test

[RonO]

testing

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 1 Jan 2018 14:51:57 -0600, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by RonO <roki...@cox.net>:

>testing

Hi!
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[RonO]

On 1/2/2018 1:20 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Jan 2018 14:51:57 -0600, the following appeared in
> talk.origins, posted by RonO <roki...@cox.net>:
>
>> testing
>
> Hi!
>

It is pass/fail. I guess this is a pass.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 2 Jan 2018 18:48:20 -0600, the following appeared in

talk.origins, posted by RonO <roki...@cox.net>:

>On 1/2/2018 1:20 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Mon, 1 Jan 2018 14:51:57 -0600, the following appeared in
>> talk.origins, posted by RonO <roki...@cox.net>:
>>
>>> testing
>>
>> Hi!
>>
>It is pass/fail. I guess this is a pass.

I'd say so, yes. ;-)

[Ray Martinez]

test message....Talk.Origins appears to be down.

Ray

[*Hemidactylus*]

Ray Martinez <r3p...@gmail.com> wrote:
> test message....Talk.Origins appears to be down.
>

Yep. Your message hasn’t shown up in my private circuit.

[Robert Carnegie]

On Thursday, 4 January 2018 20:20:05 UTC, Ray Martinez wrote:
> test message....Talk.Origins appears to be down.
>
> Ray

Yeah, it's been closed down for six months due to the Spectre virus.
Come back then.

[*Hemidactylus*]

That’s some serious Intel there.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 4 Jan 2018 12:15:28 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
<r3p...@gmail.com>:

>test message....Talk.Origins appears to be down.

Obviously, since your message didn't get here.

[Vincent Maycock]

test

[Vincent Maycock]

On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 12:16:39 -0500, Vincent Maycock <vam...@aol.com>
wrote:

>test

test

[Ray Martinez]

Then being when?

Ray

[Mark Isaak]

late 14c., "small vessel used in assaying precious metals," from Old
French test, from Latin testum "earthen pot," related to testa "piece of
burned clay, earthen pot, shell" (see tete).

Sense of "trial or examination to determine the correctness of
something" is recorded from 1590s. The connecting notion is
"ascertaining the quality of a metal by melting it in a pot." Test Act
was the name given to various laws in English history meant to exclude
Catholics and Nonconformists from office, especially that of 1673,
repealed 1828. Test drive (v.) is first recorded 1954.

[quoted from www.etymonline.com]

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Ignorance, allied with power, is the most ferocious enemy justice can
have." - James Baldwin

[*Hemidactylus*]

Mark Isaak <eciton@curiousta/xyz/xonomy.net> wrote:
> On 1/11/18 9:47 AM, Vincent Maycock wrote:
>> On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 12:16:39 -0500, Vincent Maycock <vam...@aol.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> test
>>
>> test
>
> late 14c., "small vessel used in assaying precious metals," from Old
> French test, from Latin testum "earthen pot," related to testa "piece of
> burned clay, earthen pot, shell" (see tete).
>
> Sense of "trial or examination to determine the correctness of
> something" is recorded from 1590s. The connecting notion is
> "ascertaining the quality of a metal by melting it in a pot." Test Act
> was the name given to various laws in English history meant to exclude
> Catholics and Nonconformists from office, especially that of 1673,
> repealed 1828. Test drive (v.) is first recorded 1954.
>
> [quoted from www.etymonline.com]
>

“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the
several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both
of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or
affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever
be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the
United States.”

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlevi

[T Pagano]

On Mon, 01 Jan 2018 14:51:57 -0600, RonO wrote:

> testing

also testing

[*Hemidactylus*]

Holy fuck. Have you embraced heliocentrism yet or does the universe still
revolve around you? Welcome back stranger.

[T Pagano]

Thanks. Happy to see that most of gang is still here. I was hoping to
return quietly in this thread to make sure everything was working.

About the only thing I've "embraced" since my 2012 hiatus is Linux over
Windows. Unlike Ray's ridiculous position of immutability (which I see
he still holds) mine remains more modest----that is, that most of the
modern secular "historical" theories are not nearly so secure as is
claimed. I'm a rational skeptic who admits his metaphysical
underpinnings.

As I pointed out before my untimely departure in 2012: Einstein and his
peers rejected geocentrism on philosophical grounds, not scientific
ones. The fact that the Michelson-Morly experiments disconfirmed
heliocentric theory's claims about the earth's velocity (around the sun
and around the galaxy) while the Michelson-Gale experiment confirmed
rotational speed of the Earth with reference to the stars still have been
ignored rather than explained. Both experiments used similar
interferometers. Amongst themselves these results kept Einstein, Hubble,
et al. up at night in a tizzy. Publicly they were either ignored or
handled ad hoc. Modern technology hasn't solved this----has it?

Regards,
T Pagano

[erik simpson]

The Michelson-Morley experiment "disconfirmed" the heliocentric claims about the
earth's velocity..."? What are you talking about? Which heliocentric claims
are you are skeptical about? Pretty sure Hubble, Einstein didn't lose much
sleep over them. In fact, Newton, Laplace (and many others) slept well, at
least with regard to those concerns.

[Wolffan]

On 11Jan 2018, Ray Martinez wrote
(in article<241f6f0c-cc13-4fd4...@googlegroups.com>):

the 12th of Never, Ray, the 12th of Never.

[Wolffan]

On 15Jan 2018, erik simpson wrote
(in article<0bb0cc10-47e8-45aa...@googlegroups.com>):

Pags is still confused. Always will be.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 15 Jan 2018 11:45:47 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Wolffan <akwo...@gmail.com>:

And that's a long, long time.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 15 Jan 2018 07:32:38 -0600, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by T Pagano <notmya...@dot.com>:

>On Sun, 14 Jan 2018 19:37:21 -0600, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>
>> T Pagano <notmya...@dot.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 01 Jan 2018 14:51:57 -0600, RonO wrote:
>>>
>>>> testing
>>>
>>> also testing
>>>
>> Holy fuck. Have you embraced heliocentrism yet or does the universe
>> still revolve around you? Welcome back stranger.
>
>
>Thanks. Happy to see that most of gang is still here. I was hoping to
>return quietly in this thread to make sure everything was working.
>
>About the only thing I've "embraced" since my 2012 hiatus is Linux over
>Windows. Unlike Ray's ridiculous position of immutability (which I see
>he still holds) mine remains more modest----that is, that most of the
>modern secular "historical" theories are not nearly so secure as is
>claimed. I'm a rational skeptic who admits his metaphysical
>underpinnings.
>
>As I pointed out before my untimely departure in 2012: Einstein and his
>peers rejected geocentrism on philosophical grounds, not scientific
>ones. The fact that the Michelson-Morly experiments disconfirmed
>heliocentric theory's claims about the earth's velocity (around the sun
>and around the galaxy) while the Michelson-Gale experiment confirmed
>rotational speed of the Earth with reference to the stars still have been
>ignored rather than explained. Both experiments used similar
>interferometers.

Cite? The only M-M experiments I know of are the ones which
disconfirmed the existence of the "luminiferous ether", not
any claims regarding the Earth's velocity, either rotational
or otherwise.

> Amongst themselves these results kept Einstein, Hubble,
>et al. up at night in a tizzy. Publicly they were either ignored or
>handled ad hoc. Modern technology hasn't solved this----has it?

[Earle Jones]

*
Pagano-san!

Welcome back. We thought you might have been slung off the earth by
its centrifugal force in its orbit.
But we knew that could not be true.

Anyway, welcome back and have at it!

earle
*

[T Pagano]

On Mon, 15 Jan 2018 08:17:48 -0800, erik simpson wrote:

> On Monday, January 15, 2018 at 5:35:04 AM UTC-8, T Pagano wrote:
>> On Sun, 14 Jan 2018 19:37:21 -0600, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>>
>> > T Pagano <notmya...@dot.com> wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 01 Jan 2018 14:51:57 -0600, RonO wrote:

snip

> The Michelson-Morley experiment "disconfirmed" the heliocentric claims
> about the earth's velocity..."? What are you talking about? Which
> heliocentric claims are you are skeptical about? Pretty sure Hubble,
> Einstein didn't lose much sleep over them. In fact, Newton, Laplace
> (and many others) slept well, at least with regard to those concerns.

Obviously you're unaware of why Michelson-Morley conducted their
experiment and the import of the experimental results. Arguably the
invention of the Lorentz Transformation and the Special Theory of
Relativity were offered specifically to counter the Michelson-Morley
results.

Sagnac's interferometer experiments and Dayton Miller's long running
interferometer experiment both rendered Einstein's Special and General
Theory questionable. I'd say that's significant. That this history has
been buried explains why Einstein is still considered a genius.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Funny In terms of those long absent, I am watching the finale arc of ER
where wunderkind Carter is awaiting a kidney transplant and long absent
Benton, Hathaway (Good Wife) and Ross are intertwined in the plot. I wonder
how they got Clooney to reprise his breakout role.

[T Pagano]

On Mon, 15 Jan 2018 10:47:49 -0700, Bob Casanova wrote:

> On Mon, 15 Jan 2018 07:32:38 -0600, the following appeared in
> talk.origins, posted by T Pagano <notmya...@dot.com>:
>
>>On Sun, 14 Jan 2018 19:37:21 -0600, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>>
>>> T Pagano <notmya...@dot.com> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 01 Jan 2018 14:51:57 -0600, RonO wrote:

snip

>>As I pointed out before my untimely departure in 2012: Einstein and his
>>peers rejected geocentrism on philosophical grounds, not scientific
>>ones. The fact that the Michelson-Morly experiments disconfirmed
>>heliocentric theory's claims about the earth's velocity (around the sun
>>and around the galaxy) while the Michelson-Gale experiment confirmed
>>rotational speed of the Earth with reference to the stars still have
>>been ignored rather than explained. Both experiments used similar
>>interferometers.
>
> Cite? The only M-M experiments I know of are the ones which disconfirmed
> the existence of the "luminiferous ether", not any claims regarding the
> Earth's velocity, either rotational or otherwise.
>
>> Amongst themselves these results kept Einstein, Hubble,
>>et al. up at night in a tizzy. Publicly they were either ignored or
>>handled ad hoc. Modern technology hasn't solved this----has it?

While the Michelson-Morley experiment only involved taking a small number
of measurements, it always measured a small velocity of the Earth
relative to the ether. Unfortunately it was too small to confirm the
heliocentric model----the Earth's velocity around the Sun (or around the
galaxy) through the ether was calculated to be considerably higher than
the velocity actually measured by M-M experiment.

The obvious conclusion was that the Earth was neither moving around the
Sun nor the galaxy. However, this interpretation was philosophically
abhorrent to Einstein, et al. As a result Einstein spun the small
velocity measurements as being "null" which he further interpreted to
mean that the ether didn't exist. His Special Theory disposed of the
ether as a reference frame. This caused other problems and Einstein was
eventually forced to add the ether back in with the invention of his
theory of General Relativity.

Unfortunately Dayton Miller's interferometer experiments (he took around
200,000 measurments) showed that there was a measurable velocity relative
to an ether that also indicated an axis of evil. Dayton Miller's long
running experiment was seriously damaging to both Einstein's Special
Relatively and General Relativity. In fact the newspapers at the time
published the feud between the two. Interestingly Dayton Miller, Sagnac,
Michelson, and Morley were NOT geocentricists.

Like all evidence that disconfirms the reining, secular, pet theories
these have also been ignored, spun or misrepresented.

[T Pagano]

On Mon, 15 Jan 2018 11:46:41 -0500, Wolffan wrote:

> On 15Jan 2018, erik simpson wrote (in
> article<0bb0cc10-47e8-45aa...@googlegroups.com>):
>
>> On Monday, January 15, 2018 at 5:35:04 AM UTC-8, T Pagano wrote:
>> > On Sun, 14 Jan 2018 19:37:21 -0600, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>> >
>> > > T Pagano <notmya...@dot.com> wrote:
>> > > > On Mon, 01 Jan 2018 14:51:57 -0600, RonO wrote:

snip

>> >
>> > As I pointed out before my untimely departure in 2012: Einstein and
>> > his peers rejected geocentrism on philosophical grounds, not
>> > scientific ones. The fact that the Michelson-Morly experiments
>> > disconfirmed heliocentric theory's claims about the earth's velocity
>> > (around the sun and around the galaxy) while the Michelson-Gale
>> > experiment confirmed rotational speed of the Earth with reference to
>> > the stars still have been ignored rather than explained. Both
>> > experiments used similar interferometers. Amongst themselves these
>> > results kept Einstein, Hubble, et al. up at night in a tizzy.
>> > Publicly they were either ignored or handled ad hoc. Modern
>> > technology hasn't solved this----has it?
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> > T Pagano
>>
>> The Michelson-Morley experiment "disconfirmed" the heliocentric claims
>> about the earth's velocity..."? What are you talking about? Which
>> heliocentric claims are you are skeptical about? Pretty sure Hubble,
>> Einstein didn't lose much sleep over them. In fact, Newton, Laplace
>> (and many others) slept well, at least with regard to those concerns.
>
> Pags is still confused. Always will be.

Considering all of Simpson's "question marks," "pretty sures" and the
fact that Newton/Laplace died long before the Michelson Morley experiment
I'd say he's the one who is confused.

[T Pagano]

Thanks.

Keep in mind that a few of Einstein's secular contemporaries pointed out
that "shells of stars" rotating around a fixed Earth can produce the same
centrifugal and coriolis forces as the Earth rotating on is axis.
Einstein pointed out that both possibilities are identical except with a
different reference frame. Einstein implied that his choice of one
reference frame over the other was philosophical, not scientific.

[John Harshman]

On 1/15/18 5:32 AM, T Pagano wrote:

> I'm a rational skeptic who admits his metaphysical
> underpinnings.

I think Tony actually believes this.

[erik simpson]

OOOKKKK. I think I'll just take a little walk.

[jillery]

And IIRC Einstein said he didn't even consider MM when thinking about
SR, but instead used Maxwell's equations as a basis.

--
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire

[jillery]

On Mon, 15 Jan 2018 13:27:06 -0600, T Pagano <notmya...@dot.com>

<Whoosh!!>

[jillery]

On Mon, 15 Jan 2018 10:36:39 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

>On Mon, 15 Jan 2018 11:45:47 -0500, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by Wolffan <akwo...@gmail.com>:
>
>>On 11Jan 2018, Ray Martinez wrote
>>(in article<241f6f0c-cc13-4fd4...@googlegroups.com>):
>>
>>> On Thursday, January 4, 2018 at 3:10:05 PM UTC-8, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>>> > On Thursday, 4 January 2018 20:20:05 UTC, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> > > test message....Talk.Origins appears to be down.
>>> > >
>>> > > Ray
>>> >
>>> > Yeah, it's been closed down for six months due to the Spectre virus.
>>> > Come back then.
>>>
>>> Then being when?
>>>
>>> Ray
>>
>>the 12th of Never, Ray, the 12th of Never.
>
>And that's a long, long time.

Chances are your chances are awfully good.

[T Pagano]

I do.

Is it my claim of "rationality" that bothers Harshman? Since I
occasionally had to give him refresher lessons in Philosophy of Logic 101
this would be a pot calling the kettle problem for him.

[T Pagano]

I can see that little has changed since my 2012 hiatus. The minute
actual facts are offered the secular opposition's eyes glaze over.
Luckily Harshman is still around.

[Ray Martinez]

On Monday, January 15, 2018 at 5:35:04 AM UTC-8, T Pagano wrote:

> On Sun, 14 Jan 2018 19:37:21 -0600, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>
> > T Pagano <notmya...@dot.com> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 01 Jan 2018 14:51:57 -0600, RonO wrote:
> >>
> >>> testing
> >>
> >> also testing
> >>
> > Holy fuck. Have you embraced heliocentrism yet or does the universe
> > still revolve around you? Welcome back stranger.
>
>
> Thanks. Happy to see that most of gang is still here. I was hoping to
> return quietly in this thread to make sure everything was working.
>
> About the only thing I've "embraced" since my 2012 hiatus is Linux over
> Windows. Unlike Ray's ridiculous position of immutability (which I see
> he still holds)

In the first edition Origin of Species, on page six, Darwin said that he, at one time, accepted each species created independently, and he also said that when he was writing "most naturalists" accepted each species created independently, and he said that the foregoing meant science accepted the immutability of species. Because science accepted each species created independently it follows that species were held to be immutable. The pre-1859 Victorian view of species simply had no room for the concept of mutability/evolution. Moreover, each species were observed designed. This was Paley's main claim. At the time observation of design enjoyed unanimous scientific acceptance.

Nothing said in the above paragraph is in any way controversial. When Darwin published in 1859 science accepted supernatural causation also known as Intelligent causation. I accept the claims of pre-1859 Victorian science.

Ray (Christian)


> ....mine remains more modest----that is, that most of the

[Glenn]

"John Harshman" <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:TridnS94dML9lcDH...@giganews.com...

https://gutenberg.ca/ebooks/eddingtona-physicalworld/eddingtona-physicalworld-01-h-dir/eddingtona-physicalworld-01-h.html

[Ernest Major]

Are you still claiming that that the net gravitational force at the
centre of mass a system must be zero?

--
alias Ernest Major

[erik simpson]

Oh, you had facts? I'm sorry. But the walk still sounds good.

[erik simpson]

And?

[John Harshman]

Calling Dr. Dunning, Dr. Kruger, Dr. Fine.

[Glenn]

"erik simpson" <eastsi...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:5052a24c-46b4-4476...@googlegroups.com...

That all, after the "l".

[T Pagano]

Einstein was worried about Fizeau's and Airy's optical experiments prior
to Michelson-Morley's 1887 experiment. Furthermore between 1887 -1905
Roentgen, Lodge, Rayleigh, Brace, Trouton-Noble, and Morley-Miller
produced the same results as Michelson-Morley. These reproducible
experiments spelled doom for Copernicanism if a solution was not found.


Einstein admitted as much in his famous 1905 paper, "On the
Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" (the substance of which later became
known as Einstein's special theory of relativity). In his SR paper
Einstein made a direct reference to Michelson-Morley: ". . .the
unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the Earth relative to the
'light medium,' suggests that the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as
of mechanics possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute
rest. They suggest rather that, as has already been shown to the first
order of small quantities, the same laws of electrodynamics and optics
will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of
mechanics hold good."

Robert Shankland who worked with Einstein at the end of his life wrote
(see Shankland's, "Einstein, The Life and Times"),
"However, Einstein said that in the years 1905-1909, he thought a great
deal about Michelson's result in his discussions with Lorentz and
others . . . He then realized (so he told me) that he had also been
conscious of Michelson's result before 1905 partly through his readings
of Lorentz and more because he had assumed this result of Michelson to be
true."

In a 1922 speech Einstein delivered at Kyoto University, Japan titled,
"How I Created the Theory of Relativity" and published in 1923 Einstein
said,
"Soon I came to the conclusion that our idea about the motion of the
Earth with respect to the ether is incorrect, if we admit Michelson's
null result as a fact. This was the first path which led me to the
special theory of relativity."

Quite honestly the Michelson-Morley results caused many a sleepless night
by Lorentz and all of Einstein's peers. To suggest that Einstein was not
equally aware and concerned is almost absurd. The famous "Lorentz
Transformation" was also specifically invented as an ad hoc solution to
explain away the Michelson-Morley experiment. The Lorentz Transformation
asserted that, due to the movement of the arm of the M-M interferometer,
the arm shrank producing the null result. Never mind that there is no
physical mechanism in atomic theory for matter in motion to shrink.

In this light these weren't so much great scientific discoveries (Lorentz
and Einstein), but ad hoc solutions to protect Copernicanism from
collapse.

[T Pagano]

Not "must" be zero, "is" zero. Are you suggesting that physical laws
have changed?

[T Pagano]

What's your point?

[T Pagano]

In other words Glenn has no point. I can see that little has changed
since my almost 6 year absence. This is going to be a cake walk.

[John Harshman]

No, he's suggesting that you are delusional on this point. For center of
mass, m1r1=m2r2, while for force, m1/(r1)^2=m2/(r2)^2. This will work
out to the same distance only if m1=m2, at which point r1=r2.

[T Pagano]

It's like I haven't been gone for 6 years.

I pointed out to Ray back in 2012 (shortly before my 6 year hiatus) that
the use of "immutability" in the pre-1859 era was not how Ray uses it
today.

It has been known for at least the last 6000 years that there exists a
tremendous variability "within" species. Dog breeders since the ancient
Greeks were aware of the great propensity for change between successive
generations of a particular species. Surely Ray didn't think pre-1859
Victorian age men of science were less aware than the ancient Greek dog
breeders. So, by "immutability" these pre-1859 men of science never
meant that there was absolutely no change whatsoever between successive
generations within a species. Yet this is precisely what Ray claims they
meant.

In any event, after explaining this to Ray back in 2012 he immediately
altered his signature (he abandoned "Immutabilist"), but never altered
his irrational claim.

How I pine for the real old days of talk.origins (pre-2000). In those
days I could always count on my buddy Karl Crawford to send his
reguriposts about the woodpecker. They usually aggravated the life out
of Elsberry, Hersey and most of the rest.

[jillery]

On Mon, 15 Jan 2018 18:01:58 -0600, T Pagano <notmya...@dot.com>

Ok, so Einstein was aware of MM. Not sure how you get from any of the
above to a refutation of heliocentrism, nevermind a conspiracy to
protect it.

[T Pagano]

Apparently Harshman doesn't learn from his previous mistakes and is
making the same error he made back in 2012----that is, he assumes the
Earth and Sun are an isolated system.

Even Mach and Einstein were aware that the duality of its own
relativistic theory prevented any objection to gencentrism. Mach's
Principle and Einstein's use of it allows the Earth to be at rest in the
center of the universe and the sun revolving around it. The distant
matter (galaxies) that rotates around the Earth creates a centrifugal
force, which acts like, but counter acts the force of gravity, keeping
the Sun a certain distance from the motionless Earth.

Einstein wrote:
"We need not necessarily trace the existence of these centrifugal forces
back to an absolute movement of K' [Earth]; we can instead just as well
trace them back to the rotational movement of the distant ponderable
masses [stars] in relation to K' whereby we treat K'[Earth] as 'at
rest' . . .

Perhaps you should stick to your ratites? Of course that didn't help
much in proving the transformational claims of neoDarwinism. It's good
to be back keeping Harshman and the occupants of his clown-car hopping
around while I crack the whip.

[T Pagano]

Your kidding? Up until Michelson-Morley no secular atheist had been able
to prove that the Earth was moving around the Sun (or moving at all).
Certainly Copernicus never proved his theory.

According to heliocentricists the Earth supposedly moves at about 30 km/
sec around the Sun and about 400 km/sec around the Milky Way. Michelson-
Morley's experiment was designed to measure the speed of the Earth
relative to the ether. M-M fully expected to measure a relative speed of
at least 30 km/sec. What it measured was relative speeds of 2 km/sec or
less. His experiment was reproduced several times between 1887 -1905
(and in latter years) with similar results.

Surely you can see that this spelled doom for heliocentricism. Lorentz,
Einstein and all their contemporaries were fully aware that one obvious
interpretation was that the Earth was NOT moving around the sun or
anywhere else. This was an abhorrent option for them for philosophical
reasons not scientific ones.

As I point out Lorentz's ad hoc solution was to claim that matter in
motion shrinks. In other words Lorentz claimed that the arm of the M-M
Interferometer shrank in proportion to its motion disguising the motion
of Earth relative to the ether.

Einstein's solution was to argue that the ether didn't exist and this is
why the M-M experiment had a null result. His SR theory was developed as
a direct result.

[John Harshman]

The simple, two-body case is a useful and easily analyzed one. And the
same reasoning is applicable to any number of bodies. Apparently Tony is
incapable of learning anything at all, no matter how simple.

> Even Mach and Einstein were aware that the duality of its own
> relativistic theory prevented any objection to gencentrism. Mach's
> Principle and Einstein's use of it allows the Earth to be at rest in the
> center of the universe and the sun revolving around it. The distant
> matter (galaxies) that rotates around the Earth creates a centrifugal
> force, which acts like, but counter acts the force of gravity, keeping
> the Sun a certain distance from the motionless Earth.

Which has nothing at all to do with centers of gravity, etc.

> Einstein wrote:
> "We need not necessarily trace the existence of these centrifugal forces
> back to an absolute movement of K' [Earth]; we can instead just as well
> trace them back to the rotational movement of the distant ponderable
> masses [stars] in relation to K' whereby we treat K'[Earth] as 'at
> rest' . . .
>
> Perhaps you should stick to your ratites? Of course that didn't help
> much in proving the transformational claims of neoDarwinism. It's good
> to be back keeping Harshman and the occupants of his clown-car hopping
> around while I crack the whip.

Yes, the Dunning-Kruger is strong in this one.

[*Hemidactylus*]

You set Ray straight on dog breeding. What are your feelings on rmns? We
have a doctor for that in the house. He and Ray may not agree with your
thoughts on centrality of Earth but you and the Good Doctor are atheists
because mutability. That pretty much catches you up since 2012.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Nyikos the alienist will be back from prolonged vacay soon. And there is a
brilliant emergentist name jonathan who will bowl you over with copypaste
and poetic verse. He is a cryptocurrency genius. So your neogeocentrism is
not without local competition for resources.

[Ray Martinez]

One could only wonder what you're talking about? You continue to evade a black-and-white historical claim that first appeared in the Origin and now countless scholarly works: Before Darwin, science accepted each species created independently thus species were held to be immutable (Darwin 1859:6; London: John Murray). Since I've supported what I said with a full and well known scientific reference, and since the claim seen in the reference is anything but complicated, Tony has chosen to insult intelligence and imply that immutability in Darwin's time didn't mean changelessness. In the reference provided, independent creation of each species is defined as immutability.

Note the fact that Tony has completely evaded the exact content seen in the reference. Most important: Tony asserts immutable doesn't mean changelessness. Absurd as it gets. In the end, when the chips are down, the YEC stands with the Atheists and mutability via weasel-words (immutability doesn't mean immutability).

Ray (OEC)

[jillery]

On Mon, 15 Jan 2018 19:47:56 -0600, T Pagano <notmya...@dot.com>

Copernican theory was affirmed by Kepler and Newton. MM had nothing
to do with it.

>According to heliocentricists the Earth supposedly moves at about 30 km/
>sec around the Sun and about 400 km/sec around the Milky Way. Michelson-
>Morley's experiment was designed to measure the speed of the Earth
>relative to the ether. M-M fully expected to measure a relative speed of
>at least 30 km/sec. What it measured was relative speeds of 2 km/sec or
>less. His experiment was reproduced several times between 1887 -1905
>(and in latter years) with similar results.

More accurately, MM demonstrated no motion relative to ether. Do you
claim ether exists?

>Surely you can see that this spelled doom for heliocentricism.

Surely you can see you haven't supported your premise.

>Lorentz,
>Einstein and all their contemporaries were fully aware that one obvious
>interpretation was that the Earth was NOT moving around the sun or
>anywhere else. This was an abhorrent option for them for philosophical
>reasons not scientific ones.

The motions of the Earth were already known. So the other obvious
reason, but more consistent with the evidence, is there is no ether.

>As I point out Lorentz's ad hoc solution was to claim that matter in
>motion shrinks. In other words Lorentz claimed that the arm of the M-M
>Interferometer shrank in proportion to its motion disguising the motion
>of Earth relative to the ether.

Lorentz solution was not ad hoc, but a logical conclusion based on the
evidence; if speed of light is constant, then space and/or time must
shrink in direction of motion.

>Einstein's solution was to argue that the ether didn't exist and this is
>why the M-M experiment had a null result. His SR theory was developed as
>a direct result.

You haven't shown ether exists. You haven't shown the Earth is
stationary. You haven't shown SR false. You haven't shown
heliocentrism false. Your entire argument is a series of bald
assertions and non sequiturs.

[Glenn]

"T Pagano" <notmya...@dot.com> wrote in message news:89idnTC18d3l38DH...@ptd.net...

It is not that I am not Eddington.

[Glenn]

"T Pagano" <notmya...@dot.com> wrote in message news:89idnTO18d2D3sDH...@ptd.net...

What is your point?

[T Pagano]

not likely

What are your feelings on rmns?

not familiar with that acronym (?) or that member of the forum (?)

> We
> have a doctor for that in the house. He and Ray may not agree with your
> thoughts on centrality of Earth but you and the Good Doctor are atheists
> because mutability. That pretty much catches you up since 2012.

I think every day is like Bill Murray's "Ground Hog Day" for Ray; except
Ray never changes so he never escapes. And he doesn't get the girl at
the end.

[T Pagano]

On Mon, 15 Jan 2018 19:02:21 -0800, John Harshman wrote:

> On 1/15/18 5:24 PM, T Pagano wrote:
>> On Mon, 15 Jan 2018 16:34:40 -0800, John Harshman wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/15/18 4:05 PM, T Pagano wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 15 Jan 2018 22:39:43 +0000, Ernest Major wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 15/01/2018 22:25, T Pagano wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 15 Jan 2018 12:42:24 -0800, erik simpson wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Monday, January 15, 2018 at 10:35:03 AM UTC-8, T Pagano wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 15 Jan 2018 08:17:48 -0800, erik simpson wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Monday, January 15, 2018 at 5:35:04 AM UTC-8, T Pagano wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 14 Jan 2018 19:37:21 -0600, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> T Pagano <notmya...@dot.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 01 Jan 2018 14:51:57 -0600, RonO wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> snip
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>

more snippage

>>>>
>>> No, he's suggesting that you are delusional on this point. For center
>>> of mass, m1r1=m2r2, while for force, m1/(r1)^2=m2/(r2)^2. This will
>>> work out to the same distance only if m1=m2, at which point r1=r2.
>>
>> Apparently Harshman doesn't learn from his previous mistakes and is
>> making the same error he made back in 2012----that is, he assumes the
>> Earth and Sun are an isolated system.
>
> The simple, two-body case is a useful and easily analyzed one. And the
> same reasoning is applicable to any number of bodies. Apparently Tony is
> incapable of learning anything at all, no matter how simple.
>
>> Even Mach and Einstein were aware that the duality of its own
>> relativistic theory prevented any objection to gencentrism. Mach's
>> Principle and Einstein's use of it allows the Earth to be at rest in
>> the center of the universe and the sun revolving around it. The
>> distant matter (galaxies) that rotates around the Earth creates a
>> centrifugal force, which acts like, but counter acts the force of
>> gravity, keeping the Sun a certain distance from the motionless Earth.
>
> Which has nothing at all to do with centers of gravity, etc.

But it has everything to do with the center of mass when one looks at the
"universe" as the closed system-----as is *clearly* pointed out by
Einstein below. And Einstein was hardly alone. Is Harshman claiming
Einstein is wrong or that I'm misrepresenting Einstein's quote below?
Perhaps Harshman should go cry to Carlip to come save him----yet again.

If-----as is claimed by the modern secular cosmologists-----the Earth is
being held in the gravitational field of our galaxy then it is highly
plausible that the centrifigal force generated by the entire system of
galaxies revolving around the Earth/Sun could keep the Sun in its
position 93 million miles from earth (and the Earth as the COM). Unless
Harshman extends his calculations beyond the two bodies (Earth and Sun)
he is pissing into the wind.

There is not a single scientific proof that the Earth is moving---not
one. Michelson-Morley was the beginning of the end for Copernicanism and
Heliocentricism. Hubble found other proofs of geocentricism which he
dismissed and introduced more ad hoc solutions. And that rascally "axis
of evil" found in the CMB----more evidence of geocentricism. Modern
secularists don't know whether to shit or go blind-----its getting harder
to avoid the obvious.

Harshman can no more prove the earth is moving (or must move around the
Sun) with his silly two-body calculation than he can prove
transformational change with the proposition that ratites lost the
ability to fly.

>
>> Einstein wrote:
>> "We need not necessarily trace the existence of these centrifugal
>> forces back to an absolute movement of K' [Earth]; we can instead just
>> as well trace them back to the rotational movement of the distant
>> ponderable masses [stars] in relation to K' whereby we treat K'[Earth]
>> as 'at rest' . . .
>>
>> Perhaps you should stick to your ratites? Of course that didn't help
>> much in proving the transformational claims of neoDarwinism. It's good
>> to be back keeping Harshman and the occupants of his clown-car hopping
>> around while I crack the whip.
>
> Yes, the Dunning-Kruger is strong in this one.

Pot-Kettle perhaps. A classic tactic whenever one has hit intellectual
bankrupcy is to resort to ad hominem attacks. Harshman better up his
game significantly.

[John Harshman]

That quote doesn't mention any center of mass or zero net force. All it
says is that there is no privileged frame of reference, which you in
fact reject. You're the one saying Einstein was wrong.

> If-----as is claimed by the modern secular cosmologists-----the Earth is
> being held in the gravitational field of our galaxy then it is highly
> plausible that the centrifigal force generated by the entire system of
> galaxies revolving around the Earth/Sun could keep the Sun in its
> position 93 million miles from earth (and the Earth as the COM). Unless
> Harshman extends his calculations beyond the two bodies (Earth and Sun)
> he is pissing into the wind.
>
> There is not a single scientific proof that the Earth is moving---not
> one. Michelson-Morley was the beginning of the end for Copernicanism and
> Heliocentricism. Hubble found other proofs of geocentricism which he
> dismissed and introduced more ad hoc solutions. And that rascally "axis
> of evil" found in the CMB----more evidence of geocentricism. Modern
> secularists don't know whether to shit or go blind-----its getting harder
> to avoid the obvious.
>
> Harshman can no more prove the earth is moving (or must move around the
> Sun) with his silly two-body calculation than he can prove
> transformational change with the proposition that ratites lost the
> ability to fly.

The silly two-body calculation wasn't intended to prove the earth is
moving. It was intended to show that your idea that there is no net
gravitational force at the center of mass is wrong. Nothing you have
said addresses that point. Two bodies, three bodies, billions of bodies,
it's all the same. Center of mass != center of attraction.

Incidentally, there is no such thing as "centrifugal force". That's why
it's called a fictitious force.

As for the ratite thing, you've never read the paper, have you?

>>> Einstein wrote:
>>> "We need not necessarily trace the existence of these centrifugal
>>> forces back to an absolute movement of K' [Earth]; we can instead just
>>> as well trace them back to the rotational movement of the distant
>>> ponderable masses [stars] in relation to K' whereby we treat K'[Earth]
>>> as 'at rest' . . .
>>>
>>> Perhaps you should stick to your ratites? Of course that didn't help
>>> much in proving the transformational claims of neoDarwinism. It's good
>>> to be back keeping Harshman and the occupants of his clown-car hopping
>>> around while I crack the whip.
>>
>> Yes, the Dunning-Kruger is strong in this one.

> Pot-Kettle perhaps. A classic tactic whenever one has hit intellectual
> bankrupcy is to resort to ad hominem attacks. Harshman better up his
> game significantly.

Why does Pagano always refer to people in the third person? And why
doesn't he know what "ad hominem" means?

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 15 Jan 2018 19:47:56 -0600, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by T Pagano <notmya...@dot.com>:

OK, I see where this is going.

What M-M concluded was that there *is* no "luminiferous
ether", not that the Earth was unmoving. The experiment was
designed to detect the movement of the Earth *through the
ether*, and when no directional change was detected they
concluded, rightly, that there was nothing for the Earth to
move *through*. At issue was the set of
seemingly-contradictory characteristics possessed by the
hypothetical "ether", the most notable of which were its
impalpability combined with its extreme rigidity, the latter
due to the observed speed of light, when the speed of waves
through a substance was known, for commonly-observed
compression waves in matter, top be directly proportional to
the rigidity of the substance through which they moved. The
experiment showed that there *was* no ether, paving the way
for relativity.

>Surely you can see that this spelled doom for heliocentricism. Lorentz,
>Einstein and all their contemporaries were fully aware that one obvious
>interpretation was that the Earth was NOT moving around the sun or
>anywhere else.

Nope, the *obvious* interpretation, given the already-known
problems for the "luminiferous ether", as stated above, was
that the ether didn't exist, and that light, and all other
EM radiation, was *not* compression waves in matter.

> This was an abhorrent option for them for philosophical
>reasons not scientific ones.
>
>As I point out Lorentz's ad hoc solution was to claim that matter in
>motion shrinks. In other words Lorentz claimed that the arm of the M-M
>Interferometer shrank in proportion to its motion disguising the motion
>of Earth relative to the ether.
>
>Einstein's solution was to argue that the ether didn't exist and this is
>why the M-M experiment had a null result. His SR theory was developed as
>a direct result.

Correct. But M-M performed their experiment *because* of the
known intractable problems of the purported "ether", and
those experiments showed that the problems went away when
the ether did.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 16 Jan 2018 07:02:56 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>:

....something never in doubt, and thus irrelevant.

OK.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 16 Jan 2018 06:41:26 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

Obviously he does, since he's using M-M bass-ackwards to
show that the Earth is motionless. He doesn't seem to want
to acknowledge the problems with the purported "ether" which
prompted those experiments, and which would still exist if
the ether were real. Not to mention the small problem of
everything beyond Neptune(?) being required to move at
velocities greater than c if the Earth is stationary...

>>Surely you can see that this spelled doom for heliocentricism.
>
>
>Surely you can see you haven't supported your premise.
>
>
>>Lorentz,
>>Einstein and all their contemporaries were fully aware that one obvious
>>interpretation was that the Earth was NOT moving around the sun or
>>anywhere else. This was an abhorrent option for them for philosophical
>>reasons not scientific ones.
>
>
>The motions of the Earth were already known. So the other obvious
>reason, but more consistent with the evidence, is there is no ether.
>
>
>>As I point out Lorentz's ad hoc solution was to claim that matter in
>>motion shrinks. In other words Lorentz claimed that the arm of the M-M
>>Interferometer shrank in proportion to its motion disguising the motion
>>of Earth relative to the ether.
>
>
>Lorentz solution was not ad hoc, but a logical conclusion based on the
>evidence; if speed of light is constant, then space and/or time must
>shrink in direction of motion.
>
>
>>Einstein's solution was to argue that the ether didn't exist and this is
>>why the M-M experiment had a null result. His SR theory was developed as
>>a direct result.
>
>
>You haven't shown ether exists. You haven't shown the Earth is
>stationary. You haven't shown SR false. You haven't shown
>heliocentrism false. Your entire argument is a series of bald
>assertions and non sequiturs.
--

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 15 Jan 2018 13:20:28 -0600, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by T Pagano <notmya...@dot.com>:

>On Mon, 15 Jan 2018 10:47:49 -0700, Bob Casanova wrote:

Not in this thread, I didn't; that was in the "Test" thread.

>> On Mon, 15 Jan 2018 07:32:38 -0600, the following appeared in
>> talk.origins, posted by T Pagano <notmya...@dot.com>:

>>
>>>On Sun, 14 Jan 2018 19:37:21 -0600, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>>>
>>>> T Pagano <notmya...@dot.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 01 Jan 2018 14:51:57 -0600, RonO wrote:
>
>

>snip

>
>
>
>>>As I pointed out before my untimely departure in 2012: Einstein and his
>>>peers rejected geocentrism on philosophical grounds, not scientific
>>>ones. The fact that the Michelson-Morly experiments disconfirmed
>>>heliocentric theory's claims about the earth's velocity (around the sun
>>>and around the galaxy) while the Michelson-Gale experiment confirmed
>>>rotational speed of the Earth with reference to the stars still have
>>>been ignored rather than explained. Both experiments used similar
>>>interferometers.
>>

>> Cite? The only M-M experiments I know of are the ones which disconfirmed
>> the existence of the "luminiferous ether", not any claims regarding the
>> Earth's velocity, either rotational or otherwise.

>>
>>> Amongst themselves these results kept Einstein, Hubble,
>>>et al. up at night in a tizzy. Publicly they were either ignored or
>>>handled ad hoc. Modern technology hasn't solved this----has it?
>
>
>
>

>While the Michelson-Morley experiment only involved taking a small number
>of measurements, it always measured a small velocity of the Earth
>relative to the ether. Unfortunately it was too small to confirm the
>heliocentric model----the Earth's velocity around the Sun (or around the
>galaxy) through the ether was calculated to be considerably higher than
>the velocity actually measured by M-M experiment.
>
>The obvious conclusion was that the Earth was neither moving around the
>Sun nor the galaxy. However, this interpretation was philosophically
>abhorrent to Einstein, et al. As a result Einstein spun the small
>velocity measurements as being "null" which he further interpreted to
>mean that the ether didn't exist. His Special Theory disposed of the
>ether as a reference frame. This caused other problems and Einstein was
>eventually forced to add the ether back in with the invention of his
>theory of General Relativity.
>
>Unfortunately Dayton Miller's interferometer experiments (he took around
>200,000 measurments) showed that there was a measurable velocity relative
>to an ether that also indicated an axis of evil. Dayton Miller's long
>running experiment was seriously damaging to both Einstein's Special
>Relatively and General Relativity. In fact the newspapers at the time
>published the feud between the two. Interestingly Dayton Miller, Sagnac,
>Michelson, and Morley were NOT geocentricists.
>
>Like all evidence that disconfirms the reining, secular, pet theories
>these have also been ignored, spun or misrepresented.

Addressed elsewhere.

Also, see:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0608238

[T Pagano]

On Tue, 16 Jan 2018 06:41:26 -0500, jillery wrote:

> On Mon, 15 Jan 2018 19:47:56 -0600, T Pagano <notmya...@dot.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 15 Jan 2018 19:44:21 -0500, jillery wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 15 Jan 2018 18:01:58 -0600, T Pagano <notmya...@dot.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 15 Jan 2018 17:07:53 -0500, jillery wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 15 Jan 2018 08:17:48 -0800 (PST), erik simpson
>>>>> <eastsi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Monday, January 15, 2018 at 5:35:04 AM UTC-8, T Pagano wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 14 Jan 2018 19:37:21 -0600, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> > T Pagano <notmya...@dot.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> >> On Mon, 01 Jan 2018 14:51:57 -0600, RonO wrote:
>>>>>>> >>

snip

>>
>>Your kidding? Up until Michelson-Morley no secular atheist had been
>>able to prove that the Earth was moving around the Sun (or moving at
>>all). Certainly Copernicus never proved his theory.
>
>
> Copernican theory was affirmed by Kepler and Newton. MM had nothing to
> do with it.
>
>
>>According to heliocentricists the Earth supposedly moves at about 30 km/
>>sec around the Sun and about 400 km/sec around the Milky Way.
>>Michelson-
>>Morley's experiment was designed to measure the speed of the Earth
>>relative to the ether. M-M fully expected to measure a relative speed
>>of at least 30 km/sec. What it measured was relative speeds of 2 km/sec
>>or less. His experiment was reproduced several times between 1887 -1905
>>(and in latter years) with similar results.
>
>
> More accurately, MM demonstrated no motion relative to ether. Do you
> claim ether exists?

But it wasn't zero. It was always a positive value, but significantly
smaller than the supposed speed of the Earth. Dayton Miller conducted
200,000 interferometer experiments with similar positive results to M-M
but also found that the relative movement had a preferred "axis" (can we
say, "axis of evil")

Einstein (and his secular peers) knew exactly what the M-M results could
mean---the Earth wasn't moving. This was metaphysically intolerable to
him (and his peers). His solution was to interpret the result as
"null" (even though it wasn't) and conclude that the ether didn't exist.
Metaphysical problem solved.

But the non existence of ether caused problems for Maxwell's theory and
Einstein was forced to reintroduce the existence of the ether in his GR.
Yet Einstein's ether in GR was a contorted absurdity: He argued that the
ether was non-ponderable (to avoid the M-M problem) but nonetheless it
could be molded in the presence of mass (causing gravity) and act as a
medium for electromagnetic energy even though it was non-ponderable.

This isn't science; its voodoo. By the way Lorentz's solution did not
deny the existence of the ether. Lorentz was not alone concerning the
existence of the ether.

>
>
>>Surely you can see that this spelled doom for heliocentricism.
>
>
> Surely you can see you haven't supported your premise.

In an argument the conclusion must be supported by the premises and not
the other way around. Are you a tad confused or have you entered into
cognitive dissonance over what the history of the affair tells us about
the supposed greats of science----they were guided principaly by their
metaphysical beliefs not the experimental results.

>
>
>>Lorentz,
>>Einstein and all their contemporaries were fully aware that one obvious
>>interpretation was that the Earth was NOT moving around the sun or
>>anywhere else. This was an abhorrent option for them for philosophical
>>reasons not scientific ones.
>
>
> The motions of the Earth were already known.

If by "known" you mean merely that the Copernican system was accepted on
faith alone then I agree. If you mean that there existed scientific
facts which
(a) supported the Copernican system AND
(b) ruled out the geocentric system

then you would be dead wrong.

The first corroborative observational evidence that the Copernican system
"might" be correct wasn't made until 1839 by Bessel (stellar parallax).
Unfortunately stellar parallax can also be observed in the geocentric
neoTychonian model.

Arago's (1818?), Fizeau's (1851) and Airy's (1871) optical experiments
all tended to show both that the ether existed and that the earth wasn't
moving. Einstein specifically mentioned Fizeau's experiment as troubling
to him. Michelson-Morley's 1887 results were consistent with those
previous experiments and supported the neoTychonian model and not the
Copernican. This practically terrified Lorentz, Einstein and their
contemporaries----the results clearly meant the earth wasn't moving.

>So the other obvious
> reason, but more consistent with the evidence, is there is no ether.

Lorentz disagreed and Einstein was forced to include the ether in his
GR. Which obviously made SR and GR inconsistent.

>
>
>>As I point out Lorentz's ad hoc solution was to claim that matter in
>>motion shrinks. In other words Lorentz claimed that the arm of the M-M
>>Interferometer shrank in proportion to its motion disguising the motion
>>of Earth relative to the ether.
>
>
> Lorentz solution was not ad hoc, but a logical conclusion based on the
> evidence; if speed of light is constant, then space and/or time must
> shrink in direction of motion.

The problem here is that Lorentz didn't actually make measurements or
conduct experiments. And, as far as I know, NO hypothesis (let alone
theory) exists explaining how atomic particles can be shrunk.

Lorentz himself admitted that his Lorentz Transformation was solely
invented as a mathematical contrivance to "adjust" the M-M result to
zero. Lorentz's solution allowed him to keep the ether while suggesting
that optical experiments were incapable of measuring movement relative to
the ether.

>
>
>>Einstein's solution was to argue that the ether didn't exist and this is
>>why the M-M experiment had a null result. His SR theory was developed
>>as a direct result.
>
>
> You haven't shown ether exists.

Maxwell claimed it was necessary for electromagnetic propagation. Has
Maxwell been proved wrong? Einstein was forced to include the ether in
GR. Sounds to me like the ether exists.

> You haven't shown the Earth is
> stationary.

All scientific experiments to date either
(a) show the Earth to be stationary or
(b) are ultimately inconclusive about its motion.

Do you have something besides faith for proof?

> You haven't shown SR false.

Nope not here, but I had wrongly assumed you were familiar with Sagnac's
experimental results which did. See for yourself.

> You haven't shown
> heliocentrism false.

But I have shown that there are good reasons to show it is likely false.
And not so worthy of unsupported faith.

> Your entire argument is a series of bald
> assertions and non sequiturs.

I've merely reported the history of the affair. And it ain't pretty
considering the fairytale atheists tell about purely empirical science.

[T Pagano]

On Mon, 15 Jan 2018 19:52:46 -0800, Ray Martinez wrote:

> One could only wonder what you're talking about? You continue to evade a

> simple and black-and-white historical claim that first appeared in the

> Origin and now countless scholarly works: Before Darwin, science
> accepted each species created independently thus species were held to be
> immutable (Darwin 1859:6; London: John Murray). Since I've supported
> what I said with a full and well known scientific reference, and since
> the claim seen in the reference is anything but complicated, Tony has
> chosen to insult intelligence and imply that immutability in Darwin's
> time didn't mean changelessness. In the reference provided, independent
> creation of each species is defined as immutability.
>
> Note the fact that Tony has completely evaded the exact content seen in
> the reference. Most important: Tony asserts immutable doesn't mean

> immutable. Absurd as it gets. In the end, when the chips are down, the
> YEC stands with the Atheists and mutability.
>
> Ray (OEC)

>
>
>> It has been known for at least the last 6000 years that there exists a
>> tremendous variability "within" species. Dog breeders since the
>> ancient Greeks were aware of the great propensity for change between
>> successive generations of a particular species. Surely Ray didn't
>> think pre-1859 Victorian age men of science were less aware than the
>> ancient Greek dog breeders. So, by "immutability" these pre-1859 men
>> of science never meant that there was absolutely no change whatsoever
>> between successive generations within a species. Yet this is precisely
>> what Ray claims they meant.
>>
>> In any event, after explaining this to Ray back in 2012 he immediately
>> altered his signature (he abandoned "Immutabilist"), but never altered
>> his irrational claim.
>>
>> How I pine for the real old days of talk.origins (pre-2000). In those
>> days I could always count on my buddy Karl Crawford to send his
>> reguriposts about the woodpecker. They usually aggravated the life out
>> of Elsberry, Hersey and most of the rest.

Offer a single Victorian era reference with quotes, in context, in order
to examine your claim.

[T Pagano]

That Harshman's clown car is full.

[T Pagano]

I don't dispute that "immutability" was used by Darwin and other
Victorian era scientists. I simply dispute that Victorian era scientist/
naturalists used the term to mean "no change whatsoever between
successive generation." They were not so misinformed to believe such a
thing. What they believed was the fixity of species. One "kind" did not
become another "kind" is all they meant by "immutability."

Your paraphrase of Darwin doesn't substantiate your claim and it isn't an
in text quote.

[T Pagano]

On Tue, 16 Jan 2018 08:58:23 -0800, John Harshman wrote:

> On 1/16/18 7:46 AM, T Pagano wrote:
>> On Mon, 15 Jan 2018 19:02:21 -0800, John Harshman wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/15/18 5:24 PM, T Pagano wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 15 Jan 2018 16:34:40 -0800, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 1/15/18 4:05 PM, T Pagano wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 15 Jan 2018 22:39:43 +0000, Ernest Major wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 15/01/2018 22:25, T Pagano wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 15 Jan 2018 12:42:24 -0800, erik simpson wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Monday, January 15, 2018 at 10:35:03 AM UTC-8, T Pagano
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 15 Jan 2018 08:17:48 -0800, erik simpson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, January 15, 2018 at 5:35:04 AM UTC-8, T Pagano
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 14 Jan 2018 19:37:21 -0600, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> T Pagano <notmya...@dot.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 01 Jan 2018 14:51:57 -0600, RonO wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> snip
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>
>>
>> more snippage
>>
>>
>>
>>

snip

>>>
>>>> Even Mach and Einstein were aware that the duality of its own
>>>> relativistic theory prevented any objection to gencentrism. Mach's
>>>> Principle and Einstein's use of it allows the Earth to be at rest in
>>>> the center of the universe and the sun revolving around it. The
>>>> distant matter (galaxies) that rotates around the Earth creates a
>>>> centrifugal force, which acts like, but counter acts the force of
>>>> gravity, keeping the Sun a certain distance from the motionless
>>>> Earth.
>>>
>>> Which has nothing at all to do with centers of gravity, etc.
>>
>> But it has everything to do with the center of mass when one looks at
>> the "universe" as the closed system-----as is *clearly* pointed out by
>> Einstein below.
>
>> And Einstein was hardly alone. Is Harshman claiming Einstein is wrong
>> or that I'm misrepresenting Einstein's quote below? Perhaps Harshman
>> should go cry to Carlip to come save him----yet again.
>
> That quote doesn't mention any center of mass or zero net force. All it
> says is that there is no privileged frame of reference, which you in
> fact reject. You're the one saying Einstein was wrong.

Now Harshman is being intentionally obtuse. It doesn't become him.

While Einstein didn't make that claim explicit, it was certainly implied
in his quote. The point remains that relativity theory combined with
Mach's Principle
(a) did NOT rule out geocentricism, and
(b) supported it as entirely possible.
Harshman either stands with Einstein or he must turn in his atheist
decoder ring.

>
>> If-----as is claimed by the modern secular cosmologists-----the Earth
>> is being held in the gravitational field of our galaxy then it is
>> highly plausible that the centrifigal force generated by the entire
>> system of galaxies revolving around the Earth/Sun could keep the Sun in
>> its position 93 million miles from earth (and the Earth as the COM).
>> Unless Harshman extends his calculations beyond the two bodies (Earth
>> and Sun) he is pissing into the wind.
>>
>> There is not a single scientific proof that the Earth is moving---not
>> one. Michelson-Morley was the beginning of the end for Copernicanism
>> and Heliocentricism. Hubble found other proofs of geocentricism which
>> he dismissed and introduced more ad hoc solutions. And that rascally
>> "axis of evil" found in the CMB----more evidence of geocentricism.
>> Modern secularists don't know whether to shit or go blind-----its
>> getting harder to avoid the obvious.
>>
>> Harshman can no more prove the earth is moving (or must move around the
>> Sun) with his silly two-body calculation than he can prove
>> transformational change with the proposition that ratites lost the
>> ability to fly.
>
> The silly two-body calculation wasn't intended to prove the earth is
> moving. It was intended to show that your idea that there is no net
> gravitational force at the center of mass is wrong. Nothing you have
> said addresses that point. Two bodies, three bodies, billions of bodies,
> it's all the same. Center of mass != center of attraction.

You can't prove the impossibility of the earth being the center of mass
with the universe as the closed system with a two-body problem. It's not
even helpful. So not only is Harshman's claim absurd, Einstein disputed
it. Disputing Einstein might be stapled to every grant application you
make----careful big fella.

>
> Incidentally, there is no such thing as "centrifugal force". That's why
> it's called a fictitious force.

Better check with Carlip on this one because he'd tell you that you are
wrong. Coriolis and Centrifugal forces were characterized as fictitious
only because secularists had no physical explanation for them in the
heliocentric model.

I get a two-fer with Einstein's quote. Einstein points out that in a
geocentric model centrifugal forces are real and directly caused by all
the ponderable masses [stars] in the universe which revolve around the
Earth. Einstein is not the only one who held this.

Perhaps Carlip should be on retainer.

>
> As for the ratite thing, you've never read the paper, have you?

Check the google groups archive for (I think?) 2011 or 2012. Didn't I
goad you into providing access or a link to it in my attempts to
resurrect Elsberry's (long defunct) Transitional Challenge.

Anyway, if you'd like to re-visit the issue create a new thread with a
link to the article and I would happily re-read it. As I recall the
article was clear, interesting, well-written and modest in its goal.

>
>>>> Einstein wrote:
>>>> "We need not necessarily trace the existence of these centrifugal
>>>> forces back to an absolute movement of K' [Earth]; we can instead
>>>> just as well trace them back to the rotational movement of the
>>>> distant ponderable masses [stars] in relation to K' whereby we treat
>>>> K'[Earth] as 'at rest' . . .
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps you should stick to your ratites? Of course that didn't help
>>>> much in proving the transformational claims of neoDarwinism. It's
>>>> good to be back keeping Harshman and the occupants of his clown-car
>>>> hopping around while I crack the whip.
>>>
>>> Yes, the Dunning-Kruger is strong in this one.
>
>> Pot-Kettle perhaps. A classic tactic whenever one has hit intellectual
>> bankrupcy is to resort to ad hominem attacks. Harshman better up his
>> game significantly.
>
> Why does Pagano always refer to people in the third person?

It ensures that any readers will be fully aware of the identity of the
opposing protaganists. If it annoys you "that" much I'll endeavor to
reform.

> And why
> doesn't he know what "ad hominem" means?

Surely you don't need yet another Philosophy of Logic 101 lesson. Even
wikipedia gets this one right.





.. . .he jumps, he shoots and swisssh. . .

[Mark Isaak]

What about the annual Doppler shift of stars' specra? Does it make
sense that the earth is stationary but all the other stars shift back
and forth, at the same time, every year?

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Ignorance, allied with power, is the most ferocious enemy justice can
have." - James Baldwin

[John Harshman]

Or at least in your fervid imagination. Do explain the implication.

> The point remains that relativity theory combined with
> Mach's Principle
> (a) did NOT rule out geocentricism, and
> (b) supported it as entirely possible.
> Harshman either stands with Einstein or he must turn in his atheist
> decoder ring.

What part of "no privileged frame of reference" is unclear to you?

Proof is certainly impossible. The point is that it would take a very
careful juggling of mass to make the center of mass also a point of zero
net gravitational force. Exactly equal masses must be at exactly equal
distances 180 degrees opposite the earth at every pair of points. Do you
think that's true?

>> Incidentally, there is no such thing as "centrifugal force". That's why
>> it's called a fictitious force.
>
> Better check with Carlip on this one because he'd tell you that you are
> wrong. Coriolis and Centrifugal forces were characterized as fictitious
> only because secularists had no physical explanation for them in the
> heliocentric model.

I would like to see your invocation of Carlip confirmed by Carlip. You
know how bad you are at interpreting the words of others.

> I get a two-fer with Einstein's quote. Einstein points out that in a
> geocentric model centrifugal forces are real and directly caused by all
> the ponderable masses [stars] in the universe which revolve around the
> Earth. Einstein is not the only one who held this.
>
> Perhaps Carlip should be on retainer.

Perhaps you should wear your retainer, since your words seem all crooked.

>> As for the ratite thing, you've never read the paper, have you?
>
> Check the google groups archive for (I think?) 2011 or 2012. Didn't I
> goad you into providing access or a link to it in my attempts to
> resurrect Elsberry's (long defunct) Transitional Challenge.

That doesn't mean you actually read it. Or understood it.

> Anyway, if you'd like to re-visit the issue create a new thread with a
> link to the article and I would happily re-read it. As I recall the
> article was clear, interesting, well-written and modest in its goal.

So why isn't it evidence of transformation?

>>>>> Einstein wrote:
>>>>> "We need not necessarily trace the existence of these centrifugal
>>>>> forces back to an absolute movement of K' [Earth]; we can instead
>>>>> just as well trace them back to the rotational movement of the
>>>>> distant ponderable masses [stars] in relation to K' whereby we treat
>>>>> K'[Earth] as 'at rest' . . .
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps you should stick to your ratites? Of course that didn't help
>>>>> much in proving the transformational claims of neoDarwinism. It's
>>>>> good to be back keeping Harshman and the occupants of his clown-car
>>>>> hopping around while I crack the whip.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, the Dunning-Kruger is strong in this one.
>>
>>> Pot-Kettle perhaps. A classic tactic whenever one has hit intellectual
>>> bankrupcy is to resort to ad hominem attacks. Harshman better up his
>>> game significantly.
>>
>> Why does Pagano always refer to people in the third person?
>
> It ensures that any readers will be fully aware of the identity of the
> opposing protaganists. If it annoys you "that" much I'll endeavor to
> reform.

It makes you sound like you have trouble making eye contact. Just sayin'.

>> And why
>> doesn't he know what "ad hominem" means?
>
> Surely you don't need yet another Philosophy of Logic 101 lesson. Even
> wikipedia gets this one right.

> .. . .he jumps, he shoots and swisssh. . .

....The crowd goes wild, wondering what he's doing on the tennis court.

[Rolf]

"T Pagano" <notmya...@dot.com> wrote in message

news:wZydnavxUYWvacHH...@ptd.net...

> On Mon, 15 Jan 2018 08:17:48 -0800, erik simpson wrote:
>
>> On Monday, January 15, 2018 at 5:35:04 AM UTC-8, T Pagano wrote:
>>> On Sun, 14 Jan 2018 19:37:21 -0600, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>>>
>>> > T Pagano <notmya...@dot.com> wrote:
>>> >> On Mon, 01 Jan 2018 14:51:57 -0600, RonO wrote:
>
> snip
>
>

>> The Michelson-Morley experiment "disconfirmed" the heliocentric claims
>> about the earth's velocity..."? What are you talking about? Which
>> heliocentric claims are you are skeptical about? Pretty sure Hubble,
>> Einstein didn't lose much sleep over them. In fact, Newton, Laplace
>> (and many others) slept well, at least with regard to those concerns.
>
>
>

> Obviously you're unaware of why Michelson-Morley conducted their
> experiment and the import of the experimental results. Arguably the
> invention of the Lorentz Transformation and the Special Theory of
> Relativity were offered specifically to counter the Michelson-Morley
> results.
>
> Sagnac's interferometer experiments and Dayton Miller's long running
> interferometer experiment both rendered Einstein's Special and General
> Theory questionable. I'd say that's significant. That this history has
> been buried explains why Einstein is still considered a genius.
>

Right, you are the genius! Next to Ray, of course.

To think that we have 2, - two geniuses at t.o!
>

[Ray Martinez]

Not true. Whether my sig reflects or not I remain what science accepted prior to 1860 (species immutability).

> >>
> >> How I pine for the real old days of talk.origins (pre-2000). In those
> >> days I could always count on my buddy Karl Crawford to send his
> >> reguriposts about the woodpecker. They usually aggravated the life out
> >> of Elsberry, Hersey and most of the rest.
>
>
>
> Offer a single Victorian era reference with quotes, in context, in order
> to examine your claim.

From the Introduction to the Origin of Species:

http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?pageseq=22&itemID=F373&viewtype=side

"I can entertain no doubt, after the most deliberate study and dispassionate judgment of which I am capable, that the view which most naturalists entertain, and which I formerly entertained—namely, that each species has been independently created—is erroneous. I am fully convinced that species are not immutable" (C. Darwin, "On The Origin Of Species By Means Of Natural Selection" 1859:6; London: John Murray).

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

Click on the link then scroll up just a little.

Ray

[Ernest Major]

On 16/01/2018 22:28, John Harshman wrote:
>
> Proof is certainly impossible. The point is that it would take a very
> careful juggling of mass to make the center of mass also a point of zero
> net gravitational force. Exactly equal masses must be at exactly equal
> distances 180 degrees opposite the earth at every pair of points. Do you
> think that's true?

You don't need pairs of exactly equal masses with opposite position
vectors to have a net zero gravitational force at the centre of mass; a
counter example with be 3 equal masses at the vertices of an equilateral
triangle.

On the other hand, you not only need careful juggling of the masses, but
careful juggling of their motions, so that the net force remains zero;
what compensates for the difference between the net force of the sun and
moon at full moon and new moon?

--
alias Ernest Major

[jillery]

On Tue, 16 Jan 2018 12:24:46 -0600, T Pagano <notmya...@dot.com>
wrote:

>On Tue, 16 Jan 2018 06:41:26 -0500, jillery wrote:
>
>

>snip


Works for me too.

<snippity snip>

>> More accurately, MM demonstrated no motion relative to ether. Do you
>> claim ether exists?
>
>
>
>But it wasn't zero. It was always a positive value, but significantly
>smaller than the supposed speed of the Earth. Dayton Miller conducted
>200,000 interferometer experiments with similar positive results to M-M
>but also found that the relative movement had a preferred "axis" (can we
>say, "axis of evil")

Let's not and just say we did.

So let assume for argument's sake there was a statistically
significant non-zero value outside the error bars. How would
geocentrism explain that?

>Einstein (and his secular peers) knew exactly what the M-M results could
>mean---the Earth wasn't moving. This was metaphysically intolerable to
>him (and his peers). His solution was to interpret the result as
>"null" (even though it wasn't) and conclude that the ether didn't exist.
>Metaphysical problem solved.

Cite an authoritative article which shows that an MM-style experiment
measured a statistically significant positive result.

>But the non existence of ether caused problems for Maxwell's theory and
>Einstein was forced to reintroduce the existence of the ether in his GR.

Cite.

>Yet Einstein's ether in GR was a contorted absurdity: He argued that the
>ether was non-ponderable (to avoid the M-M problem) but nonetheless it
>could be molded in the presence of mass (causing gravity) and act as a
>medium for electromagnetic energy even though it was non-ponderable.
>
>This isn't science; its voodoo. By the way Lorentz's solution did not
>deny the existence of the ether. Lorentz was not alone concerning the
>existence of the ether.

Lorentz didn't deny lots of things, ex, a flying spaghetti monster.
Why do you think Lorentz was obliged to deny something that was known
to be irrelevant?

>>>Surely you can see that this spelled doom for heliocentricism.
>>
>>
>> Surely you can see you haven't supported your premise.
>
>
>
>
>In an argument the conclusion must be supported by the premises and not
>the other way around. Are you a tad confused or have you entered into
>cognitive dissonance over what the history of the affair tells us about
>the supposed greats of science----they were guided principaly by their
>metaphysical beliefs not the experimental results.

My bad. I meant that you haven't supported your *conclusions*, and
that haven't *established* your premises, IOW you assert facts not in
evidence.

>>>Lorentz,
>>>Einstein and all their contemporaries were fully aware that one obvious
>>>interpretation was that the Earth was NOT moving around the sun or
>>>anywhere else. This was an abhorrent option for them for philosophical
>>>reasons not scientific ones.

Yes, they were almost certainly aware of that interpretation, just as
they were aware of Goddidit! My impression is they gave both of those
obvious interpretations all the consideration they deserved.

>> The motions of the Earth were already known.
>
>
>
>
>If by "known" you mean merely that the Copernican system was accepted on
>faith alone then I agree.

Nope. And they didn't accept it on any bald assertions, either.
Instead, they based their conclusions on observations and
calculations. That's a trait you should emulate.

>If you mean that there existed scientific
>facts which
>(a) supported the Copernican system AND
>(b) ruled out the geocentric system
>
>then you would be dead wrong.

That's exactly what I mean. And you are dead wrong. See how easy it
is to refute your bald assertions with my bald assertions?

>The first corroborative observational evidence that the Copernican system
>"might" be correct wasn't made until 1839 by Bessel (stellar parallax).
>Unfortunately stellar parallax can also be observed in the geocentric
>neoTychonian model.

BZZT! Galileo's observation of the phases of Venus utterly refuted
classic geocentrism, and his observations of Galilean moons showed the
Earth wasn't the center of all motion. Newton's Laws of Motion
explains why the barycenter is necessarily closer to the more massive
body. With over 99% of the mass of the Solar System, the Sun
revolving around the Earth would violate the laws of physics.

The Tychonian model was an ad hoc compromise. Its assumptions have no
foundation, and it offers no explanation for why the Earth should be
the center of motion. In fact, Tycho could have put any of the known
stellar bodies in the center of an equivalent Tychonian system,
including the Sun. This show the Tychonian system fails as an
explanatory model.

>Arago's (1818?), Fizeau's (1851) and Airy's (1871) optical experiments
>all tended to show both that the ether existed and that the earth wasn't
>moving. Einstein specifically mentioned Fizeau's experiment as troubling
>to him. Michelson-Morley's 1887 results were consistent with those
>previous experiments and supported the neoTychonian model and not the
>Copernican. This practically terrified Lorentz, Einstein and their
>contemporaries----the results clearly meant the earth wasn't moving.

Nope. You're still asserting bald facts not in evidence. Cite
anything which justifies your *conclusion* that Lorentz and Einstein
were "practically terrified".

>>So the other obvious
>> reason, but more consistent with the evidence, is there is no ether.
>
>
>
>Lorentz disagreed and Einstein was forced to include the ether in his
>GR. Which obviously made SR and GR inconsistent.

Are you saying SR is wrong? How does that square with your comments
elsetopic, where you mock Harshman for allegedly disputing Einstein?

>>>As I point out Lorentz's ad hoc solution was to claim that matter in
>>>motion shrinks. In other words Lorentz claimed that the arm of the M-M
>>>Interferometer shrank in proportion to its motion disguising the motion
>>>of Earth relative to the ether.
>>
>>
>> Lorentz solution was not ad hoc, but a logical conclusion based on the
>> evidence; if speed of light is constant, then space and/or time must
>> shrink in direction of motion.
>
>
>
>The problem here is that Lorentz didn't actually make measurements or
>conduct experiments. And, as far as I know, NO hypothesis (let alone
>theory) exists explaining how atomic particles can be shrunk.

Once again, you're disputing SR. Sounds like special pleading, where
mocking Einstein is ok for you but not anybody else.

>Lorentz himself admitted that his Lorentz Transformation was solely
>invented as a mathematical contrivance to "adjust" the M-M result to
>zero. Lorentz's solution allowed him to keep the ether while suggesting
>that optical experiments were incapable of measuring movement relative to
>the ether.
>
>
>>
>>
>>>Einstein's solution was to argue that the ether didn't exist and this is
>>>why the M-M experiment had a null result. His SR theory was developed
>>>as a direct result.
>>
>>
>> You haven't shown ether exists.
>
>
>
>Maxwell claimed it was necessary for electromagnetic propagation.

If so, he was wrong.

>Has
>Maxwell been proved wrong? Einstein was forced to include the ether in
>GR.

Cite.

>Sounds to me like the ether exists.
>
>
>
>
>> You haven't shown the Earth is
>> stationary.
>
>
>All scientific experiments to date either
>(a) show the Earth to be stationary or
>(b) are ultimately inconclusive about its motion.
>
>Do you have something besides faith for proof?
>
>
>
>
>> You haven't shown SR false.
>
>
>Nope not here, but I had wrongly assumed you were familiar with Sagnac's
>experimental results which did. See for yourself.
>
>
>
>
>
>> You haven't shown
>> heliocentrism false.
>
>
>But I have shown that there are good reasons to show it is likely false.

Nope, you merely baldly asserted facts not in evidence.

>And not so worthy of unsupported faith.

Your projection is showing.

>> Your entire argument is a series of bald
>> assertions and non sequiturs.
>
>
>
>I've merely reported the history of the affair. And it ain't pretty
>considering the fairytale atheists tell about purely empirical science.

Your fairytales disqualify you from complaining about the alleged
fairytales of others.

[John Harshman]

On 1/16/18 3:48 PM, Ernest Major wrote:
> On 16/01/2018 22:28, John Harshman wrote:
>>
>> Proof is certainly impossible. The point is that it would take a very
>> careful juggling of mass to make the center of mass also a point of
>> zero net gravitational force. Exactly equal masses must be at exactly
>> equal distances 180 degrees opposite the earth at every pair of
>> points. Do you think that's true?
>
> You don't need pairs of exactly equal masses with opposite position
> vectors to have a net zero gravitational force at the centre of mass; a
> counter example with be 3 equal masses at the vertices of an equilateral
> triangle.

True. Should have left off at "very careful juggling".

> On the other hand, you not only need careful juggling of the masses, but
> careful juggling of their motions, so that the net force remains zero;
> what compensates for the difference between the net force of the sun and
> moon at full moon and new moon?

I'm going to suppose that what he's getting that is that under special
relativity you can have a reference frame in which earth is both
stationary and non-rotating. I'm not completely sure that's true, and I
don't know how you deal with the apparent FTL motions of any object more
than 24/(2*pi) light hours away from us. Perhaps someone competent in
physics* can explain. And I don't understand how Tony can appeal to
general relativity, which he rejects, to support any claim, much less a
privileged frame of motion.

*No, Tony, that doesn't include you.

[T Pagano]

On Tue, 16 Jan 2018 10:42:34 -0700, Bob Casanova wrote:

> On Tue, 16 Jan 2018 06:41:26 -0500, the following appeared in
> talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>
>>On Mon, 15 Jan 2018 19:47:56 -0600, T Pagano <notmya...@dot.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 15 Jan 2018 19:44:21 -0500, jillery wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 15 Jan 2018 18:01:58 -0600, T Pagano <notmya...@dot.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 15 Jan 2018 17:07:53 -0500, jillery wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 15 Jan 2018 08:17:48 -0800 (PST), erik simpson
>>>>>> <eastsi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Monday, January 15, 2018 at 5:35:04 AM UTC-8, T Pagano wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 14 Jan 2018 19:37:21 -0600, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> > T Pagano <notmya...@dot.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> >> On Mon, 01 Jan 2018 14:51:57 -0600, RonO wrote:
>>>>>>>> >>

snip

>>More accurately, MM demonstrated no motion relative to ether. Do you
>>claim ether exists?
>
> Obviously he does, since he's using M-M bass-ackwards to show that the
> Earth is motionless. He doesn't seem to want to acknowledge the problems
> with the purported "ether" which prompted those experiments, and which
> would still exist if the ether were real. Not to mention the small
> problem of everything beyond Neptune(?) being required to move at
> velocities greater than c if the Earth is stationary...

I think you are misinformed about this piece of history.

Michelson-Morley assumed the existence of the ether in their
experiments----as did virtually all of their contemporaries, particularly
with Maxwell's discoveries.

Prior optical experiments (Fizeau, Airy, Mascart) tended to show that the
Earth was not moving through the ether as claimed in the heliocentric
model. Michelson-Morley hoped to correct these prior experimental
results with a more sophisticated experimental set up inspired by Maxwell.

Michelson-Morley fully expected to observe interference fringes
corresponding to the Earth moving at a speed of at least 30 km/sec
through the ether (the Earth's supposed speed around the Sun). Instead M-
M measured speeds between 2-6 km/sec. This was unexpected by M-M, but
consistent with previous optical experiments.

So the M-M experimental results strongly indicated that the Earth was NOT
moving around the Sun at 30 km/sec. Einstein, Lorentz and all their
contemporaries all knew that this was a perfectly validly (if not
unwelcome) interpretation of the M-M results.

How did Einstein deal with this unwelcome result? He claimed by fiat
(not by scientific experiment) that the ether didn't exist and as a
result the M-M experiment was not measuring the speed of the Earth. Is
that science?

Today there does not exist definitive experimental evidence that the
Earth moves. This is astounding.



snip

[jillery]

On Tue, 16 Jan 2018 19:20:04 -0600, T Pagano <notmya...@dot.com>

Correct.

>Prior optical experiments (Fizeau, Airy, Mascart) tended to show that the
>Earth was not moving through the ether as claimed in the heliocentric
>model.

BZZT! That didn't take long. There were *zero* experiments which
showed the Earth didn't move. The veracity of heliocentrism isn't
dependent on ether's existence.

>Michelson-Morley hoped to correct these prior experimental
>results with a more sophisticated experimental set up inspired by Maxwell.

Correct, but not to show the Earth was motionless, but instead to test
partial vs complete ether dragging.

>Michelson-Morley fully expected to observe interference fringes
>corresponding to the Earth moving at a speed of at least 30 km/sec
>through the ether (the Earth's supposed speed around the Sun). Instead M-
>M measured speeds between 2-6 km/sec. This was unexpected by M-M, but
>consistent with previous optical experiments.

Their measured value is an upper limit of the accuracy of their
equipment. Your conclusion is roughly equivalent to Creationists
claiming C14 tests prove young diamonds.

>So the M-M experimental results strongly indicated that the Earth was NOT
>moving around the Sun at 30 km/sec.

BZZT! Nobody, including Michaelson and Morley, came to that
conclusion.

> Einstein, Lorentz and all their
>contemporaries all knew that this was a perfectly validly (if not
>unwelcome) interpretation of the M-M results.

Just as they knew Goddidit! was a perfectly valid and equally
meaningless, interpretation.

>How did Einstein deal with this unwelcome result? He claimed by fiat
>(not by scientific experiment) that the ether didn't exist and as a
>result the M-M experiment was not measuring the speed of the Earth. Is
>that science?

Since you asked, and since Einstein's conclusion is based on the
evidence, yes, that was science. You're welcome.

>Today there does not exist definitive experimental evidence that the
>Earth moves. This is astounding.

It's astounding that you continue to publicly reject reality.

[Ernest Major]

The idea which Tony appeals to is that the laws of physics can in
principle be converted to any reference frame. Conversion from a
non-rotating to a rotating reference frame introduces centrifugal and
coriolis forces, which is why they are sometimes referred to as
imaginary force. Going to a geocentric refence frame would introduce
more imaginary forces.

Special relativity deals with the relationship between inertial
(not-rotating, not accelerating) reference frames. The difference
between special relativity and Newtonian dynamics is that in special
relativity the laws of physics are Lorentz-invariant and in Newtonian
mechanics they are Galilean-invariant.

Tony has the same problem as Jeffrey Wolynski; to keep their alternative
interpretations they have to throw out more and more of mainstream physics.

--
alias Ernest Major

[John Harshman]

Tony is appealing to general relativity, not special relativity.

[erik simpson]

General relativity makes the coordinate representations more difficult, but the
main point still remains. You can choose coordinate systems that make the math
easier or harder. Bad coordinates maximize complications while good coordinates
ease them. I think Tony wants to have it tough.

[T Pagano]

On Tue, 16 Jan 2018 14:27:07 -0800, Mark Isaak wrote:

> On 1/15/18 5:47 PM, T Pagano wrote:
>> On Mon, 15 Jan 2018 19:44:21 -0500, jillery wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 15 Jan 2018 18:01:58 -0600, T Pagano <notmya...@dot.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 15 Jan 2018 17:07:53 -0500, jillery wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 15 Jan 2018 08:17:48 -0800 (PST), erik simpson
>>>>> <eastsi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Monday, January 15, 2018 at 5:35:04 AM UTC-8, T Pagano wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 14 Jan 2018 19:37:21 -0600, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> T Pagano <notmya...@dot.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 01 Jan 2018 14:51:57 -0600, RonO wrote:
>>>>>>>>>

snip

>>> Ok, so Einstein was aware of MM. Not sure how you get from any of the
>>> above to a refutation of heliocentrism, nevermind a conspiracy to
>>> protect it.
>>
>> Your kidding? Up until Michelson-Morley no secular atheist had been
>> able to prove that the Earth was moving around the Sun (or moving at
>> all). Certainly Copernicus never proved his theory.
>
> What about the annual Doppler shift of stars' specra? Does it make
> sense that the earth is stationary but all the other stars shift back
> and forth, at the same time, every year?

In the geocentric model the Sun revolves around the Earth; however, the
star field is "aligned" with the Sun. So the star field is rotating
around the Earth on a 1 au (astronomical unit) radial hub (with the Sun).
As a result on one hemisphere of the star field the stars will be
receding from the Earth and on the opposite hemisphere the star field
will be advancing.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 16 Jan 2018 19:20:04 -0600, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by T Pagano <notmya...@dot.com>:

No, I am not. The problems with the conjectured
"luminiferous ether" were analogous to those with black-body
radiation prior to Max Planck, and were solved in much the
same way, by re-examination of assumptions in light of
experimental results. In Planck's case, it was that
radiation is quantized and energy-level dependent rather
than continuous across the entire EM spectrum, which neatly
solved the BB-radiation issue. In the case of the ether, it
was that there is none, removing the quandary of an
impalpable medium which is nonetheless *far* more rigid than
any substance known, in which the (assumed) longitudinal
waves of light could propagate as sound waves do in a
medium. And when it was demonstrated that no such medium was
required, since light (and all other EM radiation) is *not*
analogous to sound waves, the problem went away.

>Michelson-Morley assumed the existence of the ether in their
>experiments----as did virtually all of their contemporaries, particularly
>with Maxwell's discoveries.

Yes, they did. And their experiments, which forced them to
re-evaluate their assumptions, showed that it is
nonexistent.

>Prior optical experiments (Fizeau, Airy, Mascart) tended to show that the
>Earth was not moving through the ether as claimed in the heliocentric
>model. Michelson-Morley hoped to correct these prior experimental
>results with a more sophisticated experimental set up inspired by Maxwell.

Correct. And once again, their experiments showed that the
ether is nonexistent. And IIRC, the heliocentric model did
*not* invoke the conjectured ether, except perhaps as an
aside; it merely said, effectively, that the Earth orbits
the sun rather than vice versa. No ether needed to be
mentioned. (I could be mistaken about the prominence of the
ether in the heliocentric model; cites welcome. But it's
irrelevant to the issue.)

>Michelson-Morley fully expected to observe interference fringes
>corresponding to the Earth moving at a speed of at least 30 km/sec
>through the ether (the Earth's supposed speed around the Sun). Instead M-
>M measured speeds between 2-6 km/sec. This was unexpected by M-M, but
>consistent with previous optical experiments.

....and even that was in the "noise regime" of their
instruments, and proved nothing.

>So the M-M experimental results strongly indicated that the Earth was NOT
>moving around the Sun at 30 km/sec.

But *only* if the ether was assumed to exist, which it
doesn't.

> Einstein, Lorentz and all their
>contemporaries all knew that this was a perfectly validly (if not
>unwelcome) interpretation of the M-M results.

Of course; conclusions are dependent on assumptions, and the
incorrect assumption that the ether exists led quite
logically from the M-M failure to measure any motion to the
conclusion that the Earth is stationary; classic GIGO.

>How did Einstein deal with this unwelcome result? He claimed by fiat
>(not by scientific experiment) that the ether didn't exist and as a
>result the M-M experiment was not measuring the speed of the Earth. Is
>that science?

Since that was later confirmed by many experiments and
observations and never refuted by any, yes, it was.
Sometimes a new perspective, as provided by Einstein and
Planck, can open up research bogged down by logical, but
incorrect, assumptions, as in these two cases: the nature of
EM radiation in general and the nature of BB radiation in
particular.

>Today there does not exist definitive experimental evidence that the
>Earth moves. This is astounding.

What is astounding to me is that anyone can base everything
on the assertion that the luminiferous ether exists, when
every bit of data says it doesn't, and when assumption of
its existence would simply reinstate all the contradictory
issues noted above, which were made moot by the M-M
experiments and their aftermath.

[T Pagano]

On Tue, 16 Jan 2018 14:28:10 -0800, John Harshman wrote:

> On 1/16/18 1:19 PM, T Pagano wrote:
>> On Tue, 16 Jan 2018 08:58:23 -0800, John Harshman wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/16/18 7:46 AM, T Pagano wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 15 Jan 2018 19:02:21 -0800, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 1/15/18 5:24 PM, T Pagano wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 15 Jan 2018 16:34:40 -0800, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 1/15/18 4:05 PM, T Pagano wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 15 Jan 2018 22:39:43 +0000, Ernest Major wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 15/01/2018 22:25, T Pagano wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 15 Jan 2018 12:42:24 -0800, erik simpson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, January 15, 2018 at 10:35:03 AM UTC-8, T Pagano
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 15 Jan 2018 08:17:48 -0800, erik simpson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, January 15, 2018 at 5:35:04 AM UTC-8, T Pagano
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 14 Jan 2018 19:37:21 -0600, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> T Pagano <notmya...@dot.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 01 Jan 2018 14:51:57 -0600, RonO wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> snip
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> more snippage
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>> snip
>>
>>

snip

>>>
>>> That quote doesn't mention any center of mass or zero net force. All
>>> it says is that there is no privileged frame of reference, which you
>>> in fact reject. You're the one saying Einstein was wrong.
>>
>> Now Harshman is being intentionally obtuse. It doesn't become him.
>>
>> While Einstein didn't make that claim explicit, it was certainly
>> implied in his quote.




> Or at least in your fervid imagination. Do explain the implication.

How can the Earth be "treated as at rest" unless it is also the the COM.

>
>> The point remains that relativity theory combined with Mach's Principle
>> (a) did NOT rule out geocentricism, and (b) supported it as entirely
>> possible.
>> Harshman either stands with Einstein or he must turn in his atheist
>> decoder ring.
>




> What part of "no privileged frame of reference" is unclear to you?

Einstein wrote:
"We need not necessarily trace the existence of these centrifugal forces
back to an absolute movement of K' [Earth]; we can instead just as well
trace them back to the rotational movement of the distant ponderable
masses [stars] in relation to K' whereby we treat K'[Earth] as 'at
rest' . . .

The point is and was that Einstein (with support from Mach) stated that
the geocentric model was a perfectly valid choice. You disagreed using
your two-body rubbish. So are you correct or is Einstein correct? You
refuse to answer.

And Einstein's quote would seem to suggest that the geoCentric model had
at least one advantage over other non-privileged possibilities (like the
heliocentric one)----it provided a physical explanation for coriolis and
centrifugal forces. That sounds a tad privileged to me.

You waive, "no privileged frame of reference" around as if it were a law
of nature when it is nothing of the sort. The absolute relativity of
Einstein's SR is science by fiat. As far as I know SR has little if any
experimental proof and has no practical scientific value. Why is that?

Einstein's assumption of absolute relativity was refuted by Sagnac's
interferometer experiment (1913) and duplicated by Michelson-Gale-Pearson
in 1925. The experimental results proved definitively the existence of
the ether and proved the concept of absolute motion. As far as I know
Einstein never dared utter a word about Sagnac and at some point after
1913 Einstein demurred that SR was not valid in rotating systems.



snip

>>
>> You can't prove the impossibility of the earth being the center of mass
>> with the universe as the closed system with a two-body problem. It's
>> not even helpful. So not only is Harshman's claim absurd, Einstein
>> disputed it. Disputing Einstein might be stapled to every grant
>> application you make----careful big fella.
>
> Proof is certainly impossible. The point is that it would take a very
> careful juggling of mass to make the center of mass also a point of zero
> net gravitational force. Exactly equal masses must be at exactly equal
> distances 180 degrees opposite the earth at every pair of points. Do you
> think that's true?

Einstein didn't seem to think it was problem; you're either with Einstein
or against him. Still waiting for an answer. . .

>
>>> Incidentally, there is no such thing as "centrifugal force". That's
>>> why it's called a fictitious force.
>>
>> Better check with Carlip on this one because he'd tell you that you are
>> wrong. Coriolis and Centrifugal forces were characterized as
>> fictitious only because secularists had no physical explanation for
>> them in the heliocentric model.
>
> I would like to see your invocation of Carlip confirmed by Carlip. You
> know how bad you are at interpreting the words of others.

I've been practically begging you to check with Carlip. Regardless I'm
not worried about him since I have Einstein's quote about the geocentric
model having a physical explanation for centrifugal forces.

Einstein wrote:
"We need not necessarily trace the existence of these centrifugal forces
back to an absolute movement of K' [Earth]; we can instead just as well
trace them back to the rotational movement of the distant ponderable
masses [stars] in relation to K' whereby we treat K'[Earth] as 'at
rest' . . .





>
>> I get a two-fer with Einstein's quote. Einstein points out that in a
>> geocentric model centrifugal forces are real and directly caused by all
>> the ponderable masses [stars] in the universe which revolve around the
>> Earth. Einstein is not the only one who held this.
>>
>> Perhaps Carlip should be on retainer.
>
> Perhaps you should wear your retainer, since your words seem all
> crooked.
>
>>> As for the ratite thing, you've never read the paper, have you?
>>
>> Check the google groups archive for (I think?) 2011 or 2012. Didn't I
>> goad you into providing access or a link to it in my attempts to
>> resurrect Elsberry's (long defunct) Transitional Challenge.
>
> That doesn't mean you actually read it. Or understood it.
>
>> Anyway, if you'd like to re-visit the issue create a new thread with a
>> link to the article and I would happily re-read it. As I recall the
>> article was clear, interesting, well-written and modest in its goal.
>



> So why isn't it evidence of transformation?

If you deny that I read it or am capable of understanding it then why
ask?

In any event I only have a vague recollection that the article discussed
evidence of physical changes over time to ratite feet which accompanied
the population's loss of flight. I don't remember the journal, title or
date or the report.

Provide me with a link to the report and I'll read it carefully (ask for
clarifications if necessary), I'll start a new thread and discuss why I
think the changes to the feet are not evidence of "neoDarwinian"
transformational change.


snip

>>>
>>> Why does Pagano always refer to people in the third person?
>>
>> It ensures that any readers will be fully aware of the identity of the
>> opposing protaganists. If it annoys you "that" much I'll endeavor to
>> reform.
>
> It makes you sound like you have trouble making eye contact. Just
> sayin'.

I can't suffer from "Dunning-Kruger" and have "trouble making eye
contact" at the same time. Have I got you punch drunk already?

>
>>> And why doesn't he know what "ad hominem" means?
>>
>> Surely you don't need yet another Philosophy of Logic 101 lesson. Even
>> wikipedia gets this one right.
>
>> .. . .he jumps, he shoots and swisssh. . .
>
> ....The crowd goes wild, wondering what he's doing on the tennis court.

More like I slammed one down the base line and you had no hope of getting
to it. . .it's great to be back.

[John Harshman]

You persist in confusing the center of mass with the location of no net
force. I suspect that Einstein would not.

>>> The point remains that relativity theory combined with Mach's Principle
>>> (a) did NOT rule out geocentricism, and (b) supported it as entirely
>>> possible.
>>> Harshman either stands with Einstein or he must turn in his atheist
>>> decoder ring.
>
>> What part of "no privileged frame of reference" is unclear to you?
>
> Einstein wrote:
> "We need not necessarily trace the existence of these centrifugal forces
> back to an absolute movement of K' [Earth]; we can instead just as well
> trace them back to the rotational movement of the distant ponderable
> masses [stars] in relation to K' whereby we treat K'[Earth] as 'at
> rest' . . .
>
> The point is and was that Einstein (with support from Mach) stated that
> the geocentric model was a perfectly valid choice. You disagreed using
> your two-body rubbish. So are you correct or is Einstein correct? You
> refuse to answer.

I wasn't talking about the geocentric model. I was talking entirely
about your misunderstanding that there is no net force at the center of
mass of a system. That still seems to be your claim.

> And Einstein's quote would seem to suggest that the geoCentric model had
> at least one advantage over other non-privileged possibilities (like the
> heliocentric one)----it provided a physical explanation for coriolis and
> centrifugal forces. That sounds a tad privileged to me.

Yes, it sounds that way to you because you are blinkered. There are
perfectly good explanations of coriolis force in a Newtonian framework
or in a relativistic framework in which the earth is moving and
rotating. You have no clue.

> You waive, "no privileged frame of reference" around as if it were a law
> of nature when it is nothing of the sort. The absolute relativity of
> Einstein's SR is science by fiat. As far as I know SR has little if any
> experimental proof and has no practical scientific value. Why is that?

It isn't SR, it's GR. SR deals only with inertial reference frames,
while GR deals with accelerated ones. And only by accepting that there
is no privileged frame of reference can you make GR allow for a
stationary earth. Even then it's just one of infinitely many possible
equally valid reference frames.

> Einstein's assumption of absolute relativity was refuted by Sagnac's
> interferometer experiment (1913) and duplicated by Michelson-Gale-Pearson
> in 1925. The experimental results proved definitively the existence of
> the ether and proved the concept of absolute motion. As far as I know
> Einstein never dared utter a word about Sagnac and at some point after
> 1913 Einstein demurred that SR was not valid in rotating systems.

Again, it isn't SR, it's GR that you have to deal with.

>>> You can't prove the impossibility of the earth being the center of mass
>>> with the universe as the closed system with a two-body problem. It's
>>> not even helpful. So not only is Harshman's claim absurd, Einstein
>>> disputed it. Disputing Einstein might be stapled to every grant
>>> application you make----careful big fella.
>>
>> Proof is certainly impossible. The point is that it would take a very
>> careful juggling of mass to make the center of mass also a point of zero
>> net gravitational force. Exactly equal masses must be at exactly equal
>> distances 180 degrees opposite the earth at every pair of points. Do you
>> think that's true?
>
> Einstein didn't seem to think it was problem; you're either with Einstein
> or against him. Still waiting for an answer. . .

You entirely misunderstand Einstein. And anyway, you're against
Einstein, right?

>>>> Incidentally, there is no such thing as "centrifugal force". That's
>>>> why it's called a fictitious force.
>>>
>>> Better check with Carlip on this one because he'd tell you that you are
>>> wrong. Coriolis and Centrifugal forces were characterized as
>>> fictitious only because secularists had no physical explanation for
>>> them in the heliocentric model.
>>
>> I would like to see your invocation of Carlip confirmed by Carlip. You
>> know how bad you are at interpreting the words of others.
>
> I've been practically begging you to check with Carlip. Regardless I'm
> not worried about him since I have Einstein's quote about the geocentric
> model having a physical explanation for centrifugal forces.
>
> Einstein wrote:
> "We need not necessarily trace the existence of these centrifugal forces
> back to an absolute movement of K' [Earth]; we can instead just as well
> trace them back to the rotational movement of the distant ponderable
> masses [stars] in relation to K' whereby we treat K'[Earth] as 'at
> rest' . . .

Note: "just as well". Not "better". Einstein is talking about different
reference frames in GR. Nothing to do with your stationary earth claim,
which is a privileged reference frame. And more importantly, nothing to
do with your claims about the identity between center of mass and point
of zero net force.

>>> I get a two-fer with Einstein's quote. Einstein points out that in a
>>> geocentric model centrifugal forces are real and directly caused by all
>>> the ponderable masses [stars] in the universe which revolve around the
>>> Earth. Einstein is not the only one who held this.
>>>
>>> Perhaps Carlip should be on retainer.
>>
>> Perhaps you should wear your retainer, since your words seem all
>> crooked.
>>
>>>> As for the ratite thing, you've never read the paper, have you?
>>>
>>> Check the google groups archive for (I think?) 2011 or 2012. Didn't I
>>> goad you into providing access or a link to it in my attempts to
>>> resurrect Elsberry's (long defunct) Transitional Challenge.
>>
>> That doesn't mean you actually read it. Or understood it.
>>
>>> Anyway, if you'd like to re-visit the issue create a new thread with a
>>> link to the article and I would happily re-read it. As I recall the
>>> article was clear, interesting, well-written and modest in its goal.
>
>> So why isn't it evidence of transformation?
>
> If you deny that I read it or am capable of understanding it then why
> ask?

To see if you have an answer.

> In any event I only have a vague recollection that the article discussed
> evidence of physical changes over time to ratite feet which accompanied
> the population's loss of flight. I don't remember the journal, title or
> date or the report.

In fact it didn't say much about feet either.

> Provide me with a link to the report and I'll read it carefully (ask for
> clarifications if necessary), I'll start a new thread and discuss why I
> think the changes to the feet are not evidence of "neoDarwinian"
> transformational change.

Who said anything about "neoDarwinian"? You start adding random
qualifications and you can easily end up with nothing.

Harshman J., Braun E.L., Braun M.J., Huddleston C.J., Bowie R.C.K.,
Chojnowski J.L., Hackett S.J., Han K.-L., Kimball R.T., Marks B.D.,
Miglia K.J., Moore W.S., Reddy S., Sheldon F.H., Steadman D.W., Steppan
S.J., Witt C.C., Yuri T. Phylogenomic evidence for multiple losses of
flight in ratite birds. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2008; 105:13462-13467.

http://earlybird.biology.ufl.edu/files/PNAS-2008-Harshman-13462-7.pdf

>>>> Why does Pagano always refer to people in the third person?
>>>
>>> It ensures that any readers will be fully aware of the identity of the
>>> opposing protaganists. If it annoys you "that" much I'll endeavor to
>>> reform.
>>
>> It makes you sound like you have trouble making eye contact. Just
>> sayin'.
>
> I can't suffer from "Dunning-Kruger" and have "trouble making eye
> contact" at the same time. Have I got you punch drunk already?

Of course you can. Why should those be incompatible? And the last
sentence is a fine example of Dunning-Kruger syndrome.

>>>> And why doesn't he know what "ad hominem" means?
>>>
>>> Surely you don't need yet another Philosophy of Logic 101 lesson. Even
>>> wikipedia gets this one right.
>>
>>> .. . .he jumps, he shoots and swisssh. . .
>>
>> ....The crowd goes wild, wondering what he's doing on the tennis court.
>
> More like I slammed one down the base line and you had no hope of getting
> to it. . .it's great to be back.

More like a series of own goals. Whatever the sport, you aren't playing
the one you think you are.

[Mark Isaak]

On 1/16/18 5:20 PM, T Pagano wrote:
> [...]

> Today there does not exist definitive experimental evidence that the
> Earth moves. This is astounding.

Except, of course, for the definitive experimental evidence that the
Earth moves, in the forms of parallax and stellar Doppler shifts varying
over an annual cycle.

[erik simpson]

Stellar aberration is a pretty good test too.

[jillery]

On Wed, 17 Jan 2018 11:38:13 -0600, T Pagano <notmya...@dot.com>

And what about the star field's daily rotation? Do you also assert an
ad hoc star field aligned with the Earth's axis?

And what about the measured distances to the stars, all of which are
far greater than 1 AU?

[Ernest Major]

He's saying the hub is 1 AU away from the earth, not the star field,
i.e. that the stars rotate about the sun.

>
> --
> I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
>
> Evelyn Beatrice Hall
> Attributed to Voltaire
>

--
alias Ernest Major

[T Pagano]

On Wed, 17 Jan 2018 14:40:04 -0800, John Harshman wrote:

> On 1/17/18 11:12 AM, T Pagano wrote:
>> On Tue, 16 Jan 2018 14:28:10 -0800, John Harshman wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/16/18 1:19 PM, T Pagano wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 16 Jan 2018 08:58:23 -0800, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 1/16/18 7:46 AM, T Pagano wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 15 Jan 2018 19:02:21 -0800, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 1/15/18 5:24 PM, T Pagano wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 15 Jan 2018 16:34:40 -0800, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 1/15/18 4:05 PM, T Pagano wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 15 Jan 2018 22:39:43 +0000, Ernest Major wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 15/01/2018 22:25, T Pagano wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 15 Jan 2018 12:42:24 -0800, erik simpson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, January 15, 2018 at 10:35:03 AM UTC-8, T Pagano
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 15 Jan 2018 08:17:48 -0800, erik simpson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, January 15, 2018 at 5:35:04 AM UTC-8, T Pagano
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 14 Jan 2018 19:37:21 -0600, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> T Pagano <notmya...@dot.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 01 Jan 2018 14:51:57 -0600, RonO wrote:


snip




>>

>> How can the Earth be "treated as at rest" unless it is also the the
>> COM.
>
> You persist in confusing the center of mass with the location of no net
> force. I suspect that Einstein would not.

But there is NO NET FORCE at the COM of a closed system-----this is by
definition. Any body located (or placed) at the COM experiences *no net
force.*


snip

>> The point is and was that Einstein (with support from Mach) stated that
>> the geocentric model was a perfectly valid choice. You disagreed using
>> your two-body rubbish. So are you correct or is Einstein correct? You
>> refuse to answer.
>
> I wasn't talking about the geocentric model. I was talking entirely
> about your misunderstanding that there is no net force at the center of
> mass of a system. That still seems to be your claim.

If there were a net force the body wouldn't be at rest. When Einstein
wrote, "take it [Earth] at rest," he is implying that for that particular
frame of reference the Earth is at the COM for the system.

>
>> And Einstein's quote would seem to suggest that the geoCentric model
>> had at least one advantage over other non-privileged possibilities
>> (like the heliocentric one)----it provided a physical explanation for
>> coriolis and centrifugal forces. That sounds a tad privileged to me.
>

> Yes, it sounds that way to you because you are blinkered. There are
> perfectly good explanations of coriolis force in a Newtonian framework
> or in a relativistic framework in which the earth is moving and
> rotating. You have no clue.

You previously referred to centrifugal forces as fictitious and it is
still taught as such in undergraduate physics----even though these forces
are real and cannot be ignored.

I'd love to see your physical explanation for the centrifugal/coriolis
forces under the heliocentric model.

>
>> You waive, "no privileged frame of reference" around as if it were a
>> law of nature when it is nothing of the sort. The absolute relativity
>> of Einstein's SR is science by fiat. As far as I know SR has little if
>> any experimental proof and has no practical scientific value. Why is
>> that?
>
> It isn't SR, it's GR. SR deals only with inertial reference frames,
> while GR deals with accelerated ones. And only by accepting that there
> is no privileged frame of reference can you make GR allow for a
> stationary earth. Even then it's just one of infinitely many possible
> equally valid reference frames.

Since Sagnac crushed Einstein's assumption of absolute relativity by
demonstrating absolute motion in a rotating system----which is an
accelerated one-----he got a two-fer---both SR and GR. GR has had its
share problems throughout history even though atheists have covered them
up. It's most recent problem is the failure to explain the motion of the
outer bodies of a galaxy; hence the ad hoc addition of dark matter.

>
>> Einstein's assumption of absolute relativity was refuted by Sagnac's
>> interferometer experiment (1913) and duplicated by
>> Michelson-Gale-Pearson in 1925. The experimental results proved
>> definitively the existence of the ether and proved the concept of
>> absolute motion. As far as I know Einstein never dared utter a word
>> about Sagnac and at some point after 1913 Einstein demurred that SR was
>> not valid in rotating systems.
>
> Again, it isn't SR, it's GR that you have to deal with.

Refuted in one entails its refutation in the other. GR was merely a
generalization of SR. Sagnac's result covers accelerating systems.



snip

>>
>> Einstein didn't seem to think it was problem; you're either with
>> Einstein or against him. Still waiting for an answer. . .

>
> You entirely misunderstand Einstein. And anyway, you're against
> Einstein, right?

All the masses/forces must balance at the COM for a particular closed
system; nothing more. This means that anything located (or placed) at the
center of mass will be at rest. A mass at the COM will experience no net
force. And at least one of your atheist buddies in the thread have
likewise corrected you.

You are misapplying a two body problem to a multi-body problem when an
application of Newton is fairly useless for more than a few bodies. In
addition you're ignoring the fact that in the GeoCentric model the entire
system (that is, the entire universe) is rotating. Since the Sun is
*not* at the center of mass the billions of stars rotating around the Sun
are applying a *real* centrifugal force to it which you are failing to
account for.


snip

>>
>> I've been practically begging you to check with Carlip. Regardless I'm
>> not worried about him since I have Einstein's quote about the
>> geocentric model having a physical explanation for centrifugal forces.
>>
>> Einstein wrote:
>> "We need not necessarily trace the existence of these centrifugal
>> forces back to an absolute movement of K' [Earth]; we can instead just
>> as well trace them back to the rotational movement of the distant
>> ponderable masses [stars] in relation to K' whereby we treat K'[Earth]
>> as 'at rest' . . .
>
> Note: "just as well". Not "better". Einstein is talking about different
> reference frames in GR. Nothing to do with your stationary earth claim,
> which is a privileged reference frame. And more importantly, nothing to
> do with your claims about the identity between center of mass and point
> of zero net force.

Nonetheless this means that your two-body disproof is rubbish. Einstein
states, without reservation, that his relativity theory finds geocentrism
as a physical possibility.

In addition you seem to think that I assert that geocentrism is true.
Instead my position is far more modest-----I have repeatedly and
consistently argued that heliocentricism is not nearly as well-supported
as claimed nor geocentricism so easy to topple. Einstein, Michelson-
Morley and Sagnac support me. I've made my case and you haven't laid a
glove on it with your two-body rubbish. And even one of your clown car
rabble disputes you.



snip

>>> That doesn't mean you actually read it. Or understood it.
>>>
>>>> Anyway, if you'd like to re-visit the issue create a new thread with
>>>> a link to the article and I would happily re-read it. As I recall
>>>> the article was clear, interesting, well-written and modest in its
>>>> goal.
>>
>>> So why isn't it evidence of transformation?
>>
>> If you deny that I read it or am capable of understanding it then why
>> ask?
>
> To see if you have an answer.

But that's irrational.

>
>> In any event I only have a vague recollection that the article
>> discussed evidence of physical changes over time to ratite feet which
>> accompanied the population's loss of flight. I don't remember the
>> journal, title or date or the report.
>
> In fact it didn't say much about feet either.

So?

>
>> Provide me with a link to the report and I'll read it carefully (ask
>> for clarifications if necessary), I'll start a new thread and discuss
>> why I think the changes to the feet are not evidence of "neoDarwinian"
>> transformational change.
>
> Who said anything about "neoDarwinian"? You start adding random
> qualifications and you can easily end up with nothing.

Well that's a horse of a different color. If the changes reported were
not the result of the neoDarwinian mechanism then I would have yawned and
ignored the report. But I don't recall that being the state of affairs 6
(or so) years ago.

Quite honestly I don't have the time to peruse more than the science news
of the day. The only way I knew about your report was that you brought
it up. Why would we have wasted our time with your report if had nothing
to do with the origin controversy? You may delve into irrationalism but
I strive to steer clear.

Surely you're not afraid to clear this up?

>
> Harshman J., Braun E.L., Braun M.J., Huddleston C.J., Bowie R.C.K.,
> Chojnowski J.L., Hackett S.J., Han K.-L., Kimball R.T., Marks B.D.,
> Miglia K.J., Moore W.S., Reddy S., Sheldon F.H., Steadman D.W., Steppan
> S.J., Witt C.C., Yuri T. Phylogenomic evidence for multiple losses of
> flight in ratite birds. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
> 2008; 105:13462-13467.
>
> http://earlybird.biology.ufl.edu/files/PNAS-2008-Harshman-13462-7.pdf
>

snip

>>
>> I can't suffer from "Dunning-Kruger" and have "trouble making eye
>> contact" at the same time. Have I got you punch drunk already?
>
> Of course you can. Why should those be incompatible? And the last
> sentence is a fine example of Dunning-Kruger syndrome.

Delving into irrationality again? Unless there are other relevant
diagnostic criteria of Dunning-Kruger, I find it hard to fathom how one
can be both unusually over-confident *and* fearful of eye-to-eye contact?


snip

>
>> More like I slammed one down the base line and you had no hope of
>> getting to it. . .it's great to be back.
>
> More like a series of own goals. Whatever the sport, you aren't playing
> the one you think you are.

It's fine by me if you don't wish to defend the basket. He jumps. . . he
shoots. . . and another SWISSSSH. . .the score is starting to get
ugly. . .

[jillery]

Ok. I appreciate you translating his posts into English for me.

But he still has the problem of reconciling the apparent daily
rotation of the Earth with the apparent yearly revolution about the
Sun. And let's not forget the five apparent Milankovitch cycles, each
with different periods. Geocentrism would require multiple hub
alignments to account for them all.

[Bill Rogers]

You can say that until the cows come home, but it's simply not true. Consider a 1 kg mass and a 2 kg mass, separated by 3 meters. The center of mass is on a line between the two masses, one meter from the 2kg mass and two meters from the 1 kg mass. That's the center of mass of that (closed, if you like) system.

Now consider a test mass (of mass m) placed at the COM; it will experience a net force pulling it towards the 2 kg mass, the magnitude of which will be ( in mks units) ...

G times m times (2/1^2-1/2^2) = Gm*1.75

It's bleeping simple. There are indeed perfectly symmetric arrangements of masses for which there is no net force at the center of mass, but, in general, there *is* a net force at the center of mass.

>
<snip>

[John Harshman]

What definition are you talking about here? As has been demonstrated to
you many times, this is just plain wrong.

>>> The point is and was that Einstein (with support from Mach) stated that
>>> the geocentric model was a perfectly valid choice. You disagreed using
>>> your two-body rubbish. So are you correct or is Einstein correct? You
>>> refuse to answer.
>>
>> I wasn't talking about the geocentric model. I was talking entirely
>> about your misunderstanding that there is no net force at the center of
>> mass of a system. That still seems to be your claim.
>
> If there were a net force the body wouldn't be at rest. When Einstein
> wrote, "take it [Earth] at rest," he is implying that for that particular
> frame of reference the Earth is at the COM for the system.

No, that has nothing to do with the center of mass. I theorize that
you're using the Newtonian idea that bodies can be considered to be
orbiting their combined center of mass. But in GR, that isn't true. Any
frame of reference, in which any object can be considered stationary, is
equally possible. An object at the center of mass isn't necessarily
stationary, and a stationary object isn't necessarily at the center of
mass. These are two entirely separate ideas.

>>> And Einstein's quote would seem to suggest that the geoCentric model
>>> had at least one advantage over other non-privileged possibilities
>>> (like the heliocentric one)----it provided a physical explanation for
>>> coriolis and centrifugal forces. That sounds a tad privileged to me.
>
>> Yes, it sounds that way to you because you are blinkered. There are
>> perfectly good explanations of coriolis force in a Newtonian framework
>> or in a relativistic framework in which the earth is moving and
>> rotating. You have no clue.

> You previously referred to centrifugal forces as fictitious and it is
> still taught as such in undergraduate physics----even though these forces
> are real and cannot be ignored.
>
> I'd love to see your physical explanation for the centrifugal/coriolis
> forces under the heliocentric model.

Look in any physics text. Centrifugal force results from the departure
of an object from linear motion. Coriolis force results from rotation.

>>> You waive, "no privileged frame of reference" around as if it were a
>>> law of nature when it is nothing of the sort. The absolute relativity
>>> of Einstein's SR is science by fiat. As far as I know SR has little if
>>> any experimental proof and has no practical scientific value. Why is
>>> that?
>>
>> It isn't SR, it's GR. SR deals only with inertial reference frames,
>> while GR deals with accelerated ones. And only by accepting that there
>> is no privileged frame of reference can you make GR allow for a
>> stationary earth. Even then it's just one of infinitely many possible
>> equally valid reference frames.
>
> Since Sagnac crushed Einstein's assumption of absolute relativity by
> demonstrating absolute motion in a rotating system----which is an
> accelerated one-----he got a two-fer---both SR and GR. GR has had its
> share problems throughout history even though atheists have covered them
> up. It's most recent problem is the failure to explain the motion of the
> outer bodies of a galaxy; hence the ad hoc addition of dark matter.

What does GR have to do with atheism? And how do you explain the motion
of the outer bodies of a galaxy?

>>> Einstein's assumption of absolute relativity was refuted by Sagnac's
>>> interferometer experiment (1913) and duplicated by
>>> Michelson-Gale-Pearson in 1925. The experimental results proved
>>> definitively the existence of the ether and proved the concept of
>>> absolute motion. As far as I know Einstein never dared utter a word
>>> about Sagnac and at some point after 1913 Einstein demurred that SR was
>>> not valid in rotating systems.
>>
>> Again, it isn't SR, it's GR that you have to deal with.
>
> Refuted in one entails its refutation in the other. GR was merely a
> generalization of SR. Sagnac's result covers accelerating systems.

Yes, GR was a generalization of SR to accelerated systems. Einstein
didn't "demur", as the applicability of SR only to inertial systems was
always known. "As far as I know" isn't all that far; you are delusional
on all points, as far as I know.

>>>
>>> Einstein didn't seem to think it was problem; you're either with
>>> Einstein or against him. Still waiting for an answer. . .
>
>>
>> You entirely misunderstand Einstein. And anyway, you're against
>> Einstein, right?
>
> All the masses/forces must balance at the COM for a particular closed
> system; nothing more. This means that anything located (or placed) at the
> center of mass will be at rest. A mass at the COM will experience no net
> force. And at least one of your atheist buddies in the thread have
> likewise corrected you.

You keep saying that, but if it's true, shouldn't it apply to all
possible closed systems? And isn't a two-body system such a system? So
why isn't your claim true for a two-body system?

Who has corrected me on this?

> You are misapplying a two body problem to a multi-body problem when an
> application of Newton is fairly useless for more than a few bodies. In
> addition you're ignoring the fact that in the GeoCentric model the entire
> system (that is, the entire universe) is rotating. Since the Sun is
> *not* at the center of mass the billions of stars rotating around the Sun
> are applying a *real* centrifugal force to it which you are failing to
> account for.

Your obsession with centers of mass is inexplicable. Again, the center
of mass is not the same as the place of no net force, if there even is one.

>>> I've been practically begging you to check with Carlip. Regardless I'm
>>> not worried about him since I have Einstein's quote about the
>>> geocentric model having a physical explanation for centrifugal forces.
>>>
>>> Einstein wrote:
>>> "We need not necessarily trace the existence of these centrifugal
>>> forces back to an absolute movement of K' [Earth]; we can instead just
>>> as well trace them back to the rotational movement of the distant
>>> ponderable masses [stars] in relation to K' whereby we treat K'[Earth]
>>> as 'at rest' . . .
>>
>> Note: "just as well". Not "better". Einstein is talking about different
>> reference frames in GR. Nothing to do with your stationary earth claim,
>> which is a privileged reference frame. And more importantly, nothing to
>> do with your claims about the identity between center of mass and point
>> of zero net force.
>
> Nonetheless this means that your two-body disproof is rubbish. Einstein
> states, without reservation, that his relativity theory finds geocentrism
> as a physical possibility.

No, he doesn't. We can consider an earth-stationary frame, but that
doesn't mean it's possible that the earth-stationary frame is the one
true frame. He says that all frames of reference are equally "true".

> In addition you seem to think that I assert that geocentrism is true.
> Instead my position is far more modest-----I have repeatedly and
> consistently argued that heliocentricism is not nearly as well-supported
> as claimed nor geocentricism so easy to topple. Einstein, Michelson-
> Morley and Sagnac support me. I've made my case and you haven't laid a
> glove on it with your two-body rubbish. And even one of your clown car
> rabble disputes you.

Nobody supports you. You have to misunderstand everyone to make your
claim. And indeed you are claiming that geocentrism is true. Your
modesty is feigned.

Who disputes me?

>>>> That doesn't mean you actually read it. Or understood it.
>>>>
>>>>> Anyway, if you'd like to re-visit the issue create a new thread with
>>>>> a link to the article and I would happily re-read it. As I recall
>>>>> the article was clear, interesting, well-written and modest in its
>>>>> goal.
>>>
>>>> So why isn't it evidence of transformation?
>>>
>>> If you deny that I read it or am capable of understanding it then why
>>> ask?
>>
>> To see if you have an answer.
>
> But that's irrational.

Is it? Do you have an answer?

>>> In any event I only have a vague recollection that the article
>>> discussed evidence of physical changes over time to ratite feet which
>>> accompanied the population's loss of flight. I don't remember the
>>> journal, title or date or the report.
>>
>> In fact it didn't say much about feet either.
>
> So?

So your vague recollection is wrong.

>>> Provide me with a link to the report and I'll read it carefully (ask
>>> for clarifications if necessary), I'll start a new thread and discuss
>>> why I think the changes to the feet are not evidence of "neoDarwinian"
>>> transformational change.
>>
>> Who said anything about "neoDarwinian"? You start adding random
>> qualifications and you can easily end up with nothing.
>
> Well that's a horse of a different color. If the changes reported were
> not the result of the neoDarwinian mechanism then I would have yawned and
> ignored the report. But I don't recall that being the state of affairs 6
> (or so) years ago.

We have already established that your recall is unreliable.

> Quite honestly I don't have the time to peruse more than the science news
> of the day. The only way I knew about your report was that you brought
> it up. Why would we have wasted our time with your report if had nothing
> to do with the origin controversy? You may delve into irrationalism but
> I strive to steer clear.
>
> Surely you're not afraid to clear this up?

Like many creationists, you confuse the fact of common descent with the
mechanisms of transformation. You must realize that this is your
problem, not mine. My paper is evidence for common descent and thus for
transformation. The mechanisms that caused that transformation may not
be discernible at this distance in time, though given enough DNA
sequence we could probably come up with a good hypothesis as to the
particular mutations responsible. Still, we would have no good way to
distinguish one reason for the fixation of those mutations from another.
Perhaps "neoDarwinian" processes, but you could always say that Jesus
was personally responsible, and I can't see any way to show you wrong,
assuming Jesus was careful not to leave fingerprints.

>> Harshman J., Braun E.L., Braun M.J., Huddleston C.J., Bowie R.C.K.,
>> Chojnowski J.L., Hackett S.J., Han K.-L., Kimball R.T., Marks B.D.,
>> Miglia K.J., Moore W.S., Reddy S., Sheldon F.H., Steadman D.W., Steppan
>> S.J., Witt C.C., Yuri T. Phylogenomic evidence for multiple losses of
>> flight in ratite birds. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
>> 2008; 105:13462-13467.
>>
>> http://earlybird.biology.ufl.edu/files/PNAS-2008-Harshman-13462-7.pdf

You did ask for this, you know.

>>>
>>> I can't suffer from "Dunning-Kruger" and have "trouble making eye
>>> contact" at the same time. Have I got you punch drunk already?
>>
>> Of course you can. Why should those be incompatible? And the last
>> sentence is a fine example of Dunning-Kruger syndrome.
>
> Delving into irrationality again? Unless there are other relevant
> diagnostic criteria of Dunning-Kruger, I find it hard to fathom how one
> can be both unusually over-confident *and* fearful of eye-to-eye contact?

Yes, you find it hard to fathom a lot. There are many syndromes that
involve unwillingness to make eye contact. It's a common feature of
autism, for example. Yet the autistic can be highly confident.

>>> More like I slammed one down the base line and you had no hope of
>>> getting to it. . .it's great to be back.
>>
>> More like a series of own goals. Whatever the sport, you aren't playing
>> the one you think you are.
>
> It's fine by me if you don't wish to defend the basket. He jumps. . . he
> shoots. . . and another SWISSSSH. . .the score is starting to get
> ugly. . .

Pocketa pocketa pocketa.

[John Harshman]

Even simpler: suppose there are two equal masses, A and B. Clearly the
center of gravity and the center of equal attraction are the same point,
half way between them. Now make mass A larger. Clearly the center of
mass will move toward A, but the center of equal attraction will move
toward B. Of course Tony will deny that what holds true for two bodies
is relevant to more than two, or perhaps to any system of any number of
bodies, including two. Denial is his thing.

[Ernest Major]

If I can attempt to reconstruct Tony's thought processes, in Pagan
physics, by definition there is a stationary unrotating unaccelerated
earth at the centre of mass of the universe. In this physics there is
not only gravititational forces (and short range forces which we can
neglect for the purposes of this discussion), but coriolis and
centrufugal forces, and other forces that stop the stars in the galaxy
flying off to infinity, and a final force that cancels out the net force
on the earth.

Tony may reject the thought experiments that show that the net force at
the centre of mass need not be zero on the grounds that these thought
experiments apply to isolated systems and that there is no truly
isolated system other than the universe. He would be wrong to do so.
What he is really doing is rejecting Newtonian physics.

In Newtonian physics it is possible to select a reference frame in which
the centre of mass has a fixed position. Tony's problem is that there is
no reason to believe that the reference frame that he has selected has
this property; even if the earth is at the centre of mass it need not
have been there yesterday or be there tomorrow.

--
alias Ernest Major

[Mark Isaak]

By "star field" you mean, of course, the entire universe except the
Earth and Moon. So the universe moves back and forth (without anything
pushing it) while the Earth remains in one spot. Got it.

You failed to answer my second question: Does that make sense? I assume
you omitted the answer because you know it does not.

[T Pagano]

I am using Newtonian mechanics with regard to the COM. Then again so
were you with regard to your two-body argument.



snip

>> If there were a net force the body wouldn't be at rest. When Einstein
>> wrote, "take it [Earth] at rest," he is implying that for that
>> particular frame of reference the Earth is at the COM for the system.
>
> No, that has nothing to do with the center of mass. I theorize that
> you're using the Newtonian idea that bodies can be considered to be
> orbiting their combined center of mass. But in GR, that isn't true. Any
> frame of reference, in which any object can be considered stationary, is
> equally possible. An object at the center of mass isn't necessarily
> stationary, and a stationary object isn't necessarily at the center of
> mass. These are two entirely separate ideas.

I admit here that I was so focused on Newtonian mechanics that I
overlooked the fact that the COM in GR is not equivalent (or even
similar) to the COM in Newtonian mechanics. Unfortunately this doesn't
help you at all. GR's assumptions of co-variance and co-equivalence
permit the Earth----according to Einstein----to be "considered at rest"
in the center of the universe with the "ponderable masses [stars]
revolving around it. Say what you like this does not rule out the
geocentric model.

Perhaps another Einstein quote would suffice (from "The Evolution of
Physics"):
"The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views
of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either
coordinate system could be used with equal justification. The two
sentences: 'the sun is at rest and the Earth moves,' or 'the sun moves
and the Earth is at rest,' would simply mean two different coordinate
systems."



snip

>> I'd love to see your physical explanation for the centrifugal/coriolis
>> forces under the heliocentric model.
>
> Look in any physics text. Centrifugal force results from the departure
> of an object from linear motion. Coriolis force results from rotation.

This is descriptive not explanatory. In the geocentric model Einstein
points out that is the gravitation attraction of the stars---revolving
around the Earth---which explain these forces forces. But this
explanation is not available in the heliocentric model.

>
>>>> You waive, "no privileged frame of reference" around as if it were a
>>>> law of nature when it is nothing of the sort. The absolute
>>>> relativity of Einstein's SR is science by fiat. As far as I know SR
>>>> has little if any experimental proof and has no practical scientific
>>>> value. Why is that?
>>>
>>> It isn't SR, it's GR. SR deals only with inertial reference frames,
>>> while GR deals with accelerated ones. And only by accepting that there
>>> is no privileged frame of reference can you make GR allow for a
>>> stationary earth. Even then it's just one of infinitely many possible
>>> equally valid reference frames.
>>
>> Since Sagnac crushed Einstein's assumption of absolute relativity by
>> demonstrating absolute motion in a rotating system----which is an
>> accelerated one-----he got a two-fer---both SR and GR. GR has had its
>> share problems throughout history even though atheists have covered
>> them up. It's most recent problem is the failure to explain the motion
>> of the outer bodies of a galaxy; hence the ad hoc addition of dark
>> matter.
>
> What does GR have to do with atheism?

SR was invented by Einstein specifically to counter the Michelson-Morley
results which tended to show the Earth wasn't moving. GR was a
generalization/extension of SR since SR didn't include gravity and
couldn't handle non linear motion. So the metaphysical underpinning of
SR/GR was to save science from the possibility of the Earth being in a
special place (stationary in the center of it all). Atheists abhor
anything which might indicate that there is a God who created the world
and us in it.

>And how do you explain the motion of the outer bodies of a galaxy?

I don't understand the geocentric model that well, so I don't know. I do
know that the literature shows the current cosmological model is
collapsed and the ad hoc dark matter/dark energy addition causes as many
problems as it solves. My only point here is to prove my very modest
position:
(1) the modern secular models and theories are not nearly so settled and
secure, and
(2) the geocentric model is not nearly so easy to topple.



snip

>> Surely you're not afraid to clear this up?
>
> Like many creationists, you confuse the fact of common descent with the
> mechanisms of transformation.

Hogwash. Common Descent from the First Common Ancestor to Man is nearly
evidence free. And without an observable/testable mechanism common
descent is a pipe dream. Science is an observational sport; isn't it?

neoDarwinian theory entails common descent conjoined to mechanism: it
was offered by Darwin and modified over the years to explain the creation
of every biological structure, organ, system and creature that ever
existed without design within a relatively limited time frame. It's a
fair request to see proof of transformational change.

Evidence that one ratite population descended from another is a yawner
and is hardly evidence, for example, that a mesonychid transformed into a
whale. The point of demonstrating transformational change is to show
evidence of how a structure which didn't exist arose in the first place.

> You must realize that this is your
> problem, not mine.

Then why are you here? If neoDarwinian theory is sacrosanct dogma rather
than provisional theory then why waste time here?

My reason for being here since 1998 (with several breaks in attendance)
was to see if someone could actually produce any evidence. I've asked
experts here like Wesley Elsberry to point me to the best scientific
article available. His best evidence was a scientific article about the
branching of a foram population into two other foram populations, one
having a less spherical shell and one a more spherical shell----over the
space of 3 million years. A good dog breeder can do more in 10 years,
but that's not evidence that arms can transform into a wings coordinated
together with the conversion to avian lungs.

Incredulity in the absence of evidence is justified.

> My paper is evidence for common descent and thus for
> transformation. The mechanisms that caused that transformation may not
> be discernible at this distance in time, though given enough DNA
> sequence we could probably come up with a good hypothesis as to the
> particular mutations responsible.

Unfortunately studying how one population of ratite descended from
another isn't evidence that a ratite arose from the First Common
Ancestor. If the mechanisms for transformational change aren't
discernable how do you know they exist? How can their existence be
tested?

I understand that if you question the orthodoxy you're out of work; but
that unfortunate state of affairs is irrelevant to the truth or falsity
of the theory.

>Still, we would have no good way to
> distinguish one reason for the fixation of those mutations from another.
> Perhaps "neoDarwinian" processes,

If there is no unambiguous evidence, little hope that the mechanism will
reveal itself and a fair amount of counter evidence common sense dictates
that the theory is dubious. I understand that you're out of work if you
profess this; the academy doesn't suffer traitors. But I don't suffer
from that problem; I don't have to accept the orthodox position on faith
or starve.

Random mutations conjoined to natural selection lacks the causal power
and the probabilistic resources to create every biological structure,
organ, system and creature where they did not exist before.

>but you could always say that Jesus
> was personally responsible, and I can't see any way to show you wrong,
> assuming Jesus was careful not to leave fingerprints.

But this is precisely my position; an omnipotent/omniscient Designer
clearly has the causal power to explain the origin of everything. The
fossil record shows stasis and sudden appearance----that supports Special
Creation and not Darwinism. The design features and closely coordinated
systems screams design----the Creator's fingerprints are everywhere.

>
>>> Harshman J., Braun E.L., Braun M.J., Huddleston C.J., Bowie R.C.K.,
>>> Chojnowski J.L., Hackett S.J., Han K.-L., Kimball R.T., Marks B.D.,
>>> Miglia K.J., Moore W.S., Reddy S., Sheldon F.H., Steadman D.W.,
>>> Steppan S.J., Witt C.C., Yuri T. Phylogenomic evidence for multiple
>>> losses of flight in ratite birds. Proceedings of the National Academy
>>> of Sciences 2008; 105:13462-13467.
>>>
>>> http://earlybird.biology.ufl.edu/files/PNAS-2008-Harshman-13462-7.pdf
>
> You did ask for this, you know.

Since you've explained that this report documents the study of the common
descent of one ratite population to another ratite population with no
discernable mechanism what would be the point?