[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
The Rotating Earth or the Rotating Universe?
paj@gmrc.gecm.com (Paul Johnson) wrote:
>Madhudvisa dasa (madhudvisa@krishna.org) wrote:
>> You take your "universal view" with you in your space-ship. At least with
>> a rotating universe and a stationary earth as we know it you couldn't tell
>> even in a space-ship. (Of course it would be hard to miss if the earth was
>> actually flat...:-)
>Wrong. If the Universe was rotating around the Earth, it would
>require a gravity-like force proportional to the distance from the
>Earth. Also, given General Relativity and the speed of light barrier,
>what happens to objects far enough away from the Earth to be
>travelling at the speed of light? (about 4e9 km or 3.8 light-hours:
>well inside the solar system).
These are not good arguments. They are based on your world-view. If the
world-view was the universe rotated about the earth the General Relativity
theory would have been stated in a way compatible with this. Anyway in my
world-view the arrangements are different and the universe is not so
large... So the speed of light is not a problem... Who's to say my
world-view is wrong and yours is right? They both explain the
observations... (please don't write thousands of articles on the speed of
light and the size of the universe... I'm just trying to get the point
across that we see through our "world-view" we don't really see the
"world")
The idea I have mentioned here, that relatively speaking, the earth may
well be stationary and the universe rotating around it is valid and there
is no way we can tell what is happening from our point of view. Everything
can be interpreted in either way...
>Even if you could resolve all the above, you would have two theories
>to choose between, each of which explains the observed phenomena
>equally well. One is simple and treats everything in the same way.
>The other is complex, gives a special role to a single undistinguished
>planet (and would work equally well no matter which body you put at
>the centre, even Newton`s as he spins in his grave). Which one would
>you use for astro-navigation, and why?
They are both EXACTLY THE SAME relatively. You only find one simple
because it is compatible with your world-view, the other you reject as
nonsense... But there is no difference, they are both equally valid... As
far as astro-navigation is concerned you use the one you believe in, the
one you have faith in, but they both work... It doesn't matter which one
you use...
>> The point is not the scientific process, but the failure of science to
>> accept things outside the current world-view. The rocks were falling from
>> the sky but in the scientific world-view at that time rocks couldn't fall
>> from the sky. So the scientific men of the time couldn't believe it
>> happened...
>>> Scientists may hypothesize, but they then perform tests to prove or
>>> disprove such hypotheses.
>> They only have a very limited ability to test. How could they have known
>> were the rocks actually came from? The theory (volcanoes on the moon) was
>> reasonable, it fitted in their world-view, so they accepted it. It made
>> the observation of rocks falling from the sky possible. But it was
>> completely wrong...
>Their first reaction was "Rocks can't fall from the sky". The second
>was "Alright then, if you say rocks fall from the sky then show me
>one!". Rocks were accordingly produced. "Hmmm. Thats odd. Must
>have been faked. Lets see if I can figure out how." Some months
>later: "Hmmm. Not faked. Maybe it was lunar volcanoes."
This is the "scientific process" and this is my point. It's very slow and
imperfect and you can never know if the results are correct...
>> I didn't say science is invalid. It's certainly one process of acquiring
>> knowledge, but a very slow and painful one. There are more direct ways of
>> understanding whats going on. Your science will ultimately come to the
>> conclusion that God exists and He is behind this material manifestation.
>> But it may take a long, long time...
>This is where we part company. Scientists advance knowledge by
>looking at the evidence. You claim to have a short cut which gives
>you knowledge of a future scientific discovery. Do you have any
>evidence for that?
Yes, of course I have tons of evidence. You just study the Vedic
scriptures in India. All the evidence is there. It's a different way of
acquiring knowledge. It is all written in the books, you just have to
accept it, that's all. And it's perfect, it's not subject to revisions and
changes... One example is light. Science in the past considered light to
be waves, but now science considers light to be photons, but the Vedic
scriptures have always described light as "tiny shining particles", or
photons. So in the past, before science knew light was photons, they would
have ridiculed the Vedic version but now it is proven the Vedic version is
correct. Everything else is also there and many things have been confirmed
by science and gradually all the knowledge in the Vedas will be verified
by science. But it is the hard way. It takes so long... You could just
read the books...
>> Real science means understanding the soul and the supersoul [Krishna,
>> God].
>This is the redefinition game. You are redefining science as your
>religion, and then arguing that since scientists are not following
>your religion, they are not doing science, and therefore are lying
>about their profession. Can you spot the flaw in this argument?
No. This is real science. It's got nothing to do with "my religion". The
purpose of human life is to enquire about spiritual knowledge. The
Buddhists are doing it the Christians are doing it, the Hindus, the
Muslims, they are all inquiring about spiritual knowledge and making
progress on the spiritual path... Science is also ultimately heading the
same way but very slowly.
>> Yes. But why paint God out of the picture? Why not at least consider the
>> posibility that there may be some purpose behind our existence, that
>> perhaps we are not just a random combination of chemicals coming from
>> nowhere and ceasing to exist at the time of "death". Why does science have
>> to be "godless"
>Because there is no evidence for His/Her/Its existance. Science deals
>in evidence, not speculation or divine revelation.
You ignore the evidence that God exists but there is VERY strong evidence.
God has many definitions but one is the cause of all causes. So for
science this is a problem. Science has to state that everything has a
cause. But, even in science, you have to come to the point of accepting
something without a cause. (You don't do it of course - but logically you
have to). You say the universe was "caused" by a "big bang". OK. What
caused the big bang? You may come up with something, "It was a chunk just
floating in space then it exploded..." OK. Where did the chunk come from
and what caused the explosion? So if you keep on going in this way you
MUST come to the point of a cause that has no other cause. That is God.
Complete scientific proof. [there are millions of proofs that God
exists... but you have to open your eyes]
>> The proof is there for all to see. But so many people don't want to see
>> it. That is the problem..
>What is this proof that I do not want to see? I've seen a lot of
>puported proofs of the existence of God, and none were up to scratch.
>I've also heard this argument from people who claim that your religion
>is dangerous bunk which God wants them to destroy (by the sword if
>necessary). Who is right, you or them? Explain your answer.
Yes everybody has their world-view. So some think one group is their enemy
and another group are their friends. So they want to destroy their
enemies and socialize with their friends... But devotees of Krishna don't
see friends and enemies - we see everyone as servants of Krishna and try
to help everyone come closer to God. That is the best welfare work.
--------------------------
"The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: O son of Pandu, he who does
not hate illumination, attachment and delusion when they are present or
long for them when they disappear; who is unwavering and undisturbed
through all these reactions of the material qualities, remaining neutral
and transcendental, knowing that the modes alone are active; who is
situated in the self and regards alike happiness and distress; who looks
upon a lump of earth, a stone and a piece of gold with an equal eye; who
is equal toward the desirable and the undesirable; who is steady, situated
equally well in praise and blame, honor and dishonor; who treats alike
both friend and enemy; and who has renounced all material activities--such
a person is said to have transcended the modes of nature."(Bhagavad-gita
14.22-25)
Chant Hare Krishna and be Happy!
Thank you. Hare Krishna!
Madhudvisa dasa
(madhudvisa@krishna.org) http://www.krishna.org
Quotes from His Divine Grace A.C.Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada
(c)Bhaktivedanta Book Trust
Follow-Ups:
References:
Sudarsana Home