Response to Keating Critique of Geocentrism

  • Thread starter Thread starter Michael_Forrest
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
neophyte:
Bob’s erroneously extending the fact that equations of motion dynamics can be transformed to any reference point to mean that any reference point can be validly said to be an absolute reference. By his logic, I could just as validly claim that the universe revolves, at all times, around my navel.
Click to expand...
Ironically, Sungenis refutes his own position when he argues that one may take any point as the center–the math, he says, can be reworked accordingly, even if unfelicitously.

If that is so–if any point can be the center of the universe–then that is equivalent of saying that no particular point is the center. There can be a unique center only if every other point cannot be the center.

Sungenis says the math allows any point to be the center and that Scripture teaches that only the Earth is the center. There is a contradiction here.

If the Earth is the unique center, then no other point can be the center and the math can’t show any other point to be the center. If the Earth is not the unique center, then Scripture (or at least Sungenis’s interpretation of it) is wrong.
 
Alec writes:
Al Most all of your reply to me consists in content-free complaints about my characterisation of Bob as a scientific crank, which, if we mean someone who holds tenaciously to an extremely unconventional scientific position through ignorance or error, he is.>>

Response: No, Alec, it is much more than a single case of one insult. I just quickly looked through your posts, here is a list. If you consider these examples of “cold,logical” discourse, as you put it, then you have a very odd definition of the terms. If you want to brush off your rudeness, lack of charity, without acknowledgment or apology, you can do so. Frankly, I think these forums are spiritual poison, much too often.

Many people can become quite bold and pugnacious when distant and safe behind a screen. Rather like certain people once they’re in a vehicle…they become road-ragers, until they’re out of the car. Here are some of your insults:
  1. crank
  2. laughable
  3. silly
  4. buffoon
  5. crank
  6. crank of a virulent color
  7. (to me): Sungenis’ bag carrier
  8. Sungenis’ nonsense
  9. crank
  10. crank
  11. I am reluctant to spend my time educating him if he continues to speak through the mouth of an intermediary, so I will simply make these comments about the arguments that he presented through you.
  12. pathetic
 
Continued:

Alec writes:

Rather than displaying religiously motivated prejudices against areas of medicine and science outside the topics of gravity and inertia, it seems you have nothing to offer. >>

This is interesting. So, then, you are in agreement with the AMA on abortion? Contraception? The abortion-breast-cancer link? The APA on homosexuality? The population control “researchers”? They are all just honest information seekers without an agenda?

I think the problem is precisely the reverse of what you imply of me. It is THESE groups of “scientists” who have the agenda, the prejudices. And I see it first-hand in my pro-life work. The fact is, science is simply not the pristine, honest environment you seem to think. Anti-God and Anti-Catholic views abound in modern science. Perhaps it is you who must decide which religion you want to follow…that of the scientists or that of the Fathers, the Saints and the Popes.

Alec writes: Your strongest argument consists in citing the Fathers of the Church and Popes on the position of the earth in the cosmos. This is an argument that requires no refutation since these people have no scientific authority. The validity of their views on scientific matters is no better than the scientifically uneducated man in the street, and in many cases it is worse, as it motivated not by scientific considerations but ideological ones. Ideological considerations are the worst possible in developing theories about the natural world.>>

Response: As I have said many times already, I am not married to either view. If it turns out that the geocentric model is wrong, I’m not going to fall apart. But from reading what the Fathers, saints and Popes wrote, it certainly does not seem that THEY considered the issue to be unrelated to faith. Mr. Sungenis already provided some substantive evidence of that. Does that concern me? Yes. And as such, I am not going to just fall into line with scientific dogma just because someone like you decides to deride me for considering it. Somehow, I don’t think our Lord will be displeased that I was more concerned with the Fathers, Saints, Popes and Scriptures than with offending the gods of science.

Perhaps you really do completely comprehend every aspect of this issue to the degree you say. But for most people (even fairly well educated ones), I tend to think that few can really grasp the great depth and detail of the arguments to the point where they can say with complete certainty either way. I’ve seen so many people argue with Mr. Sungenis, resorting to insult, invective etc right off the bat, when it was obvious they only knew what they had been told. They didn’t really have a working knowledge to the point where they could debate the issue in any real depth. In my experience, the vast majority of people follow one camp or another, more or less based on their best understanding…and who they find most convincing at the moment, or whether they think they will be attacked for believing one way or the other.

continued…
 
Alec: Since you claim to think it interesting to discuss these matters, can I expect an answer from you, or do we wait for Bob?>>

Response: “claim”? I forwarded on your comments, but in all honesty, I am not sure whether it is wise to continue.

Alec writes: Bob at least has something of substance to say, however muddled up it might be. I am reluctant to spend my time educating him if he continues to speak through the mouth of an intermediary so I will simply make these comments about the arguments that he presented through you. Then, unless he turns up himself, that will be all I have to say on the matter.>>

Response: I will forward yours, and a few others to Mr. Sungenis. But I am curious as to why you won’t write to Mr. Sungenis directly if that is such a concern (don’t like intermediaries). I am also curious as to why it troubles you so greatly that I send the responses back and forth. As I said, he answered originally at my request, and he continues to do so. I don’t see anything objectionable in that.

1Cor 8:1-2
 
Dear Mr. Keating,
You write:

Originally Posted by neophyte
*
Bob’s erroneously extending the fact that equations of motion dynamics can be transformed to any reference point to mean that any reference point can be validly said to be an absolute reference. By his logic, I could just as validly claim that the universe revolves, at all times, around my navel.
Ironically, Sungenis refutes his own position when he argues that one may take any point as the center–the math, he says, can be reworked accordingly, even if unfelicitously.

If that is so–if any point can be the center of the universe–then that is equivalent of saying that no particular point is the center. There can be a unique center only if every other point cannot be the center.

Sungenis says the math allows any point to be the center and that Scripture teaches that only the Earth is the center. There is a contradiction here.

If the Earth is the unique center, then no other point can be the center and the math can’t show any other point to be the center. If the Earth is not the unique center, then Scripture (or at least Sungenis’s interpretation of it) is wrong.
Karl
I will forward this new critique to Mr. Sungenis. I suspect I know what his response will be, to a certain extent.

Did you read his response to your first critique? Do you plan to respond? Do you find it valid? Yes, no? If you disagree, then please feel free to offer your rebuttal.
Thank you,
Michael Forrest
 
On the use of “crank, laughable, silly, buffoon, nonsense”

In the context of modern science, anyone who denies the earth is a sphere or denies its rotation around the sun or denies the earth is very old is indeed a scientific crank, scientific ignoramous, scientific buffoon, scientifically laughable, scientifically silly, scientifically pathetic, scientifically absurd, practices bad science, poor science, terrible science, horrible science, etc.

Not insults but factual statements about the nature of the person’s “science.” It is crankish, laughable, silly, buffoonery, nonsense, pathetic, absurd, bad, poor, terrible, horrible, and last but not least wrong. If you’re gonna defend that science publicly, prepare to be blasted. :eek:

If this were the 15th century, that was the science of the day. And yes, all the Church Fathers, all the medievals and doctors of the Church at this time had their science wrong. In the 21st century now we know they were wrong, by direct observation and modern technology. That has nothing to do with the faith since the Church is infallible concerning faith and morals only, not on physics, astronomy, geology, or biology. That’s what the Pontifical Academy of Sciences is for, to keep the Church informed on the latest scientific developments. And yes, all of them are evolutionists since that’s where the scientific evidence points.

See the Catechism, paragraphs 159, 283-284 again. Why does Sungenis insist on disagreeing with the Catechism here?

To be consistent Sungenis should take the Bible literally on all of its “science” teaching, including not only a stationary earth, but a flat earth, with a literal firmament or “vault” overhead, that is as “hard as a mirror of cast metal” (Job 37:18; cf. 9:8), that separates the “waters below” from the “waters above” (Genesis 1:6-8), and that on the fourth day the sun, moon, and stars were created and were placed “in” not “above” that hard vault (Gen 1:14-17). If you’re gonna treat Genesis and the rest of the Bible as a scientific text, you might as well go all the way and accept a flat and non-moving earth.

Do I accept the Bible? Of course. Do I interpret the above literally? No.

The Evolution of Bible-Science: Young Earthers, Flat Earthers, Geocentrists

The Flat-Earth Bible

Does the Bible Teach a Spherical Earth? (hint: his answer is no)

Circle of the Sea in Genesis and historical considerations

Phil P
 
Karl Keating posts:

Keating quote of neophyte:

Bob’s erroneously extending the fact that equations of motion dynamics can be transformed to any reference point to mean that any reference point can be validly said to be an absolute reference. By his logic, I could just as validly claim that the universe revolves, at all times, around my navel.

R. Sungenis: That’s right, but then again, neither Scripture, the Fathers, the Medievals, St. Robert Bellarmine, Pius V, Urban VIII, or Alexander VII said the universe revolves around your navel, so that takes your navel out of the running, and ironically, compels you to accept the Earth as the center, since that is what the aforementioned witness and authorities told us replaces your navel. END

Keating: Ironically, Sungenis refutes his own position when he argues that one may take any point as the center–the math, he says, can be reworked accordingly, even if unfelicitously.

If that is so–if any point can be the center of the universe–then that is equivalent of saying that no particular point is the center. There can be a unique center only if every other point cannot be the center.

Sungenis says the math allows any point to be the center and that Scripture teaches that only the Earth is the center. There is a contradiction here.

If the Earth is the unique center, then no other point can be the center and the math can’t show any other point to be the center. If the Earth is not the unique center, then Scripture (or at least Sungenis’s interpretation of it) is wrong.

R. Sungenis: First, Mr. Keating forgets that I am using the “math” argument against heliocentrism, not for geocentrism. Since there are more than a few people who want to deny geocentrism any possibility of existence, I simply have to show them that the same math they use to support heliocentrism can be used to support geocentrism, and therefore their so-called “proof” is not proof at all.

As for geocentrism, my proof does not come from the math, since it has already been admitted that math cannot prove either heliocentrism or geocentrism. My proof comes from Scripture, the Fathers, the Medievals, the Sacred Congregation, Paul V, Urban VIII and Alexander VII, and the fact that no pope or council since then has overturned the decision against allowing Copernicanism to be more than an intriguing scientific hypothesis.

Lastly, Mr. Keating’s premise is fallacious (“If the Earth is the unique center, then no other point can be the center and the math can’t show any other point to be the center”). It is a true statement, in reality, that if Earth is the unique center then no other point can be the center, but it is not a true statement that math cannot show any other point to be the center.

What Mr. Keating needs to realize is that, a mathematical representation of a given phenomenon, although true in the world of mathematics, is not necessarily true in reality. Take for example the math equation x^3 = 8 (x cubed equals eight). There are at least three solutions to this equation. X can be 2; or X can be the square root of negative 3 minus 1; or X can be the negative square root of negative 3 minus 1. All three equations have the same mathematical validity, but only one is real; the other two are unreal. Unfortunately, much of physical science today has been built on more unreal equations than real equations (e.g., when Alec starts talking about the “Boundary condition at infinity”). As physicist J. J. Thompson once quipped about the state of physics today:

“We have Einstein’s space, de Sitter’s space, expanding universes, contracting universes, vibrating universes, mysterious universes. In fact the pure mathematician may create universes just by writing down an equation, and indeed if he is an individualist he can have a universe of his own.”

Or we can even make it simpler. I have before me 15 pieces of fruit: 5 apples; 5 oranges; 5 pears. I tell the class I want them to pick 10 of the pieces of fruit, and whoever matches the right combination of apples, oranges and pears that I have written down on a piece of paper, he will win a prize. Well, of course, the students will pick different combination, but there is only one combination that is correct, but that doesn’t mean the other combinations have no mathematical validity. Likewise, there is only one center to the universe, but it doesn’t mean that math cannot propose an alternate center.

The problem with physics today is that physicists think that if they can produce a workable mathematical solution to a given problem, then their math automatically represents reality. Not so. There are many mathematical ways to represent a certain phenomenon, but there is only one reality.

continued…
 
Of course, another way to look at this is to realize that, most mathematical formulas that purport to understand the universe but are not giving a faithful representation of the universe, will eventually break down and its flaws will be exposed. Unbeknownst to much of the public, that is precisely what has been happening in physics for the last 100 years. Einstein had a mathematical fudge factor to make his universe work; the Big Bangers have their “omega” value and Dark Matter they can play with; the Steady-State theorists can’t figure out if they want a steady or non-steady state; the Quantum mechanics have their “probabilities” they can fudge; the Relativists have their calculus tensors they can adjust; and the String Theorists have their 11 dimensions and vibrations they can adjust, but the truth is that not one of these mathematical systems has solved the problem of how the universe is put together. They all have flaws, some very big flaws. In fact, they are more in the dark now than they were 100 years ago, and are basically about to give up.

I submit that they have found out that none of these models work because they simply can never work. Unless man comes back to a universe created out of nothing by divine fiat (not a Big Bang) and unless they start with the Earth in the center and created first, then they will have no hope of ever finding the right mathematical formula. It only makes sense that, since man was not present when God created the world, man needs to depend on information about the creation that he cannot get from any other source than the being Who was there – God himself. This is precisely why I continue to teach, and will teach to the day I die, that a literal reading of the first chapter of Genesis is the only truth upon which we can base any scientific investigation. Everything else will result in a dead end. The proof is in the pudding, since every cosmological theory proposed by modern man has failed. And all we have in its place is confusion, since now everything is relative and we have no absolutes. It is time for Karl Keating and the rest of Catholic apologetics to stop bowing to the tin gods of modern science (including its evolutionary theory) and come back to a literal reading of Scripture as taught by the Fathers and the Church of tradition.
Robert Sungenis
Catholic Apologetics Intl.
1-05-05
 
Sungenis << My proof comes from Scripture, the Fathers, the Medievals, the Sacred Congregation, Paul V, Urban VIII and Alexander VII, and the fact that no pope or council since then has overturned the decision against allowing Copernicanism >>

Okay, since the Church never claimed to be infallible on scientific issues, he can join the rest of the world and accept the earth does rotate around the sun.

Sorry for the inconvenience

He can now stop the foolishness, buffoonery, nonsense, and absurdity. :cool:

“Here we have survivals of that same oppression of thought by theology which has cost the modern world so dear; the system which forced great numbers of professors, under penalty of deprivation, to teach that the sun and planets revolve about the earth; that comets are fire-balls flung by an angry God at a wicked world; that insanity is diabolic possession; that anatomical investigation of the human frame is sin against the Holy Ghost; that chemistry leads to sorcery; that taking interest for money is forbidden by Scripture; that geology must conform to ancient Hebrew poetry…Happily, in these days such attempts generally defeat themselves…The harm done to religion in these attempts is far greater than that done to science; for thereby suspicions are widely spread, especially among open-minded young men, that the accepted Christian system demands a concealment of truth, with the persecution of honest investigators, and therefore must be false…no more sure way of making unbelievers in Christianity among young men could be devised than preaching to them that the doctrines arrived at by the great scientific thinkers of this period are opposed to religion.” (Andrew D. White, A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom, orig 1896)

Phil P
 
Sungenis << It only makes sense that, since man was not present when God created the world, man needs to depend on information about the creation that he cannot get from any other source than the being Who was there – God himself. This is precisely why I continue to teach, and will teach to the day I die, that a literal reading of the first chapter of Genesis is the only truth upon which we can base any scientific investigation. >>

If you can adjust your biblical interpretations on justification by faith and sola scriptura to become a Catholic, why can’t you adjust your biblical interpretations of Genesis to line up with modern science? Not that hard, many Christians have done it the past 200 years.

Duane Gish and Henry Morris of the ICR said the same thing as Bob Sungenis, which is why creationism can never be considered scientific:

“Creation. By creation we mean the bringing into being by a supernatural Creator of the basic kinds of plants and animals by the process of sudden, or fiat, creation…We do not know how the Creator created, what processes He used, for He used processes which are not now operating anywhere in the natural universe. This is why we refer to creation as Special Creation. We cannot discover by scientific investigation anything about the creative processes used by the Creator.” (Gish, Evolution: The Fossils Say No!, page 40)

“Stephen Jay Gould states that creationists claim creation is a scientific theory. This is a false accusation. Creationists have repeatedly stated that neither creation nor evolution is a scientific theory (and each is equally religious).” (Gish, letter to editor of Discover magazine, July 1981)

“…it is…quite impossible to determine anything about Creation through a study of present processes, because present processes are not creative in character. If man wished to know anything about Creation (the time of Creation, the duration of Creation, the order of Creation, the methods of Creation, or anything else) his sole source of true information is that of divine revelation. God was there when it happened. We were not there…Therefore, we are completely limited to what God has seen fit to tell us, and this information is in His written Word. This is our textbook on the science of Creation!” (Henry Morris, Studies in the Bible and Science, page 114)

Above citations taken from Judge Overton’s landmark decision in the "Arkansas Creationist" Trial from 1981-82

Am I interrupting too much? I’ll let Alec (hecd2) respond if he wants. I said I would quit but this board is too addicting. 😛

Phil P
 
Sungenis << It is time for Karl Keating and the rest of Catholic apologetics to stop bowing to the tin gods of modern science >>
  1. Faith and science: “…methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are.” [Vatican II GS 36:1]
Is the above a lie? Or is the above a truth?

Also read the 1998 Faith and Reason encyclical

Okay I’m done. Karl or Alec can respond. 😃

Phil P
 
Response for All4Lifetoo:

(refer to All4Lifetoo’s original post above…small snippet below):

All4 writes:…Your duty or Sungenis’ duty would be to convince NASA that your theory of a stationary Earth and rotating universe is plausable enough to merit a space mission to test it.

If there is a flaw in my theory of how the period of the Moon’s orbit might be directly measured in this manner, I trust someone will point it out to me. Perhaps hecd2 could comment on my purposed method. END POST

R. Sungenis: There’s no need to have a space mission to test it, because according to Mach’s principle, any calibration of the gyroscope could be measured from the vantage point of a rotating earth in a fixed universe or a rotating universe around a fixed earth, since the gyroscope will act the same in both cases.

END

Response to Miguel:

My note to Miguel: Miguel, you didn’t interact with the information I gave in response to your initial post above. Do you have any reaction to it at all? It at least seems that you had a misapprehension of geocentrism in your original critique (I think I understand enough to at least see that). Agree? Disagree? Or did Mr. Sungenis miss your point?

Quote:
“Originally Posted by All4lifetoo
…The success of the calculations used to launch satellites, based on the knowledge of the Earth’s rotation demonstrate the correctness of this knowledge. The consistency and agreement of the physical measurements of the forces on the launch vehicle and of the satellite itself, with the known speed of Earth rotation demonstrate the correctness of this knowledge…”

This is the correct line of arguement to use against this nonsense. Our proven ability to navigate satellites into orbit around the various planets of the solar system (and their moons) demonstrates we know what we’re doing (e.g., orbits around Jupiter are not geocentric, they’re Jupiter-centric. If anyone is interested in brushing up on the basic physics, check out this site:

www2.jpl.nasa.gov/basics/bsf-toc.htm

R. Sungenis: Success of launches does not prove that the Earth is rotating, since a rotating universe will create the same inertial and centrifugal forces if the launch were to take place on a fixed earth.
 
R. Sungenis: Success of launches does not prove that the Earth is rotating, since a rotating universe will create the same inertial and centrifugal forces if the launch were to take place on a fixed earth. END

Miguel 2:

Quote: "Originally Posted by CatholicMatthew
The one thing you have to remember about geocentrism is that all motion is measured relative to the point of measurement. I have seen mathematically worked out the translation of a sun centered solar system and the accompanying formulas for predicting the paths of the planets and I have seen it translated into an earth centered as well as mars centered formulas…

Miguel writes: IOW, mathematically, you can arbitrarily choose the origin of your coordinate system to be anywhere. But the coordinate system is usually chosen to keep the math workable (i.e., as simple as possible). But don’t confuse the origin of the coordinate system with the center of mass of the central body of gravitational attraction. It might be in the same place. But a planet’s mass is not gravitationally attracted to a coordinate system. It’s attracted to the center of mass of the central body (i.e., the sun).END

R. Sungenis: There is no issue with the center of mass principle, but the fact that Miguel admits that any point, mathematically speaking, could serve as the center, means that he has no way of proving heliocentrism, mathematically.

MIguel 3:

Quote “…It seems to me that at least the geocentrist has in his favor the fact that the fathers and saints of Church were very clear on this, as well as the popes. To a geocentrist, this can be viewed as a matter of faith. For the non-geocentrist, it is de facto NOT a matter of faith…”

Miguel writes: Doesn’t infallibility only apply to religious and moral truth, not scientific truth? So what does it matter if the fathers and saints and popes were geocentrists? Their teaching isn’t protected from error in matters of scientific truth.

R. Sungenis: All truth is God’s truth. Whenever Scripture touches upon an issue of science (and it does so usually in the macro-fields of science, e.g., cosmology, cosmogony) then it has the last word, as even Augustine taught, and as the Church teaches. As regards infallibility, the Church determines when she can apply it, and it does not preclude her making judgments about science and history. For example, Lateran Council IV and Vatican I made infallible judgments about cosmogony:

Lateran IV (1215): “God…who by His own omnipotent power at once from the beginning of time created each creature from nothing, spiritual, and corporal, namely, angelic and mundane, and finally the human…”

Council of Florence (1441): “God…is the creator of all things visible and invisible, who, when he wished, out of his goodness created all creatures, spiritual as well as corporal; good, indeed…since they were from nothing…”

Council of Cologne (1860): "Our first parents were formed immediately by God. Therefore we declare that…those who…assert…man…emerged from spontaneous continuous change of imperfect nature to the more perfect, is clearly opposed to Sacred Scripture and to the Faith.
Vatican Council I (1870): If anyone does not confess that the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance, have been produced by God from nothing, let him be anathema.
 
Response to Alec:

Alec’s writes:

The fact is that Bob’s arguments are riddled with logical inconsistencies and scientific misunderstanding. Let us start with the fact that his entire position rests on his interpretation of General Relativity. If we remove GR or similar metric theories from consideration, then he cannot begin to answer, using Newtonian considerations, most of the arguments I put forward. If we accept GR, we also accept, tentatively, the very strong equivalence principle, which means that whatever arguments we accept with regard to the origin of fictitious forces on earth, equally well apply to the rim of a gyroscope orbiting the earth or a quasar 11 billion light years away. In other words, under those circumstances, there are no preferred reference frames and then it is utterly meaningless to talk about the earth or anywhere else being at rest or being at the centre of the universe. However, there are some rather strong conditions that we have to consider with regard to the spacetime manifold in which we develop the solutions to the Einstein field equations, in order to get this result. We’ll look at this in a little more detail below.

R. Sungenis: Previously Alec used Thirring’s results to try to claim that frame-dragging proved that the Earth was rotating. I simply turned the tables on Alec and used the same General Relativity to show him that frame-dragging does not prove a rotating Earth. The only thing it proves is that frame-dragging exists. The source of the frame-dragging is another story altogether. It can either be from a rotating Earth in a fixed universe or a rotating universe around a fixed Earth, and GR is helpless to tell us which one is correct.

As for Newtonian mechanics, whether or not we can use that to explain what takes place in the universe is becoming more of an open question each day. Although it seems to work most of the time in our local system, it has unexplained anomalies at the outskirts of our solar system. On the universal scale, Newtonian mechanics also breaks down, otherwise, our current cosmology would not have to invent Dark Matter to the tune of 95% of the universe’s constituency. Dark Matter is merely a euphemism for when the Newtonian inverse square law breaks down, and apparently that happens 95% of the time in deep space. So, whether Newtonian mechanics can adequately explain the universe, let alone geocentrism, is not something I’m committing myself to. What I can say is that, based on the idea of rotation around a center of mass (e.g., the universe around a point) at least Newtonian mechanics starts us off in the right direction.

continued…
 
Alec: If Bob is to have any kind of argument at all, he needs gravitomagetics – a consequence of GR – to be correct. But Bob proceeds to attempt a demolition of GR, which is rather like sawing off the branch on which you are sitting. He does so by calling into question the fit of experimental values of anomalous perihelion precession of Mercury and Venus. But he does so with ancient data – Poor worked in the 1930s, was adamantly anti-GR and his views have since disappeared into the dustbin of history. Since Bob clearly needs an update on the current theoretical (according to GR) and measured perihelion precessions of some planetary bodies, let me assist him:

R. Sungenis: First of all, I only brought up the issue of the so-called proofs of General Relativity because Alec was touting the perihelion of Mercury as proof for both General Relativity and a rotating Earth. Alec’s logic was: “If we prove General Relativity, then we prove a rotating Earth.” Sorry, that logic won’t work because: (1) even if one tries to use General Relativity, it won’t allow such a conclusion, since in GR everything is relative and there is no preferred frame of reference, and (2) the public needs to know that General Relativity itself has not been proven and has many unanswered problems. That’s why they call it a “theory.” Evidence that GR has not been proven is that there are anomalies in the perihelions of the planets. As for Poor being thrown into the “dustbin of history,” that, of course, is the opinion of someone who is an avowed Relativist, like Alec.

Alec: Even if we go as far back as 1972, we find this in Weinberg’s ‘Gravitation and Cosmology:

Mercury Theoretical: 42.98 Measured: 43.1 +/- 0.5
Venus Theoretical: 8.6 Measured: 8.4+/-0.8
Earth Theoretical: 3.8 Measured: 5.0+/- 1.2
Icarus Theoretical 10.3 Measured: 9.8+/- 0.8

R. Sungenis: This proves nothing, and actually works against Alec. Poor already recognized Mercury’s perihelion. The question is, where is Mars in Weinberg’s data? Those not wedded to Relativity know the answer: General Relativity predicted that Mars’ perihelion would be 1.3, but the real value is around 8.1. That was the point of my previous remarks, and Alec ignored it. In addition, Weinberg has a convenient error of margin for the Earth (+/- 1.2) to bring it in line with Relativity’s 3.8. Not surprisingly, the same discrepancy between Relativity and actual measurement shows up in Poor’s data, since Poor shows a 5.9 result for the actual perihelion of Earth (which is the same figure without the margin of error Weinberg shows), and Poor shows that Einstein predicted a 3.8, just as Weinberg shows. And how does Weinberg explain Venus? It has been known for a long time that Venus gives wild perihelion results, but Weinberg doesn’t even mention that fact. He chooses 8.4 with a convenient margin of error so that it will match Einstein’s prediction of 8.6. Thus Alec fails. It is well known that Einstein could not predict the perihelion of Venus, Earth and Mars. I spent two minutes on the Internet this morning and found this site on the first page. (autodynamics.org/orbits.html) And the first sentence reads: “The General Theory of Relativity yields an equation that explains the Mercury perihelion advance. It is also well known that this equation cannot explain either the Venus, Earth and Mars perihelion advance. Autodynamics yields the same equation and of course, has the same limitation.” So it seems that the same information that Poor offered us in 1922 hasn’t changed in 2005. I suggest Alec go back to the drawing board.

continued…
 
Alec: Ohanian and Ruffini’s ‘Gravitation and Spacetime’ published in 1994 gives results for more recent observations:

Mercury: 43.1 +/- 0.1
Venus: 8.62
Earth: 3.84

R. Sungenis: Same difference, Ohanian doesn’t mention Mars, nor the problems with either Venus’ or Earth’s perihelion measurement.

Alec: There is very little more that needs to be said about Bob’s attempted demolition of the main plank of his own argument other than it displays a rather pathetic lack of logical consistency and that it is utterly impotent.

R. Sungenis: I explained above why I was showing the fallacies of GR, that is, to show that not only does it not prove Alec’s original argument about frame-dragging, but GR itself has not been proven. The only thing “pathetic” is watching Alec first try to use frame-dragging to prove the Earth is in rotation, when he knows, if he is any kind of a Relativist, that frame-dragging neiother proves GR or that the Earth is rotating.

Alec: Let’s turn now to Bob’s claim that the Lense-Thirring effect is old news and that it explains the Coriolis and centrifugal forces on a stationary Earth around which the universe rotates once per day (he also claims that Lense and Thirring ‘produced’ – I think he means ‘quantified’, as Einstein had already predicted it – this effect by hypothesising a stationary earth around which the universe rotates). In fact Lense and Thirring were quite clear from the outset that they were treating the dragging of inertial frames by rotating masses generally – see for example Lense and Thirring – Uber den Einfluss der Eigenrotation der Zentralkoerper auf die Bewegung der Planeten und Monde nach der Einsteinschen Gravitationstheorie’ 1918.

R. Sungenis: Of course their work was about “rotating masses generally.” But what Alec isn’t telling us is that they used Einstein’s “distant rotating masses” as the bases for their use of a rotating shell around a center of mass! In case Alec needs enlightening, the “distant rotating masses” refer to the masses in the distant universe in rotation. In fact, here is Thirring’s concluding quote from the above referenced work: “By means of a concrete example it has been shown that in an Einsteinian gravitational field, caused by distant rotating masses, forces appear which are analogous to the centrifugal and Coriolis forces.” Not very “general” language is it?
 
Alec: Note that Bob doesn’t tell us exactly what the Lense-Thirring effect is. The theory predicts that for a rotating mass in the slow rotation and weak field condition, the inertial frames of reference are dragged in the plane of the rotating body at an angular velocity equal to 2J/R^3 where J is the angular momentum and R is the distance from the centre of mass of the body. Within a thin massive shell, the inertial frames are dragged with an angular velocity = 4M.omegadot/3R in geometric units where c=G=1, M is the mass of the shell in centimetres, R is its radius in centimetres, and omegadot is the angular rotational velocity of the shell. We can show that there is the flat Minskowski metric within such a rotating shell. We can derive the accelerations on a moving test particle – these accelerations can be shown to be of the same form as Coriolis and centrifugal accelerations, but not necessarily of the same magnitude. In fact the M/R term comes into the expression for the second derivative of all three space-like dimensions – the magnitude of the Coriolis and centrifugal accelerations. In other words, and this is intuitively obvious, the magnitude of the effect depends on the mass and radius of the shell. We can model the universe as a thin massive shell rotating around the earth, but the magnitude of the Coriolis and centrifugal accelerations puts tight constraints on the total mass and mean distance of matter-energy in the universe. From what we observe, the conditions in the universe would have to be such that the rotational velocity of the local inertial frames would have to match the matter-energy current exactly and this happens only under very tight constraints – constraints that it is by no means certain that the universe meets.

R. Sungenis: Alec, when you are certain that the universe doesn’t meet such “very tight contraints,” then come back and talk to us. Until then, we will take your words for exactly what they said: “We can model the universe as a thin massive shell rotating around the earth…” and that is precisely what Thirring and Lense did. Now, since Big Bang Relativists like yourself try all kinds of fudge factors to make your universe work (Cosmological constant, Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Gravitational tensors, omega values, etc), I think I’ll be satisfied with “tight constraints” until you can prove it wrong. As for now, your own words show you can’t prove it wrong.

Alec: In order to develop his theory to satisfy the very strong equivalence principle, Einstein assumed an isotropic and homogeneous manifold – this is based on the Friedmann-Robertson-Walker metric, with a static universe which is Einstein’s universe model on which he based the equivalence of all reference frames (he had to introduce the cosmological constant to achieve this condition). In the FRW metric, space is invariant under the transformations defined by Killing vectors that represent the spatial homogeneity and, in Minkowski space, Killing vectors that represent four dimensional rotations in three planes. In other words, all points in spacetime are invariant, at least infinitesimally, to translations and rotations: there are no special ‘static’ reference frames.

R. Sungenis: Of course. How could there be an “static reference frames” if everything, including the Earth, is moving?? In the end, Relativity and its cousins (Minkowski space, Friedmann-metric, Killing vectors) is just a desperate attempt to find an absolute when there is none available. The possibility of absolutes was taken away when men decided to throw the Earth out into the remote recesses of space. Once the center is removed, you make a mess of space and everything connected to it, and such has been the plight of physics ever since the Michelson-Morley experiment. With a fixed Earth, Relativity is superfluous. God gave us an absolute reference frame when He put the Earth in the center, but men think they know better.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top