What are gravitational waves?

David Staup wrote:
On 2/1/2016 5:13 PM, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Mon, 1 Feb 2016 14:18:42 -0800 (PST), oriel36
wrote:

Not so.

I often use the proof of the Earth's orbital motion around the Sun
along with the orbital motion of the other planets.

There is no proof that the Earth orbits the Sun, only very strong
evidence. Some new physical theory could come along that upsets our
entire understanding of the Solar System. Not likely, of course, but
not impossible.

oh chrissy pooh

that's really a good example of your ignorance

you ignore the evidence right in front of you

no proof the earth orbits the sun

yet you believe your global warming doomsday scenario is fact

no wonder I never see you post at sci.astro.research

nor any of your fellow idiots here

why is that...


It's more evidence that you do not understand the basis of science. You can
disprove a theory but you can't prove it. The most you can do is add to the
evidence that it is correct.

On Sun, 7 Feb 2016 08:21:52 -0600, David Staup
wrote:

no proof the earth orbits the sun

Indeed, there isn't. You seem unclear on the distinction between
"proof" and "evidence". There is overwhelming evidence that the Earth
orbits the Sun, which is why I take it as a fact _beyond reasonable
doubt_.

yet you believe your global warming doomsday scenario is fact

I don't take it as certain. But like the evidence that the Earth
orbits the Sun, the evidence that humans are heating the Earth and
producing numerous problems as a result is overwhelming, and therefore
this scenario needs to be taken as a fact _beyond reasonable doubt_.

A reasonable person doesn't base his beliefs on what has been proven,
but on the weight of evidence.

There is this self-important intellectual tinsel surrounding something as simple as the faster Earth overtaking the slower moving outer planets as they temporarily fall behind in view -

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif

It is disconcerting that anyone would look to prove anything which uses the orbital motion of the Earth to infer a Sun-centered system, in fact it is criminal to dither around with evidence,proof or some other term designed to draw attention to oneself.

I felt sorry for Copernicus who tried to satisfy the framework of the geocentric astronomers dominating his era but there is no way it could be done back then but only when the perspectives of the inner planets are accounted for can a general picture emerge.

The objections of the Pope ,at least from what I understand it, was that the astronomical framework which predicts astronomical events such as lunar/solar eclipses, conjunctions and so on could not be used to prove the Earth moves through space and around the Sun -

"Here lurked the danger of serious misunderstanding. Maffeo Barberini, while he was a Cardinal, had counselled Galileo to treat Copernicanism as a hypothesis, not as a confirmed truth. But 'hypothesis' meant two very different things. On the one hand, astronomers were assumed to deal only with hypotheses, i.e. accounts of the observed motions of the stars and planets that were not claimed to be true. Astronomical theories were mere instruments for calculation and prediction, a view that is often called 'instrumentalism'.. On the other hand, a hypothesis could also be understood as a theory that was not yet proved but was open to eventual confirmation. This was a 'realist' position. Galileo thought that Copernicanism was true, and presented it as a hypothesis, i.e. as a provisional idea that was potentially physically true, and he discussed the pros and cons, leaving the issue undecided. This did not correspond to the instrumentalist view of Copernicanism that was held by Maffeo Barberini and others. They thought that Copernicus' system was a purely instrumental device, and Maffeo Barberini was convinced that it could never be proved. This ambiguity pervaded the whole Galileo Affair."

http://www.unav.es/cryf/english/newlightistanbul.html

Unlike the vapid minds here who are well pleased with themselves, the real work has yet to begin as the approach of the original astronomers dealing with a moving Earth fell short in accounting for all planetary orbital motions.

Mock each other, I am sure the insults will disguise that a new perspective has emerged that is every bit as exciting as the original insight where the planets were seen to fall behind in view due to the faster motion of the Earth as opposed to the geocentric view which had the same observations translated into intrinsic looping motions of the planets.