Torah and Jewish Idea > Torah and Jewish Idea
Earth at the Center of the Universe
jdl4ever:
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.
Lubab:
--- Quote from: jdl4ever on June 03, 2007, 11:28:36 PM ---
--- Quote from: lubab on June 03, 2007, 11:24:08 PM ---
--- Quote from: jdl4ever on June 03, 2007, 11:22:29 PM ---
--- Quote from: lubab on June 03, 2007, 11:14:36 PM ---
--- Quote from: jdl4ever on June 03, 2007, 10:41:24 PM --- 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.
--- End quote ---
This is what we call a conclusory argument. It assumes the fact you are trying to prove.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
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?
Lubab:
--- Quote from: jdl4ever on June 03, 2007, 11:33:08 PM ---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.
--- End quote ---
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.
jdl4ever:
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.
Lubab:
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.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version