Natural phenomena as a Divine gift


#1

The scientific method as it has become known is not the only way to approach the investigation of natural phenomena and especially the disciplines of astronomy and geology.

Christian faith can be a matter of intuition which needs no explanation to justify its existence save that love as an experience is the basis of Christ and Christianity,anything less would not be right or good no matter how persuasive the arguments.

People should know that there exists a way to study natural phenomena which is far superior to the scientific method insofar as it leads to nothing absurd whereas we live in an era of multiple universes,warped space and all the other exotic nonsense fit for those who know no better.

The best expression of the balance between intuition and mathematics is by Pascal as an antidote to Newtonian empiricalism.

Blaise Pascal -

"1. The difference between the mathematical and the intuitive
mind.–In the one, the principles are obvious, but removed from
ordinary use; so that for want of habit it is difficult to turn one’s
mind in that direction: but if one turns it there ever so little,
one sees the principles fully, and one must have a quite inaccurate mind who reasons wrongly from principles so plain that it is almost impossible they should escape notice.

But in the intuitive mind the principles are found in common use and are before the eyes of everybody. One has only to look, and no effort is necessary; it is only a question of good eyesight, but it must be good, for the principles are so subtle and so numerous that it is almost impossible but that some escape notice. Now the omission of one principle leads to error; thus one must have very clear sight to see all the principles and, in the next place, an accurate mind not to draw false deductions from known principles.

All mathematicians would then be intuitive if they had clear sight,
for they do not reason incorrectly from principles known to them; and intuitive minds would be mathematical if they could turn their eyes to the principles of mathematics to which they are unused.

The reason, therefore, that some intuitive minds are not mathematical is that they cannot at all turn their attention to the principles of mathematics. But the reason that mathematicians are not intuitive is that they do not see what is before them, and that, accustomed to the exact and plain principles of mathematics, and not reasoning till they have well inspected and arranged their principles, they are lost in matters of intuition where the principles do not allow of such arrangement. They are scarcely seen; they are felt rather than seen; there is the greatest difficulty in making them felt by those who do not of themselves perceive them. These principles are so fine and so numerous that a very delicate and very clear sense is needed to perceive them, and to judge rightly and justly when they are perceived, without for the most part being able to demonstrate them in order as in mathematics, because the principles are not known to us in
the same way, and because it would be an endless matter to undertake it. WE MUST SEE THE MATTER AT ONCE,AT ONE GLANCE AND NOT BY A PROCESS OF REASONING, at least to a certain degree. And thus it is rare that mathematicians are intuitive and that men of intuition are mathematicians, because mathematicians wish to treat matters of intuition mathematically and make themselves ridiculous, wishing to begin with definitions and then with axioms, which is not the way to proceed in this kind of reasoning. Not that the mind does not do so, but it does it tacitly, naturally, and without technical rules; for the expression of it is beyond all men, and only a few can feel it.

Intuitive minds, on the contrary, being thus accustomed to judge at a single glance, are so astonished when they are presented with propositions of which they understand nothing, and the way to which is through definitions and axioms so sterile, and which they are not accustomed to see thus in detail, that they are repelled and disheartened.

But dull minds are never either intuitive or mathematical"


#2

Scientists also accept many beliefs on “faith.” Einstein’s revelations about the nature of matter, energy, and gravity were widely accepted in the scientific community LONG before we had the means to test and validate them (and we still lack the means to test and observe many astronomical and physical phenomena (quantum shift, by its very nature, cannot be tested or observed).

When the atomic bomb was first built, the participating scientists believed it would work, even though the principles behind it had never been proven with the scientific method.


#3

[quote=DavidFilmer]Scientists also accept many beliefs on “faith.” Einstein’s revelations about the nature of matter, energy, and gravity were widely accepted in the scientific community LONG before we had the means to test and validate them (and we still lack the means to test and observe many astronomical and physical phenomena (quantum shift, by its very nature, cannot be tested or observed).

When the atomic bomb was first built, the participating scientists believed it would work, even though the principles behind it had never been proven with the scientific method.
[/quote]

It only takes a simple test to confirm that the Earth does not rotate through 360 degrees in 23 hours 56 min 04 sec and Newtonian mechanics and early 20th century exotic offshoots are based on that particular value for modelling planetary motion .I have been pointing out that the foundation of this erroneous principle originated with John Flamsteed and while mathematicians neither know nor care,the subtle difference between the correct value (24 hours exactly) and the false one can rapidly progress to enormous errors when left unchecked.This is exactly what happened and warped space,multiple universes and dimensions ect are a consequence of mathematics going out of kilter with intuition.

“One has only to look, and no effort is necessary; it is only a question of good eyesight, but it must be good, for the principles are so subtle and so numerous that it is almost impossible but that some escape notice. Now the omission of one principle leads to error; thus one must have very clear sight to see all the principles and, in the next place, an accurate mind not to draw false deductions from known principles.” Pascal

The nature of the relativity/qm business is to draw a person into a dismal circular discussion while seeming to sound profound and apparently even the creationist,while denying evolution in some reasonable shape,have evolved themselves into a cozy embrace of empirical circular arguments with all heat and no light.My point is that the whole empirical process is unsound originating with Newton/Flamsteed hence I have no need to technically nor conceptually go beyond them.An intuitive person would comprehend immediately why there is no productive reason to contend with later exotic offshoots of Newtonian empirical methods and their influences on Christian tradition.

members.tripod.com/~gravitee/genschol.htm

The first paragraph from Newton is technically horrendous and I have already explained why* let alone get into theological considerations of Newton’s Arianism.

"PHÆNOMENON IV.
That the fixed stars being at rest, the periodic times of the five
primary planets, and (whether of the sun about the earth, or) of the
earth about the sun, are in the sesquiplicate proportion of their mean distances from the sun.

members.tripod.com/~gravitee/phaenomena.htm

“The proportion existing between the periodic times of any two planets is exactly the sesquiplicate proportion of the mean distances of the orbits, or as generally given,the squares of the periodic times are proportional to the cubes of the mean distances.” Kepler


#4

[quote=oriel36]It only takes a simple test to confirm that the Earth does not rotate through 360 degrees in 23 hours 56 min 04 sec
[/quote]

This is the clearest statement of your position yet. From this, I can conclude that you think modern astronomy is in error on a very fundamental point.

One very nice aspect of this statement is that it has nothing to do with Newton and the historical development of astronomy and physics. Your continued criticism of Newton, whether justified or not, completely obscures the modern relevance of your comments.

How long do you think it takes for the Earth to rotate through 360 degrees relative to the “fixed” stars? If you need to refer to any astronomy texts in your answer, please reference something written after 1960.


#5

[quote=Catholic2003]This is the clearest statement of your position yet. From this, I can conclude that you think modern astronomy is in error on a very fundamental point.

One very nice aspect of this statement is that it has nothing to do with Newton and the historical development of astronomy and physics. Your continued criticism of Newton, whether justified or not, completely obscures the modern relevance of your comments.

How long do you think it takes for the Earth to rotate through 360 degrees relative to the “fixed” stars? If you need to refer to any astronomy texts in your answer, please reference something written after 1960.
[/quote]

Sir

Newton followed Arianism which attempts to dilute Christ and Christianity within the trinity.If his judgement were so awful with Christ and Christianity and especially his anti-Catholic bias I have every right to review exactly how Newton came up with a ballistic agenda applied to planetary motion.

newadvent.org/cathen/01707c.htm

I have been familiar with the tactics of relativistic apologists for years and your twisting of a simple statement such as the 24 hour/360 degree equivalency for axial rotation amounts to that same muddying of a simple statement.

The founding principles for a 24 hour clock and the Earth spinning through a full 360 degree revolution do not support the Newtonian perspective built on 23 hours 56 min 04 sec,*this one -

nordita.dk/~steen/fysik51/ast/astt8_files/AT40103_files/AACHCIR0.JPG

Creationism is nothing compared to Newtonian quasi-geocentrism where you can swap the position of the Sun and the Earth without any loss,at least according to Isaac.

“PHÆNOMENON IV.
That the fixed stars being at rest, the periodic times of the five
primary planets, and (whether of the sun about the earth, or) of the
earth about the sun, are in the sesquiplicate proportion of their mean distances from the sun.”

members.tripod.com/~gravitee/phaenomena.htm

Oh you get the lenghtening of elliptical distances from mean Sun/Earth values awright ! but try and fit a 986 deg orbital displacement derived from a axial longitude coordinate into an elliptical framework and the Earth would move faster at the aphelion and slower at the perihelion which is in direct conflict with Kepler’s second insight.

The principles behind the 24 hour/360 degree equivalency for axial rotation are founded on the Equation of Time correction as the Earth rotates to face the Sun with each complete rotation -

mcwdn.org/MAPS&GLOBES/WorldEsri.GIF

In short,empiricalists made a GIANT error and continue to bluff and bluster with it -

astronomynotes.com/nakedeye/s7.htm

astrosun2.astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses/astro201/sidereal.htm

360 degrees = 24 hours

1 Deg = 4 minutes

.986 deg = 3 min 56 sec

24 hours minus 3 min 56 sec = 23 hours 56 min 04 sec

Is there not a single Catholic who is horrified in seeing an axial rotational value (.986 deg) transfered to an orbital coordinate as a means to derive the ‘true’ rotational rate of the Earth onits axis ?.

Somebody better give me an answer because that single error is worse than anything the creationists ever did,truly !.


#6

[quote=oriel36]Newton followed Arianism which attempts to dilute Christ and Christianity within the trinity.If his judgement were so awful with Christ and Christianity and especially his anti-Catholic bias I have every right to review exactly how Newton came up with a ballistic agenda applied to planetary motion.
[/quote]

You do indeed have every right. Just don’t expect modern physicists and astronomers to care.

I can’t tell whether you are avoiding my question, or if you think you have answered it. Please fill in the blank with a time in hours, minutes, and seconds:

The Earth takes _____ to rotate 360 degrees relative to the fixed stars. (This is the time between when the North Star, for example, is over a given line of longitude and when the North Star is over that same line of longitude the next rotation.)


#7

Uhm
defining 24h to be one rotation of the Earth is not a suitable definition. The Earth’s rotation is slowing down because of the different densities of the various core layers. So you have to continiously redefine what an hour means.

So the definition of a second (or an hour, doesn’t matter) is decoupled from the Earth’s rotation, as “the duration of 9,192,631,770 cycles of microwave light absorbed or emitted by the hyperfine transition of cesium-133 atoms in their ground state undisturbed by external fields” to be precise.

Pardon me, but you spread pseudoscientific nonsense that could make any creationist jealous.


#8

[quote=oriel36]In short,empiricalists made a GIANT error and continue to bluff and bluster with it -

astronomynotes.com/nakedeye/s7.htm

astrosun2.astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses/astro201/sidereal.htm
[/quote]

Thanks for the modern references. They are a lot easier to read than Newton, and they also have more accurate astronomical measurements. From the first one:

One month later (30 days) a given star will rise 2 hours earlier than it did before (30 days × 4 minutes/day = 120 minutes).

To me, this is direct empirical confirmation of the modern value of 23 hours, 56 minutes (rounded to the nearest minute). Do you disagree with this statement, or do you accept this statement but disagree that it confirms the modern value?


#9

[quote=Catholic2003]You do indeed have every right. Just don’t expect modern physicists and astronomers to care.

I can’t tell whether you are avoiding my question, or if you think you have answered it. Please fill in the blank with a time in hours, minutes, and seconds:

The Earth takes _____ to rotate 360 degrees relative to the fixed stars. (This is the time between when the North Star, for example, is over a given line of longitude and when the North Star is over that same line of longitude the next rotation.)
[/quote]

The Earth takes exactly 24 hours to rotate through 360 degrees.

Any other value or any concept built on an alternative value such as 23 hours 56 min 04 sec will be astronomically and geometrically absurd.

Do you have any idea just how deep in trouble we as a race are ?.


#10

[quote=oriel36]The Earth takes exactly 24 hours to rotate through 360 degrees.
[/quote]

Now we’re getting somewhere!

The difference between your value and the modern accepted value is nearly 4 minutes per Earth rotation, i.e., per day. Over a period of 30 days, the discrepancy accumulates to 2 hours.

So if you are correct, and I go out and look at the stars at midnight, and then one month later go out at midnight, I should see basically the same star patterns. If the modern value is correct, then the star patterns would be shifted, and I would have to go out at 10pm in order to see the same star pattern.

Thus it would seem that we could confirm which value is correct via naked eye observation over the period of a month or two or three, depending on how good your vision is.

What do you say?


#11

[quote=Catholic2003]Now we’re getting somewhere!

The difference between your value and the modern accepted value is nearly 4 minutes per Earth rotation, i.e., per day. Over a period of 30 days, the discrepancy accumulates to 2 hours.

So if you are correct, and I go out and look at the stars at midnight, and then one month later go out at midnight, I should see basically the same star patterns. If the modern value is correct, then the star patterns would be shifted, and I would have to go out at 10pm in order to see the same star pattern.

Thus it would seem that we could confirm which value is correct via naked eye observation over the period of a month or two or three, depending on how good your vision is.

What do you say?
[/quote]

I need just one Catholic with enough ability to determine how axial rotation at 15 degrees per hour translates in a complete 360 degree axial rotation in 24 hours via the Equation of Time correction.This is not just history we are dealing with but the exquisite principles which facilitate the equable 24 hour day as the basis of the calendar system,the clock,terrestial longitudes and I ask you to treat the principles with the care they deserve rather than the brute mishandling and tampering at the hands of Flamsteed and Newton.

360 Deg = 24 Hours
1 Deg = 4 min
.986 Deg = 3 min 56 sec

24 hours minus 3 min 56 sec = 23 hours 56 min 04 sec

nordita.dk/~steen/f­ysik51/ast/astt8_files/AT40103­_files/AA…

Our pre-Copernican ancestors wisely assumed an equable day from noon to noon even though they observed a natural inequality when the Sun returned to the same position for each full rotation.The Equation of Time facilitates the seamless transition from one equable 24 hour day to the next 24 hour day,Monday into Tuesday,Tuesday into Wednesday ect.When accurate clocks were developed the accuracy was checked at astronomical noon (hence the terms AM and PM) after the Equation of Time was applied.

In other words,the determination of constant axial rotation derived from the pre-Copernican ‘average’ day tied to axial rotation of the Earth through 360 degrees back to noon translates into constant axial rotation after the Copernican insight of heliocentricity.

Your sidereal value tries to justify a constant axial rotation to the Sun every 24 hours when for millenia it was known that the Earth has no reference for constant axial rotation,neither by the Sun nor the other stars.

Then along came Flamsteed and Newton with reasoning that would put creationists to shame in determining that the Earth has an external reference for axial rotation !.

“our clocks kept so good a correspondence with the Heavens that I doubt it not but they would prove the revolutions of the Earth to be isochronical…”

www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/HistTopics/Longitude2.html

nordita.dk/~steen/f­ysik51/ast/astt8_files/AT40103­_files/AA…

Rather than trying to fudge a reply why don’t you take heed of Pascal’s warning about missing subtle principles for adhering to the wrong rotation rate of the Earth supersedes even the level of the creationists for absurdity.


#12

[quote=AnAtheist]Uhm
defining 24h to be one rotation of the Earth is not a suitable definition. The Earth’s rotation is slowing down because of the different densities of the various core layers. So you have to continiously redefine what an hour means.

So the definition of a second (or an hour, doesn’t matter) is decoupled from the Earth’s rotation, as “the duration of 9,192,631,770 cycles of microwave light absorbed or emitted by the hyperfine transition of cesium-133 atoms in their ground state undisturbed by external fields” to be precise.

Pardon me, but you spread pseudoscientific nonsense that could make any creationist jealous.
[/quote]

The whole relativity thing is based on telling everyone that the Earth is a bad clock and drawing attension away from the longitude meridians that carry the 24 hour/360 degree equivalency for axial rotation.

Accurate clocks were designed as rulers of distance and the principles which keep it that way were originally derived from sundials and the Equation of Time correction.

It was a nasty maneuver on Newton’s part in accurately describing the difference between the natural unequal day and the 24 hour clock day and then quietly shifting the value to the sidereal format but an astronomer would know these things

“Absolute time, in astronomy, is distinguished from relative, by the equation or correlation of the vulgar time. For the natural days are truly unequal, though they are commonly considered as equal and used for a measure of time; astronomers correct this inequality for their more accurate deducing of the celestial motions.”

members.tripod.com/~gravitee/definitions.htm

Absolute time = 24 hour clock day

Relative time = natural unequal day

Difference between natural unequal day and equable 24 hour clock day = Equation of Time.

No wonder the poor guys at the end of the 19th century could’nt figure out what Isaac was on about but I assure you I do and would have other Catholics discuss this matter in a responsible way and save our children from empirical indoctrination.

Mach: on Newton’s Absolute Time

"This absolute time can be measured by comparison with no motion; it
has therefore neither a practical nor a scientific value; and no one
is justified in saying that he knows aught about it. It is an idle
metaphysical conception."
Mach, Analyse der Empfindungen, 6th ed.

Would you have told Mach that all absolute time means is that there is no external reference for axial rotation through 360 degree in 24 hours (hence the Equation of Time) and far from having no value it is the basis of the calendar system,clock system,longitude system ect.


#13

[quote=oriel36]Your sidereal value tries to justify a constant axial rotation to the Sun every 24 hours when for millenia it was known that the Earth has no reference for constant axial rotation,neither by the Sun nor the other stars.
[/quote]

You are contradicting yourself here. Let me try another fill-in-the-blank:

The Earth takes from _____ to _____ to rotate 360 degrees relative to the distant stars. (non-constant value for rotation)

Do you acknowledge that the nighttime star pattern (at midnight) varies from month to month over the course of a year? If so, then whatever values you use to fill in the blank had better be closer to 23 hours, 56 minutes than to 24 hours to agree with this empirical observation.


#14

[quote=Catholic2003]You are contradicting yourself here. Let me try another fill-in-the-blank:

The Earth takes from _____ to _____ to rotate 360 degrees relative to the distant stars. (non-constant value for rotation)

Do you acknowledge that the nighttime star pattern (at midnight) varies from month to month over the course of a year? If so, then whatever values you use to fill in the blank had better be closer to 23 hours, 56 minutes than to 24 hours to agree with this empirical observation.
[/quote]

I cannot compete with a person who has free will to choose another way to derive the axial rotation of the Earth when there is only one correct value - 24 hours exactly.

I have said from the beginning that what Newton did via Flamsteed was anti-Christian and I have pointed out where the 3 min 56 sec difference comes from as an illegal maneuver in shifting an axial longitude time coordinate to a orbital displacement - .986 deg to be precise.

360 Deg = 24 Hours
1 Deg = 4 min
.986 Deg = 3 min 56 sec

24 hours minus 3 min 56 sec = 23 hours 56 min 04 sec

nordita.dk/~steen/f­ysik51/ast/astt8_files/AT40103­_files/AA…

Your answer is that empirical observations determine that a star returns to the same position every 23 hours 56 min 04 sec therefore this is the 'true ’ value for axial rotation but it is nothing but brute reasoning that undermines the whole Copernican/Keplerian heliocentric system.

Do you not wish to acknowledge the wisdom of our ancestors in fixing the exquisite principle of the equable day and subsequently equable hours minutes and seconds to the Sun rather than a distant star.To determine the value for axial rotation through 360 degrees and how accurate clocks were developed on a Sun based reference no appeal to a distant star is required.

That why it is a giant mistake because the error is so obvious.

Let me fill in the blank with more precision.

As an independent motion the Earth rotates on its axis through 360 degrees in 24 hours exactly.

The Earth does NOT rotate through 360 degrees in 23 hour 56 min 04 sec.

The entire Newtonian ballistic agenda applied to planetary motion is built on the wrong rotation rate of the Earth.


#15

[quote=oriel36]To determine the value for axial rotation through 360 degrees and how accurate clocks were developed on a Sun based reference no appeal to a distant star is required.
[/quote]

I don’t care how clocks were developed. I’ve got a watch that works fine - no distant star OR sun required. And it is accurate to a few seconds per year, which is more than sufficient for the required observations.

[quote=oriel36]Let me fill in the blank with more precision.

As an independent motion the Earth rotates on its axis through 360 degrees in 24 hours exactly.
[/quote]

This statement is meaningless in modern physics, because absolute motion is meaningless. That’s the reason I asked you specifically about the relative motion of the Earth’s rotation with respect to distant stars. And despite your protestations, you seem to acknowledge the empirical evidence for the modern astronomical value of 23 hours, 56 minutes (and 4 seconds). If you want to think that this is caused by the stars rotating 0.986 degrees per day relative to an Earth rotating 360 degrees per day, then go ahead. That is also a valid coordinate system (i.e., frame of reference) according to modern physics.

Here is an analogy. A person is in a plane with an airspeed of 200 mph, traveling against a headwind of 30 mph. What is the groundspeed? The correct answer is to subtract 200 mph - 30 mph to obtain 170 mph. Saying that the Newtonian agenda of groundspeed is a giant mistake underlying all of aerodynamics, and that the plane’s actual speed should be measured relative to God, should cost the person their pilot’s license.

[quote=oriel36]The entire Newtonian ballistic agenda applied to planetary motion is built on the wrong rotation rate of the Earth.
[/quote]

Modern astronomy is based on the sidereal day being 23 hours, 56 minutes, where the concept of sidereal day is defined relative to the distant stars. I asked a real question that has a real answer, and the answer taught by modern astronomy matches the way the universe actually works.

You seem to think that the entire purpose of astonomy should be to prove that a literal interpretation of the Bible is correct. But I don’t understand why you get so upset just because the astonomers are more interested in figuring out where to point their telescopes in order to see a given star.


#16

[quote=Catholic2003]I don’t care how clocks were developed. I’ve got a watch that works fine - no distant star OR sun required. And it is accurate to a few seconds per year, which is more than sufficient for the required observations.

[/quote]

I have yet to figure out how to use the ‘quote’ feature so I will answer this piecemeal through a few postings.

The accuracy of a 24 hour clock was tested at observed noon when the Equation of Time was applied,again,this is the correction which allows the equable pace of a 24 hour day seamlessly elapse into the next 24 hour day.In short,without the Equation of Time there would be no clocks,no Western civilisation as we know it,no calendar system and all the things necessary where a guage of equable motion is needed.

Not caring how accurate clocks were developed and from what principles is no better or worse than the atheist guy which roughly leads to a purposeless .Who wants to argue with a creationist and indeed who wants to contend with a guy who does not care what error was made by Flamsteed and adopted by Newton.


#17

[quote=oriel36]The accuracy of a 24 hour clock was tested at observed noon when the Equation of Time was applied,again,this is the correction which allows the equable pace of a 24 hour day seamlessly elapse into the next 24 hour day.In short,without the Equation of Time there would be no clocks,no Western civilisation as we know it,no calendar system and all the things necessary where a guage of equable motion is needed.
[/quote]

The concept of time exists independently of astronomy. If I hole up in a cave and never see the sun or the stars again, I will still age and die. My perishable food will still perish.

The accuracy of modern atomic clocks is tested my having more than one of them, and comparing them to insure that they keep time at the same rate. This is how time is defined now, according to NIST (formerly the National Bureau of Standards). Do you think that the government atomic clocks are part of some global conspiracy to discredit the Bible?

[quote=oriel36]Who wants to argue with a creationist and indeed who wants to contend with a guy who does not care what error was made by Flamsteed and adopted by Newton.
[/quote]

If that error has been corrected today, then it is purely a matter of medieval history, which I am not all that interested in. As I mentioned in a previous thread, the oldest book I read in all my physics study was Dirac’s classic QM text from the 1930’s. Dirac made a mistake by assuming that anti-electrons were holes in a universal sea of negative energy particles. But I don’t hate the guy because of his mistake.


#18

Nobody is going to be shocked for the tendency of Newtonian quasi-geocentricity or relativistic homocentricity is towards absurdity,however in would be nice to see a Catholic pick up on what you mean by ‘frame of reference’ and determine that it was Newton that began that framehopping nonsense by using the non-existent sidereal justification for the axial and orbital motion of the Earth which facilitates a geocentric/heliocentric orbital equivalency.

“PHÆNOMENON IV.
That the fixed stars being at rest, the periodic times of the five
primary planets, and (whether of the sun about the earth, or) of the
earth about the sun, are in the sesquiplicate proportion of their mean distances from the sun.”

members.tripod.com/~gravitee/phaenomena.htm

I am bound to sincerity and under no circumstances whatsoever does the Earth rotate through 360 degrees for any other value than 24 hours exactly or what amounts to the same thing - 86 400 sec.

The idea that you observe the star to return to the same position in 23 hours 56 min 04 sec as proof of constant axial rotation supersedes creationism yet Newton built his ballistic agenda for planetary motion on that value.

Do you realise how much trouble Western civilisation is in ?,if you don’t check with the atheist guy.


#19

[quote=Catholic2003]The concept of time exists independently of astronomy. If I hole up in a cave and never see the sun or the stars again, I will still age and die. My perishable food will still perish.

[/quote]

The concept of time is Spiritual,everyone knows what it is and nobody needs it defined for them.The connection between temporal life and Eternal Life is the great Christian mystery and thankfully our ancestors had enough sense to mark the difference between a clock and time Itself.

What is time?

The shadow on the dial,
the striking of the clock,
the running of the sand,
day and night, summer and winter, months, years, centuries

  • these are but arbitrary and outward signs,
    the measure of Time, not Time itself.
    Time is the Life of the soul.

Henry W. Longfellow (1807-1882).

The souless Newtonian conceptions are par for the course,he tells mathematicians that people are vulgar and do not understand time but all he is really doing is creating such pretensious absolute/relative noise that a person is bound to give up and imagine that they are in some way deficient.That sir is not science it is very bad politics.-

SCHOLIUM.

Hitherto I have laid down the definitions of such words as are less known, and explained the sense in which I would have them to be understood in the following discourse. I do not define time, space, place and motion, as being well known to all. Only I must observe, that the vulgar conceive those quantities under no other notions but from the relation they bear to sensible objects. And thence arise certain prejudices, for the removing of which, it will be convenient to distinguish them into absolute and relative, true and apparent, mathematical and common.

members.tripod.com/~gravitee/definitions.htm#time

All you are really doing is playing much the same politics with a clock and the rotation of the Earth and trying to distract attension away from a giant mistake,the biggest one I ever came across and the biggest obstacle to faith and the correct means to approach the enjoyment of natural phenomena.

Again,the independent rotation rate of the Earth through 360 degrees is 24 hours exactly,if people do not get that basic fact correct there is little point in discussing the great intellectual points moving to and fro through Christianity .


#20

We used an atomic clock to fill in the gaps in the GPS system back in 1990 and I will tell you that they still refer back to the same Lat/Long coordinates which determine that the Earth rotates through 15 degrees per hour and 24 hours in total.

You are having severe difficulties in diffentiating ‘clocks’ and ‘time’ which is why we need more intuitive Catholics to discuss the matter in a responsible way.This is purely a technical matter on what determines the actual value for rotation of the Earth through 360 degrees as an independent motion.

The empirical outlook is Pascal’s warning writ large -

“But in the intuitive mind the principles are found in common use and are before the eyes of everybody. One has only to look, and no effort is necessary; it is only a question of good eyesight, but it must be good, for the principles are so subtle and so numerous that it is almost impossible but that some escape notice. Now the omission of one principle leads to error; thus one must have very clear sight to see all the principles and, in the next place, an accurate mind not to draw false deductions from known principles.”

ccel.org/p/pascal/pensees/pensees02.htm

You imagine that a star rotates back to the same position in 23 hours 56 min 04 sec proves the Earth’s constant axial rotation but the Earth has a compound axial and orbital motion which are independent of each other,one constant and the other variable (Kepler’s second law).

An intuitive person would therefore see a major problem in principle with the sidereal view and concepts built on that view.The appearance of other intuitive Catholics just has’nt happened yet.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.