I think you're confused between velocity of the wave and the Doppler (frequency) shift, which are not the same. Heliocentric or geocentric, what you are stating is just incorrect. If it were, every radar measurement we make would be completely ambiguous and nearly useless. What sources are you finding that state radar works this way?Not sure what you mean. Radar operates according to classical physics. Object moves away from or towards you as you move, add and subtract velocities. Same for sound waves and other waves.
Old people talk louder online I've noticed. And they like exclammation points and CAPITALS more. Old people and Fundamentalists. I think it is a generational thing. Them soft Millenials just can't take it.Dear Jeri - Thank you for communicating with me. I have been told the same thing on Facebook in many different groups and I deactivated from Facebook.
I apologize that I am so intense. I left Facebook several months ago. I have been reading the PB for years but never felt the desire to join until a few days ago when there were some questions I wanted to ask and topics I wanted to discuss. But some of these topics stress me out so much, and maybe its my old age ... I honestly don't know ... but I tried to not be intense on Facebook and was unsuccessful. I think maybe it was a mistake to join PB because many of the topics trigger to many emotions and bad memories. Maybe I should return to just being a reader of PB.
Again, thank you for your communication. Lord's blessings to you.
The geocentrists that deny relativity have the planets orbiting the sun, and the sun orbiting the earth. Neither of these will disprove absolute geocentrism. These days, it is not about the data per se but about dynamics and metaphysics. (Although to be fair, Tycho Brahe's system has been around for a while, and it is just the coordinate transform one would get by changing to earth's frame; if a geocentrist model is consistent with relativity, then the model will definitely be consistent with both of the above data sets.)#1 Solar probe proof) Time stamped compiled series of photographs and data showing the planets orbiting around the solar probe in close proximity to the Sun, which means orbiting around the sun.
#2 Planetary probes) Time stamped series of photographs from Mars showing the Sun Rising and Setting EXACTLY LIKE IT DOES ON EARTH, and Mars even rotates in the same direction as earth thus making it also East to West.
Can we say that some truths are metaphysically true even when they are not literally true? Such as Christ's crucifixion being the "center" of world history even though there doesn't have to literally be equal time before as after?The geocentrists that deny relativity have the planets orbiting the sun, and the sun orbiting the earth. Neither of these will disprove absolute geocentrism. These days, it is not about the data per se but about dynamics and metaphysics. (Although to be fair, Tycho Brahe's system has been around for a while, and it is just the coordinate transform one would get by changing to earth's frame; if a geocentrist model is consistent with relativity, then the model will definitely be consistent with both of the above data sets.)
A modern cosmologist would tell you that everything is moving away from everything else, so everything looks red shifted from everywhere.One question I have: if the red shift results from the universe expanding all around us, and if this red shift is seen 360 degrees around our planet, doesn't this indicate that we are at the center? If there is a red-shift found in every quadrant of the sky, this means we are in the middle.
That also makes sense.A modern cosmologist would tell you that everything is moving away from everything else, so everything looks red shifted from everywhere.
Image you have a small balloon (the surface of the balloon is space) and on that balloon a lot of dots are drawn. Each dot is a star / galaxy / planet / whatever. Now blow up the balloon. Each dot moves away from every other dot as the surface of the balloon inflates. Modern cosmologists would tell us that this is the same phenomenon that the universe at large experiences. So, from that point of view, "center" is meaningless on the one hand, and on the other hand EVERYTHING is at the "center" from its own point of view.
Logan is perfectly equipped to answer, but I am here, and I have a solid background in radar as well as laser interferometers.Logan-
I can't remember which sources. Just for my own clarification, can you tell me something.....
If I am on a moving train, and a person with a bright flashlight is standing on the track, relativity says the speed of the light will measure the same heading towards or away from them. However, if the person is an ambulance signal and they move towards me and then away from me, the soundwave will measure higher or lower ( we hear the pitch change) from velocities adding and subtracting.
Are you saying radar radio waves do not measure like sound waves? The velocity will always measure the same no matter which direction you move towards or away from a moving object? It doesn't matter for geocentricity but it is an example out there so I want to clarify. Thanks.
That any civilized human being in this nineteenth century should not be aware that the earth travelled round the sun appeared to be to me such an extraordinary fact that I could hardly realize it.
“You appear to be astonished,” he said, smiling at my expression of surprise. “Now that I do know it I shall do my best to forget it.”
“To forget it!”
“You see,” he explained, “I consider that a man’s brain originally is like a little empty attic, and you have to stock it with such furniture as you choose[…]”
“But the Solar System!” I protested.
“What [...] is it to me?” he interrupted impatiently; “you say that we go round the sun. If we went round the moon it would not make a pennyworth of difference to me or to my work.”
So amazing... who can understand it?Logan is perfectly equipped to answer, but I am here, and I have a solid background in radar as well as laser interferometers.
The short answer is that radar works exactly the same as light.
Shine a flashlight (or radiate a radar signal) at my face. I will measure the speed of the incoming wave to be 182,282 miles per second, and it will have a certain wavelength and frequency.
Now walk toward me. Or even run! But keep shining that flashlight (or radiating that radar). Now, I will measure the speed of the incoming wave to be exactly the same as before. Zero difference. But the wavelength of the incoming wave will be shorter and the frequency will be higher.
Now walk away from me. Or even run! But keep shining that flashlight (or radiating that radar). Now, I will measure the speed of the incoming wave to be exactly the same as before. Zero difference. But the wavelength of the incoming wave will be longer and the frequency will be lower.
Doppler Radar works by measuring the shift in wavelength / frequency of the reflected wave as it bounces off of a moving object. The speed of the wave is not changed, the wavelength / frequency changes.
Instruments in the 1800s weren't sensitive enough to notice. The truth we have definitely observed a difference in the light from distant starts as the Earth moves toward or away from any given star as the Earth goes around the Sun.To try and explain better- and here I am referring to the Time Magazine man of the Century article about Einstein which I linked in some other thread here- all the experimental work in the 1800s that assumed the earth hurling towards a distant star at one point, and six months later hurling away from that star in the opposite direction as the earth supposedly orbits the sun, expected to see a measurable difference in the light coming from the star, by adding and subtracting the velocity of the earth's orbit. But it didn't. It showed the earth at rest.
I'm not entirely certain why "classical physics" seems to be considered almost sacred. Our models of our understanding of creation are getting better and better. Sir Isaac Newton contributed greatly to modern physics but some of the stuff he postulated in a large part overturned previous "classical physics". And all for the better. But there is nothing in the Bible that indicates "classical physics" is God-centered and anything else is not.Classical physics got tossed for relativity. Geocentrists reject relativity.
By "metaphysics," I was referring to the essence of things, what reality actually is, the thing behind the appearances. Physics describes how things function, but it cannot tell us what they are. Even its descriptions of motion are relative to a prior understanding of reality (e.g., in terms of reference frames) and so cannot be held as absolute. Modern relativity theory gets around this to a degree because its definition of "space" and "time" are operationalist, i.e., it tries to avoid metaphysics and just stick with what we can measure. The question of geocentrism is tied up with questions of absolute motion and absolute location, and so it is tied up with metaphysical questions. Some metaphysical questions do get mixed up with the theological though, I suppose, e.g., I could say that the earth centered frame is the absolute frame of reference for theological reasons, even though any frame centered around anything will give the correct physical results; it's a question of metaphysics and theology.Can we say that some truths are metaphysically true even when they are not literally true? Such as Christ's crucifixion being the "center" of world history even though there doesn't have to literally be equal time before as after?
And in the same manner, the earth is the center of God's focus, even though not literally the center of the universe?
As you get used to the PB you'll shout less and resort more to passive-aggressive smug smart-alecky-ness like the rest of us, putting subtle jabs like small doses of poison into your responses to kill your opponent gradually.
Hilarious. My first thought when I saw Perg's post was, "well, perfect spot for Grant to chime in". That was beautiful.We all have learned well from the master.........YOU