charlie@cca.UUCP (Charlie Kaufman) (07/14/83)
I find it interesting to watch the "science" contingent make fun of the "religion" contingent based on the biblical statement of an earth centered universe when "everyone knows" the earth spins, it orbits the sun, which orbits the galaxy... What's amusing is that scientific doctrine has changed and no one seems to have noticed. According to relativity theory, which is not wholly accepted, but is the current most widely recognized model of physics, there is no prefered frame of reference. This means that a stationary earth (the universe spins around it) is as valid a model as any other. In my mind, the thing which distinguishes science from religion is that scientists don't claim to know anything "for sure". Contrary evidence is always being sought and new "facts" created. A "fact" is simply a theory with a high degree of confidence. A corollary is that science cannot "prove" any (religious or otherwise) statement false. Scientists might reasonably challenge the methods by which a conclusion is reached, but not the conclusion itself.
larry@grkermit.UUCP (Larry Kolodney) (07/15/83)
From: charlie@cca.UUCP (Charlie Kaufman) I find it interesting to watch the "science" contingent make fun of the "religion" contingent based on the biblical statement of an earth centered universe when "everyone knows" the earth spins, it orbits the sun, which orbits the galaxy... What's amusing is that scientific doctrine has changed and no one seems to have noticed. According to relativity theory, which is not wholly accepted, but is the current most widely recognized model of physics, there is no prefered frame of reference. This means that a stationary earth (the universe spins around it) is as valid a model as any other. I don't believe this is correct. What physics says is that any INERTIAL frame is equally valid. The earth is not an INERTIAL frame of reference because you are constantly being accelerated by the earths spin in a direction relative the the frame of reference. Can anybody confirm this? -- Larry Kolodney #13 (I try harder) (USENET) decvax!genrad!grkermit!larry allegra!linus!genrad!grkermit!larry harpo!eagle!mit-vax!grkermit!larry (ARPA) rms.g.lkk@mit-ai
debray@sbcs.UUCP (07/16/83)
From a posting by cca!charlie: A "fact" is simply a theory with a high degree of confidence. A corollary is that science cannot "prove" any (religious or otherwise) statement false. Scientists might reasonably challenge the methods by which a conclusion is reached, but not the conclusion itself. The Scientific method *can* prove statements false, by experiment. Okay, I really mean "universally quantified statements". If someone makes a universally quantified statement, and I can demonstrate a counterexample, I have proved that statement false. For eaxmple, if someone says "All articles in net.religion are polite", and we both agree on the meanings of "article", "net.religion" and "polite", it shouldn't take me too long to prove that statement false. And surely one can challenge a statement that's internally inconsistent, i.e. self-contradictory? (Actually, Charlie, "the self-contradictory statement" is my counterexample that disproves your universally quantified statement, "No conclusion [read "statement"] can be challenged"). Saumya Debray SUNY at Stony Brook
tim@unc.UUCP (07/16/83)
I am not a physicist, but I do believe that the General Theory of Relativity, Einstein's final great work, extends relativity to accelerating frames of reference as well. This means that even accelerating bodies can be consistently considered as stationary, from their own point of view. The General Theory is not as well-accepted as the Special Theory, which provided relativity only for non- accelerating frames of reference. Thus, under the special theory, Earth can be considered stationary, that is, at the center of the universe. Of course, the Copernican model is still easier to calculate with, for most applications. ______________________________________ The overworked keyboard of Tim Maroney duke!unc!tim (USENET) tim.unc@udel-relay (ARPA) The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
joe@cvl.UUCP (Joseph I. Pallas) (07/17/83)
Oh, no you don't! Relativity does not imply that a stationary earth is is "as valid a model as any other." Exactly the opposite: relativity denies the notion of absolute rest. Hence, nothing is stationary in modern physics, including the earth.
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (07/17/83)
What could a "stationary earth" mean in relativistic terms? To have a "stationary earth" means that there must be an absolute frame of reference with respect to which the earth is stationary. Sure the earth is stationary with respect to me (when I am pursuing my favourite pastime). The rest of the universe isn't moving faster than the speed of light with respect to me, though. It is moving faster than the speed of light with respect to some mythical Newtonian absolute frame of reference connected to me, but who cares? The objects in that universe do not change their motions relative to one another or with respect to potential other observers just because I happen to take myself as a reference observer for now, and the earth is stationary in my frame.
andrew@orca.UUCP (Andrew Klossner) (07/18/83)
"What's amusing is that scientific doctrine has changed
and no one seems to have noticed. According to relativity
theory, which is not wholly accepted, but is the current most
widely recognized model of physics, there is no prefered
frame of reference."
Here we have a classic example of a religionist misquoting science in
order to ridicule it.
Anyone who bothers to actually *read* relativity theory will notice
that, in fact, inertial frames of reference are preferred to
non-inertial frames. There is no inertial frame of reference in which
the Earth is at the center of the universe.
-- Andrew Klossner (decvax!teklabs!tekecs!andrew) [UUCP]
(andrew.tektronix@rand-relay) [ARPA]tim@unc.UUCP (07/18/83)
What could a "stationary earth" mean in
relativistic terms? To have a "stationary earth" means
that there must be an absolute frame of reference with
respect to which the earth is stationary.
All right, so I used slightly misleading terms. My meaning was
still clear, so let's not pick nits. What I meant to say was that
there exists a consistent formulation of the laws of physics in which
the earth is considered to be non-rotating. This is an extension of
relativity that was in the general theory, which applies to
accelerating frames of reference as well.
Sure the earth is stationary with respect to me (when
I am pursuing my favourite pastime). The rest of the
universe isn't moving faster than the speed of light
with respect to me, though.
Very perceptive. The reason for this is that the special theory
of relativity introduced a new equation for computing relative
velocity. Consider two rockets hurtling away from an asteroid in
opposite directions. Each has a speed of three quarters of the speed
of light, as measured by an observer on the asteroid. However, the
speed of one relative to the other is NOT half again the speed of
light -- it is a (large) fraction of the speed of light. This is
totally counterintuitive, but that's how it works. Similarly, no
matter how fast Earth spins, we will never percieve any object as
moving faster than the speed of light relative to our point on the
surface of the planet.
It is moving faster than the speed of light with
respect to some mythical Newtonian absolute frame of
reference connected to me, but who cares? The objects
in that universe do not change their motions relative
to one another or with respect to potential other
observers just because I happen to take myself as a
reference observer for now, and the earth is
stationary in my frame.
I'm sorry, I'm not clear on what it is you're saying here.
______________________________________
The overworked keyboard of Tim Maroney
duke!unc!tim (USENET)
tim.unc@udel-relay (ARPA)
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hillcharlie@cca.UUCP (Charlie Kaufman) (07/19/83)
My earlier claim that relativity admits to no preferred frame of
reference has caught a lot of flak. I still believe my physics is right
- though I should have specified general relativity. But I'm no expert.
In any case, my point is still valid: scientific "knowledge" is subject
to change without notice. Science searches for "the best" explanation
for a given set of facts, not the only one. To some degree, "best" is a
matter of taste. Creation science is a good example of going to extreme
lengths to fit facts to a theory. The "Flat Earth Society" is an even
easier target. But science will never "prove" either of them wrong;
that's not what science does.
--Charlie Kaufman
charlie@cca
...decvax!cca!charliedebray@sbcs.UUCP (07/19/83)
I agree with Charlie Kaufman when he says that Science searches for the "best" explanation for a set of facts, and that scientific knowledge is subject to growth and change. I'm not sure I see his point when he asserts But science will never "prove" [e.g. the "Flat Earth Society] wrong; that's not what science does. Maybe what I mean when I say "prove" is different from what you do, Charlie, in which case an argument is meaningless. I sketched my notion of "proof" in an earlier reply to your original article; at this point, maybe you ought to define your concept of "proof", and we can go on from there. I admit to not being an expert on the Flat Earth Society; presumably, they claim that the earth is flat. If this is indeed the case, I would imagine that disproving their claim would not be too difficult, with evidence ranging from Magellan's circumnavigation of the earth, to photographs of the planet from space. Saumya Debray SUNY at Stony Brook
spaf@gatech.UUCP (07/21/83)
"Proof" means presenting a set of arguments which the listener
cannot continue to ignore. Such "proof" causes the listener
to reevaluate their belief(s) in light of such "proof."
Since there is no absolute frame of reference or absolute system
of definition (as in the incompleteness theorem by Godel,
relativity, etc), there is no way of ever proving something as
absolutely correct. The best that can be hoped for is to prove
something consistant with everything else in a system.
The problem with groups like the Flat Earth Society, or believers
in astrology, or Bible-thumpers, or readers of the National
Enquirer, or JFK-assasination conspiracy freaks, or ....
is that they have belief systems which are very immune to
rational arguments. Of course, they're even more immune
to irrational arguments. It takes a hell of a lot of "proof"
to get someone to change strongly held beliefs.
The principle differences between religion/superstition and
science is that we have chosen to use one particular system
of valued logic in examining internal consistancy. There are
lots of areas where you can change your framework and come
up with a whole new (and internally consistant) view of reality.
I don't care if the Earth is flat or not. If I can get to
Europe withsout falling off the edge, and if people can navigate
without anomolies (except near Bermuda), then I really am not
too concerned; the system remains consistant. I don't care
if astrology works or not. My life is screwed up no matter what
or whom is to blame -- the stars, the devil, me, Brownian motion,
spirits, or my parents. There is only one "proof" I will not
quibble with -- make mine single malt scotch.
--
"The soapbox of Gene Spafford"
CSNet: Spaf @ GATech
Internet: Spaf.GATech @ UDel-Relay
uucp: ...!{sb1,allegra}!gatech!spaf
...!duke!mcnc!msdc!gatech!spafkff@uvacs.UUCP (07/22/83)
I find it interesting to watch the "science" contingent make fun
of the "religion" contingent based on the biblical statement of an
earth centered universe when "everyone knows" the earth spins, it
orbits the sun, which orbits the galaxy... What's amusing is that
scientific doctrine has changed and no one seems to have noticed.
According to relativity theory, which is not wholly accepted, but
is the current most widely recognized model of physics, there is
no prefered frame of reference. This means that a stationary
earth (the universe spins around it) is as valid a model as any
other.
There is a misunderstanding about special relativity here. Relativity
states that there is no prefered INERTIAL frame of reference (ie. any frame
not undergoing acceleration). However, a rotating frame of reference, such
as the earth going around the sun, is not an inertial frame, since curved
motion requires acceleration. Rotation is an absolute quantity. The earth
revolves around the sun, and the center of rotation cannot be arbitrarily
relocated. To test whether the sun rotates around the earth, or the earth
about the sun, all that is required is to measure the centripetal
(centrifugal?) forces induced by the curvature of the earth's path through
space. If the sun revolves around the earth, there will be no centripetal
force on the earth. In practice this might be difficult to measure.
Kelton Flinn
Not a Physics Major
..!decvax!duke!mcnc!ncsu!uvacs!kff