Since we are taking opinion polls on scientific questions about the earth, how about another?
The Earth Moves, Fact or Fiction?
- Thread starter jncc
- Start date
It's absolutely fiction! It is the liberal media that promotes such nonsense. My brother told me that the Sun revolves around the earth. He has no training on the subject nor do I; but it makes sense to me!
I like what my Shakespeare prof said about the 'right' to an opinion. "No, you do not have any such 'right'. You are, however, welcome to justify your opinion with quality research. I will not have the the hard work of those who've gone before us impugned by a bunch of know-it-alls who think they have it figured out. Do the work. Provide your research notes, and I'll gladly listen to your theory. But you will not get away with saying, "In my opinion", in this class. You earn it, then I'll listen."
Fiction. The Earth is stationary. And don't even get me started about the fabricated pictures purportedly from space showing the Earth to be round.
Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543)Copernicus was the Polish astronomer who put forward the first mathematically based system of planets going around the sun. He attended various European universities, and became a Canon in the Catholic church in 1497. His new system was actually first presented in the Vatican gardens in 1533 before Pope Clement VII who approved, and urged Copernicus to publish it around this time. Copernicus was never under any threat of religious persecution - and was urged to publish both by Catholic Bishop Guise, Cardinal Schonberg, and the Protestant Professor George Rheticus. Copernicus referred sometimes to God in his works, and did not see his system as in conflict with the Bible.
Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1627)
Bacon was a philosopher who is known for establishing the scientific method of inquiry based on experimentation and inductive reasoning. In De Interpretatione Naturae Prooemium, Bacon established his goals as being the discovery of truth, service to his country, and service to the church. Although his work was based upon experimentation and reasoning, he rejected atheism as being the result of insufficient depth of philosophy, stating, "It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion; for while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them confederate, and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity." (Of Atheism)
Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)
Kepler was a brilliant mathematician and astronomer. He did early work on light, and established the laws of planetary motion about the sun. He also came close to reaching the Newtonian concept of universal gravity - well before Newton was born! His introduction of the idea of force in astronomy changed it radically in a modern direction. Kepler was an extremely sincere and pious Lutheran, whose works on astronomy contain writings about how space and the heavenly bodies represent the Trinity. Kepler suffered no persecution for his open avowal of the sun-centered system, and, indeed, was allowed as a Protestant to stay in Catholic Graz as a Professor (1595-1600) when other Protestants had been expelled!
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Galileo is often remembered for his conflict with the Roman Catholic Church. His controversial work on the solar system was published in 1633. It had no proofs of a sun-centered system (Galileo's telescope discoveries did not indicate a moving earth) and his one "proof" based upon the tides was invalid. It ignored the correct elliptical orbits of planets published twenty five years earlier by Kepler. Since his work finished by putting the Pope's favorite argument in the mouth of the simpleton in the dialogue, the Pope (an old friend of Galileo's) was very offended. After the "trial" and being forbidden to teach the sun-centered system, Galileo did his most useful theoretical work, which was on dynamics. Galileo expressly said that the Bible cannot err, and saw his system as an alternate interpretation of the biblical texts. http://www.godandscience.org/
Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1627)
Bacon was a philosopher who is known for establishing the scientific method of inquiry based on experimentation and inductive reasoning. In De Interpretatione Naturae Prooemium, Bacon established his goals as being the discovery of truth, service to his country, and service to the church. Although his work was based upon experimentation and reasoning, he rejected atheism as being the result of insufficient depth of philosophy, stating, "It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion; for while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them confederate, and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity." (Of Atheism)
Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)
Kepler was a brilliant mathematician and astronomer. He did early work on light, and established the laws of planetary motion about the sun. He also came close to reaching the Newtonian concept of universal gravity - well before Newton was born! His introduction of the idea of force in astronomy changed it radically in a modern direction. Kepler was an extremely sincere and pious Lutheran, whose works on astronomy contain writings about how space and the heavenly bodies represent the Trinity. Kepler suffered no persecution for his open avowal of the sun-centered system, and, indeed, was allowed as a Protestant to stay in Catholic Graz as a Professor (1595-1600) when other Protestants had been expelled!
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Galileo is often remembered for his conflict with the Roman Catholic Church. His controversial work on the solar system was published in 1633. It had no proofs of a sun-centered system (Galileo's telescope discoveries did not indicate a moving earth) and his one "proof" based upon the tides was invalid. It ignored the correct elliptical orbits of planets published twenty five years earlier by Kepler. Since his work finished by putting the Pope's favorite argument in the mouth of the simpleton in the dialogue, the Pope (an old friend of Galileo's) was very offended. After the "trial" and being forbidden to teach the sun-centered system, Galileo did his most useful theoretical work, which was on dynamics. Galileo expressly said that the Bible cannot err, and saw his system as an alternate interpretation of the biblical texts. http://www.godandscience.org/
M
modern man
It will stop spinning if you put your foot on the floor, every drunk knows that.
If we are going to come up with a meaningful answer to this question, we must first determine whether the earth actually exists, and whether motion can be objectively measured. Also, are we using "the" to designate "a" earth, "the only" earth, "one of many possible or extant" earths, or what?
yeah, i don't know about the earth, but the threads do seem to move.
yes, yes, yes, yes, no, 'what?'
the danger from this is the same danger posed by intelegent design, when you blur the line between theory backed by fact and proof, and theory provided by popular belief but without any scientific research and give them equal weight, you put other things in danger,
yes, there is scientific proof and research that the world is round, and providing alot of proof about the earth being flat, might require to expand the specifications of science to admit myth and supernatural forces,
this could lead to corporations saying stuff like,
Mercury poisoning is just a theory, we belive that mercury level limits in water are unfair becuase they only represent one side of the theory,
or same about clean air laws, by expanding the limits of science to include non researched or myth based "facts", we are opening the door to a leaner legal and corporate interpretation of "science", and that might be somewhat bad news,
yes, there is scientific proof and research that the world is round, and providing alot of proof about the earth being flat, might require to expand the specifications of science to admit myth and supernatural forces,
this could lead to corporations saying stuff like,
Mercury poisoning is just a theory, we belive that mercury level limits in water are unfair becuase they only represent one side of the theory,
or same about clean air laws, by expanding the limits of science to include non researched or myth based "facts", we are opening the door to a leaner legal and corporate interpretation of "science", and that might be somewhat bad news,
What if we are in a system such as the Matrix????
movement is always in referance to a stationary point in time and space (a vector is mesured in distance/time), now, from my understanding, the weather patterns, the movement of the earth towards the sun, the system is like this,
solar system, the sun revolves around itself and MIGHT have a small orbit, but probobly not, now, the rest of the planets are in orbits around the sun which vector and distance from the sun depend on their original formation position, the gravitational force applied by the sun and their onw mass, they also spin on them selfs,
thats what i belive, my understanding of the system might be a bit crued, and i might have mis interpreted some scientific data,
as for "the ground under my feet is solid and staying in place" its all about point of referance and proporcional forces, the movement is on too large of a scale for a person to notice,
solar system, the sun revolves around itself and MIGHT have a small orbit, but probobly not, now, the rest of the planets are in orbits around the sun which vector and distance from the sun depend on their original formation position, the gravitational force applied by the sun and their onw mass, they also spin on them selfs,
thats what i belive, my understanding of the system might be a bit crued, and i might have mis interpreted some scientific data,
as for "the ground under my feet is solid and staying in place" its all about point of referance and proporcional forces, the movement is on too large of a scale for a person to notice,
Much as I'd like to have fun and say the Earth is still, I'm just too rational a person and believe the "Earth" moves.
Sometimes with my wife the "earth" moves too.
X
Sometimes with my wife the "earth" moves too.
X
Proof? You want proof, you say?
[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9lcCFI_4XA[/YOUTUBE]
[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9lcCFI_4XA[/YOUTUBE]
Similar threads
