treated (at least in part) as a scientific text. Thus the onus falls to you. I would be most willing to discuss the theology regarding the Bible as a scientific text if that's what you wish to discuss. I'll even start a new thread if you'd like.

Let me know.
Just wanted to let you know I've been busy offline for several days, but this has been in the back of my mind. It's late tonight and I have a full day tomorrow. I'll respond to all this Monday afternoon sometime if you're still tracking. :)
 

zone

Senior Member
Jun 13, 2010
27,214
164
63
This is a brilliant discussion. Whatever your point of view, I hope everyone is in agreement that this is a highly enjoyable and interesting debate.

Science was invented by Christians, made possible by their realisation that, because the Universe was made by God, that it has order.

If there was no order to the Universe, if if were not created by God, then science would not be possible at all.

So perhaps we shouldn't question science, because science in itself is proof of an ordered universe and by extension proof of God.

Let's not fear science, even if sometimes the results seem counter-intuitive. Let's embrace it, let us revel in new knowledge, for we know that all knowledge comes ultimately from God, and that He himself has allowed science to exist in the first place.

God created humanity. We are set above the animals not just by being in His image and our higher morals and intelligence, but also because we have a thirst for knowledge.

Whatever science throws up, we should never ever mock or attempt to quell mankind's insatiable quest to lean more about ourselves and our surrounings, because to do so is an attempt to learn more about this wonderful Universe that God has given us. Okay, so there might be a few fumbles along the way, but a quest for enlightenment can never be an ignoble cause.
i have no problem with old empirical/observational science.
and field scientists.

i draw the line at philosphy (theoretical science), and computer modelling which always has an AGENDA.
 

zone

Senior Member
Jun 13, 2010
27,214
164
63
Albert Einstein (
/ˈælbərt ˈaɪnstaɪn/; German: [ˈalbɐt ˈaɪnʃtaɪn] (
listen)
; 14 March 1879 – 18 April 1955) was a German-born
theoretical physicist who developed the theory of general relativity, effecting a revolution in physics. For this achievement, Einstein is often regarded as the father of modern physics and one of the most prolific intellects in human history.[2][3] He received the 1921Nobel Prize in Physics "for his services to theoretical physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect".[4] The latter was pivotal in establishing quantum theorywithin physics.
Near the beginning of his career, Einstein thought that Newtonian mechanics was no longer enough to reconcile the laws of classical mechanics with the laws of the electromagnetic field. This led to the development of his special theory of relativity. He realized, however, that the principle of relativity could also be extended to gravitational fields, and with his subsequent theory of gravitation in 1916, he published a paper on the general theory of relativity. He continued to deal with problems of statistical mechanics and quantum theory, which led to his explanations of particle theory and the motion of molecules. He also investigated the thermal properties of light which laid the foundation of the photon theory of light.

In 1917, Einstein applied the general theory of relativity to model the structure of the universe as a whole.[5]
]
LOL.
ummmm.....there's a little more to it than that.

and who was Bertrand Russell his buddy mentioned in your full post?

1953 - The Impact of Science on Society by Fabian Socialist Bertrand Russell is published in which he declares: " I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is mass psychology....Various results will soon be arrived at: that the influence of home is obstructive....although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated. When the technique has been perfected, every government that has been in charge of education for a generation will be able to control its subjects securely without the need of armies or policemen....Educational propaganda, with government help, could achieve this result in a generation. There are, however, two powerful forces opposed to such a policy: one is religion; the other is nationalism....A scientific world society cannot be stable unless there is a world government.


~

BERTRAND RUSSELL
BIRTH CONTROL & RACE
It must be admitted, however, that there are certain dangers. Before long the population may actually diminish. This is already happening in the most intelligent sections of the most intelligent nations; government opposition to birth-control propaganda gives a biological advantage to stupidity, since it is chiefly stupid people who governments succeed in keeping in ignorance. Before long, birth-control may become nearly universal among the white races; it will then not deteriorate their quality, but only diminish their numbers, at a time when uncivilized races are still prolific and are preserved from a high death-rate by white science.

This situation will lead to a tendency --- already shown by the French --- to employ more prolific races as mercenaries. Governments will oppose the teaching of birth-control among Africans, for fear of losing recruits. The result will be an immense numerical inferiority of the white races, leading probably to their extermination in a mutiny of mercenaries."

ON EUGENICS
"Thee might observe incidentally that if the state paid for child-bearing it might and ought to require a medical certificate that the parents were such as to give a reasonable result of a healthy child -- this would afford a very good inducement to some sort of care for the race, and gradually as public opinion became educated by the law, it might react on the law and make that more stringent, until one got to some state of things in which there would be a little genuine care for the race, instead of the present haphazard higgledy-piggledy ways."

"We may perhaps assume that, if people grow less superstitious, government will acquire the right to sterilize those who are not considered desirable as parents. This power will be used, at first, to diminish imbecility, a most desirable object. But probably, in time, opposition to the government will be taken to prove imbecility, so that rebels of all kinds will be sterilized. Epileptics, consumptives, dipsomaniacs and so on will gradually be included; in the end, there will be a tendency to include all who fail to pass the usual school examinations. The result will be to increase the average intelligence; in the long run, it may be greatly increased. But probably the effect upon really exceptional intelligence will be bad.

Eugenics has, of course, more ambitious possibilities in a more distant future. It may aim not only at eliminating undesired types, but at increasing desired types. Moral standards may alter so as to make it possible for one man to be the sire of a vast progeny by many different mothers. ... If eugenics reached the point where it could increase desired types, it would not be the types desired by present-day Eugenists that would be increased, but rather the type desired by the average official. Prime Ministers, Bishops, and others whom the State considers desirable might become the fathers of half the next generation. Whether this would be an improvement it is not for me to say, as I have no hope of ever becoming either a Bishop or a Prime Minister.

If we knew enough about heredity to determine, within limits, what sort of population we would have, the matter would of course be in the hands of State officials, presumably elderly medical men.

Whether they would really be preferable to Nature I do not feel sure. I suspect that they would breed a subservient population, convenient to rulers but incapable of initiative."

 
Last edited: