PDA

View Full Version : Physics: Einstein vs Newton



Ian Murray
18-12-2019, 06:49 PM
Putting Einstein first: It's time to stop lying to our children about physics (https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2019-12-13/time-to-stop-lying-to-our-children-about-physics/11789858)

ABC Science
By David Blair for Ockham's Razor

Isaac Newton is a physics icon, but he was wrong.

Sure, three hundred years ago, his discoveries about gravity and the laws governing motion revolutionised the world.

And yes, sure, those discoveries led to an incredibly useful mechanistic, deterministic view of the universe – in which one thing causes another.

It's the story we all still learn in school. But Einstein proved it was wrong a century ago.

What did Newton get wrong?

While Newton saw time and space as absolute, Einstein proved that time is relative – it depends on height and speed.

And space? Einstein said that space is curved by matter. So parallel lines will always cross, because space is never flat.

It's mind blowing. And it's not what we're taught in school. ...

Ian Murray
18-12-2019, 08:26 PM
I went to school probably years after yourself and I wasn't taught any Newton or Einstein - good Catholic curriculum that was. But there was the great revelation that stars were holes in the floor of Heaven that is yet to be disproved I believe.

You didn't learn that g = 32 ft secˉ² on Earth, and one-sixth of that on the moon? I got it all from the Brothers.

Patrick Byrom
18-12-2019, 10:00 PM
You didn't learn that g = 32 ft secˉ² on Earth, and one-sixth of that on the moon? I got it all from the Brothers.He's made similar claims before, and I find this one just as unbelievable. I went to a Catholic school about 50 years ago, and they definitely weren't teaching medieval cosmology - we even watched the moon landing :)

Capablanca-Fan
19-12-2019, 12:50 AM
I was asked about this article in my professional capacity, and my response was:


The problem is not that it is wrong, but that it's over the top. One thing he omits is called the correspondence principle. That is, Newtonian physics works so well for most situations that relativistic and quantum mechanics (https://creation.com/creationists-quantum-mechanics) must produce the same predictions for the same conditions. In particular, at speeds much less than that of light and at relatively low gravity, Einstein's equations approach asymptotically to Newton's equations. Similarly, the equations of quantum mechanics become those at classical mechanics at the limit of very large quantum numbers, usually anything larger than molecular size. E.g. a flying mozzie is so much slower than light and so much bigger than an atom that it would be crass to use anything but Newtonian physics.

Also, Newton (https://creation.com/sir-isaac-newton-1642-1727) was one of Einstein's scientific heroes (https://creation.com/einsteins-heroes).

Capablanca-Fan
19-12-2019, 01:00 AM
You didn't learn that g = 32 ft secˉ² on Earth, and one-sixth of that on the moon? I got it all from the Brothers.
Of course! I wouldn't be surprised if you learned more about physics back then than most kids learn today.


He's made similar claims before, and I find this one just as unbelievable.
Yes, he is often over-the-top, even for most of the atheists here.


I went to a Catholic school about 50 years ago, and they definitely weren't teaching medieval cosmology
They probably did teach some medieval cosmology: that the earth is a globe (https://creation.com/flat-earth-myth), that it was just a speck compared to the vast distance to the stars, and that the sun and every star we see is bigger than the earth (https://creation.com/why-would-god-bother-with-planet-earth).


— we even watched the moon landing :)
In my experience, moon-landing hoaxers tend to be too young to realize that it was impossible to fake with the film or computer technology of the day, while rockets of the day definitely were powerful enough. I wrote an article for the 50th anniversary of the first landing (https://creation.com/apollo-moon-landing-50th-anniversary) that addressed some denialist claims, and even put a little chess history in. Someone commented that this was a switch from my usual writings in apologetics to one on apollogetics.

Capablanca-Fan
19-12-2019, 01:02 AM
When I moved to Townsville in 71 and worked in PMG a guy there couldn't use the telephone - maybe he was taught by Capa's mob.

You mean, my mob that teaches that quantum mechanics, relativity (both special and general), and Newtonian physics are good science?

We can even use computers and the Internet :P

Capablanca-Fan
19-12-2019, 02:41 AM
Does Mr Christ rising up to Heaven comply with Newtonian and Einstein's theories? Does feeding the masses with all those extra loaves and fishes break the Laws of Thermodynamics , or quantum mechanics,
Miracles don't violate these laws and theories; rather, they are additions to them. See for example Miracles and science (https://creation.com/miracles-and-science).

Capablanca-Fan
19-12-2019, 02:46 AM
Capa Fan, I can be considered over the top (and other things) but I was not lying about being taught that stars were holes in the floor of Heaven.
As a joke maybe, not as science, judging by what IM and PB say they were taught.


But I reminded him of Yuri Gagarin's famous words - now you recite them for me please.
What? Поéхали! (Poyekhali! = Let's go!)

Ian Murray
19-12-2019, 06:41 AM
Of course! I wouldn't be surprised if you learned more about physics back then than most kids learn today.

I still have trouble getting my head around the idea that gravity is not a force but a result of space-time warp



...Someone commented that this was a switch from my usual writings in apologetics to one on apollogetics.

:)

Capablanca-Fan
19-12-2019, 07:08 AM
I still have trouble getting my head around the idea that gravity is not a force but a result of space-time warp
You can treat it as either of these. In most normal applications, it's fine to treat it as a force F = –Gm₁m₂/R². For very large gravitational fields, it needs to be treated as warping in spacetime, where particles follow ‘straight’ paths (geodesics) through this curved spacetime.

Because of the correspondence principle, in the limit of low gravitational fields, the spacetime warp equations will provide identical results to the force equations. That's why I thought that the article was not wrong per se but over the top. Physicists and chemists make approximations all the time, and know that Newtonian physics is an excellent approximation most of the time—so good that the deviation from reality is too tiny for most measurements.

Probably the most practical example of where relativity is needed is the GPS or SatNav system. This is based on satellites in a semi-synchronous orbit (two orbits per day). First, there is the effect of gravitational time dilation by earth's gravitational field (part of general relativity), which weakens at a greater distance. The result is that the satellite clocks are ~2 microseconds faster per day than clocks at sea level. And they are travelling at 12,000 km per hour, which means there is time dilation (part of special relativity), by ~ 5 microseconds slower per day than clocks. Evidently they balance out to GPS clocks being ~38 icroseconds faster per day than clocks on earth. If this were not taken into account, the position errors would build up at a rate of about 400 metres per hour, so would quickly become unusable.

As far as quantum mechanics are concerned, they have been shown to be relevant even to something as large as buckyballs (buckminsterfullerene C₆₀ molecules)—even they have wave properties that could be detected by diffraction patterns (https://www.univie.ac.at/qfp/research/matterwave/c60/) through very fine gratings.

Capablanca-Fan
19-12-2019, 07:21 AM
Your mob that the world was created by God at 6pm Saturday 23 rd October 4004 BC.
I don't believe that. I calculated a different creation date in my Genesis 1–11 commentary The Genesis Account, (https://www.amazon.com/Genesis-Account-theological-historical-scientific/dp/1921643919) not thinking we could narrow it down to as much precision from the biblical data as Ussher did. The uncertainty is decades not an hour.

Ian Murray
19-12-2019, 07:33 AM
You can treat it as either of these. In most normal applications, it's fine to treat it as a force F = –Gm₁m₂/R². For very large gravitational fields, it needs to be treated as warping in spacetime, where particles follow ‘straight’ paths (geodesics) through this curved spacetime.

Because of the correspondence principle, in the limit of low gravitational fields, the spacetime warp equations will provide identical results to the force equations. That's why I thought that the article was not wrong per se but over the top. Physicists and chemists make approximations all the time, and know that Newtonian physics is an excellent approximation most of the time—so good that the deviation from reality is too tiny for most measurements....

Agreed. Newton is certainly good enough for the day-to-day stuff, but if it's true as the article says that kids lap up quantum theory in school then they should learn the basics rather than have to wait till uni.

I tried dipping into astrophysics in my dotage, but found it too hard to do the sums in orbital mechanics (all those big numbers!)

Capablanca-Fan
19-12-2019, 08:32 AM
Getting back to gravity — if the world is only 6,000 years would that be sufficient time for yellow clay beneath my premies to compact as hard as it has. My consultant building engineer assures me that it is due to the earth billions of years old?? Otherwise the formula for gravity must be very incorrect and Newton wrong.

False dilemma. Another possibility: the process of hardening is much quicker and involves other processes. Even if we just take gravity, we need to know what mass has been on top of this soil at different times.

I also doubt that any engineer would claim that the top or near-top layer of clay is billions of years old or even millions.

Capablanca-Fan
19-12-2019, 08:52 AM
Agreed. Newton is certainly good enough for the day-to-day stuff, but if it's true as the article says that kids lap up quantum theory in school then they should learn the basics rather than have to wait till uni.
No problem with that. At least they should learn that Newton's laws break down at very high speed and high gravity and at atomic scales.

When it comes to relativity, maybe in the senior years at highschool, they should learn about the thought experiments that Einstein used to deduce length contraction and time dilation. Then even if they don't learn how to derive it (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67xr6EZEYV8), they should have some idea of the Lorentz factor, and how it doesn't usually deviate much from 1 until the speed is a significant fraction of lightspeed (https://sites.google.com/a/perthgrammar.co.uk/physics/courses/higher/our-dynamic-universe/15-special-relativity/155-lorenz-factor). So kids will realize that Newton's equations don't need much modification at more familiar speeds.

Since chemistry deals with atoms, kids should learn some QM concepts earlier than they do. E.g. they could probably skip the octet rule that is very limited in application and learn the basics of atomic and molecular orbitals.

I also think it's good to learn some of the history. E.g. they should learn about how people explained observations, then further observations that required modification or even discarding old theories. E.g. atoms were thought to be indivisible, then electrons were discovered. The discoverer J.J. Thomson thought they could be like plums in a pudding. But then his student, the Kiwi Rutherford, realized that most mass of an atom was concentrated in the positively charged nucleus, so proposed that electrons orbited like planets around the sun. But then, why didn't they radiate energy as electromagnetic radiation so their orbits decayed? This led to quantum mechanical models. Spectroscopy was also an important tool. That way, students see the connection between observations, models, experiments.


I tried dipping into astrophysics in my dotage, but found it too hard to do the sums in orbital mechanics (all those big numbers!)
Not a bad idea though. This might be considered a historically foundational science. Working out the motions of planets, and testing them against various models, led to Newtonian physics. A small anomaly in Mercury's orbit led to general relativity.

Ian Murray
19-12-2019, 09:14 AM
No problem with that. At least they should learn that Newton's laws break down at very high speed and high gravity and at atomic scales.

When it comes to relativity, maybe in the senior years at highschool, they should learn about the thought experiments that Einstein used to deduce length contraction and time dilation. Then even if they don't learn how to derive it (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67xr6EZEYV8), they should have some idea of the Lorentz factor, and how it doesn't usually deviate much from 1 until the speed is a significant fraction of lightspeed (https://sites.google.com/a/perthgrammar.co.uk/physics/courses/higher/our-dynamic-universe/15-special-relativity/155-lorenz-factor). So kids will realize that Newton's equations don't need much modification at more familiar speeds.

Since chemistry deals with atoms, kids should learn some QM concepts earlier than they do. E.g. they could probably skip the octet rule that is very limited in application and learn the basics of atomic and molecular orbitals.

I also think it's good to learn some of the history. E.g. they should learn about how people explained observations, then further observations that required modification or even discarding old theories. E.g. atoms were thought to be indivisible, then electrons were discovered. The discoverer J.J. Thomson thought they could be like plums in a pudding. But then his student, the Kiwi Rutherford, realized that most mass of an atom was concentrated in the positively charged nucleus, so proposed that electrons orbited like planets around the sun. But then, why didn't they radiate energy as electromagnetic radiation so their orbits decayed? This led to quantum mechanical models. Spectroscopy was also an important tool. That way, students see the connection between observations, models, experiments.


Not a bad idea though. This might be considered a historically foundational science. Working out the motions of planets, and testing them against various models, led to Newtonian physics. A small anomaly in Mercury's orbit led to general relativity.

Sounds good. For a long time I've been intrigued by the General Theory concept that at the speed of light time stops, mass expands to infinity and length contracts to zero. Science fiction writers have had no trouble getting around that to achieve interstellar travel - the warp drive!

antichrist
19-12-2019, 10:52 AM
False dilemma. Another possibility: the process of hardening is much quicker and involves other processes. Even if we just take gravity, we need to know what mass has been on top of this soil at different times.

I also doubt that any engineer would claim that the top or near-top layer of clay is billions of years old or even millions.

I excavated 8 feet down and it is extremely compact. When loosened it becomes approx. 3.5 times bigger mass. It is great to have around as it can be exposed for long periods and does not subside or weaken or slide. So are you disputing the engineer that it is billions of years old? Did Newton have an opinion of the age of the earth and the impact of gravity on it when providing his formulae?

Was it gravity that the formulation of planets are based on - cosmic dust being attracted together by gravity? Can you scientifically-acceptably have Creation 6,000 years ago in agreement with Newtonian and Einstein's theories?

Maybe in this thread you should have a caveat under each post that what you are stating is science or not science?

antichrist
19-12-2019, 11:13 AM
You can treat it as either of these. In most normal applications, it's fine to treat it as a force F = –Gm₁m₂/R². For very large gravitational fields, it needs to be treated as warping in spacetime, where particles follow ‘straight’ paths (geodesics) through this curved spacetime.

Because of the correspondence principle, in the limit of low gravitational fields, the spacetime warp equations will provide identical results to the force equations. That's why I thought that the article was not wrong per se but over the top. Physicists and chemists make approximations all the time, and know that Newtonian physics is an excellent approximation most of the time—so good that the deviation from reality is too tiny for most measurements.

Probably the most practical example of where relativity is needed is the GPS or SatNav system. This is based on satellites in a semi-synchronous orbit (two orbits per day). First, there is the effect of gravitational time dilation by earth's gravitational field (part of general relativity), which weakens at a greater distance. The result is that the satellite clocks are ~2 microseconds faster per day than clocks at sea level. And they are travelling at 12,000 km per hour, which means there is time dilation (part of special relativity), by ~ 5 microseconds slower per day than clocks. Evidently they balance out to GPS clocks being ~38 icroseconds faster per day than clocks on earth. If this were not taken into account, the position errors would build up at a rate of about 400 metres per hour, so would quickly become unusable.

As far as quantum mechanics are concerned, they have been shown to be relevant even to something as large as buckyballs (buckminsterfullerene C₆₀ molecules)—even they have wave properties that could be detected by diffraction patterns (https://www.univie.ac.at/qfp/research/matterwave/c60/) through very fine gratings.

I thought that time in space was slower, the astronauts would have less beard upon return than if they stayed here? Maybe they can repair those holes in the floor I earlier mentioned. (I hope that KB doesn't "kill" me when he arrives through the bathroom window)

Ian Murray
19-12-2019, 11:46 AM
I thought that time in space was slower, the astronauts would have less beard upon return than if they stayed here?

Time slows as velocity approaches the speed of light. The effect on astronauts at peak escape velocity is negligible.

MichaelBaron
19-12-2019, 12:20 PM
Putting Einstein first: It's time to stop lying to our children about physics (https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2019-12-13/time-to-stop-lying-to-our-children-about-physics/11789858)

ABC Science
By David Blair for Ockham's Razor

Isaac Newton is a physics icon, but he was wrong.

Sure, three hundred years ago, his discoveries about gravity and the laws governing motion revolutionised the world.

And yes, sure, those discoveries led to an incredibly useful mechanistic, deterministic view of the universe – in which one thing causes another.

It's the story we all still learn in school. But Einstein proved it was wrong a century ago.

What did Newton get wrong?

While Newton saw time and space as absolute, Einstein proved that time is relative – it depends on height and speed.

And space? Einstein said that space is curved by matter. So parallel lines will always cross, because space is never flat.

It's mind blowing. And it's not what we're taught in school. ...

It is like saying that Staunton was wrong...then Tarrash and Nimzovich were wrong...but Alpha Zero is right :).

Patrick Byrom
19-12-2019, 02:14 PM
The problem with teaching general relativity in high school is the level of maths required. Newton's theories can be understood with algebra and a bit of calculus; general relativity requires partial derivatives and tensors - uni maths.

Capablanca-Fan
20-12-2019, 12:29 AM
I thought that time in space was slower, the astronauts would have less beard upon return than if they stayed here?

It is as IM said. The issue is speed, and even then, your proposal seems to be time running backwards, which is not going to happen. But you can ignore special relativity when the speed is only about 10⁻⁴c, as IM pointed out. See this graph of the Lorentz factor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_factor#/media/File:Lorentz_factor.svg) to see how much length contraction and time dilation is involved at different speeds. Even at 100,000 km/s, or c/3, Newtonian physics is good enough.

Capablanca-Fan
20-12-2019, 01:19 AM
The problem with teaching general relativity in high school is the level of maths required. Newton's theories can be understood with algebra and a bit of calculus; general relativity requires partial derivatives and tensors - uni maths.

That's a reasonable common-sense point. And quantum mechanics requires the Schrödinger Wave Equation.

Students could learn that photon energy is proportional to frequency, E = hν, where h = Planck's constant = 6.62607015×10⁻³⁴ J⋅s, and even briefly discuss the photo-electric effect. They can learn that Einstein won the Nobel prize explicitly for explaining the photoelectric effect by quantization of light. And they could learn the de Broglie wavelength inversely proportional to momentum, λ = h/p, so they could see for themselves why Newtonian mechanics is fine even for mozzies.

They could also learn about the Lorentz factor that quantifies length contraction, time dilation, and relativistic mass increase, γ = ⅟√(1-β²) where β = v/c. Then plot γ as a function of β (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_factor#/media/File:Lorentz_factor.svg), and see for themselves when special relativistic effects start to become important, e.g. not even for the fastest rockets or projectiles around.

Ian Murray
20-12-2019, 11:38 AM
Time slows as velocity approaches the speed of light. The effect on astronauts at peak escape velocity is negligible.

To compare the two, escape velocity (for space travel, the speed needed to escape earth gravity) is 11,186 metres per second (m/s). The speed of light is 299,792,458 m/s. To reach say 5% of light speed and see time slow by 5%, those astronauts would need to accelerate to ~15 million m/s (5.4 million km/hr).

Patrick Byrom
20-12-2019, 12:02 PM
That's a reasonable common-sense point. And quantum mechanics requires the Schrödinger Wave Equation. Students could learn ... Which they do (https://www.vicphysics.org/documents/teachers/Senior%20Secondary%20Curriculum%20-%20Physics%20November%202012.pdf).

antichrist
20-12-2019, 12:03 PM
To compare the two, escape velocity (for space travel, the speed needed to escape earth gravity) is 11,186 metres per second (m/s). The speed of light is 299,792,458 m/s. To reach say 5% of light speed and see time slow by 5%, those astronauts would need to accelerate to ~15 million m/s (5.4 million km/hr).

Was the movie Back to the Future closely based on Einstein? Was the science correct? If we could travel fast enough can we go back in time? I doubt.

Capablanca-Fan
20-12-2019, 12:29 PM
To compare the two, escape velocity (for space travel, the speed needed to escape earth gravity) is 11,186 metres per second (m/s). The speed of light is 299,792,458 m/s. To reach say 5% of light speed and see time slow by 5%, those astronauts would need to accelerate to ~15 million m/s (5.4 million km/hr).

Well said—you put this issue into perspective.

A small refinement, which doesn't affect your main point: you have given the right definition and figure for escape velocity. But this is actually the surface escape velocity, and this is the minimum speed that an unpowered object needs to escape the earth’s gravity. The Saturn V rockets never reached that speed, and didn't need to. The three stages took it to a parking orbit, where the escape velocity is less, and then after orbiting a few times with the engines cut, it re-ignited the engines to take off towards the moon. In fact, it didn't even need to reach the lower escape velocity at this height, because the moon's gravity helped. This is a helpful discussion (http://www.school-for-champions.com/science/gravitation_escape_velocity_saturn_v.htm).

Capablanca-Fan
20-12-2019, 12:29 PM
Which they do (https://www.vicphysics.org/documents/teachers/Senior%20Secondary%20Curriculum%20-%20Physics%20November%202012.pdf).

That link didn't work.

Ian Murray
20-12-2019, 12:51 PM
Was the movie Back to the Future closely based on Einstein? Was the science correct? If we could travel fast enough can we go back in time? I doubt.

I haven't seen the show, but traveling back in time by exceeding light speed is not possible. Upon reaching light speed your spacecraft would shrink in length to zero while its mass would increase to infinity. In other words travelling that fast is impossible.

That said, theoretical astrophysicists are seriously looking at bending the space-time continuum to bring distant points (stars) closer together, allowing our spacecraft (Starship Enterprise) to move through space without actually moving

Space Propulsion by Manipulating Space-time: Can It Go From Paper to Reality? (https://www.bbvaopenmind.com/en/science/physics/space-propulsion-by-manipulating-space-time-can-it-go-from-paper-to-reality/)

Patrick Byrom
20-12-2019, 12:56 PM
That link didn't work.This one works for me. (https://www.vcaa.vic.edu.au/Documents/exams/physics/2018/2018physics-w.pdf)

Patrick Byrom
20-12-2019, 01:00 PM
Was the movie Back to the Future closely based on Einstein? Was the science correct? If we could travel fast enough can we go back in time? I doubt.Only if you have the right flux capacitor :)

Ian Murray
20-12-2019, 01:09 PM
Well said—you put this issue into perspective.

A small refinement, which doesn't affect your main point: you have given the right definition and figure for escape velocity. But this is actually the surface escape velocity, and this is the minimum speed that an unpowered object needs to escape the earth’s gravity. The Saturn V rockets never reached that speed, and didn't need to. The three stages took it to a parking orbit, where the escape velocity is less, and then after orbiting a few times with the engines cut, it re-ignited the engines to take off towards the moon. In fact, it didn't even need to reach the lower escape velocity at this height, because the moon's gravity helped. This is a helpful discussion (http://www.school-for-champions.com/science/gravitation_escape_velocity_saturn_v.htm).

Thanks for that. I had never thought of the effect of the three-stage launch. I've always remembered the close-enough values of 25000 mph for escape velocity and 18000 mph for orbital velocity.

antichrist
20-12-2019, 02:36 PM
I haven't seen the show, but traveling back in time by exceeding light speed is not possible. Upon reaching light speed your spacecraft would shrink in length to zero while its mass would increase to infinity. In other words travelling that fast is impossible.

That said, theoretical astrophysicists are seriously looking at bending the space-time continuum to bring distant points (stars) closer together, allowing our spacecraft (Starship Enterprise) to move through space without actually moving

Space Propulsion by Manipulating Space-time: Can It Go From Paper to Reality? (https://www.bbvaopenmind.com/en/science/physics/space-propulsion-by-manipulating-space-time-can-it-go-from-paper-to-reality/)

really, it is the only scifi movie I have watched to the end, and even seen a few times, it has many episodes but the first is best. Even an oldie can enjoy. You are the scientific type and you have not watched? shocking

Ian Murray
20-12-2019, 04:34 PM
really, it is the only scifi movie I have watched to the end, and even seen a few times, it has many episodes but the first is best. Even an oldie can enjoy. You are the scientific type and you have not watched? shocking

A teenager driving a car back through time, and encountering the usual time travel paradoxes, doesn't really grab me.

Contact, with Jodie Foster, is probably my favourite scifi film.

Ian Murray
20-12-2019, 06:25 PM
Something else I like watching during a rocket launch is the visual evidence of the coriolis effect, as the first stage lifts vertically then takes a 45° turn to the right. Optical illusion - it's still climbing vertically, but the earth has turned left as it rotates on its axis.

Ian Murray
20-12-2019, 06:44 PM
3989

antichrist
22-12-2019, 07:52 AM
Something else I like watching during a rocket launch is the visual evidence of the coriolis effect, as the first stage lifts vertically then takes a 45° turn to the right. Optical illusion - it's still climbing vertically, but the earth has turned left as it rotates on its axis.

How many seconds after blast off does this occur and how far back do the cameras have to be? I can't recall seeing. So in that first 45 seconds how far or degrees has the earth traveled to give this effect?

Ian Murray
22-12-2019, 09:14 AM
How many seconds after blast off does this occur and how far back do the cameras have to be? I can't recall seeing. So in that first 45 seconds how far or degrees has the earth traveled to give this effect?

A launch pad on the equator is rotating eastward at around 4.4 km/sec (launch sites are located as close to the equator as possible to get the most out of this slingshot effect), so it doesn't take long for a rocket to appear to drop away to the west


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akGrnylHL5I

antichrist
22-12-2019, 09:52 AM
A launch pad on the equator is rotating eastward at around 4.4 km/sec (launch sites are located as close to the equator as possible to get the most out of this slingshot effect), so it doesn't take long for a rocket to appear to drop away to the west


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akGrnylHL5I
Very good simple as. How come the smoke haze lingers and we not spin away from it? Is it gravitational?

Capablanca-Fan
22-12-2019, 09:57 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akGrnylHL5I
A very good video, thanks.

Ian Murray
22-12-2019, 11:31 AM
Very good simple as. How come the smoke haze lingers and we not spin away from it? Is it gravitational?

The atmosphere rotates along with the earth (otherwise the effective wind speed on the surface at the equator would be 1600 kph).

antichrist
22-12-2019, 11:53 AM
The atmosphere rotates along with the earth (otherwise the effective wind speed on the surface at the equator would be 1600 kph).
So simple when think about. Thanks. When play your video accidentally my sound was off so didn't get whole story first time. So considering your answer isn't it only logical that space will also curve and prove Uncle Albert correct?

Ian Murray
22-12-2019, 02:39 PM
So simple when think about. Thanks. When play your video accidentally my sound was off so didn't get whole story first time. So considering your answer isn't it only logical that space will also curve and prove Uncle Albert correct?

Similarly, when riding in a hot-air balloon there is no wind. The balloon is travelling at the same speed as the wind, so the relative wind speed is zero.

antichrist
23-12-2019, 12:29 AM
A teenager driving a car back through time, and encountering the usual time travel paradoxes, doesn't really grab me.

Contact, with Jodie Foster, is probably my favourite scifi film.

Well Back to the Future has won more awards than more times I have been arrested and that is saying something. Now don't stay a grumpy old pair of socks and try to watch on the big screen??? Or big TV at home. It is set in the 1950s so just your vintage with 1950 corniness. I dare you to check out the awards.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088763/awards

and you will even learn what a flux capacitor is.

And look there is a whole wiki site just on the DeLorean time machine and many people have made replicas and there are Back to Future events being held. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeLorean_time_machine#Flux_capacitor

Ian Murray
23-12-2019, 02:36 PM
Well Back to the Future has won more awards ... I dare you to check out the awards.

Instead of waiting till you double-dared me, I checked. BTTF = 20 Contact = 14. But I still maintain Contact is better, winning more Hugos, the peak scifi award.

antichrist
23-12-2019, 03:27 PM
Instead of waiting till you double-dared me, I checked. BTTF = 20 Contact = 14. But I still maintain Contact is better, winning more Hugos, the peak scifi award.
Scifi wise of course Contact maybe higher class as BTTF has also, humour, fifties cornines and not too much science, it is pop hifi. You could still be seduced by it. Go with your grand children they will love it. Tell them AC sent you.

Ian Murray
23-12-2019, 04:38 PM
Scifi wise of course Contact maybe higher class as BTTF has also, humour, fifties cornines and not too much science, it is pop hifi. You could still be seduced by it. Go with your grand children they will love it. Tell them AC sent you.

I've probably got it on Netflix or Prime or Stan - I'll have a browse

Capablanca-Fan
25-12-2019, 01:52 AM
Just a question about the education system nowadays: are students just indoctrinated into believing the earth rotates on its axis and revolves around the sun? Or do they learn the reasons why this is true? IM clearly knows some good reasons (e.g. needing centrifugal and Coriolis fictitious forces to explain motions on a rotating sphere) and why we don't feel a huge wind (because the earth shares its motion with the atmosphere)—perhaps the brothers taught well—but what are schoolkids taught these days?

These days, I doubt that most students could even explain how we know that the earth is almost perfectly spherical (to within 0.3%). Medieval students could explain that very well with several lines of evidence.

antichrist
25-12-2019, 02:32 AM
Just a question about the education system nowadays: are students just indoctrinated into believing the earth rotates on its axis and revolves around the sun? Or do they learn the reasons why this is true? IM clearly knows some good reasons (e.g. needing centrifugal and Coriolis fictitious forces to explain motions on a rotating sphere) and why we don't feel a huge wind (because the earth shares its motion with the atmosphere)—perhaps the brothers taught well—but what are schoolkids taught these days?

These days, I doubt that most students could even explain how we know that the earth is almost perfectly spherical (to within 0.3%). Medieval students could explain that very well with several lines of evidence.

But how many science students were there in medieval days? There may have been more science taught in the Muslim world than the Christian world. We could guess on what insignificant % of Christianity was scientifically literate in Medieval times. Until I guessed from Ian's post a week ago I didn't know that G meant gravity. We should have had Mr JC come down to teach science in convent schools because his nuns did not have a clue about it. Just jump in BTTF time machine. And we could have quizzed Mr JC why he created the great majority of humans too dumb and disinterested to handle complicated science. Or instead why did He create it complicated?

Ian Murray
25-12-2019, 11:50 AM
... IM clearly knows some good reasons (e.g. needing centrifugal and Coriolis fictitious forces to explain motions on a rotating sphere) and why we don't feel a huge wind (because the earth shares its motion with the atmosphere)—perhaps the brothers taught well— ...

Actually I was a month or two away from finishing school when the Soviet Union launched Sputnik 1 and the space age began. I gained most of my early orbital and astronomical grounding from reading good (i.e. science-literate) science fiction (see Berkeley Science Review article here (https://berkeleysciencereview.com/2015/01/science-fiction-writers-writing-science/))

Nowadays there is a wealth of knowledge available on the small screen delivered with special effects and passion by educators of the likes of Neil deGrasse Tyson (Cosmos: A Spacetime Odysssey (https://www.cnet.com/news/neil-degrasse-tyson-stars-in-cosmos-a-spacetime-odyssey-tv-show-trailer/)) and Brian Cox (Wonders of the Universe (https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00zdhtg))

As Cox says (https://yp.scmp.com/news/features/article/113192/professor-and-educator-brian-cox-youth-standing-and-speaking-humanity?fbclid=IwAR02L7LOXkbs9ve8RnkA78O9i-py_DSJ6olME4dTn7wsngj51tHvq-O42qM), “I’d say that science is the way that we acquire reliable knowledge about nature,” he said. If we want to understand the world around us, we need to accept that a lot of our ideas will be wrong, but that that forces us to continue questioning and investigating until we find better answers. “That thought process, it’s a life skill, being delighted that you’re wrong,” he says.

“Studying science is good for the individual, it’s good for the soul, even if you’re not going to be a scientist, because you learn to be delighted to be wrong.”

He adds that being exposed to a scientific way of thinking can help you, no matter what your interests or career goals are, because the “great skill” of being delighted when your world view is inaccurate means you can rule out that view, and grow.

Cox goes on to say that some exposure to and experience of science is essential for everyone, whatever your future plans.

antichrist
25-12-2019, 12:46 PM
The main thing I remember about the Russian programme was Yuri Gregarin's(?) famous words that Capa Fan professes ignorance of "sorry but there is no god up here" I was expecting him to come back with Santa"s sleigh wrapped around the nose of Sputnik.

Ian Murray
25-12-2019, 02:58 PM
The main thing I remember about the Russian programme was Yuri Gregarin's(?) famous words that Capa Fan professes ignorance of "sorry but there is no god up here" I was expecting him to come back with Santa"s sleigh wrapped around the nose of Sputnik.

Yuri Gagarin, Russian cosmonaut and first man in space. He orbited in Vostok 1

Ian Murray
25-12-2019, 03:07 PM
Thinking of science fiction in the '50s and '60s, all science then knew about Venus was that it was 67 million miles from the sun with a cloudy atmosphere permanently opaque to visible light. So, as imagined by the genre, a hot moist environment - a tropical rainforest on steroids! A long way from reality, as we now know, but consistent with science at the time.

Capablanca-Fan
25-12-2019, 03:29 PM
The main thing I remember about the Russian programme was Yuri Gregarin's(?) famous words that Capa Fan professes ignorance of "sorry but there is no god up here" I was expecting him to come back with Santa"s sleigh wrapped around the nose of Sputnik.

I am not ignorant of this claim. But you are certainly ignorant of the fact that he never said this! This was just atheopathic spin by Khrushchev. Gagarin and his family were members of the Russian Orthodox Church. The Wikiquotes page on Gagarin (https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Yuri_Gagarin#Disputed) provides the following:


Disputed
I looked and looked but I didn't see God.
As quoted in To Rise from Earth (1996) by Wayne Lee; some websites quote him as saying "I looked and looked and looked but I didn't see God." on 14 April 1961, a couple days after his historic flight, but the authenticity of such statements have been disputed; Colonel Valentin Petrov stated in 2006 (http://www.interfax-religion.ru/orthodoxy/?act=interview&div=73&domain=1) that the cosmonaut never said such words, and that the quote originated from Nikita Khrushchev's speech at the plenum of the Central Committee of the CPSU about the state's anti-religion campaign, saying "Gagarin flew into space, but didn't see any god there." Gagarin himself was a member of the Russian Orthodox Church.

I provided you with a genuine quote, Poyekhali! (Let's go!) Hear him yourself on this page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuri_Gagarin#Vostok_1).

Capablanca-Fan
25-12-2019, 03:51 PM
But how many science students were there in medieval days?
Everyone, including clergy, learned astronomy. The main textbook was The Sphere (http://www.esotericarchives.com/solomon/sphere.htm) by Johannes de Sacrobosco (John of Holywood), 1230. This taught that the earth was a sphere and gave several sound reasons, that the moon shone by reflected sunlight with no light of its own, and that the smallest star we see is bigger than the earth.


There may have been more science taught in the Muslim world than the Christian world. We could guess on what insignificant % of Christianity was scientifically literate in Medieval times.
Actually, the roundness of the earth was common knowledge. Classics such as Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologiae (1274) and Dante's Divine Comedy (1320) took the sphericity of the earth for granted and assumed it was widely known. Some of the popular poems of the Middle Ages also took for granted that the readers knew the shape of the earth.

Nowadays, people should learn some of the evidence that the earth rotates on its axis and revolves around the sun, and the genuine scientific objections people had and why new discoveries defeated them.


Until I guessed from Ian's post a week ago I didn't know that G meant gravity. We should have had Mr JC come down to teach science in convent schools because his nuns did not have a clue about it.
But apparently the brothers at his school taught science, although IM explains that he learned a lot from decent SciFi that was grounded in real science. As he says, everyone should study some science no matter what career is chosen.

antichrist
25-12-2019, 08:19 PM
What do you mean every one learnt astronomy - my grandmother never went to school full stop. She would not have even known what a full stop was. But she count money faultlessly. In much of OZ up to about mid half century only 5 years of schooling was compulsory so I strongly doubt they did any science. But you are not a good example to them because you have fantastic science but choose to ignore, distort and misrepresent to rescue ignorant anti-science religion. You don't respect the great work of the great scientists.

Ian Murray
25-12-2019, 09:56 PM
...
But apparently the brothers at his school taught science, ....

Physics, Chem, Pure Maths, Calculus and Applied Maths, up till Year 12

Capablanca-Fan
26-12-2019, 03:36 AM
Physics, Chem, Pure Maths, Calculus and Applied Maths, up till Year 12

In NZ in the 7th form (Grade 12), I took Physics, Chem, Bio, Pure Maths, Applied Maths (Calculus was in both the maths courses).

Capablanca-Fan
26-12-2019, 03:42 AM
What do you mean every one learnt astronomy
Sorry, I meant that it was part of the higher education of the day, in the universities, themselves a medieval invention.


But you are not a good example to them because you have fantastic science but choose to ignore, distort and misrepresent to rescue ignorant anti-science religion.
Lots of assertion there. Rather ironic since you rely on the false history of the conflict thesis by discredited 19th century works such as A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom, and words put into Gagarin's mouth that he never said. I.e. you distort the fact to support your fanatical religion of atheopathy.


You don't respect the great work of the great scientists.
Of course I do, because most of the founders were devout biblical creationists (https://creation.com/science-name-creationists).

antichrist
26-12-2019, 10:02 AM
I read hours before posting the controversy re Gagarin's words but I can remember in 1961 when they weren't disputed and taken as gospel. I have a copy of John William Draper's book could be original.

The Vostok did disprove the Biblical Tower of Babel tale where it states they almost reached heaven. Vostock went up about 90 miles without disintegrates on the hokey and holy floor of heaven. Do you think the Tower was over 90 miles high? Haven't Christian archeologists located the Tower yet? My 100% uneducated grandmother had more common sense than creationists.

Capablanca-Fan
26-12-2019, 11:17 AM
I read hours before posting the controversy re Gagarin's words but I can remember in 1961 when they weren't disputed and taken as gospel.
All they heard was Krushchev's biased claimed about it. Now that the Iron Curtain has been demolished, you might want to reconsider this and any other Soviet agitprop you've swallowed.


I have a copy of John William Draper's book could be original.
Totally discredited. Even the leftist Wikipedia has an article on the Conflict Thesis nonsense (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_thesis) he started, citing Dr. Lawrence M. Principe, Drew Professor of the Humanities at Johns Hopkins University in the Department of History of Science and Technology and the Department of Chemistry:


How does he [John William Draper] support his contention of conflict? Well, unfortunately, with some of the worst historical writing you are ever likely to come across. Historical facts are confected, causes and chronologies twisted to the author’s purpose. We find interpretations made merely by declaration. We find quotations violently taken out of context. And instances, quite a few of them where Draper claims a historical writer said something in fact 180 degrees away from what he actually claimed...Much of Draper’s book is so ridiculous, so malodramatic, so rabid, it’s hard for a knowledgeable person actually to read it without a wry smirk...Let’s start with a simple and a notorious example: the idea that before Columbus people thought that the world was flat. Well, in fact, it is Draper and White, specifically, both of them, who bear most of the blame for popularizing this baseless view to the extent that nowadays, 80 percent of school teachers still foist this upon poor innocent school children. The fact is that of course the sphericity of the Earth was well established by the fifth century BC by the Greeks, and a good measure of its circumference made by the third century BC. And these facts were never forgotten in learned Western Culture.

Neil deGrasse Tyson is highly unreliable on the history of science because he relies on nonsense like Draper's and pushes the myth that the medieval church believed in a flat earth (https://historyforatheists.com/2016/06/the-great-myths-1-the-medieval-flat-earth/) in a small universe, whereas they knew that the earth is a globe and a mere point compared to the distance to the stars.


The Vostok did disprove the Biblical Tower of Babel tale where it states they almost reached heaven.
Why don't you read the account first? All it says is that they aimed to reach heaven, and the account satirically pokes fun at their pretensions: they wanted to build this huge high tower, but it has the anthropomorphism of describing God as ‘coming down’ to see this comparatively tiny venture. So don't build biblical doctrine on men who are clearly described as committing a great folly.


Haven't Christian archeologists located the Tower yet?
Quite likely. The tower itself was likely a ziggurat, a massive step pyramid built from bricks, and part of a temple complex. One famous surviving ziggurat was long known in antiquity as the ‘Tongue Tower’ in the Sumerian city Borsippa, southwest of Babylon on the east bank of the Euphrates. The ruins of this tower are still about 50 m taller than the mass of the ruins.
Later Arabs and Jews identified the Tongue Tower with the Tower of Babel, and the Arabs even named it Birs Nimrud after Nimrod. However, it seemed instead to be part of a temple to the Babylonian god Nabu, after whom Nebuchadnezzar was named (in Akkadian, Nabû-kudurri-uṣur, means ‘Nabu protect my firstborn son’). Nebuchadnezzar is recorded to have built a peak on top of this tower.


My 100% uneducated grandmother had more common sense than creationists.
I hope she had more common sense than you, i.e. she didn't rely on thoroughly discredited 19th century historical revisionism and made-up quotes by cosmonauts.

Ian Murray
26-12-2019, 12:12 PM
In NZ in the 7th form (Grade 12), I took Physics, Chem, Bio, Pure Maths, Applied Maths (Calculus was in both the maths courses).

A letter to a Year 10 student from Australia’s Chief Scientist (https://australiascience.tv/a-letter-to-a-year-10-student-from-australias-chief-scientist/?fbclid=IwAR35b3_o98gotu_amon15Iamf9aj3clgboSXl_n0 tRSCWAoQJIQbFZOOA1U)

Capablanca-Fan
26-12-2019, 03:57 PM
A letter to a Year 10 student from Australia’s Chief Scientist (https://australiascience.tv/a-letter-to-a-year-10-student-from-australias-chief-scientist/?fbclid=IwAR35b3_o98gotu_amon15Iamf9aj3clgboSXl_n0 tRSCWAoQJIQbFZOOA1U)

It's good that he took time from his busy career to write a thoughtful letter to a keen student.

Patrick Byrom
28-12-2019, 05:10 PM
Sorry, I meant that it was part of the higher education of the day, in the universities, themselves a medieval invention.And what proportion of the population attended medieval universities - probably less than 1%, as fewer than 10% of the population could even read? Most people probably thought the earth was flat, as implied in the Bible. Almost everyone nowadays can read, and flat earth beliefs are almost non-existent - there's a reason it was called the Dark Ages!

Patrick Byrom
28-12-2019, 05:12 PM
It's good that he took time from his busy career to write a thoughtful letter to a keen student.I was expecting the letter to be written to Ian :)

antichrist
28-12-2019, 05:56 PM
……….
I hope she had more common sense than you, i.e. she didn't rely on thoroughly discredited 19th century historical revisionism and made-up quotes by cosmonauts.

To a sensible person, then still in primary school and who was taught that stars were holes in the floor of heaven, upon hearing that a cosmonaut who had just returned from up there stated there was no god up here (no heaven same thing) it sounds reasonable to accept. But you are still fully scientifically literally and don't dispute the Bible - that is the biggest crime. Okay Mr JC rose up to Heaven that I guess must be further away than the sun otherwise we would have discovered it by now. It must be a physical entity because Jesus and Mary's earthly bodies and millions others are residing there. Now about how fast was JC was travelling when rising up and how many rules of the sciences of Newton and Einstein did he contradict by going presumably beyond the sun?

BTW my grandmother was very sensible, she scolded people who went to church more than once weekly. Even if winter time if one had their hands in their pockets out would come the wooden spoon for a belting on the hands - they have to be ready for working not in pockets. An obvious strong believer in the atheist saying - hands that work are better than hands that pray. As well she could still do the belly dance into her nineties. She went through the Great Famine of Mount Lebanon and had a few children die.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_of_Mount_Lebanon

The highest death toll of WW1.

Ian Murray
28-12-2019, 06:11 PM
I was expecting the letter to be written to Ian :)

Names have been changed to protect the innocent :)

Capablanca-Fan
29-12-2019, 11:08 AM
And what proportion of the population attended medieval universities - probably less than 1%,
The point is, the clergy were trained at these universities. And before they learned theology (or the other higher faculties of medicine or law), they needed to study the trivium of grammar, logic, and rhetoric; then the quadrivium of arithmetic, geometry, music, and astronomy; together comprising the seven liberal arts.


as fewer than 10% of the population could even read? Most people probably thought the earth was flat,
That's the last refuge of the utterly discredited flat earth myth, when it's demonstrated that no scholar in the Middle Ages thought the earth is flat. But where is the actual evidence? Indeed, there are several lines of evidence that the common people knew the shape, e.g. the Globus Cruciger emblem for royalty, where a golden orb symbolized the earth, and even popular tales and romances assumed their popular audience knew the shape of the earth. E.g. Li romans d'Alixandre (c.1170), attributed to clergyman Alexandre de Bernay (aka Alexandre de Pâris) had King Darius III send Alexander the Great a ball, with a child's toy intended to belittle Alexander as a child. But Alexander said that this ball was a sign that he would conquer the earth. Australian atheistic history writer Tim O'Neill has more information in his blog History for Atheists: THE GREAT MYTHS 1: THE MEDIEVAL FLAT EARTH (https://historyforatheists.com/2016/06/the-great-myths-1-the-medieval-flat-earth/).


as implied in the Bible.
No it's not, as conclusively shown here (https://creation.com/refuting-flat-earth#bible-flat-earth). And your argument is self-contradictory: most people couldn't read, and these illiterate people read a flat earth from the Bible.


Almost everyone nowadays can read, and flat earth beliefs are almost non-existent — there's a reason it was called the Dark Ages!
There is a reason that no real historians call it the Dark Ages, except perhaps the first few centuries after the Fall of Rome, where there are comparatively few historical sources, and that's what they mean by "dark". That is, it wasn't so dark in the way you think! They made huge advances in wind and water power—without the slaves of the Roman empire, they needed other sources of power, and used it for many different processes—so while Romano-Britain had a few hundred water mills, Anglo-Saxon England had 5,624 by the time of the Norman Conquest according to the Domesday Book. They advanced agriculture with innovations such as the mouldboard plough for the heavier soil of northern Europe, which enabled it to feed far more people. They invented mechanical clocks, spectacles, even the university itself. And of course there were the architectural advances allowing the construction of the magnificent gothic cathedrals of Europe. Many of these advances were made by clergy, e.g. Richard of Wallingford, abbot of St Albans, made the most sophisticated astronomical calculating machine up to that time, and inded up till the next few centuries. The fact that we have so many Greek and Roman writings around is thanks to clergymen seeking them out, and monks copying them. In the medieval period, they reject belief that witches existed, so punished accusations of witchcraft.

If you have a spare 2 hours, you could listen to Tim O'Neill on the Non Sequitur Show (https://historyforatheists.com/2018/08/history-for-atheists-on-the-non-sequitur-show-3-the-so-called-dark-ages/) “to discuss the myths around the medieval period as a “dark age” where Christianity suppressed Greco-Roman knowledge, crushed science, stifled technology, burned witches, banned baths, and killed cats,” (can skip the first 15 minutes or so).


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yA39pELiwQ4&feature=emb_logo

Or read the article “THE DARK AGES” – POPERY, PERIODISATION AND PEJORATIVES (https://historyforatheists.com/2016/11/the-dark-ages-popery-periodisation-and-pejoratives/).

Capablanca-Fan
29-12-2019, 11:14 AM
To a sensible person, then still in primary school and who was taught that stars were holes in the floor of heaven,
I don't believe you. But rather than lying by you or your grandmother, I suspect she told you tales when you were very young. The Catholic Church, certainly since the Middle Ages, taught that every star we see is bigger than the earth, and that the earth is a mere point compared to the distance to the stars.


upon hearing that a cosmonaut who had just returned from up there stated there was no god up here (no heaven same thing) it sounds reasonable to accept.
Except that it never happened, so quit using it if you desire intellectual honesty.


But you are still fully scientifically literally and don't dispute the Bible — that is the biggest crime.
Like the medieval natural philosophers, I think that science is finding out how God upholds the creation by regular, repeatable ways.


Okay Mr JC rose up to Heaven that I guess must be further away than the sun otherwise we would have discovered it by now. It must be a physical entity because Jesus and Mary's earthly bodies and millions others are residing there
As above, the medieval church knew very well that the stars were unimaginably distant, but had no problem with the Resurrection.

antichrist
29-12-2019, 11:19 AM
So they never carried out progroms when Jews stabbed the Catholic communion host and the host bled Jesus blood?

Patrick Byrom
29-12-2019, 11:24 AM
... The fact that we have so many Greek and Roman writings around is thanks to clergymen seeking them out, and monks copying them. In the medieval period, they reject belief that witches existed, so punished accusations of witchcraft. If you have a spare 2 hours, you could listen to Tim O'Neill on the Non Sequitur Show (https://historyforatheists.com/2018/08/history-for-atheists-on-the-non-sequitur-show-3-the-so-called-dark-ages/) “to discuss the myths around the medieval period as a “dark age” where Christianity suppressed Greco-Roman knowledge, crushed science, stifled technology, burned witches, banned baths, and killed cats,” (can skip the first 15 minutes or so). ... No thanks - I spent enough time in the Dark Ages while watching the Name of the Rose! With a 90% illiteracy rate, and people being burned alive for heresy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_burned_as_heretics), it's a pretty horrible place even to visit :(

antichrist
29-12-2019, 11:40 AM
No thanks - I spent enough time in the Dark Ages while watching the Name of the Rose! With a 90% illiteracy rate, and people being burned alive for heresy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_burned_as_heretics), it's a pretty horrible place even to visit :(
The torture instruments of the Spanish Holy Inquisition are still in a museum in Spain. My brother get me the pamphlet on them

Capablanca-Fan
29-12-2019, 06:18 PM
No thanks — I spent enough time in the Dark Ages while watching the Name of the Rose!
No you didn't, because there were no Dark Ages to spend time in! And this is fiction, not history, and set in the Late Medieval Period, whereas the only period that would ever deserve the term "Dark" was the Early Medieval Period, and only the first few centuries of that while Europe was recovering from the collapse of the Roman Empire.


With a 90% illiteracy rate,
Really? What do you think is needed for literacy but something to write on. And we have medieval Europe to thank for the widespread use of paper by the end of the 12th century. So many more people could read than you would realize by swallowing gutter New Atheopath agitprop, as n AskHistorian site says (https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1exdna/what_level_of_literacy_was_there_in_europe_during/):


It is safe to say that literacy broadly defined as the ability to read Latin or the vernacular increased from the 9th century and spread among all the social classes by the 15th, though nowhere near the levels provided by public school systems, which did not exist until the 19th century. This means that even a few peasants were readers of a basic sort by the later Middle Ages, that many more townspeople read at least the vernacular, and that literacy was no longer the distinguishing mark of the clergy.


and people being burned alive for heresy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_burned_as_heretics), it's a pretty horrible place even to visit :(
Even your own link has a far higher burning rate in the Renaissance than in the Medieval period.


it's a pretty horrible place even to visit :(
Pretty much every era before the invention of vaccinations and antibiotics would have been horrible to visit. Millennials think that any era before the invention of the Internet would be unlivable. But conditions improved throughout most of the medieval period, as O'Neill writes:


On the contrary, western Europe saw a mini-agrarian revolution in the period from the seventh to the tenth century and then what economic historians call “the long medieval boom” from then onward. Even the catastrophic effects of the mid-fourteenth century Black Death only gave the economy a brief pause before it went back to boom conditions.

Where would you prefer? The slave-owning Romans who punished political prisoners with crucifixion, and had lower literacy rates than the High and Late Middle Ages? The Renaissance with its superstition including the witch trials and the Spanish Inquisition?

Capablanca-Fan
29-12-2019, 06:54 PM
The torture instruments of the Spanish Holy Inquisition are still in a museum in Spain. My brother get me the pamphlet on them
We were talking about the Middle Ages. Why do you break off into a tangent about something from the Renaissance after the Middle Ages?

Also, how do you know that the torture instruments were from the Inquisition, since the secular court system used torture far more often and without the Inquisition's prohibitions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition#Torture). The Inquisition was actually much more lenient than the secular courts, so some criminals uttered blasphemy so they would be handed over to the Inquisition and be treated better. Also, the Inquisition's legal scholars had the same views about witchcraft as the Middle Ages: that it didn't exist. So the Inquisition kept the witch-burning craze from infecting Spain or Italy, unlike the rest of Renaissance Europe.

Patrick Byrom
29-12-2019, 10:39 PM
No you didn't, because there were no Dark Ages to spend time in! And this is fiction, ... Considering its main character is William of Baskerville, an obvious Sherlock Holmes expy, I had realised that :)


Really? What do you think is needed for literacy but something to write on.Try telling that to Michael Baron - he believes that Aborigines should have invented a written language even though they had nothing to write on!


And we have medieval Europe to thank for the widespread use of paper by the end of the 12th century. So many more people could read than you would realize by swallowing gutter New Atheopath agitprop, ... Maybe - but the literacy level was still much lower than now. You were the one claiming that Medieval students were better educated than today's:

These days, I doubt that most students could even explain how we know that the earth is almost perfectly spherical (to within 0.3%). Medieval students could explain that very well with several lines of evidence.


Pretty much every era before the invention of vaccinations and antibiotics would have been horrible to visit. Millennials think that any era before the invention of the Internet would be unlivable. But conditions improved throughout most of the medieval period, as O'Neill writes: ... . Where would you prefer? The slave-owning Romans who punished political prisoners with crucifixion, and had lower literacy rates than the High and Late Middle Ages? The Renaissance with its superstition including the witch trials and the Spanish Inquisition?Interesting question. Ancient Greece had neither crucifixions nor witch burnings, and a fairly high literacy rate, so I'll go there in my time machine. It was also a (limited) democracy - fairly rare in Medieval Europe!

antichrist
29-12-2019, 11:35 PM
Re stars being holes in the floor of heaven I was taught by Sister Mary Benedict in First Year. She had polio in one leg.
On my first day at school I was picked on in a racist manner so I gave the guy a good bleeding nose that I got cane for from Sister Benedict. So I gave her a great kick in her good leg and took off home. That taught her as she could not chase me. Not a word was mentioned the next day and she never gave me the cane again. So I will never forget her will I. That was like winning a simul.

Now about my grandmother, I only knew partial Arabic and she had very poor English language though she sold vegetables and eggs to our neighbors for generations. She could not have explained that to me. My grandfather had better English language being a hawker for about forty years and being educated in Arabic under a tree in Kfarsghab, Mount Lebanon, circa 1890. But we never conversed in serious matters. I was still teaching him English language in his nineties and him teaching me Arabic. Every one was a hawker in those days. Check out pics of Kfarsghab a beautiful place high in the mountains.

Capablanca-Fan
30-12-2019, 03:46 AM
Considering its main character is William of Baskerville, an obvious Sherlock Holmes expy, I had realised that :)
I had to wonder, since you were getting your twisted view of the Middle Ages from that, as well as from the atheopathic agitprop you read.


Try telling that to Michael Baron — he believes that Aborigines should have invented a written language even though they had nothing to write on!
I am not getting into that debate, but literacy certainly rises when there is something to write on, such as paper.


Maybe - but the literacy level was still much lower than now. You were the one claiming that Medieval students were better educated than today's:
As your quote of me indicates, I was talking about how medieval students could defend the shape of the earth better than modern ones. They could also navigate by the stars better, and use logic better.


Interesting question. Ancient Greece had neither crucifixions nor witch burnings, and a fairly high literacy rate, so I'll go there in my time machine.
Alexander the Great crucified 2,000 Tyrians and sold 30,000 more into slavery. The Spanish Inquisition (during the Renaissance not the Middle Ages) killed about that many in three centuries.


It was also a (limited) democracy — fairly rare in Medieval Europe!
The Founding Fathers of the USA looked to the Greek democracies and determined that the USA would NOT be a democracy. Socrates would dispute about the intellectual toleration of Ancient Greece a little earlier than Alex.

Capablanca-Fan
30-12-2019, 03:56 AM
So they never carried out progroms when Jews stabbed the Catholic communion host and the host bled Jesus blood?

There were accusations against Jews for doing this, but false ones, used as an excuse. They are grouped as the Host Desecration Libel, and occurred in the Late Middle Ages and Renaissance. Martin Luther rejected this libel, but before that, the Popes had also forbidden persecution of the Jews in their encyclical Sicut Judaeis, which threatened excommunication for any who steals from a Jew, harms a Jew physically, or interferes in their religious ceremonies. So it's no accident that the pogrom is an Eastern European atrocity, far from Rome.

Capablanca-Fan
30-12-2019, 05:31 AM
I read hours before posting the controversy re Gagarin's words but I can remember in 1961 when they weren't disputed and taken as gospel. I have a copy of John William Draper's book could be original.

Since we are on the topic of discredited 19th century atheopathic agitprop, another lie was that the church opposed anaesthesia for childbirth, made up by Draper's successor book Andrew Dickson White, History of the Warfare of Science with Theology and Christendom (1896). James Simpson, the pioneer of chloroform as an anaesthetic and a devout Christian, did appeal to (Genesis 2:21) "...God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam.....he took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh.." which is essentially anaesthesia in his In Answer to the Religious Arguments advanced Against the Employment of Anaesthetic Agents in Midwifery and Surgery (1847), but there were no religious arguments of note to respond to:


But the attack never materialized; not even the slightest hint of opposition occurred. On page one of the tract Simpson mentions that he had heard of patients and some doctors criticising what he was doing, but he does not name any religious organisation, theologian or religious leader as being responsible for spreading opposition to his work. Further on in the pamphlet he mentions that the leading obstetrician in Dublin had publicly denounced his work for religious reasons. Having read this, the man involved, Dr. Montgomery, in a letter of 27th December 1848 to Simpson, expressed his “astonishment” that Simpson had accepted “hearsay” and had, “taken the trouble of writing a formal reply to arguments which never were made use of by me. I never advocated or locum tenanced either in public or in private the so called ‘religious objection’ to anaesthesia in labour, ...” In a later article he wrote, “I attach no value to what are called the ‘religious objections’ to the use of this remedy”

In a letter to Dr. Protheroe Smith, Simpson reported that following the publication of his pamphlet, he had received communications from some of the best theologians ‘...of all churches, ... Presbyterian, Independent, Episcopalian, and Protheroe’s own Anglican Church, approving of the view I had taken’. As A.D Farr’s analysis has shown, prominent leaders from across the established religious spectrum—including Rev. Thomas Chalmers (Moderator of the Free Church of Scotland),and Rabbi Abraham De Sola (Canada's first Rabbi)—were in written agreement with anesthesia. Most clergy, theologians, and religious physicians approved the whiff of painkiller. A few clergy feared that Satan was behind pain relief, but Chalmers described these dissenters as ‘small theologians’ and advised that they should be ignored.

Why did Simpson take it upon himself to write the tract in the first place?. The reason was probably that he was deeply religious and, acting on hearsay, decided to ally the fears of his peers. At home Simpson led morning and evening prayers. He frequently preached to Edinburgh congregations as well as preaching in the mining districts. He even wrote religious addresses, tracts and hymns. He also, being a man of conscience, broke from the Church of Scotland when the Free Church was formed in 1842. Given this background it seems logical that, having made a scientific breakthrough, he would expound upon the Christian teaching on the subject.

In a letter to a colleague in 1848, only a year after his theological defence was written, Simpson commented:


‘all religious opposition to chloroform has entirely ceased among us, if we except an occasional remark on the point from some caustic old maid whose prospects of using chloroform are for ever passed, or a sneer from some antiquated lady who grieves and grudges that her daughters should not suffer as their mother was obliged to suffer before them.’

These objections from lay women ceased when Queen Victoria accepted anesthesia for the birth of Prince Leopold in 1853 and described it as a pleasant experience.

antichrist
30-12-2019, 07:11 AM
There were accusations against Jews for doing this, but false ones, used as an excuse. They are grouped as the Host Desecration Libel, and occurred in the Late Middle Ages and Renaissance. Martin Luther rejected this libel, but before that, the Popes had also forbidden persecution of the Jews in their encyclical Sicut Judaeis, which threatened excommunication for any who steals from a Jew, harms a Jew physically, or interferes in their religious ceremonies. So it's no accident that the pogrom is an Eastern European atrocity, far from Rome.

But the opposite did occur! When I committed a host blood libel down the Sydney Domain Speaker's Corner on a sunny Sunday arvo a Chilean Catholic attempted to punch me, I was about to stab the host. I put my hand to block his fist and he punched the host that broke into many pieces. But it didn't bleed or cry out "why has thou forsaken me". I told the intervening cops that George had just killed Jesus but they didn't believe me. Now getting back to science why could you accept all science but not evolution - you are worse than all those characters you have written on who accepted the science of their day? Especially damning is that evolution is supported by every other science but you wilfully and stubbornly choose ignorance. You are happy to clap with Papal encyclical on other discoveries but not evolution that they did "accept" circa 1950

Patrick Byrom
30-12-2019, 10:01 AM
As your quote of me indicates, I was talking about how medieval students could defend the shape of the earth better than modern ones. They could also navigate by the stars better, and use logic better.You're assuming that medieval students took their studies seriously, and understood what they were studying - a dubious assumption :)


Alexander the Great crucified 2,000 Tyrians and sold 30,000 more into slavery.And how many Athenians were crucified in Ancient Greece?


The Founding Fathers of the USA looked to the Greek democracies and determined that the USA would NOT be a democracy. Socrates would dispute about the intellectual toleration of Ancient Greece a little earlier than Alex.Socrates died by drinking hemlock - definitely preferable to being burnt alive.

antichrist
30-12-2019, 12:47 PM
Since we are on the topic of discredited 19th century atheopathic agitprop, another lie was that the church opposed anaesthesia for childbirth, made up by Draper's successor book Andrew Dickson White, History of the Warfare of Science with Theology and Christendom (1896). James Simpson, the pioneer of chloroform as an anaesthetic and a devout Christian, did appeal to (Genesis 2:21) "...God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam.....he took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh.." which is essentially anaesthesia in his In Answer to the Religious Arguments advanced Against the Employment of Anaesthetic Agents in Midwifery and Surgery (1847), but there were no religious arguments of note to respond to:...……………....[/INDENT]


But doesn't this interpretation of the Bible clash with the direct action of God because of the BIG SIN in the Garden - that God would cause childbirth pains - so chloroform for childbirth is in complete contradiction of his edict. I will let you the expert generously supply the Genesis book numbers.

Capa Fan, are you sure I can't interest you in the original Draper book? It must be a collectors edition.

Capablanca-Fan
30-12-2019, 12:49 PM
You're assuming that medieval students took their studies seriously, and understood what they were studying - a dubious assumption :)
Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

At least the course material, unlike the course material at many modern universities, would have equipped them to understand the shape of the earth and navigation by stars better than modern people could. The seven liberal arts are still a good education.


Socrates died by drinking hemlock — definitely preferable to being burnt alive.
Of course. But crucifixion by the Macedonians and Romans is arguably worse.

Back to the issue, there is an unreasonable dismissing of the Middle Ages and elevation of Classical Greece and Rome. But this is possible only by ignoring or even lying about the achievement of that period, as per the 19th-century agitprop often parroted by the New Atheists today, even by the likes of Neil deGrasse Tyson who was following Carl Sagan.

Capablanca-Fan
30-12-2019, 12:54 PM
But doesn't this interpretation of the Bible clash with the direct action of God because of the BIG SIN in the Garden - that God would cause childbirth pains - so chloroform for childbirth is in complete contradiction of his edict. I will let you the expert generously supply the Genesis book numbers.
I don't need to. Simpson already answered such potential claims, but as it turned out, no clergymen or rabbis were making such claims.


Capa Fan, are you sure I can't interest you in the original Draper book? It must be a collectors edition.
Sounds interesting, as a collector's item. It definitely ought not to be taken seriously, except to see the roots of a lot of misinformation.

Patrick Byrom
30-12-2019, 01:07 PM
Do you have any evidence to the contrary?Of course (https://www.shorthistory.org/middle-ages/universities-and-students-in-the-high-middle-ages/):

In the early 14th-Century, Alvarius Pelagius, a Franciscan, described some of the university students of that age. Pelagius commented that, “They attend classes but make no effort to learn anything…The expense money which they have from their parents or churches they spend in taverns…” From various accounts, some students were as distracted from university studies as contemporary students are today. Unlike the proliferation of colleges and universities in contemporary Europe and America, the High Middle Ages had few such institutions and the fields of study were limited to rhetoric, canon law, civil law, and medicine. The first universities appeared in Bologna, Paris and Oxford, offering studies in rhetoric, civil law, cannon law and medicine to male students.

antichrist
30-12-2019, 01:09 PM
I don't need to. Simpson already answered such potential claims, but as it turned out, no clergymen or rabbis were making such claims.


Sounds interesting, as a collector's item. It definitely ought not to be taken seriously, except to see the roots of a lot of misinformation.

https://www.gotquestions.org/pain-in-childbirth.html

Question: "Why did God punish women with pain in childbirth (Genesis 3:16)?"

Answer: A woman’s pain in childbirth is part of the suffering brought into the world through sin. As a direct result of the original sin, Adam, Eve, and the serpent were all cursed in one way or another. Genesis 3:16 lists one of the judgments for Eve’s sin as pain in childbirth: “I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children.”

Simpson may have or may not have encountered resistance but a more sensitive and religious soul may invented/discovered chloroform earlier but resisted such due to not wishing to go against God's edict. The fast that such is in the Bible shows a very nasty side of God - a bit like Trump if you get off side with him.

The Bible is either to be obey or ignored - we can't have modernists ministers and rabbis re-interpreting Scriptures - we want Originalists who will stick exactly to the word as printed originally. Those latter day ministers and rabbis benders are Darwinist evolutionist and nothing better yet you are backing them up.

Patrick Byrom
30-12-2019, 02:02 PM
At least the course material, unlike the course material at many modern universities, would have equipped them to understand the shape of the earth and navigation by stars better than modern people could. The seven liberal arts are still a good education.Why would anyone want to learn how to navigate by the stars in the 21th Century, or how to refute non-existent flat earth arguments?

Capablanca-Fan
30-12-2019, 02:10 PM
Why would anyone want to learn how to navigate by the stars in the 21th Century,
If your GPS doesn't work, maybe?


or how to refute non-existent flat earth arguments?
Why would you not want to know why the earth is round? Would you rather take it on faith? There were no flat-earth arguments in the Middle Ages either, but back then, they knew why.

antichrist
30-12-2019, 02:44 PM
Something else I like watching during a rocket launch is the visual evidence of the coriolis effect, as the first stage lifts vertically then takes a 45° turn to the right. Optical illusion - it's still climbing vertically, but the earth has turned left as it rotates on its axis.

It is a wonder that this effect was not noted in the Bible when Mr JC rose to Heaven? If such JC was full of hot air as many believe then he may have followed the rotation of the earth.

Patrick Byrom
30-12-2019, 03:14 PM
Why would you not want to know why the earth is round? Would you rather take it on faith? ... That's an important issue, and brings us back to Newton. In Medieval times they didn't learn the scientific evidence about why the world was round, they learnt the evidence confirming its roundness. The Earth is round because it was formed by the accumulation of small particles under the force of gravity. Every schoolkid knows that today, so they don't need to know the proofs of its roundness. But how many Medieval students would have been able to provide a scientific explanation of why the Earth is round? They just took it on faith.

Adamski
30-12-2019, 05:03 PM
I found this thread an interesting read today. So thanks, guys!

Capablanca-Fan
31-12-2019, 01:19 AM
That's an important issue, and brings us back to Newton. In Medieval times they didn't learn the scientific evidence about why the world was round, they learnt the evidence confirming its roundness. The Earth is round because it was formed by the accumulation of small particles under the force of gravity.
Even without an accretion theory, which Newton didn't believe, gravity tends to compress massive bodies into a sphere. Newton also predicted that the earth would be slightly oblate because of rotation. And indeed it is, but only 0.3%, so it's perfectly reasonable to call the earth a ‘sphere’ as you have done in Shoutbox.

But Newton lived in the early modern period. Even Galileo in the Renaissance rejected the view that the moon caused tides, because he had no time for any mystical attraction-at-a-distance force, calling it a “childish”, “occult”, theory based on “miracles”. But the early Medieval monk, historian, and scholar Bede in the 8th century taught that the moon was the major cause of tides, after careful observations of the timings of both the moon and the tides, and realized there was an attaction: (http://potiphar.jongarvey.co.uk/2014/06/23/how-the-venerable-bede-got-us-to-the-moon/)


For as we taught above, the Moon rises and sets each day 4 puncti later than it rose or set the previous day; likewise, both ocean tides, be they by day or by night, morning or evening never cease to come and go each day at a time which is later by almost the same interval. Now a punctus is one-fifth of an hour, and five puncti make an hour. Furthermore, because the Moon in two lunar months (that is, in 59 days) goes around the globe of the earth 57 times, therefore the ocean tide during this same period of time, surges up to its maximum twice this number of times, that is, 114, and sinks back again to its bed the same number of times. For in the course of 29 days, the Moon lights up the confines of the Earth 28 times, and in the twelve hours which are added on to make up the fullness of the natural month, it circles half the globe of the Earth, so that, for example, the new Moon which emerged [from conjunction] last month above the Earth at noon, will this month meet up with the Sun to be kindled at midnight beneath the Earth. Through this length of time, the tides will come twice as often, and 57 times the high seas swell breaking their barriers and once again retreat unto themselves.

But more marvellous than anything else is the great fellowship that exists between the ocean and the course of the Moon. For at [the Moon’s] every rising and setting, [the ocean] sends forth the strength of his ardour, which the Greeks call “rheuma,” to cover the coasts far and wide; and when it retreats, it lays them bare. The sweet streams of the rivers it abundantly mingles together and covers over with salty waves. When the Moon passes on, [the ocean] retreats and restores the rivers to their natural sweetness and level, without delay. It is as if [the ocean] were dragged forwards against its will by certain exhalations of the Moon, and when her power ceases, it is poured back again into his proper measure.

So this is just another example of your singling out the Middle Ages, which you insist on calling by the discredited name “Dark Ages”, for problems that both earlier and later times had to an equal or even greater extent.


Every schoolkid knows that today, so they don't need to know the proofs of its roundness.
They should. Until you know what the shape is, there is nothing to explain.


But how many Medieval students would have been able to provide a scientific explanation of why the Earth is round? They just took it on faith.
Not blind faith, because they had evidence for its roundness, and could explain this evidence.

Capablanca-Fan
31-12-2019, 01:23 AM
Simpson may have or may not have encountered resistance
There is no maybe about it. Simpson thought he might, so justified anaesthesia biblically, but the resistance never eventuated. Rather, the Christian and Jewish leaders of his day supported him.


but a more sensitive and religious soul may invented/discovered chloroform earlier but resisted such due to not wishing to go against God's edict.
You have no evidence for this.


The Bible is either to be obey or ignored - we can't have modernists ministers and rabbis re-interpreting Scriptures - we want Originalists who will stick exactly to the word as printed originally. Those latter day ministers and rabbis benders are Darwinist evolutionist and nothing better yet you are backing them up.
It's indicative not imperative. Jesus’ healing set an example that it was a blessing to alleviate aspects of the Curse.

antichrist
31-12-2019, 07:31 AM
Yes we have no evidence of a prior discovery of chloroform being hindered but exactly we would not hear of it especially if he was timid or a fundamentalist. It took Mr C Darwin thirty years to spurt out his ape man book and that was due to correctly perceived hostility and you, a scientist, are still one of those driving spikes into his hands and spearing his heart. What a disgrace to the modern
world. And this condemnation is coming from a person who was taught stars were holes in the floor of heaven and believed that we could drop off the edge of a flat earth. You are a hundred times worse than me because you should know better

Patrick Byrom
31-12-2019, 01:14 PM
Even without an accretion theory, which Newton didn't believe, gravity tends to compress massive bodies into a sphere. Newton also predicted that the earth would be slightly oblate because of rotation. And indeed it is, but only 0.3%, so it's perfectly reasonable to call the earth a ‘sphere’ as you have done in Shoutbox.Did Medieval students believe that the Earth was formed by the compression of gravity?

I've snipped your irrelevant digressions, which have absolutely nothing to do with my point about Medieval students not understanding why the Earth was round. I am not claiming that they didn't know that the Earth was round, or that they couldn't support that belief with evidence. I'm simply pointing out the obvious fact that they didn't have a scientific explanation for why the Earth was round, and had to take it purely on faith. Modern students know that the Earth is round, but can also explain its roundness as a product of Newton's theory of gravity. Unless they're YECs such as yourself, of course :(

This is the problem with the Medieval period - the restriction on scientific enquiry. It's fine to understand that the Earth is round, but scientific speculation about why is off-limits. Without the removal of those restrictions, the scientific advances in the understanding of the universe made by Einstein would never have happened.

Capablanca-Fan
31-12-2019, 03:51 PM
Did Medieval students believe that the Earth was formed by the compression of gravity?

I've snipped your irrelevant digressions,
You mean, relevant education about real medieval history.


which have absolutely nothing to do with my point about Medieval students not understanding why the Earth was round. I am not claiming that they didn't know that the Earth was round, or that they couldn't support that belief with evidence. I'm simply pointing out the obvious fact that they didn't have a scientific explanation for why the Earth was round, and had to take it purely on faith.
No, they had evidence that the earth is round.

Modern students know that the Earth is round, but can also explain its roundness as a product of Newton's theory of gravity.[/QUOTE]
Galileo, in the Renaissance, rejected any attraction-at-a-distance force as mystical, which is why he got the explanation of the tides wrong (http://intellectualmathematics.com/blog/galileos-theory-of-tides/):


Galileo, however, got all of this completely wrong. Why should “the tides of the seas follow the movements of the fireballs in the skies,” as Kepler had put it? Galileo considered the very notion “childish” and “occult,” and declared himself “astonished” that “Kepler, enlightened and acute thinker as he was, … listened and assented to the notion of the Moon’s influence on the water.” Those are Galileo’s words. Continuing in his treatise, he writes: “There are many who refer the tides to the moon, saying that this has a particular dominion over the waters … [and] that the moon, wandering through the sky, attracts and draws up toward itself a heap of water which goes along following it.”

So once again you single out the Middle Ages for not knowing something that the Renaissance also didn't know, and even something Galileo got wrong. But medieval thinkers like Bede actually had the right explanation for the tides (http://potiphar.jongarvey.co.uk/2014/06/23/how-the-venerable-bede-got-us-to-the-moon/):


Bede, however, made all these connections and revised the calculations accordingly. Here’s a taster of his style:


For as we taught above, the Moon rises and sets each day 4 puncti later than it rose or set the previous day; likewise, both ocean tides, be they by day or by night, morning or evening never cease to come and go each day at a time which is later by almost the same interval. Now a punctus is one-fifth of an hour, and five puncti make an hour. Furthermore, because the Moon in two lunar months (that is, in 59 days) goes around the globe of the earth 57 times, therefore the ocean tide during this same period of time, surges up to its maximum twice this number of times, that is, 114, and sinks back again to its bed the same number of times. For in the course of 29 days, the Moon lights up the confines of the Earth 28 times, and in the twelve hours which are added on to make up the fullness of the natural month, it circles half the globe of the Earth, so that, for example, the new Moon which emerged [from conjunction] last month above the Earth at noon, will this month meet up with the Sun to be kindled at midnight beneath the Earth. Through this length of time, the tides will come twice as often, and 57 times the high seas swell breaking their barriers and once again retreat unto themselves.

Bede also corrected his calculations through his writings, as better data became available, improving his estimate of the daily retardation of the moon from 47.5 minutes to 48 minues (it’s actually 50 minutes – not a great deal more accurate considering the lack of any reliable clocks in Saxon England – it was later mediaeval clerics who developed those). He also did accurate calculations of the relationship of the tides to equinoxes throughout the year and made predictions about the tides related to the entire lunar cycle of 19 years.

Furthermore he also got information about the different times of the tides up and down the coast – it is suggested that he commissioned this from other monasteries as far away as the Isle of Wight. Who knows, the tide tables he made for Northumbrian mariners may well have done more immediate good to humanity than the Apollo landings.

But his real contribution was in drawing the right scientific conclusion from all this data and calculations about the causes of the tides, in the face of the ancient authorities. Here’s the passage:


But more marvellous than anything else is the great fellowship that exists between the ocean and the course of the Moon. For at [the Moon’s] every rising and setting, [the ocean] sends forth the strength of his ardour, which the Greeks call “rheuma,” to cover the coasts far and wide; and when it retreats, it lays them bare. The sweet streams of the rivers it abundantly mingles together and covers over with salty waves. When the Moon passes on, [the ocean] retreats and restores the rivers to their natural sweetness and level, without delay. It is as if [the ocean] were dragged forwards against its will by certain exhalations of the Moon, and when her power ceases, it is poured back again into his proper measure.

Here’s a force of attraction acting at a distance, emanating from the Moon. Newton had only to relate it to mass and the inverse square law, and you could calculate your Apollo 11 orbit.


Unless they're YECs such as yourself, of course :(
So (https://creation.com/sir-isaac-newton-1642-1727) was Newton (https://creation.com/newton-was-a-creationist-only-because-there-was-no-alternative). Clearly didn't stop him developing the law of gravity. So was Kepler (https://creation.com/johannes-kepler), whose three laws of planetary motion were a great advance on anything previously, and enabled Newton's laws.


This is the problem with the Medieval period - the restriction on scientific enquiry.
What restriction was this? Again with the ignorance of that period.


It's fine to understand that the Earth is round, but scientific speculation about why is off-limits.
It never was. Medieval students (known as clerks) even had special occasions called Quodlibeta, Latin for “whatever you like”, where they could test their masters on any question they wanted, and the brightest would earn their reputation by skill in logical arguments.


Without the removal of those restrictions, the scientific advances in the understanding of the universe made by Einstein would never have happened.
What restrictions?? Are you going to learn real history, such as “THE DARK AGES” – POPERY, PERIODISATION AND PEJORATIVE (https://historyforatheists.com/2016/11/the-dark-ages-popery-periodisation-and-pejoratives/), or just rehash atheopathic agitprop about the so-called Dark Ages?

Patrick Byrom
31-12-2019, 04:52 PM
You mean, relevant education about real medieval history.Maybe you should post this in a relevant thread.


No, they had evidence that the earth is round.]Why are you arguing the point where I actually agree with you, and ignoring the point where I don't?


... More irrelevance snipped. If you are going to reply to my posts, please respond to the points I am making instead of ignoring them, and posting irrelevancies - which you've already posted anyway! If you don't want to actually respond to my posts, you should make your own posts and ignore mine.


... Clearly didn't stop him developing the law of gravity. ... So? Again, you're ignoring my point. For the final time, I claimed that YECs don't have a scientific explanation why the Earth is round. You haven't disputed this at all, so I will take it as demonstrated (and ignore your 'Gish Gallops').


What restriction was this? Again with the ignorance of that period.Finally a relevant response!! It would be easy to disprove my claim instead of simply rubbishing it. Just provide one example of a scientific theory about the spherical shape of the Earth from Medieval times. There definitely were restrictions, as even James Hannam admits (https://jameshannam.com/medievalscience.htm):

The boundaries set by the church pertinent to natural philosophy and science appear to have been quite well defined and mainly involved avoiding matters that might have theological significance. ... In physics, it was fine to put most things down to secondary natural causes but not to claim that miracles were impossible. Neither the eternity of the world nor the existence of other worlds could be espoused in cosmology and metaphysics as an actual fact. Finally, it was never acceptable to claim that the natural world had to be the way it is and that God could not have created it differently if he wished to, or could not upset the natural order if he so pleased.
Modern science claims that the Earth has to be (roughly) spherical, and could not be a cube (for example). That would violate the final restriction Hannam mentions.

Capablanca-Fan
01-01-2020, 01:56 AM
More irrelevance snipped. If you are going to reply to my posts, please respond to the points I am making instead of ignoring them, and posting irrelevancies - which you've already posted anyway! If you don't want to actually respond to my posts, you should make your own posts and ignore mine.
Stop whinging. You're the one willfully making false claims about the Middle Ages, not me. You repeatedly single them out for problems that were greater in the Renaissance, e.g. Galileo resisting the moon's cause of the tides, which is relevant to the cause of planetary sphericity.


So? Again, you're ignoring my point. For the final time, I claimed that YECs don't have a scientific explanation why the Earth is round.
No you didn't, because the explanation (gravitation) was discovered by a YEC, the same one who predicted the oblateness of the earth. You don't need an accretion theory for gravity to pull a sufficiently massive body into a spherical shape. For example, from Scientific American, 2001 (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-are-planets-round/):


Derek Sears, professor of cosmochemistry at the University of Arkansas, explains.


Planets are round because their gravitational field acts as though it originates from the center of the body and pulls everything toward it. With its large body and internal heating from radioactive elements, a planet behaves like a fluid, and over long periods of time succumbs to the gravitational pull from its center of gravity. The only way to get all the mass as close to planet's center of gravity as possible is to form a sphere. The technical name for this process is "isostatic adjustment."

With much smaller bodies, such as the 20-kilometer asteroids we have seen in recent spacecraft images, the gravitational pull is too weak to overcome the asteroid's mechanical strength. As a result, these bodies do not form spheres. Rather they maintain irregular, fragmentary shapes.


Finally a relevant response!! It would be easy to disprove my claim instead of simply rubbishing it. Just provide one example of a scientific theory about the spherical shape of the Earth from Medieval times. There definitely were restrictions, as even James Hannam admits (https://jameshannam.com/medievalscience.htm):

The boundaries set by the church pertinent to natural philosophy and science appear to have been quite well defined and mainly involved avoiding matters that might have theological significance. ... In physics, it was fine to put most things down to secondary natural causes but not to claim that miracles were impossible. Neither the eternity of the world nor the existence of other worlds could be espoused in cosmology and metaphysics as an actual fact. Finally, it was never acceptable to claim that the natural world had to be the way it is and that God could not have created it differently if he wished to, or could not upset the natural order if he so pleased.
Modern science claims that the Earth has to be (roughly) spherical, and could not be a cube (for example). That would violate the final restriction Hannam mentions.

Evidently from Science and Church in the Middle Ages (https://jameshannam.com/medievalscience.htm). Since the boundary allowed secondary causes, they wouldn't have had a problem with invoking gravitational explanations for sphericity, which don't require evolutionary origins for the planets. Even the article points out that the restrictions were narrow in scope both geographically (Paris) and topically. And they probably did more good than harm to scientific enquiry. As the article says:


As we saw above, Pierre Duhem saw in the condemnations of 1277 the rejection of the idea that the universe had to be the way Aristotle thought it had to, and the birth of the realisation that the workings of the universe had to be empirically determined. The neo-Platonism of Copernicus and Kepler had developed in Italy through the late Middle Ages while the insistence on an intelligible and rational universe is found throughout scholastic natural philosophy.

Hannam's book God's Philosophers: How the Medieval World Laid the Foundations of Modern Science (https://armariummagnus.blogspot.com/2009/10/gods-philosophers-how-medieval-world.html) points out:


Rather than restricting the work of natural philosophers, the condemnations actually freed them up. They no longer had to doggedly follow Aristotle, but could invoke God’s freedom to do things differently and develop theories outside the Aristotelian paradigm. We will see in the following chapters that they leapt at the chance to explore these possibilities.

Tim O'Neill writes in “The Dark Ages” — popery, periodisation and pejoratives (https://historyforatheists.com/2016/11/the-dark-ages-popery-periodisation-and-pejoratives/):


The 1270 Condemnations were followed by a longer list of attempted proscriptions in 1277, but again these mainly targeted a grab bag of “Averroist” metaphysical ideas. Rather than restricting natural philosophy, Pierre Duhem went so far as to argue that the criticism of Aristotle in these proscriptions shattered the conception that “the Philosopher” was somehow omnicompetent and opened his work up to greater sceptical scrutiny and constructive criticism. Modern historians of science agree that this goes too far, noting that Aristotle had not yet achieved that level of unquestioned reverence at that stage, but agree that later critical analysis of and adjustment of several of Aristotle’s claims about the natural world do owe something to these checks on his full acceptance in the thirteenth century.

But the key point here is not so much what these attempted restrictions did try to proscribe, but rather what they did not. The condemnations were restricted to metaphysical ideas and philosophical speculations. Nowhere in these examples or in any others from the whole of the Middle Ages was there any tendency toward restricting rational analysis of the physical and natural world. On the contrary, the natural cosmos was seen as the rational product of a rational God and so not only could but should be apprehended and understood rationally. Medieval thinkers liked to refer to “the Book of Nature” that should be read and analysed for understanding of the physical world as a complement to “the Book of God” (the Bible) which should be read to understand the theological:


“For this whole visible world is a book written by the finger of God, that is, created by divine power …. But just as some illiterate man who sees an open book looks at the figures but does not recognise the letters: just so the foolish natural man who does not perceive the things of God outwardly in these visible creatures the appearances but does not inwardly understand the reason. But he who is spiritual and can judge all things, while he considers outwardly the beauty of the work inwardly conceives how marvellous is the wisdom of the Creator.” (Hugh of St Victor, De Tribus Diebus, 4)

Patrick Byrom
01-01-2020, 03:09 PM
Stop whinging. You're the one willfully making false claims about the Middle Ages, not me. You repeatedly single them out for problems that were greater in the Renaissance, e.g. Galileo resisting the moon's cause of the tides, which is relevant to the cause of planetary sphericity.Irrelevant!


No you didn't, because the explanation (gravitation) was discovered by a YEC, the same one who predicted the oblateness of the earth. You don't need an accretion theory for gravity to pull a sufficiently massive body into a spherical shape. For example, from Scientific American, 2001 (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-are-planets-round/): ... Irrelevant!


Evidently from Science and Church in the Middle Ages (https://jameshannam.com/medievalscience.htm). Since the boundary allowed secondary causes, they wouldn't have had a problem with invoking gravitational explanations for sphericity, which don't require evolutionary origins for the planets. Even the article points out that the restrictions were narrow in scope both geographically (Paris) and topically. And they probably did more good than harm to scientific enquiry. As the article says: ... And again Irrelevant!


Hannam's book God's Philosophers: How the Medieval World Laid the Foundations of Modern Science (https://armariummagnus.blogspot.com/2009/10/gods-philosophers-how-medieval-world.html) points out: ... More irrelevancy!

As I warned you, rather than waste my time on your Gish Gallops, I'm just going to label the irrelevancies and ignore them. When you make a relevant reply, I'll respond to it.

Capablanca-Fan
02-01-2020, 04:04 AM
Fine, my arguments against your false claims about the Middle Ages are unanswered.

Patrick Byrom
02-01-2020, 02:12 PM
Fine, my arguments against your false claims about the Middle Ages are unanswered.I see that my rejection of your continued Gish Gallops has finally led to a short and straightforward response :)

My main current claim about the Middle Ages is that scholars in the Middle Ages did not have a scientific explanation why the Earth was round. For them, the reason why it was round was a matter of faith. If you have evidence to the contrary, please post a short summary with a link. A good response would be an extract from a Medieval scholar advancing a scientific theory why the Earth was round.

If you post any claims that Medieval scholars knew that the Earth was round, or that they knew 99 demonstrations of its roundness, they will be snipped - because they're not relevant and I have no argument with this. If you post arguments that Medieval scholars understood the tides, they will also be snipped - they're also irrelevant, and I'm not (currently) disputing that they did. I am only currently interested in Medieval scientific reasons why the Earth is round.

antichrist
02-01-2020, 02:45 PM
I see that my rejection of your continued Gish Gallops has finally led to a short and straightforward response :)

My main current claim about the Middle Ages is that scholars in the Middle Ages did not have a scientific explanation why the Earth was round. For them, the reason why it was round was a matter of faith. If you have evidence to the contrary, please post a short summary with a link. A good response would be an extract from a Medieval scholar advancing a scientific theory why the Earth was round.

If you post any claims that Medieval scholars knew that the Earth was round, or that they knew 99 demonstrations of its roundness, they will be snipped - because they're not relevant and I have no argument with this. If you post arguments that Medieval scholars understood the tides, they will also be snipped - they're also irrelevant, and I'm not (currently) disputing that they did. I am only currently interested in Medieval scientific reasons why the Earth is round.

I thought it was known from even Ancient Greek days that the earth was round and was maybe based on angle of viewing stars from different points around the then known earth? This answer if correct does not explain why but just the fact of how they may have known.

antichrist
02-01-2020, 02:53 PM
Capa Fan, did God do all the scientific calculations first like when we manufacture something or did He just smack it all together to let man work out the unknown formulas? Presumably God could have made the compounds /elements/whatever unknowable to humans by making them extremely complex beyond the brains he gave us?? I don't understand that when God was on earth he did not have a chin wag with the best scientists of the day giving them hints or teasing them or giving them furphies to get entangled on. It must have been very boring to just mix with the uneducated. He was not the Michael Baron type that is for sure.

Patrick Byrom
02-01-2020, 03:15 PM
I thought it was known from even Ancient Greek days that the earth was round and was maybe based on angle of viewing stars from different points around the then known earth? This answer if correct does not explain why but just the fact of how they may have known.The Ancient Greeks did know that, and even determined the size of the Earth. But I completely agree with Capablanca-Fan that Medieval scholars also knew it (although we would quibble about some of the specifics). What I am claiming is they could only explain why it was so using the Bible, not natural processes. Today, we can explain the Earth's shape as a product of gravity.

antichrist
02-01-2020, 03:59 PM
The Ancient Greeks did know that, and even determined the size of the Earth. But I completely agree with Capablanca-Fan that Medieval scholars also knew it (although we would quibble about some of the specifics). What I am claiming is they could only explain why it was so using the Bible, not natural processes. Today, we can explain the Earth's shape as a product of gravity.

I have never heard it said but the Capa Fan's mentality could be the same as Islam, everything that we need to know is found in the Koran (or Bible) so no other text is necessary. Does Capa Fan deny the burning of famous texts under Christianity?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_book-burning_incidents#Repeated_destruction_of_Alexandr ia_libraries
Arabic and Hebrew books (in Andalucía)[edit]
In 1490 a number of Hebrew Bibles and other Jewish books were burned at the behest of the Spanish Inquisition. In 1499 or early 1500 about 5000 Arabic manuscripts, including a school library—all that could be found in the city—were consumed by flames in a public square in Granada, Spain, on the orders of Cardenal Ximénez de Cisneros, Archbishop of Toledo and head of the Spanish Inquisition,[79][80] excepting only those on medicine, which are conserved in the library of El Escorial.[81]

They didn't like their tooth aches eh?

Capablanca-Fan
02-01-2020, 04:05 PM
My main current claim about the Middle Ages is that scholars in the Middle Ages did not have a scientific explanation why the Earth was round. For them, the reason why it was round was a matter of faith. If you have evidence to the contrary, please post a short summary with a link. A good response would be an extract from a Medieval scholar advancing a scientific theory why the Earth was round.
Why don't you give us some Classical or Renaissance or Galilean explanations?


If you post any claims that Medieval scholars knew that the Earth was round, or that they knew 99 demonstrations of its roundness, they will be snipped — because they're not relevant and I have no argument with this.
Makes a change from your claims that the Medieval period was the "Dark Ages". I see you have quietly backed away from such an indefensible claim, and are now grasping at straws. Usually such claims were connected to the flat earth myth.


If you post arguments that Medieval scholars understood the tides, they will also be snipped - they're also irrelevant,
They are not, because they invoke attractive forces between masses, the same thing in principle that explains why very massive bodies will assume a spherical shape (lowest gravitational potential energy).

antichrist
02-01-2020, 04:16 PM
…………………..

They are not, because they invoke attractive forces between masses, the same thing in principle that explains why very massive bodies will assume a spherical shape (lowest gravitational potential energy).

Is that the principle that the cream separators are base on? Now I know why. I suppose the same doing fenceing, the deeper the more hard the digging. Maybe also when burying bloated cows the heaviest part the stomach, is flat up against the ground and therefore hardest to budge.

Patrick Byrom
02-01-2020, 04:31 PM
Why don't you give us some Classical or Renaissance or Galilean explanations?So you have no examples from Medieval times. Good - that establishes my claim (at least provisionally). And I was comparing Medieval understanding with modern understanding - I never made any claims about the Greek or Renaissance understanding of reasons for the Earth's shape.


Makes a change from your claims that the Medieval period was the "Dark Ages". I see you have quietly backed away from such an indefensible claim, and are now grasping at straws. Usually such claims were connected to the flat earth myth.I've never made the claim that everyone in the Dark Ages thought the world was flat, so that's just a furphy. And the term "Dark Ages" is a well recognised term for a specific period - it's not (in itself) a claim about anything! The fact that you don't like it doesn't mean that I can't use it :)


They are not, because they invoke attractive forces between masses, the same thing in principle that explains why very massive bodies will assume a spherical shape (lowest gravitational potential energy).Are you suggesting that Medieval scholars thought that the Earth was spherical due to attractive forces between masses? If so, provide evidence; otherwise it's irrelevant.

Capablanca-Fan
02-01-2020, 04:51 PM
I have never heard it said but the Capa Fan's mentality could be the same as Islam, everything that we need to know is found in the Koran (or Bible) so no other text is necessary. Does Capa Fan deny the burning of famous texts under Christianity?
That list is extensive, and even if correct, many are before or outside Christianity. Note that the destruction of the Great Library of Alexandria, which atheopaths have loved to blame on a Christian mob, was actually destroyed by Julius Caesar, but this atheopathic myth is another that won't die (https://historyforatheists.com/2017/07/the-destruction-of-the-great-library-of-alexandria/).

Capablanca-Fan
02-01-2020, 05:00 PM
I thought it was known from even Ancient Greek days that the earth was round and was maybe based on angle of viewing stars from different points around the then known earth? This answer if correct does not explain why but just the fact of how they may have known.

That indeed was one of the reasons. The different stars visible from different latitudes, and stars appearing at different angles, showed that it was round in the north-south direction; and the different times of night that phenomena such as lunar eclipses were seen in different longitudes showed it was round east-west as well. This was also well known to medieval students, because they used as an astronomy textbook The Sphere (http://www.esotericarchives.com/solomon/sphere.htm), by Johannes de Sacrobosco (1230):


THE EARTH A SPHERE. -- That the earth, too, is round is shown thus. The signs and stars do not rise and set the same for all men everywhere but rise and set sooner for those in the east than for those in the west; and of this there is no other cause than the bulge of the earth. Moreover, celestial phenomena evidence that they rise sooner for Orientals than for westerners. For one and the same eclipse of the moon which appears to us in the first hour of the night appears to Orientals about the third hour of the night, which proves that they had night and sunset before we did, of which setting the bulge of the earth is the cause.

FURTHER PROOFS OF THIS. -- That the earth also has a bulge from north to south and vice versa is shown thus: To those living toward the north, certain stars are always visible, namely, those near the North Pole, while others which are near the South Pole are always concealed from them. If, then, anyone should proceed from the north southward, he might go so far that the stars which formerly were always visible to him now would tend toward their setting. And the farther south he went, the more they would be moved toward their setting. Again, that same man now could see stars which formerly had always been hidden from him. And the reverse would happen to anyone going from the south northward. The cause of this is simply the bulge of the earth. Again, if the earth were flat from east to west, the stars would rise as soon for westerners as for Orientals. which is false. Also, if the earth were flat from north to south and vice versa, the stars which were always visible to anyone would continue to be so wherever he went, which is false. But it seems flat to human sight because it is so extensive.

SURFACE OF THE SEA SPHERICAL. -- That the water has a bulge and is approximately round is shown thus: Let a signal be set up on the seacoast and a ship leave port and sail away so far that the eye of a person standing at the foot of the mast can no longer discern the signal. Yet if the ship is stopped, the eye of the same person, if he has climbed to the top of the mast, will see the signal clearly. Yet the eye of a person at the bottom of the mast ought to see the signal better than he who is at the top, as is shown by drawing straight lines from both to the signal. And there is no other explanation of this thing than the bulge of the water. For all other impediments are excluded, such as clouds and rising vapors.