Some further problems with cosmology received by Dr Bridgman here are given below for consideration and discussion.
Q1 - Why is it that Newtonian mechanics requires instantaneous action at a distance to account for gravity and this is taken seriously by science?
Q2- What is the mechanism proposed by science what is consistent with Newtonian physics to permit the force of gravity to be effective instantaneously over large distances?
Q3 - Relativity says gravity is caused by a completely different mechanism of a bending of the space time continuum. As this mechanism is very much unlike the Newtonian mechanism for gravity, why are the two mechanisms routinely acknowledged within modern science?
Q4- Why is it that the notion of the barycenter is fundamentally flawed and yet it is taken seriously by modern science and is routinely used in planetary flight path calculations when using Kepler’s laws? For example a planet is said to obey Kepler’s laws by taking an elliptical flight path around the sun as one of its foci, yet that same planets is also said to travel around the solar system barycenter as one of its foci, which is not at the center of the sun. This singular inconsistency seems to be routinely ignored by modern science, yet Kepler’s laws are routinely stated to be compatible with Newton’s laws and reflective of real planetary flight paths. Please comment.
Q5 – Modern sciences understanding of the physical cause of gravity is not well understood. Why then is Newtonian mechanics and relativity theory used against geocentrism when such theories merely make assumptions concerning the mechanism for gravity and then produce equations based upon those assumptions? After all if those assumptions are not well established by science experiment, then objections to geocentrism are at best only objections, based upon models founded upon assumptions about the nature of gravity. Please comment.
Q2- What is the mechanism proposed by science what is consistent with Newtonian physics to permit the force of gravity to be effective instantaneously over large distances?
Q3 - Relativity says gravity is caused by a completely different mechanism of a bending of the space time continuum. As this mechanism is very much unlike the Newtonian mechanism for gravity, why are the two mechanisms routinely acknowledged within modern science?
Q4- Why is it that the notion of the barycenter is fundamentally flawed and yet it is taken seriously by modern science and is routinely used in planetary flight path calculations when using Kepler’s laws? For example a planet is said to obey Kepler’s laws by taking an elliptical flight path around the sun as one of its foci, yet that same planets is also said to travel around the solar system barycenter as one of its foci, which is not at the center of the sun. This singular inconsistency seems to be routinely ignored by modern science, yet Kepler’s laws are routinely stated to be compatible with Newton’s laws and reflective of real planetary flight paths. Please comment.
Q5 – Modern sciences understanding of the physical cause of gravity is not well understood. Why then is Newtonian mechanics and relativity theory used against geocentrism when such theories merely make assumptions concerning the mechanism for gravity and then produce equations based upon those assumptions? After all if those assumptions are not well established by science experiment, then objections to geocentrism are at best only objections, based upon models founded upon assumptions about the nature of gravity. Please comment.
Q6 – The Foucault pendulum is routinely used as apparent evidence for the moving earth. The pendulum is said to swing in a plane parallel to the fixed stars, whilst the earth rotates underneath the pendulum. How does modern science explain the force produced by the fixed stars that causes the pendulum to swing in a fixed plane relative to the stars?
Q7 -Why does the pendulum apparently overcome the gravity fields of the sun and moon and not swing in a plane following those bodies and yet not overcome the gravity fields of the distant stars?
Q8 - Why doesn’t a Foucault pendulum that points towards the earth’s center of mass continue to do so throughout the day when the pendulum is traveling along with the rotating earth?
Q9 - Why doesn’t a Foucault pendulum merely follow the rotating earth and continue to swing in a plane with the moving earth and thereby have no variation of the plane direction with the earth’s daily rotation?
Q7 -Why does the pendulum apparently overcome the gravity fields of the sun and moon and not swing in a plane following those bodies and yet not overcome the gravity fields of the distant stars?
Q8 - Why doesn’t a Foucault pendulum that points towards the earth’s center of mass continue to do so throughout the day when the pendulum is traveling along with the rotating earth?
Q9 - Why doesn’t a Foucault pendulum merely follow the rotating earth and continue to swing in a plane with the moving earth and thereby have no variation of the plane direction with the earth’s daily rotation?
These and others are answered at http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?129749-Geocentrism-Discussion-II&p=3228885#post3228885
ReplyDeleteAnd most of your answers are rebutted here - http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?129749-Geocentrism-Discussion-II&p=3229014#post3229014
ReplyDelete