Posted on 10/08/2005 7:08:23 PM PDT by Markjwyatt
placemarker
The Earth is flat.
His defense of geocentrism on relativist "neotychonian" grounds fails, of course. The strongest case he can make on the physics is that his claims are meaningless, and therefore not false (since meaningless statements have no truth value). Now he quoted some popularizers of Einsteinian relativity (including Einstein himself) to back this up, but they were only speaking of motion considered in the abstract. Real physical bodies relate to each other by gravity, and we know that the more massive body has more influence on the less massive than the lass massive has on the more massive.
His defense of geocentrism on relativist "neotychonian" grounds fails, of course. The strongest case he can make on the physics is that his claims are meaningless, and therefore not false (since meaningless statements have no truth value). Now he quoted some popularizers of Einsteinian relativity (including Einstein himself) to back this up, but they were only speaking of motion considered in the abstract. Real physical bodies relate to each other by gravity, and we know that the more massive body has more influence on the less massive than the lass massive has on the more massive.
Also known as the fat chick.
Now all we have to do is understand that geocentrism is an article of faith or a moral precept.
"Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,--in matters of faith, and of morals..."
AJ:
Actually, relativity indicates that any reference frame is valid, so a fixed earth reference frame is thus valid. I do not claim this proves geocentrism.
I do say that it shows that geocentrism is one of many POSSIBLE universes.
As far as gravity determining the structure of the universe. I am saying that the geocntric universe is rotating with earth at the center of mass. In that sense the entire universe is using its rotational power to stabilize its center of mass (as described by Misner, Thorne and Wheeling). In that case, a small gravitational pull from the sun would easily be overcome by the rest of the universe, and the static space Newtonian view will not prevail.
Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
BTW, the model was first proposed by Hipparkhos of Nicaea.
You said:
"Yawn. The geocentric, or "Tychonic" model of the Solar System is provably false, because in it the Earth - Moon - Sun trio violate Kepler's Third Law. "
Not true in the case of a rotating universe, as explained in Part II of Geocentricity 101. Kepler presumed static space and the solar system as isolated from the rest of the universe. Wake up ;).
Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
Let me first state my credentials. I am a theoretical physicist with an international reputation. My papers have a total of about 4,000 citations in the scientific literature (which is very substantial). I have taught general relativity (GR) at the graduate level. These people lack very basic understanding of physics. Sungenis --- who is the guy behind all this nonsense --- does not even understand very simple Newtonian mechanics, let alone GR. While it is true that the earth is "freely falling" and thus (as far as "center of mass motion" is concerned could be thought of as at rest, from a GLOBAL perspective it is certainly moving. That is, a distant observer who was in a local inertial frame would see the earth as going around the Sun not the reverse. Moreover, the earth is unquestionably rotating around its axis. The earth's surface is therefore NOT an "inertial frame". This is true in both Newtonian physics and GR. It is simply wrong to say (whether in Newtonian or Einsteinian physics) that the earth is motionless, as Sungenis and his silly ignorant followers would assert. I make a challenge: I will pay Sungenis $1,000 if he will take and pass the Qualifying exam in physics at any major research university.
As far as Trent goes, it said that we must IN MATTERS OF FAITH interpret Scripture in a manner consistent with the consensus of the Fathers. But the motion of heavenly bodies is not a matter of faith. Bellarmine (reasoning in a transparently circular manner) argued that the motionlessness of the earth was a matter of faith. Why? He said that (1) Scripture asserts that the earth is motionless. (2) The passages in question must be interpreted literally because the Father so interpreted them. (3) Thus the motionlessness of the earth is indeed taught in Scripture. (4) Thus it is consequently a matter of faith. (5) Because it is a matter of faith, it is a matter where we must interpret Scripture as the Fathers do. !!!! In other words we must agree with the Fathers because it is an issue of faith, and it is an issue of faith because we must agree with the Fathers. Circular. What the magisterium later realized was that it is not a matter of faith at all, so that the Scriptures need not be interpreted literally with regard to it, even if the Fathers did. Thus Trent does not require us to be geocentrists unless one reasons circularly.
You say:
"from a GLOBAL perspective it [the earth] is certainly moving. That is, a distant observer who was in a local inertial frame would see the earth as going around the Sun not the reverse. Moreover, the earth is unquestionably rotating around its axis. The earth's surface is therefore NOT an 'inertial frame'"
If you do not know if the universe is rotating or not, how do you know your distant observer is in an inertial reference frame? What parts of the universe have no known rotation, and again, what if the entire universe were rotating? Aren't you saying there are preferred reference frames? This itself violates GR.
Are you indirectly proposing the CMB as a reference frame? If unbeknownst to us the earth were the stationary center of the universe, would the CMB not be actually rotating?
I did not actually claim the earth's surface was an inertial reference frame.
Mark Wyatt
The condemnation of Copernicanism in 1633 did not involve an infallible pronouncement. There was no dogmatic definition made by either Pope or Ecumenical Council back in Galileo's time. In technical terms, the condemnation of Copernicanism was authoritative but not infallible. The magisterium since then has made clear in many ways that it accepts the idea of the earth's motion as completely consistent with Catholic belief. Copernicus's book was removed from the Index by Pope Benedict IV over two hundred years ago. This is a silly discussion.
Sir, I am afriad you don't understand GR correctly. While Einstein was indeed influenced by Mach's ideas, GR is not really a Machian theory, though it predicts some effects that are reminiscent of Machian ideas (like dragging of inertial frames). One can find some books that say that GR is Machian, but the general consensus is that it is not. In GR, uniform motion is relative, but accelerated motion is absolute --- just as in Newtonian physics. The question of whether something is rotating or not is an ABSOLUTE question with one and only one correct answer. Yes, one can go to a frame in which a rotating object looks like it is not rotating --- however, such a frame is not an inertial frame; more specificly, it is a rotating frame. And one can tell that it is so by looking at the "fictitious forces" that appear in that frame. It is absurd to say that the whole universe could be rotating about an axis that goes through the earth. Distant stars could only be kept in circular orbits about such an axis by some centripital force directed toward that axis. Here the people like Sungenis will babble about dragging of inertial frames. They say that the distant matter going around will drag the stars around the axis. Not so. Not least of the problems with this idea is that one cannot write down a global rotating coordinate system, since the time coordinate lines would become superluminal at some finite (and not so large) distance. To put it another way, if all the stars go around the earth every 24 hours, then stars more than a light-year away would be going faster than light. But all this is nonsense anyway. Anyone who has a solid grasp of GR knows that in it accelerated motion is an ABSOLUTE concept. Finally, let me say that I actually do research in areas that require GR. I have refereed papers for journals such as Classical and Quantum Gravity. As I said, I teach GR at the graduate level --- do you?
Mr. Wyatt, one more thing. You disclaim having said that the earth's surface is an inertial frame. That's good. Because if you admit that earth's surface is not an inertial frame, then you admit the earth's surface is moving. Period. And then the Holy Office was wrong in 1633. A non-inertial frame is, by definition, an accelerated frame. If the earth's surface is not an inertial frame, then it is accelerating. There is no way to accelerate over a finite interval of time without moving. Q.E.D. Sungenis is an ignoiramus when it comes to physics. He makes arguments that show very clearly that he has never taken (and passed) a real college level course in even Newtonian mechanics. He wouldn't know a Christoffel symbol or a Reimannian curvature tensor if it hit him upside the head.
You still have not answered these basic questions:
"If you do not know if the universe is rotating or not, how do you know your distant observer is in an inertial reference frame? What parts of the universe have no known rotation, and again, what if the entire universe were rotating? Aren't you saying there are preferred reference frames? This itself violates GR.
Are you indirectly proposing the CMB as a reference frame? If unbeknownst to us the earth were the stationary center of the universe, would the CMB not be actually rotating?"
As for the earth's surface being an inertial frame- I do not know. This would imply that the earth's surface is always fixed as a permanent structure, which it is not. Some functionality at the earth would have to be fixed, but not necassarily the surface (how do you define the 'the surface'?). Even then it may not meet all the requirements for an inertial reference frame (i.e., due to rotation of the universe up to some boundary, and possibly even within the boundary).
Also, according to Thirring and others (i.e., Rosser), the forces are not "fictitous" if the earth is fixed. In Thirrings (simplistic but illustrative) model, rotating cosmic masses (i.e., heavy shell) prodcued forces analogous to the fictituous forces.
Also, Rosser explains how some objects can be moving past a fixed frame superluminally. There is no local violation of light speed excess. Also, GR does not actually posit a limit anyway (though I agree that scientific consensus is that it exists).
There are no absolute reference frames we know of in the universe, so we do not know what is rotating. No one has demonstrated that the earth rotates in a manner distinguishable from rotation of the universe. Einstein even stated that the rotating xosmic masses would "drag the frame of the pendulum".
I am using relativity to illustrate that a geocentic universe is a possible universe. I am not claiming relativity proves it is the actual universe. I do not believe that you can honestly rule out the possibility that the universe is rotating as more than scientific opinion. I will not argue that scientists feel they have good reasons to believe the universe is not rotating, but I do not believe it has been demonstrated.
I will post Robert Sungenis' response to you seperately.
Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
SMPB: Let me first state my credentials. I am a theoretical physicist with an international reputation. My papers have a total of about 4,000 citations in the scientific literature (which is very substantial). I have taught general relativity (GR) at the graduate level. These people lack very basic understanding of physics. Sungenis --- who is the guy behind all this nonsense --- does not even understand very simple Newtonian mechanics, let alone GR.
RS: That's funny. My co-author has a Ph.D. in General Relativity and he converted to geocentrism. I wonder how that could be? You know, I've had a lot of GR physicists walk through my doors, all touting their "credentials," but not one of them has been able to prove that the earth goes around the sun. Perhaps the inventor of GR might help in this case. Einstein wrote: "The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS [coordinate system] 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 [coordinate systems]."
SMPB said: While it is true that the earth is "freely falling" and thus (as far as "center of mass motion" is concerned could be thought of as at rest, from a GLOBAL perspective it is certainly moving. That is, a distant observer who was in a local inertial frame would see the earth as going around the Sun not the reverse.
RS: We're not interested in assertions, we're only interested whether you can prove the assertion. Can you, or are you going to waste our time with peacock feathers?
SMPB said: Moreover, the earth is unquestionably rotating around its axis. The earth's surface is therefore NOT an "inertial frame". This is true in both Newtonian physics and GR. It is simply wrong to say (whether in Newtonian or Einsteinian physics) that the earth is motionless, as Sungenis and his silly ignorant followers would assert.
RS: Prove it. Prove to us that the earth is rotating rather than the universe rotating. Perhaps you can be the first one to do so, because no one else has been able to.
SMPB said: I make a challenge: I will pay Sungenis $1,000 if he will take and pass the Qualifying exam in physics at any major research university.
RS: This is usually what happens when a GR man finds out that he can't prove heliocentrism. He tries to avoid and belittle the Geocentric challenge. We've seen it hundreds of times. Put your money where your mouth is SMPB.
SMPB said: As far as Trent goes, it said that we must IN MATTERS OF FAITH interpret Scripture in a manner consistent with the consensus of the Fathers. But the motion of heavenly bodies is not a matter of faith. Bellarmine (reasoning in a transparently circular manner) argued that the motionlessness of the earth was a matter of faith. Why? He said that (1) Scripture asserts that the earth is motionless. (2) The passages in question must be interpreted literally because the Father so interpreted them. (3) Thus the motionlessness of the earth is indeed taught in Scripture. (4) Thus it is consequently a matter of faith. (5) Because it is a matter of faith, it is a matter where we must interpret Scripture as the Fathers do. !!!! In other words we must agree with the Fathers because it is an issue of faith, and it is an issue of faith because we must agree with the Fathers. Circular. What the magisterium later realized was that it is not a matter of faith at all, so that the Scriptures need not be interpreted literally with regard to it, even if the Fathers did. Thus Trent does not require us to be geocentrists unless one reasons circularly.
RS: Really now? Tell me if this sounds as if the Church didn't think it was a matter of faith: Bellarmine to Galileo: "...the declaration made by His Holiness [the pope] and published by the Holy Congregation of the Index had been announced to you, wherein it is declared that the doctrine of the motion of the earth and the stability of the Sun is contrary to the Holy Scriptures and therefore cannot be defended or held....it has been declared and defined to be contrary to the Holy Scripture: and that consequently you hve incurred all the censures and penalties imposed..."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.