Endorsements for Galileo Was Wrong

[trth_skr]

Here are some recent endorsements for Galileo Was Wrong.

A couple are geocentrists (Bouw,Jones, Selbrede), but the rest are (were) not.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[Liberian]

Truth Seeker,

You post some interesting comments there. I will repeat my earlier point that the only real difference between geocentricism and standard cosmology is a coordinate transformation, and coordinate transformations are neither right nor wrong (although they can obviously be done incorrectly).

If I may ask (not having read the book myself), does the book address my earlier question of how to define a “motionless earth”? Since earthquakes make the earth vibrate and plate tectonics also cause different parts of the earth to move relative to each other, this is not a trivial task. Since meteorite impacts also add both linear and angular momentum to the earth, the task of defining what is motionless becomes downright difficult. I recall you replied earlier that the earth actually moves about a stable equilibrium point; is this what the book also says?

• Liberian

 

[trth_skr]

…If I may ask (not having read the book myself), does the book address my earlier question of how to define a “motionless earth”? Since earthquakes make the earth vibrate and plate tectonics also cause different parts of the earth to move relative to each other, this is not a trivial task. Since meteorite impacts also add both linear and angular momentum to the earth, the task of defining what is motionless becomes downright difficult. I recall you replied earlier that the earth actually moves about a stable equilibrium point; is this what the book also says?

• Liberian

Liberian:

I do not believe there is what you consider an “operational definition” for a motionless earth in the book. We discussed this previously. The authors do deal with issues like meteors hitting the earth, etc. I think you are trying to be too narrow in your operational definition of a motionless earth. Obviously there are earthquakes, etc.

The book describes forces that lock the earth in place as a consequence of universal rotation. It also discussses GR cylindrical symmetry properties which make the effect of the universe’s rotation act more locally, removing any issue with the entire universe having to react instantaneously to a comet hitting the earth. Of course if we go to aether based theories (which is done in the book), local reaction to such events is the natural reaction.

I think that one should think of the earth as a solid body at the center of mass of the universe, as a starter.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[hecd2]

The book describes forces that lock the earth in place as a consequence of universal rotation. It also discussses GR cylindrical symmetry properties which make the effect of the universe’s rotation act more locally, removing any issue with the entire universe having to react instantaneously to a comet hitting the earth. Of course if we go to aether based theories (which is done in the book), local reaction to such events is the natural reaction.

This is pure hogwash. Mark is a great acolyte for Sungenis - neither of them know any science whatsoever. Mark has been caught in countless elementary errors on this message board. Sungenis doesn’t even know what an ‘inertial frame’ is and he has the gall to put forward hypotheses involving General Relativity (while pooh-poohing the mathematical underpinning of GR). Sungenis’s silly geocentrism is debunked here:
evolutionpages.com/pink_unicorn.htm

Even if we accept, for the sake of argument, that the universe is spatially finite, and we accept that there is a point in absolute and therefore Newtonian space that corresponds to its centre of mass (the barycentre), no object with finite mass and finite spatial extent can be permanently at rest with respect to that point, because all objects with finite mass and spatial extent necessarily experience accelerations caused by the gravitational forces resulting from the presence of other bodies of finite mass in the universe, accretions of matter and other interactions, in addition to tidal gravitational forces (ie forces resulting from gravitational gradients within the finite spatial extent of the body) and they therefore cannot be permanently at rest in any given Newtonian inertial frame.

A particular Sungenis nonsense is his reference to the ‘gyroscopic rotation of the universe stabilising the earth at its centre of mass’ (Mark’s so-called ‘lock forces’). First of all, this confuses solid body dynamics with many-body kinematics, the sort of error one would expect of a high school student, but nor someone who actually knew anything about mechanics. Secondly if he really believed in the equivalence of the rotating and static star field reference systems (an equivalence on which his arguments are based), he would acknowledge that the ‘stabilising forces’ would have to exist in both co-ordinate systems – but where in the reference frame at rest with respect to the distant stars are we to find forces that prevent the earth from wandering off through the universe due to the influence of locally acting forces such as gravitational attraction to large masses. Indeed, the measurement of the CMB anisotropy indicates a relative motion between the solar system and the primordial radiation of the early universe of 368 km/sec

I think that one should think of the earth as a solid body at the center of mass of the universe, as a starter.

Why, on earth, should anyone do that? It is scientific blancmange.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[noma]

It also discussses GR cylindrical symmetry properties which make the effect of the universe’s rotation act more locally, removing any issue with the entire universe having to react instantaneously to a comet hitting the earth.

But the locality contradicts the Machian Principle imbedded in General Relativity.

As this is one of the central areas that I study, I am very interested how you overcome the Machian principle.

Of course if we go to aether based theories (which is done in the book), local reaction to such events is the natural reaction.

There is no current consistent theory of aether that has any amount of evidence.

I think that one should think of the earth as a solid body at the center of mass of the universe, as a starter.

I agree. I think this is theologically the best position.

But physically, it makes no difference what you define as center, so long as by “unmoving”, you mean only applied this to a translational symmetry (as GR does not have a general SO(3) algebra, but rather an algebra that is reducible to SO(3), aka Maxwell’s Equations.)

The math is all the same. And there is not, nor could there be (unless General Relativity is wrong), any way to physically determine a preferred center.

The theologically preferred center is earth. And so (also because God declares earth to be unmoving) I think that earth is the true center of the universe.

Hope this helps.

 

[MrS]

smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/23/23_28_113.gif

8 of the 9 were PhDs, including MIT…

and hecd2 claims to recognize a high-school mistake in GWW.smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/4/4_12_3.gif

doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know where to file that post.

smileycentral.com/sig.jsp?pc=ZSzeb097&pp=ZN

 

[steveandersen]

E pur si muove!

 

[noma]

smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/23/23_28_113.gif
8 of the 9 were PhDs, including MIT…
smileycentral.com/sig.jsp?pc=ZSzeb097&pp=ZN

PhD’s can be just as stupid as anyone else.

But as for the people listed, you have:

Neville Thomas Jones, Ph.D.
Physics
Imperial College, London

There is no Neville Jones that I know of at Imperial College. There is a Dr. Hugh Jones, who works with symmetry groups, but only in QCD, not GR. He does not deal with cosmology at all, and so would not be considered a viable expert. Also, he doesn’t strike me as a geocentrist.

I cannot find a link to Joseph Strada, and have searched for him under the directory of NRAO (I assume they mean this, and not NRO, but I performed both searches, and came up with nothing).

The MIT contributor is anonymous (may not be a bad idea, I suppose), and none of the others strike me as those who would possess appropriate expertise.

It just strikes me as odd that, given the strange things scientists believe (Michio Kaku, and the Martians behind Haley’s Comet, for example), that these are the best reviews that can be mustered.

Maybe the publisher is under some harsh financial constraints.

 

[hecd2]

smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/23/23_28_113.gif

8 of the 9 were PhDs, including MIT…

and hecd2 claims to recognize a high-school mistake in GWW.smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/4/4_12_3.gif

doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know where to file that post.

smileycentral.com/sig.jsp?pc=ZSzeb097&pp=ZN

Sungenis is not a physicist and he makes high school errors. His ignorance of the meaning of an inertial frame is a matter of record.

You are bound to lose the argument if you indulge in argument by headcount. 99% of PhD physicists will tell you that GGW is nonsense. Mark’s list is self-selecting (and includes ‘PhDs in physics’ who believe that NASA staged the moon-landing in a sound studio - and Elvis has risen from the dead). It also contains PhDs who are entirely irrelevant to the matter at hand.

I understand if you are unable or unwilling to engage in the substance of the arguments (perhaps being ignorant of physics yourself), and you can file my post wherever you like, but the fact is that Sungenis is talking pure hogwash and it would be a tactical mistake for you to stick to your argument by headcount since Sungenis’s book has now and will always have zero traction amongst professional physicists because it is riddled with basic errors.

Alec
evolutionpages.com/pink_unicorn.htm

 

[Liberian]

Alec,

Robert Sungenis’ and Mark Wyatt’s scientific credentials aside, I will maintain that the only difference between geocentricism and standard cosmology is a coordinate transformation, which is neither right nor wrong. So …

This is pure hogwash.

I will disagree with this statement. Certainly it is a lot easier to work in the coordinates of standard cosmology, but a geocentric theory is NOT prima facie wrong.

The world really does revolve around engineers: they get to pick the coordinate system.

• Liberian

 

[hecd2]

I said that this is hogwash. This is what I was referring to:
"trth_skr:

The book describes forces that lock the earth in place as a consequence of universal rotation. It also discussses GR cylindrical symmetry properties which make the effect of the universe’s rotation act more locally, removing any issue with the entire universe having to react instantaneously to a comet hitting the earth.

That is hogwash.

.Certainly it is a lot easier to work in the coordinates of standard cosmology, but a geocentric theory is NOT prima facie wrong.

• Liberian

It is wrong in Newtonian mechanics and it is meaningless in GR. Do *you *understand what is meant by a local inertial frame of reference? Do you realise that the surface of the earth is not stationary wih respect to an inertial frame? Do you know the difference between kinematic and dynamic transformations? Where exactly on the earth, which is a wobbling, distorting body, would you put the unmoving centre of the universe. I’m sorry, but it’s hogwash.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[noma]

The world really does revolve around engineers…

Or, at least, the Divine Engineer.

 

[noma]

Do *you *understand what is meant by a local inertial frame of reference? Do you realise that the surface of the earth is not stationary wih respect to an inertial frame? Do you know the difference between kinematic and dynamic transformations?

Actually, if we are speaking in the realm of GR, there are no preferred frames. So properly speaking, there exists a frame of reference (actually an infinite number of frames of reference) wherein Newton’s First Law is obeyed. So there exist an infinite number of local inertial frames of reference for the earth.

So one can describe an inertial reference frame wherein the earth is stationary.

This itself would not be required by geocentrism, as Ptolemy would hold bizarre non-inertial frames of reference for all objects. With respect to these frames of reference, the earth would be stationary. However, that these are non-inertial deals with the fact that they are all calculated in flat space (since the GR group is a Poincare Group, all general relativistic calculations can be done in flat space, but not always simply).

After all, the earth travels in a straight line, from its reference frame. It is warped space that allows that straight line to intersect itself (this is the essence of Riemannian space).

 

[trth_skr]

…he [Sungenis] has the gall to put forward hypotheses involving General Relativity (while pooh-poohing the mathematical underpinning of GR…

Wrong. Clearly you have not read the book.

First, he does explain how GR is neutral towards geocentrism, but does not claim it proves it.

Second he does not question the “mathematical underpinnings” of GR. Interesting choice of words- distract the reader from what the real issue is.

What he does do is show clearly, and convincingly that relativity and its banishing of absilutes was done as a reaction to repeated observations of earth at the center and repeated failures trying to show that the earth moves.

…this confuses solid body dynamics with many-body kinematics, …

Can you be more specific?

Secondly if he really believed in the equivalence of the rotating and static star field reference systems …

Again, Sungenis and Bennett are not relying either on GR nor Machian mechanics to make the case; though they do discuss the ramifications of both.

…the measurement of the CMB anisotropy indicates a relative motion between the solar system and the primordial radiation of the early universe of 368 km/sec…

So? Either one or both are moving. We do not know.

What we do know is that the multipoles of the CMB are aligned to the equatorial plane. Interesting, huh? Of course it mst be a fluke (else all of current cosmologies presumptions go out the window).

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[trth_skr]

But the locality contradicts the Machian Principle imbedded in General Relativity.

As this is one of the central areas that I study, I am very interested how you overcome the Machian principle.

I do not know that Mach’s principle is explicitly in GR (though in my blog I say it contains it). I think it is more correct to say it contains Einsteins “attempt at” placing it in, or an interpretation of it.

Julian Barbour et. al., did some interesting work modeling a geocentric universe in the 1970’s using strictly clasical Machian mechanics. The book does discuss this.

There is no current consistent theory of aether that has any amount of evidence.

Show me a theory that explains how gravity works (not a formula, but an explanation). When we figure that out (and perhaps inertia, too) then we can start weeding out theories. If you read the book (and other materials), there are a lot of good reasons to consider the aether. One big one being that QM actually needs one!

…But physically, it makes no difference what you define as center, so long as by “unmoving”, you mean only applied this to a translational symmetry (as GR does not have a general SO(3) algebra, but rather an algebra that is reducible to SO(3), aka Maxwell’s Equations.).

The math is all the same. And there is not, nor could there be (unless General Relativity is wrong), any way to physically determine a preferred center.

The theologically preferred center is earth. And so (also because God declares earth to be unmoving) I think that earth is the true center of the universe.

I do not think that the Holy Spirit had relativity and preferred reference frames in mind.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[trth_skr]

PhD’s can be just as stupid as anyone else.

But as for the people listed, you have:

Neville Thomas Jones, Ph.D.
Physics
Imperial College, London

There is no Neville Jones that I know of at Imperial College…

I just posted the comments. I did not collect them. I know who Dr. Jone is. Try this reference:

Dr. Neville Thomas Jones, Ph.D., D.I.C., M.Sc.(Phys), M.Sc.(Comp), B.Sc.(Hons), M.Inst.P., formerly of the Clarendon Laboratory, Oxford University, England.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[trth_skr]

…It is wrong in Newtonian mechanics and it is meaningless in GR.

Newtonian cosmology does not work, and GR is neutral. Machian mechanics supports it. Aether theoris can be formulated to permit it. Stop trying to obscure the issues.

…Do you realise that the surface of the earth is not stationary wih respect to an inertial frame? …Where exactly on the earth, which is a wobbling, distorting body, would you put the unmoving centre of the universe. …

Who said the surface of the earth had to be an inertial reference frame? Again, you are obscuring issues.

What if the center of the earth is? Or some matrix of points in the interior of the earth?

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[noma]

Show me a theory that explains how gravity works (not a formula, but an explanation). When we figure that out (and perhaps inertia, too) then we can start weeding out theories. If you read the book (and other materials), there are a lot of good reasons to consider the aether. One big one being that QM actually needs one!

I ask a simple question, and I get an answer to the effect of “well, could you do any better?” Yes. GR does much better than aether. GR makes predictions which, so far, have been substantiated entirely (for its accepted range). Aether makes predictions not one of which has been substantiated. Scientifically speaking, aether is currently defunct (but who knows about the future?).

So you are very simply and absolutely wrong.

But you did add, in your above incorrect assertion, another much more interesting assertion: that quantum mechanics needs aether. I am curious as to how.

Any honest scientific theory does not charge money for reviews from potential peers and critics.

If you send me a PM, I will give you my university address, and will be happy to read over the free copy you send me. Else, you can e-mail me a PDF format either of the book, or of a publication-length summary of its arguments.

Thank you.

 

[noma]

I just posted the comments. I did not collect them. I know who Dr. Jone is. Try this reference:

Dr. Neville Thomas Jones, Ph.D., D.I.C., M.Sc.(Phys), M.Sc.(Comp), B.Sc.(Hons), M.Inst.P., formerly of the Clarendon Laboratory, Oxford University, England.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

I have never heard of him, though I have little doubt that he exists. I can, however, find no peer-reviewed publication he has made in the topic of astrophysics or atmospheric science. He may go by a pen name (not too uncommon in Britain). Could you tell me his published name?

And, if he has no publications, what did he do at Oxford?

 

[Liberian]

Do *you *understand what is meant by a local inertial frame of reference?

Yes, thank you, I’ve read a good bit of “phone book” Wheeler. (I’ve even understood parts of it!)

Do you realise that the surface of the earth is not stationary wih respect to an inertial frame?

Yes. I would appreciate it if you did not try to intimidate me with fancy terms.

Do you know the difference between kinematic and dynamic transformations?

Yes, thank you. I have an advanced degree in engineering and have done a good bit of work in the field.

Where exactly on the earth, which is a wobbling, distorting body, would you put the unmoving centre of the universe.

Anywhere you want to; that’s the beauty of an arbitrary coordinate transformation. Of course, the Coriolis and centripetal terms, along with the time-dependent linear and angular acceleration terms, will make the equations even more frightful than they are under the best of circumstances. But the description is not wrong, only cumbersome beyond any usefulness.

• Liberian