W. Kevin Vicklund
Posts: 68
Joined: Oct. 2005
|
| Quote | This is the electric field outside the sphere, which in our case is the sphere of the fixed stars, and the field is 0 inside of it. Now, since authentic discontinuities do not exist in nature, the diagrams you see in evolutionistic textbooks of a field instantaneously dropping to zero are somewhat bogus. We can know the true field inside the sphere by modeling this alleged discontinuity with Fourier series.
|
Please review Gauss. It is painful to see you abuse these theorems so badly. The equation set
E® = Q/(4*PI*eps0*R*R) {R>r}
= 0 {R<r}
is that of an ideal Gaussian spherical shell with thickness = 0. A Gaussian spherical shell with non-zero thickness = x has an additional term Q(x)/(4*PI*eps0*R*R) {r+x>R>r}. More properly stated, E® = Q(x)/(4*PI*eps0*R*R) {R>r}, where Q(x)=Q for R>r+x and 0 for R<r.
So there is no discontinuity present, as the field decreases over the thickness of the proposed cellestial firmament. So the Fourier series is wrong, and you would need knowledge of the thickness of the firmament to be able to perform the proper analysis. Obviously, the thickness must be non-zero, "since authentic" zero thickness shells "do not exist in nature."
That said, your argument is of course complete bullocks, and doesn't match with certain other observed phenomenon, such as the aforementioned parallax (btw, it is the fact that the observed parallaxes are non-equal, not non-zero, that falsifies the spherical firmament hypothesis - a non-zero but equal parallax would indicate a wobbling firmament).
Finally, absolutely none of this has anything to do with evolution. In fact, Gaussian theory predates evolution. Please stop using "evolutionistic" to mean "any scientific theory I oppose on theistic grounds." If you must use a term, perhaps Galileonic or something similar? That would be much more accurate.
|
