In case this isn't just a joke, I have a couple of questions: (1) what are you assuming is the definition of center? Center of light/energy/mass? (2) Since Earth is not at the center of the solar system and the sun is not at the center of its galaxy, it takes a pretty awkward path relative to the center of the Milky Way, does the entire universe take an awkward path to counter-balance it or is the claim that earth is at the center just an approximation and you really mean that that the Milky Way is at the center of the universe?
1. Noun: The middle point of a circle or sphere, equidistant from every point on the circumference or surface.
2. Prove Earth is not at the center of the solar system. Any empirical proof of its translational velocity around the Sun will do.
3. Since you will not be able to accomplish #2 above without falsifying the Theory of Relativity and winning the Nobel Prize, we can dispense with #3. You assume, but cannot prove, this motion. It has never been experimentally measured, and according to Einstein *can never be* experimentally measured. Therefore, you assume it. That, of course, is philosophy and not empirical experimental demonstration. It has its place, but should never be advanced as if it had been demonstrated. It hasn't been.
4. The Earth is observationally at the center of the distribution of galaxies, quasars, GRB's, BL Lacaertae, X Ray galaxies, and clusters. The present margin of error in these observations would extend to, perhaps, approximately the diameter of our galaxy.
5. However, the alignment of the CMB quadrupole and octupole vectors are specifically with the local ecliptic and equinoxes.
6. Additionally, attempts by, for example, Clifton et al (2008) to account for Type 1a Supernovae observations without having recourse to the dark energy epicycle have resulted in solutions requiring Earth to be at the center of the universe (or, at least, at the center of an underdensity on the approximate scale of the observable universe).
7. Therefore the simplest and least forced interpretation of our observational evidence, apart from philosophical assumptions, is that Earth is either at, or within observational margins, of the center of the Universe.
8. Since the philosophical basis of the contrary development (the "Copernican" or "cosmological" principle) is now subject to the very gravest observational challenges, we note in conclusion that the contrary philosophical basis- that is, the Scriptural and patristic/magisterial teachings of Earth at the center of the cosmos- has withstood four centuries of tireless attempts at experimental falsification, and thus deserves (and is receiving!) renewed consideration as the basis for cosmological models.
Ummm, don't look now but it appears Dr. Bridgeman has certainly taken your post to heart.
ReplyDeleteHe has posted an apology to Dr. Hartnett on his website here:
http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/2011/03/apology-to-dr-hartnett.html
Nice work.
Apparently the above link is bad.
ReplyDeleteHere is another:
http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/
The "Apology To Dr. Hartnett" appears dated March 25, 2011.
In case this isn't just a joke, I have a couple of questions: (1) what are you assuming is the definition of center? Center of light/energy/mass? (2) Since Earth is not at the center of the solar system and the sun is not at the center of its galaxy, it takes a pretty awkward path relative to the center of the Milky Way, does the entire universe take an awkward path to counter-balance it or is the claim that earth is at the center just an approximation and you really mean that that the Milky Way is at the center of the universe?
ReplyDeleteOran:
ReplyDeleteIn case your question is not a joke...........
CENTER
1. Noun: The middle point of a circle or sphere, equidistant from every point on the circumference or surface.
2. Prove Earth is not at the center of the solar system. Any empirical proof of its translational velocity around the Sun will do.
3. Since you will not be able to accomplish #2 above without falsifying the Theory of Relativity and winning the Nobel Prize, we can dispense with #3. You assume, but cannot prove, this motion. It has never been experimentally measured, and according to Einstein *can never be* experimentally measured. Therefore, you assume it. That, of course, is philosophy and not empirical experimental demonstration. It has its place, but should never be advanced as if it had been demonstrated. It hasn't been.
4. The Earth is observationally at the center of the distribution of galaxies, quasars, GRB's, BL Lacaertae, X Ray galaxies, and clusters. The present margin of error in these observations would extend to, perhaps, approximately the diameter of our galaxy.
5. However, the alignment of the CMB quadrupole and octupole vectors are specifically with the local ecliptic and equinoxes.
6. Additionally, attempts by, for example, Clifton et al (2008) to account for Type 1a Supernovae observations without having recourse to the dark energy epicycle have resulted in solutions requiring Earth to be at the center of the universe (or, at least, at the center of an underdensity on the approximate scale of the observable universe).
7. Therefore the simplest and least forced interpretation of our observational evidence, apart from philosophical assumptions, is that Earth is either at, or within observational margins, of the center of the Universe.
8. Since the philosophical basis of the contrary development (the "Copernican" or "cosmological" principle) is now subject to the very gravest observational challenges, we note in conclusion that the contrary philosophical basis- that is, the Scriptural and patristic/magisterial teachings of Earth at the center of the cosmos- has withstood four centuries of tireless attempts at experimental falsification, and thus deserves (and is receiving!) renewed consideration as the basis for cosmological models.
Thanks for your comment.