-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Sun revolves the Earth!
- Thread starter s13ep
- Start date
*** STAFF REMINDER ***
1. Personal Comments About Members and Staff
Personal attacks and name-calling, whether direct or in the third person, are strictly prohibited on the forums. Critique each other's ideas all you want, but under no circumstances personally attack each other or the staff. Quoting a member's post in a separate/new thread without their permission to challenge or belittle them, or harassing staff members for performing moderation duties, will also be considered a personal attack.
3. Trolling and Bullying
Where Rule 1 covers personal attacks, Rule 3 governs other behaviors and content that can generally be described as being a jerk. Unacceptable behaviors and content include:
1) Content (whether words or images) that most people would find needlessly offensive, especially when such content is posted just to get a rise out of somebody and/or is not part of a reasoned argument.
2) Defamation, slander, or misrepresentation of a member's beliefs/arguments, or that of a particular group, culture, or religion. This includes altering the words of another member to change their meaning when using the quote feature.
3) Antagonism, bullying, or harassment - including but not limited to personal attacks, slander, and misrepresentation - of a member across multiple content areas of the forums. Repeatedly targeting or harassing members of particular groups will also be considered bullying.
miodrag
Member
Eleven pages...
Not true.
So the Academia knows very well that motion is relative.
What Hoyle is saying is that relative motion has no physical significance, physics remains the same. There is no way to say one is real and the other is only apparent, since the only difference is in the frame of reference. There is no experiment that can be performed to tell the difference between the two. Meaning, either performed from Earth or Sun or in space, experiment will always give the same physical conclusions. Movement depends on the frame of reference and that is the matter of convention. Understanding this may lead us to a better understanding of relations, it brings us a step closer to how things really are. Like, when General relativity replaced Newtonian mechanics, it did not disprove it, but overgrew it instead. It is just more general and provides a better understanding, from a perspective on a scale larger than Newtonian. Example is the experiment in which observer from Earth, after seeing that Sun is orbiting Earth, would start elevating from the Earth, and when changing position, he would realize that motion of the Sun is not that simple. The picture changes. That experiment would change no physical laws, it would change only the experience. The only thing left is to make a convention with observers in a different frames of reference. Movement is a convention. Another example is how the Earth would look from the Moon. Here we see that Moon is revolving around us. But from the Moon, Earth would look like a lunostationary satellite. Neither is true, yet both are true.
Another thing worth mentioning here is the relativity of truth. Philosophy went beyond Aristotelian "tertium non datur"or "ït is either true or not true". There are new fields in philosophy, like paraconsistent logics and dialetheism, which allow for a statement to be simultaneously both true and not true. Both views work, the difference is relative.
Not true.
So the Academia knows very well that motion is relative.
What Hoyle is saying is that relative motion has no physical significance, physics remains the same. There is no way to say one is real and the other is only apparent, since the only difference is in the frame of reference. There is no experiment that can be performed to tell the difference between the two. Meaning, either performed from Earth or Sun or in space, experiment will always give the same physical conclusions. Movement depends on the frame of reference and that is the matter of convention. Understanding this may lead us to a better understanding of relations, it brings us a step closer to how things really are. Like, when General relativity replaced Newtonian mechanics, it did not disprove it, but overgrew it instead. It is just more general and provides a better understanding, from a perspective on a scale larger than Newtonian. Example is the experiment in which observer from Earth, after seeing that Sun is orbiting Earth, would start elevating from the Earth, and when changing position, he would realize that motion of the Sun is not that simple. The picture changes. That experiment would change no physical laws, it would change only the experience. The only thing left is to make a convention with observers in a different frames of reference. Movement is a convention. Another example is how the Earth would look from the Moon. Here we see that Moon is revolving around us. But from the Moon, Earth would look like a lunostationary satellite. Neither is true, yet both are true.
Another thing worth mentioning here is the relativity of truth. Philosophy went beyond Aristotelian "tertium non datur"or "ït is either true or not true". There are new fields in philosophy, like paraconsistent logics and dialetheism, which allow for a statement to be simultaneously both true and not true. Both views work, the difference is relative.
Philosophy singles it out in Cogito ergo sum.
s13ep
42
Whether or not it has physical significance does not void the mental significance of the sense of the Sun's revolution; which I had already mentioned was negative. Your source is in agreement but your own disagreement, which I judged from the opening line "Eleven pages..." twists the source so it seems to be disagreement; or you haven't read the thread properly.
Philosophers did not discover humans are equal to "1", dismissing the rest of your philosophical yammer.
When did academia become an insult?
Firstly, the word refers to all students, teachers, schools etc. Nothing more really, it's not a conspiracy of any kind.
But the OP would suggest that "all learned people" in the entire world are wrong. And the stupid people are right! Whoa.
Talk about insulting...
This is a serious question, i'm not actually trying to insult you or anything. But: Do you use mind-altering chemicals of any kind? Your logic... And usage of words... Does not follow commonly accepted practices or aristotelean logic.
Firstly, the word refers to all students, teachers, schools etc. Nothing more really, it's not a conspiracy of any kind.
But the OP would suggest that "all learned people" in the entire world are wrong. And the stupid people are right! Whoa.
Talk about insulting...
This is a serious question, i'm not actually trying to insult you or anything. But: Do you use mind-altering chemicals of any kind? Your logic... And usage of words... Does not follow commonly accepted practices or aristotelean logic.
s13ep
42
What is this if not the common negligent behaviour from an academician?
There're plenty of reasons why it's negligence; I've no need to list them.
Further, are you contradicting the original post?
You seem to attribute numbers with religion or something i couldn't quite understand. But consider this: How can something created artificially specifically for the use of academics, by the academicians, be an integral part of your theories of god? Isn't that... Self-defeating?
They're just symbols... The meaning for them was chosen by the academia. Without the meaning they're just squiggly lines and whatever meaning you attribute to them is a construct. That you made.
I don't know what you're talking about, so maybe you do need to list them.
No. Because i don't want to or feel like it. That's pretty much it.
From all the posts and threads you've made here and i've read(yes, i've read them entirely) seem to point to the following: You seem to have a strong need to prove to the external reality that you are a prophet of your own religion, and that you believe in it yourself. That you are a prophet. And that you're privy to special information hidden from the rest of us. I think the reality is that you decided to reject reality and substitute your own... What you write does not make sense, not even in its own context. You seem to string together words randomly in sentences that don't make any sense...
You are a pretty twisted individual. You believe in yourself way too hard.
s13ep
42
When the day comes where I'm proudly not believing in myself I'll let you know so you can believe in yourself for the usual one second.