Faith and Science

[cassini]

This is true, but you seem to have not idea what those limits are. That you think science is about “proofs” is evidence enough you don’t know what it is.

And every Focault pendulum clearly refutes the notion of an unmoving Earth. You would not see the change in pendumlum path in that case, unless you posit some magical force moving it in defiance of Newton’s laws.

Here is a piece written in 1850

Not long ago we had an opportunity of seeing the tests with the pendulum
which, according to the theory of the widely-known physicist, Mr. Leon
Foucault, are said to furnish the proof of the daily rotation of the earth
upon its axis. I had well-nigh failed to take any notice of those Pendulum
tests. Although, when explaining to my pupils, boys and girls, in my geo-
graphical and physical lessons, the revolution of the earth about the sun,
I had always found one point (which you will learn in the course of my
lecture) very strange nay, incomprehensible yet I was so convinced of the
daily rotation of the earth, and its yearly course round the sun, as to deem
Mr. Foucault’s pendulum-proof entirely superfluous. Nevertheless, I was
present at the experiment, and I will explain it in a few words, to make the
application clear.

If we imagine around the earth’s sphere a limited or unlimited number
of circles, parallel with the equator, we call these circles, precisely on account
of their parallelism with the equator, parallel circles. It follows, from the
spherical form of the earth, that the circles become smaller the nearer we
place them to the poles ; and if we should imagine two parallel circles
drawn around the earth through this lecture-room, the northern one, even
thus, would be somewhat smaller than the southern one. Let now the earth
revolve in twenty-four hours upon its axis, so that the two imaginary circles
laid through this room have made a complete rotation. As both have made
their circuit in equal time, and as the southern one is larger than the northern
one, the single parts of the one to the south must move with greater rapidity
than those of the one to the north.

Let us glance briefly at the instrument, so widely-known and yet in many
respects an enigma, which we will call the pendulum. It may be shown that
the even oscillation of the Pendulum is independent of the alterations (rota-
tions) of its point of suspension. This immutability of the even oscillation
was said by Mr. Foucault to prove the rotation of the earth upon its axis.
If, for example, we let a pendulum oscillate in a direction from north to
south, across the two parallel circles which we have in imagination drawn
through this room, then will its even oscillation, as Mr. Foucault assumes,
be unaffected by the rotation of the plane (or point of suspension), and
consequently will move in advance of the northern, more slowly rotating,
parallel circle, but will fall behind the southern, more rapidly rotating par-
allel circle. The path of the pendulum will, therefore, soon deviate from
the direction, north to south, the end formerly swinging to the north swing-
ing more and more towards the east, and the end swinging southward more
and more towards the west, until finally the pendulum swings entirely in the
direction from east to west. At this point the cause of deviation has ceased ;
for the pendulum swings no more across two unequally-rapid parallel circles,
but across a single circle. As the cause of deviation no longer exists, the
deviation ought to cease. But no, it continues ! the pendulum also leaves
the direction, east to west, to deviate to southeast and northwest, and thus
reaches conditions tinder which, according to Foucault, it must deviate again !

Now, as the pendulum does not remain in the direction from east to
west, but also deviates from this, I think I am entitled to the belief that the
deviation of the pendulum is caused by something other than the rotation of
the earth something, it is true, which is still unknown to us. Furthermore,
I have found, by careful experiments, that the deviation is not the same
with all pendulums. The heavier the bob, the slower becomes the deviation
of the pendulum ; the lighter the bob, the more rapidly the deviation takes
place. Since the rotation of the earth upon its axis, if existing, must be a
uniform one, necessarily with all pendulums the deviation should be uni-
form ; but this is not the case.

 

[cassini]

This is true, but you seem to have not idea what those limits are. That you think science is about “proofs” is evidence enough you don’t know what it is.

And every Focault pendulum clearly refutes the notion of an unmoving Earth. You would not see the change in pendumlum path in that case, unless you posit some magical force moving it in defiance of Newton’s laws.

Richard G Elmendorf’s Investigation

So much for the propaganda but now study the truth of it. This comes from the 20-year investigation of the foucault pendulum by Richard G Elmendorf completed in 1994. Elmendorf is an engineer by profession and has now to be the world’s leading expert on the subject by far. We thank him for permission to use his work in our thesis. Mr Elmendorf’s begins with the following:

‘The foucault pendulum is one of the best-known experiments in the history of science. It created a sensation in its first public showing in Paris in 1851, and has fascinated scientists and laymen ever since. …
This article discusses the history, construction, operation, theory and meaning of the foucault pendulum, presenting facts about it which are not generally known or understood by the millions of visitors who view these fascinating displays in science museums, schools, planetariums, observatories and other public buildings all around the world every year.
My findings about the foucault pendulum may very well astonish you…The surprising truth is that all foucault pendulums are fakes. Most of them are fakes because they are forced to do what they do, rather than doing what comes naturally, and all the rest of them are fakes insofar as they are used as proof of the earth’s [supposed] rotation. The only kind of foucault pendulum which would not be a fake would be one that was free-swinging, operated properly, and either had no explanations, plaques or literature associated with it, or had such which plainly acknowledged that it cannot determine absolute rotation. I know of no such foucault pendulum anywhere.
The foucault pendulum is a piece of scientific apparatus specifically designed and built to deceive and mislead. It is literally a “humbug” – a sham, a fake, a fraud, an artifice, a pretence, a hoax – and I believe it should be exposed as such.
But the foucault pendulum is more than a hoax. It is actually a religious propaganda tool. Foucault pendulum displays have something very serious and important to prove.

 

[StAnastasia]

Indeed the only true scientific falsifications that I know of were of H, I speak of the Airy experiment and the M&M test of 1887. Both denied the movement of the earth.

The Michelson Morley experiment did not falsify the theory of a rotating earth. Indeed, the experiment depended upon the assumption of a moving earth!

 

[cassini]

The Michelson Morley experiment did not falsify the theory of a rotating earth. Indeed, the experiment depended upon the assumption of a moving earth!

The movement I refered to was the orbital movement not rotational. You are correct ‘the experiment depended upon the assumption of a moving earth!’ And what happened, it found NO movement of the earth.

 

[StAnastasia]

The movement I refered to was the orbital movement not rotational. You are correct ‘the experiment depended upon the assumption of a moving earth!’ And what happened, it found NO movement of the earth.

Absence of proof is not proof of absence. I’m sticking with NASA and the Catholic Church on this one.

StAnastasia

 

[cassini]

Absence of proof is not proof of absence. I’m sticking with NASA and the Catholic Church on this one.

StAnastasia

Yes, absence is not proof but it shifts the evidence in favour of G and away from H.

What have NASA got to do with anything? And NO you are not sticking with the Catholic Church on this one, you are sticking with the dissident Churchmen. The Catholic Church is that of 1616 and their decree never abrogated if you know what that means.
Noted also is your silence on so much that does not suit the coperrnican illusion.

 

[StAnastasia]

Yes, absence is not proof but it shifts the evidence in favour of G and away from H.

What have NASA got to do with anything? And NO you are not sticking with the Catholic Church on this one, you are sticking with the dissident Churchmen. The Catholic Church is that of 1616 and their decree never abrogated if you know what that means.
Noted also is your silence on so much that does not suit the coperrnican illusion.

NASA scientists are not geocentrists. And the Church has moved well beyond 1616 in its cosmological understanding. You may hide within that worldview if you like, but I don’t know whether your Geocentrist Church holds any services in most parts of the world. As for me, I’m sticking wit the Catholic Church.

Geomotively yours,
StAnastasia

 

[Namesake]

Yes, absence is not proof but it shifts the evidence in favour of G and away from H.

What have NASA got to do with anything? And NO you are not sticking with the Catholic Church on this one, you are sticking with the dissident Churchmen. The Catholic Church is that of 1616 and their decree never abrogated if you know what that means.
Noted also is your silence on so much that does not suit the coperrnican illusion.

I am really interested in your ideas. I have never encountered a person who really believed that the Earth was the center of the universe. Is that what you believe?

 

[cassini]

NASA scientists are not geocentrists. And the Church has moved well beyond 1616 in its cosmological understanding. You may hide within that worldview if you like, but I don’t know whether your Geocentrist Church holds any services in most parts of the world. As for me, I’m sticking wit the Catholic Church.

Geomotively yours,
StAnastasia

Again StA I repeat, the cosmology is neither here nor there. What matters is the proper interpretation of the Bible. Now you can stick with what you call the Catholic Church but the true Church considers such a reading of the Bible heretical.

 

[cassini]

I am really interested in your ideas. I have never encountered a person who really believed that the Earth was the center of the universe. Is that what you believe?

Hi namesake. I believe that the Church you profess to believe in did not err when it defined and declared that the bible reveals a moving sun and an immovable earth at the centre of the universe.

 

[StAnastasia]

Again StA I repeat, the cosmology is neither here nor there. What matters is the proper interpretation of the Bible. Now you can stick with what you call the Catholic Church but the true Church considers such a reading of the Bible heretical.

So no one but you and a few others belong to the “true Church”? (I know lots of bishops and archbishops, and have yet to meet a single geocentrist among them.)

 

[hecd2]

Wait a minute, Alec – are you saying that the earth rotates on its axis? Cassini has told us this is impossible. Will you next be telling me it is not a flat pancake supported by pillars around the sides? Will you then go on to tell me there is not enough water to flood the earth to a depth of 29,035 feet as in the days of Noah?

StAnastasia

Well, the oblateness of the earth is only one of many pieces of evidence that the earth is rotating with respect to the local inertial frame. That at least is not in question.

What the geocentrists claim is, that according to gravitomagnetics, one can get the same effects with a universe rotating about the terrestrial equator once a day. The problem for them is that gravitomagnetics derives from General Relativity. Some of the more prominent geocentrists, such as Sungenis, deny the validity of GR, thereby cutting off the branch on which they are sitting. That would also be the case for cassini, who denies the validity of all science since Galileo. There is also the problem for all of them that to talk of any object being at absolute rest or at the absolute centre of the universe in GR is meaningless. Finally, if one is going to talk about the earth being at rest, one has to say at rest with respect to what. It’s certainly not at rest with respect to the rest of the universe.

If we are going to allow any rotational privilege, it should surely be to objects at rest in the local inertial frame (which is approximately the frame of the “fixed” stars - regions close to massive rotating bodies drag the inertial frame somewhat according to the Lense-Thirring effect); we can at least unequivocally determine a unique local inertial frame anywhere in the universe. The earth’s surface is not at rest in the local inertial frame - it rotates wrt to the local inertial frame by 360 degrees in one sidereal day. If we are going to allow any translational privilege we could use the radiation from the Big Bang. The earth translation with respect to the CMB is 380km/s as indicated by the measured dipole of the CMB.

They also all confuse dynamics and kinematics.

Alec
evolutionpages.com/pink_unicorn.htm

 

[Namesake]

Hi namesake. I believe that the Church you profess to believe in did not err when it defined and declared that the bible reveals a moving sun and an immovable earth at the centre of the universe.

That is just so fascinating! How do you figure that people like Newton, and Einstein, and Feynman, and Hawking are so messed up?

 

[hecd2]

When one has to resort to meaningless rhetoric as I find on this forum too, I assume there are none capable of debating at an intellectual level.

So does that mean you are not going to address my challenge to your unsuppported claim that Jacques Cassini had a better understanding of the effects of gravity than Newton? If you run away from this, we can all assume that you were making a debating point without either understanding it or being able to defend it. Let me remind you of what you said:

cassini:

By far the most surprising disclosure to be found tucked away in mathematical literature is the fact that in spite of all the publicity given to Isaac Newton and his formula for the gravitational field of earth, it is Domenico Cassini’s formula for gravity, called the international formula, which is more often used. Confirming this in another Encyclopaedia we read:

‘(Cassini)
This formula …is the basis of the international gravity formula.’ —
Sneddon’s Encyclopaedia Dictionary of Mathematics for Engineers and Applied Scientists, Pergamon Press Ltd., 1976, p.113.

Now this is what I said:

hecd2:

I don’t have Sneddon’s dictionary, but I’d be interested to know what lies in the ellipsis and in the rest of the entry.

The fact of the matter is that the International Gravity Formula accounts for the deviation from uniformity of the acceleration due to gravity at the earth’s surface caused by the deviation from perfect sphericity of the earth, and by the centrifugal force caused by the rotation of the earth. It can be derived from a knowledge of the shape of the earth, its rate of rotation, its mass and the application of Newton’s Universal law of Gravitation.

Ironically, Cassini, not accepting the Newtonian formulation and preferring a Cartesian one, predicted that the earth would be elongated across the poles. He and his son carried out a survey that seemed to show this, but it turned out that the survey was inaccurate, and we now know that the Newtonian prediction proved correct.

So how about it? Are you going to defend your assertion, or do we conclude that you were hoping to slip it through without knowledgeable challenge? What then is your claimed mission to be defending truth worth?

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

That is just so fascinating! How do you figure that people like Newton, and Einstein, and Feynman, and Hawking are so messed up?

By excluding magical explanations from their science.

There are one or two geocentrists in existence. Look up the Google entry for “modern geocentricism”. One of them is Sungenis who is a quite a well known Catholic apologist, and who, according to practising Catholics that I respect, is good in straightforward apologetics. But his science sucks as I point here:

evolutionpages.com/pink_unicorn.htm

Alec
evolutionpages.com/pink_unicorn.htm

 

[hecd2]

Dear Alec,

Very good comeback
Referring to the book: “Answering the New Atheism, Dismantling Dawkins’ Case Against God”

I was totally surprised when the book referenced “Climbing Mount Improbable” and the Blind Watchmaker". There might have been an indirect reference to “The Selfish Gene” when the book was exploring the theory of chance.

Authors Scott Hahn and Benjamin Wiker did indicate up front that they were skipping Dawkins’ rhetoric and were meeting him on his turf. You would be a better qualified reader than me.

Your sentence about “interesting, insightful and entertaining science writing imaginable” was somewhat the thought on my mind at the end of the book. Since I’m more curious than a cat, I was especially interested in “The Blind Watchmaker”.

Question: In which order should I read your suggested books above?

Note: I’m so glad that you explained above that “The God Delusion,” is specifically not a science text.

Blessings,
grannymh

Hi grannymh,

I haven’t read the Hahn and Wiker book. I assume that it is mainly a response to Dawkins’s God Delusion book. I am sure they are qualified to make that response and I would be interested to read it at some point. What they are not qualified to do is to critique Dawkins’s science, so if that is what they mean by meeting him on his turf then they are out of their depth.

With regard to your question about what order to read them in: here are a few comments on the books:

The Selfish Gene is a very serious book of science, because not only is it written for the layman, but it is almost unique in modern science in laying out a new (at the time) scientific framework in an accessible way. (Darwin’s Origin was like that - other examples are rare - most new science is reported in inaccessible very technical language in specialist journals, and popular books follow). Dawkins’s ‘selfish gene’ concept has been fundamental in illuminating many aspects of evolutionary biology. Although it is accessible it is perhaps not the book to start with.

The Blind Watchmaker, Climbing Mount Improbable and River Out of Eden are all very readable books that illuminate various aspects of evolutionary biology. They don’t carry the burden of also presenting a new way of thinking. You mentioned the Blind Watchmaker - it was the first Dawkins book I read, and it’s not a bad starting point as an alternative to the Ancestors’ Tale

But I would start with his most recent popular science work, The Ancestors’ Tale, lavishly illustrated, and packed with fascinating zoological and botanical details in support of the overall framework.

Then the three popular books in whatever order you choose (they don’t follow on one from another), then the Selfish Gene, in its anniversary edition which gives you the frisson of knowing that you are reading a book that created new insights into biology; finally, if you are really hooked, read The Extended Phenotype, a book that I haven’t mentioned yet, because it is a bit more difficult and technical, but which provides powerful ideas about how his gene-centred view illuminates much more than the biological design of organisms, but also their behaviour.

Hope this is helpful.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[The_Barbarian]

The path of the pendulum will, therefore, soon deviate from
the direction, north to south, the end formerly swinging to the north swinging more and more towards the east, and the end swinging southward more and more towards the west, until finally the pendulum swings entirely in the direction from east to west. At this point the cause of deviation has ceased ; for the pendulum swings no more across two unequally-rapid parallel circles,
but across a single circle. As the cause of deviation no longer exists, the deviation ought to cease.

As the pendulum swings from nearly vertical to precisely vertical, the cause of the pendulum has ceased for the pendulum is then perfectly aligned with gravity. As the cause of the deviation no longer exists, the deviation ought to cease. (by Richard’s reasoning) But it doesn’t. Do you think Richard might be missing something important, here? If he was right, prevailing winds would blow directly east and west, always. But they don’t.

A more serious and fundamental problem with Richard’s assumption of a fixed plane of swing for such pendulums.

**It is worthwhile correcting a common misunderstanding about Foucault’s Pendulum. It is sometimes said (perhaps poetically) that the pendulum swings in a plane fixed with respect to the distant stars while the Earth rotates beneath it. This is true at the poles. (It is also true for a pendulum swinging East-West at the equator.) At all other latitudes, however, it is not true. At all other latitudes, the plane of the pendulum’s motion rotates with respect to an inertial frame.

It is easy to deal with this misunderstanding. Consider a pendulum at the equator, swinging in a North South plane. It’s obvious from symmetry that the plane of this pendulum doesn’t rotate with respect to the earth and that, relative to an inertial frame, it rotates once every 24 hours.

Alternatively, consider the motion of a point on the earth at a place that is neither at the poles or the equator. During a day, a vertical line at that place traces out a cone, as shown in the sketch at right. (If the earth were not turning, the half angle of the cone would be 90° minus the latitude.) During each cycle of the pendulum, when it reaches its lowest point its supporting wire passes very close to the vertical. So, at each lowest point of the pendulum, its wire is a different line in this cone. This cone is not a plane, so those lines do not all lie in the same plane!

For yet another argument, consider the motion of the pendulum after one rotation of the earth. With respect to the earth, the period of precession of the pendulum is 23.9 hours divided by the sine of the latitude. For most latitudes, this is considerably longer than a day. So, after the earth has turned once, the pendulum has not returned to its original plane with respect to the earth. For example, our pendulum in Sydney precesses at a rate of one degree every seven minutes, or one complete circle in 43 hours.

(I apologise for emphasising this rather obvious point. I only do so because a correspondent has pointed out to me that many web pages about the Foucault pendulum – and even, allegedly, a few old text books! – make the mistake of stating that the pendulum swings in a fixed plane while the earth rotates beneath it.)

So, what is the path of motion of the pendulum? Remember that the point of suspension of the pendulum is accelerating around Earth’s axis. So the forces acting on the pendulum are a little complicated, and to describe its motion requires some mathematics. (Indeed, even talking of a ‘plane’ of motion on a short time scale is an approximation because even in half a cycle the supporting wire actually sweeps out a very slightly curved surface.)**
http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/~jw/graphics/vertical.gif

 

[hecd2]

Richard G Elmendorf’s Investigation

So much for the propaganda but now study the truth of it. This comes from the 20-year investigation of the foucault pendulum by Richard G Elmendorf completed in 1994. Elmendorf is an engineer by profession and has now to be the world’s leading expert on the subject by far.

Really? Who determined that this guy should be accorded the title of the world’s leading expert on the Foucault pendulum? Where has he published? How many Foucault pendulums has he built? Apart from rhetoric, what objection does he have to the pendulum? The Foucault pendulum demonstrates the existence of the Coriolis force that we observe from other experimental data. The existence of a local inertial frame in which the earth is rotating once per sidereal day is irrefutable. Given all the other evidence it would be a shock if the Foucault pendulum did not rotate by 360 degrees times the sine of the latitude per sidereal day. But it does, in many places. This is one of the most repeated scientific experiments of all time.

And to say that we can’t measure the coriolis force when we can measure frame dragging at the earth is ridiculous.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

Here is a piece written in 1850…
The path of the pendulum will, therefore, soon deviate from
the direction, north to south, the end formerly swinging to the north swing-
ing more and more towards the east, and the end swinging southward more
and more towards the west, until finally the pendulum swings entirely in the
direction from east to west. At this point the cause of deviation has ceased ;
for the pendulum swings no more across two unequally-rapid parallel circles,
but across a single circle. As the cause of deviation no longer exists, the
deviation ought to cease. But no, it continues !

Well this guy, whoever he is, begins with an elementary misunderstanding of the physics. The cause of precession of a Foucault pendulum does NOT cease for a pendulum swinging due east-west provided it is at a non-zero latitude.

Furthermore,
I have found, by careful experiments, that the deviation is not the same
with all pendulums. The heavier the bob, the slower becomes the deviation
of the pendulum ; the lighter the bob, the more rapidly the deviation takes
place. Since the rotation of the earth upon its axis, if existing, must be a
uniform one, necessarily with all pendulums the deviation should be uni-
form ; but this is not the case.

It is, if you get a competent experimentalist to do the work.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[buffalo]

By excluding magical explanations from their science.

There are one or two geocentrists in existence. Look up the Google entry for “modern geocentricism”. One of them is Sungenis who is a quite a well known Catholic apologist, and who, according to practising Catholics that I respect, is good in straightforward apologetics. But his science sucks as I point here:

evolutionpages.com/pink_unicorn.htm

Alec
evolutionpages.com/pink_unicorn.htm

I think there are more:

Biblical Astronomer