Bible does not teach Geocentrism!

[wildleafblower]

I beg to differ. Galileo Was Wrong has quote after quote from scientists rejecting such observations out of hand. Often stating things like, 'but Copernicus taught us…", or “…it is intolerable…”. It is clear to me after reading the book, that science is not only not open to the possibility, but deathly afraid of it.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

Mark, even though Catholic.com lost in a crash the Geocentric vs. Heliocentric Poll, I not only REMEMBER it but saved the correspondence we had Mark on the Geocentric vs. Heliocentric Poll p. 2 from June 26, 2006 thu July 2006. I think it was Jimmy Atkins that said we could repost messages that were lost. Sounds like a good idea to me. Forthcoming … resurrection of the lost messages

FYI,Search result: Nothing! appears when typing the word “geocentrism” into the Vatican search engine. (1) This should give people a clue as to what the Vatican has to say about geocentrism. Not important enough to be in there! Null and void.

1. vatican.mondosearch.com/search_en.aspx?query=geocentrism&x=21&y=12

 

[Della]

“The majority of theologians did not recognize the formal distinction between Sacred Scripture and its interpretation, and this led them unduly to transpose into the realm of the doctrine of the faith a question which in fact pertained to scientific investigation.”

“In fact, as Cardinal Poupard has recalled, Robert Bellarmine, who had seen what was truly at stake in the debate personally felt that, in the face of possible scientific proofs that the earth orbited round the sun, one should ‘interpret with great circumspection’ every biblical passage which seems to affirm that the earth is immobile and ‘say that we do not understand, rather than affirm that what has been demonstrated is false’. Before Bellarmine, this same wisdom and same respect for the divine Word guided St Augustine when he wrote: ‘If it happens that the authority of Sacred Scripture is set in opposition to clear and certain reasoning, this must mean that the person who interprets Scripture does not understand it correctly. It is not the meaning of Scripture which is opposed to the truth but the meaning which he has wanted to give to it. That which is opposed to Scripture is not what is in Scripture but what he has placed there himself, believing that this is what Scripture meant’. A century ago, Pope Leo XIII echoed this advice in his Encyclical Providentissimus Deus: ‘Truth cannot contradict truth and we may be sure that some mistake has been made either in the interpretation of the sacred words, or in the polemical discussion itself’.”

“In Galileo’s time, to depict the world as lacking an absolute physical reference point was, so to speak, inconceivable. And since the cosmos, as it was then known, was contained within the solar system alone, this reference point could only be situated in the earth or in the sun. Today, after Einstein and within the perspective of contemporary cosmology neither of these two reference points has the importance they once had. This observation, it goes without saying, is not directed against the validity of Galileo’s position in the debate; it is only meant to show that often, beyond two partial and contrasting perceptions, there exists a wider perception which includes them and goes beyond both of them.”

These are statements made by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, and was approved by Pope John Paul II as valid de fide teaching on the relationship between the Church and Science.

Since it appears that the magisterium has now declared that, as a matter of faith, it is acceptable to accept the heliocentric view; that neither is detrimental to the faith.

So this leaves four obvious options:

1. The initial authorities you have quoted are not really part of the magisterium.
2. The statements above that bear all the signs of being part of the ordinary magisterium are not really part of the ordinary magisterium.
3. Both (1) and (2).
4. The ordinary magisterium is not infallible in this matter.

I hold (4).

I cannot agree with your conclusion, noma that #4 has to be the right one. Not that I have Church documents to hand to quote, but because it seems ludicrous to me that the Church went on for centuries without ever making a single misstatement on a matter of faith and morals only to be derailed by a question about the movement of celestial bodies.

Christ promised the Apostles that he would send the Holy Spirit to guide his Church into all truth (the truths of faith and morals). He never put a time limit on that promise nor said he would rescind it at any time. Either Jesus meant what he promised or he didn’t, and I have to believe he meant what he promised.

The Magisterium and the pope cannot be wrong when defining doctrine or dogma. If the Church defined a doctrine or dogma wrongly then it could not be trusted to make right definitions in any other matter. And that violates Christ’s promise.

What you all are debating isn’t heliocentrism vs. geocentrism, but whether or not the Church can be wrong in matters of faith and morals. People on both sides of the issue are acting as if he were the Magisterium, which none of us is. If the Church says it doesn’t matter which is scientifically true as regards faith and morals, then it doesn’t, and never has–not even in Galileo’s case, which is another topic altogether.

And noma in particular, the major miracle of infallibility is possible because nothing is impossible with God. To say otherwise is to say that God can make mistakes, and that is the only thing here that is truly impossible.

 

[trth_skr]

Has anyone…convincingly demonstrated that the Earth is motionless and in the centre???

There are experiments which point to this. See the answer to below. If the answer were a draw, which would you pick? :

1. The atheistic/agnostic opinion of modern science
2. The proclamations of previous popes
3. Keep an open mind to both

Some bona fide sources to back this up?

…the famous experiment of Michelson and Morley undertaken to
measure the so-called absolute velocity of the Earth…”
Max Planck, Scientific Autobiography and Other Papers, New York: Philosophical Library, 1949, p. 139.

“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.

“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, New York, Macmillian Company and Cambridge University Press, 1929, pp. 11, 8, in sequence.

Just for starters (literally some of the opening quotes of chapter 5 of Galileo Was Wrong).

Some examples of these observations?

The quantization (quasars, galaxies, etc.).The correlation between the CMB’s multipoles and the earth’s ecliptic plane. The correlation of binary star axis and the earth’s position, etc.

And since the isotropic principle (i.e., the earth is not at center) is only an unproven assumption, earth at the center is “the other option”.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
JMJ+

 

[hecd2]

.

All observations of our postion and many others indicate we are in the center.

Massive exaggeration. *All *observations of our position indicate we are at the center? Perhaps you would be kind enough to tell us exactly how *all *observations indicate that. In fact, I’d be quite intrigued to discover *one *observation that unequivocally indicates it.

Of course, we shouldn’t accept anything that Mark says about astronomy or cosmology. This is a man who claims to have sufficient scientific insight to be confident in rejecting the mainstream science that tens of thousands of physicists have questioned and built on for four hundred years, and who confuses basic things like the ecliptic and equatorial planes. Nuff said.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[trth_skr]

…There are plenty of things that point to heliocentricism though.

Name one, besides the opinion of astronomers and appeals to analogy or simplicity.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[trth_skr]

Mark, even though Catholic.com lost in a crash the Geocentric vs. Heliocentric Poll, I not only REMEMBER it but saved the correspondence we had Mark on the Geocentric vs. Heliocentric Poll p. 2 from June 26, 2006 thu July 2006. I think it was Jimmy Atkins that said we could repost messages that were lost. Sounds like a good idea to me. Forthcoming … resurrection of the lost messages

Don’t forget this poll which preceded it (actual poll). It was propperly designed.

FYI,Search result: Nothing! appears when typing the word “geocentrism” into the Vatican search engine. (1) This should give people a clue as to what the Vatican has to say about geocentrism. Not important enough to be in there! Null and void.

1. vatican.mondosearch.com/search_en.aspx?query=geocentrism&x=21&y=12

so? What’s the point.

Try “homosexual+priests”. (You need to type it in with the boolean “+”, else you get homosexual “or” priests). I did not get anything.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[trth_skr]

Massive exaggeration. *All *observations of our position indicate we are at the center? Perhaps you would be kind enough to tell us exactly how *all *observations indicate that. In fact, I’d be quite intrigued to discover *one *observation that unequivocally indicates it.

The simplest explanation for * most observations is that we are in the center. At the very least, it is an option to consider it, especially since there really are only two options:

1. We are in the center (this could be extended to solar system / galaxy in some cases- doubtfully beyond)
2. Everywhere is in the center.

Two choices, but scientists recoil at #1.

But since Hubble was an avowed Copernican, he
dismissed the geocentric evidence and countered with
the following obstinate alternative:

…Such a condition would imply that
we occupy a unique position in the
universe, analogous, in a sense, to the
ancient conception of a central
Earth.…This hypothesis cannot be
disproved, but it is unwelcome and
would only be accepted as a last
resort in order to save the phenomena.
Therefore we disregard this
possibility…the unwelcome position
of a favored location must be avoided
at all costs… such a favored position
is intolerable….Therefore, in order to
restore homogeneity, and to escape
the horror of a unique position…must
be compensated by spatial curvature.
There seems to be no other escape.

The Observational Approach to Cosmology*, Oxford,*
Clarendon Press, 1937, pp. 50, 51, 58.

As quoted in Galileo Was Wrong, chapter 3.

Of course, Stephen Hawking states that we choose #2 out of “modesty”:

…all this evidence that the universe
looks the same whichever direction
we look in might seem to suggest
there is something special about our
place in the universe. In particular, it
might seem that if we observe all
other galaxies to be moving away
from us, then we must be at the center
of the universe…

*…*There is, however, an alternate
explanation: the universe might look
the same in every direction as seen
from any other galaxy, too. This, as
we have seen, was Friedmann’s
second assumption. We have no
scientific evidence for, or against, this
assumption. We believe it only on
grounds of modesty: it would be most
remarkable if the universe looked the
same in every direction around us, but
not around other points in the
universe.

*A Brief History of Time *, Bantam Books, New York,

1988,

It would be most remarkable, Dr. Hawking, but then again, God is quite remarkable!

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com*

 

[hecd2]

[Attempting to put forward evidence for a geocentric universe:]

The quantization (quasars, galaxies, etc.).

Unfortunately the so-called quantisation of redshift as observed in galaxies and quasars is a busted flush. Better large scale surveys have shown that the so-called quantisation is not present.

Hawkins et al, No Periodicities in 2dF Redshift Survey Data Mon.Not.Roy.Astron.Soc. 336 (2002) L13

Tang and Zhang, Critical Examinations of QSO Redshift Periodicities and Associations with Galaxies in Sloan Digital Sky Survey Data, The Astrophysical Journal 633, Issue 1, 41-51 (2005)

Bajan et al, On the investigations of galaxy redshift periodicity (2006) eprint arXiv:astro-ph/0606294

The correlation between the CMB’s multipoles and the earth’s equatorial plane.

Two errors here that between totally discredit Mark as a serious commentator on cosmology. he confuses the equatorial plane with the ecliptic - a schoolboy error that shows he simply doesn’t know what he is talking about. And he claims that the CMB multipoles align - I doubt he would know what a CMB multipole was if it bit him, but actually the alignment is between the dipole and the quadrupole; it could be coincidental but is most likely an artefact of imperfect foreground cleaning - there are other discrepancies in the angular spectrum at large scales (lack of power at l=2 and l=3) that are currently not fully explained - they could be measurement artefacts or evidence of some as yet unknown physical phenomenon like the dodecahedral universe. In any case none of this offers the slightest support for geocentrism.

And since the isotropic principle (i.e., the earth is not at center) is only an unproven assumption, earth at the center is “the other option”.

What an inadequate piece of logic. The alternative to acentrism is centrism. In the latter case there are about 10^183 possible centres in the observable universe. So a given point on the earth has, if we accept that a centre has meaning, a one in 10^183 probability of being it.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[trth_skr]

[Attempting to put forward evidence for a geocentric universe:]
Unfortunately the so-called quantisation of redshift as observed in galaxies and quasars is a busted flush. Better large scale surveys have shown that the so-called quantisation is not present.

Hawkins et al, No Periodicities in 2dF Redshift Survey Data Mon.Not.Roy.Astron.Soc. 336 (2002) L13

Tang and Zhang, Critical Examinations of QSO Redshift Periodicities and Associations with Galaxies in Sloan Digital Sky Survey Data, The Astrophysical Journal 633, Issue 1, 41-51 (2005)

Bajan et al, On the investigations of galaxy redshift periodicity (2006) eprint arXiv:astro-ph/0606294

Not everyone agrees with the results, and the debate still rages on.

Two errors here that between totally discredit Mark as a serious commentator on cosmology. he confuses the equatorial plane with the ecliptic - a schoolboy error that shows he simply doesn’t know what he is talking about. And he claims that the CMB multipoles align - I doubt he would know what a CMB multipole was if it bit him, but actually the alignment is between the dipole and the quadrupole; it could be coincidental but is most likely an artefact of imperfect foreground cleaning - there are other discrepancies in the angular spectrum at large scales (lack of power at l=2 and l=3) that are currently not fully explained - they could be measurement artefacts or evidence of some as yet unknown physical phenomenon like the dodecahedral universe. In any case none of this offers the slightest support for geocentrism.

I typed the wrong word by writing too fast. I was thinking “plane” and wrote “equatorial” instead of “ecliptic”.

Notice what Alec is trying to do here. This is clearly real evidence as he is trying to point to my typing error to discredit all the scientists I quoted! Only Alec’s scientific opinion counts here.

What an inadequate piece of logic. The alternative to acentrism is centrism. In the latter case there are about 10^183 possible centres in the observable universe. So a given point on the earth has, if we accept that a centre has meaning, a one in 10^183 probability of being it.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

I.e., reject the observations and only consider mathematical options.

Of course the statistical argument also fails to account for the existence of God. He is >> 10^183 .

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[hecd2]

The simplest explanation for * most observations is that we are in the center. *
Really? You are yet to post one observation for which the simplest observation is that the earth is the unmoving centre of the universe. I don’t think such an observation, just one observation, for geocentrism exists. Not even one. Is there one? What is it?

At the very least, it is an option to consider it, especially since there really are only two options:

1. We are in the center (this could be extended to solar system / galaxy in some cases- doubtfully beyond)
2. Everywhere is in the center.

 

[trth_skr]

Really? You are yet to post one observation for which the simplest observation is that the earth is the unmoving centre of the universe. I don’t think such an observation, just one observation, for geocentrism exists. Not even one. Is there one? What is it?

Ask Edwin Hubble. I quoted him 5 posts up. Stephen Hawking, too. He said "*In particular, it *might seem that if we observe all *other galaxies to be moving away from us, then **we must be at the center ***of the universe"

No, there are 10^183 options:

1. there is no centre because the concept of centre is meaningless

This is so, as Stephen Hawking said, if we accept "Friedmann’s
second assumption. " He went on to say, “We have no scientific evidence for, or against, this assumption. We believe it only on grounds of modesty: it would be most remarkable if the universe looked the same in every direction around us, but not around other points in the universe.”

1. There is a centre and it could be any one of 10^183 separate locations in the observable universe.

If I accept 2., why should I choose a point on the earth rather than a point on the rim of a centrifuge rotating at 5000rpm and orbiting a star in Holmberg IV?

Alec
evolutionpages.com

Why consider it?

How about because it is the one center revealed to us?

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[hecd2]

Not everyone agrees with the results, and the debate still rages on.

Really? I posted the papers from the scientific community that show that quantisation is not observed in large scale sky surveys. Why don’t you post up-to-date (2002 to 2006) references from peer reviewed literature that support quantisation and your contention that ‘the debate still rages on’.

I typed the wrong word by writing too fast. I was thinking “plane” and wrote “equatorial” instead of “ecliptic”.

Well then, you typed the wrong word in two separate threads over a space of two to three days. Hmm!. You clearly did not know the difference between the ecliptic and the equatorial plane until I pointed out your error. (I’m not sure that even now you know the difference). This is just one in a long series of scientific blunders that show you know practically nothing about science.

Why don’t you tell us, in your own words, exactly what is aligned with what, to what extent, and why that supports your case. Try to be precise - pretend that you actually know some science.

Notice what Alec is trying to do here. This is clearly real evidence as he is trying to point to my typing error to discredit all the scientists I quoted! Only Alec’s scientific opinion counts here.

Not a typing error on your part, as we have seen, but simple lack of knowledge. As for the quotations from scientists, if the best you can do is 15 word quotations from 1881 taken out of context, I am afraid that is rather pathetic. If you think that Eddington would have interpreted the null Michelson-Morley result as the earth stationary in an aether then you are seriously in the realm of fantasy (Eddington is one of the few people who claimed to fully understand GR in the 1920s)

Of course the statistical argument also fails to account for the existence of God. He is >> 10^183 .

Sigh! This is not a statistical argument seeking to account for the existence (or non-existence) of God. What a non-sequitur. What are you blethering on about? I merely point out that if you accept that a centre to the universe is a meaningful concept (not that you should, but if you do) then you have 10^183 to choose from - why would you choose one on the earth? Why?

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[trth_skr]

Really? I posted the papers from the scientific community that show that quantisation is not observed in large scale sky surveys. Why don’t you post up-to-date (2002 to 2006) references from peer reviewed literature that support quantisation and your contention that ‘the debate still rages on’.

From Galileo Was Wrong (a blurb):

At this point, opposing sides point the finger at each other. The Hawkins team determines that: “one can manipulate the data in order to specify ones own more optimal window – a procedure that statisticians whimsically refer to as ‘carpentry,” and they conclude that “…the previous detection of a periodic signal arose from the combination of noise and the effects of the window [statistical] function.”[1]* Followers of the Arp team see it quite differently. Geoffrey Burbidge asserts that the entire work of the Hawkins team “is a real piece of dishonesty,” since Burbidge’s colleague, William Napier, had already pointed out a serious statistical flaw in Hawkins’ analysis before he published his paper. Napier subsequently submitted a rebuttal to the Royal Astronomical Society alerting the society to Hawkins’ flaw, as well as citing a recent Hubble photograph showing that one of the pairs studied by Hawkins had a luminous filament that physically connected the galaxy to the quasar

Although Hawkins asserts that he and his team “attempted to carry out this analysis without prejudice,” Burbidge concludes that the resistance of Hawkins and other Big Bang theorists is due to the “sociological problem associated with the need to believe” that redshifts are related to distances.[2]*
Burbidge has a lot on his side. As of January 2005, his research led to the discovery of a quasar situated almost at the very center of a spiral galaxy, NCG 7319.[3]* Obviously, this phenomenon cannot be dismissed by “statistical analysis,” unless opponents attempt to argue that the galaxy’s core is transparent and allows us to see the quasar as if one is looking through a peephole, an argument that no one seems willing to undertake*.

Well then, you typed the wrong word in two separate threads over a space of two to three days. Hmm!. You clearly did not know the difference between the ecliptic and the equatorial plane until I pointed out your error. (I’m not sure that even now you know the difference). This is just one in a long series of scientific blunders that show you know practically nothing about science.

Why don’t you tell us, in your own words, exactly what is aligned with what, to what extent, and why that supports your case. Try to be precise - pretend that you actually know some science.

Bad habits, I guess.

Equatorial: plane of the earth’s and universe’s equator (imaginary plane dividing the sphere of the earth in two, N and S, if that helps).
Ecliptic: path of the sun around the earth. 23.5 deg. from equator.

…If you think that Eddington would have interpreted the null Michelson-Morley result as the earth stationary in an aether then you are seriously in the realm of fantasy (Eddington is one of the few people who claimed to fully understand GR in the 1920s)

No, but the quote made a point, and it showed that Eddington realized the importance of the experiment and what its failure signified.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[hecd2]

From Galileo Was Wrong (a blurb):

At this point, opposing sides point the finger at each other. The Hawkins team determines that: “one can manipulate the data in order to specify ones own more optimal window – a procedure that statisticians whimsically refer to as ‘carpentry,” and they conclude that “…the previous detection of a periodic signal arose from the combination of noise and the effects of the window [statistical] function.”[1]* Followers of the Arp team see it quite differently. Geoffrey Burbidge* asserts that the entire work of the Hawkins team “is a real piece of dishonesty,” since Burbidge’s colleague, William Napier, had already pointed out a serious statistical flaw in Hawkins’ analysis before he published his paper. Napier subsequently submitted a rebuttal to the Royal Astronomical Society alerting the society to Hawkins’ flaw, as well as citing a recent Hubble photograph showing that one of the pairs studied by Hawkins had a luminous filament that physically connected the galaxy to the quasar

Although Hawkins asserts that he and his team “attempted to carry out this analysis without prejudice,” Burbidge concludes that the resistance of Hawkins and other Big Bang theorists is due to the “sociological problem associated with the need to believe” that redshifts are related to distances.[2]
Burbidge has a lot on his side. As of January 2005, his research led to the discovery of a quasar situated almost at the very center of a spiral galaxy, NCG 7319.[3]* Obviously, this phenomenon cannot be dismissed by “statistical analysis,” unless opponents attempt to argue that the galaxy’s core is transparent and allows us to see the quasar as if one is looking through a peephole, an argument that no one seems willing to undertake*.

I simply asked you for a reference to a paper in the last four years that confirms the periodicity in the cosmic redshifts. I know that the Burbridges and Napier (and Jayant Narlikar and one or two others) insist that there are periodicities, but the consensus is that any apparent peridiocities are fully explicable by gravitational galaxy clustering (which itself is fully explained and correlated with the CMB anisotropies, by the way). As far as I know, none of these people have published formal rebuttals of Hawkins, Tang and Zhang and Bajan and the consensus is as I have described it. That is one matter.

You, or the people whom you copy from, seem to have confounded the periodicity argument with an entirely different argument about the association of quasars with relatively nearby galaxies and claimed anomalies in quasar redshift. However, almost all astrophysicists reject this, as the Lyman alpha forest, and the Gunn-Peterson trough in some cases puts quasars at cosmological distances. The quasar in the direction of NGC 7319, if it is associated with the galaxy, would indeed be a puzzle, but I wouldn’t rely on it. The ‘anomalous’ redshift of another member of Stephan’s quintet, NGC 7320 was held by this same team as proof that redshift is not necessarily correlated with distance, until the Hubble telescope showed that it is indeed closer and not part of the same cluster as the others.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[R_McGeddon]

Name one, besides the opinion of astronomers and appeals to analogy or simplicity.

The fact that the Earth has seasons is an indicator. The Earth is tilted on its axis and, depending on its orbit around the Sun, whichever hemisphere (northern or southern) is angled toward the Sun, that hemisphere has its summer season while the other hemisphere has its winter season.

If the Earth was motionless and the Sun orbitted it, both hemispheres would be in perpetual summer during daylight hours.

 

[trth_skr]

I simply asked you for a reference to a paper in the last four years that confirms the periodicity in the cosmic redshifts. I know that the Burbridges…

You, or the people whom you copy from, seem to have confounded the periodicity argument with an entirely different argument about the association of quasars with relatively nearby galaxies and claimed anomalies in quasar redshift. However, …

Alec
evolutionpages.com

Alec:

There are always [at least] two sides to every story. What Galileo Was Wrong does is show that the geocentric cosmology has by no means been eliminated as a reasonable possibility, and in fact, that many cosmological observations and experiments actually support the contention.

It is a serious book backed up with research. Most of the content is based on actual observations and scientific experiments, their results, and the obvious and not so obvious interpretations.

Yes, it is true that the conclusions reached in the book are out of line with the opinion of almost all astronomers and cosmologists. That is why it is such a remarkable book. It uses the statements, experiments, observations, and results of these scientists and makes a very strong case that they are not even considering the most obvious explanation- the earth does not move and is in a central position in the universe. I know we all have been told since knee-high that the earth goes around the sun. I know it is so ingrained in our being that even considering the opposite exposes us to ridicule, shame, and insult. Look at the reaction of the scientists themselves when faced with the possibility. It is “intolerable”, im-“modest”, etc.* Galileo Was Wrong* has tons of quotes as scientist after scientist come face to face with the possibility of an immobile earth yet, cannot even pause to consider it a possibility. They explicitly state they will ignore the evidence (because Copernicus taught us…, etc.). This, my friend, is dogma. Not science.

Look, the direct observations point to a central earth not moving. I know that from a Platonic perspective, what you see is not always what you get. Still, why ignore the obvious interpretation of the observations? Only because they conflict with deep seated presuppositions. If you go to a mechanic, their rule is ‘check the simplest explanation first’. Apparently not so in cosmology. Generally, what you “See” is the simplest explanation, not always the right one, but the simplest. If I am standing and I see a bike moving towards me, the simplest explanation is that the bike is moving towards me; though it is possible that I am unknowingly standing on a moving platform. Nor do I contend that scientists are stupid. It is just apparent from their reactions that yhey absolutely refuse to consider the possibility of a non-moving and/or central earth (occasionally they entertain some general notion of centrality, i.e., galacto, local group, etc.). Well, Galileo Was Wrong does not refuse to consider the possibility. Being written by anti-modernists, they have no shame in considering what establishment science refuses to consider.

Alec, if you cannot be honest enough to face the people on this forum and tell them, point blank:

1. Yes, the isotropic principle (i.e., all places appear to be center) is only an assumption; The counter assumption which is our only direct observation, is that the earth is at the center;
2. All the experiments that attempted to detect the motion of the earth failed, and led to new hypothesis to explain the presupposition (that the earth moves); that these new hypothesis include
   a. The Fitzgerald contraction which morphed into the
   b. Lorentz contraction which Einstein included in
   c. Special realtivity, which then
3. Mathematically made the experiments which failed appear insignificant, with the caveat that;
   a. We cannot easily verify the theory since
   i. The rulers we would use shrink in motion, therefor we cannot see the proposed changes
4. Later came Genral Relativity, which made it even harder to reject geocentrism, but does not prove geocentrism, and assumes the isotropic principle (though some metrics do make a center possible).

Then we really cannot have an honest conversation. You are a bulldog defending the status quo of the inflationary big bang theory, even to the extent of using insults and ridicule to make your point. You do not seem to be interested in stepping back and questioning the assumptions, something supposedly very big in scientific method. That is what Galileo Was Wrong is all about.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[hecd2]

There are always [at least] two sides to every story. What Galileo Was Wrong does is show that the geocentric cosmology has by no means been eliminated as a reasonable possibility, and in fact, that many cosmological observations and experiments actually support the contention.

Yes, but frequently one of the two sides carries very little weight compared with the other. You can find someone to oppose every scientific theory, no matter how well established and apparently uncontroversial it is. The fact is that geocentrism is not a serious proposition for the simple reasons that I have stated over and over again: that in Newtonian mechanics the earth cannot be unmoving, and in GR the concept of a centre is meaningless, and contrary to what you say, observations run counter to the notion of a central stationary earth.

Yes, it is true that the conclusions reached in the book are out of line with the opinion of almost all astronomers and cosmologists. That is why it is such a remarkable book.

No, that is one clue to why it is a worthless book.

Look, the direct observations point to a central earth not moving. I know that from a Platonic perspective, what you see is not always what you get. Still, why ignore the obvious interpretation of the observations? Only because they conflict with deep seated presuppositions. If you go to a mechanic, their rule is ‘check the simplest explanation first’. Apparently not so in cosmology. Generally, what you “See” is the simplest explanation, not always the right one, but the simplest. If I am standing and I see a bike moving towards me, the simplest explanation is that the bike is moving towards me; though it is possible that I am unknowingly standing on a moving platform.

In other words, you suggest we go back to neolithic cosmology - stand in a cornfield in the middle of the night and conclude, because we appear to see the stars wheeling above our heads, that they are in fact doing so.

Yes, the isotropic principle (i.e., all places appear to be center) is only an assumption; The counter assumption which is our only direct observation, is that the earth is at the center;

This is an non sequitur as I have pointed out before: the alternative to there being no centre is not one alternative but a choice from one of 10^183 possibilities, and there is no reason to choose a place on earth rather than any other. The cosmological principle is supported by observation.

All the experiments that attempted to detect the motion of the earth failed,

On the contrary, all observations detect motion relative to the rest of the universe. The only thing that failed were attempts to detect motion relative to the now discredited aether.

and led to new hypothesis to explain the presupposition (that the earth moves); that these new hypothesis include
a. The Fitzgerald contraction which morphed into the
b. Lorentz contraction which Einstein included in
c. Special realtivity, which then
3. Mathematically made the experiments which failed appear insignificant, with the caveat that;
a. We cannot easily verify the theory since

If you think that there are no tests of SR and GR, every one of which, so far, have been passed with flying colours, then you know even less science than I thought.

You are a bulldog defending the status quo of the inflationary big bang theory

No, I am a bulldog defending good science against crankery. It is right to keep an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out. If some radical observation forced a re-thinking of the entire concordance model, or if someone comes up something better that explains what the concordance model does, but also some other puzzle such as the nature of dark matter, then I would be happy to change my position. But we don’t need to take seriously the ideas and fantasies of every Tom, Dick and Harry who comes along with their idea for electrical, or pneumatic, or plasma, or white hole, or frictional, or non inverse square, or geocentric, or aetherial physics, unpublished, or published only in vanity books. The internet abounds with this stuff - it attracts cranks of every stripe. If a) the authors show again and again that they don’t understand the existing physics, and b) that they fail to suggest a mathematically consistent hypothesis that explains the fundamental phenomena better than mainstream physics and c) that they are incapable of getting a serious hearing amongst the scientific comunity (Sungenis’s ideas are not only unpublishable, but aren’t discussed in any physics board that I visit), then we know what to think (this is, by the way, a community that embraces serious alternatives and dissenters such as Arp, Narlikar, the Burbridges, Peratt, Alfven, Bondi, Gold, Jimenez etc etc who publish and have published freely).

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[R_McGeddon]

Another indicator (the most obvious one) is the Coriolis effect. Everybody that has a bath-tub witnesses its effect when they let the water out.

Unless you live on the Equator, where it is neutral.

 

[trth_skr]

Yes, but frequently one of the two sides carries very little weight compared with the other. You can find someone to oppose every scientific theory, …and contrary to what you say, observations run counter to the notion of a central stationary earth.

All of the above is true, but does not apply to everyone who opposes the current view.

Galileo Was Wrong has documented evidence of scientist after scientist being faced with evidence of a central and/or non-moving earth, then explicitly stating that they would ignore such data. I am sorry, this is not a matter of some crackpot theory, this is just pointing out the facts.

In other words, you suggest we go back to neolithic cosmology - stand in a cornfield in the middle of the night and conclude, because we appear to see the stars wheeling above our heads, that they are in fact doing so.

No one is proposing something so stupid, Alec. If we see the stars wheeling around in the sky, then one simple explanation is that they are moving. Another is that the earth is turning in a field of stars. When supplanted with all the evidence that the earth is not moving (through an absolute medium), all the observations of centrality (only countered with claims of “modesty”) then the wheeling stars do become an observation which is consistent with the geocentric hypothesis (geostationary).

This is an non sequitur as I have pointed out before: the alternative to there being no centre is not one alternative but a choice from one of 10^183 possibilities, and there is no reason to choose a place on earth rather than any other. The cosmological principle is supported by observation.

A little paradigmatic response, eh? Let’s analyze this statement for its paradigmatic response characteristics:

Either there is no center or 10^ 183 centers?

This is simply stating your main assumption, Alec- Friedman’s second assumption: Therer is no center (the isotropic principle).

If we were at an edge, and space were as it appears (i.e., Euclidian), then we would see many stars one direction, but if we turned and looked radially outwards (assuming sphericity, or similar), we would see nothing; therefor we would conclude that we are not at a center.

Only when we start stacking up all your assumptions do we conclude what you state so whimsically. These assumptions include (at least):

1. isotropy; Unproven assumption 1
2. homogeneity; Unproven assumption 2
3. non-Euclidain multi-dimensional space; Unproven assumption 3

So, no Alec, one simple option is that since we do see an edge (one can argue whether it is a temporal edge due to finite light speed), and we do see everything arranged around us, the CMB aligned to us, binary star’s axis aligned to us (Barr effect), no [absolute] motion detectable, etc., one simple option is that we are in the center.

CONTINUED

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[trth_skr]

CONTINUED

On the contrary, all observations detect motion relative to the rest of the universe. The only thing that failed were attempts to detect motion relative to the now discredited aether.

It is clear that you are not stepping out of your little box to give alternate thinking a chance. Let’s analyze your statement:

“…all observations detect motion relative to the rest of the universe…”

So that means that either:

1. The earth is moving relative to the universe;
2. The universe is moving relative to the earth;
3. The the earth and universe are moving relative to each other;

Which is it Alec? Your statement does not answer the question. Experiments were done to prove basically 1 or 3, but failed and indicated something more akin to 2.

But then you say:

“The only thing that failed were attempts to detect motion relative to the now discredited aether.”

No, the exiperiment failed to detect motion of the earth, so after a couple of decades of head scratching, it was decided that:

1. The Michelson-Morley apparatus arm in the direction of earth’s presupposed motion just happened to shrink until it was the same length as the arm normal to the earth’s motion, thus canceling the measurement (Fitzgerald);
2. Lorentz picked this up and bandied it about as a possible, but “contrived” solution (yes, those were his words);
3. After a while Einstein included it in special relativity;
4. Einstein then declared that since rulers shrink,etc., that we no longer have a need for ether; He did not eliminate it as he does not know if it exists or not, he just proposed we do not need it any longer.
5. Later of course, he proposed that “an ether” does exist. This is ether is the physical manifestation of his space-time.

So we have a discredited ether that still exists, Einstein ether, space-time foam, “virtual sea of particles popping in and out of existence”, dark matter and energy, etc., but did not verify the presupposition- i.e., the earth moves.

Interesting thinking Alec. Remember, cosmology is loaded with philosophy- you should start to recgnize where the science and philosophy demarcate.

you think that there are no tests of SR and GR, every one of which, so far, have been passed with flying colours, then you know even less science than I thought.

The strong principle of GR, the one that seperates GR from all other relativity theories (and makes the big bang possible) has not been tested.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com