The Sunset of Darwinism

tfp ^ | 06.04.08 | Julio Loredo

[Coleus]

Praised until recently as dogma, Darwin’s theory of evolution is now fading away, discredited by the same science that bore its poisoned fruit. Instead, the Christian vision of a supernatural design is being increasingly affirmed. “Evolution is now a datum proven beyond any reasonable doubt and no longer a theory, it’s not even worth taking the trouble to discuss it.” This is what a spokesman proclaimed at the Festival of Science held in Genoa in November 2005, thereby neglecting a very important aspect of modern science—the need to be open to new perspectives. Instead, the truth is quite the opposite. Paradoxically, evolutionists are taking an ever greater distance from empirical science and are wrapping themselves up in a dogmatism that borders on ideological fanaticism.

Unprovable Hypothesis
“What is left, then, in evolutionism, that is valid according to the scientific method? Nothing, actually nothing!” This is the conclusion of journalist Marco Respinti in his recent book Processo a Darwin (Darwin on Trial, Piemme, 2007). He continues: "Not one of his postulates can be verified or certified based on the method proper to the physical sciences. His whole claim escapes verification. Based on what, therefore, other than on strong prejudices of an ideological nature, can anyone affirm or continue to affirm that the evolutionist hypothesis is true?"  Indeed, the consistency of a scientific theory is founded on its capacity to be verified empirically, be it through observation of the phenomenon in nature or by reproducing it in the laboratory. The evolutionist hypothesis fails on both counts. “Thus,” Respinti shows, “Darwinism remains simply an hypothesis devoid of empirical or demonstrable foundation, besides being unproven. . . . The evolutionist hypothesis is completely unfounded for it does not master the very domain in which it launches its challenge.”

Respinti reaches this “verdict” after a rigorous “trial of Darwin” in which he analyzes the main arguments that debunk the notorious theory, ranging from nonexistent fossil records to the conflict of Darwinism with genetic science and the flimsiness of the “synthetic theory” of neo-Darwinism, without forgetting the countless frauds that have stained notable evolutionists in their insane quest to fabricate the “proofs” that science tenaciously denied them.  Respinti concludes by denouncing the ideological drift of the evolutionist school: “To categorically affirm the absolute validity of the theories of Darwinian and neo-Darwinian evolution based on the claim that discussing them would be unscientific by definition, is the worst proof that human reason can give of itself.”

A Long Sunset
The sunset of the Darwinist hypothesis has picked up speed over the last two decades. For example, consider the work carried out by the Osaka Group for the Study of Dynamic Structures, founded in 1987, in the wake of an international interdisciplinary meeting convened “to present and discuss some opinions opposed to the dominant neo-Darwinist paradigm.” Scientists from all over the world participated, including the outstanding geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti, then a professor at the University of Perugia, Italy. In 1980, together with Roberto Fondi, now a professor at the University of Siena, Sermonti wrote Dopo Darwin—Critica all’evoluzionismo (After Darwin—A Critique of Evolutionism, Rusconi, 1980). “Biology,” Sermonti explains, “has no proof at all of the spontaneous origin of life, or rather biology has proved its impossibility. There is no such thing as a gradation of life from elementary to complex. From a bacterium to a butterfly to man the biochemical complexity is substantially the same.”   For his part, Fondi shows that from the first appearance of fossils to this day, the variety and riches of living beings have not increased. New groups have replaced older ones, but the intermediate forms that the evolutionists have so frantically searched for do not exist. “The theory of evolution,” Sermonti and Fondi conclude, “has been contradicted as have few other scientific theories in the past.”

In Le forme della vita (The Forms of Life, Armando, 1981), Sermonti unveils other obstacles to Darwinism. According to the renowned geneticist, the “random” origin of life and the gradual transformation of the species through “selective change” are no longer sustainable because the most elementary life is incredibly complex and because it is now proven that replacement of living groups takes place “by leaps” rather than “by degrees.”  Putting together forty years of experience, in 1999 he wrote Dimenticare Darwin—Ombre sull’evoluzione (Forgetting Darwin—Shadows on Evolution, Rusconi, 1999). With rigorous argumentation, the author demolishes the three pillars of Darwinism: natural selection, sexual mixing and genetic “change.” According to him, history will remember the theory of evolution as the “Big Joke.”

Not Just Creationists
Sermonti has been often accused of being a “creationist” or a “religious fundamentalist” even though he has always said he does not fit his scientific vision into a Christian perspective, and this yet one more aspect to note in the polemic against Darwinism, which many people other than Christians also contest it.  In this sense, it is interesting to note the recent editorial in Il Cerchio, “Seppellire Darwin? Dalla critica del darwinismo agli albori d’una scienza nuova,” ("Bury Darwin? From a Critique of Darwinism to the Dawn of a New Science") containing essays by seven specialists including Sermonti, Fondi and Giovanni Monastra, director of Italy’s National Institute for Food and Nutrition Research. The title refers to the famous phrase by Chandra Wickramasinghe, a professor of applied mathematics of the University College of Cardiff, “The probability that life was formed from inanimate matter is equal to 1 followed by 40,000 zeros . . . . It is large enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution.”

From Dimenticare Darwin—Ombre sull’evoluzione’s introduction: For the first time in Italy, a critique of Darwinism is presented in all its complexity thanks to the interdisciplinary contribution of scholars of several orientations—[b]eyond the polemic between neo-Darwinian fundamentalists and religious integralists, the essay demonstrates how the critique of the now old neo-Darwinist paradigm opens the doors to a new science.

A Crisis of the Positivist Paradigm
Francis Crick, who together with Watson discovered the structure of DNA, openly declared, “An honest man, armed only with the knowledge available to us, could affirm only that, in a certain sense, the origin of life at the moment appears to be rather a miracle,” In the same wavelength, Harold Hurey, a disciple of Stanley Miller who made history with his failed attempt to recreate life in the laboratory from a so-called primordial broth, said, “All of us who studied the origins of life uphold that the more we get into it, the more we feel it is too complex to have evolved in any way.” Indeed, a lot of faith is required to believe in evolutionism, and it is precisely that faith, of a clearly positivist^[1] mold, that is now beginning to weaken.

In Darwinismo: le ragioni di una crisi (Darwinism: The Reasons of a Crisis), Gianluca Marletta sticks his finger in the wound by observing that “The crisis of Darwinism is above all a crisis of the philosophical paradigms that allowed its success.”  “One cannot understand the origin of this doctrine,” Marletta explains, “without going back to the cultural climate of ‘triumphant positivism’ straddling the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.” According to Marletta, Darwinism constituted a wonderful occasion to strengthen the positivistic view of the world being affirmed at that time. Darwinism represented the perfect tool to transplant, into the biological field, the mechanic and materialist paradigms already imposed on the social sciences. This is the true motive of this theory’s success. A motive that now begins to subside with the crisis of the positivist paradigm. This explains the almost fanatical tenacity with which evolutionists are defending their convictions. “Many fear,” concludes Marletta, “that the fall of Darwinism can bring down with it the whole positivist vision of the world.”

God’s Comeback
The crumbling of positivism is bringing back to the limelight issues that a certain conventional wisdom thought to have definitively eliminated. Shaken from the sudden crumbling of old certainties, worried about the chaos that increasingly marks this postmodern age, many people are once again asking the fundamental questions: Does my life have a transcendental meaning? Is there an intelligent project in nature? In short, does God exist?   Sociologist Rosa Alberoni wrote about this in her book, Il Dio di Michelangelo e la barba di Darwin (The God of Michelangelo and Darwin’s Beard), published last November by Rizzoli with a preface by Cardinal Renato Martino, president of the Pontifical Council Justice and Peace. The onslaught of “Darwin’s worshippers,” Alberoni explains, is carried out by the “usual destructive atheists obsessed with the goal of stamping out Christ and destroying the Judeo-Christian civilization after having sucked its blood and essence.” This sullen assault, however, in the deeply changed ambience of post-modernity, risks being counterproductive: The monkey myth is what really shook ordinary people. Like soldiers woken up by an alarm in the middle of the night, Christian believers and [O]rthodox Jews prepared for the defense. Or rather for the war, because that is what it has become . . . [o]n the symbolic level, the bone of contention is the ancestor of man: God or a monkey? Should one believe in God or in Darwin? This is the substantial nature of the ongoing clash in our civilization.

In other words, a real war of religion looms in the dawn of the Third Millennium. Precisely that which secularists have tried to avoid at all cost.

Footnote:

1. Positivism is the philosophical system created by August Comte (1798–1857), which only accepts the truths that we can reach by direct observation or by experimentation. Thus it denies classical philosophy, theology and all supernatural religion.

[LeGrande]

x,y,z,t appear as independent variables in Maxwell's equations. How do we reconcile that with your notion that light is waves of x,y,z,t?

When did I say light was waves of x,y,z,t?

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

position and momentum do not exist at the same time for particles (the superposition principle)

Why do you call this the superposition principle?

I know it sounds bizarre

It does.

[LeGrande]

Why do you call this the superposition principle?

Can you please go pick up a college level physics book? Or at least just trace topics through Wiki?

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

Can you please go pick up a college level physics book?

Well, the account of the superposition principle in Dirac's text on QM seems quite different from what you said. Maybe you mean the uncertainty principle.

[mrjesse]

The reason I suggested the reading material is that your background seems to be full of holes.

Thanks for the honest evaluation! This is one of the most accurate and clear statement I think you've made so far! [grin]

When it comes to QM, my understanding is certain to be full of holes. But space-time-warp-theory is different - the whole background is missing - there are no holes! I'll be trying to learn a bit more about that.

(I still think that some of your comparisons involving classical physics are not scientifically supported, or are just illogical or incoherent - but there's no harm in me learning some more from a field new to me!)

Thanks,

-Jesse

[mrjesse]

The underlying reality is bizarre, where things like position and momentum do not exist at the same time for particles (the superposition principle). I know it sounds bizarre but that is the reality.

Cute. But why complicate it with the mystery of particles?

Does a car have a velocity and a position at the same time? Show me! If you try to measure its velocity and its position at the same time you're going to have trouble.

The problem is that "Position" at the root level refers to a static location, while velocity refers to a non-static location. So to say that something has a position and a velocity at the same time (without mentioning a timeframe) is contradictory.

-Jesse

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

[LeGrand said] When did I say light was waves of x,y,z,t?

mrjesse, did you get the impression that LeGrande has been talking about waves of space-time and how everything is waves of space-time?

[mrjesse]

The short answer is that there is simply no quick and dirty answer to what a field is ...

Why not the standard dictionary definition of "7. Physics A region of space characterized by a physical property, such as gravitational or electromagnetic force or fluid pressure, having a determinable value at every point in the region." ?

... other than it doesn't exist, but it is observable and measurable : ) Is that a contradiction? Well not really, because you don't actually measure and observe the field.

By this same reasoning wouldn't you also say that distance does not exist? (I seriously want to know your response to this.)

And I think you are in error or at least sly in stating that we don't actually measure the field. We don't measure light, either, we measure it's intensity. (Or its frequency or polarization.) But that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist!

For that matter, we can't observe light either -- we only observe what it does to things it hits or otherwise interacts with.

Unless you're talking about a realm which entirely different from the standard realm (which which case you should say that 'There is simply no quick and dirty answer to what a field is in thus-and-such-a-strange-realm.' There certainly IS a very nice quick definition of what a field is in the normal realm.

Just like the fact that we don't observe light but it's effects, and we don't measure light but it's intensity, the same is true for an electric or magnetic field. In an electric field, the strength of the electric field can be measured at any point by the force that it exerts on an electron. Millikan of course used this in his oil droplet experiment. So how can you say that a field cannot be measured?

When you create a field it propagates at the speed of light to infinity.

I think you're being overly dogmatic here. For example, an electric field can be set up completely and entirely contained inside a metal enclosure. For example, if you welded shut a metal box with a 9v battery inside, there would be an electric field inside which would not propagate to infinity.

In other words when you look at the Sun, you are seeing it about 7 minutes behind where it actually is

Please help me out here. If the sun orbited the earth, I'd say you're right. But considering that the earth is rotating while being bathed in the sun's rays, I don't see how you can be right.

I remember well as a child playing in the summer with the garden hose. I would stand there and swing it back and forth as fast as I could, and I could see that the stream of water traveled away from me in a sort of arc. As I did this near a fencepost, I could see that by the time the water hit the post, I wasn't aiming at the post anymore.

But now imagine if I was just standing still pointing the stream of water at the post, but the post was turning -- an observer on the post, as soon as he comes around to my side, will see me exactly where I am because that's where I've been.

Please explain why the sun is about 7 minutes ahead of where it appears. (I honestly want to understand this one, too.) And this one shouldn't require QM, QED, or Relativity to understand!)

I think I know what your problem is. I'd say you think the sun orbits the earth and that you don't know what a field is :-)

Thanks,

-Jesse

[mrjesse]

mrjesse, did you get the impression that LeGrande has been talking about waves of space-time and how everything is waves of space-time?

Ethan Clive Osgoode,

I think he mentioned space-time a couple times in regards to gravity, but I thought he's been talking about waves of nothing, trying to carry the concept of mechano-kinetic water-waves over into the realm of Electro Magnetic Waves.

If I'm understanding him correctly, he'll proceed to then say that space and time are just theoretical constructs which do not actually exist, or something.

But I'd say that he has a desire for the universe to have come into existence out of absolutely nothing by only natural process.

He said"QM is based on waves of nothing, it is the most accurate theory that we have and it may explain the origins of the Universe."(Emph. Mine.)

So I can see why he would argue for all matter being waves of nothing.

As to Quantum Mechanics being based on waves of nothing, I'm not so sure. My understanding and experience with QM is unquestionably primitive, but what he says here does not make sense with the small understanding I do have of QM. For its namesake, quantum of course refers to the indivisible sizes of things - for example electrons. Can't get a half of an electron. I think my power company gips me an electron every month because I'm sure they round up.

Does that answer your question, or did I misunderstand?

-Jesse

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

I think he mentioned space-time a couple times in regards to gravity, but I thought he's been talking about waves of nothing,

It seems he offered "waves of Space-time" as a bit of soothing word-salad dressing for "nothing", because "we are made of nothing" was a bit harsh on my ears:

"there is no single experiment that proves that we are all made of nothing. I don't think that is your real question though. You are disagreeing with the conclusion. How about if I said that we are made up of waves of Space-time. Does that help you?"

If I'm understanding him correctly, he'll proceed to then say that space and time are just theoretical constructs which do not actually exist, or something.

Or maybe he's just using "waves of Space-time" as a synonym or placeholder for "nothing", as in the above quote. But then we have the following

"Waves of nothing is Space-time."

Which should make one pause. Think about it. "Nothing" is "waves of Space-time", and "waves of nothing" is "Space-time." Is it not worth pondering this?

As to Quantum Mechanics being based on waves of nothing, I'm not so sure.

You pointed out that "he's... trying to carry the concept of mechano-kinetic water-waves over into the realm of Electro Magnetic Waves" which leads him to waves of nothing in EM, while carrying that same kind of mechanical-ether reasoning over to the realm of QM leads him to waves of nothing there too.

But I think the real problem is much more fundamental, and all the hot air about geodesics and quantum magical-mystery tours is just dust thrown in people's faces. The real problem is the inability to see that this:

1. something is X
2. X is nothing
therefore,
3. something is nothing

is an invalid argument.

[LeGrande]

By this same reasoning wouldn't you also say that distance does not exist? (I seriously want to know your response to this.)

From a photons perspective, distance does not exist nor does time. Distance and time contract as you approach the speed of light, they are variables.

And I think you are in error or at least sly in stating that we don't actually measure the field. We don't measure light, either, we measure it's intensity. (Or its frequency or polarization.) But that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist!

Certainly Light (photons) exist. I never said that they didn't.

So how can you say that a field cannot be measured?

Again, what are you measuring?

Please explain why the sun is about 7 minutes ahead of where it appears. (I honestly want to understand this one, too.) And this one shouldn't require QM, QED, or Relativity to understand!)

This is getting tedious, but I will make one last effort. Lets take your garden hose example, but instead of spinning you are in the back of a fire truck spraying the water off to the side as it speeds down the road. Objects that are close to the truck get sprayed almost immediately as the truck passes. Objects that are further away take longer to get sprayed. Now If I am the object that is close to the the truck and I point to the source of the water I am pointing at the truck. If I am farther away, when I get sprayed and point to the source of the water I will be pointing behind the truck.

It is exactly the same concept if the observer is spinning and you with the hose let out a single burst of water when the observer is facing you. If you are close you will hit the observer squarely between the eyes. If you are far away you will hit the observer on the back of the head. Now if you are shooting photons, the observer will 'see' you 180 degrees off from where you actually are.

Now can you try and answer the question? If you have a problem may I suggest turning to Feynman 12-4, Fundamental Forces. Fields.

[LeGrande]

Cute. But why complicate it with the mystery of particles?

All particles are waves.

Does a car have a velocity and a position at the same time? Show me! If you try to measure its velocity and its position at the same time you're going to have trouble.

I do it all the time in my GlaStar with a GPS.

The problem is that "Position" at the root level refers to a static location, while velocity refers to a non-static location. So to say that something has a position and a velocity at the same time (without mentioning a timeframe) is contradictory.

I hardly know where to begin. First off nothing is static, measurements are always in relationship to another non static entity. If the relationship doesn't change then it is considered static in regards to the two items.

As far as position and velocity being contradictory, will you do a little experiment for me? Drive down a road at a constant velocity, say 50 mph and when you pass a mile marker, note your time, location and speed. You have just determined position and velocity at the same time, they are not contradictory : ) in the macro world anyway.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

I don't think that we are in any kind of disagreement at all.

We are, because you say that picking up a rock and dropping it demonstrates the theory of gravity. I would say that not even a high-school student would write something like that, if asked to think of a way to demonstrate the theory of gravity. Can you demonstrate the inverse-square law by picking up a rock and dropping it? Using the same logic, glass-blowing demonstrates the existence of the element silicon, because, well, if there is no silicon there is no glass, right? Taking a bath is a demonstration of the theory of van der Waals forces. Lighting a candle is a demonstration of Maxwell's theory of light. The existence of light is a verification of the ether theory of light. Demonstrating the existence of gravity by dropping a rock is a demonstration of superstring theory [*]. Jellyfish are a verification of the theory of evolution. After all, if there was no evolution, there would be no jellyfish, right?

But this is not an isolated gaff on your part. There seems to be very little rhyme or reason to your interpretations of experiments and observations. Here you say that Planck's black-body formula is a convincing demonstration of the wave-particle duality of light. While here, in response to a request about the experimental demonstration of photons, you make the baffling remark that the double-slit experiment "verifies that photons are waves." It seems that you do not make clear distinctions between presuppositions and conclusions.

All of this is probably part of a larger framework which includes philosphical marvels like 'you can't prove a negative', 'things cannot be proven, just falsified', 'the burden of proof is always on the other guy', Popperism, 'everything is made of nothing', 'scientists don't try to prove a theory' and so on. The ultimate purpose of these nonsensical beliefs probably have something to do with being an intellectually fulfilled atheist.

----

[*] I heard a famous superstring theorist say this.

[Fichori]

In case you hadn't seen it yet:
Atheism: An Irrational Worldview

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

Proof is a higher standard than we are able to achieve.

Why do you single out "negatives" as unprovable, when, in light of this, "positives" are just as unprovable, and, after all that "can't prove negatives" business, what you really meant was that nothing at all is provable?

[LeGrande]

Why do you single out "negatives" as unprovable, when, in light of this, "positives" are just as unprovable, and, after all that "can't prove negatives" business, what you really meant was that nothing at all is provable?

Nothing is provable, it can only be falsified. How hard is that to understand?

[LeGrande]

Can you demonstrate the inverse-square law by picking up a rock and dropping it?

Of course.

The existence of light is a verification of the ether theory of light.

No it isn't. Your examples may be considered evidence but not proof. Why is the concept of falsification so hard for you to understand?

you make the baffling remark that the double-slit experiment "verifies that photons are waves." It seems that you do not make clear distinctions between presuppositions and conclusions.

Photons are waves. Particles are waves too. Everything is a wave/particle. I don't see what your problem is.

All of this is probably part of a larger framework which includes philosphical marvels like 'you can't prove a negative', 'things cannot be proven, just falsified', 'the burden of proof is always on the other guy', Popperism, 'everything is made of nothing', 'scientists don't try to prove a theory' and so on. The ultimate purpose of these nonsensical beliefs probably have something to do with being an intellectually fulfilled atheist.

All of my statements are true. lets take an easy one for you. I claim that you can't prove a theory, you obviously claim that you can. Prove me wrong, prove that God exists. I will wait but I won't hold my breath.

[mrjesse]

All particles are waves.

I'd ask what constitutes a particle - an atom? any molecule? -- but I already know that you'll say that all mater is waves of nothing so I won't bother.

I do it all the time in my GlaStar with a GPS.

First of all, I never said that an object could not pass through a certain position at a certain time.

But just for fun, no matter how slow of a near-stall you're flying your GlaStar, your gps still takes time to measure velocity. And when it gives you a position and a velocity reading, they will be from slightly different times. And besides, by the time the position is displayed on your gps, you're not in that position anymore anyway.

As far as position and velocity being contradictory, will you do a little experiment for me? Drive down a road at a constant velocity, say 50 mph and when you pass a mile marker, note your time, location and speed. You have just determined position and velocity at the same time, they are not contradictory : ) in the macro world anyway.

I realize it's not polite to quote one's self but I'm going to anyway. What I said was "So to say that something has a position and a velocity at the same time (without mentioning a timeframe) is contradictory."

But just for fun, my speedometer takes time to measure velocity, and it averages the velocity over a second or so period. (Longer in the winter. or above 60MPH.) Furthermore, the reason I need a speedometer is because I have no way to control my speed accurately otherwise, so I cannot just go 50mph except by what my speedometer says. So considering that my speed varies some, but even if I keep my 1-second average right at 50 even, and I note the time I pass through a certain position, I still won't know what my exact speed was as I passed that point because all I know is that the velocity reading will be an average for the second near when I passed the marker - but I won't know exactly where I was when I was actually going at the average speed.

And besides, if something is moving in relation to a certain reference, it doesn't have "a" position - it passes through an infinite number of positions every second.

So how are particles any different? I know that light and radiowaves travel at a predictable velocity. The waves coming from the GPS satellite to your GPS receiver have a path and pass through certain positions at certain times just like a fast moving car would. Electrons moving towards the face of a cathode ray tube move at a velocity controlled by the electric field which accelerated them, and they take time to reach the phosphor screen, do they not?

-Jesse

[mrjesse]

From a photons perspective, distance does not exist nor does time.

Well, ok whatever. I need to read more whether there is any truth in that. But I do know that it takes twice as long to bounce a laser beam twice as far. So I'm not sure that distance and time never exist with relation to light.

Again, what are you measuring?

The force that the field applies to the electron. Just like we measure other invisible fields - by the force or pressure they exert on things.

This is getting tedious, but I will make one last effort. Lets take your garden hose example, but instead of spinning you are in the back of a fire truck spraying the water off to the side as it speeds down the road. Objects that are close to the truck get sprayed almost immediately as the truck passes. Objects that are further away take longer to get sprayed. Now If I am the object that is close to the the truck and I point to the source of the water I am pointing at the truck. If I am farther away, when I get sprayed and point to the source of the water I will be pointing behind the truck.

With the above I agree - you are correct - and this well models how it would be if the sun were orbiting the earth! The sun's rays would indeed reach the earth from a different angle (about 2.13 degrees or 8.5 minutes lagged) then reality. Then, if gravity "traveled" instantly (which I think was a basis for your question) then indeed, the sun's gravity would be 2.13 degrees ahead of its visual location... But the sun doesn't orbit the earth! Other way around!

It is exactly the same concept if the observer is spinning and you with the hose let out a single burst of water when the observer is facing you. If you are close you will hit the observer squarely between the eyes. If you are far away you will hit the observer on the back of the head.

Let me remind you what you said: "In other words when you look at the Sun, you are seeing it about 7 minutes behind where it actually is, but if you had a sensitive gravity sensor where would it point?"

You were unquestionably talking about angular lag - not just an observer turning their head after the flash. The observer turning their head after the flash does not change the direction from which the flash comes, nor does the earth turning cause an angular lag in the optical image of the sun! (And it most certainly doesn't cause the sun's apparent direction of gravity to lead by 2.13 degrees its apparent direction of light!)

As I mentioned, you said: "In other words when you look at the Sun, you are seeing it about 7 minutes behind where it actually is, but if you had a sensitive gravity sensor where would it point?"

How again would the earth's rotation cause an angular lag in the apparent position of the sun (compared to its gravitational field -- or otherwise) ?

If you doubt this, just do this experiment (even as a thought experiment.)

First, take a turntable like people put spices on in their cupboard. Set it up with a cup in the center, and two cups on opposite sides. Punch a small hole in the outer cups half way down and also mount a laser pointer on one of them. You will see that as the water shoots out of the outer cup onto the center cup, it will go straight in just like the laser beam and they will hit the same spot. Now spin the whole works, and behold, the water will lag the laser beam. THat demonstrates if the sun orbited the earth. Now stop the turn table, and hang the center cup on a string, and just spin it! Lo and behold, the water and laser will continue to hit the same spot even though the cup is spinning!

Actually that sounds kind of fun. If you think I'm wrong let me know I'll try that experiment too!

-Jesse

[Fichori]

"I don't see what your problem is." [excerpt]

Remember, this is the Religion Forum. ;)

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

when you look at the Sun, you are seeing it about 7 minutes behind where it actually is, but if you had a sensitive gravity sensor where would it point? At the sun you see or 7 minutes ahead of the sun you see?

Perhaps you meant to say that the sun is 7 minutes ahead of the angular position it was at 7 minutes ago, when it emitted the light that you now see. Either that, or you are a geocentrist.

And why is it 7 minutes, by the way?

[mrjesse]

Let me give you something else to think about : ) When you create a field it propagates at the speed of light to infinity. Once the field has been stabilized how fast are the changes in the field? In other words when you look at the Sun, you are seeing it about 7 minutes behind where it actually is, but if you had a sensitive gravity sensor where would it point? At the sun you see or 7 minutes ahead of the sun you see?

Let me give you something else to think about, too :)

Lets say that I'm on a mountaintop park, where there is a merry go around. It's a beautiful bright sunny warm morning, and as I sit on the merry go around, I look out and notice that the sun is exactly horizontal. Now let us further pretend that I get the merry go around rotating at 17 minutes per turn. This way, it'll have turned 180 degrees in the time it takes the light to reach the earth from the sun. So now let's say I have a very sensitive gravity meter which can measure the sun's gravitational pull.

Now let me ask you - which way will the sun's gravity appear related to it's light? Will the gravity of the sun be in the east while its gravitational pull will be toward the west? I don't think so :-)

-Jesse

[LeGrande]

Perhaps you meant to say that the sun is 7 minutes ahead of the angular position it was at 7 minutes ago, when it emitted the light that you now see. Either that, or you are a geocentrist.

Yes, your question is better put : )

And why is it 7 minutes, by the way?

It isn't, it is 8.3 minutes if I recall correctly. I just used 7 as a number. The actual time and distance is not important to the question.

[LeGrande]

Now let me ask you - which way will the sun's gravity appear related to it's light? Will the gravity of the sun be in the east while its gravitational pull will be toward the west? I don't think so :-)

You are correct. The effect of the field is instantaneous : ) That is why the rocket scientist boys use Newtons equations when they are aiming to put a rover on Mars.

[LeGrande]

"I don't see what your problem is." [excerpt]

Remember, this is the Religion Forum. ;)

These religious forums will be the death of me :( I didn't mean the statement in a pejorative manner.

[Fichori]

I wasn’t sure what or how you meant it, so I thought I’d give you a friendly reminder. ;)

[LeGrande]

But just for fun, no matter how slow of a near-stall you're flying your GlaStar, your gps still takes time to measure velocity. And when it gives you a position and a velocity reading, they will be from slightly different times. And besides, by the time the position is displayed on your gps, you're not in that position anymore anyway.

I think you are confused by Zeno's paradox : ) Let me give you a quote that you might find interesting.

"… Zeno was born in the Greek colony of Elea in Southern Italy in the fifth century BC. He travelled widely for many years and then returned to his birthplace only to be tortured to death after being implicated in a plot to assassinate the city’s tyrant Nearchus. He appears to have been a resilient character: he is said to have bitten off his tongue and spat it at the tyrant during torture. However, it is for his activities during happier days that he is chiefly remembered; particularly a series of paradoxes set in the form of short fables. The most famous concerns a race between Achilles (fleetest of foot of all mortals) and a tortoise. Being far slower than Achilles the tortoise is given a head start of say ten metres. But once the race is off Achilles easily reaches the tortoise’s starting position with a few lengthy bounds. But by now the tortoise has moved on. Achilles leaps after the tortoise but on reaching its last position the tortoise has again advanced by some tiny amount. Achilles again advances but each time Achilles moves to close the gap, the gap is widened. Achilles appears to be unable to ever reach the tortoise (or even to move at all) because to do so he must advance through an infinity of ever decreasing distances.

Zeno knew of course that motion was possible and Achilles would catch up with the tortoise. His paradoxes were to illustrate that something must be wrong about our simplistic notion of time and motion. It took two millennia of mathematical head scratching to solve Zeno’s paradox by demonstrating that an infinite sum can add up to a finite number. However, the paradox lives on in the quantum Zeno effect and the inverse quantum Zeno effect, which describe how a quantum system can be manipulated by measurement. "

Does that help?

So how are particles any different? I know that light and radiowaves travel at a predictable velocity. The waves coming from the GPS satellite to your GPS receiver have a path and pass through certain positions at certain times just like a fast moving car would. Electrons moving towards the face of a cathode ray tube move at a velocity controlled by the electric field which accelerated them, and they take time to reach the phosphor screen, do they not?

Yes, that is what is nice about the speed of light. For all practical purposes it is a constant. Everything else is a variable.

[LeGrande]

First, take a turntable like people put spices on in their cupboard. Set it up with a cup in the center, and two cups on opposite sides. Punch a small hole in the outer cups half way down and also mount a laser pointer on one of them. You will see that as the water shoots out of the outer cup onto the center cup, it will go straight in just like the laser beam and they will hit the same spot. Now spin the whole works, and behold, the water will lag the laser beam. THat demonstrates if the sun orbited the earth. Now stop the turn table, and hang the center cup on a string, and just spin it! Lo and behold, the water and laser will continue to hit the same spot even though the cup is spinning!

Your experiment needs to add one additional bit of information. Instead of a steady stream of water or photons you need to send individual particles. For example simply repeat the experiment but use a precisely timed simultaneous opening of the water hole and a burst from the laser. Will anything change with the spinning cup example? The won't hit at the same point will they? That is essentially what my original question was, except that I used light and a field, instead of water and light. : )

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

Yes, your question is better put : )

I wasn't asking you a question, I was telling you something. Either you face the fact that you are completely wrong, or face the fact that you are a geocentrist.

It isn't, it is 8.3 minutes if I recall correctly. I just used 7 as a number.

Why didn't you use 8 as a number?

[mrjesse]

Your experiment needs to add one additional bit of information. Instead of a steady stream of water or photons you need to send individual particles. For example simply repeat the experiment but use a precisely timed simultaneous opening of the water hole and a burst from the laser. Will anything change with the spinning cup example? The won't hit at the same point will they? That is essentially what my original question was, except that I used light and a field, instead of water and light. : )

The pulse of light may reach the center cup sooner then the pulse of water, but they will still both come from exactly the same place!

You were clearly describing angular lag between the sun's gravitational pull and optical apparent position.

-Jesse

[mrjesse]

I think you are confused by Zeno's paradox : ) Let me give you a quote that you might find interesting.

Are you trying to say I'm wrong without actually saying it, because you know I'm technically correct? :-)

"… Zeno was born in the Greek colony of Elea....."

I don't get the gist of the mythology there. I think it has some bad logic in it.

Maybe that's it! I've wondered if the stuff you were saying might have been influenced by Greek mythology!

-Jesse

[mrjesse]

You are correct. The effect of the field is instantaneous : ) That is why the rocket scientist boys use Newtons equations when they are aiming to put a rover on Mars.

So are you saying then that you were wrong when you said "In other words when you look at the Sun, you are seeing it about 7 minutes behind where it actually is, but if you had a sensitive gravity sensor where would it point? At the sun you see or 7 minutes ahead of the sun you see?" ?

Or are you still saying that the sun appears to be about 7 minutes behind where it really is?

By the way, do you believe that the sun orbits the earth more then the earth orbits the sun?

Thanks,

-Jesse

[LeGrande]

By the way, do you believe that the sun orbits the earth more then the earth orbits the sun?

I give. You win. Good luck : )

[mrjesse]

I can see the headline now: Highly educated scientist gets his clock cleaned in debate by poorly educated farm kid. Hey LeGrande, Doood, You like, need a new Worldview, baaaad!

Fichori, that was neither nice nor called for. Please go sit in the corner.

Thanks,

-Jesse

[Fichori]

"Fichori, that was neither nice nor called for. Please go sit in the corner."

Yeah, your right.

LeGrande, please accept my apologies.

RM: please pull 484. Thanks.

[mrjesse]

I give. You win. Good luck : )

It wasn't winning I wanted nearly so much as the truth and to learn. I'm used to things making sense, or at least being able to understand why I can't understand them.

At which point did you realize that your statement (about the sun appearing "about 7 minutes" behind its actual postion) was foundationally incorrect? A few moments after posting it? After thinking about the merry go around? When?

If you knew right away or at some point significantly before admitting it, then I will have to believe that my inability to make sense of much of what you said about other things well may have been do to a lack of honesty on your part.

If it took you that long to figure out some simple physics (or if you think the sun orbits the earth more then the earth the sun) then I will have to believe that my inability to make sense of much of what you said was a result of your poor understanding of physics.

Either way, please don't go about presenting as fact incorrect or far-out scientific claims that you don't understand or aren't honest about. (Hey, I don't know which of the two it is. But I can't see how it's anything other then at least one of the two.)

I realize that everybody makes mistakes. Had you said "Oh whoops, you're right, that doesn't well illustrate the my point about fields, let me try again", I'd probably tease you a little but then say "Go ahead and let's try another." But from what I can tell, you kept on defending your incorrect statement far beyond the point which I can imagine you not seeing the error in it. Either that or your understanding is so limited that you still may not see the error in it -- in which case the only honest response would have been to say you didn't understand it.

Can you please help me understand what happened? Does your worldview permit white lies or "unintended deceptions" as long as nobody gets seriously hurt? Mine doesn't.

Doesn't atheism allow little things like that?

I encourage you to keep studying physics, though. They really are a fascinating and fun topic. I'll be glad to try to explain things if you have any questions or things that don't make sense. I'm no genius to be sure, but I'm willing to help to the small degree that I may be able to.

Thanks,

[LeGrande]

At which point did you realize that your statement (about the sun appearing "about 7 minutes" behind its actual postion) was foundationally incorrect? A few moments after posting it? After thinking about the merry go around? When?

You really are clueless aren't you? In a two body system there is no difference between one body spinning in relation to the other body or one body orbiting a stationary body. Your merry go round experiment conclusion was wrong and you seemed to have no comprehension of Zeno's paradox even though it was exactly the problem you were having with determining location and velocity at the same time.

If you are unwilling to learn, I am unwilling to try and teach you. Life is too short. It is hard in this medium anyway.

Can you please help me understand what happened? Does your worldview permit white lies or "unintended deceptions" as long as nobody gets seriously hurt? Mine doesn't.

You seem unable or unwilling to try and grasp simple concepts that disagree with your world view. My example was simple, is the sun where it appears to be when you look at it? Or is it ahead of where it appears to be? You seem to think that it is where it appears to be, you are wrong.

I encourage you to keep studying physics, though. They really are a fascinating and fun topic. I'll be glad to try to explain things if you have any questions or things that don't make sense. I'm no genius to be sure, but I'm willing to help to the small degree that I may be able to.

Thanks. I will be sure to look you up if I have any questions : )

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

In a two body system there is no difference between one body spinning in relation to the other body or one body orbiting a stationary body.

Oh dear, what a horrible error on your part. Foucault's Pendulum.

My example was simple, is the sun where it appears to be when you look at it? Or is it ahead of where it appears to be? You seem to think that it is where it appears to be, you are wrong.

You've entrenched yourself in geocentrism. The sun's present apparent angular position, x(t) is 8 minutes ahead of the position it was at 8 minutes ago when it emitted the light you now see. x(t - 8 + 8) = x(t), i.e., the sun is where mrjesse says it is.

[mrjesse]

seemed to have no comprehension of Zeno's paradox

My familiarity with the movement of things caused me to not mentally fall for the bad trickster logic in Zeno's turtle paradox. The bad logic of course is that the faster runner has to stop every time he reaches each goal.

Your merry go round experiment conclusion was wrong

How as my merry go round experiment conclusion wrong?

If the earth's rotation of 2.13 degrees per 8.5 minutes causes a 2.13 degree lag between the actual and the apparent angle of the sun, why would the merry go around with a rotation of 180 degrees per 8.5 minutes not cause a lag of 180 degrees between the actual position of the sun and the apparent position? What if the earth turned 180 degrees every 8.5 minutes? Would we have sun at the day and just the sun's gravity skyward at night?

If you are unwilling to learn, I am unwilling to try and teach you.

I'm perfectly willing, even eager, to learn why the sun's apparent location would lag its real position by 2.13 degrees.. Again, do you believe that if the earth rotated at 180 degrees per 8.5 minutes, that the gravity meter of the sun would point 180 out from the apparent position?

You seem unable or unwilling to try and grasp simple concepts that disagree with your world view.

Well, there are a ton of incorrect ideas being marketed in the marketplace of ideas. Anybody who takes as fact something that they do not understand and cannot see demonstrated for themselves runs the risk of believing as fact a bunch of incorrect stuff.

The lag of the apparent angle of the sun doesn't have anything to do with my worldview as far as I know (Some stuff does - but not this one) but rather it just doesn't make scientific sense.

My example was simple, is the sun where it appears to be when you look at it? Or is it ahead of where it appears to be? You seem to think that it is where it appears to be, you are wrong.

I unquestionably do think that the sun is where it appears to be - at least for an observer on the earth. And you can quote me on that (as long as you include a date. It may be that you will convince me otherwise. And I'll let you know if you do.)

It's one thing to say I'm wrong (And I well may be, so I welcome the proof thereof) but it's an entirely different (and much more useful) thing to demonstrate how I'm wrong rather then just saying I'm wrong. Anybody can say of anybody else "You're wrong." But saying so neither makes it so nor proves it to be true.

Here's another merry go around experiment. Let me ask you this:

If I am on a merry go around, and it's turning, and there is a pulsing water jet and laser (which pulse in unison) both pointing at the center of the merry go around. The pulse rate and turn rate of the merry go around are such that no water pulse overlaps the life of the previous, and the merry go around turns 1/4 of a turn in the time it takes the leading edge of a water pulse to reach the center of the merry go around.

Now it's a warm day and I'm sitting in the middle of the merry go around, with a good water proof compass. The water jet and laser are exactly north, 20 feet, of the center of the merry go around.

Will I not find that every time either light or water hits me that it will be coming exactly from the north?

Logical answers would be "Yes, No, or Yes but this doesn't carry over to the situation with the sun and its apparent position."

I'd also still like to know what was wrong with my other merry go around conclusion. How does it not perfectly emulate the rotation of the earth while being bathed in the suns light -- except just faster?

Thanks!

-Jesse

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

mrjesse, perhaps you can devise an experiment to test LeGrandean mechanics:

"In a two body system there is no difference between one body spinning in relation to the other body or one body orbiting a stationary body." [LeGrande]

You see, LeGrandean mechanics makes no distinction between non-inertial reference frames and inertial reference frames. I bet LeGrandean mechanics will also soon teach us that there is no such thing as acceleration either.

[mrjesse]

mrjesse, perhaps you can devise an experiment to test LeGrandean mechanics:

"In a two body system there is no difference between one body spinning in relation to the other body or one body orbiting a stationary body." [LeGrande]

Well yes I know that if the sun were orbiting my merry go around at the rate of 180 degrees per 8.5 minutes, the sun would always appear to be the opposite direction that it really was. So it stands to reason that I can make the sun do amazing things if I turn my merry go around at 17 minutes per turn.

Imagine the excitement this will cause at NASA headquarters when the sun goes streaking across the sky unexpectedly! [grin]

-Jesse

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

We will reschedule drilling into the "superposition principle" cavity for the moment, because that nerve seems sensitive. Instead, let's begin drilling into a new cavity.

In #354 mrjesse asked for references concerning your ramblings about gravity and the curvature of spacetime. In response to this, you suggested he go "look up" spacetime Lorentz transformations:

...just google, space-time Lorentz transformation,...

Now, I could ask what, in your mind, is the connection between curvature of spacetime and Lorentz transformations, but that would open the door to more waves of nothing. So, first, let us follow your advice to "go look up" things and see where it leads. Here is an exceptionally clear and careful treatment of Lorentz transformations (worth downloading and keeping):

One more derivation of the Lorentz transformations , Levy-Leblond, 1975.

Notice that nothing at all is said about curvature of spacetime. There's a good reason for that of course, a reason you aren't aware of. Were you thinking that length contraction and time dilation are effects of spacetime curvature?

[annalex]

(<<== Click here to learn about Darwinism!)

People!

Click There! Click!!!

The best profile page on FR, and I have seen quite a few.

[LeGrande]

We will reschedule drilling into the "superposition principle" cavity for the moment, because that nerve seems sensitive. Instead, let's begin drilling into a new cavity.

That is probably a good thing. I seem to be incapable of satisfactorily explaining the difference between apparent and actual position, much less the superposition principle.

Notice that nothing at all is said about curvature of spacetime. There's a good reason for that of course, a reason you aren't aware of. Were you thinking that length contraction and time dilation are effects of spacetime curvature?

I am guilty as charged : ) I was simply trying to fill in conceptual holes for mrjesse. I won't make that mistake again.

[LeGrande]

Oh dear, what a horrible error on your part. Foucault's Pendulum.

Yes and you can detect constant acceleration through an increase in heat. But if it is only the Earth and the pendulum (remember this is a two body problem not three) how do you determine whether the earth or the pendulum is moving?

Let me ask you a question. Do you believe that the galaxy Abell 68 c1 is where it appears to be when you look into the sky or do you think that it might have moved in the billions of years that the light took to reach us?

You've entrenched yourself in geocentrism. The sun's present apparent angular position, x(t) is 8 minutes ahead of the position it was at 8 minutes ago when it emitted the light you now see. x(t - 8 + 8) = x(t), i.e., the sun is where mrjesse says it is.

LOL Your statement is correct (The sun's present apparent angular position, x(t) is 8 minutes ahead of the position it was at 8 minutes ago when it emitted the light you now see.) but your equation is wrong. You can either add 8 minutes or subtract 8 minutes depending on your reference but not both.

MrJesse is claiming that according to his merry go round experiment that the sun is in exactly the same place that we see it, when we see it. You seem to agree, according to your equation and statement "the sun is where mrjesse says it is." Both of you are wrong, we see the Sun where it was 8 minutes ago when the photons were emitted. When we look at the planets, Stars and galaxies we are looking into the past and with the galaxies we are sometimes looking billions of years into the past. They are no longer where we see them and they would look different today if we could see them as they actually are today. But of course we will have to wait billions of years for the photons they are sending today to get to us.

[mrjesse]

Both of you are wrong, we see the Sun where it was 8 minutes ago when the photons were emitted.

Except the sun hasn't moved the 2.13 degrees in those 8 minutes - it's still in the same place! So even thought the light is 8 minutes old, the light is still coming from the same place as it was 8 minutes ago because the sun is in the same place it was 8 minutes ago.

Please just answer this one question: If the earth were turning at the rate of 180 degrees per 8.5 minutes, how far lagged would the sun's optical image be from its real position?

Thanks,

-Jesse

[LeGrande]

Please just answer this one question: If the earth were turning at the rate of 180 degrees per 8.5 minutes, how far lagged would the sun's optical image be from its real position?

180 degrees off. Just think of the timing a sniper would need to shoot a laser pulse at someone on the earth, 180 degrees or 8.5 minutes of lead time.

Or conversely think of it this way. At dawn the sun would be at 90 degrees and at sunset 8.5 minutes later it would be at 270 degrees from the perspective of someone on the earth. So if the Sun got turned on just before dawn the observer on the earth wouldn't see the sun until just before sunset, exactly 180 degrees off.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

Let me give you something else to think about, too :)

Indeed, LeGrande's theory of diurnal lag has very interesting astronomical implications. Let us consider some.

Pluto's present "apparent" position is in Sagittarius. But it takes light about 5.5 hours to get here from Pluto. Thus, according to the diurnal lag theory, Pluto's "actual" position is not in Sagittarius at all.

Astronomers tend to consider Rigel as being in Orion. But that's merely Rigel's apparent position. Rigel is 800 light-years from the Earth, hence according to LeGrandean astronomy, Rigel's "actual" diurnal position leads by 800 years. In other words, when you look at Rigel, you must keep in mind that this is merely the apparent image -- the real Rigel has rotated around the Earth 292,000 times already.

Suppose the sun was 173.5 AU from the earth. At this distance, it would take 24 hours for light to travel from the sun to the earth. According to LeGrande's theory of diurnal lag, this would cause the sun's "actual" position to lead its apparent position by 24 hours. So, the "actual" position would be the same as the apparent position. The sun would actually be where it apparently is. Furthermore this would be the case if the sun's distance were any multiple of 173.5 AU.

[mrjesse]

Said mrjesse: Please just answer this one question: If the earth were turning at the rate of 180 degrees per 8.5 minutes, how far lagged would the sun's optical image be from its real position?

180 degrees off.

Now wait just a second. You said that my merry go round experiment conclusion was wrong. But what's the difference between my merry go around rotating 180 degrees in 8.5 minutes and the earth rotating 180 degrees in 8.5 minutes? I don't see any difference as regards to whether the sun's apparent position would change.

Except that you knew that if you said "Yes, rotating the merry go around would change the apparent position of the sun," you know full well that I'd go out and try it and know you were wrong :-))

Just think of the timing a sniper would need to shoot a laser pulse at someone on the earth, 180 degrees or 8.5 minutes of lead time.

The sniper would aim at the exact same point that he intended to hit - only he would have to fire 8.5 minutes early. But he'd still be pointing in the exact same direction if his laser beam traveled instantly - he just wouldn't have to fire it as soon.

So what about stars that aren't particularly orbiting the earth, but are as Ethan Clive Osgoode mentioned, stars which are several lightyears away. Are you saying that when I look up at the night sky half the stars I see are actually on the other side of the world? When I look up and see mars, is it also not where it appears? When nasa sent the mars rovers up to mars, did they have to calculate this in? Can you find anyone at nasa who plans space missions and who agrees with you? The more I hear of your idea the more crazy it sounds.

What's your best evidence that this absurd-sounding idea is true? Why can't I replicate it on the merry go around? What is different between the merry go around rotating 180 degrees per 8.5 minutes and the earth doing the same?

If you answer no others, (but please do), please answer at least this one:

So let's say it's a sunny summer and an Eskimo is standing on the north poll watching the sun through his bone-slit sunglasses. Will he notice that the sun appears to change position as he rotates his head left to right and back? How is that different then the world speeding up or slowing down?

Thanks,

-Jesse