Galileo Was Wrong, Volume II released

[trth_skr]

There is one area where we are in the center. Right in the center between the biggest things and the smallest.

Or at least that is very roughly what we have detected so far. The Planck length is around 1.6 × 10−35 meters (of course we have notdetected this yet), the known universe is reported to be around 3 to 4 x 10+17 meters. The diameter of the earth is around 1.3 x 10^6 meters. We may be a bit skewed to the larger.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[buffalo]

Catholig:

No one is necassarily trying to cover anything up. What I mean by that is this- NASA does not know. All we know is that there is a relative motion between “space” and the earth. There are those at NASA who are intellignet to know that we do not know, but they are going to present their favored theory- big bang with inflation, acentric unverse with barycentric solar system.

Every experiment ever designed to detect the motion of the earth has failed [to detect earth’s motion and/or distinguish it from relative counter motion of the universe]. So much so that this failure has become the bedrock of relativity theory. There are two chapters in Galileo Was Wrong, Vol. I dedicated to explaining this (as well as content in other chapters).

Many, many observations tell us that we are in or very near the center. But science applies unproven assumptions to make this go away (i.e., isotropy). They say that every where looks like the center. But they do not know that- they have never been anywhere else (anywhere in the solar system is our backyard). Stephen Hawkings claims we make that assumption out of modesty (while verifying that there is no scientific evidence for it). Much of the book deals with these observations, there implications, and science’s counter explanations.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

Until we can travel beyond this frame of refererence we won’t know for sure.

 

[psteichen]

While we’re on the subject, here’s a cool brain teaser related to relative motion. I’m not sure there is a definite correct answer, but it gets you thinking about the possibilities.

Lets say the universe consists only of two metal balls tied together with a rope. You could perhaps determine whether the balls were spinning around one another by observing the tension on the rope. If they were stationary the rope would be slack, if they were rapidly spinning around one another the rope would go taught from centrifugal force. Yet what are we saying they are spinning in relation to? There is nothing else in the universe with which to rotate in relation to. So would centrifugal force require a universe in which there are at least 3 objects?

 

[trth_skr]

While we’re on the subject, here’s a cool brain teaser related to relative motion. I’m not sure there is a definite correct answer, but it gets you thinking about the possibilities.

Lets say the universe consists only of two metal balls tied together with a rope. You could perhaps determine whether the balls were spinning around one another by observing the tension on the rope. If they were stationary the rope would be slack, if they were rapidly spinning around one another the rope would go taught from centrifugal force. Yet what are we saying they are spinning in relation to? There is nothing else in the universe with which to rotate in relation to. So would centrifugal force require a universe in which there are at least 3 objects?

Newton could not solve that problem, nor Mach, Einstein, etc. We have no idea what inertia is (it is one of the most basic properties needed to understand how the universe operates). They each had their personal opinion on the matter. In the same vein, we have no idea what causes gravity.

We have these fundamental gaps in understanding, yet we are expected to reject Scriptures and the Church (obstensibly the Holy Spirit) to accept the opinion and assumptions of naturalistic, materialistic (i.e., God excluding) science!

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[psteichen]

Newton could not solve that problem, nor Mach, Einstein, etc. We have no idea what inertia is (it is one of the most basic properties needed to understand how the universe operates). They each had their personal opinion on the matter. In the same vein, we have no idea what causes gravity.

We have these fundamental gaps in understanding, yet we are expected to reject Scriptures and the Church (obstensibly the Holy Spirit) to accept the opinion and assumptions of naturalistic, materialistic (i.e., God excluding) science!

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

Mark:

I agree with the implication of the first part of your comment. Gods creation sure is amazing, and figuring out how it works is awe inspiring. But science isn’t bad. Science is just the study of God’s creation. We try to figure out how everything works because we crave knowledge, there’s nothing wrong with that. Science can never contradict God, if we perceive that it does, then either the science is wrong or perhaps we perceived something incorrectly about the nature of God and his creation. The Catholic Church is quite open to scientific discovery and research. She takes no sides on theories such as the “big bang” and even evolution. Of course some scientists (the people) can be materialistic, naturalistic, and often atheistic (and quite offensive in the case of that blowhard Dawkins). But that doesn’t mean that their data is flawed, only their theology. Catholic theology can easily incorporate the big bang, evolution, and yes even the refutation of Geocentrism. Each new discovery helps us to understand God’s creation just a little bit better.

Of course we shouldn’t worship science, it evolves over time. If someday science decides that the earth really is flat and the stars are painted on the sky the Church could incorporate that too. I think it all comes down to what questions science can answer. It cannot answer the most important questions of all and never will. What is our purpose? Why did God make us? What happens after we die? What is right and wrong? What is love? These and many other important questions are only answerable by the Church.

 

[psteichen]

Mark:

By the way I just noticed the three long replies to me above. It certainly is food for thought. What worries me the most is the attitude of Hubble. The quote you provided shows that he was, at least that day, thinking in a very unscientific manner. Hopefully he wised up later, because scientists are always eager to find faults other peoples reasoning and that line of thought was unsupportable

 

[Urf]

…I find the topic creator’s name to be rather ironic

 

[trth_skr]

CONTINUED

…He [Hubble] Said (The Observational Approach to Cosmology):

"…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."

…What worries me the most is the attitude of Hubble. The quote you provided shows that he was, at least that day, thinking in a very unscientific manner. Hopefully he wised up later, because scientists are always eager to find faults other peoples reasoning and that line of thought was unsupportable

You have to underatand the history behind many of the observations and their interpretations. Edwin Hubble resisted general relativity for a long time. He also initially resisted the interpretation of redshift as expansion (or velocity to be more general). Recall an alternate interpretation of redshift is gravitation (Hubble may not have known about this interpretation in his day).

What this quote implies is that rejecting general relativty (which allowed the “spatial curvature” and expansion) and redshift as expansion leads to an earth in a “unique position” (i.e., “centrally located”). Having an earth in a “unique position” is a “horror”, “intolerable”, etc., though “the hypothesis [of a unique position] cannot be disproved” (see here ) and in fact “appears consistent with our astronomical observations” (here).

The point I m trying make is that the cosmology which excludes geocentrism is creatd by choosing certain of all the assumptions that need to be made (and cannot be verified). Making other assumptions turn our observations into us being at or near the center. Galileo Was Wrong has quote after quote where scientist after scientist state explicitly that they wll disregard observations of centrality (or non-movement).

The Hubble quote comes from a lecture published in the book I referenced.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[trth_skr]

…I find the topic creator’s name to be rather ironic

Why?

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[japhy]

Is it possible that the arguments for geocentricity would work equally well for our Moon, or the Sun, or another planet in our solar system?

That is, if we were capable of doing research from the Moon, would there be evidence gathered which would suggest the Moon is in the center of the universe?

 

[trth_skr]

Is it possible that the arguments for geocentricity would work equally well for our Moon, or the Sun, or another planet in our solar system?

That is, if we were capable of doing research from the Moon, would there be evidence gathered which would suggest the Moon is in the center of the universe?

Some of the evidence, yes. Some of it maybe.

The moon is close enough to the earth that observations of centrality would also likely apply. General relativity (as one example), or Mach’s principle, could potentially be used to make the moon or another planet central (though the problem of describing solid bodies, especially in the case of the moon with earth so close would make it difficult). I am not sure that a Michelson-Morley experiment on the moon or especially another planet would yield the same “null” result.

I do not recall the Catholic Church making any statements regarding the moon or other planets being stationary or having the sun and stars revolve around them, so, though hypothetically interesting, it misses the main point. If your point is that restrictions on our reality disallow us to dettermine what is and is not moving (which may or may not be true), the point is explored in Galileo Was Wrong. Even if that is the reality we are in, then it leaves the Church’s statements, guided by the Holy Spirit, vs. naturalistic / materialist science guided by like-minded assumptions as two possible choices. Anything else may in some theoretical sense be possible, but seem somewhat arbitrary.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[goofyjim]

Without reading through this whole thread I can unequivocally say that the earth goes around the sun and not vice versa. Yet even our sun is not necessarily the center of the universe. Time to accept at least some scientific facts and not live in dreamland.

 

[trth_skr]

Without reading through this whole thread I can unequivocally say that the earth goes around the sun and not vice versa. Yet even our sun is not necessarily the center of the universe. Time to accept at least some scientific facts and not live in dreamland.

goofyjim:

I will give you a “C” for confidence, but an “F” factuality.

Read Galileo Was Wrong, the Church Was Right (Vols. I and II), then retake your test.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[pacislander4lif]

One of the more attractive attributes of Catholicism is its freedom; Catholics are free to believe in this sort of stuff if they so choose.

Theres are certain limitations to this “freedom”, no? I’m surprised no qualifier was attached to your above statement.

 

[goofyjim]

goofyjim:

I will give you a “C” for confidence, but an “F” factuality.

Read Galileo Was Wrong, the Church Was Right (Vols. I and II), then retake your test.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

There is such a thing as gravitational pull which has been scientifically proven. It’s what keeps on the earth. Objects that are greater in mass have the greater gravitational pull over those with lesser mass. A planet’s moons go around the planet. The planets go around the sun. What is so hard to accept about this fact? It does not deny anything in scripture. It’s just something they didn’t know back then. It does not go contrary to faith to accept scientific facts.

 

[pacislander4lif]

There is such a thing as gravitational pull which has been scientifically proven. It’s what keeps on the earth. Objects that are greater in mass have the greater gravitational pull over those with lesser mass. A planet’s moons go around the planet. The planets go around the sun. What is so hard to accept about this fact? It does not deny anything in scripture. It’s just something they didn’t know back then. It does not go contrary to faith to accept scientific facts.

Maybe if you read the book, you will know that Sungenis covers this “simple fact”. As simple as your argument is, you think Sungenis would write a 1100 page book and not cover it? You must be joking.

-Laurence

 

[goofyjim]

Maybe if you read the book, you will know that Sungenis covers this “simple fact”. As simple as your argument is, you think Sungenis would write a 1100 page book and not cover it? You must be joking.

-Laurence

I don’t have alot of time to read books. Fill me in on one thing. Is it wrong to accept scientific facts when they have no bearing on faith and morals? The earth goes around the sun my friend. If the Church still insists otherwise then they are living in a not so real universe.

 

[pacislander4lif]

I don’t have alot of time to read books. Fill me in on one thing. Is it wrong to accept scientific facts when they have no bearing on faith and morals? The earth goes around the sun my friend. If the Church still insists otherwise then they are living in a not so real universe.

You don’t have time to read books? Do you have time to read the Bible. Where did you learn about the “scientific facts” which you speak of, not from books? Then where?

What is it like to argue your positions by just saying, it is so, because it is so? It must be nice. If only Catholic Apologetics were that easy.

-Laurence

 

[goofyjim]

You don’t have time to read books? Do you have time to read the Bible. Where did you learn about the “scientific facts” which you speak of, not from books? Then where?

What is it like to argue your positions by just saying, it is so, because it is so? It must be nice. If only Catholic Apologetics were that easy.

-Laurence

I have already explained what I know about science. Now if you are going to take the Bible literally on the sun going around the earth you would make a better fundamentalist than a Catholic. Even many a pope has said not everything in the Bible is to be taken literally. Otherwise there would be many of us with missing hands and eyes. I accept science when it does not contradict faith and morals and this is the case here. Trying to explain the movements of objects in the universe shouldn’t and doesn’t disprove God.

 

[Sir_Catholic]