Ten Points to Geocentrism
Curiosity prevented me from summarily dismissing geocentrism just because at first it seems radical, especially when I did not even understand it. First I screamed about it. Then I had cognitive dissonance. Now I’ve asked for information. There’s a lot of it, and I’m still reading Galileo Was Wrong, The Church Was Right: The Scientific and Historical Evidence for Geocentrism, Robert A. Sungenis, Ph.D. & Robert J Bennett, Ph.D.
It’s far from the charlatanism some people would have you believe it is.
Rick DeLano and Robert Sungenis put the argument for geocentrism into ten points. I’ve summarized them as briefly as I could with their further input. These ten points are, hopefully, enough to give other inquiring minds an overview.
Ten Points to Geocentrism
1.For the first ~1600 years there was a unanimous consensus of the Church Fathers concerning geocentrism. Today many believe that the Fathers were ignorant of science, and so their spiritual consensus is now trumped by scientific fact.
2. Galileo challenged the consensus of the Church Fathers on scientific grounds, and promoted Copernican Theory, a mathematical idea that removed the Earth from the esteemed center of the universe and required it to orbit the Sun. The Ptolemaic system was also a mathematical construct, but one that agreed with Aristotelian natural philosophy. Galileo preferred the Copernican theory because (1) he saw sun spots and moon craters, showing that heavenly bodies weren’t perfect; (2) he saw phases of Venus, something Ptolemaic model didn’t account for; and (3) moons orbited Jupiter meaning that the Earth wasn’t the only body with objects rotating around it.
3. Cardinal Bellarmine rejected Galileo’s case because Galileo did not prove his conclusions, (1) Scripture said the earth did not move, and (2) the Fathers were in consensus that geocentrism was true, and since the Council of Trent said that whenever the Fathers are in consensus we must hold it as doctrine, we could not reject their consensus.
4. Galileo continued to advance Copernican theory anyway because he believed it to be correct.
5. The Pope convened, and accepted the findings of, the Holy Office in 1633. These findings contain two specific condemnations of Copernican Theory.
6. Certain scientific developments over the course of the next centuries were interpreted widely as conclusive evidence that the two specific condemnations of the Holy Office decree had been scientifically falsified. The top objection was Newton’s laws of motion that were interpreted to require the smaller body to orbit the larger one, just as Galileo claimed with the moons going around Jupiter. We now know that Newton’s laws do not require the Earth to orbit the sun, provided the Earth is the center of mass for the universe, otherwise, Newton is correct.
7. Barring any other proven solution, the Michelson Morley experiment (MMX) and related experiments of the late 19th and early 20th centuries showed prima facie evidence that the Earth wasn’t moving around the sun, and this continued to be the case with every repeat of an MMX-type experiment from 1881 to 1932 when the last one was done.
8. The theory of relativity was adopted precisely in order to explain the failure of all such MMX- type experiments to disclose the universally-assumed orbital motion of Earth around sun. Einstein himself admitted this in his 1924 Kyoto lecture, although he also claimed that Theory of Relativity was for the purpose of answering Maxwell’s electromagnetic conundrum of the induction coil and the magnet.
9. If Relativity is true, then the 1633 condemnation of Galileo stands vindicated, as a matter of revelation. Science, in this case, admits it cannot ever, even in theory, establish any absolute motion of the Earth.
10. If Relativity is falsified, then the existing results of the MMX and relayed experiments constitute an experimental falsification of the heliocentric theory, rendering the 1633 condemnation vindicated *both* as a matter of revelation *and* as a matter of science.
[learn_more caption="And If You Dare, Some Interesting Quotes:"]
Taken from the beginning of Galileo Was Wrong, The Church Was Right:
“I have come to believe that the motion of the Earth cannot be detected by any optical experiment.”
Albert Einstein, Speech titled: “How I Created the Theory of Relativity,” delivered at Kyoto University, Japan, Dec. 14, 1922, as cited in Physics Today, August, 1982.
“Briefly, everything occurs as if the Earth were at rest…”
Henrick Lorentz, Lorentz’s 1886 paper, “On the Influence of the Earth’s Motion of Luminiferous Phenomena,” in Arthur Miller’s Albert Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity, p. 20.
“There was just one alternative; the earth’s true velocity through space might happen to have been nil.”
Arthur Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World, 1929, pp. 11, 8, in sequence.
“The failure of the many attempts to measure terrestrially any effects of the earth’s motion…”
Wolfgang Pauli, The Theory of Relativity, 1958, p. 4.
“We do not have and cannot have any means of discovering whether or not we are carried along in a uniform motion of
translation.”
Henri Poincaré, From Poincaré’s lecture titled: “L’état actuel et l’avenir de la physique mathematique,” St. Louis, Sept. 24, 1904, Scientific Monthly, April, 1956.
“A great deal of research has been carried out concerning the influence of the Earth’s movement. The results were always
negative.”
Henri Poincaré, From Poincaré’s report La science et l’hypothèse (“Science and Hypothesis”) published in 1901, now published in Paris, Flammarion, 1968, p. 182, Ludwik Kostro’s, Einstein and the Ether, 2000, p. 30.
“This conclusion directly contradicts the explanation…which presupposes that the Earth moves.”
Albert A. Michelson, “The Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether,” American Journal of Science, Vol. 22, August 1881, p. 125, said after his first interferometer experiment could not detect the movement of ether against the Earth.
“The data were almost unbelievable… There was only one other possible conclusion to draw — that the Earth was at rest.”
Bernard Jaffe, Michelson and the Speed of Light, 1960, p. 76. Jaffe adds this conclusion to the above sentence: “This, of course, was preposterous.”
“…nor has any physical experiment ever proved that the Earth actually is in motion.”
Lincoln Barnett, The Universe and Dr. Einstein, 2nd rev. edition, 1957, p. 73.
[/learn_more]
Category: Social Issues
Subscribe
If you enjoyed this article, subscribe to receive more just like it.
This is good. I have no expertise in this area so I need a synopsis like this to wrap my head around the problem.
As an educated but non-expert reader, I zero in on Michelson-Morley. Did they prove via experiments that the earth doesn’t move, or did they show that it’s not possible to know if the earth moves?…
…like Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, which was an insight that something can’t be known with precision, rather than a positive finding.
Once again, I want to compliment Stacy on her intellectual virtue. She gives breathing room to theories that would otherwise get shouted down. That’s what a true intellectual does.
It is said that St. Thomas Aquinas had this trait as well. He is said to have been a gentle, patient man in disputations. Always granting what is true in what his opponents said. My goodness, when you read the Summa you start to notice how frequently he engages constructively with the pagan authors of antiquity, purifying their ideas, integrating the latent truth of these ideas into Catholic doctrine. I love that man as much for his intellectual virtue as for his genius.
The link you provide in point 7 appears to contradict your first statement in point 8.
Well, Stacy, I have to say your series of articles continues to amaze.
If you haven’t gotten into trouble with certain folks yet, then this one ought to do the trick
The simple truth is that the ancient Catholic worldview- a metaphysical worldview based upon absolute assurance of the inerrancy of Scripture, and of the irreversibility of unanimous consensus of the Fathers concerning its interpretation- had Earth at the center of a rotating cosmos.
This was believed for centuries, by the greatest Doctors, Saints, and Popes.
It was never called into the slightest question, until l’affaire Galileo.
The decline of Christendom, I would argue, actually proceeds from this first example in history of a scientific myth (Galilean heliocentrism) triumphing over Sacred Scripture and Tradition.
Every one of Galileo’s proofs was false. Bellarmine was right, the Inquisition was right, but who among the Catholics believes or has the courage to proclaim this today?
In the Catholic metaphysical word view of the Fathers and the Doctors, the Saints and the Popes up to the time of Galileo, the cosmos was centered upon the place where the Incarnation of the Son of God would occur.
In the subsequent, heliocentric world view of the Copernican Principle, Earth becomes a mere speck, a random outcome of a “Big Bang” in a cosmos which is centered upon nothing, expanding into nothing, oriented toward nothing.
Rivers of ink have been spilled by very noble Catholics, especially over the last generation, attempting to reconcile these two world views into something approximating a Catholic “synthesis”.
A small, but now very rapidly going, number of Catholics sees that this attempt has not merely failed; it has failed catastrophically. It has been the harbinger of the greatest collapse in Faith, in morals, in evangelical fervor, in the liberty of our Holy Mother the Church, in Her entire history.
Even the Arian crisis can no longer be realistically compared with the disaster which now descends upon us.
As your article shows, and as the average Catholic has the greatest difficulty coming to understand, *not a single one of the supposed proofs of the heliocentric system has stood up*.
No experiment has ever shown the Earth to be in motion.
Relativity itself claims that no such “absolute” motion can never possibly be measured, even in principle.
So where are the Catholics standing up, pointing this out, and defending the ancient metaphysical world view of the Church?
Well, there is now one more, and her name is Stacy Trasancos.
The stakes here are rather higher than some would wish to admit.
Many recall that the nihilist genius and fanatical antichrist Friedrich Nietzsche proclaimed “God is dead”.
Very few have honestly confronted, as Nietzsche did, the precise means by which He was killed, in the modern mind:
“Where has God gone?” he cried. “I shall tell you. We have killed him – you and I. We are his murderers. But how have we done this? How were we able to drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What did we do when we unchained the Earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving now? Away from all suns? Are we not perpetually falling? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there any up or down left? Are we not straying as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is it not more and more night coming on all the time? Must not lanterns be lit in the morning? Do we not hear anything yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying God? Do we not smell anything yet of God’s decomposition? Gods, too, decompose. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we, murderers of all murderers, console ourselves?”
Welcome to the battle, Stacy.
Jeff asks
“As an educated but non-expert reader, I zero in on Michelson-Morley. Did they prove via experiments that the earth doesn’t move, or did they show that it’s not possible to know if the earth moves?…”
According to all of physics as it existed at the time of the experiment, it proved that:
1. The Earth didn’t move, or
2. The aether was shrinking the measuring apparatus in the direction of motion.
The second possibility (Lorenz’) being impossible even for scientists completely committed to the motion of the Earth to believe, it fell to the genius Einstein to substitute the dilation of time for the shrinking of the measuring apparatus.
After all, it is very much easier to dilate time than it is to explain how aether shrinks matter in only one direction.
If Einstein is right (it is highly unlikely, imo) then the Inquisition stands completely vindicated. The Scriptures can never, even in principle, be disproven by scientific measurement. The Earth’s status at the center of the universe, motionless, becomes a matter of theological revelation and metaphysics for which science can provide *one hundred per cent* mathematical support, and *zero per cent* possibility of experimental refutation.
It would be enough, one might think, to take this as perfectly solid grounds upon which to reclaim our Catholic worldview, of a sacramental cosmos centered upon the Earth; upon the place of the Incarnation of the Son of God.
But it were much more likely that Relativity will be fully falsified within this generation.
Then the matter becomes scientific, as well as metaphysical, all over again.
And your question becomes, again, the foundational issue of physics, just as it was in 1905, when Relativity was advanced as a solution to the failure of all experiments to detect the assumed motion of the Earth.
It has always troubled me that MMX has never been done on the Moon, or in space.
It could easily have been done.
Why hasn’t it?
I submit it hasn’t been done for exactly the same reason dino bones with soft tissue haven’t been C14 dated.
We are not dealing with scientific battles here.
We are dealing with a battle between two diametrically opposed metaphysical world views.
…like Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, which was an insight that something can’t be known with precision, rather than a positive finding.
“…like Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, which was an insight that something can’t be known with precision, rather than a positive finding.”
Sorry, missed this above.
Heisenberg’s Principle is merely a statement of the fact that noise exists at the quantum level which renders our ability to simultaneously takle the position and velocity of a particle beneath a certain scale.
Some interpret this, metaphysically, as evidence if the “unknowability” of reality at its fundamental (Planck) scale; of its “randomness”.
But this is not at all required.
Others simply assume that whatever underlying properties account for the observations have yet to be discovered- maybe they can never be discovered- but they are certainly knowable by God.
The second view would tend to be supported by the periodicities in quantum phenomena now observed to correlate with- of all things- the periodicities of motion between Sun and Earth
Jeff,
First, thank you for the kind words. I appreciate that.
“As an educated but non-expert reader, I zero in on Michelson-Morley. Did they prove via experiments that the earth doesn’t move, or did they show that it’s not possible to know if the earth moves?…”
That’s the same question I have. The aether idea is new to me. I didn’t even realize those tests were done.
Rick,
Is this…
“No experiment has ever shown the Earth to be in motion.”
…the short answer to that question? When I was studying Galileo for the first time, that is the question that stuck in my mind. Has anyone ever really proved the Earth moves? I know a lot of people think they have, but back when I was taking that course my (poor) husband and I discussed it at length (you know, kitchen talk!) and all the arguments for Earth’s motion can be questioned.
My husband said the same thing Jeff did, that it’s kind of like the HUP. We realized there’s so much we don’t know. It’s exciting, but then when you hear people talk with such certainty like we do know, it’s troublesome.
RobT, Can you quote the specific part? Please? I’d like to know. I’ll try to figure it out, but if you could quote the part that would help. Thank you.
Sure Stacy. Your point 8:
“The theory of relativity was adopted precisely in order to explain the failure of all such MMX- type experiments to disclose the universally-assumed orbital motion of Earth around sun.”
But from the link you provided in point 7:
“The constancy of the speed of light was postulated by Albert Einstein in 1905,[35] motivated by Maxwell’s theory of electromagnetism and the lack of evidence for the luminiferous aether but not, contrary to widespread belief, by the null result of the Michelson–Morley experiment.[36] However the null result of the Michelson–Morley experiment helped the notion of the constancy of the speed of light gain widespread and rapid acceptance.”
I suppose the second sentence would lend some support to a weakened version of point 8. Something more along the lines of: “The theory of relativity gained support from the failure of all such MMX- type experiments to disclose the universally-assumed orbital motion of Earth around sun.”
RobT, Thank you for your question and for being more specific. I had to consider it carefully, I’m still very new to the history here.
OK, this is my understanding, subject to correction of course.
It seems the rest of #8 of the post answers your question, and Rick and Robert already considered that.
“Einstein himself admitted this in his 1924 Kyoto lecture, although he also claimed that Theory of Relativity was for the purpose of answering Maxwell’s electromagnetic conundrum of the induction coil and the magnet.”
At first (meaning in 1905) Einstein said he was motivated by Maxwell’s theory of electromagnetism, and by lack of evidence for luminiferous aether.
But in 1924 (19 years later) he admitted the significant problem of the lack of evidence for aether, i.e. lack of evidence the earth moves.
Even still, after all this time and increasingly more sensitive experiments to try to prove the movement of the aether — nothing. Either there’s no aether or there’s no motion of the earth. Actually in #7 it says the last experiment was done in 1932, but the wiki says even more sophisticated experiments were tried since then. Nothing still. I could be wrong about that, but from the wiki (take it for what it’s worth) that’s what I read.
Stacy, good job all around. Let me fill in a few gaps, if I may. First, Wiki is correct about the additional experiments. They got that information from my book. What was done up to 1932 was white light interferometer experiments. What was done after 1932 were laser and maser experiments. Since a laser or maser is more dense, it would be a little more accurate. But the results were the same as the white light interferometers — the light was being impeded by something in the east-west direction (which in the geocentric system is the rotation of the universe’s ether around a fixed earth). The heliocentrists don’t have an answer for this because they need a revolution of the earth as well as they need an east-west rotation. But MMX and all the other experiments up to 1932 and beyond showed only enough ether resistence to account for a rotation of the earth, not a revolution of the earth around the sun. But since heliocentrists cannot have a rotation without a revolution, they don’t have an answer for the empirical evidence from the interferometers. So, Einstein was literally forced to change the physics. Essentially, if the Earth wasn’t going to move, he was going to make physics move, in a matter of speaking. In order to answer MMX and keep the Earth moving he had to change time, space, mass and distance. In other words, if you shorten the measuring stick, you can have at least some plausible answer for what MMX found. For the typical agnostic (which Einstein and the rest of modern science was) turning physics upside down was much better than turning Copernicus upside down and submitting oneself to the Catholic Church who said Galileo was wrong all along. R. Sungenis
Whatever the historical reasons for accepting relativity (I don’t know why, but I’ve never been very interested in the history of science), one of the best reasons for accepting relativity now is Quantum Electrodynamics (QED).
QED involves calculating an interaction constant, the fine structure constant. The constant is very precisely calculated and agrees with experiment over many decimal places.
Currently, there is no other good way to theoretically determine the value of the fine structure constant. Relativity is required for Quantum Electrodynamics. Therefore, the determination of this constant is impressive evidence for relativity.
If you want to accept that the earth is the center of the universe and is unmoved as a religious belief, then that’s fine; relativity does provide a strange sort of support for this, I suppose. And you can teach your beliefs in a religion class. No problem.
If you start to accept geocentric theory as something that should be taught in science classes, then I hope you never get on a school board or in a science classroom. And I hope no one will take your credentials or background seriously, because credentials are meaningless in the face of the way things really are (which is the subject of science, after all).
Paul, you have a lot of nerve to go about telling us what ought and ought not be taught in science classrooms.
You were ignorant of the CMB Axis until you met me, and you are ignorant of what a great physicist like Dr. Robert Laughlin (he has his Nobel Prize, needs not fear some committee in charge of evaluating his master’s thesis) has to say about that same QED which you, laughably, hold up as some sort of a religious dogma:
“Much of quantum electrodynamics, the mathematical description of how light communicates with the ocean of electrons ostensibly pervading the universe, boils down to demonstrating the unmeasurableness of the ultraviolet cutoff. This communication, which is large, has the fascinating implication that real light involves motion of something occupying the vacuum of space, namely all those electrons (and other things as well), although the extent of this motion depends sensitively on the value of this ultraviolet cutoff, which is not known. There are endless arguments about what kinds of regularization are best, whether the cutoff is real or fictitious, whether relativity should be sacrificed, and who is too myopic to see the truth. It is just dreadful…….The source of this insanity is easy to see if one simply steps back from the problem and examines it as a whole. The properties of empty space relevant to our lives show all the signs of being emergent phenomena characteristic of a phase of matter.” Robert Laughlin, “A Different Universe” Basic Books 2005, p. 104-105
In hopes that anyone who is even slightly intimidated by this pathetic party-line bs of Paul, will read the fuller examination of QED by this Nobel Prize winning physicist, I include a direct link to the google books version, keyed to the relevant passage, here:
http://books.google.com/books?id=hTFK66L0mYAC&dq=The+properties+of+empty+space+relevant+to+our+lives+show+all+the+signs+of+being+emergent+phenomena+characteristic+of+a+phase+of+matter&q=The+properties+of+empty+space+relevant+to+our+lives+show+all+the+signs+of+being+emergent+phenomena+characteristic+of+a+phase+of+matter#v=onepage&q&f=false
The entire section is fascinating, and shows yet again that the foundational contradiction between Relativity and quantum phenomena is situated precisely in the fact that space is not the continuum, the vacuum of relativity.
It is, instead, as Laughlin says, “characteristic of an emergent property of matter”.
It is, in other words, characteristic of an aether.
QED firmly rests on relativistic calculations. If relativity is wrong, then QED is wrong. If QED is wrong, what gets you the fine structure constant?
Quantum vacuum = luminiferous aether? How do you know this? Why does Laughlin not seem to agree?
Richard Feynman does not buy Laughlin’s explanation. Neither do I.
Feynman thought it is particles moving in a vacuum. So do I.
Aether is unmeasured. Even if it exists, that says nothing about validity of relativity or QED.
Your commentary on QED is mostly wrong, except when it’s completely wrong.
I agree with Laughlin here: the infinities in QED are pretty insane!
But the method gets the right answer.
Do you have a better method, that also gets the right answer?
Robert,
“For the typical agnostic (which Einstein and the rest of modern science was) turning physics upside down was much better than turning Copernicus upside down and submitting oneself to the Catholic Church who said Galileo was wrong all along.”
Thanks for that explanation. I do remember studying some of this history a long time ago in school more in the context of the atomic bomb, but now that I also am learning about more science history and Church history, that makes so much more sense. I never understood the agnosticism, but neither did I understand the Catholicism back then either.
It’s already starting here too, unfortunately. I actually read what you and Rick write, and I read what detractors write, but they don’t make sense. You do. I also look up what you say, and for you and Rick both, it has all checked out.
It’s kind of frustrating when someone comes along with a personal attack, instead of attacking the arguments, ahem.
Hey Paul,
Actually my husband and I both have talked about getting on school boards one day (outer edges of the radar for now) because we believe that all children should be taught the truth without compromise, not just our children. We know how to be successful and how to make good friends. We’ve helped change homeschool policies before when they needed to be changed.
Stacy,
I think it’s great you want to be on a school board. As far as I can tell, you still think that the geocentric theory is a metaphysical position instead of a scientific one, and so shouldn’t be taught in the science classroom.
Correct me if I’m wrong.
Do you know who Anatoly Fomenko is? You can look for him in Wikipedia. He’s an amazing mathematician (and artist!). He has a PhD, one of the best math professorships in Russia, and is the author of over a hundred papers and a couple dozen books. He could probably get on a school board.
He also thinks that Jesus died in the 12th century. He thinks the entirety of Arab and Christian history was made up by Jesuits in the 17th and 18th centuries, and that the crusades and Trojan war were the same war.
Is he crazy? No. I know some people who have gotten to sit down and talk with him. He seems quite sane. But the has this strange and, frankly, stupid idea about history.
So when he comes into a school board talking about topology, sure, he’s Professor Fomenko. When he starts talking about history, he’s just this guy, and I hope no one respects his credentials so much that they take his nonsense seriously.
The same goes for me, and for you. If you or I were in the school board, and talking about teaching young-earth creationism or intelligent design, I hope the rest of the board would cease to see us as scientists and PhD’s, and rather would see us only as “people who went to school a long time.”
But I worry that people aren’t like that. I worry that, if you did try to push Geocentric theory or whatever else, people would take you more seriously because you are a scientist.
They shouldn’t.
In other words, Paul,you have o scientific basis upon which to reject geocentrism.
There exists no experiment which can disprove it.
You have had four hundred years of unchallenged dominance of your metaphysical worldview (Copernican principle), and it has led us to the brink of *metaphysical* absurdities such as an infinitely-self-inflating multiverse which can never, even in theory, every be the object of scientific observation.
No, I am afraid it is metaphysics you seek to defend in your school board nonsense, Paul.
You seek to defend a worldview, not an experimental outcome.
Sorry.
You’re not going to be able to do it.
Has nothing to do with the twelve or thirteen geocentrists in the world.
It were absurd to imagine we pose any kind of a “threat”, other than the threat that always strikes fear into the heart of those who intend to impose a worldview on the rest of us, especially all dressed up as if it were “science”.
The threat to point out the experimental evidence challenging that worldview.
I have no problem with you preferring Feynman to Laughlin.
I would not attempt top censor one or the other.
Science is all about the conflict.
You want to eliminate the conflict.
Why?
Because it is metaphysics you wish to impose- a worldview you wish to impose- and you mean to employ the trappings and PR value of “science” in order to do it.
Your position in this matter reminds me of the ignoble censorship, the raw petty-tyranny, of the Dover case, where a judge in robes stood up and decided what science was, and the pathetic drones clutching their rice bowls in quackademia cheered lustily.
The irony would be hilarious, if it weren’t so grotesque.
I like the conflict when it’s real conflict. There is real scientific conflict, and that’s what I plan to write about in my blog.
You do present some interesting conflict! But the conflict isn’t between geocentrists and heliocentrists. That conflict is old. It is of great historical interest. The science in this conflict is boring.
—–
Geocentrists don’t really stand much chance of being taken seriously. But a geocentirst with a good reputation could generate confusion, and I don’t want that. Such a geocentrist might win some converts.
Fomenko wins converts from time to time. He definitely frustrates historians!
You compare my writing and presentation to those of the Dover judge?
I am flattered. Thank you!
Paul, you started a tangent, but honestly you don’t seem to understand how school boards work or what it takes to convince people to do the right thing. It takes conviction. It takes time. It takes patience. It takes sincerity. Truth will speak for itself.
What Rick said is right, most people would recognize the need for conflict to some extent IF a real leader were present and could lead effectively, put the issues into perspective. Shutting down conflict is suspicious, and people get that.
Leadership takes courage, not tyrannical behavior.
Bringing up geocentric theory at school board meeting does not equal courage. It equals crazy.
I don’t think you would be met with tyranny. I think you would be met with laughter. And then they’d move on to the next issue.
If it was young-earth creationism, depending on where you would end up living, you might find support.
Stacy, I think you’d make a fine school board member, so long as you don’t try to put nonsense into the science classrooms.
If your plan is to try to get geocentric theory or seven day creation past a good New York school board, let me know how it goes. I wish I could be there to see faces of the other board members.
Thanks for the unsolicited advice, but trust me, I’m good!
Are you threatened by my intellectual curiosity? Because if you are, either get over it or get used to it. I’m frankly not amused – to the point of growing irritated – by your repeated efforts to be condescending to me and to people I consider friends.
I’ve made it this far without your advice and if I want it, you’ll be the very first to know. Deal?
To the actual post you wrote:
Whether Galileo should have challenged Rome or not, as a moral issue, since I’m not a Catholic that part doesn’t matter very much to me. Putting someone under house arrest for having a conflicting scientific theory seems terrible. But fortunately the Catholic Church is now comparatively weak, and can’t do things like that anymore, and more to the point, doesn’t want to do things like that anymore.
It seems that, in history, the idea that earth is center lost to the idea that the earth is not the center. That idea lost to relativity and modern cosmology and now most people think that there is no center, or at least we aren’t there (or even close).
If you want to declare some place a revealed “preferred center”, I suppose nothing would stop you. It seems like how Catholic Churches are built north-south, but the direction toward the sanctuary is called “liturgical east”. Maybe this is the “liturgical center” of the universe. I wouldn’t be strongly against such a notion.
Just don’t present it as science. Because it’s not.
“To the actual post you wrote:”
Thank you.
I don’t see the point in talking about history with someone who says they don’t learn it. So I’m letting that part go as another tangent.
Regarding science, if saying that the earth is the center of the universe is not science, then how does saying the opposite automatically make it science.
The point of these guys, as I’ve read it, is that science never disproved the theological idea.
Rick or Robert – is that correct?
“Are you threatened by my intellectual curiosity?”
No. If you are really curious about relativity, cosmology and astronomy, there are many good resources out there, from blogs:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/
To books:
“Cosmos” by Carl Sagan
“Brief History of Time” by Stephen Hawking
To actually contacting the scientists involved and finding out how they did their work and what they think about it.
Hopefully you are doing these things. Of course, good method does not by itself guarantee good results.
—-
I suppose the thing that bothers me is that, since I respect you as an intelligent and knowledgeable person, who has a background in science, I cannot imagine why you would take seriously the information from Rick and Rob. I don’t understand it. Maybe I don’t need to understand it.
For this post and the previous one about how Christians know more about science, I’ve just been pointing out what seems so obvious to me, that Rick doesn’t know what he’s talking about. But you think he does, so maybe it would be best if I move on.
“Regarding science, if saying that the earth is the center of the universe is not science, then how does saying the opposite automatically make it science.”
Current scientific understanding is: The universe probably does not have a center. If the universe does have a center, the earth is probably a large distance away from it.
This understanding may change in the future, based on new evidence. I think it is not that unlikely that the universe has a center. I think it is exceedingly unlikely that we are anywhere near that center.
Even the multiverse hypothesis is more likely than that.
Paul, I’m not being obstinate, but it seems you’ve missed the point of these conversations. Could you at least define science if you are going to insist that one thing is science and another is not? And define what constitutes proof?
I ask you what makes something science and you just said “current scientific understanding.” That only begs the question.
Current scientific understanding is: The universe probably does not have a geometric center (Joseph Silk, “The Big Bang”, Chapter 5). If the universe does have a center, the earth is probably a large distance away from it (Lauer & Postman, 1994; Kogut, Lineweaver et al, 1993).
There are of course dozens more books and papers that could be referenced, especially for the part about the universe not having a geometric center.
This is the current scientific understanding. There exist, of course, alternative explanations, but the alternatives seem very unlikely at this time.
Current understanding, Paul?
Good heavens, man, your citations are fifteen to twenty years old.
We have done quite a bit of large-scale galaxy survey work since then.
First off:
The CMB Axis- the largest structure in the observable universe, is oriented with respect to the equinox and ecliptic of Earth (Corp, Huterer, et al, 2010:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1004.5602v2.pdf
You were informed about this weeks ago, Paul, so your position here is one of obstinate, as opposed to inculpable, ignorance.
Additionally, the work of Team Ellis (especially Clifton, et al, at Oxford, 2008) wrt void models which obviate the need for dark energy by abandoning the Copernican Principle and situating Earth in the center of a void has been extensively covered in both the peer-reviewed and popular press:
http://www.ox.ac.uk/media/science_blog/081002.html
And, of course, you have similarly been informed about the Earth-centered periodic preferred redshift values in galaxy distributions (Hirano, Phys Rev D 2010):
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1008.4456.pdf
Excerpt:
“A natural interpretation is that concentric spherical shells of higher galaxy number densities surround us, with their individual centers situated at our location. However, if this interpretation reflected the actual physical concentration of galaxies existing at certain dis- tances from us, it would definitely be incompatible with the cosmological principle that presumes uniformity and isotropy of our space–time.”
So, apart from the twenty year old stuff, Paul, it would seem you need to get out more.
Maybe hang out more often with the geocentrists.
We seem to be more up on the literature than you are……
Current literature still supports the consensus I stated. The scientists whose studies you cite propose alternative hypotheses that are not widely accepted. These scientists do not share your interpretation. That is because you clearly do not understand their research.
Paul, I’d just like you to define science.
Stop appealing to authority. What is science. You’re the one that told me not to “present [something] as science…because it’s not.”
So then what is it.
Define science.
Paul, it is clear that you are in over your head here.
You were not even *aware of* this research, until I brought it to your attention, and it is clearly a bit of self-serving bluff for you to continually chime in with “you clearly don’t understand…….”you’re completely wrong”…….without bothering to demonstrate these claims in the slightest way.
In fact, every one of your assertions here has been answered by me with direct citation from the literature, including your hilarious insistence that QED forms some kind of unimpeachable proof of the Theory of Relativity.
I posted the direct, contrary view of a Nobvel Prize winner, and we saw you reduced to arguing for another Nobel Prize winner!
Paul, you wish to deny the possibility of a geocentric universe.
Then roll up your sleeves and show us, scientifically, how it cannot be, because so far you have failed to accomplish this.
In fact we both know you cannot accomplish this, and the fact that you cannot accomplish this apparently greatly disturbs you.
You imagine that your inability to scientifically falsify the geocentric hypothesis might, somehow, lead to people denying all of Western history or some such similar non sequitir, and so you resort to handwaving.
It just won;’t do, Paul.
I challenge you to tighten up your game- you are the credential led scientist here.
Let’s have a scientific demonstration of the impossibility of the geocentric hypothesis- give us the experiment, the date it was conducted, where we can find it in the literature, and let us examine this for ourselves.
Your personal dictate for the model is as irrelevant as your personal preference for Feynman over Laughlin.
In the absence of experimental, definitive proof, Feynman, and Laughlin, and geocentrism, all remain live options and no one is going to sit here and determine on a blog which ones are ruled out of bounds in advance based on personal preference.
In science, you have to prove it, Paul.
Go ahead.
I’m waiting.
I can’t define science. Philosophers of science have trouble defining science, and one of the big parts of their job is defining science. So that’s not going to happen.
But there’s a heirarchy of science. The best stuff is real science, good explanations of the way thing work. The not so good stuff is what could be science but isn’t yet, like intelligent design. Then there’s what can never be science, like 7-day creationism. And then there’s what was science but was thrown out. The thrown out stuff is the most embarrassing sort of nonsense, but that means it’s the least dangerous. No one with half a brain will buy it.
For the CMB, the explanation is:
1. Most of cosmology and much of astronomy is wrong – no one believes this but morons.
2. The data is wrong. – I think this is possible, but not so likely.
3. The analysis is wrong – I suspect this is true, but hope it is not true.
4. Our idea about anisotropies is wrong. This is what I hope is true. It is the most interesting answer.
Rick,
I think the nobel prize winner is wrong, but what is worse, you don’t understand him.
You keep talking about things, some things I had never heard before. When I explore them, I find out you have no idea what you are talking about.
I could do a better job of explaining things than you could, even before I knew about them!
Here’s the thing: Geocentric universe is possible. But given even non-standard big bang theory, it’s highly unlikely.
Without big bang, it is impossible to say how likely or unlikely it is, because there’s no basis for comparison.
Currently, all I can do is say what seems most plausable to me. From everything I have learned, one week away from getting a PhD in some of Astronomy, and from everything my friends who have looked at this know, some of whom have got their PhD’s in cosmology, you don’t know a thing you are talking about.
But why do we need such credentials? A smart college freshman could have figured out that you are full of it.
So why can’t Stacy figure this out? I don’t know. I have my suspicions, but I don’t know why.
Paul, I really think it is important to point out that the following words:
“Here’s the thing: Geocentric universe is possible. But given even non-standard big bang theory, it’s highly unlikely.”
You have convicted yourself of the most astounding form of anti-scientific ignorance.
You admit that something which is scientifically possible is to be ignored, to be censored from any mention in science, because *you think it is unlikely????????*
Let me tell you what is unlikely, you double-tongued, censorship-approving, disgraceful credential-waving rice bowl clutching drone.
What is unlikely is that nothing gathered itself up into an indefinitely dense point mass and exploded, coalescing randomly, over time, into everything that exists, including Paul Rimmer’s little typing pinkies, which have managed to land him a week away from being able to join all the sheepskin hanging quackademics who are capable of, without the slightest sense of shame, typing:
“Geocentric universe is possible.”
“Geocentrists don’t really stand much chance of being taken seriously. But a geocentirst with a good reputation could generate confusion, and I don’t want that. Such a geocentrist might win some converts.”
I have no hope that you are intellectually honest enough to be ashamed of yourself, Paul.
You really are just a drone, just another faceless drone intent upon imposing your metaphysical worldview on the rest of us as if it were science, when you yourself admit it isn’t.
The world will not be in any way enhanced by another drone with a sheepskin, Paul.
Paul,
“I can’t define science.”
Then what did you mean when you said this, “Just don’t present it as science. Because it’s not.”
If you cannot define something, then why in the world would you tell someone else not to present something as something can can’t even define???
Paul, seriously, that’s irrational.
“Philosophers of science have trouble defining science, and one of the big parts of their job is defining science. So that’s not going to happen.”
Hoppy-scotch! They absolutely do not. That is a load of desperado.
But I appreciate your effort.
Just wanted to congratulate Rick on the most vitriolic, nasty comment I’ve ever seen on a Catholic blog. Nicely done! You’re really going to win people over to your informed, reasonable, scientific position with that kind of tone.
Anyway, what’s next on the list? Germ theory?
Dear Michelle:
Thanks.
It takes a lot to get me there, but I can get be gotten there
btw, Michelle, you might suffer from the misapprehension that I have some interest in persuading any particular person in some particular direction.
Nope.
I sincerely hope, and expect, that every person who supports scientific censorship, like Paul here, should detest me every bit as much as you do.
They certainly should.
Michelle, I removed my cranky comment. I think people forget that this is a website about “what a scientist turned homemaker and joyful convert to Catholicism is learning.”
This was a post summarizing Rick’s points because people asked for a summary. And then Paul comes along and tries to derail the conversation. It is most irritating.
When we say, “Don’t call something science when it’s not!” — we know exactly what we mean and if asked, we will be immediately forthcoming with a definition.
Actually, I’ll do what Paul fails to do.
Define words (again). I’ve given these definitions many times before precisely because it is impossible to make an argument if you cannot define the words you use. That’s Logic 101.
Science: if we are talking about “Modern Science” which is the systematic study of the physical world, then science is limited to what is 1) observable and 2) quantifiable. Those are the basic requirements of the scientific method. If it can’t be observed, experiments can’t be done. If it can’t be quantified, measurements can’t be done. If experiments and measurements can’t be done, hypotheses can’t be tested and conclusions can’t be drawn from data.
Proof: Evidence that establishes the fact or truth of something. Not all proofs are scientific (as defined above) proofs. In fact, the word “science” originally meant any systematic body of knowledge and included deductive and inductive logic engaging the power of reason. All bodies of knowledge begin with accepted axioms.
Question for anyone: Using the definitions given, what constitutes proof that the earth moves?
That has been what intrigues me about this issue from the beginning when I read Cardinal Bellarmine’s warnings to Galileo.
If it’s a scientific proof, then it necessarily MUST begin with something that is observable and quantifiable.
EXPLORING THE PROBABILITIES:
Let’s think about the cosmic bubble. It has recently fallen on some hard times (see Moss, Zibin and Scott, Phys Rev D, 2011), and it was very unlikely to begin with, but maybe the cosmic bubble explanation is still true.
If it is true, and if there is just one bubble (why must there be just one?), and if the bubble corresponded with a geometric center for the universe (why must it?), then that helps out the geocentrists somewhat. If all these things are true, then we are probably within a hundred million lightyears of the geometric center of our universe.
Probabilities of being at the center:
1. Standard Big-Bang Cosmology: 0% (because there is no geometric center; maybe there is a liturgical center?)
2. Some non-standard Big Bang Cosmology that has a geometric center: There’s some geometric center, but we’d be at a random point in our universe. Maybe the odds are a bit better if there’s a good explanation for why we’d be closer to the center. The size of the observable universe is about 50 billion light years. So our chances of being within 1 light year of center = 8 x 10^-33
3. Cosmic Bubble: We are within a hundred million light years from the center. If this is true, it’s strange, and needs some sort of explanation (maybe anthropic?). In any case, it is a challenge to the idea that we are not in a special place in the universe. But the geometric center? Odds have gotten better. To be within one light year of the geometric center, the chances are = 10^-24.
The cosmological consensus is that either the universe has no geometric center (thousands of papers using that view, versus dozens exploring alternative views), or that it has a center, but that the earth probably isn’t there.
Maybe the consensus will change. Also, I am entirely open to people believing that we are the liturgical center of the universe. I can somewhat believe that, too.
I never saw your cranky comment, but I hope it involved some crankiness towards Rick, because if this were my blog, that comment alone would have gotten him banned. I didn’t see Paul derailing anything, and really, if you expect every conversation to follow exactly the path you want, you can sit in a room alone and talk to yourself. (Bonus: you won’t see any men or women standing too close to each other!)
As for proof, I’m no physicist by any means (Rick isn’t either, obviously, though Paul seems to be good enough at the subject to major in it). What do you make of spacecraft that reach their intended destinations within the solar system? Those are launched based on a pretty damn precise heliocentric model. If geocentrism was true, those spacecraft would end up all over the place, but not where they were supposed to. The Mars Rovers, for instance, would not have gotten to Mars if physicists were wrong about its path through the solar system. Just something to consider.
Alright, dropping out of the conversation early this time – I’ve got lab reports to write and DNA sequences to align and tests to study for.
Paul:
Arguments from probability always require the utmost care, since we have only one universe to observe, and it is our metaphysical worldview which will determine our “probability” assessment.
For example, you say;
1) there exists a 0% chance of a center in standard Big Bang cosmology, but there is already a 100% chance that standard Big Bang cosmology is false: we observe a dipole in the CMB, and Tomozawa has mathematically (not probabilistically) demonstrated that no dipole is observed in a standard FLRW universe.
Even apart from this mathematical disproof, we have now reached the stage where Standard BB epicycles have truly mushroomed: we need metaphysical inflatons to cover for our complete lack of knowledge of the physics involved in “inflation”, we must then invent 99% of the universe out of metaphysical entities dark matter and dark energy in order to bridge the yawning abyss between BB theory and observations, and once we allow ourselves this “inflaton” and the infinite malleability it provides us to do math without the inconvenient encumbrances of experimental demonstration (physics!)…..we find ourselves led to the ultimate red-flag warning, of reality itself trying to warn us that we have sailed off into Cloudcuckooland: the “multiverse”.
If our “science” should ever “prove” a multiverse, Paul, then our science has proved itself incapable of telling us one true thing about the universe.
It is a delicious Catch 22, and one which hammers home the real issue at stake:
science has long since jumped the fence from its legitimate operational domain, and is now doing metaphysics on a grand scale.
It is attempting to counterfeit this metaphysics as if it were science, and is insisting upon the right to censor contrary views and ideas from discussion, since, after all, the scientists know very well, down deep, that they are conning us with this bunk, and that it is now a matter of money, prestige, and power.
The future of science belongs to some crackpot out there, who is recognizing these absurdities as the epicyclic “end game” signs they truly are, and who is thinking the way all *actual scientific discoverers* think, and always will think:
The crackpot who will make the next breakthrough is thinking historically, he is carefully working his way back along the trail to the crucial experimental evidence which was interpreted wrongly, and which must be re-examined and re-interpreted.
He is already recognizing that Riemann identified the metaphysical error in Newton: absolute space.
He is already recognizing the metaphysical error in Einstein: spacetime, physically expressed as a vacuum which somehow bends under the influence of mass.
He is already recognizing that the metaphysical rejection of a stationary Earth at every step along the road to the magical self-inflating dark energy accelerating infinite multiverse generating Cosmic Muffin Bakery has provided him with a very powerful hypothesis, a simple and clean physically falsifiable, experimentally testable hypothesis:
Is space quantized?
It is.
Is it therefore possible to re-examine the interferometry abandoned a century ago in the face of Relativity’s enforced adoption?
It is.
Just a friendly heads up, Paul.
Your theory is dying.
It cannot possibly survive even your professional career.
I suggest you develop excellent diplomatic skills, because you are going to need them when the paradigm shifts.
But thanks for the above, it is at least an attempt to assess the hypothesis, even if from a woefully inadequate “statistical probability” viewpoint.
Final brief note: you mention Moss, et al.
I can tell you Dr. Ellis points out two major problems with that analysis, and other, similar attempts to falsify LTB via the SZ effect.
First, there are two free parameters in the LTB- only one was allowed in the Moss analysis.
Dr. Ellis wants to see the analysis include the additional degree of freedom (bang time parameter) which is included in LTB.
Second, they used the Robertson Walker expansion theory when testing LTB, which Dr. Ellis states is a much more important shortcoming in the analysis.
But all of this is really irrelevant, since inflation is such a malleable theory (after all, there is no remote clue of the physics involved, how handy for the mathematicians!) that LTB can certainly provide us an inflation which generates a spherically symmetric inhomogeneous (geocentric, Paul) universe.
As Dr. Ellis put it, “multiple cellular fields and you have tunneling between two different parts. The thing about inflation is we don’t know what the physics is, and so inflation’s a very malleable theory. It can do all sorts of things.”
Even put the Earth at the center of the universe in a Relativist model.
2)
Michelle:
Can’t stand the heat?
Get out of the kitchen.
As for your “how do we get to the planets if hello is wrong” plaint……
Please read the following very carefully:
“NavCom Technology, Inc. has licensed software developed by the Jet Propulsion Lab (JPL) which, because of historical reasons, ***does the entire computation in the ECI frame****. Because of some discrepancies between our standard earth-centered earth- fixed solution results and the JPL results, we investigated the input parameters to the solution very carefully. The measured and theoretical ranges computed in the two different frames agreed precisely, indicating that the Sagnac correction had been applied in each frame.
As the discussion of the Sagnac effect indicates the fundamental question regarding the speed of light is the following: Is the speed of light constant with respect to the observer (receiver) or is it constant with respect to the chosen inertial ECI frame? Clearly the GPS range equation indicates the speed of light is constant with respect to the chosen frame..”
If you follow this particular bit of information all the way to where it leads, you find out that not only is all JPL software which NASA uses to control both GPS *and* deep space probe navigation done in the ECI (Earth Centered Inertial= geocentric) frame…
You will also find that the same JPL software includes a correction for the Sagnac effect that renders the speed of light constant in one and only one frame…………..
Yup.
You got it.
So much for heliocentrism being necessary to control our spacecraft.
Sorry, forgot to cite the source for the above:
Ruyong Wang and Ronald R. Hatch, Conducting a Crucial Experiment of the Constancy of the Speed of Light Using GPS, ION GPS 58th Annual Meeting / CIGTF 21st Guidance Test Symposium, 2002, p. 500
Stacy asks:
Question for anyone: Using the definitions given, what constitutes proof that the earth moves?
I answer:
There isn’t any, and so long as Relativity stands as the ruling paradigm of physics, there never can be any.
There never was any, *before* Relativity.
In fact, it was precisely the *lack* of any such evidence, that resulted in the adoption of Relativity’s profoundly counter-intuitive notions of rods that shrink, time that flows at different rates, etc.
If Relativity should be falsified (imo a very reliably predictable outcome, probably within our lifetime) then the real issue becomes:
Why did we insist upon shrinking rods and time moving at different rates, when all of our experimental evidence was equally consistent with the observation that the Earth is not in fact orbiting the Sun?
It will be seem to have been, purely and simply, a metaphysical choice.
A choice to prefer Copernicus, to prefer the Copernican Principle, to the metaphysics of the Catholic Church.
Nothing more.
Nothing less.
Michelle,
There are calculations that predict when the sun will rise and set too. Does that prove the sun is rising and setting?
Thanks!
Paul,
This may not seem relevant to your “liturgical center” phrase, but play along and hopefully it will be clear. It’s something I’ve been studying about history and Modernism, but I’ll try to make it interesting for you.
Is it objectively true that God exists? Or does God only exist if someone feels like He exists?
Could you please answer, briefly?
Thanks!
Sometimes I wonder about those that go to school to be fed and believe crap verbatim and are afraid to think outside the box…. beware those that teach their children to think outside the box, without pre-conceived notions – there are millions of us now who dare to rebel against the wonderful system called public education…..
We teach our children that life begins at conception, and that it is human life – consequences of non-abstinencial practices. Something NOT taught in public (or private) schools for that matter.
I also discuss the theory of intelligent design – watch the movie “expelled – no intelligence allowed” Very plausible outside the box kind of thinking that shakes up the establishment. Sort of like Rick and Robert…. scares you that your way of thinking might be wrong. I can’t imagine liberal proffesors and scientists ever embracing an idea that could possibly point to the existence of God… let alone liberal politicians and media. These aren’t conspiracy theories –
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/tv-executives-admit-taped-interviews-193116
Rick,
No one has disproved the standard big bang model.
Stacy,
It is very likely that God exists. I think it can be determined using reason and nature that God likely exists.
I think feelings about whether God exists have no impact on whether God really exists.
AMC,
Thank you!
This is exactly where I come from too.
“I can’t imagine liberal proffesors and scientists ever embracing an idea that could possibly point to the existence of God…”
Exactly! A million times, exactly.
Well, Stacy, this topic is one that had never been a blip on my radar until I ran across this post. I must say, I am thoroughly intrigued. While most of this is well above me (academically trained microbiologist who doesn’t do science per se as a career), I think I’m grasping enough to understand that there is no logical reason (from what I’ve seen here) to simply dismiss it out of hand.
A question for Stacy/Rick/whoever: I’m confused about the Magisterium’s official position on this. Is Copernican Principle rejected? Accepted? Is there a dogmatic/doctrinal statement on the nature of the heavens and Earth’s position within it? What’s this that happened in 1822 (I believe that is the year I saw cited)? What did JP2 say about Galileo, exactly?
I’m not asking for a combox treatise on the subject, but if someone could provide either a concise summary or point me in the direction of some other blog posts and/or Vatican documents I would appreciate it!
LJP:
Short version.
1633 papal sentence against Galileo has never been subsequently reversed or derogated.
All subsequent actions of the magisterium related to the Index- none of these involved an exercise of the magisterium comparable to the Holy Office decree of 1633.
The de facto abandonment of the proscription against heliocentrism is quite anomalous.
Only the similar de facto abandonment of the proscription against usury is comparable, so far as I can tell.
In 1992 Blessed Pope John Paul II issued a statement to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences which expressed His opinion that the Galileo affair was the result of a misunderstanding on the part of theologians of the time.
His Holiness did not identify the theologians.
His Holiness also did not reverse the 1633 decree, which was not the work of theologians, but instead of the magisterium.
All in all a quite unusual episode.
My guess is that a good Catholic seeking honestly to form his or her conscience in accordance with all the teachings of the Church would be very hard pressed not to recognize in geocentrism a unanimous consensus of the Fathers as to the interpretation of Scripture.
Such a unanimous consensus is irreformable, according to Vatican I.
On the other hand, there is certainly no intention on the part of the magisterium to enforce this, so liberty of conscience on the matter must, I think, be presumed.
Perfect. Thanks, Rick!
Paul:
You claim “(n)o one has disproved the standard big bang model.”
To the contrary.
Tomozawa has advanced a mathematical disproof of the standard model, based upon the observed dipole.
You have had months now to point out any error or flaw in the Tomozawa paper.
You have not done so.
Therefore the disproof stands.
The proof and its implications can be accessed- along with my initial invitation to Paul to address this- here:
http://magisterialfundies.blogspot.com/2012/01/geocentrism-and-mathemagic.html
Thanks for your comment LJP. I hope this is helpful, it sort of follows my own path on this subject.
“I’m confused about the Magisterium’s official position on this.”
So was I, that was my first concern. In 1820, Pope Pius VII sanctioned the granting of the imprimatur to works presenting Copernican astronomy as true. Since 1616 the Congregation of the Index of Forbidden Books had forbidden publication of such works. It was a relaxing of the condemnation of heliocentrism.
“Is Copernican Principle rejected? Accepted?”
Allowed to be published and studied as a matter of science.
“Is there a dogmatic/doctrinal statement on the nature of the heavens and Earth’s position within it?”
There is no official Church teaching on the immobility of the earth. The theologians of Galileo’s day thought it was heretical to hold that the earth moved, but their actions were disciplinary in nature, not dogmatic. However, the consensus of the Church Fathers and Vatican I is one reason I decided to give the idea more consideration, and realized that geocentrism has in fact never been disproved.
“What did JP2 say about Galileo, exactly?”
In 1981 he ordered several study groups to conduct a thorough investigation of the encounter between Galileo and the Inquisition. In 1992 he told the Pontifical Academy, “A tragic mutual incomprehension has been interpreted as the reflection of a fundamental opposition between science and faith. The clarifications furnished by recent historical studies enable us to state that this sad misunderstanding now belongs to the past.”
It was mostly to end the misconception that science and faith are in conflict.
(I’m taking most of this from an approved graduate course at Holy Apostles College and Seminary on Galileo and Science.)
For LJP, if you want a more exteneded look into the status, I recently wrote a response to Michael Voris (from RealCatholicTV) that will give you a bird’s eye view of the issues. It’s at http://www.galileowaswrong.com/galileowaswrong/features/Response%20to%20Voris.pdf
There are dozens of papers on that site in response to objections from various people over the years, both scientific and historical. And of course, there is the two volume set me and Robert Bennett wrote titled Galileo Was Wrong. If you’d like a complimentary copy of the abridged version, LJP, I will send you one. Send me your address at my email.
For Michele: I don’t know if anyone answered your question about sending space probes out to Mars and such, but there would be no difference between the geocentric and heliocentric systems since all the motions and distances are identical. The only thing different is the center, the sun or the earth. In fact, NASA and JPL use the earth centered frame because it is a lot easier and actually more accurate. The solar barycentric frame can be very complicated because there are so many perturbations of the planets that keep changing the center of mass for the sun. Earth to Mars or Venus or the moon would not encounter those problems since they are very close to one another.
Rick,
There is no Tomazawa paper about this that I can find. There’s a communication that you link, but it’s not a paper, and it’s not gone through peer-review. I think the basis of his troubles with big bang cosmology rest on serious misconceptions about how relativity works. The biggest one is that, if there is any anisotropy (say, that other galaxies or clumps of matter exist), then performing a frame-of-reference transform from the CMB to any clump will generate a dipole in that frame. We are a clump (in a bigger clump), therefore we have a dipole (and higher multipole) moment.
Also the communication does not have a mathematical proof of anything. It is a speculative argument connected with a simple misconception about the physics.
Also, Tomozawa doesn’t think that the earth is at the geometric center of the universe. He provides a calculation of its location and relative motion in the communication you cite.
Paul:
The Tomazawa paper has been released, it is up on arXiv, and it is publicly available.
I have provided the link several times, through my blog, and I will now provide it again, directly, so that you can actually refute the paper, if you are able to do so.
If you are able only to hand wave, that is of course a response as well.
But again, you are challenged to refute the Tomazawa paper.
Until and unless you do, it stands, having been introduced here as evidence of a disproof of the standard Big Bang model.
Tomazawa has a PhD in physics and has for years been a Professor at the University of Michigan.
He is currently attached to the Michigan Center for Theoretical Physics, Randall Laboratory of Physics.
You will forgive me if I am not impressed by your handwaving assertions concerning your vastly greater competence in these matters.
I invite you one final time to step up to the plate and refute this paper if you can.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1108.1148v1.pdf
Stacy: “In 1820, Pope Pius VII sanctioned the granting of the imprimatur to works presenting Copernican astronomy as true. [emphasis mine]
This sounds to me like an incredibly weighty statement. It sounds, to me, like more than simply a relaxing of the condemnation of heliocentrism. Perhaps I misunderstand the implication of the imprimatur? I’m having trouble with that part…am I making too much of it?
Thanks
No official document of the magisterium has *ever* stated the Copernican astronomy is true.
The word “true” above has never appeared in any statement of the magisterium concerning any book concerning Copernicanism on the Index.
The word, I would assume, comes from Stacy’s source materials, not from any magisterial document.
It would seem to refer to the change, after 1822, in practice, of allowing works on the Copernican theory to be published *without the previously required* stipulation that the theory was to be considered an hypothesis only.
Stacy, allow me to add a little info on your wonderful synopsis of the history. Regarding the 1820-1822 issue, an imprimatur was granted verbally by Pius VII to Canon Settele who wrote a book on heliocentrism as a thesis. But the problem here is that the two men (Fr. Grandi and Fr. Olivieri) who brought the issue to Pius VII to get the imprimature for Settele had falsified information. They told the Pope that the reason heliocentrism was condemned as “formally heretical” by Paul V and Urban VIII was because Copernicus had an incorrect model of heliocentrism since he had no elliptical orbits of the planets. (See Annibale Fantoli’s Galileo, on page 520ff). But that was false. Paul V and Urban VIII rejected heliocentrism because it said the sun did not go around the earth and it made the earth move and go around the sun. It had nothing to do with elliptical orbits, but that apparently was a good enough canard to convince Pius VII. Also, at this time, the Church had no records on what transpired with Paul V and Urban VIII since Napoleon had stormed the Vatican in 1809 and took all the Galileo records back to France, and they weren’t returned until 1845. So Pius VII had little to go on (except Benedict XIV’s 1758 decision to give limited access to Galileo’s book). Also, Cardinal Capallari was on the 1822 commission to give Settele an imprimatur and was favorable to the Grandi/Olivieri excuse. Capallari become Gregory XVI in 1832, and took Galileo off the Index in 1835, but gave no reason why he allowed it to be so. They underlying reason he made such a decision, of course, is that he thought the “elliptical orbits” excuse was sufficient grounds. They wouldn’t find out he was wrong until Napoleon returned the Galileo records ten years later in 1845.
For LJP: In addition to the suspicious circumstances on Settele’s 1822 imprimatur, the fact is, an imprimatur is not an authoritative doctrinal statement by the Church, since an imprimatur can be rescinded if the book is later to be discovered to have heretical content. This is precisely what happened with Galileo. He was granted an imprimatur in 1632 (quite surreptitiously, but that is another story) for the very book that in 1633 Pope Urban VIII condemened as formally heretical. In other words, the imprimatur was rescinded. Pope Urban then sent letters to all the papal nuncios and universities of Europe telling them about the Church’s decision against heliocentrism and requiring them to obey the decision.
For Paul Rimmer: Paul, besides what Tomazawa points out, the biggest problem for the Standard Model is it doesn’t have enough energy or matter to make it work, to the tune of 95% of it missing. So it seems odd to us why a model that is missing 95% of its constiuent parts is propped up as the most plausible model. That’s not science. It se3ems to be more wishful thinking that will obviously save a lot of careers that are based on keeping the Standard Model alive. Clifton, et al, have shown that if you adopt a void-centered universe, you don’t need the 95% missing energy and matter (viz., a void-centered universe is a geocentric universe). So we have an answer to the 95% conundrum, and at least deserve at seat that the table, don’t ya think?
LJP,
Rick is right, I took that from my class notes. Here is the context for that word and why it was important.
The Aristotelian approach to natural science depended on what is *observed* and tried to logically explain what is *real.* Proof in Galileo’s time absolutely demanded observation to know if something was *true.* They were called natural philosophers.
Then there were the mathematicians. Copernicus had written his De revolutionibus in 1543. A preface to his book clearly advised readers that the ideas were not absolute or literal and only hypothetical, and no storm of controversy erupted on its publication.
Galileo, as a mathematician, stepped into the philosopher’s and the theologian’s roles and began to argue for Copernican theory in the early 1600′s *as if it were true* without having proven it by current demands for proof. That’s what upset people.
Mathematicians studied the heavenly bodies and come up with models to “save the appearances” (map out what they saw) speaking of their premises as only hypothetical models and not reality. That posed no conflict with scriptural interpretation.
So the 1822 relaxing allowed publications that considered Copernican theory as true and not merely hypothetical.
Does that make sense? Sorry about the confusion.
Rick/Robert, thank you for your responses, that makes more sense. I guess my main concern is in regards to the nature of an imprimatur…if it carries the full weight of the Holy See, infallibility, guidance by the Holy Spirit, etc. If that is the case then the nature (falsity or truth) of the information provided to Pius VII in his decision to grant the imprimatur would be inconsequential to the truth of the decision itself.
Again, I’m simply feeling my way through this completely new topic for me. If it is the case that these Settele works merely put forth Copernican theory as just that, and not as physical truth, then I don’t see a problem…if conversely, then I do see a problem.
Robert, thank you for the offer, very generous. Please provide your email address and I will take you up on it.
Robert, I see you answered my concern while I was writing it, thank you!
Just a clarification on the JP2 matter. Above JP2 is quoted as saying: “The clarifications furnished by recent historical studies enable us to state that this sad misunderstanding now belongs to the past.” First, I think it’s important to know that Cardinal Paul Poupard wrote this speech for the pope, and Poupard runs a school in France that is very liberal, and so is Poupard. Take that for what it’s worth.
Second, we need to understand what the statement “recent historical studies” refers to. It refers to the new theory in biblical hermeneutics(first begun by Protestants in the 1800s) that when the biblical writers wrote on science or history, they were not writing facts but their own ideas. In other words, they were in error. Catholic scholars adopted this hermeneutic (without official Church approval) in the 1940s. They wanted it in order to make room evolution, Copernicanism and relativity. Then, in 1965, these liberals interpreted Vatican II’s Dei Verbum 11′s reference to “for the sake of our salvation” to say that only when the Bible speaks on salvation is it without error. This was a wrong interpretation, of course, since the Church had never taught this in her history. The Fathers, the medieivals and all before 1940 had believed that the Bible was without error in everything it said, not just salvation. So, to make a long story short, when JP2′s speech referred to “recent historical studies” that solved the Church’s problem with Galileo, he was referring to the new hermeneutic that does not require us to regard non-salvific biblical statements as being without error. So, the “error of the theologians” that the speech refers to was the presumed error of the 17th century to read the bible’s cosmological passages as if they were without error. But, of course, it was no error for them to do so, since that is what they had been taught to do since the Fathers and medievals for the previous 1600 years! It was only Galileo and Darwin that forced the 20th century’s Catholic scholars to depart from the Fathers on this issue, and they did so without any scientific proof that either Galileo or Darwin were correct. It’s time to show the world they made a wrong turn, and I’m glad to see Stacy take a stand on this.
Stacy, I’m getting there! I’m still having trouble with the use of the word ‘true’ in this case. Maybe I’m trying to equate the ‘truth’ of a theory with the ‘truth’ of reality. Or maybe I’m forgetting my science lessons on the difference between hypothesis and theory…I’m thinking that may be where some confusion is coming from. When you say that the 1822 decision allowed publications that considered Copernican theory as true…is a true theory one that has merely been supported by observations? Or has not been disproved by observations? Sorry if I’m a little dense on the basics.
LJP, no problem at all. It took me months, and it’s still new to me. Like I said in my post though, the one thing I have become convinced about is that Rick and Robert have studied and thought about this a great deal, they are the experts, and it’s exciting to think about what they are saying.
They’ve been very patient with me, and still are. (I think I called them “Mack Trucks” at first with ALL the information too fast.)
Rick,
“But again, you are challenged to refute the Tomazawa paper.”
I already have. You are welcome to either ask questions if you would like some clarification, or you are welcome to respond however you like.
To remind you, the response is:
“The biggest one is that, if there is any anisotropy (say, that other galaxies or clumps of matter exist), then performing a frame-of-reference transform from the CMB to any clump will generate a dipole in that frame. We are a clump (in a bigger clump), therefore we have a dipole (and higher multipole) moment.”
You may of course pretend that I haven’t responded or you may choose to think that my response is hand-waving. I don’t care.
The purpose in this is not to debate. You don’t have science ideas that are worth debating. The purpose is not to win points or convince people. The bluntness of my responses would not be likely to convince anyone of anything.
My purpose is just to point out the bigger mistakes as you make them, and to answer any physics questions you may have.
It has been enjoyable for me to do so, and has helped clarify some of the physics, in my mind.
Stacy, how did you get that out of what I said? If you’re aiming for a moving target and you don’t know its path, you’re not going to hit it. Easy as that.
Michelle you learn here what is said is not what is read, apologies are offered on your behalf when you don’t owe them, words change meaning and non Catholics are held to different standards. It is what it is, and like lines at Disney it is part of the admission price.
I am sure this will getme in further trouble, but it’s the truth, a word that is used here only in reference to catholic theology
Rick,
For the (pretty simple) mathematics behind Tomozawa’s mistake, go to:
http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~pbrimmer/doppler.pdf
Stacy,
I answered your question above about God. I think he exists. I think his existence is objective: he exists regardless of my thoughts or feelings.
I am very interested to find out where this is going to go.
Alan, isn’t it ridiculous? I’ve been commenting on these blogs and blogs like them for going on two years now (can I be nominated for sainthood yet?), and I can only explain it with this: http://xkcd.com/386/ . I’ve been insulted, talked down to like I’m an idiot, and used as a bad example more times than I can count. I consider myself a passably good writer, and I don’t think a single one of my points has ever gotten across to anyone.
Anyway, I do want to let you know I saw your comments on the other post, and no apology was necessary, not by a long shot. I’m more often than not disgusted by what I see here, too. (Notice, by the way, that actual insults spewed by Rick at Paul – “Let me tell you what is unlikely, you double-tongued, censorship-approving, disgraceful credential-waving rice bowl clutching drone.” – in this post were not met with a peep from Stacy. Strange, huh?)
Alan, isn’t it ridiculous? I’ve been commenting on these blogs and blogs like them for going on two years now (can I be nominated for sainthood yet?), and I can only explain it with this: http://xkcd.com/386/ . I’ve been insulted, talked down to like I’m an idiot, and used as a bad example more times than I can count. I consider myself a passably good writer, and I don’t think a single one of my points has ever gotten across to anyone.
Anyway, I do want to let you know I saw your comments on the other post, and no apology was necessary, not by a long shot. I’m more often than not disgusted by what I see here, too. (Notice, by the way, that actual insults spewed by Rick at Paul – “Let me tell you what is unlikely, you double-tongued, censorship-approving, disgraceful credential-waving rice bowl clutching drone.” – in this post were not met with a peep from Stacy. Strange, huh?) I try to be polite and give others the benefit of the doubt as much as possible, but it’s not easy when there’s such a double standard for evidence, for tone, for what’s considered acceptable.
[Stacy - feel free to delete the post two above this one, as well as this post. I accidentally hit submit too early and hadn't realized it had gone through. Sorry!]
Michelle,
I’m glad you noticed that. Not so much the insult, because Rick and I have traded insults back and forth for a while, but Stacy’s being bothered by my insults, and not so bothered by his.
I also sometimes feel like the “someone’s wrong on the internet!” sort of person. I’m not sure that’s always a good thing, but there it is.
I am glad that the way things seem to me also seem that way to others here. It is my impression that Stacy has lost interest in truth and instead has found this attractive idea that the Church always taught. There’s something comforting about the ancient faith, when it is practiced in the ancient way, with all the ancient beliefs. It is a cohesive whole, with the castles and knights, monk’s robes and cathedral spires, honor and virtue, dragons and saints. It speaks to the core of the human heart.
So she peers at the Dark Ages idea about the alignments of the planets and stars, and how they move, and she wonders whether there is some science behind it all.
It makes sense to me. I always hope that, after the plane takes off, I’d see a fairy sitting on the wing. It’s magical, and to find out the magical is real, why, that’s the plot to many wonderful stories, and the secret desire of dreamers.
“It is my impression that Stacy has lost interest in truth and instead has found this attractive idea that the Church always taught. There’s something comforting about the ancient faith, when it is practiced in the ancient way, with all the ancient beliefs. It is a cohesive whole, with the castles and knights, monk’s robes and cathedral spires, honor and virtue, dragons and saints. It speaks to the core of the human heart.”
THIS. Very, very well said, Paul. I agree completely with the rest of the comment, too.
I can also understand the thrill of questioning scientific authority, and, for someone with a strong faith, being able to say the science proves my beliefs, so there must be very comforting, since so much of the Bible appears blatantly, painfully scientifically wrong. And really, I’m all for questioning scientific authority where there’s legitimate debate and where you have the background knowledge and understanding to contribute meaningfully to the discussion. But for someone who’s repeatedly said that she accepts the Magisterium’s teaching without question, I wonder why Stacy wouldn’t also defer to the authority of people who’ve, you know, actually studied this stuff. I think it betrays a desire to see the Bible scientifically validated, even if that validation has to come from a guy whose beliefs embarrass most Catholics and who has to resort to condescension and insults to make his points.
Anyway, keep up the good work here! Threads like these really need people who’ve studied the subject at hand.
Paul:
Thanks for your response on Tomozawa.
It will be the subject of what I expect to be a fascinating upcoming blogpost:
“Geocentrism and Mathemagic Part II: The War of the PhD’s on How To Do The Math”.
I will be submitting your solution to Tomozawa and to several other physicists, and publishing the results.
Thanks so much for allowing us mortals a glimpse into the world of Relativistic maths.
This one should be fun
Btw Paul it seems your solution requires a preferred frame- the CMB frame.
Ah, well.
We’ll see what develops…………….
Rick,
If what you say is true, then it will be interesting to see what these physicists think about what I wrote. I hope you know that, though you can share my results with others (they are posted online!) you cannot actually publish them, because that would be plagiarism.
I wonder if you really know any physicists. If your comments here are any indication, you don’t talk with them about physics.
The CMB frame is not a preferred reference frame in my explanation. You could explain the same phenomena by considering the CMB frame moving with respect to a stationary earth. Relativity is still quite safe. And so are Stacy’s hopes for the liturgical center.
Michelle,
Thank you again for your kind words and for sharing your insights. I think we’re on pretty-much the same page w.r.t. Stacy.
If the object of faith is truth, faith has nothing to fear from any knowledge. It seems the mark of a very weak faith, rather than a strong faith, to require science for support. I don’t think Stacy has this problem, but I think some people here may.
Rick,
I don’t read your blog, and that your emails to me immediately go to the trash.
If you want a response about this Tomozawa thing, just post a comment on my blog, or you can wait until we run into each other again here (if I’m still here).
Comment
Paul:
Your guess concerning my physicist friends is more amusing than you can presently imagine, but soon enough no imagination will be necessary
I would suggest you avoid poker games.
At least ones where I am sitting across from you.
I intend to publish exactly what you wrote, on my blog, and I have taken a screenshot of this exchange so there will be absolutely no doubt about the public nature of the request and of your response.
The episode may prove to be highly instructive, and possibly generally amusing, as an insight into what happens when the “shut up and calculate” gambit is pursued all the way to its….(logical?) conclusion.
Thanks again for the response.
“I intend to publish exactly what you wrote, on my blog…”
Oh, then you don’t need to worry about plagiarism.
Of course, you won’t need to worry about anyone reading it, either.
Heh heh heh…
Be a shame if you don’t get a chance to read this one, Paul.
It might be sort of epic
I’ll be sure to left you know here when it is up:
“Geocentrism and Mathemagic Part II: The War of the PhD’s Over How To Do The Math”
Well, Rick, I think the conclusion of “shut up and calculate” has been:
You can’t calculate.
And you can’t shut up.
—–
If I’m still around this thread or other, if I’m still reading Stacy’s blog at all, then please let me know what these physicists think. If I’m not around, just have them e-mail me.
I don’t have their e-mails blocked.
Paul,
Sorry it took so long. I had email and other things to catch up on. There is quite a bit of interest generated from this post and not everyone comments publicly. That’s why I keep the ‘contact me’ page visible.
“I answered your question above about God. I think he exists. I think his existence is objective: he exists regardless of my thoughts or feelings.”
The point is objectivity. You speak about objective things with a lot of “I think” or “it is likely” language so I wondered. “Thoughts and feelings” is a Modernist idea, a false one, and I wondered where you stood on that.
Either God exists or not. There can be no “liturgical center” separate from an actual center, any more than there can be a “only if I believe” God separate from real God. That was my point, and I’ll just jump right to it and not waste any more time.
True science and faith are not separate since God is the Author of all truth.
Good luck with your blog. I noticed I was the only subscriber, have been for about a year to encourage you along, but I think I’ll move on considering the nature of your comments recently.
You are welcome here, if you have a need to vent your frustrations and that makes you feel better, but I do not have infinite tolerance.
Michelle,
You used space navigation calculations as proof that the earth moves.
So I asked you if sunset and sunrise calculations then prove that the sun rises and sets.
This is basic elementary physics. Robert explained in more detail from his book above. I was going to copy part of it before, but I thought the simpler example would be enough.
Do you understand relative motion?
Wow.
“…a guy whose beliefs embarrass most Catholics and who has to resort to condescension and insults to make his points.”
Spoken like a very mature young lady who has a firm grasp of irony!
Reminds me of those people who say, “Don’t judge me, you’re disgusting.”
Stacy:
Thanks so much for this opportunity.
So often, Catholics have allowed themselves to be intimidated by handwaving assertions that “such and so a thing cannot be true, it is an embarrassment to believe otherwise, shut up and calculate, all the better sort of thinkers say so”.
Now on this thread we have seen Paul admit that geocentrism is possible.
He cannot disprove it as a matter of science.
And yet his “shut up and calculate” directly contradicts another PhD physicist’s “shut up and calculate”- on one and the same observation!
Even a PhD-even one who specializes in Relativity!- ought to be able to grasp that both can’t be true
We have seen Michelle make an absolutely breathtaking, elementary-school level blunder concerning relative motion.
The shocking truth is that the modern day Goliath of scientism, which has succeeded in separating hundreds of millions from the Faith and hundreds of trillions from the pocketbooks of suitably cowed taxpayers, is lost.
It has lost its way on evolution.
It has lost its way on Big Bang cosmology.
It has long since jumped over the fence into metaphysics, and as metaphysics it is so drastically inferior to the worldview of the Scriptures, the Fathers, the Doctors, the Saints, the Popes, the Councils……
That every Catholic ought to begin to consider whether the worldview presented by the pond scammers and the Big Bangers has really stood up to the test of *science*; that is, of *experimental demonstration*.
I submit it has not.
I thank you again for the opportunity to make this case.
In hopes of making Michelle’s “Vituperation List” a second time (she really liked the “Let me tell you what is unlikely, you double-tongued, censorship-approving, disgraceful credential-waving rice bowl clutching drone”)…….
The above “pond scammers” should have been “pond scammers”.
Let me know what you think, Michelle.
Spellcheck is evil.
Pond scummers.
Stacy, it’s really basic, and I can’t believe you’re not getting my point. Say you want to send a spacecraft to Jupiter. If you model Jupiter’s motion based on a heliocentric model, it’s not going to look the same as if you model it based on a geocentric model. I don’t have the equations, but if you just imagine the sun and Earth swapping places, hopefully you can visualize the fact that Jupiter’s distance from us will be different between the two scenarios. If you don’t know exactly where something is in relation to you, there’s not a chance you can make a spacecraft get there. I’m sure Paul could explain this far better than I am, because he’s actually studied this in detail, but unless Jupiter’s orbit is ridiculously shaped, there’s no way that the calculations required to send a spacecraft there are actually indicative of a geocentric solar system.
As for irony, how about the fact that you reprimanded both Paul and Alan for what you perceived as rudeness, but won’t say a word about Rick’s continued poor treatment of the other commenters here? I’ve complained about it multiple times, and while I know it’s your blog and you can do whatever you want, it’s a blatant double standard. If you don’t see the rudeness in his comments, I have to question your judgment even more than I already do.
You know, I’m going to be honest: the fact that you have a PhD and are listening to Rick – that you’d go so far as to call him an “expert” – really devalues higher education for me. I’m sure I make college students look bad to you, but if a chemistry PhD is willing to take on conspiracy theories to confirm her religious beliefs, it scares me. I’ve talked about science (not quite as much, but I have) on Leila’s blog, and I wanted to rip my hair out, but that was nothing compared to this (and for the record, I don’t recall it being Leila herself who frustrated me there).
I understand you want the Church to be infallible. I really do get it. If they were wrong about heliocentrism, what might they be wrong about in the modern day? It’s easier if they were right about everything from the very beginning, I get it. But there’s no shame in admitting you were wrong, even if it takes you a while to get there. It’s a sign of maturity and reasonableness. Ever meet someone who has to be right, all the time? (I’d argue Rick falls into this category, but I’m sure you know someone else.) They’re beyond annoying and they’re impossible to deal with. If the Church refused to budge on any issue, how could you possibly take them seriously as an intellectually honest organization?
I really do hope you come down on the side of actual science here. But if you were actually interested in truth (or Truth, I suppose), you would give all perspectives a fair chance here. You aren’t. Listen to the conspiracy theorist, but listen to the person who’s studied the subject for real. Listen to actual physicists, the people who do more than sit at their computer and argue all day. A good debater can make even the most ridiculous argument persuasive, and hopefully you can step back and see the arguments for what they are.
Alright. I am actually done now. Best of luck, use your critical thinking skills, etc.
Michelle,
This post, this blog, is for Catholics. I welcome other opinions, but this is primarily a Catholic blog.
You might be interested to know that several Catholics have emailed me, several even who are credentialed scientists who are interested in this topic. We just don’t flip out over different ideas. People can have a healthy interest and it’s OK.
My (cradle Catholic) husband’s a senior level executive, with a doctoral degree in numerical mechanics. He helped design and write the software for defense missiles that intersect enemy missiles in the atmosphere and neutralize them so people don’t get killed. He knows a thing or two about physics and math, trajectories and reasonable questions. He’s done more than “actually study this in detail, he’s actually successfully worked for our country and for our family. He interviews Harvard grads all the time who think they are entitled to praise for having a piece of paper, and it’s disheartening. He wants to hire people who can *think.* Because that’s what it takes to add value in the world. If it’s supposed to cower me when you “question my judgment”, well, I’ll just say I love your enthusiasm and I believe you have good intentions, but I don’t really need your approval. I’m good! Doin’ alright!
He’s a lot like Rick too, a really nice guy who doesn’t tolerate people antagonizing him very well. You folks come here and poke at people and then act surprised when they respond. LOL.
Michelle, I almost forgot. I mentioned you and your research in my newest post. I wanted to put your question and Jeff’s answer in a post of its own. It was a good question, and I loved his answer. He was gracious enough to agree to let me post it. Feel free to comment there and tell us more about your research, I know that is your passion, and I realize that not all atheists fall into the “infinite doubt” approach. So maybe it would be good, and get things moving more positive direction if you did share your thought process with us.
http://www.acceptingabundance.com/how-do-catholics-and-atheists-design-experiments/
Poor Michelle.
There was this thing that happened, Michelle.
In the early 20th century.
It is called “Relativity”.
Perhaps you have heard of it.
It requires us to take into consideration the fact that the universe exists- a universe exerting physical forces- on a scale much greater than Jupiter, or our solar system.
Now it is handy to do certain calculations in certain frames….say, GPS calculations in the Earth frame.
Or Jupiter moon orbits in the Jupiter frame.
Or Pioneer orbits in the solar barycentric frame.
Two things you need to grasp:
All of these frames are chosen strictly for their ease of calculation.
They tell us nothing at all about the actual state of motion (in an absolute sense) of the objects under consideration.
Second, each and every open of these calculations are done, in the end, in the ECI frame, here on Earth, by the JPL software which controls *all* the deep space probes currently operated by our species.
There is a very good reason for this.
The speed of light has been mathematically written into the JPL navigation software as being constant with respect to *one and only one* frame:
The Earth frame.
Hope this helps.
**I changed the Gravatar defaults to funny monster critters. Haha! I’ll change it back later. Wanted to see what it looks like.
Rick I was wondering if you were going to mention GPS. Use mine all the time driving around on earth.
Antagonize? What the hell, Stacy. I know you’re trying to be nice to me, and I appreciate that, but if you can’t see Rick’s response as disproportionate, you are crazy. This is like blaming an abuse victim for making the abuser angry. LOL.
I’ll say what Alan said on the other post: Rick, you are disgusting and I have literally zero respect for you. I’ve disagreed with more people than I can count, but most at least have had the decency not to be condescending jerks (censoring myself here – if this were my blog, I’d have used a different word). More than your ridiculous beliefs, you need to examine who you are as a person, because if your tone here is any indication, I have a feeling you’re just as impossibly infuriating and unpleasant in real life.
I’m out for good this time. Keep those insults coming, Rick, they really make you look like the authority you are. As all good scientists know, it’s not good research unless you have to yell at people to accept it!
Michelle:
It seems you can dish it out a whole lot better than you can take it there, Gunslinger.
I notice you have emoted your way out the door without addressing my points concerning relativity of motion and GPS.
OK.
See you next time, after you calm down.
Michelle, Thank you for the kind words.
You are so right, I appreciate what you say.
Paul:
I have discovered a relevant point related to your CMB link.
Since this one is advanced not by a PhD, but rather by someone, like yourself, who is a PhD candidate (mathematics in his case), and in the interest of giving you every opportunity to respond before I write the whole shebang up, it follows:
“The problem is that when you try to define a frame relative to an object moving at the speed of light, coordinate transformations break down – they require you to send two points to the same point, or vice versa. Special relativity specifically requires that the transforms between inertial frames happen for two frames that are moving relative to each other at speeds below that of light. This is actually one part of the basis for relativity – that you cannot take a frame moving at the same velocity as a photon.”
Now your solution to the CMB dipole requires, exactly, that we:
“….take the CMB reference frame (where the CMB has an average velocity, vav = 0), at some point xi,0. At this point, the CMB radiation has an average frequency of ω0. Imagine a particle moving in this field at velocity v relative to the CMB reference frame.”
In other words, we now have three directly contradictory statements about the CMB frame, from one PhD and two PhD candidates.
“Shut up and calculate”, indeed………….
Rick,
I agree with the other PhD candidate. It is not meaningful to take a Lorentz transform into a frame moving at the speed of light, since gamma -> infinity.
The CMB frame does not move at the speed of light relative to the particle-frame. The frame can be defined with an energetic average. I’ll update the link I provided to explain that better. People have calculated the velocity of the CMB-frame relative to the earth.
Currently, there are two PhD candidates who do not agree, one of whom addresses Tomogawa (me) and one who does not seem to.
Paul:
I would appreciate being able to forward the update to the several sources I have reviewing this when available.
Honestly, all kidding aside, I stand now simply in a position of watching and waiting to see how this situation will be resolved.
I will not even bother to ask, for now, how a frame composed exclusively of photons can be considered not to move at the speed of light with respect to a particle frame.
I will simply sit back and let the math be done, by all who wish to do it.
Then I will simply report what I have received.
I do not know yet whether this piece will be a comedy, a tragedy, or a triumphant drama.
It has elements of all three at this point……
“To infinity…
…and beyond!”
-Buzz Lightyear
LOL!
“Whenever you deal with infinities, you cease doing physics”-
Dr. George Ellis
So you go from being a scientist to being a Catholic geocentrist? So how much did your lobotomy cost, or don’t you remember?
Rick,
It’s not that hard. The CMB frame would be whatever frame doesn’t have a dipole. That’s a true statement, not really a definition.
In terms of the math, to first order, change “$v_{av} = 0$” (which is sloppy and inaccurate) to “$dE_{\nu}/d\theta \approx 0$ for first order” (which is more accurate, but still not perfect). I don’t think I’ll change the linked pdf, but that’s the correction.
Stacy,
The earth is probably not at the geometric center of the universe. There is probably no physically significant meaning to whatever “center” the earth happens to be at.
If you were to accept the concept of “liturgical center”, why wouldn’t that be an actual center? Why wouldn’t it be a spiritual reality, even if it wasn’t really a physical reality?
Sort of how Christ is present in communion. He’s not physically there, and no one’s ever going to build an experiment to find him (or clone him), but he’s there spiritually, so it’s a reality.
Why not like that?
Correction: “Currently, there are two PhD candidates who DO agree, one of whom addresses Tomogawa (me) and one who does not seem to.”
I agree with the PhD candidate. No Lorentz transforms to lightspeed.
No great drama. This whole thing is a very small issue, that almost no one cares about.
Paul,
Because that’s heretical. What you “probably” think is no measure of truth. The doctrine of Transubstantiation is scriptural and reasonable, and has been defended by the Church over and over against heresies since the beginning – when Christ said so.
The idea of spiritual and physical realities that are independent of each other is an artifact, in part, of Rene Descartes and Kant. You may not realize it, but you are logically contradicting yourself to say that 1) objective truth exists, and then to say that 2) spiritual truth and physical truth are different things. The latter denies the former.
It’s like saying that what you think has nothing to do with your brain, which is impossible.
That’s why not.
I’ll stay with what I probably think is true. Thanks anyway.
You live in a sort of theological bubble, it seems. Everything depends on everything else. So, if there is a problem in your theology, it will destroy not a part of your faith, but all of your faith. I hope that never happens to you. It almost happened to me.
I think I’ll be heading out. I used to come to this blog to vent about Catholicism, but I found out that, when my bitterness toward Catholicism waned, so did my interest in Catholicism.
Your blog is about large families. I don’t plan to have one.
Your blog is about Catholicism. I’m no longer interested in that.
Your blog used to have scientific content. Then you became enamored with geocentrism and young-earth creationism. Now your blog has zero scientific content.
So there’s nothing here holding my interest anymore. I imagine there is very little in my blog that would hold your interest. You are welcome to continue following my blog, or to move on, as you wish.
Why should people continue to read what they’re not interested in?
Hey Rick,
I won’t be checking up on this blog, and I don’t read your blog.
If you do get any interesting responses from someone about the CMB dipole, have that person e-mail me, using their academic e-mail address. I’ll make sure to answer them, if I have the time. I hope I can learn something from their responses.
“Everything depends on everything else.”
Exactly, that’s how logic works!
Bye Paul. God bless you and your family.
Paul:
Listen, pal. You want to find out what happens next, you’re just gonna have to stick with the happening blogs, like Stacy’s, or mine.
Otherwise…..well.
You’ll just have to wonder
Of course since the CMB frame is accelerating to begin with (faster than the SoL as a matter of fact, according to the Metaphysical Wizards of Oz)….Tomozawa did not “forget” anything, Paul.
You did.
But anyway, if you want to see how the War of the PhD’s on How To Do The Math works out (it really is starting to look more like a comedy at this point), I’ll drop a line here when the post is ready.
Well, Paul, you have a very significant supporter in Dr. John Hartnett, who just kindly chimed in, and opined:
“I think this is the main point. And Rimmer is correct. Any particle that is moving wrt to the CMB sources (assumed to be at rest) sees a dipole from the rest frame of the test particle. Anything else is extraneous. And can such a particle exist in a standard Friedmann universe? That is the real question? Most would assume yes, but it is the underlying unprovable assumption. This is where the philosophy comes in (again). To test it you would need different type of universes to test the hypothesis, and you have only one.”
So I certainly hope you are still stopping by Paul.
Professor John Hartnett is the absolutely real deal, and a man whom I trust even if he is a Relativist
Btw he has a new review article up on ArXiv:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1107.2485
Well, well, well.
Paul has pulled down his demonstration.
Wonder why?
Things were going pretty well for him…….although we have yet to hear from several of the invited commentators as of yet!
Perhaps Paul just prefers to do his science away from the pesky, messy world where not everybody buys into his preconceptions?
Well, that’s fine.
As long as it lasts, I suppose…………..
Comment
I went back to Dave Armstrong’s site because I knew it had this link to a debate between Sungenis and Cole from 2003. In it, so it seems to me, Cole effectively refuted geocentricism
http://web.archive.org/web/20050828145515/http://catholicoutlook.com/cole.php
More info on our geocentric universe here:
http://christian-wilderness.forumvi.com/t39-stationary-earth