A Response to "Sciencemom" of Unity of Truth Blog and Her Article "The New Geocentrism- Part III"
Sciencemom, read my blog series (Geocentricity 101), and challenged the science portion in her blog piece named "The New Geocentrism- Part III". In "Up- to date cosmology" hedgemaker challenges the scriptural/eccliastical portion (this is their Part II). It all started with the original article "The New Geocentrism", which we can conclude is Part I.
I will respond specifically to the science aspect of Part III. I will reply to "Up- to date cosmology", and the scriptural/ecclisiastic portions of "The New Geocentrism Part III" in a seperate article. I have replied to sciencemom's article "The New Geocentrism" in the comments of the actual article. This led to the writing of the additional two articles.
Sciencemomn says:
"...I have now read Mr. Wyatt's four-part series on Geocentrism, and I offer the following brief summary of his argument:
1. The math and physics of parts 1-2 boil down to the idea that it is possible to construct a frame of reference such that with respect to it, the earth is stationary and the entire universe apparently moves around it, and the related idea that this is entirely acceptable within the framework of general relativity.
2. Parts 3-4 attempt to establish that the Church has in the past taken positions that obliged a geocentric view, and that these still oblige, not having been rescinded to the author's satisfaction.
3.Since relativity does not "prefer" a certain "centrism" but (as is claimed) the Church does, we should hold geocentrism to be obligatory..."
She explains Part 1 in more detail later. I will briefly comment on her points 2 and 3, then comment on her explanation for point 1. She states in her point 2 that I claim the Church "has in the past taken positions that obliged a geocentric view", which is correct, I have demonstrated this. She then goes on to state, "these still oblige, not having been rescinded to the author's satisfaction", which I take some exception to. I have not stated that they still oblige, necassarily. I have stated that "...It is not clear whether the statements of the Popes reached the level of infallibility. Clearly they have reached at least the level of being worthy of consideration by the faithful (and possibly much more), but given the Vatican's ambiguity towards the issue in recent centuries, there is probably little moral culpability for the average person who has been taught unimpeded from early childhood (even taught at Catholic schools) that we know that the earth goes around the sun and spins on its axis. Clearly science supports the notion that we do not know either way (see Parts I and II, Geocentricity 101)."
This same comment goes for her point 3. I have basically said this without the claiming it an "obligation", but also more. I have not tried to "prove" geocentrism with a relativistic argument, but, as sciencemon correctly infers, I show it as still possible.
What follows is sciencemom's commentary of her point 1, with my counter-commentary interposed:
The math / physics that Mr. Wyatt is suggesting leaves important things unsaid:
1. The "frame of reference" needed for this to work is a rotating, translating frame. To put it even more simply, one simply takes the movement of the earth as heliocentrists would see it, and transfers that to the frame of reference. Thus, the frame of reference moves along with the earth.
This immediately shows that sciencemom cannot see past her presumptions. She states that a frame attached to the earth is actually a "rotating, translating frame"! How does she know this? Because she presupposes that the earth is rotating translating. SHE MISSES THE ENTIRE POINT OF THE DISCUSSION. I.e., the geocentric contention is that the earth is actually NOT rotating and translating. If this contention is true, then the frame attached to the earth is a stationary non-rotating frame. Until we can establish that the earth is rotating/translating sciencemom can not make absolute statements about its rotation/translation. The book Galileo Was Wrong explains in great detail that science has never established that the earth is either rotating or translating. Scientists do understand this, and they are quoted.
2.Only within this moving frame of reference can the earth said to be "still" or "at rest". This is indeed a paltry form of immovability! It is little more than mathematical sleight of hand. In fact, it is precisely the sort of immovability that Mary's ballerina would experience while doing a pirouette, provided the frame of reference moves right along with her.
Again, sciencemom presupposes a moving rotating earth. Of course if we accept her ASSUMPTION, then the case is closed. Since geocentrists have not, we are not impressed with her choice of assumptions.
3.The rest of the universe only apparently moves around the earth, given this frame of reference. We can easily tell that it does not really do so because the apparent speed of even nearby stars (as measured from our moving frame of reference) is well over the speed of light. The stars are most definitely not moving at these speeds; even if it were not a contradiction of special relativity, we would see the luminous effects in the form of Cerenkov radiation. If Mary's ballerina did her pirouette under the night sky, the moon orbits her (in her frame of reference, remember) just as much as the universe orbits the earth.
Finally sciencemom actually tries to make a scientific argument (rather than relying on her presuppositions). Unfortunately the argument does not hold as I explained in detail in part III of Geocentricity 101. First, if the universe is rotating, then special relativity does not apply, general relativity is required. In general relaitivty, "...If one considers the rotating roundabout as being at rest [i.e., fix the earth], the centrifugal gravitational field assumes enormous values at large distances, and it is consistent with the theory of General Relativity for the velocities of distant bodies to exceed 3 x 10^8 m/sec under these conditions." (An Introduction to the Theory of Relativity, W. G. V. Rosser, London, Butterworths, 1964, p. 460). This is one of the many points I used to establish that general relativity does not see this as an issue. Now, if we go a step further and consider a rotating aether, then the stars are travelling along with the aether (i.e., they are co-rotating with space), and under these conditions there is no local exceedance of light speed.
The Cerenkov radiation issue only deals with special relativity effects, which are not present in this case. In flat space-time ( the realm of special relativity) objects exceeding the speed of light can generate radition (as seen in particle accelerators), but in the case of general relativity, in the case of a rotating universe, the theory directly accomodates the rotating objects relative superluminal state. If an object were to locally overtake a star at a relative speed greater than "c", then in that case, even under general relativity, Cerenkov radiation would be locally generated, because in that case space-time would be [approximately] flat.
As to sciencemom's ballerina, unfortunately, general relativity has to consider the the universe rotating around the tip of her nose just as real as the ballerina rotating in a static universe, because general relativity excludes the concept of absolute space. So if this example bothers sciencemom (or she finds it amusing), then she should feel the same about the big bang theory- which explicitly relies on general relativity to be correct (else there is no cosmological constant and no expansion of space, and thus no big bang). Amazing the corner that Catholics back themselves into to be "cool" to the world!
4.In reality, there is no significant rotation of the universe. While it is very difficult to rule it out entirely, it is relatively simple to set an upper bound on the maximum rotation of the universe, and direct measurements indicate it is well under 0.1 arc seconds per century.
Correct, it is difficult to rule out entirely, and just stating so does not constitute evidence. True, if one accepts all the assumptions relating to the current cosmological view (big bang with inflationary phase, isotropic and homogeneous space, etc.) then within the framework of the myriad of assumptions involved (the ones exposed in Galileo Was Wrong), you could make a case that the universe appears not to be rotating. If the earth is actually stationary and not rotating, then these assumptions will have been shown to be wrong.
5.To someone in an inertial frame of reference, looking "down" on the solar system from somewhere over the sun's north pole, all the planets would trace over time the elliptical paths around it that we know as orbits. (The sun would also be seen rotating on its own axis, and gradually moving in its own orbital path around the galactic center, taking the rest of the solar system along with it.)
Again, sciencemom misses a fundamental point. True if one stared down on the sun then one would "see" the entire universe rotating around the sun! This is because we have in effect transformed to a coordinate system fixed above the sun's north pole. Of course if the entire universe appears to be rotating around the sun, the planets will also appear to be doing so. I spent most of Part I of Geocentricity 101 explaining this concept. Sciencemom then confuses the issue by stating that the "sun would also be seen...gradually moving in its own orbital path around the galactic center, taking the rest of the solar system along with it", which means that she actually transformed out to another coordinate system which at one point of time was above the sun's north pole, but is actually fixed relative to the galactic center. Since she claims this to be an inertial reference frame, and she is being precise, she must be proposing some form of milky-way-centrism! One in which the universal center corresponds to a point that sits above hte sun's orbit at least at one point in time. Rather, I think sciencemom is confusing coordinate transforms with reality, and trying to imply that the abstract mathematical concept of inertial reference frames, as applied in especially special relativity, "prove" that the universe is not rotating.
So, in sum, the math for a geocentric frame of reference may be available, but it's just math. To speak of it as if it were "the real truth" is simply untrue.
It is true that the math exists. Also the physics exist- both kinematics and dynamics. Also as shown in great detail in Galileo Was Wrong, most of our observations and mnay experiments support a central and non-moving (rotating or translating) earth! Science itself admits that it cannot demonstrate the rotation or translation of the earth (as independent of a counter movement of teh universe). Finally Scriptures, the Fathers, and a number of popes have testified or made declarations in favor of geocentrism. None have explicitlky denied it. Why not at least consider it?
I will respond specifically to the science aspect of Part III. I will reply to "Up- to date cosmology", and the scriptural/ecclisiastic portions of "The New Geocentrism Part III" in a seperate article. I have replied to sciencemom's article "The New Geocentrism" in the comments of the actual article. This led to the writing of the additional two articles.
Sciencemomn says:
"...I have now read Mr. Wyatt's four-part series on Geocentrism, and I offer the following brief summary of his argument:
1. The math and physics of parts 1-2 boil down to the idea that it is possible to construct a frame of reference such that with respect to it, the earth is stationary and the entire universe apparently moves around it, and the related idea that this is entirely acceptable within the framework of general relativity.
2. Parts 3-4 attempt to establish that the Church has in the past taken positions that obliged a geocentric view, and that these still oblige, not having been rescinded to the author's satisfaction.
3.Since relativity does not "prefer" a certain "centrism" but (as is claimed) the Church does, we should hold geocentrism to be obligatory..."
She explains Part 1 in more detail later. I will briefly comment on her points 2 and 3, then comment on her explanation for point 1. She states in her point 2 that I claim the Church "has in the past taken positions that obliged a geocentric view", which is correct, I have demonstrated this. She then goes on to state, "these still oblige, not having been rescinded to the author's satisfaction", which I take some exception to. I have not stated that they still oblige, necassarily. I have stated that "...It is not clear whether the statements of the Popes reached the level of infallibility. Clearly they have reached at least the level of being worthy of consideration by the faithful (and possibly much more), but given the Vatican's ambiguity towards the issue in recent centuries, there is probably little moral culpability for the average person who has been taught unimpeded from early childhood (even taught at Catholic schools) that we know that the earth goes around the sun and spins on its axis. Clearly science supports the notion that we do not know either way (see Parts I and II, Geocentricity 101)."
This same comment goes for her point 3. I have basically said this without the claiming it an "obligation", but also more. I have not tried to "prove" geocentrism with a relativistic argument, but, as sciencemon correctly infers, I show it as still possible.
What follows is sciencemom's commentary of her point 1, with my counter-commentary interposed:
The math / physics that Mr. Wyatt is suggesting leaves important things unsaid:
1. The "frame of reference" needed for this to work is a rotating, translating frame. To put it even more simply, one simply takes the movement of the earth as heliocentrists would see it, and transfers that to the frame of reference. Thus, the frame of reference moves along with the earth.
This immediately shows that sciencemom cannot see past her presumptions. She states that a frame attached to the earth is actually a "rotating, translating frame"! How does she know this? Because she presupposes that the earth is rotating translating. SHE MISSES THE ENTIRE POINT OF THE DISCUSSION. I.e., the geocentric contention is that the earth is actually NOT rotating and translating. If this contention is true, then the frame attached to the earth is a stationary non-rotating frame. Until we can establish that the earth is rotating/translating sciencemom can not make absolute statements about its rotation/translation. The book Galileo Was Wrong explains in great detail that science has never established that the earth is either rotating or translating. Scientists do understand this, and they are quoted.
2.Only within this moving frame of reference can the earth said to be "still" or "at rest". This is indeed a paltry form of immovability! It is little more than mathematical sleight of hand. In fact, it is precisely the sort of immovability that Mary's ballerina would experience while doing a pirouette, provided the frame of reference moves right along with her.
Again, sciencemom presupposes a moving rotating earth. Of course if we accept her ASSUMPTION, then the case is closed. Since geocentrists have not, we are not impressed with her choice of assumptions.
3.The rest of the universe only apparently moves around the earth, given this frame of reference. We can easily tell that it does not really do so because the apparent speed of even nearby stars (as measured from our moving frame of reference) is well over the speed of light. The stars are most definitely not moving at these speeds; even if it were not a contradiction of special relativity, we would see the luminous effects in the form of Cerenkov radiation. If Mary's ballerina did her pirouette under the night sky, the moon orbits her (in her frame of reference, remember) just as much as the universe orbits the earth.
Finally sciencemom actually tries to make a scientific argument (rather than relying on her presuppositions). Unfortunately the argument does not hold as I explained in detail in part III of Geocentricity 101. First, if the universe is rotating, then special relativity does not apply, general relativity is required. In general relaitivty, "...If one considers the rotating roundabout as being at rest [i.e., fix the earth], the centrifugal gravitational field assumes enormous values at large distances, and it is consistent with the theory of General Relativity for the velocities of distant bodies to exceed 3 x 10^8 m/sec under these conditions." (An Introduction to the Theory of Relativity, W. G. V. Rosser, London, Butterworths, 1964, p. 460). This is one of the many points I used to establish that general relativity does not see this as an issue. Now, if we go a step further and consider a rotating aether, then the stars are travelling along with the aether (i.e., they are co-rotating with space), and under these conditions there is no local exceedance of light speed.
The Cerenkov radiation issue only deals with special relativity effects, which are not present in this case. In flat space-time ( the realm of special relativity) objects exceeding the speed of light can generate radition (as seen in particle accelerators), but in the case of general relativity, in the case of a rotating universe, the theory directly accomodates the rotating objects relative superluminal state. If an object were to locally overtake a star at a relative speed greater than "c", then in that case, even under general relativity, Cerenkov radiation would be locally generated, because in that case space-time would be [approximately] flat.
As to sciencemom's ballerina, unfortunately, general relativity has to consider the the universe rotating around the tip of her nose just as real as the ballerina rotating in a static universe, because general relativity excludes the concept of absolute space. So if this example bothers sciencemom (or she finds it amusing), then she should feel the same about the big bang theory- which explicitly relies on general relativity to be correct (else there is no cosmological constant and no expansion of space, and thus no big bang). Amazing the corner that Catholics back themselves into to be "cool" to the world!
4.In reality, there is no significant rotation of the universe. While it is very difficult to rule it out entirely, it is relatively simple to set an upper bound on the maximum rotation of the universe, and direct measurements indicate it is well under 0.1 arc seconds per century.
Correct, it is difficult to rule out entirely, and just stating so does not constitute evidence. True, if one accepts all the assumptions relating to the current cosmological view (big bang with inflationary phase, isotropic and homogeneous space, etc.) then within the framework of the myriad of assumptions involved (the ones exposed in Galileo Was Wrong), you could make a case that the universe appears not to be rotating. If the earth is actually stationary and not rotating, then these assumptions will have been shown to be wrong.
5.To someone in an inertial frame of reference, looking "down" on the solar system from somewhere over the sun's north pole, all the planets would trace over time the elliptical paths around it that we know as orbits. (The sun would also be seen rotating on its own axis, and gradually moving in its own orbital path around the galactic center, taking the rest of the solar system along with it.)
Again, sciencemom misses a fundamental point. True if one stared down on the sun then one would "see" the entire universe rotating around the sun! This is because we have in effect transformed to a coordinate system fixed above the sun's north pole. Of course if the entire universe appears to be rotating around the sun, the planets will also appear to be doing so. I spent most of Part I of Geocentricity 101 explaining this concept. Sciencemom then confuses the issue by stating that the "sun would also be seen...gradually moving in its own orbital path around the galactic center, taking the rest of the solar system along with it", which means that she actually transformed out to another coordinate system which at one point of time was above the sun's north pole, but is actually fixed relative to the galactic center. Since she claims this to be an inertial reference frame, and she is being precise, she must be proposing some form of milky-way-centrism! One in which the universal center corresponds to a point that sits above hte sun's orbit at least at one point in time. Rather, I think sciencemom is confusing coordinate transforms with reality, and trying to imply that the abstract mathematical concept of inertial reference frames, as applied in especially special relativity, "prove" that the universe is not rotating.
So, in sum, the math for a geocentric frame of reference may be available, but it's just math. To speak of it as if it were "the real truth" is simply untrue.
It is true that the math exists. Also the physics exist- both kinematics and dynamics. Also as shown in great detail in Galileo Was Wrong, most of our observations and mnay experiments support a central and non-moving (rotating or translating) earth! Science itself admits that it cannot demonstrate the rotation or translation of the earth (as independent of a counter movement of teh universe). Finally Scriptures, the Fathers, and a number of popes have testified or made declarations in favor of geocentrism. None have explicitlky denied it. Why not at least consider it?
posted by Mark Wyatt at Wednesday, February 14, 2007
2 Comments:
Your comments reveal significant confusion about the physics involved. Please see my response here.
Hello,
I am greatly interested in your position on geocentrism. Although I do not agree, I would like to see your reasoning behind this, so I am going to read your four-part explanation thing.
One thing that I would like to point out in this post:
"...the centrifugal gravitational field assumes enormous values at large distances..."
There is no such thing as centrifugal force, or any other centrifugal thing. Please get your facts straight.
Post a Comment
<< Home