The Crackpot Challenge

[Alethios]

I don’t consider critics of any theory crackpots if they can provide reasoned argument substantiated by evidence. To date none has yet been offered against the general theory of evolution that stands up under public scrutiny. When Copernicus is proven wrong, geocentrism can be revived, but until then its proponents will be regarded as crackpots. When the Neo-Darwinian synthesis is proven wrong, you can then revive Young Earth Creationism.

Is it really that simple – just by showing that Copernicus and the Neo-Darwinian synthesis are wrong, geocentrism and Young Earth Creationism can be revived??

Who could resist restoring such fundamental truths? But of course it’s not that simple at all; the meaning of ‘reasoned argument’ , ‘ evidence’ and ‘public scrutiny’ are left undefined. Yet being allowed to provide the proofs and definitions needed to reverse the crackpot classification is certainly appreciated.

On these two issues there are three domains in which common ground must be found; Theology, Philosophy and Science.
Since theology deals with some truths that cannot be known by observation or reason – and CAF is, by title at least, a forum of believers - we start with the ultimate arbiter of truth.
The source of truth is the deposit of faith, the content of Christ’s revelation described in Sacred Scripture and Tradition, as defined and interpreted by the Magisterium. The Magisterium’s teachings are infallible and irrevocable, demanding a full assent of belief. There are two types :
Extraordinary: the Pope when speaking ex cathedra or the Bishops, in union with the Pope, defining doctrine at a General Council
Ordinary: universal teaching of all bishops dispersed but in unison and in union with the Pope
In all other cases the Pope or bishops are fallible, but their statements require the submission of intellect and will of a fully-formed conscience.
To be specific, unless the following echo the Magisterium, they are not guaranteed sources of authentic belief: JPII, B16, Dulles, Schoenborn , Chardin, McBrien, Reese, Coyne, Jaki, Consolmagno, Barr, Shea, Keating, cassini, Anastasia, Alethios.

The Magisterium has already ruled that Scriptures are inerrant in ALL that they describe. “Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God. “
The hermeneutics approved by Leo XIII, Benedict XV , Pius XII and Roberto Bellarmino is *primo, ad literam *– first, the meaning as written. The literal meaning can be ignored only for a good reason… a very good reason …… a very, very good reason. This is not ad literam solam, only the literal, the blind belief of fundamentalism, but it does include the possibility of multiple semantics.

The next level of credibility for ‘reasoned argument’ , ‘ evidence’ and ‘public scrutiny’ is based on common sense - traditional scholastic philosophy - principally metaphysics, ontology, epistemology and logic. The foundation is realism, based on such principles as: non-contradiction/action follows being/from nothing comes nothing/no one can give what he hasn’t got, etc.

Last is the narrowest knowledge domain. Natural science is self-limited to only material phenomena and events that are repeatable and testable via the scientific method. The logician Karl Potter has noted that no absolute truth can be attained by empirical induction and that true science must be based on a consistent set of axioms. For example, adding one axiom, 1>2 , to the axioms of arithmetic – which are consistent – will enable us to prove that x>y is both true and false for any x and y. Adding just this one axiom then destroys the consistency of the whole system, rendering it worthless.
Goedel has shown that any axiomatic system is incomplete, without aid from outside its domain (like theology). Arguing either from induction or from incompleteness, science cannot supply a theory of everything.

With this starter set of ground rules established and stipulated….
Let the challenge now begin
To decide
On whose side
Cracked pots doth reside.

Hypothesis: Copernicus was right

Theology: The Copernican model uses a fixed Sun and a kinetic Earth, which the Magisterium has ruled contrary to Revelation.

Philo: A fixed Sun and an Earth in orbital motion – for all choice of observers – logically conflicts with the theory of relativity, which allows any observer to be considered at rest. For Copernicus to be right, Einstein/Relativity must be wrong – there must be a preferred reference frame for scientific experiments.

Science: Sun experiments are unfalsifiable because observations by humans or remote devices from the Sun are impossible.
Copernicus uses epicycles for planetary orbits; ellipses are actually observed.
The Copernicus model conflicts with Newtonian motion of the planets around the solar system barycenter.
A fixed Sun contradicts its orbital motion around the Milky Way and its linear motion toward the Virgo cluster(ala CMB dipole interpretation).

So Copernicus conflicts with theology, reasoning and current science…. 3 strikes and yer out! Geocentrism is revived - Welcome back!

And the Lord is risen –Alleluia!

 

[diggerdomer]

Is it really that simple – just by showing that Copernicus and the Neo-Darwinian synthesis are wrong, geocentrism and Young Earth Creationism can be revived??

Who could resist restoring such fundamental truths? But of course it’s not that simple at all; the meaning of ‘reasoned argument’ , ‘ evidence’ and ‘public scrutiny’ are left undefined. Yet being allowed to provide the proofs and definitions needed to reverse the crackpot classification is certainly appreciated.

On these two issues there are three domains in which common ground must be found; Theology, Philosophy and Science.
Since theology deals with some truths that cannot be known by observation or reason – and CAF is, by title at least, a forum of believers - we start with the ultimate arbiter of truth.
The source of truth is the deposit of faith, the content of Christ’s revelation described in Sacred Scripture and Tradition, as defined and interpreted by the Magisterium. The Magisterium’s teachings are infallible and irrevocable, demanding a full assent of belief. There are two types :
Extraordinary: the Pope when speaking ex cathedra or the Bishops, in union with the Pope, defining doctrine at a General Council
Ordinary: universal teaching of all bishops dispersed but in unison and in union with the Pope
In all other cases the Pope or bishops are fallible, but their statements require the submission of intellect and will of a fully-formed conscience.
To be specific, unless the following echo the Magisterium, they are not guaranteed sources of authentic belief: JPII, B16, Dulles, Schoenborn , Chardin, McBrien, Reese, Coyne, Jaki, Consolmagno, Barr, Shea, Keating, cassini, Anastasia, Alethios.

The Magisterium has already ruled that Scriptures are inerrant in ALL that they describe. “Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God. “
The hermeneutics approved by Leo XIII, Benedict XV , Pius XII and Roberto Bellarmino is *primo, ad literam *– first, the meaning as written. The literal meaning can be ignored only for a good reason… a very good reason …… a very, very good reason. This is not ad literam solam, only the literal, the blind belief of fundamentalism, but it does include the possibility of multiple semantics.

The next level of credibility for ‘reasoned argument’ , ‘ evidence’ and ‘public scrutiny’ is based on common sense - traditional scholastic philosophy - principally metaphysics, ontology, epistemology and logic. The foundation is realism, based on such principles as: non-contradiction/action follows being/from nothing comes nothing/no one can give what he hasn’t got, etc.

Last is the narrowest knowledge domain. Natural science is self-limited to only material phenomena and events that are repeatable and testable via the scientific method. The logician Karl Potter has noted that no absolute truth can be attained by empirical induction and that true science must be based on a consistent set of axioms. For example, adding one axiom, 1>2 , to the axioms of arithmetic – which are consistent – will enable us to prove that x>y is both true and false for any x and y. Adding just this one axiom then destroys the consistency of the whole system, rendering it worthless.
Goedel has shown that any axiomatic system is incomplete, without aid from outside its domain (like theology). Arguing either from induction or from incompleteness, science cannot supply a theory of everything.

With this starter set of ground rules established and stipulated….
Let the challenge now begin
To decide
On whose side
Cracked pots doth reside.

Hypothesis: Copernicus was right

Theology: The Copernican model uses a fixed Sun and a kinetic Earth, which the Magisterium has ruled contrary to Revelation.

Philo: A fixed Sun and an Earth in orbital motion – for all choice of observers – logically conflicts with the theory of relativity, which allows any observer to be considered at rest. For Copernicus to be right, Einstein/Relativity must be wrong – there must be a preferred reference frame for scientific experiments.

Science: Sun experiments are unfalsifiable because observations by humans or remote devices from the Sun are impossible.
Copernicus uses epicycles for planetary orbits; ellipses are actually observed.
The Copernicus model conflicts with Newtonian motion of the planets around the solar system barycenter.
A fixed Sun contradicts its orbital motion around the Milky Way and its linear motion toward the Virgo cluster(ala CMB dipole interpretation).

So Copernicus conflicts with theology, reasoning and current science…. 3 strikes and yer out! Geocentrism is revived - Welcome back!

And the Lord is risen –Alleluia!

I have no idea what you’re trying to say. I guess you win the challenge. Congratulations. Alleluia.

 

[Luke65]

Excellent post, Alethios! Regarding your initial quote, here is the wisdom of St. Augustine:

“When they are able, from reliable evidence, to prove some fact of physical science, we shall show that it is not contrary to our Scripture. But when they produce from any of their books a theory contrary to Scripture, and therefore contrary to the Catholic faith, either we shall have some ability to demonstrate that it is absolutely false, or at least we ourselves will hold it so without any shadow of a doubt. And we will cling to our Mediator, “in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” [Colossians 2:3], that we will not be led astray by the glib talk of false philosophy or frightened by the superstition of false religion.” (The Literal Meaning of Genesis, 1, 41)

 

[Alethios]

I have no idea what you’re trying to say. I guess you win the challenge. Congratulations. Alleluia.

Kudos should go rather to the success of an organized epistemic plan:
restriction of key faith issues to Magisterial declarations,

the use of realistic scholastic principles for reasoning and logic,

objective science based on the scientific method and testability.

You have our understanding - and sympathy - for being confused; the standard CAF fare normally doesn’t address a systematic approach to truth.

Resurrexit sicut Ipse dixit… Alleluia!

 

[diggerdomer]

Kudos should go rather to the success of an organized epistemic plan:
restriction of key faith issues to Magisterial declarations,

the use of realistic scholastic principles for reasoning and logic,

objective science based on the scientific method and testability.

You have our understanding - and sympathy - for being confused; the standard CAF fare normally doesn’t address a systematic approach to truth.

Resurrexit sicut Ipse dixit… Alleluia!

You started a Thread with some quotation on your initial post that had no reference. What was the quotation from? And from whom? More background would help us better gauge what your real point was in starting this thread.

You then launched into a lengthy exposition with the conclusion being open to misunderstanding…are you applauding the conclusion you state or did you arrive at it in a form of sarcasm or reduction ad absurdum? I could read it either way.

You also included this blanket statement in your lengthy post that is clearly a bit off, or at least, incomplete, from current and complete Church teaching:

The Magisterium has already ruled that Scriptures are inerrant in ALL that they describe.

Oh, and if you think you’re talking “above” the standard person on CAF, then maybe that raises a good question of why bother posting?

 

[Alethios]

Thanks for the reply.

Quote was from the ‘conference on evolution’ thread.
If the discussion is to be objective, why should identities matter? This often makes the dialogue subjective and personal.
The point of this thread is to offer evidence to revive geocentric and creation beliefs, by refuting Copernicus and neoDarwinian synthesis, as the quote’s conditionals state.

This epistemology clearly uses the cumulative Magisterium of all ages for current and complete Church teaching.

Why post? Should we put our lamp in a closet, or on a lampstand … light a candle or curse the darkness, brother?

The Lord is risen indeed – Alleluia!

 

[diggerdomer]

Thanks for the reply.

Quote was from the ‘conference on evolution’ thread.
If the discussion is to be objective, why should identities matter? This often makes the dialogue subjective and personal.
The point of this thread is to offer evidence to revive geocentric and creation beliefs, by refuting Copernicus and neoDarwinian synthesis, as the quote’s conditionals state.

This epistemology clearly uses the cumulative Magisterium of all ages for current and complete Church teaching.

Why post? Should we put our lamp in a closet, or on a lampstand … light a candle or curse the darkness, brother?

The Lord is risen indeed – Alleluia!

Well now that background certainly helps. I don’t know what you mean about identities but having some context was very helpful. It seems, then, that what most of us would interpret as an original posting was really something extracted from the middle of another conversation. Right?

In that case, some explanatory info is helpful if not necessary if others’ (name removed by moderator)ut is sincerely sought.

 

[Alethios]

identity = CAF alias

Read all 43 pages of the conference on evolution thread, then, if you want the complete context. Right now there’s an exciting discussion on how many hominid breeding pairs were available for the ensoulment of Adam and Eve.

The quote seems to speak for itself. Evidence contrary to Copericanism was supplied according to the stipulated rules. One response was a supporting citation from Augustine, the second wants a motivational history of the thread’s creation.

Time to move on to the evolution challenge…

Resurrexit sicut Ipse dixit!

 

[richardwy]

The point of this thread is to offer evidence to revive geocentric and creation beliefs, by refuting Copernicus and neoDarwinian synthesis

You’ve got my ear!

Btw, what does “Alethios” mean?

 

[Alethios]

Trying to make geocentricism or any part of science a part of the Catholic Faith would certainly be quite a challenge considering that the period of public Divine Revelation closed many centuries ago.

Not a challenge at all for the fully informed.

Geocentrism is a part of inerrant divine revelation and the Catholic faith , as the Holy Office established in settling the Galileo heresy.

It’s probably more precise to call the Biblical support geostatism, since there are no explicit references to a central location, but many verses establishing that the Earth is static and the Sun, Moon and stars are in motion.
see the Geocentric bible

To discuss geocentrism as a scientific theory, the Genesis references to the aethers on Day 1 must also be included.

The electromagnetic aether allows the water molecules to bind together and the gravitational-inertial aether drives the celestial motions.

AMDG

 

[Alethios]

…or you can discuss the physics of the observations in a rational way (but in that case you have to be prepared to be persuaded by the fact that the data that you have cited is not evidence for geocentrism). Which is it to be?

Can the physics of the observations be discussed in a rational way (but in that case be prepared to be persuaded by the data cited as evidence FOR geocentrism). Which is it to be?

Perhaps you would post your derivation of the equations that show that identical centrifugal and Coriolis forces would be experienced at the earth’s surface if the earth was static and the universe rotating around it. Your first step will be to define what you mean by a static earth - ie, if you say the earth is static, you have to say static with respect to what reference, and you’ll have to define that in mathematical terms with respect to whatever 3-manifold for space you choose.

Premises:

1. Newtonian: The Earth is rotating uniformly with respect to the stationary star shell with angular velocity w.
   w produces forces of inertia (i.e., Coriolis and centrifugal forces).
2. neoTychonian: The star shell uniformly rotating with respect to the stationary Earth with angular velocity w is driven by a constant homogeneous, vector, magnetic-type gravity (MTG) or gravitomagnetic field, described by the aether vector potential

A = (Bg×r)/2

where Bg is gravity’s induction vector (NOT the magnetic field). The vector cross product indicates that the MTG field is orthogonal to both the position vector r and B.

To prove:
The equation of motion of a body in a spherically symmetric gravity field and in constant homogeneous MTG (magnetic-type gravity) field, described by means of A, is exactly the same as an equation of motion for this body in the same gravity field in the coordinate system uniformly rotating with respect to the stationary fixed star shell with
w = (Bg)/2.

The proof:
The Newtonian Lagrangian for an inertial body with the Earth spinning at w and a fixed star shell is:

L = (m/2)v^2+mvdot+(m/2)(w×r)^2-mV

V = GMe/r = gravity potential; Me = Mass of Earth

The variational equation of motion for least action is:

d(mv)/dt = -2m(w×v)-m(w×(w×r))+mE

where: E = -gradV, -2m(w×v) is the Coriolis force, -mw×(w×r) is the centrifugal force.

The neoTychonian Lagrangian for the inertial body “m” with a star shell spin of w and the Earth stationary is:

L = (m/2)v^2 + mv[dot]A+(m/2)A^2- mV: V = GMe/r

The neoTychonian variational equation of motion is:

d(mv)/dt = -m(vx Bg)-m/4(Bg×r)xBg]+mE

If the condition for relative rotation is chosen,

w = Bg/2,

the motion equations in both views are identical.
QED

AMDG

 

[Alethios]

Mach’s principle has nothing to do with “relative rotation equivalence”. .

Mach’s principle certainly has many variants and his intent is not clear in its detailed interpretation and implementation via an aether.
One variant-
"Mach’s Principle assumes, among other things, that a particle’s inertia is due to some (unfortunately unspecified) interaction of that particle with all the other masses in the universe; all that matters in mechanics is the relative motion of all the masses. "
Strike one.

Mach’s principle is that mass there determines inertia here: in other words, the compass of inertia on earth (the local inertial frame) …

But the Earth’s surface is not a inertial frame. “Mach’s Principle actually implies that not only gravity but all physics should be formulated without reference to preferred inertial frames.”
Strike two.

…the surface of the earth is a non-inertial frame where Coriolis and centrifugal forces are experienced owing to the rotation of the earth with respect to the local compass of inertia (these forces can be derived by any competent physicist by the departure of a test point on the earth’s surface from a straight line, or in relativity, a geodesic).

… or the Coriolis and centrifugal forces are due to the effect of the relative motion of all the cosmic masses, ala Mach’s Principle.
Strike three.

You are simply wrong when you claim that same effects that support rotation of the earth once per day, can be used to support rotation of the universe once per day.

“MP advocates nothing less than the total relativity of physics. In Mach’s idea Newton’s concept of motion in absolute space should be replaced with a total relativism in which every motion, uniform or accelerated, has sense only in reference to other bodies.”
We can’t be wrong unless Mach is, and where is the refuting evidence of MP?
Strike four.

You have not been able to derive centrifugal and Coriolis forces on a static earth…
Your answer is irrelevant to my challenge - to show the derivation of the Coriolis and centrifugal forces on a static earth
…Any competent physicist can derive the forces by considering the acceleration caused by the departure from a straight line of a test particle at the earth rotating surface.

Well then, we better find a competent physicist…

And, brother, we haven’t seen a classical derivation of the inertial forces of motion. No one can even show that Newtonian theory can explain these two inertial forces in the Earth’s non-inertial reference frame, using classical variational methods. Classical physics derives motion equations from the first principle of variation: minimimization of the energy Lagrangian of all possible paths. The Coriolis/Centrifugal pseudo-forces are ad-hoc additions to the classical equations of motion.
Strike five.

SR and GR predictions are tested daily in particle accelerators, GPS systems, astronomical observations and elsewhere. Many observations have been made that could falsify SR, GR or both, but have so far failed to do so. That is why physicists the world over accept both SR and GR as accurate theories within their range of applicability.

An inconsistent theory can prove any nonsense, and relativity definitely is logical nonsense and so unfalsfiable.
One has a wide assortment of SR contradictions to choose from:
Dingle’s favorite: the traveling twin non-sequitur.
SR claims the uniform motion of one inertial frame relative to another cannot be detected by internal mechanical experiments. The Sagnac exp. finds that light speed is anisotropic between the lab frame and any other frame.
Strike six.

Resolve these two logical show stoppers - there’s more in store - and logical discussion can proceed according to the rules of evidence on this thread.
Else, there’s no common ground for rational dialogue.

AMDG