PDA

View Full Version : Creationst Heliocentrist versus Creationist Geocentrist:when



Dunash
2002-Jan-08, 10:08 AM
Heliocentric Creationist Astronomer Danny Faulkner's swingeing critique of Gerardus Bouw:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/TJv15n2Geocentrism.asp

Geocentric Creationist Astronomer Gerardus Bouw's stinging reply:

http://www.biblicalastronomer.org/fresp/

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Jan-08, 11:51 AM
As far as the physics go, I didn't see anything wrong with Bouw's arguments--but the main thrust of his argument is religious. That's not science, not even against-the-mainstream science. Most of his article makes reference to biblical passages, and justifies his stance by them. That is not scientific at all.

The debate is interesting, but mostly theological.

Code Red
2002-Jan-09, 10:02 AM
I would have thought the term "Geocentric Astronomer" is a mutually exclusive term...

Dunash
2002-Jan-09, 12:07 PM
Why mutually exclusive? The noted French astronomer Cassini after whom the probe is named stalwartly maintained geocentrism long after Galileo's "proofs". No doubt you'd now like to have the probe renamed eg the "Sagan"?!

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Jan-09, 12:38 PM
It is a wonderful mental exercise to recast the laws of physics in a geocentric reference frame. General relativity did that directly--Einstein used that, covariance, as part of his criteria for judging the value of his developing theories.

However, even Newtonian physics can be written in a form that is generally convariant, and applicable to a geocentric reference frame--it's an exercise in Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler's book Gravitation--but the result is nasty. General relativity can also be done--the result is general relativity.

Once you accept that, the remaining geocentric arguments are just theological arguments.

ToSeek
2002-Jan-09, 01:17 PM
On 2002-01-09 07:07, Dunash wrote:
Why mutually exclusive? The noted French astronomer Cassini after whom the probe is named stalwartly maintained geocentrism long after Galileo's "proofs". No doubt you'd now like to have the probe renamed eg the "Sagan"?!


Cassini lived at a time when Galileo's (and Newton's) findings were still novel and subject to discussion. You're not going to find any modern, refereed-journal-published astronomer who maintains that geocentrism is legitimate as anything other than a conceivable reference frame (which is exactly what GoW, an rjpa himself, states in his previous post).

The Bad Astronomer
2002-Jan-09, 05:15 PM
Just a friendly note from the guy who runs this board:

These topics generated a lot of trouble before the new board was put in place. I have already banned one poster who dropped a lot of geocentrism bombs in this board (as well as other topics). I have a long memory,
and I won't hesitate to ban again if this gets too personal or derogatory.

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Jan-09, 05:29 PM
On 2002-01-09 08:17, ToSeek wrote:
which is exactly what GoW, an rjpa himself, states in his previous post
I hate to seem ignorant (OK, it doesn't really bother me a bit--I just want to know), what is an rjpa? So I can include it on my resume.

Kaptain K
2002-Jan-10, 12:17 AM
rjpa = refereed published published astronomer

ToSeek
2002-Jan-10, 03:25 PM
On 2002-01-09 12:29, GrapesOfWrath wrote:
[quote]
I hate to seem ignorant (OK, it doesn't really bother me a bit--I just want to know), what is an rjpa? So I can include it on my resume.


Sorry, I've worked on NASA contracts for too long - I have to turn everything into an acronym. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Jan-10, 03:31 PM
On 2002-01-09 19:17, Kaptain K wrote:
rjpa = refereed published published astronomer
Ah. Maybe, refereed-journal published author?

ToSeek
2002-Jan-10, 05:18 PM
On 2002-01-10 10:31, GrapesOfWrath wrote:
Ah. Maybe, refereed-journal published author?


I intended it to refer back to my phrase "refereed-journal-published astronomer."