SLONG@USC-ISIE.ARPA (08/02/85)
Received: FROM SRI-UNIX.ARPA BY USC-ISIB.ARPA WITH TCP ; 30 Jul 85 21:49:27 PDT
by sri-unix.ARPA (4.12/4.16)
id AA18854; Tue, 30 Jul 85 21:39:26 pdt
from BRL-VLD.ARPA (brl-vld.arpa.ARPA) by sri-unix.ARPA (4.12/4.16)
id AA18846; Tue, 30 Jul 85 21:39:10 pdt
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 85 0:38:05 EDT
From: Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn@BRL.ARPA>
To: art <hplabs!hp-pcd!hpfcla!art@ucb-vax.ARPA>
Cc: physics@sri-unix.ARPA
Subject: Re: Re: Bang! or whot?
Return-Path: <physics-request@sri-unix>
Message-ID: <8507310439.AA18846@sri-unix.ARPA>
> The difference between ancient Greek or medieval argumentation
> about cosmological issues and current cosmology as discussed by
> astronomers and physicists is: Today we use specific well-based
> theories of physics and precise mathematical models. This makes
> it possible to obtain definite answers to questions of age, size,
> periodicity, and so forth (for any given model cosmology). Many
> proposals can be ruled out by comparison with known facts (such
> as minimum age of the Earth, bounds on mass density of the
> visible universe, Hubble effect, etc.). This is a different
> situation than that of the ancient scholastics.
--------------------
When it comes to the "What or Who" of our beginnings, it matters
not what FACTS one has. The difference is what one's
philisophical or religious position is. It is possible to argue
the who side equally well as the what side using the same FACTS
to support the apology. (Is this any different than the Greeks?)
The difference is how one INTERPRETS the FACTS. Let me give you
a couple of examples.
The first involves the first manned flight to the moon. Using
the predictions of the age of the moon and earth and their time
together, scientists predicted that Armstrong would step out into
eight feet of moon dust. He stepped into two inches of dust.
Using this true answer and recalculating the figures, the age of
the moon is approximately 8,000 years.
The second example is about two biblical accounts of the sun's
motion being disturbed. In one account, the sun sttod still for
about a day. In the other, the sun moved backwards three steps
on the temple, which equates to approximately 10 degrees (1/36)
of the sun's daily orbit. Now, using orbital calculations to
determine the sun's position at any point in time (future or
past) it is possible to determine where the sun should be or
should have been for any given date. There was a published
article some years ago which reported that there are almost
exactly 24 hours "missing" from the sun's position. Hmmm. One
can verify this by doing the calculations on a computer (the
mathematical modeling you referred to).
The point of all this is that one can use facts to support
variuos view points, especially in the are of philosophy and
religion. It becomes pointless to prove one side or the other to
those opposing sides. This is the reason we have so many varying
theories in science. However, if one reaches the point where one
is intollerant of other views, much of your ability to discover
new ideas has just left. One must remain open to at least hear
other views (in anything, really) if one is to have the most
resources available intellectually. I would strongly suggest
those of opposing views try to work together in search of truth
(= ture science + facts). 'Nuff said (I hope).mcgeer%ucbkim%Berkeley)@sri-unix.ARPA (08/02/85)
From: mcgeer%ucbkim@Berkeley (Rick McGeer (on an aaa-60-s)) >The first involves the first manned flight to the moon. Using >the predictions of the age of the moon and earth and their time >together, scientists predicted that Armstrong would step out into >eight feet of moon dust. He stepped into two inches of dust. >Using this true answer and recalculating the figures, the age of >the moon is approximately 8,000 years. A more reasonable explanation for the depth measurement is vacuum cementing. No? >The second example is about two biblical accounts of the sun's >motion being disturbed. In one account, the sun sttod still for >about a day. In the other, the sun moved backwards three steps >on the temple, which equates to approximately 10 degrees (1/36) >of the sun's daily orbit. Now, using orbital calculations to >determine the sun's position at any point in time (future or >past) it is possible to determine where the sun should be or >should have been for any given date. There was a published >article some years ago which reported that there are almost >exactly 24 hours "missing" from the sun's position. Reference? Rick.
mikes@AMES-NAS.ARPA (08/03/85)
From: mikes@AMES-NAS.ARPA (Peter Mikes) 24 hours 'missing' from sun's position? Missing relative to what?
SLONG@USC-ISIE.ARPA (08/04/85)
1
bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) (08/04/85)
> >The first involves the first manned flight to the moon. Using > >the predictions of the age of the moon and earth and their time > >together, scientists predicted that Armstrong would step out into > >eight feet of moon dust. He stepped into two inches of dust. > >Using this true answer and recalculating the figures, the age of > >the moon is approximately 8,000 years. > > A more reasonable explanation for the depth measurement is vacuum cementing. > No? > The fact of the matter is, the estimates of dust accumulation on the Moon were orders of magnitude off. The early lunar soft landers showed that the fears were groundless. I believe that Tommy Gold (of Cornell) was one of those that warned of the *possibility* that there might be a lot of dust, and NASA, to be safe, had to check it out. Even then, it was a remote possibility. Another example of outdated science being quoted by Creationists as if it were still valid. > >The second example is about two biblical accounts of the sun's > >motion being disturbed. In one account, the sun sttod still for > >about a day. In the other, the sun moved backwards three steps > >on the temple, which equates to approximately 10 degrees (1/36) > >of the sun's daily orbit. Now, using orbital calculations to > >determine the sun's position at any point in time (future or > >past) it is possible to determine where the sun should be or > >should have been for any given date. There was a published > >article some years ago which reported that there are almost > >exactly 24 hours "missing" from the sun's position. > > Reference? > This is obvious bullshit, as I can testify (orbital mechanics is my specialty). At best, the computer program was faulty. In fact, I believe that this is another one of those anecdotal stories that has been elevated to fact in Creationist circles. Can we move this to net.origins, where it obvously belongs? -- "Men never do evil so cheerfully and so completely as when they do so from religious conviction." -- Blaise Pascal Bill Jefferys 8-% Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712 (USnail) {allegra,ihnp4}!{ut-sally,noao}!utastro!bill (uucp) bill%utastro.UTEXAS@ut-sally.ARPA (ARPANET)
franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (08/06/85)
In article <460@sri-arpa.ARPA> SLONG@USC-ISIE.ARPA writes: >When it comes to the "What or Who" of our beginnings, it matters >not what FACTS one has. The difference is what one's >philisophical or religious position is. It is possible to argue >the who side equally well as the what side using the same FACTS >to support the apology. [...] > >The first involves the first manned flight to the moon. Using >the predictions of the age of the moon and earth and their time >together, scientists predicted that Armstrong would step out into >eight feet of moon dust. He stepped into two inches of dust. >Using this true answer and recalculating the figures, the age of >the moon is approximately 8,000 years. This is fallacious. By one theory, the moon would indeed have been covered with eight feet of dust. By others, there would have been no dust at all. Still others predicted values in between, including ones on the order of the actual result. In fact, very few scientists expected eight feet of dust; it would have been a bit surprising if there had been. The point is that we didn't know what we would find, which is why we went there. Let me emphasize that these various predictions were all made *before the fact*. You can come up with all sorts of explanations after the fact, and if the result is unexpected, you have to; but those explanations aren't worth much until predictions based on them turn out to be correct. Lots of predictions, and even one solid counter-example kills the idea. > There was a published >article some years ago which reported that there are almost >exactly 24 hours "missing" from the sun's position. Hmmm. One >can verify this by doing the calculations on a computer (the >mathematical modeling you referred to). In what sense are these hours "missing"? This is certainly not an accepted scientific fact. What was this article, and where did it appear? I can do many calculations on a computer without doing any mathematical modeling at all. >The point of all this is that one can use facts to support >variuos view points, [...] The point of all this is that one can use fallacies to support various view points. Facts limit one a bit more. (They don't limit one to a *single* viewpoint, but they eliminate a great many of them.) ------------------------- To the rest of the net: my apologies for taking up your time with this. I submitted it in the (probably forlorn) hope of discouraging some of the nonsense which has been appearing here lately.