$ 1000 offered for proving Earth revolves around the sun

Sarevok · Post by **Sarevok** » 2005-06-25 06:38am

+http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics ... llenge.htm

Duckie · Post by **Duckie** » 2005-06-25 07:29am

That's hillarious.

... Erm, It is a joke on the "100,000 Evolution Challenge" or soem such nonsense, right?

Mange · Post by **Mange** » 2005-06-25 07:35am

$1,000? Now that's what I call cheap. They have a similar challenge for the one that can prove "natural transformism":
+http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics ... llenge.htm

Like every other fundie, they claim that the Bible is to be taken literally. That's impossible unless you suffer from multiple personality disorder as there are thousands of contradictions.

Oh, and they claim that the Bible doesn't teach that the Earth is flat. Then what shape would the Earth have according to Revelation 7:1 which mentions the "four corners of the Earth" or when the Devil is showing Jesus all the kingdoms of Earth from a mountain?

Archaic` · Post by **Archaic`** » 2005-06-25 07:37am

If they ever actually pay out on that, I will eat a replica of the pope hat. With mustard and vinegar.

Post by **The Wookiee** » 2005-06-25 08:27am

Don't direct-link the nutbars.

Drunk Monkey · Post by **Drunk Monkey** » 2005-06-25 08:41am

Easy money. The only problem is when I do prove that the Earth revolves around the sun they’ll claim It’s a trick of Satan, even though if you look out a powerful enough telescope you can figure it out on your own.

I need to write my congressman for legislation demanding these people castrated.

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2005-06-25 09:29am

They'd just dismiss any evidence of heliocentrism as some big scientific conspiracy, and nothing short of actually taking them out into space and showing them would constitute solid proof in their eyes. It's the same methodology that allowed Young-Earth Creationism to survive past the ninteenth century.

Mange · Post by **Mange** » 2005-06-25 09:45am

The Wookiee wrote:Don't direct-link the nutbars.

Thanks, I missed that this time, and it isn't possible to edit the posts here.

1123581321 · Post by **1123581321** » 2005-06-25 11:00am

I would hope that this is a joke, but if it isn't then they're probably creationists too, and then they say:

Now a word of caution. By "proof" we mean that your explanations must be direct, observable, physical, natural, repeatable, unambiguous and comprehensive. We don't want hearsay, popular opinion, "expert" testimony, majority vote, personal conviction, organizational rulings, superficial analogies, appeals to "simplicity," "apologies" to Galileo, or any other indirect means of persuasion which do not qualify as scientific proof.

At least a creationist will finally admit it.

Sarevok · Post by **Sarevok** » 2005-06-25 11:38am

The Wookiee wrote:Don't direct-link the nutbars.

Sorry ! I should have known better.

On topic Randi seems to have responded to this on his this weeks commentary page.

Link

Sarevok · Post by **Sarevok** » 2005-06-25 11:40am

EDIT : The link opens to a wrong section of the page. The intended section is the "Flattered by Imittation" section.

sketerpot · Post by **sketerpot** » 2005-06-25 01:02pm

MRDOD wrote:That's hillarious.

... Erm, It is a joke on the "100,000 Evolution Challenge" or soem such nonsense, right?

Look around their site, look at all the stuff that looks serious and not at all like a parody, and tell me: do you still think it's a joke?

It can be so hard to tell, when you're dealing with truly deluded people.

Post by **NecronLord** » 2005-06-25 03:22pm

They probably just reject the scientific method, and thus consider the math required to make a geocentric model as valid as the vastly more simple and intuitive math required to make a heliocentric solar system.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2005-06-25 04:59pm

What's the catch? You know there's got to be a catch. Did they redefine all the relevent terms, such as "evidence", "prove", and "science"?

Vendetta · Post by **Vendetta** » 2005-06-25 05:16pm

DPDarkPrimus wrote:What's the catch? You know there's got to be a catch. Did they redefine all the relevent terms, such as "evidence", "prove", and "science"?

Pretty much.

Though surely the fact that our missions to other planets have been based on the mathematical model of the heliocentric system, and sure enough they arrived, should be some small proof that even they accept. Anyone want to find the mathematical geocentric system and tell all the silly fundies how much Mars Rover would have missed by if they were right?

Drooling Iguana · Post by **Drooling Iguana** » 2005-06-25 05:27pm

Vendetta wrote:
DPDarkPrimus wrote:What's the catch? You know there's got to be a catch. Did they redefine all the relevent terms, such as "evidence", "prove", and "science"?
Pretty much.

Though surely the fact that our missions to other planets have been based on the mathematical model of the heliocentric system, and sure enough they arrived, should be some small proof that even they accept. Anyone want to find the mathematical geocentric system and tell all the silly fundies how much Mars Rover would have missed by if they were right?

But we never sent missions to other planets! It was all faked on a soundstage in Nevada! The truth is out there!

Firefox · Post by **Firefox** » 2005-06-25 05:38pm

They also seem to forget that distant background objects, such as stars and galaxies, would be required to travel really fucking fast to keep up with the observed rotation. It doesn't factor into their thick skulls that a simpler explanation would be that the Earth is spinning. Dumbasses.

tharkûn · Post by **tharkûn** » 2005-06-25 06:48pm

They are correct. There is no possible proof of heliocentrism.

General relativity states that all frames of reference are equivalent. If one choses a geocentric frame of reference - with the earth static and everything else revolving around it - or a heliocentric reference both will give valid consistent observations.

For instance the velocity at which the distant galaxies must move is irrelevent. One can choose a frame of reference where they move at any subluminal speed. Extraterrestrial ballistics work fine in either reference.

The only way you will be able to claim this prize is if you can refute general relativity on virtually every damn point. Otherwise all they need to do is take whatever numbers you have, run the needed transform explicitly or implicitly, and viola you have a working geocentric explanation for observed results. They might not even realize that is what they are doing, Brahe came very close to doing this centuries earlier before the advent of calculus.

The benefit of a heliocentric system is that the math is cleaner and you have fewer calculations to do, but that is all. Modern physics doesn't give a damn if you keep the earth constant, the sun constant, the galatic center constant, or whatever - pick a frame of reference and work out the requisite transform and it is all equivalent.

Zero · Post by **Zero** » 2005-06-25 07:05pm

Couldn't you explain that all possible frames of reference are equally valuable, and thus all points in the universe are the center, meaning that there is no center?

Firefox · Post by **Firefox** » 2005-06-25 07:24pm

That's a funny thing I've observed in previous geocentrism debates. The pro-geocentrists always used general relativity to "prove" their case, citing that it works for an Earth-centered reference frame. If you point out to them that the same is true for all reference frames, then they're quick to dismiss GR and still claim victory.

Observations such as the moons of Jupiter and the phases of Venus have been difficult for geocentrists to argue against, though if I remember correctly, there were some who actually conceded there may be exceptions to the geocentric system.

Darth RyanKCR · Post by **Darth RyanKCR** » 2005-06-25 08:54pm

Mange the Swede wrote:$1,000? Now that's what I call cheap. They have a similar challenge for the one that can prove "natural transformism":
+http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics ... llenge.htm

Like every other fundie, they claim that the Bible is to be taken literally. That's impossible unless you suffer from multiple personality disorder as there are thousands of contradictions.

Oh, and they claim that the Bible doesn't teach that the Earth is flat. Then what shape would the Earth have according to Revelation 7:1 which mentions the "four corners of the Earth" or when the Devil is showing Jesus all the kingdoms of Earth from a mountain?

I guess a lot of people still believe in the flat earth since I hear the phrase "four corners of the earth" from just about everybody.

When the Devil was showing Christ the kingdoms of the earth it was a supernatural event.

tharkûn · Post by **tharkûn** » 2005-06-25 08:56pm

Couldn't you explain that all possible frames of reference are equally valuable, and thus all points in the universe are the center, meaning that there is no center?

Doubtful. You are working with global topology of the universe there and that has never been directly observed. The accuracy and precision needed to prove no center exists rather than merely assume it to be true because GR implies it would be something like measuring the interior angles of the Pluto - Sedna - Sol triangle to a nanometer or something ludicrious like that. Right now all we can say for certain is that the topology directly observable is consistent with GR. For any rational person that is enough to assume there is no center, but we are talking about geocentrists aren't we.

If you point out to them that the same is true for all reference frames, then they're quick to dismiss GR and still claim victory.

The one, and only, geocentrist I've met held that the earth was the center because every frame of reference is equivalent, but the bible said the earth is the center.

Observations such as the moons of Jupiter and the phases of Venus have been difficult for geocentrists to argue against, though if I remember correctly, there were some who actually conceded there may be exceptions to the geocentric system.

That was worked out 400 years ago. Brahe developed an astonishingly accurate geocentric model that involved Luna, Sol, and the distant stars revolving directly around earth ... and everything else around Sol (the Galilean moons were not then known).

Tacking the Galilelan moons onto that system is no different than tacking Luna onto a heliocentric model. It makes the math a bit more fun, but nothing worse than the old epicycles.

Phases of Venus were actually predicted to be possible by Brahe's geocentric model before they were observed. If you tweak it right (starting with elliptical orbits) the Tychonian model accurately predicts the phases of Venus in all measures, however at that point it either is, or is a pittance away from being equivalent to a frame shift of modern solar models.

With money on the line, I GARUNTEE that either they have redefined the terms or they will opt for the explain all observations as their frame shifted equivalent. Philosophicly there might be a meaningful debate, as far as observation goes, the only difference is how ugly do you want your math to be.

Firefox · Post by **Firefox** » 2005-06-25 09:02pm

Thanks for the clarification, tharkûn.

Darth RyanKCR wrote:I guess a lot of people still believe in the flat earth since I hear the phrase "four corners of the earth" from just about everybody.

What point are you trying to make with this? It's still a stupid comment.

When the Devil was showing Christ the kingdoms of the earth it was a supernatural event.

Where in Luke 4:5 does it mention it as a "supernatural event"? And why would they have to go to "a high mountain" to do it?

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2005-06-25 09:22pm

Darth RyanKCR wrote: I guess a lot of people still believe in the flat earth since I hear the phrase "four corners of the earth" from just about everybody.

When the Devil was showing Christ the kingdoms of the earth it was a supernatural event.

No, the hebrews (and christians)were wrong and thought the Earth was flat, as anyone that has actually read educational, not inerrantist apologetic material on the matter will attest to.

We have a modern turn of phrase, rather than an actual belief that the earth is like that. Well, most of us.

Winston Blake · Post by **Winston Blake** » 2005-06-26 05:44pm

tharkûn wrote:General relativity states that all frames of reference are equivalent. If one choses a geocentric frame of reference - with the earth static and everything else revolving around it - or a heliocentric reference both will give valid consistent observations.

For instance the velocity at which the distant galaxies must move is irrelevent. One can choose a frame of reference where they move at any subluminal speed. Extraterrestrial ballistics work fine in either reference.

This is OT, but i don't understand exactly how that works. I mean, i know that in general relativity all inertial frames of reference are equivalent but i didn't think that applied to rotation too. I mean, if i was standing in the middle of a circular room that was spinning lazily around me and i threw darts at targets on the wall, i'd lead the target by the same amount as if i was spinning lazily and the walls were still. But if you compare the room spinning a zillion times a second to my body spinning at that same rate, then either my hair gets mussed or i explode. What am i missing here?