Is evolution sin?

[Arun]

Evolution is absolutely a sin: so, if you grow an extra digit or something you damn well better shove that thing back in there before anybody notices or your toast, son.

[Baldrick]

Evolution is absolutely a sin: so, if you grow an extra digit or something you damn well better shove that thing back in there before anybody notices or your toast, son.

If I ever become toast I would have probably evolved in a most favorable direction. 

[Arun]

Evolution is absolutely a sin: so, if you grow an extra digit or something you damn well better shove that thing back in there before anybody notices or your toast, son.

If I ever become toast I would have probably evolved in a most favorable direction.

only if you can find somebody who evolved into butter and somebody else who evolved into marmite...

[Rube]

Okay, last two posts....don't tell me you had no alcohol in your blood when you posted them.

[james03]

I don't believe an accelerometer measures constant velocity?

A rotating object is always under acceleration and does not have constant velocity (by vectors).  The tip speed is constant, but the velocity vector is continuously changing direction, i.e. acceleration.  An accelerometer would register this.

Simple example, when you go around a curve in your car, the speedometer registers no change, but you will feel the direction change.

Velocity is meaningless without a benchmark.  It is always relative.

Acceleration is absolute.  The benchmark is the object itself.

[Arun]

Okay, last two posts....don't tell me you had no alcohol in your blood when you posted them.

i actually literally didn't bro.

[Quaremerepulisti]

Eliminate the rest of the universe.  Have two objects connected by a string and strain gage.  If there is a strain on the gage, the objects are rotating.  If there is no strain, the objects are not rotating.

For a one object system, put an accelerometer on the surface.  If it measures acceleration, then the object is spinning.  If not, then it is not rotating.

Appears absolute to me.

Except that when you eliminate the rest of the universe your thought experiments won't play out the way you think, because your objects all of a sudden have zero rotational inertia.  Newton's laws are dependent on the rest of the universe being there (because of course they were formulated and experimentally verified with the rest of the universe there).  "Mass there = inertia here".

[Quaremerepulisti]

I don't believe an accelerometer measures constant velocity?

A rotating object is always under acceleration and does not have constant velocity (by vectors).  The tip speed is constant, but the velocity vector is continuously changing direction, i.e. acceleration.  An accelerometer would register this.

But changing direction relative to what?

Acceleration is absolute.  The benchmark is the object itself.

No, it isn't.  There is no measurable difference at all between us being stationary on earth, experiencing the g-acceleration due to the earth's gravity (9.8 m/s2) , and us being on a spaceship with no gravitational field but accelerating at 9.8 m/s2.  In fact this is how artificial gravity works.

[james03]

Newton's laws are dependent on the rest of the universe being there (because of course they were formulated and experimentally verified with the rest of the universe there).

No they are not.  The strain gage would show the tension on the connecting wire between the objects.  Are you claiming that it wouldn't?

But changing direction relative to what?

To itself.  More precisely in the opposite direction from the application of force.

No, it isn't.  There is no measurable difference at all between us being stationary on earth, experiencing the g-acceleration due to the earth's gravity (9.8 m/s2) , and us being on a spaceship with no gravitational field but accelerating at 9.8 m/s2.

But there is a difference for every other value.  You arbitrarily pick an acceleration force that matches the force of gravity.

My point stands.  Acceleration is absolute.  The benchmark is the object itself.

[Suzanne Romano]

I think it is a sin of heresy and blasphemy and even a sin against reason.

[Quaremerepulisti]

I think it is a sin of heresy and blasphemy and even a sin against reason.

Yeah well, your opinion plus $1 will get you a cup of coffee.  The Church thinks otherwise.

[Quaremerepulisti]

Newton's laws are dependent on the rest of the universe being there (because of course they were formulated and experimentally verified with the rest of the universe there).

No they are not.  The strain gage would show the tension on the connecting wire between the objects.  Are you claiming that it wouldn't?

Yes they are and yes I am claiming no tension and nothing measured on the strain gauge.

You are assuming inertia is still present when you take the rest of the universe away.  That's what I'm denying.  You are assuming inertia - something will continue to move in the same direction - and therefore a force is needed to get it to rotate.

But changing direction relative to what?

To itself.  More precisely in the opposite direction from the application of force.

Relative to itself, velocity of an object is always zero.

But there is a difference for every other value.  You arbitrarily pick an acceleration force that matches the force of gravity.

So what?  General Relativity says that there is no difference between being in a g-field and accelerating in a spaceship with the same acceleration.

My point stands.  Acceleration is absolute.  The benchmark is the object itself.

But it's not.  In a universe with only one object, it has no inertia.

[james03]

Yes they are and yes I am claiming no tension and nothing measured on the strain gauge.

You are assuming inertia is still present when you take the rest of the universe away.  That's what I'm denying.  You are assuming inertia - something will continue to move in the same direction - and therefore a force is needed to get it to rotate.

You have a non-falsifiable theory, therefore you have no theory at all.  The rest of the universe does not provide inertia.  You would have to show how that works, and provide a falsifiable explanation.

Relative to itself, velocity of an object is always zero.

Not angular velocity, which is really acceleration.  But you can state it as RPMs also.

[james03]

So you create an experiment sans the rest of the universe.  Two orbs connected via two rods connected  at the center of gravity to a strain gage.  On each orb is a small rocket.  You fire the rockets.

Are you arguing that the strain gage will not move?  If so, where did the energy go?  You just violated the conservation of energy.

[Quaremerepulisti]

You have a non-falsifiable theory, therefore you have no theory at all. 

So do you, I might add. 

But it is falsifiable in theory (take away the rest of the universe), even if it is not falsifiable in practice (because we can't do that).

The rest of the universe does not provide inertia.  You would have to show how that works, and provide a falsifiable explanation.

Mach's principle.

And that rotating mass can result in centrifugal and Coriolis forces at the center of the shell has been experimentally proven (Lense-Thirring effect).

Not angular velocity, which is really acceleration.  But you can state it as RPMs also.

Again, there is no difference between being stationary and experiencing a g-force due to gravitational pull, and rotating around (say, in a satellite with artificial gravity).