Riemann314159

Gravity. Gravity is a function of mass, the sun is over a million times more massive than the earth and contains over 98% of the mass of the entire solar system. Hence the sun generates more gravity than any other object in the solar system, hence all objects are going to orbit it instead of anything else. Take a look at the universe, notice any large objects orbiting things that have less mass then they do? No? Ever wonder why that is? Think about it, if the earth is stationary then the entire visible universe is whipping around us every 24 hours. That means that anything out past 4.1 billion kilometers is chugging along faster than the speed of light, even the sun would be moving along at somewhere in the neighborhood of 3.4% the speed of light. At these speeds objects we can see should display some measurable relativistic length contraction, yet we observe nothing of the kind. Voyager 1 is now over 16.555 billion kilometers from earth and is still operational, if the universe is flying around a stationary earth it should have accelerated to beyond the speed of light years ago. . .isn't it odd we find absolutely no evidence of this? Not if they are orbiting in the aether. The existence of the aether is probably more correct than the theory of relativity. sorry buddy but this hypothesis was specifically proven false in the 1887 Michelson- Morley Experiment. I actually am a Mathematical Physicist and Computer Scientist, what is your profession? I am just a well-read man 3 times your age. The MM experiment actually proved the earth was stationary, as there was no aether drift. Einstein wrote his theories in order to cover up this scientific proof for a Biblical truth. if the earth is stationary, then how does one account for earth's magnetic field? the Coriolis effect?

yes and you seem to be an expert. condescension is never polite, no matter how you try to sugar coat it

Pretty much. And that was great dancing you did around actually giving an answer, btw. i am very curious as to what your definition of a "believer" is, morningglory. Must one treat science and religion as two mutually exclusive sets? or may we pick and choose their intersections? is it all or nothing on both sides?

Wahoo someone who speaks my language! What is your stance on God and creationism, R-pi? I cannot say that i believe in any god or creationism. I am a mathematician above all else. I simply need proof. what i have, though, is a profound respect for nature and reality. science and religion are simply two mutually exclusive sets. faith just isn't science. nor is science faith. again, you could argue that the scientist has "faith" that his theory is correct, but in essence, science is doubt, not faith. The scientist exists because he doubts his predecessors. As a mathematician, however, i deal with perfection. a theorem, once proven, is proven forever. numerous quotes could be attributed to mathematicians who had profound connections with their god, and this is understandable. Einstein was pantheistic (if anything) and believed in determinism (hence his quote "god does not play dice," meaning the universe is not left to chance, i.e. he believed in an underlying order) Paul erdos did not believe in god, but believed in something he called "THE BOOK" which was the collection of all theorems in their most beautiful, perfect form, which only god possessed. he said "you don't need to believe in god, but at least believe in THE BOOK" Ramanujan, one of the most ingenious and prolific mathematicians who ever lived, believed he received flashes of insight from his family god, the goddess Namigiri. He is attributed with saying "an equation means nothing to me unless it expresses a thought of god" for the mathematician, when we put pen to paper, we alone transcribe the very thoughts of god. we speak the language of the universe, of reality. it truly is so beautiful. but, if mathematics is not discovered, but made, are we ourselves not gods then for creating a language that governs reality? I am a fellow mathematician. I find that God communicates a lot to me through concepts I find in mathematics. It is truly beautiful. I have not run into any difficulties reconciling my faith in the God of the bible with science. I believe that mathematics, like science, is man discovering what God has made. He has made the underlying principles and logic behind mathematics, and that makes Him truly amazing and worthy of praise and honour and glory. specifically, what do you concentrate in? i love meeting fellow mathematicians. in addition to mathematical physics, i do research in combinatorial analysis, graph theory, and infinite series.

Wahoo someone who speaks my language! What is your stance on God and creationism, R-pi? I cannot say that i believe in any god or creationism. I am a mathematician above all else. I simply need proof. what i have, though, is a profound respect for nature and reality. science and religion are simply two mutually exclusive sets. faith just isn't science. nor is science faith. again, you could argue that the scientist has "faith" that his theory is correct, but in essence, science is doubt, not faith. The scientist exists because he doubts his predecessors. As a mathematician, however, i deal with perfection. a theorem, once proven, is proven forever. numerous quotes could be attributed to mathematicians who had profound connections with their god, and this is understandable. Einstein was pantheistic (if anything) and believed in determinism (hence his quote "god does not play dice," meaning the universe is not left to chance, i.e. he believed in an underlying order) Paul erdos did not believe in god, but believed in something he called "THE BOOK" which was the collection of all theorems in their most beautiful, perfect form, which only god possessed. he said "you don't need to believe in god, but at least believe in THE BOOK" Ramanujan, one of the most ingenious and prolific mathematicians who ever lived, believed he received flashes of insight from his family god, the goddess Namigiri. He is attributed with saying "an equation means nothing to me unless it expresses a thought of god" for the mathematician, when we put pen to paper, we alone transcribe the very thoughts of god. we speak the language of the universe, of reality. it truly is so beautiful. but, if mathematics is not discovered, but made, are we ourselves not gods then for creating a language that governs reality?

Gravity. Gravity is a function of mass, the sun is over a million times more massive than the earth and contains over 98% of the mass of the entire solar system. Hence the sun generates more gravity than any other object in the solar system, hence all objects are going to orbit it instead of anything else. Take a look at the universe, notice any large objects orbiting things that have less mass then they do? No? Ever wonder why that is? Think about it, if the earth is stationary then the entire visible universe is whipping around us every 24 hours. That means that anything out past 4.1 billion kilometers is chugging along faster than the speed of light, even the sun would be moving along at somewhere in the neighborhood of 3.4% the speed of light. At these speeds objects we can see should display some measurable relativistic length contraction, yet we observe nothing of the kind. Voyager 1 is now over 16.555 billion kilometers from earth and is still operational, if the universe is flying around a stationary earth it should have accelerated to beyond the speed of light years ago. . .isn't it odd we find absolutely no evidence of this? Not if they are orbiting in the aether. The existence of the aether is probably more correct than the theory of relativity. sorry buddy but this hypothesis was specifically proven false in the 1887 Michelson- Morley Experiment. I actually am a Mathematical Physicist and Computer Scientist, what is your profession?