JTF.ORG Forum
Torah and Jewish Idea => Torah and Jewish Idea => Topic started by: Mifletzet on April 25, 2007, 04:47:44 AM
-
The Earth was the first physical object created.
And Rambam says that the Earth is at the center of the universe.
According to Relativity, this is totally acceptable, not just figuratively, but physically too.
"It is my firm belief that the Sun revolves around the Earth, as I have also declared publicly on various occasions and in discussion with professors specializing in this field of science." (Lubavitcher Rebbe)
And even according to those who don't hold by Relativity, and who believe in the existence of the Aether, they are pushed to explain the zero-velocity result of the famous Michelson-Morley experiment.
-
"It is my firm belief that the Sun revolves around the Earth, as I have also declared publicly on various occasions and in discussion with professors specializing in this field of science." (Lubavitcher Rebbe)
The Sun does not revolve around the Earth ;)
-
By Relativity, to say that the Sun orbits the Earth is a fully equally valid scientific model!
If you can disprove Relativity, you get a Nobel Prize!
“We know that the difference between a heliocentric theory and a geocentric theory is one of relative motion only, and that such a difference has no physical significance.
If the Galileo Affair had taken place after Einstein had framed his General Theory, it would have resulted in an even draw, out of physical and mathematical necessity" (Sir Fred Hoyle).
-
I don't care what any of you say...
The entire Universe revolves around me!
Now, if you will please excuse me, I have to go hang a new mirror which I just purchased.
-
"It is my firm belief that the Sun revolves around the Earth, as I have also declared publicly on various occasions and in discussion with professors specializing in this field of science." (Lubavitcher Rebbe)
The Sun does not revolve around the Earth ;)
I agree with westcoastJTF. It is funny that those who don't know anything about relativity are making crazy claims that the sun revolves around the earth based on relativity (relativity is about curved space time and has nothing to do with the claim brought up). Fact: It was proven hundreds of years ago that the earth revolves around the sun. It is true sadly that there were a few Rabbis in modern times who thought that the sun rotated around the earth but these were the small minority (probably 1% or less).
Also wasn't the Aether concept disproven at the beginning of the 20th century?
-
Einstein's disciple Lincoln Barnett stated:
"We cannot feel our motion through space. Nor has any experiment ever proved that the Earth actually is in motion".
And Albert Einstein himself stated:
"The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS could be used with equal justification. The two sentences, "the sun is at rest and the earth moves," or "the sun moves and the earth is at rest," would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS. Could we build a real relativistic physics valid in all CS; a physics in which there would be no place for absolute, but only for relative motion? This is indeed possible!".
Even the arch-atheist Bertrand Russell stated:
"Whether the Earth rotates once a day from west to east as Copernicus taught, or the heavens revolve once a day from east to west as his predecessors held, the observable phenomena will be exactly the same: a metaphysical assumption has to be made".
The simplest explanation for the zero-velocity result of the Michelson-Morley's experiment failure to detect the Earth's purported 67,000 mph velocity round the Sun is that the Earth really is stationary wrt the Aether.
So Einstein did away with the Aether and invented Relativity.
But Relativity is by definition obliged to accept geocentricity as a primus inter pares, as the Lubavitcher Rebbe stated www.yiddishkeit.org
Recent discoveries such as the 376 ohm impedance of "free" vacuum space and in quantum physics, mean that the Aether theory is back in vogue.
Either way, the Torah, Nach and Chazal's message of a stationary geocentric Earth has not been disproven.
http://galileowaswrong.com
http://www.geocentricity.com
-
Firstly, the Torah and Navi do not say that the earth is the center of the universe. It does not talk about this subject at all. Secondly, I am warning you for your own good (not as an insult) that you are following the evil path since you are
1. Adding to the Torah things which are not there which is one of the biggest sins.
2. Not considering that the Talmud even says that the Rabbis admitted to the Greeks after lengthy arguing that the Earth revolves around the sun.
3. Thinking that Rabbis are infallible in science which is incorrect since they were not experts in Science but were experts in the Torah.
4. You are completely lacking any rational thought. Just like it is impossible to understand the Torah without learning it first, you can not state any scientific concept that you did not study. Just like concepts must be derived from the Torah logically using the logical precepts of Rebbe Yismael, in the real world if things are proven then they are correct. And what you have stated has been PROVEN wrong countless times since hundreds of years ago. You did not study science at all but your "Rabbis" have told you that what the Lubovitcher Rebbe said must be correct so you went around the internet searching for any complementary evidence on a website written by a three year old even though you have nothing except a few esoteric quotes from unknown scientists.
Firstly, a few hundred years ago it was proven that the earth is spinning. The experiment done was the pendulum experiment. A large pendulum was hung on a beach with a needle at the bottom of the pendulum so as it swung it made a line in the sand. If the earth did not spin or move then the line should not change but you will have a single straight line. However, if the earth moved then the line would gradually change and you will have a circular pattern over 24 hours. Guess what happened? A circle was made. So it is a fact that the earth is spinning.
Again, relativity states that space time is curved and therefore there is no perfectly straight line in the universe and the Aether thing is not accepted anymore, it is outdated and disproven. And none of these things have anything to do with fact that the Earth revolves around the sun; even the disproven Aether concept (the scientists who made this up didn't even think that the earth is the center of the universe). Every scientist agrees to this, including the ones you misquote above.
-
The Earth was the first physical object created.
The Sun, Moon and stars were only created on the Fourth Day, to serve a pre-existing Earth.
Does it seem reasonable that the Earth, the focus of Hashem's attention, would be set spinning on the Fourth Day round an insignificant star, in a minor galaxy at the edge of the universe?
"The Earth is called ארץ from the running of the of the orbiting spheres which circle around it" (Radak Breishis 1:1).
The Tenach speaks only of the Earth's fixity. Nowhere does it attribute any diurnal or annual motion to the Earth.
Hashem writes what He means and means what He writes. When Yehoshua commanded the Sun and Moon to stand still, he did not say "Earth, stop your rotation". Hashem would not allow an error to be propagated down the centuries.
Mach's Principle shows that a universe going round the Earth every 24 hours will produce exactly the same Foucault's Pendulum, Coriolis forces, earth bulge, weather patterns etc effects as an Earth rotating in its axis every 24 hours.
Einstein taught that there is a force inside a sphere of matter that is in motion. He wrote plainly to Ernst Mach on June 25, 1913:
"If one accelerates a heavy shell of matter S, then a mass enclosed by that shell experiences an accelerative force. If one rotates the shell relative to the fixed stars about an axis going through its center, a Coriolis force arises in the interior of the shell, that is, the plane of a Foucault pendulum is dragged around." ie that according to Relativity, Foucault's Pendulum can not be used as proof of a rotating Earth!
Rabbi Kahane was a geocentrist, as was the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Maharal
Ma’aseh Tuviyah, Mateh Dan, R.Yonoson Eibeshutz, Ba’al HaTanya, R.Nachman of Breslov, Sefer Habris etc
All were familiar with the theory of Copernicus, yet rejected it in favour of the geocentricity of the Tenach and Chazal.
And since the geocentric paradigm is fully compatible with modern scientific thinking, why be hostile to it? There are numerous articles in the "B'or HaTorah" http://www.borhatorah.org
Torah & science journals on this subject.
NASA use the geocentric model for their launches. The Barr Effect, Varshni's Result, Michelson- Morley Zero Velocity Result, Airy's Failure, Star Streaming, Walls of galaxies centered on the Earth, uniformity of the microwave background etc are just some of the geocentric evidences.
"The earth is indeed the center of the universe. The distribution of quasars (powerful radio sources) in vast concentric shells distributed equally about the earth means that the Cosmological Principle (that any point in the universe is the same as any other - acentrism) will have to go. A coordinate system fixed to the earth is the preferred frame of reference in the universe; consequently both the Special and General Theory of Relativity must be abandoned for Cosmological purposes" (Astrophysics and Space Science no.43).
"The Earth is suspended at center of the universe” (Rambam, Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah 3).
-
Firstly, your "biblical proofs" from Genesis are no proof arn are only based on your own interpuitation and the one from the Prophets is not credible. Had there been no scientific proof that the earth goes around the sun, then it would be a valid interpuitation as the other interpuitations that state that the Earth goes around the sun. But science has proven that the later is correct so your interpuitation is no longer valid. There are dozens of possible interpuitations of the genesis account since it is written very vague and you basically can't prove anything from them. Only science can prove what interpuitation of Genesis is correct.
The first verse of the bible according to Rashi is a summary of the events of creation and is not to be taken literally that first earth was created. Also, the hebrew word Aretz can refer to the Earth or the entire universe. Heavens can refer to Olam Habah or it can refer to the atmosphere or it can refer to space. The Bible is unclear what these mean. Also the verses that state that the sun moon and the stars were created on the fourth day seem to imply to you that the earth was created before them but this is not the only way to read the Bible. Another interpuitation is that the sun, moon and stars were around first but they were only visible from the earth on the fourth day and hence their purpose were completed on that day since the bible goes out of its way to tell us that the sun and the moon separate day from night and make times and seasons. Since that was their purpose, their creation was completed when they were visible from the Earth. In fact, Rashi says that according to the Sages everything was created the first day and simply set into place later which is consistant with the big bang theory and the Zohar writes an account very similar to the big bang theory by saying creation started from a tiny speck. Plus my Rabbi told me the Talmud states that the Rabbis admitted to the Greeks that the earth moves around the sun.
Again, it was already proven that the earth goes around the sun and the earth rotates. You told me that if the earth rotates, it is still possible for the sun to rotate around the earth and it would still arotate experimentally. That is true, but you forget that it was proven in a separate experiment based on Astronomy that the Earth rotates around the Sun! Also all these scientific concepts you quote are misquoted since not one of these scientists believe the sun rotates around the earth and not one of these scientific models state that the Earth is the center of the universe. These claims are stated by people who have no clue about these theories to begin with so start saying nonsense.
Rabbi Meir Kahane didn't think the Sun goes around the Earth either and I wouldn't trust your sources which have a tendency to lie about everything. I had a lecture from one of these so called "Yeshivish experts" that tried to disprove evolution and sound all smart. Well, to someone who knew any science at all, the guy was an idiot since he didn't even know what evolution was! He thought that evolution was an old disproven theory that the Gerafe developed by stretching their necks out the eat branches and their necks stretched over time. Guess what, that is not evolution, it was an older theory that the scientists disproved a long time ago!
-
I heard somewhere in the Torah or Talmud that it predicted the number of stars in the universe as 1 followed by 18 zeroes.
and that this was about the number arrived at by modern scientists.
Does anyone know if this is true?
-
I heard somewhere in the Torah or Talmud that it predicted the number of stars in the universe as 1 followed by 18 zeroes.
and that this was about the number arrived at by modern scientists.
Does anyone know if this is true?
I never heard of this. If you find the source, please tell me. I also want to know the location of the Gemara that says the Rabbis admitted to the Greek scientists that the Earth goes around the Sun.
-
The discussion in the Talmud Pesachim 94 between the Chachomim and the gentiles is on another subject entirely, and not connected with geocentrism.
The שיטה מקובצת there states: דאעג"ב דנצחו חכמי אה"ע לחכמי ישראל היינו נצחון בטענת אבל האמת היא כחכמי ישראל והיינו דאמרינן בתפילה ובוקע חלוני רקיע
The Greeks, like Chazal and everyone else until Nikolas Copernicus (whom the Ma'aseh Tuviyah called the B'chor Soton!), held by geocentrism.
Check out "Geocentrism" by Dr Avi Rabinowitz B'Or HaTorah 5,
"Torah Metaphysics versus Newtonian Empiricism", Rabbi Shimon Cowen, B'Or Hatorah 1999, and “Relativity and Geocentrism” in “Mind over Matter - the Lubavitcher Rebbe on Science, Technology and Medicine” 2003.
-
Well, thank you for the possible source. I wouldn't rely on the one commentator that does not take the logical simple meaning of the Talmud since he was disproven! (Note Rashi and Tosvot always go with the simple meaning)
-
As much as I respect and like the Lubovitcher Rebbe, he made the same mistake that most Chassidim do. Chassidim are good people but have always had issues with accepting Science. I asked a Chassidish Rebbe about this and he said that all Science is heresy and he called me a heretic. If the Mishna and Talmud accepted science as key to the Torah I don't get why they are so backward on this. And having people rationalize by making up far fetched lies that science can still support disproven concepts does not count as science since if they really wanted the truth they would discover that this is all nonsense and lies (the theories they quote don't talk about what they claim they do and they take quotes out of context). As I said before, the Yeshivot hire people to lecture outright lies to Yeshiva kids who don't know any better since they never studied science on a college level and brainwash them with nonsense. Plus they do not allow debate like the Torah demands us to do. If any Jewish religious scientist would debate any of these people they would win but they don't do this since they want to continue speaking lies and brainwashing people. Interesting though, that when it comes to saving their lives, they get over this and they always go to the best hospital with the best doctor.
-
Judaism never said The Sun went around The Sun or that The Earth was flat. And The Kabbalah supports The Universe being billions of years old. Each day of Creation represents a different World. We are currently in The Sixth World. At the end of 6,000 year World, there is a period of 1,000 years of Shabbat. But of course the 6,000 years weren't literal. At the end of this World, we will have another 1,000 years followed by eternal Shabbat in The Seventh World.
That is a beautiful explanation.
-
“Those well meaning persons who felt impelled to interpret certain passages in the Torah differently from the time-honoured tradition, did so only in the mistaken belief that the Torah view on the age of the world was at variance with science; otherwise they would not have sought new interpretations in the Torah….there is no need to seek new reinterpretations in the Torah to 'reconcile' them with science” (Lubavitcher Rebbe).
In Chassidus, references to previous worlds and their destruction and ages are taken to be referring to the non-corporeal Olam HaTohu and the act of the sheviras hakeilim.
Most Haredi Jews take the year 5767 preceded by six 24 hour days, with the physical universe due to terminate by 6000, literally.
And there is solid scientific evidence for this view.
-
Firstly, you make me laugh since you accuse others of not adhering to the time honored explanation of the Torah when it is you who is not adhering to it as the Talmud states that the Rabbis admitted to the Greek's point of view that the Earth goes around the sun. The Rabbis in the Talmud who were the holiest Rabbis used science to prove and disprove Torah interpuitations and the Rebbe can't argue with the Talmud. I'm the one sticking to the traditional explanation of the Talmud where you have to find a Chassidish far fetched lone interpuitation who says that the Talmud really meaned the opposite. Also the Mishna Pirkai Avot says that Science is a spice to the Torah. And you fail to take into account that there is many interpuitations of the Genesis account and science can disprove a traditional account in favor of another account.
Secondly, you constantly say that Science supports your point of view when it does not. Everything you say is contrary to Science as NO scientist still thinks the earth is the center of the universe. No respectable scientist thinks the earth is 6000 years old. Thirdly, the Bible clearly implies that the Genesis account does not mean 24 hour days, since the Torah menchans that there was morning and evening and days before the Sun and Moon were created and day,night, seasons and times even existed so it is obvious it does not refer to 24 hour days since it is impossible to have a 24 hour day if day and night did not exist yet as the Torah says on the fourth day "G-d said let there be lights in the empty space of heaven to divide between day and night". So obviously, the days refer to days from G-d's point of view which is actually billions of years. This was also proven scientifically in many ways. The fact that you can see a star millions of light years away means that the light took millions of light years to travel to Earth. Had the earth been only 6,000 years old, we not be able to see most of the stars in the sky via a good telescope since the light from stars millions of light years away would not have reached earth yet.
Does the Rebbe think that he was better than the Talmud Rashi and the Rambam? Do you think it is OK to accuse others of misinterpeting the Torah when the simple meaning of the Torah as well as the ancient commentaries agree with them but you have to resort to new commentaries that blatantly argue with the old ones? You are the one who is misinterpeting the Torah and even worse is that you are lying about it. At least admit that Science does not support you at all and simply call Science Heresy like one Chassidish Rabbi I met instead of lying. At least you are being honest if you do that instead of trying to deceive people.
-
You seem to be under the misconception that the discussion in Pesachim 94 was about geocentrism, which it isn't!
It is a discussion on whether the galgalim move and the stars are stationary, or vice versa.
http://www.dafyomi.org/index.php?masechta=pesachim&daf=94b&go=Go
Until Copernicus, everyone held by geocentrism.
Since Rav Kahane, his son Binyamin Zeev, and Chaim too, hold by a literal 6000 year geocentric universe, which is fully supported by Torah, Nach, Chazal and science, your outlook needs some correction!
But many like you have trouble reconciling current science with Torah, even to the point of having a crisis in emunah, as the recent Slifkin Affair showed.
For those, the intermediate approach of Professor Gerald Schroeder is useful http://www.geraldschroeder.com/
He shows how by Einstein the universe can be both 6000 and 16 billion years old, and both heliocentric, acentric and geocentric, all at the same time, so everyone's happy!
-
Firstly, you make me laugh since you accuse others of not adhering to the time honored explanation of the Torah when it is you who is not adhering to it as the Talmud states that the Rabbis admitted to the Greek's point of view that the Earth goes around the sun. The Rabbis in the Talmud who were the holiest Rabbis used science to prove and disprove Torah interpuitations and the Rebbe can't argue with the Talmud. I'm the one sticking to the traditional explanation of the Talmud where you have to find a Chassidish far fetched lone interpuitation who says that the Talmud really meaned the opposite. Also the Mishna Pirkai Avot says that Science is a spice to the Torah. And you fail to take into account that there is many interpuitations of the Genesis account and science can disprove a
traditional account in favor of another account.
Secondly, you constantly say that Science supports your point of view when it does not. Everything you say is contrary to Science as NO scientist still thinks the earth is the center of the universe. No respectable scientist thinks the earth is 6000 years old. Thirdly, the Bible clearly implies that the Genesis account does not mean 24 hour days, since the Torah menchans that there was morning and evening and days before the Sun and Moon were created and day,night, seasons and times even existed so it is obvious it does not refer to 24 hour days since it is impossible to have a 24 hour day if day and night did not exist yet as the Torah says on the fourth day "G-d said let there be lights in the empty space of heaven to divide between day and night". So obviously, the days refer to days from G-d's point of view which is actually billions of years. This was also proven scientifically in many ways. The fact that you can see a star millions of light years away means that the light took millions of light years to travel to Earth. Had the earth been only 6,000 years old, we not be able to see most of the stars in the sky via a good telescope since the light from stars millions of light years away would not have reached earth yet.
Does the Rebbe think that he was better than the Talmud Rashi and the Rambam? Do you think it is OK to accuse others of misinterpeting the Torah when the simple meaning of the Torah as well as the ancient commentaries agree with them but you have to resort to new commentaries that blatantly argue with the old ones? You are the one who is misinterpeting the Torah and even worse is that you are lying about it. At least admit that Science does not support you at all and simply call Science Heresy like one Chassidish Rabbi I met instead of lying. At least you are being honest if you do that instead of trying to deceive people.
If you're on the earth, it looks like the sun is going around you. If you're on the sun, it would look like the earth is going around you.
In space, where we don't know where it ends and therefore cannot locate a particular "center", how can you logically prove which perspective is "correct"? Wouldn't it all depend on where you place you're point of reference?
I think either view is equally plausible and the Rabbis spoke about Earth being the point of reference because this is the place where the Torah was given and we have our mission...and the rest is like a backdrop and we're the stars of the show. It's just a matter of perspective.
-
Well, it may "look" like everything is going around us but that is not true. It was proven that we rotate around the sun as does all the planets in our solar system. A long time ago, they tracked the movment and changes in the appearance of the size of the planets for years and found that they in fact do go around the sun as do we. The Rabbis in the Talmud admitted to this and yes, saying that the stars are stationary and we move is another way of saying that the earth moves and is not the center of the universe.
-
By Einstein, it is not posssible to prove, from within the universe, what is going round what.
To do so, one would have to go outside the universe, observe from there, and report back!
Hoyle points out that the Earth does not, technically, revolve around the Sun, but rather, the Earth and Sun both revolve around the center of mass of the Earth-Sun system, which is quite a few miles from the Sun's central axis (though still well inside the Sun).
Hoyle points out that one must factor in all objects, starting with the nearest stars, to recalculate the true center-of-mass of the earth-sun-universe. Hoyle speculates that once one has properly applied the barycentric argument to all other entities in the universe (known as "widening the view angle of one's telescope to avoid self- serving tunnel vision"), the center-of-mass may easily be at the Earth's location, making it impossible to disprove the geocentric hypothesis.
Hoyle says the barycentric argument is only properly applied when every object in the universe has been factored into the center-of-mass calculation, a calculation that has never been done. He believes that consistent application of the barycentric argument, layer by layer, places the center- of-mass farther away from the Sun and closer to the Earth and concludes that the barycentric argument can easily and fully support pure geocentricity: "The Earth is suspended at the center of the universe" (Rambam, Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah 3).
-
I heard that Solar Systems revolve around other stars. So the whole Solar System including The Sun move around the galaxy. Probably galaxies also go around each other.
That seems to be the most logical of explanations merely from the fact that when a star dies it collapses inwards forming a black hole or a neutron star that is tremendously dense and sucks in everything surrounding due to its high gravtitational pull. Since the sun is the biggest star closest to earth it is probably pulling all our planets to revolve around it and that is so for other galaxies. However jdl4ever i strongly agree with you that it could merely be an illusion .............we will never fully be able to understand the universe due to our limitations of knowledge. Our bodies are made of destructable flesh and if confused by simple things who knows what we are seeing is not just an illusion.
Light in general alters how we see things and how things may positionally be.
-
Re: "...At the end of 6,000 year World, there is a period of 1,000 years of Shabbat..."
If it keeps up like that, we'll soon be in arbitration with the Shabbos Goys' Union over wages & benefits!
-
I found this letter by the Lubavitcher Rebbe on this topic with the accompanying story preceeding it. It confirms what I was thinking above and what Mitzlefet was saying. If someone really wants to get to the bottom of this, take this letter to someone who really knows about the theory of relativity and see if he can confirm what the Rebbe is saying here. The Rebbe bascially challenges you to do this here.
The Wager
In the summer of 1975, an encounter took place between Rabbi F.R., a Lubavitcher chassid, and Mr. A.P., a "modernized" American Jew. Rabbi R. was seeking to influence Mr. P. toward a greater commitment to Torah observance, which the latter dismissed as "archaic" and dismally outdated. In the course of the conversation, Mr. P. said, "Are you telling me that every law and practice mentioned in the Torah, written thousands of years ago, must be accepted at face value today?" "Certainly,” replied Rabbi R. "The Torah is eternal, and is equally pertinent to every day and age." "The Torah states that the sun revolves around the earth," countered Mr. P. "Do you believe that as well?" "Yes, I do," replied Rabbi R. "Well, you might believe that," said Mr. P., "but no rational, self-respecting inhabitant of the 20th century does. I’m sure your rebbe, Rabbi Schneerson, doesn’t!" "I’m sure he does," said the rabbi. "I’m willing to wager anything that he does not," said Mr. P. "In fact, I’ll say this: If the Rebbe states that he believes that the sun revolves around the earth, I will become a Torah-observant Jew and convince everyone I know to do the same!" "Would you put that in writing?" challenged Rabbi R. "No problem," said Mr. P.
Soon after, Rabbi R. received the following letter:
Dear Rabbi R____
As per our conversation of today... I did say to you, and am submitting the same in writing by means of this letter, that if the Rebbe would make a public statement to the effect that... since the Talmud states that the sun revolves around the earth, it is therefore his firm belief that the sun does indeed revolve around the earth, that I will:
(a) personally observe the laws of taharat hamishpachah, tefillin and Shabbat; and
(b) influence my friends and colleagues to do the same.
It is, however, more than obvious to me that the Rebbe will not, in any way, make such a ridiculous statement, because
(a) he does not wish to be labeled as a fool,
(b) he himself is not as foolish as some of his ardent but hypnotized followers.
I predict, with no hesitation, that I will not hear any more about this matter from you or from the Rebbe...
I must tell you that I feel a deep personal hurt when people such as you make such asinine, ridiculous statements and then hide your abysmal ignorance behind the facade of "Torah." Don’t you realize you can still be believers and not live 500 years behind the times?
Mr. P. received not one but two separate letters in reply from the Rebbe, plus a third, cover letter, which read as follows:
Greetings and blessings!
Your letter, addressed to Rabbi F____ R____, reached me ... In view of its content, I naturally take this first opportunity of replying to it.
Not knowing whether you are more interested in the practical implication, or/and in the scientific aspect, I am writing two separate replies, enclosed herewith, which you can read in the order you prefer.
With esteem and blessing,
M. Schneerson
P.S. It is surely unnecessary to add-though I am adding it for the record-that I take for granted that you will keep your commitments with regard to the practical aspects of your letter.
One letter read:
... In reply to your question relating to the matter of the motion of the sun and the earth, whether the sun revolves around the earth or the earth around the sun,
It is my firm belief that the sun revolves around the earth, as I have also declared publicly on various occasions and in discussion with professors specializing in this field of science.
In view of the above, I have no objection, of course, if you wish to make this view known to whomever you choose...
The other letter read:
... This is in reply to your inquiry on the question of the rotation of the sun and the earth in relation to each other, namely, whether the sun revolves around the earth, or the earth around the sun, and which view is to be accepted, etc.
I presume you have in mind the scientific view, i.e., what science has to say on this question, and I will address myself to this aspect.
It is well known that this was a controversial issue in ancient and medieval science. However, since about half a century ago, with the introduction of the theory of relativity, the latter has been universally accepted as the basis of modern science...
One of the conclusions of the theory of relativity is that when there are two systems, or planets, in motion relative to each other-such as the sun and the earth in our case-either view, namely the sun rotating around the earth, or the earth rotating around the sun, has equal validity. Thus, if there are phenomena that cannot be adequately explained on the basis of one of these views, such difficulties have their counterpart also if the opposite view is accepted.
Secondly, the scientific conclusion that both views have equal validity is the result not of any inadequacy of available scientific data, or of technological development (measuring instruments, etc.), in which case it could be expected that further scientific or technological advancement might clear up the matter eventually and decide in favor of one or the other view. On the contrary, the conclusion of contemporary science is that regardless of any future scientific advancement, the question as to which is our planetary center, the sun or the earth, must forever remain unresolved, since both view(s) will always have the same scientific validity, as stated.
Thirdly, it follows that anyone declaring that a person who chooses to accept one of these systems in preference to the other is a fool, while one who accepts the other is a wise man-such a judgment shows that the person making it is ignorant of the conclusions of modern science, or that he has not advanced beyond the science of Ptolemy and Copernicus...
A further point might be added, though perhaps not pertinent to our discussion. It is that every person, including modern scientists, actually has three options to choose from in this matter: (a) that A revolves around B, (b) that B revolves around A, (c) that A and B revolve around each other. But such a choice cannot be dictated by science; it would be one’s personal choice and belief.
What has been said above is-to repeat-the deduction of the theory of relativity, as it is expounded in various scientific texts, and it can be checked with any scientist who is thoroughly familiar with the said theory. Of course, on the elementary and high-school level, science in general, and the so-called Solar System in particular, is taught from relatively simple textbooks, and the change in the scientific attitude towards the subject under discussion is not emphasized. But, as stated, it would be quite simple to verify it with any scientist who knows this particular field...
-
As much as I respect the Rebbe I think that he was wrong and Rabbi R. was correct. It was proven a long time ago scientifically that the earth revolves around the Sun based on astronomical sightings. In fact, after going to space several times, having dozens of sattalites in the sky, and having hundreds of thousands of telescopes all proving the earth goes around the sun should be enough proof for you. If you want to try to prove that the scientists are lying, take out a telescope and do the measurements and chartings yourself and you will see that the arey correct. The Rebbe did not do a wise move here. The method of fools is to use brand new scientific concepts that they don't understand to rationalize there own arguments even though they don't know what they are talking about. I talked with a physicist who understands the theory of relativity and the argument the Rebbe claims is laughable, in fact Einstein himself believed that the earth goes around the sun.
JDL4EVER disproves the Rebbe's argument
Firstly, the earth and the sun do not rotate around each other like the Rebbe claimed. This was the basis of his entire argument and it is 100% wrong. If the Sun did move around the earth and the earth did rotate around the sun then he would have a good argument since according to relativity an observer can't tell which one is rotating around who. But this postulate is completely wrong, and the Rebbe knew it. The Sun is in fact stationary and the Earth is the only object that moves so the Rebbe's basic postulate is wrong and relativity does not apply.
Secondly, even if we ignore the obvious error in the Rebbe's argument and assume that it is correct. Namely, that an observer can't tell by observation which one goes around who if both are moving around each other, it still can be proven mathematically or scientifically which one goes around who and mathematically and astronomically we have proven that the Earth rotates around the Sun. Relativity only talks about the relative observations of observers in this case. However, the objective conclusion can be proven scientifically. For example, relativity will state that if I am moving at the speed of light, light will appear stationary, but it can be proven scientifically that light is not stationary and it only appears stationary to myself.
Thirdly, by adding another objective observer we can tell who is going around who. For example, a space craft is an objective observer since it is not located on Earth or on the Sun and from that objective observer there is no more relativity and that observer will distinguish who is rotating around who. Guess what? The astronots in space have observed nothing unusual. So in every singe aspect the Rebbe is wrong.
-
As much as I respect the Rebbe I think that he was wrong and Rabbi R. was correct. It was proven a long time ago scientifically that the earth revolves around the Sun based on astronomical sightings. In fact, after going to space several times, having dozens of sattalites in the sky, and having hundreds of thousands of telescopes all proving the earth goes around the sun should be enough proof for you. If you want to try to prove that the scientists are lying, take out a telescope and do the measurements and chartings yourself and you will see that the arey correct. The Rebbe did not do a wise move here. The method of fools is to use brand new scientific concepts that they don't understand to rationalize there own arguments even though they don't know what they are talking about. I talked with a physicist who understands the theory of relativity and the argument the Rebbe claims is laughable, in fact Einstein himself believed that the earth goes around the sun.
JDL4EVER disproves the Rebbe's argument
Firstly, the earth and the sun do not rotate around each other like the Rebbe claimed. This was the basis of his entire argument and it is 100% wrong. If the Sun did move around the earth and the earth did rotate around the sun then he would have a good argument since according to relativity an observer can't tell which one is rotating around who. But this postulate is completely wrong, and the Rebbe knew it. The Sun is in fact stationary and the Earth is the only object that moves so the Rebbe's basic postulate is wrong and relativity does not apply.
Secondly, even if we ignore the obvious error in the Rebbe's argument and assume that it is correct. Namely, that an observer can't tell by observation which one goes around who if both are moving around each other, it still can be proven mathematically or scientifically which one goes around who and mathematically and astronomically we have proven that the Earth rotates around the Sun. Relativity only talks about the relative observations of observers in this case. However, the objective conclusion can be proven scientifically. For example, relativity will state that if I am moving at the speed of light, light will appear stationary, but it can be proven scientifically that light is not stationary and it only appears stationary to myself.
Thirdly, by adding another objective observer we can tell who is going around who. For example, a space craft is an objective observer since it is not located on Earth or on the Sun and from that objective observer there is no more relativity and that observer will distinguish who is rotating around who. Guess what? The astronots in space have observed nothing unusual. So in every singe aspect the Rebbe is wrong.
Are you saying the Rebbe did not understand the theory of relativity? Are you aware that the Rebbe was one of the foremost physists of his time. Did you know that he worked in covert operations with the US Army to produce a more advaced battleship then ever had been produced berfore in WW2? He was a towering genius by the testomony of every scholar and sceintist who ever met him.He was top of his class in Berlin/ You should take treat his reasoning with a bit more repect. He knew science a great deal better than you do, and I can gaurantee you that.
I will go back and read your post again. But watch out for conclusory arguments. You seem to assume certain facts that compel you're conclusion, but those underlying facts are not as obvious as you make them out to be.
Go ask someone who really knows the thoery of relativity well and show him/her this letter.
NOTE: I just noticed you said that Rabbi R. was right and the Rebbe was wrong. In the story it says Rabbi R. held the sun goes around the earth. Maybe you should read the post again more carefully.
-
The Rebbe aso went to the Sorborne
-
Gerald Schroder world renowned proffesor turns famous atheist into beleiver of G=D
http://www.geraldschroeder.com/new.html
-
The Rebbe was not one of the foremost physicists of his time. Who are you trying to fool? He didn't even have a degree in Physics or Mathematics. My father knows more about Physics than the Rebbe, no offense since he has an advanced degree in Mathematics and has advanced graduate training in Physics; and my father is a math genius. (And worked on much cooler projects then the Rebbe did, but I can't say publicly PM me if you want me to tell you) The Rebbe had a degree in electrical engineering and was probably a great electrical engineer and he was indeed a great Torah genius, but he was no expert in physics and probably only had a layman's knowledge of physics based on the weak argument he presented that even a layman such as myself can disprove. Being a Torah genius does not make you an expert in science. The Rebbe's argument speaks for itself and it is lacking substance so decide for yourself if the Rebbe was the greatest physics expert and can go against the entire scientific community and proven observations. The Rebbe in fact goes against very basic physics which is 400 years old, forget about relatitity. The basics of phsyics is Newton's law of gravitational forces which in layman's terms state that the larger the object the greater the gravitational force around it so since the sun is the biggest object in the solar system and has the greatest gravitational pull so everything in our solar system will orbit the sun.
Relativity is based on this law, and the Rebbe goes against the basic law of physics which is a proven fact.
Rebbe and R' Kahane = Torah geniuses, Tzaddikim, very smart men
Rebbe and the Rav; not = to science experts
-
The Rebbe was not one of the foremost physicists of his time. Who are you trying to fool? He didn't even have a degree in Physics or Mathematics. My father knows more about Physics than the Rebbe, no offense since he has an advanced degree in Mathematics and has advanced graduate training in Physics; and my father is a math genius. (And worked on much cooler projects then the Rebbe did, but I can't say publicly PM me if you want me to tell you) The Rebbe had a degree in electrical engineering and was probably a great electrical engineer and he was indeed a great Torah genius, but he was no expert in physics and probably only had a layman's knowledge of physics based on the weak argument he presented that even a layman such as myself can disprove. Being a Torah genius does not make you an expert in science. The Rebbe's argument speaks for itself and it is lacking substance so decide for yourself if the Rebbe was the greatest physics expert and can go against the entire scientific community and proven observations. The Rebbe in fact goes against very basic physics which is 400 years old, forget about relatitity. The basics of phsyics is Newton's law of gravitational forces which in layman's terms state that the larger the object the greater the gravitational force around it so since the sun is the biggest 4. object in the solar system and has the greatest gravitational pull so everything in our solar system will orbit the sun.
Relativity is based on this law, and the Rebbe goes against the basic law of physics which is a proven fact.
Rebbe and R' Kahane = Torah geniuses, Tzaddikim, very smart men
Rebbe and the Rav; not = to science experts
You'll win this argument because I'm no science expert by any stretch.
But I would just point a few things
1. When you are dealing with great minds like the Rebbe's, degrees don't tell the whole story. For instance, when the Rebbe was in Sorbone, he was known to often stump his PROFESSORS. He went there for whatever reasons he went there, but Rabbi J.B. Soloveitchik and the others that were there with him attested to the fact that the experience was somewhat of a 'joke' for the Rebbe. Degrees don't tell you that kind of information. Surely, you would agree that one can have expert knoweledge in a field without going through the formal steps neccesary to obtain a degree.
2. I'm not really impressed by you're speculation about how much knowledge the Rebbe had based on a letter (the full text of which was not even available). The Rebbe in his letters, used to simplify things as much as possible, and then when people would ask for more details he would give them more.
3. You think you are a layman that disproved the Rebbe, but being a layman myself, I didn't think you disproved him at all. In your arguments you continuously assume the fact you're trying to prove.
You assume that you can measure from a satellite or from earth and get the answers, ignoring the fact that the satellite and earth are only "objective" stationary points once you decided that that's going to be your reference point. The satelites are also in orbit. And the earth is also in motion. If you consider that, whatever calculations you made can't really be relied upon more than just one way that the situation could be. You can say: if this is our reference point it's like this. But if this is our reference point it's like that. But you still can't prove which reference point is correct. Do the same measurments using the sun as the objective reference point and you'll get a completely different result.
4. Regarding Newton's law of gravitational forces, all I can say is, you are making a big mistake if you think the Rebbe wasn't very familiar with it. You're showing me you don't really know who the Rebbe was if you think that.
The Rebbe WAS a very unique figure in that his knowledge spanned not only Torah but all facets of secular knowlege and he also knew how the two connected. No matter what field a person was expert in, whether it be military strategy, mathematics, art, music, the experts were always amazed at the Rebbe's proficiency after having a private audience with him. So I'm just saying don't be so quick to dismiss him.
5. I would also remind you that the scientific community may not outright lie, but they do have a history of making many matters seem a great deal more settled than the empirical data actually can show. See their views on evolution, radioactive dating and now global warming. They use tremendous extrapolation in all of these theories, which started out as theories, but one day they decide that they are fact and they make everyone into a fool if they disagree with them. The history of the sceintific community does have a lot of dogma and often the greatest discoveries were laughed at until they were later accepted. So there is a lot of deception that goes on and you do need to be wary of it. Here too, I wouldn't be surprised if the scientific community imposed the view that the earth goes around the sun though other explanations may be also plausible.
-
While a Sattelite can be subjective since it is rotating around the earth just like we are on earth like you said, a space craft is isolated in space and not in our orbit so it provides an objective vantage point. Also, mathematically the 400 year old newton law of gravitational motion was proven to be correct many times so it is not relevent how things look like to us, the objective proof that the planets go around the sun was proven long ago mathematically with Newton's theory. Similarly, you are ignoring the fact that the Rebbe's basic theory was incorrect since the Sun is stationary, it only rotates but does not move at all relative to the Earth.
As for Radioactive decay, this is a scientific fact that is very easy to prove and has been proven countless number of times; this is how we have power plants today.
As for the Rebbe, 99% of the time advanced degrees and training correspond to being an expert in an area. Unless you can prove that the Rebbe was an expert in Physics, then he was not. So far all evidence points to the fact that he ignores the very foundations of newtonian physics and says things about relativity that is completely wrong. Plus, even worse is he offers no evidence. All real scientists make claims backed up by evidence, especially if you are going against all of the scientists in the western world and thousands of volumes of mathematical and scientific evidence proving their point! Rumors about the Rebbe arguing well with professors is merely stories that may or may not have happened and arguing with teachers does not correlate with any intelligence. Many Yeshiva kids think they are G-d's gift to the world and like to argue dumb arguments with science professors in College who know 1000 times more than them and they think they are all that. This does not demonstrate intelligence. Any real scientist who wants to refute something widely accepted offers scientific and mathematical data to prove their point; they do not simply say "I think this way so it is correct even if I go against thousands of volumes of evidence".
College science professors are not dumb. I did research in college for 1.5 years in Chemistry and I am telling you that the professor I worked under was the most brilliant person that you ever met and he wrote a dozen papers in journals. Even the lowly graduate student working under this guy was 10 times more brilliant than myself. The guy knew advanced mathematics very well (I took 1 yr of calculus and the math this guy was doing was way above my head), he was an super expert in his chemistry field work, knew how to program computer languages, knew how to build complex circuits from nothing at all and had a very creative mind. This was just the Graduate student! The professor was 10 times smarter and more experienced than this guy! So don't have such a lowly opinion of scientists, they are really intelligent beyond your imagination. This is why training and experience corresponds with intellect. The Rebbe didn't have any advanced degree in Physics or any training or experience in that area so I doubt he was even on the level of even a graduate student.
-
Similarly, you are ignoring the fact that the Rebbe's basic theory was incorrect since the Sun is stationary, it only rotates but does not move at all relative to the Earth.
This is what we call a conclusory argument. It assumes the fact you are trying to prove.
-
a space craft is isolated in space and not in our orbit so it provides an objective vantage point.
It may not be in OUR orbit, but it could be in another orbit. When you say it's a an objective vantage point, you are saying that relative to our measurements here on earth. I think you're still running into the same relativity problems.
-
As for Radioactive decay, this is a scientific fact that is very easy to prove and has been proven countless number of times; this is how we have power plants today.
Of course there is radioactive decay. But their theories often assume that these elements always reacted the same way with eachother even billions of years ago which is taking a big leap of faith. But the scientists don't want you to know that. They make it seem full-proof.
-
a space craft is isolated in space and not in our orbit so it provides an objective vantage point.
It may not be in OUR orbit, but it could be in another orbit. When you say it's a an objective vantage point, you are saying that relative to our measurements here on earth. I think you're still running into the same relativity problems.
???? You don't make any sense. If an astronot is standing in a space craft outside of our orbit and outside the orbit of any planet, he is at an objective vantage point and he is observing things objectively.
-
Similarly, you are ignoring the fact that the Rebbe's basic theory was incorrect since the Sun is stationary, it only rotates but does not move at all relative to the Earth.
This is what we call a conclusory argument. It assumes the fact you are trying to prove.
No, the Rebbe is using a conclusory argument. I am just copying the Rebbe. The Rebbe claimed out of the blue that both the earth and the sun are both moving around each other. REALLY? Prove it. According to all the scientific data, the sun is stationary and is not moving around the earth and the earth is the only thing that is moving. So it is up to the Rebbe to prove his statement, not me.
-
While a Sattelite can be subjective since it is rotating around the earth just like we are on earth like you said, a space craft is isolated in space and not in our orbit so it provides an objective vantage point. Also, mathematically the 400 year old newton law of gravitational motion was proven to be correct many times so it is not relevent how things look like to us, the objective proof that the planets go around the sun was proven long ago mathematically with Newton's theory. Similarly, you are ignoring the fact that the Rebbe's basic theory was incorrect since the Sun is stationary, it only rotates but does not move at all relative to the Earth.
As for Radioactive decay, this is a scientific fact that is very easy to prove and has been proven countless number of times; this is how we have power plants today.
The Rebbe didn't have any advanced degree in Physics or any training or experience in that area so I doubt he was even on the level of even a graduate student.
This is a very foolish statement. Nobody said the professors are dumb. I'm simply saying that one can have the knowledge of a professor and even more knowledge, without having gone through the formal steps to obtain a degree. There was a time when these degrees didn't even exist.
So while it's a good indicator that if someone has a degree, they have the expertise. But you cannot assueme from that just because someone does not have the degree they don't have the knowledge. This is a big logical mistake.
-
Similarly, you are ignoring the fact that the Rebbe's basic theory was incorrect since the Sun is stationary, it only rotates but does not move at all relative to the Earth.
This is what we call a conclusory argument. It assumes the fact you are trying to prove.
No, the Rebbe is using a conclusory argument. I am just copying the Rebbe. The Rebbe claimed out of the blue that both the earth and the sun are both moving around each other. REALLY? Prove it. According to all the scientific data, the sun is stationary and is not moving around the earth and the earth is the only thing that is moving. So it is up to the Rebbe to prove his statement, not me.
No. Again you are not reading carefully. Look again. The Rebbe did not say they are both moving around eachother. He said that was one of 3 possiblities and he did not hold of that possiblity. He held the sun goes around the earth.
-
Similarly, you are ignoring the fact that the Rebbe's basic theory was incorrect since the Sun is stationary, it only rotates but does not move at all relative to the Earth.
This is what we call a conclusory argument. It assumes the fact you are trying to prove.
No, the Rebbe is using a conclusory argument. I am just copying the Rebbe. The Rebbe claimed out of the blue that both the earth and the sun are both moving around each other. REALLY? Prove it. According to all the scientific data, the sun is stationary and is not moving around the earth and the earth is the only thing that is moving. So it is up to the Rebbe to prove his statement, not me.
No. Again you are not reading carefully. Look again. The Rebbe did not say they are both moving around eachother. He said that was one of 3 possiblities and he did not hold of that possiblity. He held the sun goes around the earth.
Read the Rebbe's statement more carefully. The 3 possibilities based on relativity only exist if the two objects are both going around each other. If only one was moving then there would be no relativity. The Rebbe knew this so he based his argument by claiming that both the earth and the sun were revolving around each other. This goes against all scientific data and the Rebbe offered no evidence to disprove the preponderance of evidence that only one moves around the other.
-
Unless you can prove that the Rebbe was an expert in Physics, then he was not.
Oh really? And if I can't prove you're Jewish that means you're not?
As we say in law, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".
-
We are talking about probabilities here. While it is possible that someone who had no degree in Physics or Mathematics and no advanced training in Physics can be an expert, it is very unlikely. The odds are that the Rebbe was not an expert in Physics and you know this. You admit that he had no degree in Physics, he had no advanced training or advanced degree in Physics, had no experience in that area, did no research in physics and wrote no publications in Physics (and you know that advanced physics and mathematics must go together). Plus so far he said silly things against the basics of Physics without any evidence which suggests that he was not an expert. Could he still have been an expert in Physics? Yes, but the probability is that he was not one.
-
Similarly, you are ignoring the fact that the Rebbe's basic theory was incorrect since the Sun is stationary, it only rotates but does not move at all relative to the Earth.
This is what we call a conclusory argument. It assumes the fact you are trying to prove.
No, the Rebbe is using a conclusory argument. I am just copying the Rebbe. The Rebbe claimed out of the blue that both the earth and the sun are both moving around each other. REALLY? Prove it. According to all the scientific data, the sun is stationary and is not moving around the earth and the earth is the only thing that is moving. So it is up to the Rebbe to prove his statement, not me.
No. Again you are not reading carefully. Look again. The Rebbe did not say they are both moving around eachother. He said that was one of 3 possiblities and he did not hold of that possiblity. He held the sun goes around the earth.
Read the Rebbe's statement more carefully. The 3 possibilities based on relativity only exist if the two objects are both going around each other. If only one was moving then there would be no relativity. The Rebbe knew this so he based his argument by claiming that both the earth and the sun were revolving around each other. This goes against all scientific data and the Rebbe offered no evidence to disprove the preponderance of evidence that only one moves around the other.
No. The Rebbe says
One of the conclusions of the theory of relativity is that when there are two systems, or planets, in motion relative to each other-such as the sun and the earth in our case-either view, namely the sun rotating around the earth, or the earth rotating around the sun, has equal validity.
He says they are in motion relative to eachother. He's not saying both are in motion. He's saying relative to the other one the other one is motion i.e. if you look from the sun, the earth appears to be in motion and if you look from earth the sun is in motion etc.
The Rebbe says at the bottom of the letter to confirm what he's saying with someone who is thoroughly familiar with the thoery of relativity. So why don't you just do that, instead of the two of us laymen slugging it out?
-
We are talking about probabilities here. While it is possible that someone who had no degree in Physics or Mathematics and no advanced training in Physics can be an expert, it is very unlikely. The odds are that the Rebbe was not an expert in Physics and you know this. You admit that he had no degree in Physics, he had no advanced training or advanced degree in Physics, had no experience in that area, did no research in physics and wrote no publications in Physics (and you know that advanced physics and mathematics must go together). Plus so far he said silly things against the basics of Physics without any evidence which suggests that he was not an expert. Could he still have been an expert in Physics? Yes, but the probability is that he was not one.
For the record. I don't know what degrees he had actually. I never heard he had an advanced degree in physics, but he might have. You're trying to prove he wasnt' expert because you think what he said in the letter was "silly" and against basic principles of physics. But that's you're opinion. I'm still waiting to hear from a real expert on the topic.
-
I have read the Rebbe's remarks again and he is unclear of what he is saying but he seems to be saying like you are claiming that simply the earth goes around the sun or the sun goes around the earth. It would be nice if you have the full text since one paragraph doesn't clearly state what he is claiming. I'll grant you that and take away my first argument against him. But you still have many more arguments left to answer. Firstly, the argument still remains that you can't prove anything in this case from relativity. Relativity in this case simply shows how things appear to us and how things appear from a different vantage point. But the relativity ambiguity is weaker if only one thing moves since it is easy to prove which one it is, but I'll leave it at that. Relativity is merely an observation, something the Rebbe did not understand it seems. Proof is obtained through mathematics. Also the following arguments remain: An objective astronot viewing from space who is in no planetary orbit (plus deep space probes which have no orbit but are traveling through the middle of space) and the mathematical proof that the earth goes around the sun. Mathematics is objective and has nothing to do with how things look relative to us. So mathematical proof is objective proof. Guess what? The mathematical proof proving the earth goes around the sun is hundreds of years old and has only grown exponentially in modern times with the advent of better telescopes.
-
Cetainly math is objective. But even in math you can wind up with more than one possiblity. Sometimes you solve for x and it could be 2 or -2 and both work out.
So too here. You could do the mathematical calculation 3 ways. Using earth as the stationary point. Using the sun as the stationary point. Or assuming they are both rotating around each other. They will all work out mathematically. Which one is correct depends on which point you choose to call the stationary one.
Considering this, I don't see how better telescopes would help clarify matters at all.
I think this is all the Rebbe is saying and I agree we need to get more of the letter.
-
From Answers.com
"In a hagiographic biography, Laufer, citing a rabbi who heard from Soloveichik himself and a Kfar Chabad rabbi who heard it from associates of Soloveichik, says that "even though Rabbi Schneerson did not spend much time at his studies, his marks were always higher than Soloveichik's". Laufer also noted "the Rebbe was known to have received several advanced degrees in Berlin, and then later in Paris"
-
Lubov, there is only one mathematical solution to this issue so this would be described as a 4x=89 equation that only has one solution. It is very easy to obtain if the earth rotates around the sun or the sun goes around the earth. All you need is a telescope and some charting system. Since all planets rotate around something in a constant ellipse pattern, the location of the planets in the sky through time can be charted as their position and the variation of their size relative to time correlates with their distance. If you plot the data of our solar system over a few years on extrapolate the data, you will be able to prove whether the sun rotates around the earth or the earth rotates around the sun since each theory predicts different patterns. This has been done a long time ago and it proved that the Earth must rotate around the Sun since the data only fit mathematically into this theory. Also, Kepler's law of motion which he derived from Newton became the basis of Physics and this was also proven astronomically and mathematically. Kepler's laws state that everything must rotate around the sun since it has the biggest gravitational field and he made some simple equations describing this motion and all of them were proven correct.
-
Gerald Schroder world renowned proffesor turns famous atheist into beleiver of G=D
http://www.geraldschroeder.com/new.html
The Rebbe was not one of the foremost physicists of his time. Who are you trying to fool
But this guy is
http://www.geraldschroeder.com/new.html
-
Everything you are saying about the calculations is irrelvevant because they all MUST ASSUME A PARTICULAR FOCUL POINT. You could choose another focul point and it would work out For instance, take a model of the planets going around the sun rotating like they show you in school. Then pick the model up by the earth. What would happen? You're calculations would still work out, but now the earth the focul point. That' all we're saying here.
According to modern science you cannot prove an objective center. Relatavism applies.
Let's give a smaller example so this become more clear:
Under the general thoery of relativity, if I swing a bucket over my head, there is no way to scientifically prove that the bucket is moving and I am not. Maybe the bucket is the center of the universe and everything else is moving. You can make mathematical calculations either way and they will work out. Don't you agree JDL4ever? Can you prove which one is moving? You might think it weird that the bucket would be the center of the universe, but you're just not used to looking at the world in that way. That doesn't make it any less scientifically plausible.
So now tell me, if you can't even prove which one is moving, the bucket, or me, then how the heck are you gonna prove which one of the sun and earth are moving. Please explain to me how you could do this logically, because I'm at a loss.
When it comes to this issue, the era of being able to say sceince proves dogmatically that one way or the other is right when is long over and belongs in the sceince of the dark ages.
Incidentally, relativism is also at play in politics. For instance, there is no way to really prove that the Muslims are the terrorists and we are the freedom fighters. Maybe the Muslims are the freedom fighters and we are the terrorists. It depends which focul point you choose to adopt. Of course, the Torah, deals in absolute truths and can say definitively which is correct. Science however, cannot.
In this case, sceince leaves us with two (really 3) choices. The Torah comes as a matter of absolute truth says the sun goes around the earth. There are some apolegists on this issue who try to sugar-coat it, and avoid the issue. But being a Kahanist supporter I take the hard line when it comes to the Torah. And yes, this does not contradict science in any way as explained above under the theory of relativity.
-
Rest assured JDL4ever, that greater scientists then yourself have discussed this issue with the Rebbe and have been satisfied with the answers. One of them is Professor Herman Branover (google him) , who is a Lubavitcher Chassid and scientist. Perhaps we could set up a meeting between you and him and he could explain this better than I.
-
Rest assured JDL4ever, that greater scientists then yourself have discussed this issue with the Rebbe and have been satisfied with the answers. One of them is Professor Herman Branover (google him) , who is a Lubavitcher Chassid and scientist. Perhaps we could set up a meeting between you and him and he could explain this better than I.
Yes Herman Branover is an expert in something like water physics he is from Russia
-
Also for the record. I stand by my statement that the Rebbe was one of the greatest physisits of his time regardless of what degree he had (though a friend of mine once mentioned he had a PHD in physics-but I have no proof).
I have no real proof for what I'm saying, especially because I'm in no position to judge who is and isn't a great physicists.
But I said it because we have a tradition in Lubavitch that the Rebbe has mentioned a few times that in order to be a Rebbe of Lubavitch you must be a master of ALL wisdoms. The Rebbe said this was true of his father-in-law and the Rebbe before him and since this Rebbe was the next Rebbe I assume it was true of him too. So I don't doubt he was the probably the greatest physics guy around, though I have no way of convincing someone of this who is not a Lubavitcher and who takes each word of his Rebbe so seriously.
Interesting anecdote: Someone once asked, "The Rebbes must be masters of all wisdoms, but the previous Rebbe didn't know how to drive?" And the Rebbe responded that driving was not a wisdom, it was just a skill i.e. you just need to train yourself in certain habits, but there's no real wisdom there that needs to be learned.
-
From http://www.chabad.org/therebbe/article.asp?print=true&aid=73253&iid=
The Wager
In the summer of 1975, an encounter took place between Rabbi F.R., a Lubavitcher chassid, and Mr. A.P., a "modernized" American Jew. Rabbi R. was seeking to influence Mr. P. toward a greater commitment to Torah observance, which the latter dismissed as "archaic" and dismally outdated. In the course of the conversation, Mr. P. said, "Are you telling me that every law and practice mentioned in the Torah, written thousands of years ago, must be accepted at face value today?" "Certainly,” replied Rabbi R. "The Torah is eternal, and is equally pertinent to every day and age." "The Torah states that the sun revolves around the earth," countered Mr. P. "Do you believe that as well?" "Yes, I do," replied Rabbi R. "Well, you might believe that," said Mr. P., "but no rational, self-respecting inhabitant of the 20th century does. I’m sure your rebbe, Rabbi Schneerson, doesn’t!" "I’m sure he does," said the rabbi. "I’m willing to wager anything that he does not," said Mr. P. "In fact, I’ll say this: If the Rebbe states that he believes that the sun revolves around the earth, I will become a Torah-observant Jew and convince everyone I know to do the same!" "Would you put that in writing?" challenged Rabbi R. "No problem," said Mr. P.
Soon after, Rabbi R. received the following letter:
Dear Rabbi R____
As per our conversation of today... I did say to you, and am submitting the same in writing by means of this letter, that if the Rebbe would make a public statement to the effect that... since the Talmud states that the sun revolves around the earth, it is therefore his firm belief that the sun does indeed revolve around the earth, that I will:
(a) personally observe the laws of taharat hamishpachah, tefillin and Shabbat; and
(b) influence my friends and colleagues to do the same.
It is, however, more than obvious to me that the Rebbe will not, in any way, make such a ridiculous statement, because
(a) he does not wish to be labeled as a fool,
(b) he himself is not as foolish as some of his ardent but hypnotized followers.
I predict, with no hesitation, that I will not hear any more about this matter from you or from the Rebbe...
I must tell you that I feel a deep personal hurt when people such as you make such asinine, ridiculous statements and then hide your abysmal ignorance behind the facade of "Torah." Don’t you realize you can still be believers and not live 500 years behind the times?
Mr. P. received not one but two separate letters in reply from the Rebbe, plus a third, cover letter, which read as follows:
Greetings and blessings!
Your letter, addressed to Rabbi F____ R____, reached me ... In view of its content, I naturally take this first opportunity of replying to it.
Not knowing whether you are more interested in the practical implication, or/and in the scientific aspect, I am writing two separate replies, enclosed herewith, which you can read in the order you prefer.
With esteem and blessing,
M. Schneerson
P.S. It is surely unnecessary to add-though I am adding it for the record-that I take for granted that you will keep your commitments with regard to the practical aspects of your letter.
One letter read:
... In reply to your question relating to the matter of the motion of the sun and the earth, whether the sun revolves around the earth or the earth around the sun,
It is my firm belief that the sun revolves around the earth, as I have also declared publicly on various occasions and in discussion with professors specializing in this field of science.
In view of the above, I have no objection, of course, if you wish to make this view known to whomever you choose...
The other letter read:
... This is in reply to your inquiry on the question of the rotation of the sun and the earth in relation to each other, namely, whether the sun revolves around the earth, or the earth around the sun, and which view is to be accepted, etc.
I presume you have in mind the scientific view, i.e., what science has to say on this question, and I will address myself to this aspect.
It is well known that this was a controversial issue in ancient and medieval science. However, since about half a century ago, with the introduction of the theory of relativity, the latter has been universally accepted as the basis of modern science...
One of the conclusions of the theory of relativity is that when there are two systems, or planets, in motion relative to each other-such as the sun and the earth in our case-either view, namely the sun rotating around the earth, or the earth rotating around the sun, has equal validity. Thus, if there are phenomena that cannot be adequately explained on the basis of one of these views, such difficulties have their counterpart also if the opposite view is accepted.
Secondly, the scientific conclusion that both views have equal validity is the result not of any inadequacy of available scientific data, or of technological development (measuring instruments, etc.), in which case it could be expected that further scientific or technological advancement might clear up the matter eventually and decide in favor of one or the other view. On the contrary, the conclusion of contemporary science is that regardless of any future scientific advancement, the question as to which is our planetary center, the sun or the earth, must forever remain unresolved, since both views will always have the same scientific validity, as stated.
Thirdly, it follows that anyone declaring that a person who chooses to accept one of these systems in preference to the other is a fool, while one who accepts the other is a wise man-such a judgment shows that the person making it is ignorant of the conclusions of modern science, or that he has not advanced beyond the science of Ptolemy and Copernicus...
A further point might be added, though perhaps not pertinent to our discussion. It is that every person, including modern scientists, actually has three options to choose from in this matter: (a) that A revolves around B, (b) that B revolves around A, (c) that A and B revolve around each other. But such a choice cannot be dictated by science; it would be one’s personal choice and belief.
What has been said above is-to repeat-the deduction of the theory of relativity, as it is expounded in various scientific texts, and it can be checked with any scientist who is thoroughly familiar with the said theory. Of course, on the elementary and high-school level, science in general, and the so-called Solar System in particular, is taught from relatively simple textbooks, and the change in the scientific attitude towards the subject under discussion is not emphasized. But, as stated, it would be quite simple to verify it with any scientist who knows this particular field...
-
I'm just going to conclude that I believe in scientific facts based on evidence, as well as any other rational person. Even if the biggest physicist in the world proposed a theory that went directly against thousands of scientific facts and observation he would be laughed at unless he brought a massive amount of mathematical and scientific real world data to support his position. Einstein's theory of relativity was not just his opinion like most people think. He brought mathematical proof that his theory was correct and then it became a theory since in Mathematical terms it was correct but its predictions were not proven in the real world. Several years later, the scientific community obtained real world proof that his predictions were correct and the theory was proven. The same thing happened with the old argument if the sun goes around the Earth or the Earth goes around the sun. The later argument has been proven and the case was settled.
The Rebbe's belief that the sun goes around the earth is simply an opinion with no evidence presented on his part. (If any of you laymen think he offered any proof or evidence at all in his one sentence then I suggest you go look at a real scientific published paper on http://www.pubmed.org and see for yourself what "evidence" means, you will be surprised.) Torah and the sciences are not based upon opinions, they are based upon evidence. The Talmud is not satisfied with opinions of the Rabbis of the Mishna, they must find biblical support for their views and then the Talmud tries to decide if an opinion can be disproven and over another one based on Biblical logical rules of derivation. For over 200 years, there has been more mathematical and scientific proof proposing that the earth goes around the sun then there is proof that the Rebbe even existed. If he wanted people to take him seriously then he should not say proposterous things without factual proof.
-
I'm just going to conclude that I believe in scientific facts based on evidence, as well as any other rational person. Even if the biggest physicist in the world proposed a theory that went directly against thousands of scientific facts and observation he would be laughed at unless he brought a massive amount of mathematical and scientific real world data to support his position. Einstein's theory of relativity was not just his opinion like most people think. He brought mathematical proof that his theory was correct and then it became a theory since in Mathematical terms it was correct but its predictions were not proven in the real world. Several years later, the scientific community obtained real world proof that his predictions were correct and the theory was proven. The same thing happened with the old argument if the sun goes around the Earth or the Earth goes around the sun. The later argument has been proven and the case was settled.
The Rebbe's belief that the sun goes around the earth is simply an opinion with no evidence presented on his part. (If any of you laymen think he offered any proof or evidence at all in his one sentence then I suggest you go look at a real scientific published paper on http://www.pubmed.org and see for yourself what "evidence" means, you will be surprised.) Torah and the sciences are not based upon opinions, they are based upon evidence. The Talmud is not satisfied with opinions of the Rabbis of the Mishna, they must find biblical support for their views and then the Talmud tries to decide if an opinion can be disproven and over another one based on Biblical logical rules of derivation. For over 200 years, there has been more mathematical and scientific proof proposing that the earth goes around the sun then there is proof that the Rebbe even existed. If he wanted people to take him seriously then he should not say proposterous things without factual proof.
JDL4ever. You completely missed the point of the letter. That letter wasn't about presenting scientific data. The Rebbe was bringing across one simple point that must be understood before you can begin to understand that data.
He explained how relativity is at play when it comes to planetary motion. This is an important fact. It means that data can and must be able to be used to prove either way. The results of all the data will depends on which focul point you choose to adopt and this is an undeniable and readily observable fact (see the bucket analogy above). If you dont' understand this point, all the data in the world is worthless because you wont' know how to interpret it. Depsite my tireless efforts to help, as I read your last post I see this point was completely lost on you. Until you accept the relativism at play in planetary motion, further talk is useless.
My advice?
Speak to a real expert in physics about this as the Rebbe recommends. Show him/her the letter and this thread. You have admitted already that you are not an expert in physics. I have offered to set you up a meeting with one and you have not gotten back to me on this.
P.S. Any "science" that makes a claim against the Torah is junk science. Chaim ben Pesach. How true this is here.
-
Interesting thread, gentlemen.
I'd like to add my input.
Quoting from Rebbe Schneerson's letter to 'Mr. P':
"One of the conclusions of the theory of relativity is that when there are two systems, or planets, in motion relative to each other-such as the sun and the earth in our case-either view, namely the sun rotating around the earth, or the earth rotating around the sun, has equal validity."
Technically, this might be true. From our place on Earth and our perspective of events from our point in and time and space then the Sun as well as all heavenly bodies do in fact appear to revolve around the Earth.
But does this appearance based on relativity accurately represent the greater truth or reality ?
Notice that the esteemed Rebbe's quote specifically deals with-and is applicable to- a two object system.
But is the Solar System or the Universe a two object system ?
Of course not !
To accurately settle the argument of whether it is the Sun revolving around the Earth or vice versa (or both), one would have to observe these bodies from another standpoint. Because relativity mandates that observations made from a singular point of a two object system are subjectively true from that individual measuring point--it becomes necessary to observe the two bodies in question from separate/different vantage points in order to make a determination as to what the greater truth is.
The real question is: What would a being on another heavenly body- or any location not on the Earth or Sun- witness were he to observe the motion of the Earth and Sun relative to each other ?
I think he would see the Earth revolving around the Sun.
I'm not expert enough to be able to prove this, but i strongly suspect such proofs exist.
-
The real question is: What would a being on another heavenly body- or any location not on the Earth or Sun- witness were he to observe the motion of the Earth and Sun relative to each other ?
I think he would see the Earth revolving around the Sun.
I'm not expert enough to be able to prove this, but i strongly suspect such proofs exist.
If he's in the physical world you'll still run into the same relativity problems. You'll never be able to prove that he's still and everything else is moving. That will always be just one of sevearal possibilities. There is an absolute truth here, but I believe that comes from the Torah, sceince cannot provide a definitive answer no matter how many scientists claim they can. The absolute truth of the Torah says the Holy of Holies in Jerusalem and particularly the "Even Hashesiaya" is the center of the universe.
-
Relativity is merely an relative observation and has nothing to do with this argument other than to bury the truth. It just says that from this standpoint it appears that the sun is moving. So what? Big deal. We know that already. But we don't care about what it looks like, we want to know if it is indeed moving around us or are we moving around it. Mathematical and scientific data prove things like this even if they involve relativity. Mathematical data on the motion of the planets observed through telescopes prove that there orbit is around the sun. Relativity has absolutely nothing to do with this other than to confuse lay people who for some reason think that scientific and mathematical proof doesn't apply for relativity. This is absurd. Just because it appears that water is boiling when you bubble Co2 gas through it does not mean that a scientists can't take the temperature of the water and prove that it is not boiling. Lubov is saying that the scientist can't prove the water is not boiling by taking it's temperature bec. it involves relativity. That is completely wrong. And if that doesn't satisfy you then observe the earth and the sun from an objective vantage point from appolo 11 or something which went in the middle of space.
-
Relativity is merely an relative observation and has nothing to do with this argument other than to bury the truth. It just says that from this standpoint it appears that the sun is moving. So what? Big deal. We know that already. But we don't care about what it looks like, we want to know if it is indeed moving around us or are we moving around it. Mathematical and scientific data prove things like this even if they involve relativity. Mathematical data on the motion of the planets observed through telescopes prove that there orbit is around the sun. Relativity has absolutely nothing to do with this other than to confuse lay people who for some reason think that scientific and mathematical proof doesn't apply for relativity. This is absurd. Just because it appears that water is boiling when you bubble Co2 gas through it does not mean that a scientists can't take the temperature of the water and prove that it is not boiling. Lubov is saying that the scientist can't prove the water is not boiling by taking it's temperature bec. it involves relativity. That is completely wrong. And if that doesn't satisfy you then observe the earth and the sun from an objective vantage point from appolo 11 or something which went in the middle of space.
1. First of all what makes you think appollo 11 in the "middle" of space is an objective spot from which to measure. You will still be able to do the measurements and find all the scientific data using different focul points and you will have differnet conclusions.
2. Sceintific data is very important and no one here is abandoning it. However, the theory of relativity has imposed certain limitations on what it can be used to prove definitively. Sceintific data CANNOT resolve this issue one way or the other under the priciples of relativity. So if you'd like to join us in the 21st century you can't say one way or the other based on science. Sceintists are bound by logic just as everyone else is and this would not be the first time the scientific community has imposed a particular dogma and been wrong about it.
3. Let's drop the issue of sun and earth because there is too much emotion involved in this one. Let's deal with a more basic situation so this becomes clear.
I ask you: Assuming we all agree that the theory of relativity is correct. When you throw a tennis ball, is it a provable fact that the ball is in motion and you are still, or is it also possible that the ball is the center of the universe and everything is moving around it, making it apppear as if it's motion but it's really still all the while.
Must either of these possibilities be true scientifically speaking or can both be true depending on which focul point you choose to adopt to make the appropriate measurements?
Is it possible to prove through observation and experimentation that one of these possiblities is correct and the other is not?
Don't talk about scientists and data. Use your brain and try to answer this question.
I'm awaiting eagerly your response to this question...
-
We know nothing of the Universe.
Is it finite or infinite, expanding or contracting?
Trying to understand the Universe is like trying to use human logic to explain G-d's reasons for doing what He does.
-
We know nothing of the Universe.
Is it finite or infinite, expanding or contracting?
Trying to understand the Universe is like trying to use human logic to explain G-d's reasons for doing what He does.
True. Yet scientists make a good living convincing people they do understand it.
-
From relativity, I can say that when I am riding in a fast open top vehicle I am stationary and everything else is moving, it all depends how one defines the reference frame, once can say that the earth revolves around the sun or that the sun revolves aroun the earth, either is valid.
-
From relativity, I can say that when I am riding in a fast open top vehicle I am stationary and everything else is moving, it all depends how one defines the reference frame, once can say that the earth revolves around the sun or that the sun revolves aroun the earth, either is valid.
Thank you ftf. I'm glad this is making sense at least to someone. Now while both are sceintifically valid. The Torah which deals in abolute truths comes and says that the earth and specifically the temple mount in Jerusalem is the stationary center and everything revolves around it.
-
Does anyone here actually think the Sun orbits around Mercury ?
Or Venus ?
Or Mars ?
Or is the quantifiable, observable reality that all the planets in the solar system orbit around the Sun ?
We can observe and measure the movements of the planets as they journey around the Sun.
We know with precision exactly how long it takes for each planet to complete an orbit and can quantify how long a year is on each planet.
I'm absolutely convinced the Earth orbits the Sun.
I'm also convinced the Torah is the divine word of Hashem.
Does anyone know what Talmudic passage(s) specify that the Sun orbits the Earth ?
As we all know, the Talmud is an expansion of Biblical text and the commentators often have different opinions and frequently contradict each other.
As great as our Talmudic sages were, we must remember they were human, and the Talmud in and of itself is not divine.
So if anyone can provide the Talmudic text stating the Sun orbits the Earth and what Biblical text this supposition is based on it would be much appreciated.
This is a real good thread because although there is alot of disagreement, there has been no rancor or insults tossed around. Just a bunch of good intelligent folks trying to settle a difference of opinion and learn from each other. JTF forum at it's best.
-
Actually the Talmud never says the sun goes around the earth, in fact it says the opposite, that the earth goes around the sun since it states that the Rabbis admitted to the Greeks after arguing that the stars are stationary and we move which means that they don't go around us like the geocentricists suggest..
-
Actually the Talmud never says the sun goes around the earth, in fact it says the opposite, that the earth goes around the sun since it states that the Rabbis admitted to the Greeks after arguing that the stars are stationary and we move which means that they don't go around us like the geocentricists suggest..
If you are refering to the Talmud Pesachim 94, you are completely in error.
Chazal, like everyone else (apart from Aristarchus and a few Greek heretical philosophers), were exclusively Geocentric until the 17th century.
If there is some heretofore unknown Talmud supporting Heliocentrism, please give us the source and quote us it!
-
Does anyone know what Talmudic passage(s) specify that the Sun orbits the Earth ?
As great as our Talmudic sages were, we must remember they were human, and the Talmud in and of itself is not divine.
So if anyone can provide the Talmudic text stating the Sun orbits the Earth and what Biblical text this supposition is based on it would be much appreciated.
See Maimonedes in his Mishne Torah Hilchos Yesodei Hatorah 3:4 where he first explains the various orbits of the planets and stars and then says "and they all orbit around earth in circular fashion while earth is suspended in the middle".
For those who don't know, Maimonedes in this book gives the rulings from the Talmud and if there were any disagreements he decided them. He was also a great astronemer and medical doctor. His mind was so great he was compared to Moses-so his tombstone states "From Moses (the original) to Moses (Moses son of Maimon=Maimondes) there arose none like Moses".
Note: though Chaim may have another tradition. In Lubavitch we hold that all Torah literature up to and included the Shach and Taz (around 1600s) ARE divinely inspired. How there could be disputes in Divine writings is a topic for another time.
-
The Talmud on this issue is actually in Maseches Yuma it says that the Scholars of the Jews debated with the scholars of the gentiles and the scholars of the gentiles won the debate. The Rabbis however, did NOT give in to their arguments in spite of this beause they said the Torah says otherwise. They quoted a particular verse, which I will try to find for you next week G-d willing.
-
Thank you, Lubab.
"See Maimonedes in his Mishne Torah Hilchos Yesodei Hatorah 3:4 where he first explains the various orbits of the planets and stars and then says "and they all orbit around earth in circular fashion while earth is suspended in the middle"."
I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with Maimonides on this particular issue. I don't believe the Earth is suspended in the middle or that the other planets in the solar system are orbiting around the Earth.
I have only the slightest and most superficial knowledge of the Talmud and Bible. I have heard that Nachmonides gives an account of the creation of the Universe, how it expanded from a particle about the size of a mustard grain, from a substance almost without substance, how time took hold and other mind boggling concepts. He didn't take credit for these revelations, but credited them to his Rabbis who learned them from previous Rabbis etc. etc.
I guess my real question is where did this knowledge originally come from ?
Can such deductions and knowledge have been ascertained merely from an expansion of Biblical text ? Did the knowledge come from oral teachings passed down from generation to generation over thousands of years ? If so, when and where did the oral transmission of such amazing knowledge originate ? The whole thing is very mysterious and puzzling to me.
One thing is certain, the vastness and mysteries of the Universe are beyond human comprehension.
-
Rabbinic opinions on science were never transmitted in the oral law and have no authority unless it says so directly in the Bible and there is no other possible meaning since the Rabbis were not experts in Science, they were experts in Torah and Scientific discovery improves as time passes on so old concepts are disproven and replaced every generation. Maimonities tried to explain the Torah using the Science of his time, as we all should, and he was very advanced for his time period, but the stuff he writes about medicine and some stuff he writes about planetary motion is outdated. Also, Lubav is twisting the Talmudic passage that says the Earth goes around the Sun to mean something it did not intend to mean. In the Talmud, it is fairly straight forward that the Rabbis accepted the Greek's point of view, otherwise the Talmud would not have said that the secular scientists won. Don't you think the Talmud would have said that the Rabbis won the argument if they were correct? Obviously, the scientists proved their theory to the Rabbis.
Secondly, you don't understand relativity Lubav. Anywhere outside Earth's atmosphere or the Sun's atmosphere is an objective standpoint according to relativity since you are no longer on those two objects. Spacecrafts that we went on missions to the moon were not orbiting us when they went on their mission, they were traveling through space. Also, as I said before, relativity has nothing to do with anything except confusing Lubav. Mathematical and scientific proof proved that we go around the sun since if you calculate the orbital paths of the planets, they can only be going around the Sun. Forget about relativity. It doesn't matter how things look to cave men, objective proof of the reality is what matters. If we had no scientific proof then relativity would say that either we go around the sun or it goes around us since by observation only your point of reference matters, but once the proof came in, we eliminated the other possibility.
Again, the Earth goes around the Sun. It has been proven hundreds of years ago, and continues to be proven to this day. They sent space probes to Pluto and Mars using calculations from the modern scientific model of the universe which says we go around the Sun. If it was the other way around, don't you think the probes would not have gotten there? It amazes me how stupid people can be. I can't believe there are still people who think the Earth is the center of the universe, after so much proof. It only makes me see more things wrong with Chassidism.
-
So where did Nachmonides' knowledge come from ? I find it difficult to believe it could be derived by merely expanding Biblical text or reading between the lines. Nachmonides himself attributed the knowledge to his predecessors who passed it on to him. Surely there is nothing in Genesis which imparts such detailed information regarding the details and mechanics of creation to us.
Think about it, we have Nachmonides giving an account of creation which closely matches modern science's account regarding the Big Bang, only this was done centuries ago, at a time when every scientist and philosopher agreed the universe didn't have a beginning, that the universe wasn't finite, but eternal with no beginning or end.
Where did this amazing knowledge and insight come from ?
-
The debate is in Pesachim, not Yoma.
It has nothing to do with Geocentrism, as both the Greeks and Chazal were Geocentric.
It has to do with whether the galgalim (invisible heavenly-etheric spheres) move and the stars are stationary, transporting them around the Earth. Or it's the stars themselves that move around the Earth, and that it's the galgalim that are stationary.
By definition of Relativity, there can be no proof of the Earth going round the Sun, or vice versa ie both are equally scientifically acceptable ways of looking at the universe - not just mathematically, abstractly, philosphically or religiously - but in hard physics.
Otherwise Einstein's disciple Lincoln Barnett would never dare to say that "We cannot feel our motion through space - nor has any experiment actually proven that the Earth is in motion".
If you know of such an experiment, then you have disproved Relativity, and you get the Nobel Prize and $$$$!
Of course, then you have your work cut out explaining the zero-velocity result of the Michelson Morley experiment. If there's an ether, then why is the Earth stationary wrt it: obviously because the Earth really is at the center of the universe!
ie whether Relativity is right or wrong, the Geocentric paradigm cannot be disproved!
Nowhere in the Tenach is any diurnal or annual motion attributed to the Earth. All motion is attributed to the Sun and stars: Hashem means what He writes and writes what He means.
-
The debate is in Pesachim, not Yoma.
It has nothing to do with Geocentrism, as both the Greeks and Chazal were Geocentric.
It has to do with whether the galgalim (invisible heavenly-etheric spheres) move and the stars are stationary, transporting them around the Earth. Or it's the stars themselves that move around the Earth, and that it's the galgalim that are stationary.
By definition of Relativity, there can be no proof of the Earth going round the Sun, or vice versa ie both are equally scientifically acceptable ways of looking at the universe - not just mathematically, abstractly, philosphically or religiously - but in hard physics.
Otherwise Einstein's disciple Lincoln Barnett would never dare to say that "We cannot feel our motion through space - nor has any experiment actually proven that the Earth is in motion".
If you know of such an experiment, then you have disproved Relativity, and you get the Nobel Prize and $$$$!
Of course, then you have your work cut out explaining the zero-velocity result of the Michelson Morley experiment. If there's an ether, then why is the Earth stationary wrt it: obviously because the Earth really is at the center of the universe!
ie whether Relativity is right or wrong, the Geocentric paradigm cannot be disproved!
Nowhere in the Tenach is any diurnal or annual motion attributed to the Earth. All motion is attributed to the Sun and stars: Hashem means what He writes and writes what He means.
Forget it. JDL4Ever cannot even answer my simple question about the tennis ball- Let alone disprove relativity. He either does not understand or refuses to accept the relativity at play between all objects that appear to be in motion. He still thinks you can go in a spaceship and find an "objective" spot. But ask him to prove to you that the spaceship is not also in motion and you'll be met with dead silence.
I do believe the debate is in Yuma it might be in both, I'll get you sources next week G-d willing. ;)
I don't beleive any sceintist would have the audacity to say that this can only work out one way mathematicallyas JDL4ever says. Any scientist who does say that is a liar.
-
Another problem JDL4ever has is a big misconception about Torah scholars. Torah is the blueprint with which G-d created the world. This means that if one is truly a great Torah scholar he will have insight into many many things before sceince discovers them. The Talmud and Zohar have been ahead of the curve when it comes to sceince. One my favorite instances of this is the role of CSF (cerebro-spinal fluid) in thought process and generally giving life to a human being. The Zohar has over 40 pagees explaining this. Sceintist now are only begninning to reaserch the possiblity for using this liquid to prolong life. They always just thought it was a brain-cushioner and nothing more. The Zohar written centuries ago knew in detail what the scientists still don't even know. There are many many other examples of this.
G-d is the creator of the universe-and who understand the world better than the Creator? His wisdom is in the Torah. The words of our Sages of Blessed memory are part of that Torah.
-
P.S. In Torah we don't beleive in cavemen. Adam was the first man and he also had the most understanding of G-d and the world. Moses was smarter than those leaders after him. The Rabbis closer to the giving of the Torah were smarter than the later ones etc. Throughout the generations in some ways we've gotten smarter. But in many ways we've gotten dumber too.
-
Hello, Einstein the inventor of relativity believed himself that the earth went around the sun so that should be more than enough proof that what you are trying to claim is false and you are the ones who don't understand relativity. Relativity is a supplement to Newtonian physics, not a replacement to it. Any educated man who looks at your post will laugh out loud by your misconceptions that things can't be proven mathematically if they look appear certain way to our vantage point. Relativity itself was proven mathematically and you can prove which relativity is correct mathematically as well.
Also, who are you trying to fool? Yes, the Torah has everything in it but previous Torah scholars were only able to uncover a very tiny fraction of advanced science hidden the Torah since this information is so deeply hidden. If it was revealed in any great amount to the ancient scholars like you claim, then why didn't ancient Israel have electricity? Why didn't they invent vaccines? Why didn't they invent gunpowder and dynaminte? Why didn't they know basic Chemistry or physics? Why did Maimonities say things about medicine that was disproven? Why did the Shulchan Aruch say that you can't use toilet paper in the restroom because it is something that the fire rules over and is harmful but the REMA says he is wrong since people tried this and nothing happened to them? The fact of the matter is, that ancient Israel did not know about advanced sciences (or even basic science concepts) since G-d purposely kept this so hidden that it was impossible to find out since he wanted the human race to discover the sciences themselves at their own pace. The Torah is something else, since G-d revealed the Torah to us at Sinai and we expanded it through study throughout the generations. G-d did not reveal science to us at Sinai, even though the Zohar did uncover a deep secret about the big bang theory before the scientists talked about it, but this is the exception and not the rule.
And if you don't believe the earth goes around the sun then it is pointless discussing evolutionary concepts like intelligent design with you guys since you are not rational people who seek the truth with sincerity.
-
Hello, Einstein the inventor of relativity believed himself that the earth went around the sun so that should be more than enough proof that what you are trying to claim is false and you are the ones who don't understand relativity.
Look at the language you are using. Einstein "beleived". You have correctly stated this (if its true). Einstein can beleive either way because they are both scientifically and mathematically valid. I've been saying that the whole time.
You can also beleive whatever you want. But don't convince yourself it's provable through mathematical calculations. I think you yourself even know this is true, you are just not prepared to admit it. I mean, you can do this experiment yourself using a bucket, or pool table balls or whatever. Make one pool table ball go around the other and try to prove which one is really moving based on your calculations. First calculate using one ball as the focul point. Then calculate using the other ball as the focul point. Does it only work out one way or two? How can you prove which way is right? If you can't prove it by pool table balls, how can you prove it by the sun and earth? Now please explain to me where my logic is off here.
If you are the real-truth seeker here, and geocentrists all irrational, why haven't you taken a stab at my question about the tennis ball? Now I've given you another question about pool table balls. Where are your answers? Where is the response?
I'm afraid you are the one denying obseravble reality in this case.
I challenge you to show this thread to a real physisits to see who is making sense here.
-
Hello, Einstein the inventor of relativity believed himself that the earth went around the sun so that should be more than enough proof that what you are trying to claim is false and you are the ones who don't understand relativity. Relativity is a supplement to Newtonian physics, not a replacement to it. Any educated man who looks at your post will laugh out loud by your misconceptions that things can't be proven mathematically if they look appear certain way to our vantage point. Relativity itself was proven mathematically and you can prove which relativity is correct mathematically as well.
Why did Maimonities say things about medicine that was disproven?
What are you referring to? Maimonedes himself says his advice on medicine and diet will not apply to later generations who have bad diets to begin with. he said it applies for his time.
Nothing in Torah has been disproven or will ever be. It's usually just been misunderstood by people who want make themselves feel smart so they don't give the Torah view the respect it deserves which is exactly what is going on here.
-
Maybe they didn't creat electricity because it wasn't the appropriate time for that. However they were able to manipulate the physical world in ways we ourselves still dont' know how. For instance, every person who spoke in the Talmud was able to rasie the dead. Do we know how to do that today? I think not.
Rabbi Yochanan was able to get vinegar to burn. They knew how to use Hashem's name to fly and do all other kinds of miracles. So I assume electricity would've been small potatoes for them.
You make claims of "mistakes" by them. But instaed of asking a competent Rabbi how to resolve what they say with modern science, you'd prefer to label them "mistakes" and be done with it. Your faith in the sages of Israel is lacking in many respects and this is a problem.
-
Whoa, whoa, whoa.
This is getting a little bizarre.
Lubab states:
"For instance, every person who spoke in the Talmud was able to rasie the dead."
"They knew how to use Hashem's name to fly and do all other kinds of miracles."
Tell me more about raising the dead, flying just by using Hahem's name, and these other miracles.
I'm a skeptic.
And I still believe the Earth is orbiting the Sun and that this is an observable, objective reality that can be and has been observed from other points in space.
Also, earlier in this thread Mifletzet states: "Otherwise Einstein's disciple Lincoln Barnett would never dare to say that "We cannot feel our motion through space - nor has any experiment actually proven that the Earth is in motion".
If you know of such an experiment, then you have disproved Relativity, and you get the Nobel Prize and $$$$!"
Are you saying that an experiment proving the Earth is in fact in motion would invalidate Relativity ? Sorry, that's rubbish.
The fact that we can't feel the motion of the Earth doesn't disprove Relativity. It proves it.
Even if you want to debate whether the Earth orbits the Sun or vice versa, surely you can't deny that the Earth is rotating on it's axis. We can't feel that motion either but it surely is ocurring at a speed of hundreds of miles an hour. This doesn't disprove Relativity, on the contrary, it proves it.
In any event, Lubab, I'd like to know more about raising the dead and flying.
-
Lubav has the typical Chassidik viewpoint on things which is very mystical and he believes in magic and other mystical things. It is very difficult to argue logically with people who think this way, since their heads don't work the same way as us. They think the Rabbis in the Talmud could fly, knew everything including all sciences and space travel and all of them could raise the dead. Us Misnagdim are not mystics. We think this is crazy insane stuff (duh). Yes, some Rabbis in the Talmud may have been worthy to raise the dead and the Talmud has an account of one Rabbi who did this, and G-d does miracles rarely, but that is where our common viewpoints end. I think this kind of thinking makes people into irrational fools. It's the kind of thinking that lead to the Holocoast since the Rabbis were too involved in learning Torah and waiting for a miracle then to think rationally about the future and about what the Torah wanted us to do. It's the kind of thinking that makes Jews into fools since people like this reject mathematics and science in favor of nonsense and they reject logical reasoning to prove Torah concepts as done in the Talmud and instead derive stuff mystically which they don't understand to begin with. These people think their leaders were perfect, knew everything and were infallible. Us Misnagdim don't view our Rabbis this way. We think great Rabbis were very great but we know what they were experts on and what their individual limitations were and if someone comes up with a good refutation on something they say then we accept it since they are human and are not perfect. Us Misnagdim also view things with an open mind and use science and mathematics as a spice to improve our understanding of the Torah. Chassidim have a closed mind and don't accept any science at all. The only thing they do is make false arguments made by ignorant people who claim that they think science supports their view that the Sun goes around the Earth. That's called rejecting science my friend. I'll continue to state the Misnagad Orthodox tradition as passed down to me from my grandparents on this forum.
What is this tennis ball thing you refer to, please restate it for me.
-
If you read between the lines of what JDL4ever is saying this is how it can be summarized.
Me (Lubab) and in the tradition of my Rebbeim believe in what the Torah says first and foremost. This includes everything it says in the Talmud. We do not reject science. We simply will take the Torah's word for it first and do our best to reconcile it with sceince. We also beleive (and the Rebbe has said many times) that if sceince and psychocology and all the other secular wisdoms progress enough and do their reaserch honestly, they will come to all the same conclusions as the Torah.
JDL4 ever and his school of think in the opposite way. They beleive in sceince first and foremost. Then they do their best, if possible, to try and reconcile the Torah with what the scientists say. If the scientists "prove" something againt the Torah, they will reject or downplay what the Torah says and say it's just "magical" or something like that and we don't really need to take it seriously.
This is a Torah forum. JTF is a Torah organization. Therefore, I would hope that the leadership here would first beleive what the Torah says and then try to reconcile it with science, not the other way around. Doing things the opposite way borders on heresy, because your real authority on the issues are the atheist scientists and not the Torah and the Talmud. I question if someone with such an attidute can really be considered a Torah Jew.
With all this said. I think I have proven to you that in this particular debate, either view is compatible with science. You may not like it. It may not be what you were taught in school. But it is true. There is no point at which you can say this is an objective point from which to measure. Since our motion is not perceptible you will never know if that from which you are measuring is not also in motion. This is logical and sceintific. But even if it were not yet understanble according to science I would still belive it because I know the Torah knows better.
And yes, people in the Talmud raised the dead. The dead were raised in the Bible too. One who rejects this or thinks its crazy probably doesn't have too much faith in the stories of the splitting of the sea, the 10 plauges or any of it.
JDL4ever: Do you beleive in the miracles of the Bible and the Talmud?
JDL4ever: The tennis ball question is in this thread-it's the only post (I think) with bold in the text. Check it out.
For the record, we in Lubavitch do not beleive in magic as JDL4ever claims. We beleive in G-d. We beleive G-d can do anything. And we beleive people who are more closely connected with G-d can break the rules of nature as well. If you dont' beleive in that, you don't beleive in the Bible.
-
Now to answer your question more directly, Muck the Fuslims.
Torah Jews beleive that G-d created the world. This means He created the laws of nature too. He chose them and continues to enforce them at His pleasure.
When he wants to, He can change the laws of nature. G-d set up the world as an arena for the Torah to be fulfilled. So when the laws of nature get in the way of fulfillment of the Torah, G-d will often change the laws of nature for the Righteous people.
Righteous people can ask G-d to change the laws of nature and this is no problem for G-d because he the one who chose them in the first place. So miracles like defying gravity (flying) or making vinegar burn, are really no more unique or miraculous than the usual rules of nature. Both are just G-d doing what He wants to do.
As the Talmud states regarding the story of the vinegar that burned: "The same G-d who says oil should burn, can say that vinegar should burn". Since they needed to light the Shabbat candles, G-d did this for Rabbi Yochanan.
In general, when people are willing to go out of their own nature and do things for G-d in a way of self-sacrifice, G-d reciprocates and will go out of His nature too. This is called "Midah Keneged Midda"-or that G-d treats people measure for measure.
It's not magical. It's just saying the Creator has control His creations. It seems logical to me. What about you? In any case, this is the Torah view.
-
Chassidim have a closed mind and don't accept any science at all. The only thing they do is make false arguments made by ignorant people who claim that they think science supports their view that the Sun goes around the Earth. That's called rejecting science my friend.
What is this tennis ball thing you refer to, please restate it for me.
Someone who speaks this way, is someone who did not read my posts carefully. I do read your posts carefully JDL4ever. I hope you would give mine the same respect.
The fact that you are not familiar with the tennis-ball analogy I gave is very telling. It confirms what I've thought for a while: that you are not really reading my posts carefully and considering them. As a result, you do not fully understand the argument the Rebbe and I are making.
There is someone with a closed mind here, but it's not me. I've read all your posts with a very open mind and I have very familiar with your point of view.
P.S. We don't reject science. We hold just like CBP does: If sceince claims to contradict the Torah-it's junk science.
-
In all honesty, I'm weary of this discussion. I feel I've beaten the dead horse a few times already. ;D
Everyone who has any questions on the Lubavitcher Rebbe's view on this topic which is also my view (and in my opinion the Torah view) can PM me. But as far as this thread goes- everyone can jump all over my words, because I'm done with this one.
Thanks for a very interesting and exciting discussion. I mean that.
P.S. Mitzflefet was right. The discussion is in Pesachim 94 not in Yuma.
-
I'm also tired. If you really want me to answer your tennis ball analogy then I will do so but I feel my comments have already answered your questions about relativity including this example. Basically, I believe that the Torah is correct obviously. I put the Torah first of course but much of what the Torah says about creation has dozens of possible interpretations. JDL4EVER and the Misnagdim believe that if science proves that something is wrong, then we can eliminate possible interpretations of the Torah in favor or those interpretations that coinside with the proven scientific viewpoint. The 7 day account of creation is an example that has many interpretations and even many of the ancient commentators didn't take it literally; plus the simple reading of the Torah contradicts the view that the account is literal since the day and night didn't exist when the first and second morning and evening were menchaned. The Chassidim however have closed minds and only accept one interpretation of the Torah out of many (the one that their Rebbe chose), and never reject that interpretation when science proves it wrong, and instead they say that Science is wrong and every other Jew that takes another valid interpretation of the Torah is a heretic.
Lubav asked what if the Torah said something outright with no other meaning and that contradicted science? Well, then the Torah must be correct in this case since that's what G-d said but so far science has not contradicted the Torah, it only enhanced our understanding of the Torah.
Secondly, it is you who has explaining to do since the Talmud says that the Earth goes around the Sun and the Talmud relates how the Rabbis of the Talmud accepted the secular viewpoint of the cosmos when they proved that they were correct, so the Rabbis in the Talmud were like me and not like you. They had open minds. Also the Bible never says that the sun goes around the Earth and you know it.
-
Einstein himself says:
"The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either coordinate system could be used with equal justification. The two sentences, 'the sun is at rest and the earth moves,' or 'the sun moves and the earth is at rest,' would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different coordinate systems" (Einstein and Infeld, The Evolution of Physics, p.212).
Thus, Einstein holds that the Sun going round the Earth is EQUALLY valid, not allegorically, but in hard physics! This is the FOUNDATION of Relativity!
The Tenach speaks in about 700 places of the Sun moving. Nowhere does it speak of the Earth moving, except when it will be shaken at the End of Days, as the novi predicts נוע תנוע הארץ
Yehoshua 10 has Yehoshua commanding the Sun & Moon to stop their moving, NOT the Earth to "stop rotating".
The Tenach does not speak phenomenologically. It is plain speaking, and states things AS THEY ARE - רק בעינך תביט
The Tenach is not a science text book, but on the areas on which it speaks on scientific subjects, we who believe in the Dvar Hashem hold that it is authoritative, and He would not state a falsehood in His Word to be propagated down the generations!
-
Mere stupidity. Einstein himself knew and believed that the earth went around the sun, so stop misquoting him out of context. Relativity is an observation of possibilities while mathematical and scientific proof is used to prove which possibility is correct. As for Joshua, all it says is that the sun stopped in the sky which can be taken to mean either of those interpretations so there is no proof one way or the other. If the earth stopped revolving around the sun then the sun will appear to stay still in the sky when we look at it. The Tanach speaks in the language of regular people as Rashi says many times so it talks about how the sun appears to us, it doesn't speak in the language of science. The Talmud however, does say that the Earth goes around the Sun, so if you are looking for proof of who the ancient Rabbis thought was correct, there it is.
-
That is a pure Einstein quote in context.
You haven't given us yet the exact source of this purported Heliocentric Talmud quote (because there is no such quote!).
"If the Galileo Affair had taken place after Einstein had framed his General Theory, it would have resulted in an even draw, out of physical and mathematical necessity. The difference between a geocentric and heliocentric view is one of relative motion only, and such a difference has no physical significance" (Sir Fred Hoyle).
NASA uses the geocentric model (ie stationary, non-rotating Earth) for its satellite launches, and the geocentric model is used as the truest possible one for artillery, satellites, navigation, weather forecasting, oceanography, gyroscopy, calendars, eclipses, etc.
"Then spake Yehoshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ayalon.
And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Yasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day" (Yehoshua 10).
Yehoshua commanded the Sun and Moon to stop moving. He did not command the Earth to stop rotating - אין המקרא יוצא אלא מידי פשוטו
Notice that the simplest explanation of the zero-velocity result of the Michelson-Morley experiment, and the positive velocity result of the Michelson-Gale experiment is that the Earth is NOT rotating!
Read the geocentrism-advocating chapters in "True Science Supports the Bible", "Mind over Matter", plus the articles in the B'Or HaTorah journals, and that's just for starters.
JDL4ever is implying that suddenly Moshe Rabbeinu, Yehoshua, all of Chazal, the Rambam, the Maharal, R.Dovid Gans, the Ma'aseh Tuviyah, the Matteh Dan, the Techunos Hashamayim, the Shvilei D'Rakiya, R.Yehonason Eibeshutz, the Ba'al Hatanya, R.Nachman of Breslov, the Sefer Habris, the Lubavitcher Rebbes, Rav Kahane and his son, Chaim, Einstein, Sir Fred Hoyle, Sir Herman Bondi, Professor Herman Branover, Birkhoff, Burniston-Brown, Moon and Spencer, Mach, Nightingale, Rosser, Lense and Thirring, Barbour and Bertotti etc etc etc are all "stupid", and that it's JDL4ever who is "clever": what a disgrace - a chilul even!
-
This thread excites me and depresses me at the same time.
I think it's magnificent and wonderful that the infallibility and truth of our Torah, and therefore Hashem, is unquestioned here.
But I also find it disturbing that there are those that feel if the Earth is orbiting the Sun or that if the Earth is rotating on it's axis that this somehow invalidates the Torah.
I believe that an infallible, complete grasping of the intricacies, mysteries, subtleties and meaning of the Torah is just as impossible as an infallible, complete understanding of the Universe.
-
This thread also depresses me to see delusional people here.
1. Mifletzet, you claim that all the great scientists like Einstein and all the modern physicists think the sun really goes around the Earth? This is INSANE. All the scientific community is in universal agreement that the earth revolves around the sun and has been this way for at least 200 years. Einstein himself also believed that the Earth went around the Sun as does every scientists to this day. Don't believe me? Walk into Queens College and ask every mathematics or physics professor in there. Better yet, go to your bookstore and open up any modern physics test, read the daily published research in physics, read any text written by Hawking. Go to NASA and discover the various space missions they went on using calculations from this model of the universe. Ask any expert in relativity if Einstein thought like you did. Every single mathematics and physics professor knows that the earth goes around the Sun, since this is very basic mathematics and physics. Every elementary school kid knows this since it is basic mathematics and physics. And most of these professors at the Collages understand relativity and would easily tell you off for not understanding this simple concept that is simply a supplement to newtonian motion. The only exception is one Lubovitcher physicist you talk of and he is the lone exception.
2. You say that Moses thought the Sun went around the earth and the Bible said this. WRONG. Show this to me. It never says in the Bible anywhere that the Sun goes around the earth and it never says that Moses said this.
3. The Talmud says that the Rabbis admitted to the scientiests in a debate that Earth moves and the stars do not which is basically saying that the Earth goes around the Sun. It is you who are arguing with the Talmud and not me. I am simply arguing with the Rambam, and the Talmud takes preference over him. And you know as well as I do that the Rambam was using the best scientific knowledge of his time and he knew that much of it would change.
4- You don't understand basic mathematics and physics, or the basic scientific method so don't try to understand even basic relativity. Your mind is not working logically at all since you have no basic understanding of the sciences. The basis of science is the scientific method which uses evidence to prove things. It doesn't matter how the sun appears to us, or the possibilities based on appearance, what matters is the proof that one possibility is correct. Every single scientific discovery first involved several possibilities based on an observation and an experiment was done to prove mathematically that one of these possiblities was correct. This is simple scientific method. I at least have a chemistry degree, took one year of physics and 2 years of mathematics in college so I at least know something.
-
Relativity says that it is impossible to refute the Earth going round the Sun, or the Sun going round the Earth: both are mathematically and physically equivalent, and are equally correct.
Relativity does not state that the universe has no center. It states that we cannot determine where that center is.
When Moshe Rabbeinu states that the sun rose and set, we believe this to be literally, not phenomenalogically true. Otherwise you'll start saying that shabbat, tefilllin, kashrut, creatio ex nihilo, splitting of the Yam Suf, conquering Eretz Yisrael etc are also not literally true!
You have still not quoted us this purported Heliocentric Talmud: do so, verbatim please, or admit that there is none.
These papers prove that there is no physical difference between the Geocentric Model and the Modern Heliocentric View
Barbour and Bertotti, 1977. Il Nuovo Cimento B, 38:1.
Brown, G. B., 1955. Proceedings of the Phys. Soc. B, 68:672.
Thirring, H., 1916. Phys. Z. 19:33.
Lense, J. & Thirring, H., 1918, Ibid. 22:29.
Gerber, P., 1898. Zeitschr. f. Math. u. Physik, 43:93.
Mרller, C., 1952. The Theory of Relativity, (Oxford: Clarendon Press), pp. 318-321.
Moon, P. & Spencer, D. E., 1959. Philos. of Science, 26:125.
Rosser, W. G. V., 1964. An Intro. to the Theory of Relativity, (London: Butterworths), p. 460.
For rotation see: P. F. Browne, 1977. "Relativity of Rotation," Jrnl. of Physics A: Math. & Gen. Relativity, 10:727.
These papers just scratch the surface.
They led Sir Fred Hoyle, who was knighted for his cosmological expertise, to proclaim:
"We know that the difference between a heliocentric theory and a geocentric theory is one of relative motion only, and that such a difference has no physical significance."
Sir Fred Hoyle in Astronomy and Cosmology, 1975
-
Did we figure out the answer yet? :D
-
http://www.galileowaswrong.com/
-
Someone has their head screwed on backward. If you think the Sun goes around the earth in the year 2007 then I got nothing to say to you. The least you can do is stop saying lies about relativity. Everything you say about relativity is completely wrong. I am not going to repeat myself again, you obviously are not reading my posts that explain what relativity is and explain the basic scientific method. You are like a 2 year old constantly repeating that 4 plus 5 is one, and I keep explaining to you that it is 9 but you refuse to listen to logic and keep repeating that it is one. I'm wasting my time with fools who don't know the first thing about basic science bragging that they discovered the hidden meaning of relativity that the scientists of the world have missed. Fools. What a desecration to G-d's name to have Gentiles reading this and laughing that the smartest nation on Earth has fools who still think the Sun goes around the Earth.
-
You wound yourself by thinking that Relativity is merely a mathematical construct without physical reality. If it can't be physically real, then Einstein is invalidated.
Relativity REQUIRES that to be a physical reality fully equivalent to any other chosen reference frame -- if it's not a physical reality, then Relativity is wrong.
Relativity REQUIRES it to be possible to take the Earth to be PHYSICALLY AT REST, without some physical impossibility interfering with that requirement. If the Earth cannot be treated as being actually, physically at rest, then Einstein is invalidated.
One way out is to be an equal-opportunity scoffer and say that all coordinate frames lack physical reality. At least it's consistent.
If one coordinate system DOES embody physical reality while others (like the static Earth model) do not, that abandons Einstein.
As Koheles says: והארץ לעולם עומדת
The Lubavitcher Rebbe was right in what he wrote. He chose the Geocentric framework, in line with Tenach and Chazal. If you want to choose the Heliocentric one, or Mars-centric, or Pluto-centric, or Alpha Centauri-centric, or end-of your nose-centric, you are equally entitled to, according to Relativity.
But in no way can the Geocentric paradigm be said to be "wrong".
(Until you have at least read the article "Geocentrism" in B'Or HaTorah by Dr Avi Rabinowitz, you are showing that you know nothing on this subject).
-
JDL4ever: If you can't answer these questions adequately, you have not right calling anyone else here a "fool".
1. Is it your position that all of the people Mitlefet cited who have wrote papers on this topic a couple of posts above are also "fools"?
2. Don't you agree that the consensus of today's scientists could be wrong about other issues, such as global warming and who Created the world. Why is it so hard for you to fathom they could be misleading us here too?
3. Most importantly: Can you explain to us please how the scientists go about proving whether the helio-centric or geocentric model is correct? Obviously they start measuring from a partcular focul point, right? How can they prove that their focul point is not also in motion?
-Remember that "those who cannot debate defame" (Rabbi Kahane). So try to answer the points raised instead of calling people names.
-Also remember that personal attacks and name-calling of other members of this forum are not permitted. Debate, don't defame.
-
"Most importantly: Can you explain to us please how the scientists go about proving whether the helio-centric or geocentric model is correct? Obviously they start measuring from a partcular focul point, right? How can they prove that their focul point is not also in motion?"
Whether the focal point is static or not has no bearing on the validity of the observation of the relative motion of two other independent bodies.
For example, it doesn't matter if a space probe is moving away from the Earth and Sun and observing the motion of those two celestial bodies relative to each other.
The probe will see the same thing regardless of whether it is stationary, getting closer to the Earth or moving farther away.
The probe would witness the same motion as it journeyed past Mars.
The probe would still be witnessing the same motion as it traversed past Jupiter.
The probe would still observe the same motion as it left the Solar System.
And what it would see and has seen is the Earth orbiting the Sun.
The denial on this issue is incredible.
-
It is not possible to tell with certitude visually what is going round what. That is Relativity.
To tell with certitude whether the Earth or the universe is rotating, you would have to go outside the universe, and report back in. We believe that we have had this report in the Tenach - אף תכון תבל בל תמוט
This would automatically involve examining the scene from a position that was a stable reference point. But we cannot get outside the universe, even theoretically. How would we know that we are really outside of everything and that our base was really stationary?
Being outside the created physical universe would place us in the position of G-d, which is hardly achievable for mortals, this side of Olam Haba.
The Earth was the first physical object created. It is the sole abode of mankind. It is the focus of Hashem's attention. It the lowest point of the Hishtalshlus chain system of devolving universes, all the way from the highest spiritual universe of Chochmah of Atzilus right down to Asiyah Hagashmi (this physical universe).
But at the same time it is the most important.The Earth has this primacy reflected by being at the spiritual and physical center of Creation.
Einstein's Relativity accepts this as being a 100% acceptable viewpoint.
And if Relativity is ever shown to be wrong, then geocentricty becomes more than just "relatively" acceptable. It becomes absolutely true, as all experiments (Michelson-Morley, Jaseja's lasers, Troughton-Noble torque, Arago, De Coudre's induction, Fizeau, Fresnell drag, Hoek, Jenkins, Klinkerfuess, Kelvin's zero ether drag, Lodge, Mascart, Lord Rayleigh's polarimetry, and the famous "Airy's Failure" experiment) show the Earth to be stationary with respect to the ether!
-
"Most importantly: Can you explain to us please how the scientists go about proving whether the helio-centric or geocentric model is correct? Obviously they start measuring from a partcular focul point, right? How can they prove that their focul point is not also in motion?"
Whether the focal point is static or not has no bearing on the validity of the observation of the relative motion of two other independent bodies.
For example, it doesn't matter if a space probe is moving away from the Earth and Sun and observing the motion of those two celestial bodies relative to each other.
The probe will see the same thing regardless of whether it is stationary, getting closer to the Earth or moving farther away.
The probe would witness the same motion as it journeyed past Mars.
The probe would still be witnessing the same motion as it traversed past Jupiter.
The probe would still observe the same motion as it left the Solar System.
And what it would see and has seen is the Earth orbiting the Sun.
The denial on this issue is incredible.
Um...no. There is no denail here. There are just people who don't yet understand the relativity of motion. I'll try again.
Muck, when you go in that spaceship and you look down on everything, you may indeed see what appears to be the earth revolving around the sun. Problem is that by drawing that conclusion you needed to assume that you and the spaceship are still. There is no way to prove this. It is also possible that you are orbiting around the universe at the exact same speed as the sun. For this reason the earth would appear to you to be moving and the sun would seems stationary.
It is hard to explain this in words. We really need to get together with physical examples, tennis balls and stuff.
But try this on for size:
Have you ever been on a merry-go-round, Muck? Sure you have.
Remember how when you were on it, you and everything on the merry-go round looked like they were still and your family watching you was spinning? Yet, from your familites perspective, the merry-go-round was rotating are they were perfectly still. Who is right? There is no absolute answer.
It's up to you. You can choose to consider the ground stationary and say the merry-go-round is revovling. Or you can choose to say the merry-go-round is the center of the universe and all you guys on earth are the ones spinning. Either way is equally valid mathematically and scientifically. We like to think that just the merry-go round is revolving because we don't consider it so important. But really there's no compelling reason to beleive that.
When you finally understand this you've gonna have a big "Ahahhh...." and you're gonna be very happy. Just think about what's been said in this post.
If you still don't understand: read this book: http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Great-Minds-Albert-Einstein/dp/0879759798
Skip the mathematical stuff and get into his analogies. They are very helpful.
-
Yes, I've been on a merry-go-round.
And to answer your question, my family that was watching me was correct in observing that it was the merry-go-round moving and not them.
Even when I'm on the merry-go-round I realize that I am moving.
I've also ridden in a car. And while I'm in the car and it appears the landscape is whizzing past me and I am stationary, I realize that I am in motion and the landscape is still.
So if you're arguing that the merry-go-round isn't actually moving but it just appears that way because the earth around it is moving, or that the car I'm traveling in isn't in motion, but standing still, and the Earth is whizzing past it, you're WRONG.
Earlier in this thread someone (it might have been you) used the example of putting a pool ball in motion around another stationary pool ball and then stipulated that it couldn't be proven mathematically which pool ball was in motion and which was stationary. Similarly, the example was given that someone swings a bucket around his head, is the bucket stationary and the swinger actually moving around the bucket ?
Einstein's theory of relativity infers that the moving pool ball or the swinging bucket (if these in-animate objects could think and speak) would say, "Hey, wait a minute, I'm standing still and you're moving." But an observer of either event would be able to see that in fact the bucket is being swung and is moving or that in fact it is only one pool ball that is moving.
Now, we humans on planet Earth would surely from our perspective say "Hey, wait a minute, we're standing still and the Sun is moving around us". We all see the sun rise in the east and set in the west, it has to be moving, right ? (even though this is due to the Earth rotating on it's axis, which i'm not sure if u believe or not. If you don't believe this, I'd like to know how you explain why we have day and night. Do you think the Sun orbits the Earth once a day? Because if the earth isn't rotating and it is the Sun in motion that would require the sun to complete an orbit around the Earth every 24 hours to account for day and night). So the appearance of the Sun moving around the Earth is our reality, but it is not the greater reality, despite your claims that either case is the scientific or mathematical truth. And the fact that it is the Earth orbiting the Sun can be and has been proven by objective observation, and the observation of such doesn't have to be from another universe to be valid and correct.
That's the way relativity works regarding space.
Interestingly, relativity also applies to time, with similar, although different, ramifications.
But that's a discussion for another thread involving the age of the universe and the apparent discrepancy of modern science and the Torah on that matter.
-
Muck DeFuslims, your explanation is spot on. Mathematically you can prove that a merry go round is moving in many ways even though it may appear to you that it is not moving if you are in it. Mathematically you can prove which tennis ball is moving in a game of Tennis. Mathematics and the sciences can prove anything regardless of how things might appear to laymen. To some people, the planets looked like they were alive, so are you going to tell me that their opinion is valid since it is theoretically possible that when laymen look at the stars they look alive to them? Appearance means nothing without mathematical and scientific proof. That's what these people don't get, that the number of theoretical possibilities based on a single observation has nothing to do with anything. The one possibility that is proven mathematically and scientifically to be correct is valid and the ones that are disproven are not valid. Similarly, relativity simply gives us possibilities based on simple observation of the sun at one point in time. Maybe it is moving around us or we are moving around it or both are moving around each other. Mathematically we proved that we are going around the sun and disproved the other possibilities.
As for Lubav's Questions:
1. Science itself says nothing about G-d and not one scientific paper dealt with this. And the discoveries of Science is not biased one way or the other because of this in most cases. Scientists simply record what happened based on mathematics and hard evidence. It is not part of science to write why something happened. For example, science has proven that there was a big bang that started creation. Science does not talk about who caused it. G-d believing scientists think that this was creation and G -d did it while the agnostic ones think that it somehow happened by itself (which to you and me doesn't make sense how they could think such a way). If all the scientists were G-d fearing people, their discoveries would not have changed since science is based on hard evidence. They would have still discovered that the Earth is billions of years old, that an evolutionary process has taken place, that water is a liquid that boils at 100 celcious, etc. They would just think that G-d did all this. They would say that evolution only proves that there is a G-d since it is mathematically impossible for evolution to happen randomly so they would call it intelligent design, and they would say that they are uncovering how G-d created the world.
2. Science does make mistakes, but it is a self correcting process so these mistakes are almost always corrected. If Lubab thinks that the earth is indeed only 6,000 years old, you are free to find hard mathematical evidence for your theory and write a well written scientific paper to prove this, and publish this paper in a scientific journal. The Rebbe didn't do this since he did not have any evidence or good argument to offer. The only time you will find mistakes in science is in recently discovered stuff since there is not a lot of evidence to support this recently discovered stuff. Only when other scientists confirm the findings with experiments of their own does the theory become concrete. Global warming is an example since it is a recent discovery. And all Scientists don't agree with global warming, there is a significant minority that think it is bogus. As for the Earth going around the Sun, it is a concrete theory that has been proven thousands of times over. And are there are no (I repeat NO) respected scientists at all who think that the Earth does not go around the Sun.
-
Scientists like Birkhoff, Burniston-Brown, Moon and Spencer, Mach, Nightingale, Rosser, Lense and Thirring, Bondi, Einstein, Barbour and Bertotti, Bouw etc etc showed how the outer reaches of the universe could not only be moving at many, many times the speed of light, but also how the universe would not fall apart even if it were rotating at trillions of times per second cf an electron circling an atomic nucleus! Relativity says that nothing can go faster than light, in a straight line. But rotational superluminal velocties are permitted. And nowhere does Relativity assign a value to c.
All of these physicists concluded that there is no detectable, experimental difference between having the Earth spin diurnally on an axis as well as orbiting the sun once a year, or having the universe rotate about the Earth once a day and possessing a wobble centered on the sun which carries the planets and stars about the Earth once a year www.geocentricity.com
In none of these models would the universe fly apart, nor would a stationary satellite fall to Earth. In every one of these models the astronauts on the moon would still see all sides of the Earth in the course of 24 hours, the Foucault Pendulum would still swing exactly the same way as we see it in museums, and the Earth's equator would still bulge. In other words, each of these effects is due to either the centrifugal force, the Coriolis force, or some combination of the two and can be totally explained in any geocentric model.
There is a vast body of solid scientific evidence supporting the Torah's 6000 year universe:
evidence such as the rate of decrease of the earth and sun's magnetic fields, the rate of decrease in the size of the solar disc, the high residual warmth of the moon and mere half-inch of dust on its surface (which amazed the Apollo astronauts who had been told to expect being swamped!), the decrease in the speed of light, the paucity of helium and micro-meteoric dust in the atmosphere, the rate of mineral deposition into the oceans, the fallacious premises of radiometric dating, the still "unwrapped" state of the arms of the great spiral galaxies, the thickness of Saturn's rings, the continued existence of short-term comets, human population statistics, the complete dearth of any human record or artifact older than 6000 years, polystrate fossils, the non-organic theory for the origin of oil, dendochronolgy, pleochroic haloes etc etc., all indicative of an astounding recency of creation.
-
Yes, I've been on a merry-go-round.
And to answer your question, my family that was watching me was correct in observing that it was the merry-go-round moving and not them.
Even when I'm on the merry-go-round I realize that I am moving.
Muck let's just stop right there. If you think you can prove that your were moving and your family was not then there is no point in going on to other more complicated issues. This is the crux of what you need to understand.
Take this very comment you just wrote to me about the merry-go-round. Go to a physics professor or anyone who thoroughly understands the theory of relativity. Ask him the following: "Under the the theory of relativity is it possible to prove if you or your famliy was the one in motion".
Do this and get back to me with the response. ;) Good Luck!
P.S. I really don't want to hear any more debate on this topic until someone has the intellecutal honesty to do this. Otherwise we are just wasting our time here.
P.P.S Also notice Muck how you got yourself into a bit of a pickle. On one hand you're insisting that in truth your family is still. In the same breath you're claiming the earth is revolving around the sun at super-speed. So under your frame of reference your family is not still at all. So think about that and reconsider if what you consider "still" and "moving" are absolute truths are do they just mean they appear to be "moving" or "still" relative to the other things in your view. But most importantly, go talk it over with an expert in relativity. If you don't have one, I can help you get one.
-
"Most importantly: Can you explain to us please how the scientists go about proving whether the helio-centric or geocentric model is correct? Obviously they start measuring from a partcular focul point, right? How can they prove that their focul point is not also in motion?"
Whether the focal point is static or not has no bearing on the validity of the observation of the relative motion of two other independent bodies.
For example, it doesn't matter if a space probe is moving away from the Earth and Sun and observing the motion of those two celestial bodies relative to each other.
The probe will see the same thing regardless of whether it is stationary, getting closer to the Earth or moving farther away.
The probe would witness the same motion as it journeyed past Mars.
The probe would still be witnessing the same motion as it traversed past Jupiter.
The probe would still observe the same motion as it left the Solar System.
And what it would see and has seen is the Earth orbiting the Sun.
The denial on this issue is incredible.
Of course, everything but the last sentence is precisely correct. The last sentence is precisely wrong because we start this sequence of thoughts talking about the observation of RELATIVE motion of two independent bodies, but end up with an asserted observation of absolute motion. This result arrives because the receding probe's ultimate reference frame provided in the middle sentence (probe goes past mars, past Jupiter, leaves Solar System entirely) is a frame tied to the Sun, presupposing that point of reference. Even the term "solar system" belies a sun-centered reference frame being imposed implicitly -- and sometimes explicitly -- on the analysis.
The trajectory the probe takes determines what will appear on its video camera. If the probe leaves the Earth in a straight line from the surface outward, pointing its camera back at the 2-body system, it will record images of the Sun orbiting the Earth. If it leaves the Earth using conventional (and more energy efficient) insertion into space, the Sun will be generally localized as the point from which outward radial motion is determined by the probe.
Consider an observer on the Moon, which keeps one face toward the Earth in orbital phase lock. From the Moon, it appears that the Earth and Moon are not moving at all with respect to each other: the Earth hangs suspended in the lunar sky. Any reference frame tied to the Moon will conclude that there IS no relative motion in the two-body case. The mystery then is why the two bodies don't gravitationally attract toward each other, given this perception. The lunar observer sees the rest of the cosmos in rotation around the Earth-Moon system, and the Einstein field equations have to be solved to determine the cosmic nontidal rotational gravitational field set up by the cosmos seen in rotation around this 2-body system. The terms in the equation correspond to the Newtonian centrifugal force, keeping the two bodies apart. But my point here is not to discuss the dynamics of that system but the observed kinematics: if you depart from this system on a probe leaving the Moon from a fixed point on its surface, traveling in a straight line outward from the Moon, the probe will record that the two bodies (Earth and Moon) have NO relative motion with respect to one another. If the probe leaves from a fixed point on the EARTH in a straight line outward, it will see the moon in nearly diurnal rotation around the Earth. If the probe starts at the SUN and records video images, it sees the Moon revolving around the earth approximately every four weeks.
Technically, no matter where the probe starts or what trajectory it takes, it gives a picture of relative motion, so long as the person interpreting the video recognizes the strong but subtle influence of his mental adoption of a preferred reference frame. As has been long known by mathematicians and physicists, any uniform two-body revolution, or single-body rotation, can be made to disappear by adopting a suitably chosen frame of reference. (E.g., the lunar observer seeing NO relative motion between the Moon and Earth.) What someone SHOULD say in reviewing video from the probe you describe is NOT that the Earth revolves around the Sun (which is an artifact arising out of the choice of trajectory) but rather that the Earth and Sun are in relative motion with respect to each other. The decision as to which body is actually moving cannot be made if we're to make good on the assertion of true relativity of motion (i.e., that we accept the covariance of Einstein's field equations in all particulars). If someone WERE to have launched a probe in a straight line away from a fixed point on the Earth's surface and returned video feeds (which would all show the Earth dead-center in the field of view at all times), you'd object that the trajectory has been chosen in such a way that it conspires to hide the Earth's motion, since the probe now shares in that alleged motion. But, of course, you've merely assumed what you set out to prove. You want to lull the reader into a dull sense of inattentiveness to hidden presuppositions and precontemplative commitments concerning a background reference frame into which the entire system is to be set, and against which motion is to be determined. Neither probe, technically, returns neutral information -- a probe is always in its own reference frame, which has relationships to other frames (the Earth's, the Sun's, etc.). Those relationships determine what is recorded by its video camera, since those relationships determine the positions of the objects being photographed.
The whole point of Einstein's model was to provide a physical rationale for taking all motion to be relative. Under his model, the Earth can be taken as stationary, and the rest of the universe can describe a diurnal rotation around it. Einstein showed how the laws of physics make such a scenario indistinguishable from the Copernican system. They're on an equal footing when Einstein's in the house. Your assumption that the frame of the probe's camera is normative reflects the bald importation of positional bias by, effectively, sleight of hand. The reader has been subtly maneuvered, in the course of your brief analysis, from relative to absolute motion. Like frogs who don't recognize increasingly hotter water, the conclusion ends up in a place unjustified by the starting axioms. In short, the analysis is inconsistent, both with itself, and with reality.
There is always a temptation to invite the reader to "stand outside the system and look at it," but the standpoint from which this evaluation is made is ITSELF a reference frame with specific relationships to the frames being examined. There is NO way to filter this circumstance out -- but it is routinely neglected, which falsifies the assessments based thereon. Your analysis is a textbook case of playing "hide the implied reference frame."
You can come out now -- the game's over.
-
The game is over.
You're now explaining day and night on Earth by claiming the entire universe is orbiting around the Earth once every 24 hours.
It's pointless continuing this thread if that's what you believe.
-
In that case, it'd be equally pointless for you to subscribe to refereed, respected journals like Physical Review D, or Gravitation and General Relativity, where precisely such questions are dealt with (in a way favorable to my thesis, and equally fatal to your apparent denial of such possibilities).
Since you didn't make it clear precisely WHY you think the thesis is pointless, I'll cover all possibilities: (1) You object in general to cosmic rotation as if the topic was absent from the secular refereed literature on the topic, (2) You object to my discussion of the lunar-based observer seeing zero relative motion between Earth and Moon and having to incorporate the contribution of the rotating cosmic mass he observes in solving Einstein's field equations to see where the force resides to prevent the two bodies from moving toward one another, or (3) You believe any such rotation violates the law that physical objects can't travel faster than the speed of light, and a diurnal rotation would compel such superluminal rotation out around the orbit of Saturn. Everything farther out would be moving even faster than c. So, we'll handle these possible objections seriatim.
Regarding (1) -- Consult the work done by secular scientist Yuri Obukhov since 1989. His was one of the major contributions to the Colloquium on Cosmic Rotation, the proceedings of which were published in Berlin in 2000. If you consult the Citebase reference for just ONE of his articles, you'll find (in this instance) 440 references, the vast majority of which deal with the issue of a rotating cosmos:
http://www.citebase.org/cgi-bin/citations?id=oai:arXiv.org:astro-ph/0008106
Note that a Goedel-type universe is a rotating cosmos. Note also that not a single geocentrist is lurking in these citations. Claims
that modern science turns its back on a rotating cosmos are simply wrong -- the literature is rife with scientific activity directed to this issue. Scratch the surface a bit more, and you'll find an embarrassment of riches in this area of secular scholarship. But
wave a dismissive hand and say there's not a shred of scientific evidence in regard to the matter, and it will surely be true that SOMEBODY is turning their back on the evidence.
Is the evidence properly correlated? That's a different issue. Obukhov has pointed out (in refereed journals, no less) that "cosmic rotation can, in principle, be quite large"; he spends most of his time debunking faulty objections to cosmic rotation, and doing an
excellent job of it. Most intriguingly, he has pointed out that the Birch anisotropy is not a consequence of cosmic rotation -- and then proceeded to illustrate what effects DO arise from cosmic rotation. (The Birch papers appear in the reference list in the URL provided above.)
Obukhov's article in the February 1991 issue of General Relativity & Gravitation won the third award from the Gravity Research Foundation in 1991. Titled "Rotation in cosmology," the essay deals a death blow to objections to a rotating universe. As the abstract says, "it is shown that pure cosmic rotation does not produce either causality violations, nor parallax effects, nor anistropy of the microwave background radiation." (It falls on pages 121-128 of that secular refereed journal.)
Regarding (2) and the Earth-Moon system I discussed earlier, consult the journal General Relativity and Gravitation, Volume 21, No. 2, 1989, pgs. 105-124. Professors Ø. Grøn and E. Eriksen, in the article Translational Inertial Dragging, take up the issue of what forces arise within a spherical shell of matter.
Grøn & Eriksen inform us that "The rotational inertial dragging effect, which was discovered by Lense and Thirring, was later investigated by Cohen and Brill and by Orwig. It was found that in the limit of a spherical shell with a radius equal to its Schwarzchild radius, the interior inertial frames are dragged around rigidly with the same angular velocity as that of the shell. In this case of "perfect dragging" the motion of the inertial frames is completely determined by the shell." (pg. 109-110).
G&E point out that "with reference to Newtonian mechanics we talk of inertial force fields in accelerated reference frames. However, according to the general principle of relativity, we may consider the laboratory as at rest. We then talk of gravitational dragging (acceleration) fields. The concept of 'inertial forces,' which may be regarded as a sort of trick in Newtonian mechanics, is thereby made superfluous."
On page 113, G&E cite C. Møller "in his standard [1952] textbook on general relativity", from chapter 8: "Einstein advocated a new interpretation of the fictitious forces in accelerated systems of reference. The 'fictitious' forces were treated as real forces on the same footing as any other force of nature. The reason for the occurrence in accelerated systems of reference of such peculiar forces should, according to this new idea, be sought in the circumstance that the distant masses of the fixed stars are accelerated relative to these systems of reference. The 'fictitious forces' are thus treated as a kind of gravitational force, the acceleration of the distant masses causing a 'field of gravitation' in the system of reference considered. Only when we work in special systems of reference, viz. systems of inertia, it is not necessary to include the distant masses in our considerations, and this is the only point which distinguishes the systems of inertia from other systems of reference. It can, however, be assumed that all systems of reference are equivalent with respect to the formulation of the fundamental laws of physics. This is the so-called general principle of relativity."
Møller tells us that the only reference frame in which we can exclude consideration of the distant masses of the galaxies is in "systems of inertia," which G&E more carefully define as "frames of reference in which the cosmic mass has no observed rotation or translation acceleration." By this definition, the earth does not fulfill the requirement for being a system of inertia, since the heavens are observed to rotate around it. Therefore, Møller alerts us that we may NOT omit the rest of the universe in deriving the forces acting locally on the earth.
Grøn & Eriksen develop the consequences of Einstein's position to the hilt on pages 117-118 with an ironclad example: "As an illustration of the role of inertial dragging for the validity of the strong principle of relativity, we consider the Moon orbiting the Earth. As seen by an observer on the Moon both the Moon and the Earth are at rest. If the observer solves Einstein's field equations for the vacuum space-time outside the Earth, he might come up with the Schwarzchild solution and conclude that the Moon should fall toward the Earth, which it does not. So it seems impossible to consider the Moon as at rest, which would imply that the strong principle of relativity is not valid. ... This problem has the following solution. As observed from the Moon the cosmic mass rotates. The rotating cosmic mass has to be included when the Moon observer solves Einstein's field equations. Doing this he finds that the rotating cosmic mass induces the rotational nontidal gravitational field which is interpreted as the centrifugal field in Newtonian theory. This field explains to him why the Moon does not fall toward the Earth."
As to (3) and the supposed impossibility of objects traveling faster than the speed of light, we first point out that the authors above have ALREADY asserted such superluminal speeds to be possible -- and necessary -- in the framework of general relativity. Fred Hoyle agreed. Let's drill down into some other corroborating circumstances.
Insofar as the high rotational speeds required by a geocentric system are concerned, these are dealt with at length in the late Sir Hermann Bondi's article, "The angular momentum of cylindrical systems in general relativity," published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Physical and Mathematical Sciencies, (1994), 446, pp. 57-66. As he says, "The main point to note is that whereas in the newtonian discussion, non-rotation of the reference system at infinity is taken for granted, in the relativistic treatment such rotation is permitted but irrelevant to the measure of angular momentum, which is an intrinsic characteristic of the material system." (p. 64) “What is the nature of this limit? For such a cylinder the required angular velocity makes the tangential velocity at r = r2 equal to the speed of light….Both the space drag on the core and A [angular momentum] will be unaffected by such outside layers….The conservation of A occurs even if gravitational waves are emitted by the cylinder. This is perhaps not surprising, since the cylindrical symmetry of the waves precludes their carrying angular momentum…. Therefore the intrinsic nature of the angular momentum of the inner becomes patent as it is wholly unaffected by anything that goes on outside. Thus there is no transfer of angular momentum between outer and inner” (ibid., pp. 63-64). Bondi telegraphs this derivation at p. 61 thus: "It is a remarkable fact, discussed later, and of some relevance to machian considerations that this unique conserved measure of angular momentum appropriate to the symmetry imposed is independent of any superposed state of rotation." As stated in his absract, "It emerges that angular momentum and space drag behave very differently as thicker and thicker spinning cylinders are studied." The "thicker and thicker spinning cylinders" are the ones with tangential speed exceeding the speed of light, as he makes clear. As he states elsewhere (p. 59), "Note that with the coordinate changes permitted in general relativity, a uniform rotation can always be abolished." In context, it means you can pick a reference frame (the Earth) and set its rotation to zero -- which is permitted in general relativity. In fact, this paper explains how this fixed center/rotating cosmos implication of GR affects the principle of angular momentum. Bondi specifically defends superluminal rotation of the cosmos in this paper. Lots of folks think taking the Earth as stationary and the universe as rotating would have undesirable angular momentum implications, because they're thinking in Newtonian terms and don't grasp what the actually conserved quantity is that we term "angular momentum." Bondi has done the derivation, and his Figure 1 (p. 65) shows the interrelationship of space drag against systemic angular momentum and angular velocity -- not linear at all, but with intersecting curves. THIS is the reality that general relativity codifies. This agrees with all that's been written on this topic in the refereed journals that focus on GR. Bondi makes no mention of Mach throughout the derivation: it is straightforward physics.
"Only theory!" you protest? "Show me a physical measurement of something traveling faster than light!" you challenge? No problem. You can consult, with profit, the February 1992 issue of the American Journal of Physics. The issue contains an article entitled, “Can galaxies exist within our particle horizon with Hubble recessional velocities greater than c?”, written by W.M. Stuckey. Two pertinent quotes from this journal article: “It is widely accepted among astronomers that general relativistic cosmology allows for Hubble recessional velocities greater than the speed of c.” Elsewhere, in providing an empirical example of this, Stuckey writes: “The example employed here is that of a recently discovered quasar with redshift of 4.73. The current recessional velocity of the quasar is 1.2c from Equation 13. ... the recessional velocity ... at emission time is 2.8c.” We note that the reason these objects move faster than c is attributed to a property of the space they're in: space is held to be stretching. The geocentric model also attributes superluminal velocities to a property of space, but it proposes that space rotates. In each model, it's a property of space that is credited with the faster-than-light motion. But who's going to argue that space can stretch but not rotate? If it can do one, why is it barred from the other? If it doesn't stretch, how do you explain the reported published speed of these quasars? And since THESE objects are traveling faster than light, what right does anyone have to say that the cosmos can't rotate diurnally because objects can't go that fast? That entire objection has just been experimentally falsified (and has been known to be thus falsified for several decades).
So, yes, continuing this thread will be entirely pointless unless you familiarize yourself with what science ACTUALLY teaches about the matters in hand. If you're simply going to spit out long-discredited "stock objections" you'll end up with lots of egg on your face. If you're going to be smug in doing so, that will also come back to roost. You need to know the current literature to make a case, NOT simply dismiss it as nonsense in the interest of some kind of argumentum ad ignorantiam you're propounding.
So, let's hear back from you as to why continuing the thread is actually pointless:
והארץ תלויה באמצע (Rambam)
-
OK, have it your way.
The entire universe is rotating around the Earth faster than the speed of light.
The Sun orbits the Earth every 24 hours.
Lubab, I'm not sure if you believe Mifle's theory, but if you do, I'd like you to go on record now as saying that you too believe the Sun orbits the Earth once every 24 hours, and that the entire Universe is rotating around the Earth faster than the speed of light.
If you do, then I challenge you to produce a single astronomer that actually thinks this is happening.
That shouldn't be too difficult, right ?
Mifle realizes that the existence of a 24 hour day on an Earth that isn't rotating on it's axis can only be explained by having the Sun complete an orbit around the Earth every 24 hours. He's gone to great lengths to research the matter and has convinced himself that this is not only theoretically possible, it's actually happening.
So, I'm curious as to whether you too, subscribe to the belief that the Sun orbits the Earth every 24 hours.
Cards on the table, Lubab.
-
OK, have it your way.
The entire universe is rotating around the Earth faster than the speed of light.
The Sun orbits the Earth every 24 hours.
Lubab, I'm not sure if you believe Mifle's theory, but if you do, I'd like you to go on record now as saying that you too believe the Sun orbits the Earth once every 24 hours, and that the entire Universe is rotating around the Earth faster than the speed of light.
If you do, then I challenge you to produce a single astronomer that actually thinks this is happening.
That shouldn't be too difficult, right ?
Mifle realizes that the existence of a 24 hour day on an Earth that isn't rotating on it's axis can only be explained by having the Sun complete an orbit around the Earth every 24 hours. He's gone to great lengths to research the matter and has convinced himself that this is not only theoretically possible, it's actually happening.
So, I'm curious as to whether you too, subscribe to the belief that the Sun orbits the Earth every 24 hours.
Cards on the table, Lubab.
Lubab believes whatever view the Torah espouses. Okay?
What's the Torah view on this? Good question. I beleive it is the Torah position that the entire universe goes around the earth (the Even Hashesiya in Jerusalem to be more precise) every 24 hours.
And if you think that's impossible-your problem is not with me or the Torah. Your problem is with relativity. Take it up with Einstein, go read his book "Relativity". Under relativity, that model I just mentioned is no better or worse than the one they convinced you of in elementary school. (But remember, they're teaching that Islam is a peaceful religion in elementary school too now so so much for elementary school for giving you the truth! :D)
If you are really interested in that topic, why not check out the scholarly papers Mifletfet cited above?
P.S. Oh. You wanted an astronomer who believes that. Well, who beleives what (subjective) is not the issue here. The issue is what is mathematically and sceintifically acceptable (objective). I don't live in a cave. I know most people believe the heliocentric model. In large part that's because it's the easiest one to understand and explain. This became the model taught in the schools and eventually it just became the accepted dogma. But those who are students of the theory of relativity will tell you either model is possible. If you give me any astronemer and we can chat about relativity for half an hour I bet you he'll agree with me that either model is possible. He still may walk away beleiving the helio-centric model makes more sense to him, but that is his personal right as an American! By the way, you also have the right to choose any model you wish. I just choose the Torah model because I'm a Torah Jew!
-
OK, Lubab, fair enough.
You believe the entire universe orbits a stationary Earth every 24 hours.
Just wanted to be sure.
-
"It is my firm belief that the sun revolves around the earth, as I have also declared publicly on various occasions and in discussion with professors specializing in this field of science." (Lubavitcher Rebbe)
Dr Gerardus Bouw PhD astronomy www.geocentricity.com
Dr Neville Jones PhD physics www.geocentricperspective.com
Sungenis PhD and Bennett's PhD www.galileowaswrong.com/
engineer Malcolm Bowden
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/malcolmbowden/Geocexpl.htm
have pro-geocentric sites. There are others.
There are several geocentric articles in B'Or HaTorah www.borhatorah.org
written by Orthodox Jewish PhD scientists.
All Relativists, if they are worthy of their salt, are obliged by definition to accept the geocentric model as being a primus inter pares.
Even an atheist like Bertrand Russell admitted: admitted "Whether the earth rotates once a day from west to east as Copernicus taught, or the heavens revolve once a day from east to west as his predecessors held, the observable phenomena will be exactly the same: a metaphysical assumption has to be made".
-
Mif, Just to humor you, I took a few minutes to peruse the first site you provided a link to. Here's what I found in the first few minutes which told me I needn't bother to waste much more time at the site....
Here's just one of a multitude of the interesting quotes the reader will find from the writers and 'qualified scientists' there:
(Jewish readers of this thread should really enjoy the following quote and find it especially revealing !!)
"Einsteinian Relativity is anti-Biblical, but it is not a wholly secular concept. Indeed, it is an essential part of another "creation account" given in another "holy book", i.e., the Kabbala. This "holy book", with its 13th century Rabbinical concept of a "Big Bang-Expanding Universe", is an instrument of another religion which--along with the Talmud--specifically targets the Bible--and especially the New Testament of Jesus Christ--for destruction."
Notice the way the Kabbala is ridiculed and derisively referred to as a 'holy book' with sarcastic quote marks around it.
Also notice that according to this 'reputable' geocentric site the Talmud is the 'instrument of another religion' which 'targets the Bible for destruction'.
I'm sure the Jews reading this thread will be thrilled to know the Talmud targets the Bible for destruction.
Here's another 'proof' of geocentrism (in the form of a question designed to discredit Kepler and prove Copernicus was wrong) at this magnificent site:
"WHAT IF - Kepler's mother was a witch and he was raised a warlock assigned to bump Brahe off, wreck his work, steal his records, and twist them to promote Copernicanism and help pave the way for evolutionism (which he wrote about 250 years before Darwin)?"
Folks, I'm not making this stuff up.
And Mif takes this site seriously.
Mif, you'll have to excuse me if I don't bother checking the other site you linked to, I suspect it's similar to the first one, and there's only so much nonsense a rational human being can stand.
-
The Xtians have their own religious agenda, which we ignore.
Rav Avigdor Miller supported the "Moral Majority" and frequently quoted Xtian Young Earth Creation Scientists (who bring solid scientific supporting a 6000 year old universe), as well as lambasting the AOJS (Association of Orthodox Jewish Scientists) for their support of theistic evolution & billions of years!
Even Chaim praises the good points of some Xtians, and R.Kahane said that Xtian Zionists are more than useful, and that their support should be curried.
Many an Xtian has become a Noahide.
You should ignore their NT bias & concentrate on the scientific pro-geocentric sections of those sites.
At least a Creation Scientist believes in G-d and the truth of the OT.
Maybe Muck de Fuslim prefers to hold to the opinions of atheistic anti-Torah scientists like Richard Dawkins, Stephen Gould, Carl Sagan, Patrick Moore and Stephen Hawkins?!
But if you are absolutely allergic to anything written by gentile scientists, then read in the B'Or HaTorahs and give us your opinion of these writtten by Torah Jewish scientists:
"Geocentrism", Dr Avi Rabinowitz BHT 5 1986
"The Earth is Established - it cannot be moved", Amnon Goldberg BHT 10 1998
"Torah Metaphysics versus Newtonian Empiricism", Rabbi Shimon Cowen BHT 11 2000
"Give me a place to stand", Prof Juris Zakis BHT 13 2002
"The Observer and the System of Reference: A Unified View", Prof Herman Branover & Prov Ruvin Ferber BHT 13 2002
“Relativity and Geocentrism” in “Mind over Matter - the Lubavitcher Rebbe on Science, Technology and Medicine" 2003.
-
OK, Lubab, fair enough.
You believe the entire universe orbits a stationary Earth every 24 hours.
Just wanted to be sure.
I don't know why this is much harder to believe than what goes on with physical matter. I mean, in the atoms that make up your table you've got electrons going around the nucleas at a rate much faster than the speed of light. And yet, somehow, when these atoms are all working together we see a table that appears lifeless and motionless and almost dead.
I believe that what goes on with atoms is the same thing going on in the universe-only one is at the macro level and the other is at the micro-level.
G-d created all physical matter in one shot. So the same tremendous force that got the universe moving-got the electrons moving too. I believe it's all connected.
I mean no matter which viewpoint you adopt our solar system is in some tremendous motion and there is so much going on and yet it all seems so orderly and calm.
Yes. It's quite an amazing world we live in and Scriabin was right about our hopes of ever getting to the depths of it.
But hey, that's why this thread is in the appreciation for creation section right? ;)
-
Rav Hai Gaon says specificly that the sciene that the Chachamim used, and the science of the Gemara, can be wrong, and some of it IS WRONG. The reason it is wrong is either A) It was the accepted theory of that day. B) They used Greek sources. I recommend reading Rav Nosson Slifkins books on these matters. The Challenge of Creation is a great book, and Mysterious Creatures. The Rav Hai Gaon source to come................
-
Does your view of the geocentric model explain the retrograde motion of planets that is observed from the Earth by using epicycles? Is it a common belief that the planets of our solar system all orbit the Sun and that this system then orbits the Earth?
What about the gravitational force of objects being directly related to their mass?
-
As far as the official opinion of Stephen Hawking, Hawking stated that if the universe is infinite then any point in the universe could be the center.
Obviously the Ptolemy model of a geocentric universe is fundementally flawed as proven by the observation of the phases of Venus. However astronomer Tycho Braun presented a hybrid Ptolemy Copernicus model of the universe in which the planets orbit around the Sun as the Sun orbits the Earth. This model has good navigational accuracy however it does cause the planets to assume spirographic orbits in relation to the Earth.
-
As far as the official opinion of Stephen Hawking, Hawking stated that if the universe is infinite then any point in the universe could be the center.
Obviously the Ptolemy model of a geocentric universe is fundementally flawed as proven by the observation of the phases of Venus. However astronomer Tycho Braun presented a hybrid Ptolemy Copernicus model of the universe in which the planets orbit around the Sun as the Sun orbits the Earth. This model has good navigational accuracy however it does cause the planets to assume spirographic orbits in relation to the Earth.
But in Tycho Brahe's model there existed instances where Jupiter and Saturn where closer to the Earth than Mars and Venus.
-
I am not saying that Tycho's model does not need updating however a spirographic Earth centered universe will have more support from the artistic community as it generates more interesting geometric patterns rather than the boring circular patterns of the Copernicus model. Also we have to consider the politics of the day and the fact that Tycho treated Kepler like a dog so it is no wonder that when Tycho died Kepler abandonded the Tycho model in favor of the Copernicus model and this was done out of spite rather than scientific accuracy.
-
I just downloaded my spirographic earth centered universe computer simulator. I found this at www.pwr-tools.com/simsolar/index.htm
-
Obviously the Ptolemy model of a geocentric universe is fundamentally flawed as proven by the observation of the phases of Venus.
No, the Ptolemaic model can be rescued by putting the sun on the deferent. This is what Tycho Brahe did, in effect.
In Brahe's model there existed instances where Jupiter and Saturn where closer to the Earth than Mars and Venus.
Tycho's model was not drawn to scale. If the actual distances are used
his model gives the correct, observed distances.