Is Christianity opposed to science?

BobRyan said:

I have yet to see anyone work out the physics for such an extreme view

Click to expand...

..Thus we may return to Ptolemy’s point of view of a ‘motionless Earth.’ This would mean that we use a system of reference rigidly fixed to the Earth in which all stars are performing a rotational motion with the same angular velocity around the Earth’s axis...one has to show that the transformed metric can be regarded as produced according to Einstein’s field equations, by distant rotating masses. This has been done by Thirring. He calculated a field due to a rotating, hollow, thick- walled sphere and proved that inside the cavity it behaved as though there were centrifugal and other inertial forces usually attributed to absolute space. Thus from Einstein’s point of view, Ptolemy and Copernicus are equally right. What point of view is chosen is a matter of expediency.

Max Born, Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, 1962, 1965, pp. 344-345.

Click to expand...

as a biophysics student - I would have loved to see that.

Click to expand...

Hans Thirring, “Über die Wirkung rotierender ferner Massen in der Einsteinschen Gravitationstheorie,” Physikalische Zeitschrift 19, 33, 1918, translated: “On the Effect of Rotating Distant Masses in Einstein’s Theory of Gravitation.”

Barbour & Bertotti (Il Nuovo Cimento B, 38:1, 1977) and

Joseph Rosen (“Extended Mach’s Principle,” American Journal of Physics, Vol 49, No. 3, March 1981)

William G. V. Rosser (An Introduction to the Theory of Relativity, 1964)

Christian Møller (The Theory of Relativity, 1952)

G. Burniston Brown (“A Theory of Action at a Distance,” Proceedings of the Physical Society, 1955)

Parry Moon and Domina Spencer (“Mach’s Principle,” Philosophy of Science, 1959)

J. David Nightingale (“Specific physical consequences of Mach’s principle,” 1976)

Click to expand...

Xeno.of.athens said:

The answer is no.

Click to expand...

Is Christianity opposed to science?​