Response to Keating Critique of Geocentrism

  • Thread starter Thread starter Michael_Forrest
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
Click to expand...
…and the response
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.
Click to expand...
No, this can easily be tested. Gyroscopic motion is beside the point. Were the Earth stationary, then the Moon would need to orbit the Earth with a period close to 24 hours. Since it always keeps the same face towards us, it would also need to spin on its own axis every 24 hours. Setting up a Foucault pendulum on the Moon ought to settle the issue.

Again, there are many different interpretations of Mach’s principle. It is not clear what the Sungenis interpretation is, but it is somewhat irrelevant. It is always possible to determine the magnitude of inertial forces acting on a system. Mach formulated his principle based upon the work of Berkeley for an empty universe. Einstein was at first attracted to Mach’s work, helping him recognize a connection between matter and space, but he later abandoned it in favor of geometricizing spacetime.
 
To everyone who has expressed their condolences and offered their prayers, I wish to thank you most sincerely. It is times like this that remind us of the real issues Catholics face…of being in the presence of the Almighty.

In Christ,
Michael
 
40.png
wanerious:
…and the response

No, this can easily be tested. Gyroscopic motion is beside the point. Were the Earth stationary, then the Moon would need to orbit the Earth with a period close to 24 hours. Since it always keeps the same face towards us, it would also need to spin on its own axis every 24 hours. Setting up a Foucault pendulum on the Moon ought to settle the issue.

Again, there are many different interpretations of Mach’s principle. It is not clear what the Sungenis interpretation is, but it is somewhat irrelevant. It is always possible to determine the magnitude of inertial forces acting on a system. Mach formulated his principle based upon the work of Berkeley for an empty universe. Einstein was at first attracted to Mach’s work, helping him recognize a connection between matter and space, but he later abandoned it in favor of geometricizing spacetime.
Click to expand...
This is a very good suggestion! There has already been talk of returning to the Moon. Measuring the period of rotation of Foucault’s pendulum to test the theory of a rotating universe is reason enough to go.
 
Michael Forrest:
P.S. I may not be available for a while as I have to attend the wake of a dear friend this evening…funeral tomorrow. Please pray for his soul: William Gauthier.
Click to expand...
Sorry about your loss, Michael.
 
As I can’t seem to sleep…I figured I might as well pass this along…
Michael

Alec: It is not possible to have a sensible debate with someone whose lack of knowledge of the subject under discussion is as obvious and extreme as Bob’s is. Not only is he clearly ignorant about important specifics on this topic, but his general lack of scientific knowledge and his obvious disdain for science would convert this discussion on my part into the education of a reluctant pupil, a task that is far more onerous than I am willing to undertake. One example will suffice. It shows such ignorance of such an elementary and fundamental concept of mechanics, that it, on its own, utterly disqualifies Bob from any serious discussion on matters pertaining to gravitation and cosmology.

R. Sungenis: I suppose I could say that Alec’s ploy is: when you don’t have enough evidence to prove your case and you get caught in contradictions that you can’t answer, throw some more insults and claims that your opponent is ignorant so that you can give everyone the impression that you’re winning the argument. But these are nothing but childish games. He says he wants to get to the facts, but he keeps starting off with anything but facts, and simply more of this.

Alec: I wrote: “The surface of the earth is very plainly not an inertial frame so it cannot have any special privilege to be at a centre or at rest.” To which Bob replied: "Says who? Where has Alec proven for us in this dialogue that the Earth cannot be the inertial frame at the center and at rest? … if we take the Earth as the ‘local inertial frame’ it has a ‘greater claim for not being in rotation,’ but then, out of nowhere, Alec concludes that the ‘local inertial frame’ cannot be ‘the earth…unmoving at the center of the universe’ " In other words Bob wants me to prove that the surface of the earth cannot be at rest in an inertial frame. Now, anyone who has the slightest acquaintance with classical mechanics and all metric theories of gravitation will know that the surface of the earth cannot represent an inertial frame by the definition of the term, which is a frame in which an object at rest experiences no inertial forces whatever the source of those forces might be. Equivalent definitions include a frame in free fall or a frame in which geodesics are classical straight lines in a flat spacetime – all of these definitions are equivalent and the surface of the earth doesn’t satisfy a single one – it cannot be at rest in an inertial frame – by definition of the term. If Bob doesn’t know this, what hope for the quality of the rest of his argument?

R. Sungenis: Alec continues to distort the terminology to escape the inevitable. An inertial frame is not merely a frame in which “an object at rest experiences no inertial forces,” but an object at rest which is kept at rest in the midst of forces which are balanced, or despite external forces acting upon it. The definition of inertia stipulates that it has to be a NET external force that moves the object in order to disqualify it from being an inertial frame. By definition, an object that doesn’t move, whether it has no forces surrounding it or many forces surrounding it, is the inertial frame. That is basic physics 101. We’ll have to wait for Alec to acknowledge this before we can hope to go forward. As it stands, for those who may be interested, the universe in rotation around the Earth creates gyroscopic forces that keeps the Earth in the center and at rest so that any other force that attempts to move it out of that inertial position will be resisted by the rest of the universe. That’s what you call the absolute inertial frame.
 
Alec: Bob’s entire argument relies on the equivalence of a) the earth rotating with respect to the star frame and b) the star frame rotating with respect to the earth. This equivalence occurs only in GR. (Note Lense and Thirring produced solutions to the Einstein field equations) and is not valid in an absolute space. Since Bob rejects GR, and cleaves to an absolute space he is left with a logical dog’s breakfast. He can’t have it both ways.

R. Sungenis: As the proverb says, “a dog returns to his vomit,” so Alec is returning to the excuse that I can’t use GR to disprove his own use of GR because I don’t believe in GR. But as Jesus said to the Pharisees, “A house divided against itself will not stand. If Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself, how then shall his kingdom stand?”(Mt 12:26).

GR is a house divided against itself, because if a GR-believer such as Alec says that everything is relative and there is no preferred frame of reference, then Alec can’t be claiming that the earth goes around the sun and can’t be claiming that the earth cannot be the center of the universe. For every accusation he asserts to deny that the sun can go around the earth, Relativity points three fingers back at him and says “No, Alec, you can’t do that.” THAT, and that only, is the reason I appealed to GR – to beat Alec at his own game. Better yet, let’s see how Einstein himself says it: “The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS could be used with equal justification. The two sentences: “the sun is at rest and the earth moves,” or “the sun moves and the earth is at rest,” would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS” (The Evolution of Physics, 1938).

Now, Alec claims that I can’t point out the contradictions of his belief system because I don’t believe in his belief system. But ask yourself this question: Does Jesus have to accept the kingdom of Satan in order to show the flaws of Satan’s kingdom? Hardly.

Alec: In truth there is little more that needs to be said. Why flog a dead horse? I leave you with a quote from Bob which displays his disdain for science and scientists and particularly for scientific terms that he quite obviously does not begin to understand: ‘In the end, Relativity and its cousins (Minkowski space, Friedmann-metric, Killing vectors) is [sic] just a desperate attempt to find an absolute when there is none available…God gave us an absolute reference frame when He put the earth in the center, but men think they know better '.

Bob bases his belief that the earth is the unmoving centre of the universe not on science but on his belief in his interpretation of literal biblical inerrancy. That’s fine, and he’s entitled to have whatever religious belief he wishes, but in scientific terms, his geocentrism has no more validity than an unshakeable belief in pink unicorns.

R. Sungenis: Another demagogic ploy of Alec’s to side-track the discussion. I have no disdain for science. Is it not I who has used the prevailing views of science to show modern cosmology’s inability to deny that the sun could indeed be revolving around the earth? If not, then why, pray tell, would I be quoting from Einstein to prove my point, and quoting from Born in my last entry to do the same. No, what is really happening is that Alec doesn’t like being beaten as his own game. He thinks that his pedantic display of theories and name-dropping is going to bull everyone over with awe, and that such displays makes him the sole owner of scientific facts, but two can play that game, Alec. It doesn’t take much to show that the very science Alec depends upon is the very science that disallows him from denying the possibility of geocentrism. If he thinks otherwise, then I suggest he take it up with Einstein. (continued)
 
Alec: Bob should have more honestly written: ‘My personal interpretation of the bible is that God gave us an absolute reference frame when He put the earth in the center, but in the 21st C, most Christian men and women know better.’

R. Sungenis: More demagoguery, mixed with a measure of revisionist history. Let me review the history for Alec: The Fathers of the Church, in the face of the Greek astronomers like Hipparchus and Aristarchus who were claiming that the earth revolved around the sun, stood in stark opposition to their claims. They wrote against it vociferously. Every Catholic medieval theologian and scientist did the same. The only one to voice a different tale was Nicholas of Cusa, but he believed the universe was infinite and that creatures inhabited other worlds. St. Robert Bellarmine, head of the Sacred Congregation, told Galileo that not only did Scripture deny his contentions, but the Church holds we cannot contradict a belief that was held in consensus by the Fathers. Seven cardinals drafted a response to Galileo in 1616 stating, to say that, in reality, the earth moved was “opposed to Scripture,” if not “heretical.” Galileo was offered a reprieve if he would merely say that heliocentrism was a hypothesis, but he refused, and thus he was told that he would be barred from teaching or holding to Copernicanism. This decision was approved by the reigning pope in 1616, Paul V. It was reiterated and reinforced again, even more forcefully by Urban VIII in 1633, and the decision, by order of that pope, was disseminated to all the papal nuncios and universities of Europe. In 1664, Alexander VII, attached the condemnation of the heliocentric theories of Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo to a papal bull. Since that time, there has been no official statement from the Magisterium reversing those condemnations. So I stand in good company with the Catholic Church, and it certainly is not a matter of Robert Sungenis’ “personal interpretation of the Bible.”

I rest my case.
 
I don’t know if this also covers the recent responses to All4Life by a couple of others along this line or not. If not, by all means, let me know.

Michael

AllForLife writes:

Yes the gyroscope would behave the same in both cases. That is why it is significant. The satellite the gyroscope is on would NOT be rotating unless your theory about a rotating universe is correct. If the satellite was rotating with the universe, that rotation would be detectable because the line of sight from the satellite to the Moon would not change. The tracking instrument would not register any change in azmuth to the Moon because the universe would be rotating the satellite with it, if your theory is correct. Even if the line of sight did move under the influence of two velocities, that of the universe’s rotation and that of the Moon’s revolution, the rate of change in azmuth to the Moon would be something other than 360 degrees in 24 hours or in 27.13 days. This fact too would prove your theory, but if the rate of change was 360 degrees in 27.13 days then your theory would be disproved. END

R. Sungenis: They’ve already done so. That is what NASA’s Joint Center for Earth Systems Technology headed by Erricos Pavlis, along with Ignazio Cuifolini of the University of Lecce, did. Except that they made claims of confirming Einstein’s General Relativity by measuring the long-awaited Lense-Thirring effect. The effect shows itself as a “precession of the satellite’s node on the equatorial plane,” and is said to be caused by the “Earth’s rotation…which curves space-time in its vicinity…creating ‘mass’ currents, in analogy to magnetic currents in electrodynamics…Our new result aggress with the GR theory to 99% ± 5%.” In other words, instead of interpreting the precession caused by the satellite’s gyroscope to be from a rotating universe, they conveniently interpreted it as from the frame-dragging of a rotating earth, but that is completely arbitrary and not provable.
 
Dear Neophyte,
I’m a little confused between you and Orogeny…are you Tim or is Orogeny “Tim”…or are you both Tim? Is there some reason you are not using your name? That would certainly make things a little clearer…easier to remember.
First, again, thank you for your condolences. I am inclined to just move along. But there are a few things I think I should respond to:

You write:

It seems to me that your personal relationship with Bob may be making you a bit more sensitive than is really necessary;>>

Certainly, this can happen. But I think most people would consider the kind of comments thrown out by multiple individuals as offensive, uncharitable. The truth is that if I had been you (or someone else just lurking), watching what was said all against one individual, again, from multiple sources, I would have interjected, rather than just piling on. The fact that no one (with the exception of a “Matthew” or something to that effect, I believe) saw anything improper, no one said a word, did not go unnoticed. Again, I wrote absolutely nothing in my first posts that could be construed as insulting, harsh, or whatever. Go back a reread them. You tell me.

I consciously bent over backwards to be decent, to foster a respectful dialogue. I still maintain that too many of you are used to communicating in this way, and it would never be accepted in the real world.

I will say, however, that you were not as bad as some. And it is possible that I could have been harder on you because of the “build up” from so many other insults. If so, then please accept my apology…although with all of these posts from so many people wanting answers, I admit I am starting to get a little confused.

You write: if I had a dime for every time someone’s called me a fruitcake I could retire to a private island somewhere (yes, I know what hyperbole is).>>

I guess I just hoped that serious Catholics would try harder not to…and that it’s not a bad idea to be reminded of it. Also, and not to be argumentative, but if you know what hyperbole is, why do you keep denying that it was hyperbole? He flat out knows nothing about the subject? There’s no exaggeration in that statement?

You write: If the options are ascribing ulterior motives to someone versus figuring he just doesn’t know what he’s talking about, I’d say that writing it off to ignorance is giving the benefit of the doubt.

There is even another option, you know, right?

You write: If Bob doesn’t mind maybe you don’t need to mind for him.>>

You might go back and reread his first posts. If you read it closely, you’ll see he clearly did not appreciate it. Starting right off like that is just a spiritual energy sucker, Neophyte. You waste energy trying not get too angry in response, trying to focus on answering with substance. And yes, it is true that I mind when people so easily lose their charity. I hope to God I ALWAYS mind that.

You write: Besides, Bob’s done a bit of the same thing, telling his opponents that they obviously haven’t read the latest in 90-year-old physics papers (what is that, if not a fancy way of saying you don’t know what you’re talking about?)>>

If Bob came right out of the gate with that, without any provocation, I would agree with you to a degree. But again, go back and review the sequence. Sometimes timing is everything. Are you suggesting that both I and Bob ought to have simply let the insults slide without any response? Where is your responsibility and the responsibility of the others? In light of the insults, I think he was restrained. I also invite you to read his posts in response to the non-personal, recent posts from AllforLife…you’ll notice an absence of that stuff. Why? Because AllforLife is writing charitably, avoiding insult, and just hitting on factual matters. It’s really not that hard, just communicate like you would write to a valued friend, rather than a no-one or an enemy (I’m saying this generally, not specifically to you).

(continued)
 
Michael Forrest:
I don’t know if this also covers the recent responses to All4Life by a couple of others along this line or not. If not, by all means, let me know.

Michael

AllForLife writes:

Yes the gyroscope would behave the same in both cases. That is why it is significant. The satellite the gyroscope is on would NOT be rotating unless your theory about a rotating universe is correct. If the satellite was rotating with the universe, that rotation would be detectable because the line of sight from the satellite to the Moon would not change. The tracking instrument would not register any change in azmuth to the Moon because the universe would be rotating the satellite with it, if your theory is correct. Even if the line of sight did move under the influence of two velocities, that of the universe’s rotation and that of the Moon’s revolution, the rate of change in azmuth to the Moon would be something other than 360 degrees in 24 hours or in 27.13 days. This fact too would prove your theory, but if the rate of change was 360 degrees in 27.13 days then your theory would be disproved. END

R. Sungenis: They’ve already done so. That is what NASA’s Joint Center for Earth Systems Technology headed by Erricos Pavlis, along with Ignazio Cuifolini of the University of Lecce, did. Except that they made claims of confirming Einstein’s General Relativity by measuring the long-awaited Lense-Thirring effect. The effect shows itself as a “precession of the satellite’s node on the equatorial plane,” and is said to be caused by the “Earth’s rotation…which curves space-time in its vicinity…creating ‘mass’ currents, in analogy to magnetic currents in electrodynamics…Our new result aggress with the GR theory to 99% ± 5%.” In other words, instead of interpreting the precession caused by the satellite’s gyroscope to be from a rotating universe, they conveniently interpreted it as from the frame-dragging of a rotating earth, but that is completely arbitrary and not provable.
Click to expand...
I don’t find this response helpful or on point. Erricos Pavlis did a study of 11 years of data of Lageos 1 and 2. Lageos 1 and 2 are passive satellites designed to relflect laser beams used to measure the distance of the satellites from Earth. Erricos Pavlis’ study of this data presumed that the Earth was rotating on its axis and analyzed the data with that presumption. To claim that their analysis of the Lageos data is the same as my proposed experiment is erroneous.

Gravity Probe B is NASA’s test of GR using 4 precision gryoscopes and it was only launched on April 20, 2004. It is a Standford project. The test is suppose to require 2 months of calibration and then 16 months of data gathering. That means it won’t be completed until Aug 2006.

My proposed experiment places a satellite in Moon orbit to measure the rate of change in azmuth of the Moon to the satellite to determine if that rate is equal to 360 in 24 hours or in 27.13 days, or some other rate, and does not assume that it is the Earth that is rotating on its axis. The data gathered will be used to determine whether it is the Earth or the Universe that is rotation once every 24 hours.

One cannot offer an experiment or data analysis of an experiment that started with a different set of presumptions as a counter to an experiment with no such presumptions.
 
You write: and I’ve noticed you engaging in a bit of name-calling yourself. Calling someone’s family background into question is a classic example of ad hominem, and, unless I missed it in another post, so far you’re the only person here who’s done that (don’t worry, I’ve heard that before too, but fewer times than I’ve deserved).>>

You ought to at least provide specifics, give the context, etc. All I can assume is that you are referring to the time I asked if the tendency to insult people so readily is a genetic thing or a matter of environmental factors for those who are avidly anti-geocentrist. If that’s what you are talking about, I think your point is very much off the mark. I was simply pointing out that almost without exception, those who wrote on this topic started off with insult, and continued with insult even after being called on it. I think you probably understood that. To deem that “name-calling” isn’t accurate, to say I was calling one’s family background into question is really not reasonable.

Reread the relatively early posts yourself if you like. Tell me honestly how many posts from anti-geocentrists were devoid of any insult/derision. If need be, I’m willing to revisit it in detail with you.

You write: So why don’t we move forward: take the initial paragraph of my last post in the spirit I intended it, and figure that if I really can’t be convinced then I wouldn’t have paid attention on the sidelines and come back trying to sound like I had my hat in my hand.>>

I’m quite willing to let it go and move on at this point, too, Neophyte (Tim? I’m sorry…early senility setting in). Shall we?

God bless,
Michael
 
Okay…got your post. I’ll forward it on. Honestly, this particular one is a little Greek to me, so it’s not really helping me…but maybe its useful to you, Mr. Sungenis and so others who know more about this particular aspect.

Michael
 
On a humorous note…

I’ve noticed that every time I type “geocentric” into MS Word, the spell check underlines it and suggests “egocentric” as an alternative. I will have to have a word with Mr. Gates about that. 🙂
 
Sorry, I haven’t used the time I have to respond to Alec’s post. I’ve put it together a little sloppily, but it will have to do. Again…don’t know when I’ll be back. Not looking forward to tomorrow.

Alec writes: As far as the abortion breast cancer link goes, the consensus of the epidemiology indicates either no link or an extremely weak link. It seems to me that not only is the case against abortion, which is a moral one, weakened by cooking up data to attempt to show a stronger link than exists in practice, which is a form of lying (would you consider abortion to be less wrong if this link were to be weak or non-existent?), but it is also extremely uncharitable to those women who have had abortions at some time in the past to instil in them an unjustified fear of an excessive risk of breast cancer.>>
  1. Of course I agree abortion is not “less wrong” if the link were non-existent. That was not my point. I was proposing that commonly accepted science is not necessarily true….that things other than a pure unadulterated search for real knowledge plays into the world of science. I do not believe that the world of science alone has escaped the ravages of sin.
Science is a very predictable, natural place for the sin of pride to take root. “Knowledge puffs up”, as St. Paul warns. And without knowledge of God, it is even more dangerous…again, St. Paul in his first epistle to the Corinthians. Have you ever seen estimates on how many scientists believe in God (a low percentage). How many believe in the God of the Bible? (a very low percentage…regardless of the estimate) Now, contrast those percentages to the general population (a very high percentage) Why do you think that is, Alec? Really. If scientists are so objective, so smart, then why do so few of them believe in the God, even fewer in the God of the Bible?

Could it be that their pride has led them to believe they have no need of God? Yet, the Church and the Scriptures tell us that “the heavens proclaim His existence”. Is the Church wrong? Or are the scientists wrong? They both can’t be right. The Church teaches that it is not a matter of divine revelation to recognize God’s existence. Natural reason alone should inexorably lead man to acknowledge God. And it does for the vast majority of people. But it doesn’t with scientists.

This does catch my attention, yes. In my opinion, there is nothing more serious and dishonest than denying the existence of God, deifying oneself in the process. This is idolatry, and the scientific community is loaded with this sin. If they can’t get something this basic right, then why should I fall into line when they come up with theories of our existence, or of the nature of the universe? These issues are so closely related to God that I do believe the anti-God bias of scientists will impact everything from the decisions they make as to WHAT to even look for, and then, how to interpret it. I don’t think it’s too crazy, really….they (as a whole) look at the universe and interpret it to say “NO CREATOR……RANDOM CHANCE”. (continued)
 
  1. The consensus? Do you really think so? Please try to ignore the tone of these pieces, and focus on the stats/facts given. I don’t want to edit someone else’s work.
****“Regarding consensus science, (in the following article) you ****

****need to look no further than the NCI (National Cancer Institute) ****

****saying their scientists all agree that there is no link between ****

abortions and breast cancer.

****Well, I guess that’s not a good example because in the United ****

****States alone, of the 15 studies done, 13 found that abortions ****

increase the risk of breast cancer.

****So, maybe the NCI is using reverse consensus science. Yeah, ****

****that must be it, because the last I heard, 13 is still greater ****

****than 2. Unless, of course, a new math is being taught in our ****

schools.

For those still clueless, the following articles will clear it up.

****However, first, the NCI is sentencing thousands of women ****

****to death, yearly, by not informing them of the abortion/breast ****

cancer risk.

The NCI uses our tax dollars just to keep us in the dark.”

Frank Joseph MD
continued…
 
dhonline.com/articles/2005/01/02/news/opinion/edit01.txt

Albany Democrate-Herald

January 2, 2005

Consensus: Red flag in science

For page after page, the report by the Governor’s Advisory Group on Global Warming is a model of reason and common sense. Then, without meaning to, it raises a red flag of warning.

“Several thousand of the earth’s scientists,” it says at one point, “agree that global warming caused by greenhouse gas pollution from human activities represents a profoundly serious threat to human civilization and to even the most robust and insulated natural ecosystems. Their comments are echoed in the Draft Scientific Consensus Statement on the Likely Impact of Climate Change on the Pacific Northwest prepared by scientists at Oregon and Washington universities in the fall of 2004.”

The red flag is the reference to thousands of scientists and “consensus.”

The factual truth of anything never depends on how many people agree with it. Michael Crichton, the author, made that point in a lecture last year.

“I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks,” he wrote. “Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.”

Crichton develops the same criticism in the appendix to his latest thriller, “State of Fear.” He notes another consensus of scientists, one that was accepted in the United States and abroad, and which sounded plausible on its face. But it was false. The reference is to eugenics, the notion that society should take a hand in preventing its debasement by not letting certain people reproduce — a theory that caused great suffering and, in its ultimate horror, lay at the root of the Holocaust.

Since the end of the Second World War, nobody admits to believing in the theories of eugenics. But as Crichton points out, 100 years ago there was no doubt that the idea was valid. Prestigious universities and foundations, from Harvard to the Ford Foundation, advanced research in the field.
Global warming may or may not be caused, or accelerated, by the heedless conduct of man. But whether it is or not depends only on the facts in the real world, on facts derived from observations or experiments. How many scientists believe in it, or how many people sign petitions — it never depends on that. (End)
 
****In 1997, the top Scandinavian medical journal in the field of obstetrics and gynecology published that Finnish women, who had an induced abortion had 3.5 times the TOTAL risk of dying as women who delivered in the 12 months after ‘the end of pregnancy.’ (Acta Obstet Gyn Scand 1997;76:651-657) ****

****This ALL-CAUSE maternal mortality – comparing the relative mortality risks in the 12 months after the end of pregnancy for women who delivered versus those who had induced abortions was easily computed from the data. ******
****Not only has a doctor taken an oath to, “first do no harm,” but he/she also has a legal duty to withhold any treatment that the doctor knows, or should know, is not in the patient’s best interest. ******

**This TRIPLING of a woman’s one year risk of death can hardly be considered in a patient’s best interest and invites a malpractice suit. These are elective surgeries and all risks MUST be told, but they are NOT. ******
How Planned Parenthood can continue to say that abortions are safer than childbirth is mind boggling.

The ALL-CAUSE mortality includes not only the immediate cause of death from an abortion, such as hemorrhage, perforated uterus and infection, but also from cancers, suicides, homicides and accidents.

13 of 15 studies done in the USA and 29 of 38 studies done worldwide have found that abortions increase the risk of breast cancer – 16 are statistically significant.

****An abortion increases a woman’s risk of breast cancer, relative to what it would be if the pregnancy is not terminated, in two independent ways: first, it abrogates the protective effect of cell differentiation that occurs in about the last 8 weeks of a full-term pregnancy; and second, it does so at a time when the estrogen-mediated proliferation of undifferentiated cells during the pregnancy has left the breasts with a higher number of cells susceptible to cancerous mutation than were there before the pregnancy. ****

I will make this simpler so that a 10 year old and even so called pro-choicers of any age can understand and thus in the future, they cannot claim ignorance.

It is estrogen, which is produced in the ovaries, that transforms a young girl into a woman. When pregnancy occurs, there is a SURGE of this hormone (2,000%) causing the breast cells to proliferate dramatically in the first trimester, in order to lay the foundation for the production of milk. These young growing cells are more prone to develop cancer. (continued)
 
****In the second half of pregnancy, the estrogen levels RECEDE under the influence of such hormones as human placental lactogen. The immature cells, then grow and differentiate rapidly into mature, specialized milk producing tissue. Once specialization has occurred, the cells are less likely to turn cancerous. ****

****When the pregnancy is terminated by an induced abortion, these young growing cells (known as undifferentiated cells), and having undergone drastic changes are now in LIMBO. They are no longer normal breast cells, nor are they capable of producing milk. ****

****In plain English, these insulted cells (traumatized) have been hung out to dry. They are between a rock and a hard place. Scientists have known for years that any cell in the human body that has been traumatized, whether by chemicals, radiation, micro-trauma, or any other reason would be especially vulnerable to cancer. ****

****One must then surmise that what has been instilled in physicians heads from time immemorial, regarding the vulnerability of abnormal cells, is no longer valid. To suit their political agenda, they would have you believe that an abnormal cell is NO more prone to becoming cancerous than a normal cell. This defies all scientific knowledge, as well as common sense and shows the depths they will go, to keep the abortion industry flourishing. Human life means nothing to them. ****

****It has also been long known that a pregnancy carried to term protects against breast cancer. However, if a woman has an induced abortion, this protection is terminated. ****

****The reason is because the proliferation of the undifferentiated, cancer vulnerable cells, by the estrogen secreted early in the pregnancy, no longer has the protection that comes from hormones released later in pregnancy, since the pregnancy has been aborted. ****

****The estrogen/breast cancer risk has been known by doctors for many years, thus their reluctance to prescribe estrogen for menopausal women, especially those with any family history of breast cancer. ****

Also, abortions increase the risk of preterm births in subsequent pregnancies, leading to low birth weights and thus the child is more prone to develop physical and mental problems, including cerebral palsy. This is due to the damage done to the cervix and endometrium during an abortion.

Since abortions were made legal 31 years ago, breast cancer has risen 50% while other cancers remain the same. Also, preterm births have skyrocketed during the same time period as have miscarriages. (continued)
 
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to join the dots and find the real culprit.

In the Dr. Janet Daling (who by the way is pro-choice) study which was funded by the NCI (National Cancer Institute), it was found that abortions increased the risk of breast on an average of 50 percent.

To this day the NCI dreads the day they funded Dr. Daling and her group, as this study has always been absent from their webpage.

Reason: They did NOT like the results.

****But, the Daling study contained even more frightening results. If a woman had obtained her first abortion before she turned 18, the likelihood of having breast cancer increased by 150 percent. ****

Most ominous of all were the results for women who had an abortion before age 18 and who also had a family history of breast cancer. Twelve women in the Daling study fit that description. EVERY ONE of them got breast cancer before age 45. Let me repeat that – every girl in this group, developed breast cancer.

****The L.A. Daily News quoted pro-choice Dr. Janet Daling stating, “I have three sisters with breast cancer, and I resent people messing around with scientific data to further their own agenda, be they pro-choice or pro-life. I would have loved to have found no association between breast cancer and abortion, but our research is rock solid, and our data is accurate. It’s not a matter of believing. It’s a matter of what is.” ****

If there is also a history of breast cancer in the family, a teenager should NOT have an abortion, unless her LIFE (not health) is in danger, which is practically nil in this day and age.

Since 13 out of 15 studies done in the United State found that ALL abortions increase the risk of breast cancer, whether it’s the first or later ones, it is mind boggling that the abortions clinics do not, at least, warn these teen-age girls, instead of throwing them to the wolves, for the sake of the billion dollar industry.

****Even the NCI and the ACS (American Cancer Society) say that if a woman delays her first dull term birth, she increases her risk of breast cancer. Naturally an abortion delays a first full term delivery but they just refuse to use that word “abortion.” ****

**According to a study done at Harvard, every year delay increases the risk of breast cancer, 3.5 percent, compounded. ******
If the girl was made sterile by the abortion, she enters a very high risk category – a childless women.

****As mentioned before, a teenager who aborts her first pregnancy increases her risk of breast cancer 150% and if there is also a history of breast cancer in the family EVERY teenager in this category, developed breast cancer in the Daling Study, by age 45. ****

Not only do the abortion mills not warm women of this deadly risk but they also fight all parental notification laws and who else would know if there’s a history of breast cancer in the family, but the parents, especially the mother.**
****One has to wonder how this is possible in this day and age, but IT IS. Anything to make the Abortion Industry flourish. Human life means nothing to them. Only the almighty dollar. ******

Frank Joseph MD
 
Alec writes: There is strong evidence for there being both genetic and embryonic environmental factors in predisposition to homosexuality, and strong evidence that homosexuality in at least some people is innate.>>

Yes, I’ve heard those claims made (but usually by homosexual activists, honestly…particularly the last one). Could you provide the “strong scientific evidence” especially, of the “innate” assertion? I’ve never actually seen it. Also, I was primarily referring to the removal of homosexuality from the APA’s list of psychological disorders (1973).

The decision to remove homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) was made after APA leaders and members had endured several years of intense political pressure and disruptive lobbying efforts by militant homosexual activist groups. (Ronald Bayer, “Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnosis,” 1981) Homosexual activist groups pressured APA committees to remove homosexuality from the APA’s approved list of disorders. In spite of the long documented history showing that therapists have helped homosexual clients reduce and change their homosexual tendencies, professionals who persist in viewing and treating homosexuality as a changeable condition are labeled unenlightened, prejudiced, homophobic, and unethical. There is currently a movement within the APA to normalize pedophilia that appears to be following the same path to legitimization as homosexuality.

** (Alec):** I know little about modern research into adverse effects of hormonal contraception, but I have no reason to think that there cannot be medical researchers on this subject who are objective. If you are worried about using hormonal contraceptives, I suggest you resort to barrier methods which have no such endocrinal dangers. END

Response: Let me try to clarify my point, Alec. I am not saying there aren’t honest scientists. But I am proposing that what comes to be commonly accepted in terms of science, the mainstream, is not always a simple matter of “objective, honest science”. Every human is biased to some degree. Large group dynamics and the sin that creates unfortunate tendencies in group dynamics (and individuals) does not cease simply because a particular group identifies itself as “knowledge-seekers” or scientists. It is human nature to at least tend to “find” what one wants to find. Views, philosophies all affect what we even begin to look for (and hence impact what we find), let alone how we interpret what we find. And I don’t think the largely atheistic mindset of the mainstream scientific community can simply be ignored.

Off the top of my head, for instance, one has to look hard and long in order to realize that oral contraceptives are abortifacient. If they fail to prevent conception, they work secondarily by causing early term, chemical abortion. Yet, this fact is simply not made known in any substantive way. So few seem to know about it. I have spoken to doctors that did not even know this, and who argued with me about it. Perhaps if they viewed the universe through Catholic eyes first, more in the scientific community would see the need to communicate this reality openly and not obscure it, or allow it to be so easily obscured….they might even research more into this area.
Code: 
 Also, I believe the fact that contraception is even considered medicine by the scientific community is a scandal and black mark on medical science.  I do not understand how purposely stopping the body from doing what a healthy body SHOULD do can be honestly considered “medicine”.
(continued)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top