New Scientist mention of "Catholic Apologetics International"

Hmmm. I wonder what they would accept as 'proof'. If the vast body of
evidence we have for the Earth and other planets revolving around the Sun
isn't enough, and the simple, obvious experiments and observations that
prove evolution aren't enough, what manner of 'proof' would this odd body
accept?

I suspect that the violation of the conservation of angular momentum would
be answered that Newton was a Protestant and therefore not trustworthy.
Try reading their "Products" blurbs.
Protestant plots to conceal the real truth about salvation.
The inquisition was a small movement of local extremists involving a very
few folks.

Yep.

Evidence??
Evidence??
We don't got to show you no steenkin' evidence!!!

RJP

jo...@cs.york.ac.uk wrote:

While it may be impossible to prove it, there's just as much truth
in saying that the sun revolves around the earth as there is in saying
the earth revolves around the sun. It just depends on what you select as
your reference point. Since there are no fixed points in the universe,
you're free to pick any that you like. If I choose the earth as my
reference point, then indeed, the whole universe will revolve around it.

Regards, Charlie Wagner
http://www.charliewagner.com

Far exceeding the speed of light.
Dunk

Ever heard of an Inertial system?

Don't feel bad..Actually nobody I know except physics majors or those
elated disciplines ( and often not even them) can disprove the geocentric
theory.

RJ P

...and following some very peculiar and complex trajectories.

--
pz

There is no truth to making such a claim. This type of physical
relativism does not hold up to scrutiny to an outside observer. For
instance, I can claim that the center of the universe is Ted Holden's
head. An outside observer would note that the earth does not revolve
around Ted's head. In fact, many things remain stationary with Ted's
head as a reference point, his body for one. Other things, such as
people and small animals, move slowly and cautiously away from Ted's
head, and then return to their normal lives. The physics needed for
describing Ted's head as the center of the universe would be mind
boggling, to say the least.

--
JCS

There you see it, folks. Two examples of what this so-called
"creationism" leads to.

Charlie, why are you concerned about this? Is it because the
Bible says that the earth is fixed and the sun goes around it?

Because, if that's it, think about this: What you said amounts
to saying that the Bible is telling us "nonsense" when it says the
earth is fixed. No, it's not false (according to you), it just
is meaningless.

Oh, by the way, you can use this same kind of reasoning to show
that it doesn't make any difference whether the earth is flat or
not. It's just a change of geometry.

Tom S.

Absolutely!!

It is a standard exercise in Complex Variables ! to map the surface of a
sphere onto the
surface of a unit circle.Plane. (The geometry at the edge is a tad
crowded!!)

RJ Pease

> jo...@cs.york.ac.uk wrote:

Does "acceleration" fit into your understanding of reference frames at
all, Charlie?

rich

>

--
-to reply, it's hot not warm
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
\ ..basketball [is] the paramount
/ synthesis in sport of intelligence, precision, courage,
\ audacity, anticipation, artifice, teamwork, elegance,
/ and grace. --Carl Sagan

This thing has the sweet smell of the ultra-subtle hoax. There is a lot
of very dead-pan stuff at that site, and it all represents a lot of
work, but, Jeez! it's so silly. I can't put my finger on any clear
thing that shouts "HOAX!". The best I can do is this:
The main person at CAI is

> Robert A. Sungenis, M.A., Ph.D. (cand.)
> President
> Principal Apologist
Robert A. Sungenis? Could that be Bob a Subgenius? As in "Church of the Subgenius"?

And look at the page from which I got the above information:
<http://www.catholicintl.com/apostolate/staff.html>
There is just a little too much goofiness there for a serious
organization. But maybe that's just me.

內躬偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,
Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta
�虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌

-- Pip R. Lagenta
President for Life
International Organization Of People Named Pip R. Lagenta
(If your name is Pip R. Lagenta, ask about our dues!)

<http://home.attbi.com/~galentripp/pip.html>

Not really. At least if you give any creedence to currently accepted
theories of astro-physics, gravitation, celestial mechanics.

While there are no 'fixed' points, there are points within localities-
neighborhoods-systems-subsystems which are calculable. Most relevant to
this discussion would be 'center of gravity' or 'center of mass'.

At any instant, only one point qualifies (and it's not a matter of
choice).

You can, if you can come up with replacements for the above in which
you can give suitable reason to believe that revolution can occur
around something other than a system's/sub-system's center of mass.

Otherwise, the sun would have to be a lot less massive than previously
thought/calculated OR the Earth would have to be incredibly more
massive than previously thought/calculated.

Of course, then most/all of the above mentioned astro-physics,
gravitational theory, etc. would have to be replaced in any event
to explain all the resulting anomolies.

Odd, especially since the Catholic Church is pretty cool with the
ideas of evolution and a heliocentric solar system...

Anyway, I wouldn't undertake such a challenge until we had some sort
of agreement on what would count as a true premise. And therein, I
suspect, lies the rub.

Note, however, that Sal Ciresi, listed as an apologist and an adjunct
professor at Notre Dame Graduate School of Christendom College, is
also listed by said long-named school as an adjunct faculty member --
and that his own web page at the school lists his affiliation with
CAI. I.e., it looks legit, in some broad sense of "legit".

--
Steve Schaffner s...@genome.wi.mit.edu
Immediate assurance is an excellent sign of probable lack of
insight into the topic. Josiah Royce

Charlie,

Choose one star about one light-day away from earth. Consider the path it
takes as it revolves around the earth. How far is that path for one day?
At what speed would that star need to go to cover that path?
--
Ferrous Patella

"I love the wry motto of the Paleontological Society
(meant both literally and figuratively, for hammers are the main tool
of our trade): Frango ut patefaciam — I break in order to reveal."

Stephen Jay Gould (1941-2002)

Ferrous Patella wrote:

Interesting point. Hmm......

Two words: Foucault Pendulum.

Cheers! Ian
=====================================================
Ian Musgrave Peta O'Donohue,Jack Francis and Michael James Musgrave
reyn...@werple.mira.net.au http://werple.mira.net.au/~reynella/
Southern Sky Watch http://www.abc.net.au/science/space/default.htm

So much for the speed of light ;-)

Regards, Charlie Wagner

I know what inertia is. Does that help?

Regards, Charlie Wagner

The earth *is* flat. Anyone can tell by just walking on it. ;-)

Regards, Charlie Wagner

Wher is this "outside" place?

Regards, Charlie wagner

Yes.

Regards, Charlie Wagner

Not much.
Please consult an elementary text on College Physics.

RJP

Bob Pease wrote:

OK, I guess you're talking about angular velocity and angular momentum
and stuff like that. Yes, I'm familiar with that. But after thinking
about it for a while, I've decided that it doesn't matter. Nothing
changes at all by considering the earth to be at a fixed point, and
everything else is moving relative to that point. I know this defies
common sense, but I believe it's true. Dunk and someone else, I forget
who, wondered about exceeding the speed of light and violating laws of
acceleration and mass and the like. But it wouldn't make a bit of
difference. The universe would function exactly the same as it does now.
Nothing would change, no laws would be violated and we can all sleep
peacefully in our beds at night knowing that the earth is at the center
of the universe and everything else is revolving around it.

well i guess if you're gonna be an illiterate creationist, you might
as well go all the way....

---------------------
"This difference between liberalism and conservatism
must not be obscured by the fact that in the United
States it is still possible to defend individual
liberty by defending long-established institutions.
To the liberal they are valuable not mainly because
they are long established or because they are
American but because they correspond to the
ideals which he cherishes."

F. A. Hayek in "Why I am not a Conservative"

Robert Sungenis is the author of several works of Catholic apologetics.
He is, to the best of my knowledge, a very conservative Catholic. Most
of the prolific Catholic apologists tend to be conservative. (More
liberal Catholics, like me, tend to end up in the eccumenical movement,
which tend to be less confrontational.)

I wish. I think it is legit. And I think it is a site that at very
least Pagano will not hate (he may even like it).

I am going on vacation next week, so it will be a while before I can
review the site in any depth. What I see is somewhat unsettling. There
seem to be some assumptions that I am not sure are valid (e.g. the use
of "literal interpretation"). And the manner in which he is framing the
challenges pretty much defines the boundries of the debate into an area
in which he cannot lose. I am going to have to spend some time going
through the site. It will take me some time to do the necessary
research. I am withholding my opinion until then.

--
macaddicted

"Time may be money, but your money won't buy more time"
James Taylor

http://www.catholicintl.com/apostolate/staff.html

...although it's apparent that it's a pretty small organization.

Here is a sort of defense of Sungenis, who evidently has been getting
a lot of flack from Catholics, who (rather reasonably) probably think
that he making catholics look pretty dumb.

http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/scicreed.html

Anyhow, I spent a bit o' time checking out "The Geocentrism Challenge"
page, the speed-of-light argument is brought up and Sungenis flails,
but he *really* flails when the point about geostationary satellites
is brought up -- namely, that if the earth isn't rotating, then the
geostationary satellites are just hanging up there with nothing
holding them up.

The intro to the challenge:

http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/geochallenge.html

...wherein the rather hazardous argument is made:

"If someone wants to argue that the Catholic Church takes Matthew
26:26 literally because the Tradition of the Church as far back as the
early Fathers binds us to do so; well, the same can be said about
Geocentrism, since all of the Fathers, without exception, were
Geocentrists, even in the face of several Greek astronomers
(Aristarchus of Samos; Heraclides of Pontus) who were already
advocating Heliocentrism one thousand years before Copernicus."

Weirdness...

nic

They are not the only ones offering cash prizes for proof that
the Earth moves around the Sun. This cash prize idiocy is fairly
popular with various lunatics.

I suspect the site is real, by the way.

Here is an article about Elmendorf, who has a standing offer
of $10,000 for a proof that the Earth moves around the Sun,
and $5,000 for a proof that the Earth rotates on its axis.
<http://www.post-gazette.com/columnists/20020121brian0121p1.asp>

Also relevant:
Paula Haigh, another Roman Catholic geocentrist.
<http://www.endofman.com/True_Religion/galileoheresy.htm>

Malcolm Bowden (geocentrist, creationist)
<http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/geocentr.htm>
<http://www.mbowden.surf3.net>

Marshall Hall
<http://www.fixedearth.com>

Gerardus Bouw (bible believing geocentrist, astronmer)
<http://www.geocentricity.com>

Kari Tikkamen list of links on this bizarre subject
<http://www.student.oulu.fi/~ktikkane/eU_LITT2.html>

Surely no more difficult that mapping what Charlie says in t.o.
onto reality?

Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas

Pagano replies:
What this means for non Catholics is that macaddicted is a cafeteria
catholic. That is, he picks and chooses what he likes and either
ignores the rest or relabels-reinterprets it to his liking.

Pagano replies:
Actually it was well written and he seemed to have good handle on more
than just Catholic appologetics.
************************************>>

Pagano replies:
Never saw it before but it looks worthy of review.

Pagano replies:
Beating a dead horse. macaddicted has already admitted that, in fact,
many verses in Scripture are interpreted quite literally as real,
actual historical events. John 11: 34-45 was a case in point. That
many of these verses are of historical value is not in question by any
consensus of historians (Catholic or otherwise). And the Catechism of
the Catholic Church teaches Catholics that all the other senses of
Scripture depend upon the literal sense.

macaddicted's main line of argument was to suggest that the 1993
document produced by Pontifical Biblical Commission swept away
any-and-all literal interpretation of Scripture with a single new
monolithic exegetical method. The document says no such thing and the
Pontifical Biblical Commission is not an arm of the Magisterium.

macaddicted's misuse of the theological documents he offered was near
complete. He had his preconceived notion of what he "wanted" the
church's postion to be and then went quote mining out of context. In
one case macaddicted used paragraph 892 of the Catechism and it "said"
the exact opposite of what he claimed it said.

I beat this dead horse so as not to let macaddicted mislead other
Catholics.

Pagano replies:
With regard to his challenge on geocentricism Sungenis simply demanded
that the standards of empirical science be enforced. This meant the
usual story telling and circular logic would not be allowed. Does
this mean the secularist can't win without resort to these?

Regards,
T Pagano

Actually, relativity would be violated. There are measurable
relativistic effects even with the GPS satellites in LEO, even more so
with the Earth's orbit around the sun. We also have Earth's
interaction with the other bodies orbiting the sun, which would behave
differently in a geocentric solar system.

This brings back memories. Some years back a colleague was working
with imaging real-time digital terrain data, and struggling with
speeding up the computations for earth curvature correction. I
suggested bending the light rays in the ray tracer, and it worked -
fast earth curvature correction. We just needed different laws of
physics to change a flat earth into a spherical one.

>
> RJ Pease
>
>

Tony, you have a hard enough time speaking for yourself.

Don't try to speak for "non Catholics."

THIS "non Catholic" doesn't see it this way.

I see macaddicted as a more intelligent, honest, better-informed catholic
than you.

The last time you and macaddicted crossed paths, you tried to claim this.

He had your lunch over the affair.

Would you like me to cite the Google references?

Is this one of your claims you try to make because you think enough time has
passed that people forgot?

< snip more self-important prattlings and lies >

> Two words: Foucault Pendulum.

The pendulum is just affected by interaction with the rest of the rotating
universe.

Dave Cook

Is this a joke?

So, what is holding up geostationary satellites? If the earth is not
rotating, then the geostationary satellites are simply hovering up
there, 36,000 km above the earth's surface [1], with nothing holding
them up!

This, notably, is why geostationary satellites are possible only above
the equator, and not above e.g. the north or south pole.

Later, nic

[1] Geostationary Satellite FAQ
http://www.sat.dundee.ac.uk/pdusfaq.html

'Tis online:

http://www.newscientist.com/opinion/opfeedback.jsp?id=ns234599#22

==========
WOULD you like to win $1000? A religious sect in the US called
Catholic Apologetics International is offering this worthwhile sum to
"the first person to prove that the Earth revolves around the Sun".
The group prefers the good old traditional view that "the Earth is the
centre of the Universe, and the stars, Sun and planets revolve around
a stationary Earth".

Oh, and that's not all. The CAI website also offers $1000 to "the
first person to prove the case for evolution", takes a swipe at "the
flaws and prejudices of Einsteinian relativity theory" and provides
"new evidence that the genealogies listed in the book of Genesis may
be accurate". They haven't yet got round to claiming that the Earth is
flat. But give them time.
==========

nic

Don't both the Earth and the Sun revolve around their common centre of
gravity?

Charlie Wagner wrote:
>

[snip]

Ever heard of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation? If we observe
it from Earth, we see that we are moving relative to it (Doppler shift).
If we were resting (relative to the universe as a whole), it wouldn't be
Doppler shifted. Yes, one could say that the whole universe moves around
us - but that doesn't make much sense... (well, to the crackpots on this
webpage, it seems to make sense).

Greetings,
Bjoern

I saw that one coming...

But I personally like Aristotle's response to a rotating and effectively
infinite universe (which he used to support a rotating and *finite*
universe) - that an infinite universe would sweep out infinite segments
at its "periphery", which was impossible.

Now we know that there is an absolute speed limit (300kkmh or so), so a
universe bigger than the radius at which it exceeded that speed would
begin to rotate non-angularly, which we could see happening (it would be
pretty small, I would guess). Hence the universe cannot be rotating
angularly, and since Foucault's pendulum does rotate, it must be that
the earth rotates.

I'll take my cheque in small US currency bills, thanks.

--
John Wilkins
Occasionally making sense

Irony meters the world over just evaporated. Pangy is just as guilty, if
not more so, in his "picking and choosing" of what constitutes "evidence",
and worse, uses vague terms and private definitions in order to exclude
valid scientific evidence. This post just goes to show what an intellectual
hypocrite he is.

[remainder snipped]

Boikat

[snip]

It would seem to me that this statement could as easily apply to you.

You have picked out a 1909 Pontifical Biblical Commission document as
one which you like because it (in your opinion) supports your
position on the meaning of Genesis. Yet you ignore and/or reinterpret
a large number of other, later, documents including both the 1948
"Suhard" PBC letter and the 1950 encyclical Humani Generis which do
not support your interpretation.

In addition, I fail to see how you have drawn the conclusion that
macaddicted is a "cafeteria catholic" from the statement that he is a
"more liberal" Catholic.

[snip]

Macaddicted never claimed that _no_ portion of scripture was intended
literally. He simply pointed out that in order to best assess whether
a passage is intended to be read in such a way, it is necessary to
take into account a number of factors, including the time and culture
when the human author wrote the text, and the literary forms common
to that time and culture. That position is clearly supported both by
the catechism, by a number of encyclicals, and by the Vatican II
document "Dei Verbum".

It is relevent here to look at how the Catechism (in paragraph 116)
defines the literal sense. I'm going to add emphasis to the part of
the passage which you seem miss:

"116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the
words of Scripture AND DISCOVERED BY EXEGESIS, FOLLOWING
THE RULES OF SOUND INTERPRETATION: "All other senses of
Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."

The 1993 PBC document clarifies this further, when it points out that
the "literal" sense is not the same as the "literalistic" sense:

"The literal sense is not to be confused with the
"literalist" sense to which fundamentalists are attached.
It is not sufficient to translate a text word for word in
order to obtain its literal sense. One must understand the
text according to the literary conventions of the time."

Macaddicted did not ever argue that any Church document or policy had
swept away "any-and-all literal interpretation". That position is a
strawman of your own making.

I haven't seen that behavior from macaddicted. Your own approach --
citing the 1909 document on Genesis in support of your position, but
failing to acknowledge other documents (i.e. the 1943 PBC document
and Humani Generis) which appear to refute your position -- seems to
be very similar to what you accuse him of, however.

Perhaps you might want to put a bit more effort into making sure that
you are not misleading yourself.

[rest snipped]

--Mike Dunford

you don't have the right to decide that except for yourself.
It's not OK to make up your own rules and then expect that everyone else
should agree with them.
It is a "Fun" exercise to use non-inertial frameworks as points of
reference, but very complicated adjustments have to be made if to comply
with the laws of Physics.

It's false. a lot of things change.
If you are serious about this and not just playing fun word games, consider
the following.

In the space wheel in 2001 movie, if you throw a ball from one side of the
wheel to the other, using yourself as the "Origin" , the ball travels in a
curved path.
you have two choices.. either realize that your frame of reference is
non-inertial, and Newton's laws do not apply, or introduce parameters to
predict the curved path.
This is a standard exercise in any text in Dynamics at a 300 level in
college.
I forget how to do it after 43 years ago when I took it in the Astrophysics
Department at Colo University,
(not a low-status place, as George Gamov and Grant Athay were in the
Department at the time..I flunked out because of drinking and inadequate
Math background..blah blah.. etc)
but you have to use a Jacobian Matrix or something ..Maybe some of the
younger cognescenti roaming about remember the details)

It's OK to use non-inertial systems, but it's not OK to ignore the
difference unless you want to live in Ed Conrad land.
I think, from reading your website that you are a serious scientific
thinker, and are not trying to play Doublethink and Zoe games just to
attract attention.

until you wake up and realize that your geocentric mental games complicate
the world and isolate you from any attempt towards communication with other
people in this matter.

RJ Pease
(Not associated with Dobbs University in this instance)

Good point.
If the geocentric theory is accepted, the Law of GRAVITY has to be modified
in a very complicated way.

RJ P

It's a lot more complicated than that, because the center of rotation
changes with the position of the Moon and the planets.
For purposes of calculation of orbits and trajectories, this effect is too
small to be important.
It's the same idea of the "Billion Jumping Chinese" problem ( If everyone in
China jumped at once, would it affect the Earth's orbit?).
Also there's a lower limit where quantum effects take over.
Ain't Fizziks fun, Kidz??

RJ P

I can't follow his stuff, and narcosis sets in rapidly if I try.
That makes me either snobbish or stupid. Oh Well..

RJ Pease

I will say this about Sungenis. He at least has the honesty to admit
that there is no dogmatic statement on evolution. Sungenis states that
while he disagrees with Catholics like me that accept evolution he does
not believe that makes either him or us better Catholics.

Openness. Give it a try. You may like it.

[snip[

Sock Puppet. What I said is they *relate* to historical events. A
subtle point you seem unable to grasp. And I quoted a couple of sources
that state you cannot use modern historical interpretive methods when
reading scripture.

Actually the synoptic Gospels are used much more for historical
reference than John. But even they have differences in the order of
events in Jesus' life. We can be certain that certain events took
place, but not always as certain when they took place. It is the
difference between history and historical.

Yes. But the literal sense as understood from the *authors*
perspective. Not our modern perspective.

But is an arm of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/index.htm ). Which is
the arm of the Magesterium responsible for the defense of the faith.
And it was presented by Cardinal Ratzinger, head of the CDF, who would
not have done so if the document were inconsistent with doctrine.

Sock Puppet.

If so then someone had better warn Cardinal Mahony. I get the basis for
my info from the priests, nuns and PhDs training the future priests of
the Archdiocese of Los Angeles.

Actually I had not read that challenge. I was referring to the
evolution challenge. Sungenis wants an explanation of how everything in
the observed universe came into being through materialistic means. It
cuts across so many different disciplines, and is framed in such a way
that it would take *volumes* of writing to adequately explain. For a
$1000 prize.

Pshaw. I've got evidence (President Nixon was keeping it with his
plan to end the Vietnam War) that Foucalt's pendulum precesses because
of the rotation of the universal gravitational anisotropy.

rich

--
-to reply, it's hot not warm
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
\ ..basketball [is] the paramount
/ synthesis in sport of intelligence, precision, courage,
\ audacity, anticipation, artifice, teamwork, elegance,
/ and grace. --Carl Sagan

Not really. This could apply to positional information, but not to other
evidences.

Evidence? The "classic" evidence against the Copernican hypothesis was the
non-detection of stellar parallax. But parallax was first directly measured
in 1838 and is now extremely well established and a highly repeatable
scientific measurement.

Another direct evidence is the annual Doppler shift of stars (up to 30
km/sec) due to the motion of the Earth around the Sun. Simply put, such
shifts would not be observed from the Earth unless it was moving around the
Sun.

A third evidence is the annual aberration of starlight, very well observed
and due to the motion of the Earth around the Sun.

I claim my $1000, I could really use the money.

--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove "pants" spamblock to send e-mail)

How does an object revolving around earth at many times the speed of light
"function exactly the same as it does now"?

--
Ferrous Patella

"I love the wry motto of the Paleontological Society
(meant both literally and figuratively, for hammers are the main tool
of our trade): Frango ut patefaciam — I break in order to reveal."

Stephen Jay Gould (1941-2002)

so, of course, is pagano. he believes catholic teaching is that
evolution is wrong.

that aint in the catechism.

there is a difference between a literal text and literalism.

pagano pretends they're the same.

incidentally i pointed out the passage in the catechism where it
discusses this to tony...and his interpretation is wrong. he's just
too embarrassed to admit it.

nor is tony pagano. and since catholic theologians are required to
possess a 'mandatum' tony's welcome to show us where the PBC's been
disowned by the pontiff.

pagano's stock in trade is distorting the catechism.

says the man who's never read the catechism.

---------------------
"This difference between liberalism and conservatism
must not be obscured by the fact that in the United
States it is still possible to defend individual
liberty by defending long-established institutions.
To the liberal they are valuable not mainly because
they are long established or because they are
American but because they correspond to the
ideals which he cherishes."

F. A. Hayek in "Why I am not a Conservative"

Because that's not what's happening. That's the whole point. There are
no fixed points anywhere in the universe that we can associate with
any particular bodies. We arbitrarily choose the center of the Milky
Way galaxy as the point around which the galaxy revolves. And we
arbitrarily choose the sun to be the center of the solar system around
which all the planets revolve. But we *could* simply pick any point
and make it the reference point and then define all other motion WRT
this point. Admittedly, this gets a little complex, as was soon
discovered by the Ptolemic astronomers, but it is nevertheless doable.
And it would change nothing about the motion of the various bodies in
the universe. They would continue on, as they always have.

>

Um, you're stupid. You don't even know basic physics. If you're saying
that the Earth is in the center of the universe and it doesn't rotate, that
is IMPOSSIBLE. Same for if the Earth does rotate, it's still IMPOSSIBLE,
the proof is a little bit more complex.

Chris, I had no idea this kind of kookiness had real adherents. I
thought it was a joke, or at most a thought experiment. It takes
Creationism to new lows. Thank you for some highly entertaining links.

Cyde Weys wrote:

Normally, I don't answer these kinds of replies, but clearly, you
don't understand what I'm talking about. There is a line in Moby Dick
(pg 76 Modern Library Edition) where Melville (through Ishmael) states:
"...for there is no quality in this world that is not what it is merely
by contrast. Nothing exists in itself." In empty space, there can be no
rotation, no movement, no velocity, no gravity. These 'qualities' can
only exist WRT something else. Try to imagine the universe without any
matter or energy. What would you have? Does it make any difference where
you are? How can you be anywhere at all? Now imagine the universe with
only one body in it. Perhaps the sun. Can this lone sun rotate? At what
speed does it move? Where is it located? "Where you are" can only be
described in relation to something else. A lone object in the universe
cannot be any "distance" away because there's nothing to measure to (or
from). And it cannot rotate, because how would we be able to know that?
And can it travel faster than the speed of light? What is the speed of
light wrt the universe?
Now, take all of the matter and energy in the universe and specify
it's location. Not the location of each body WRT every other body. The
whole thing together, WRT empty space. Can it be done? NO! Because there
are no fixed points in spacetime. You can call anything you want "the
center", it doesn't matter. In my example of an earth-centered universe,
the sun, planets and stars are not revolving around the earth. They are
still moving relative to *each other*, just as they did before. The only
thing we've changed is their position relative to spacetime. And that
doesn't matter because an object in spacetime has no way of determing
"where it is". The laws of Physics don't even enter into the picture
because it has nothing at all to do with defining the bodies in the
universe with respect to each other. That part is not changing. We're
only defining one particular point as the "center" instead of a
different point. It's just conceptual.
This may seem a bit confused, and I could probably say it better. I
hope you get some of what I'm saying. A very good book on these topics
is "A Journey Into Gravity and Spacetime" by John Archibald Wheeler. I
recommend it.

What we have here is a failure to communicate.
If Charlie chooses to ignore 1000 years of Physics , make private
definitions and ignore basic facts, there is nothing else left to say.
Sadly, it appears that I have wasted my time pointing this out.
One more shot..
It's OK to live in a dream world, but it's NOT OK to get pissed if everyone
else doesn't join you.
Many examples have been supplied of the difference in observations in an
Inertial vs, Non-inertial frameworks.
They've been ignored because they don't confirm the private definitions and
fantasy world of CW.

Ciao

RJP

Great story!

(May I just mention that traditional celestial navigation
uses the model of the stationary earth with the skies rotating
around it. Does anybody still use celestial navigation?)

Tom S.

Doesn't matter what it's wrt. The speed of light is the same no
matter what the velocity of the observer. Welcome to relativity. If
you don't like it, tell it to Einstein, figuring this out it pretty
much why he was Time's Man of the Century.

http://www.whatwhyweb.com/physics/speed_of_light.htm

nic

PS: I'm still wondering how geostationary satellites stay up...

Omigod this is hilarious. The opening lines:

==================
GALILEO'S HERESY

by Paula Haigh

Now that the traditional teaching of the Church about Creation and a
literal reading of Genesis is being vindicated with the downfall of
Darwinism, so also the traditional teaching about the structure of the
universe is being admitted in various ways, and Catholics should know
about it.

[another reason for physicists to worry about antievolutionists...]

...

To begin with, there are presently at least five good sources for
obtaining the truth on this important matter of geocentricity. The
first of these is included in the extensive scientific work of the
French Catholic scholar, Fernand Crombette (d.1970). His works have
not yet been translated but some of them have been expounded in
English, and all may be obtained from the Cercle Scientifique et
Historique[CESHE].(1) "The Bible does not make mistakes" was the
watchword of this gifted Catholic scientist.(2) Secondly, there is the
first-rate paper by Solange Hertz (3) entitled Recanting Galileo. Mrs.
Hertz's work always possesses a spiritual dimension not to be found
anywhere else. It is her unique gift. Thirdly, there is the work of
the Dutch Protestant scholar, Walter van der Kamp(d 1998), founder of
the Tychonian Society (Canada) and its quarterly journal, The Biblical
Astronomer, formerly known as The Bulletin of the Tychonian Society.
Mr. Van der Kamp has published a book entitled De Labore Solis: Airy's
Failure Reconsidered [1988](4). Every Catholic should read the "Letter
to John Paul II" that is included in an Addendum in this book. The
Letter was delivered in person and gives scientific and religious
reasons why the Holy Father should not consider a formal
rehabilitation of Galileo(5). Fourthly, a disciple of Mr. Van der
Kamp, Dr. Gerardus Bouw, professional astronomer, computer scientist
and current editor of The Biblical Astronomer, has authored a book
entitled With Every Wind of Doctrine: Biblical, Historical, and
Scientific Perspectives of Geocentricity(6). One must beware, however,
of Dr. Bouw's very anti-Catholic prejudices which sometimes cause him
to distort history. Lastly, there has recently appeared The Earth is
Not Moving by Marshall Hall(7). His is a quintessentially popular
treatment of this difficult subject, and he must be given much credit
for bringing the arcana of modern mathematical physics down to the
level of us scientifically illiterate mortals. Whatever may be the
shortcomings of Hall's book, it is impossible not to enjoy his
literary panache.

Needless to say, none of these works is known beyond a very limited
circle of interested people because, contrary to the generally-held
media-imposed assessment of things, there is very little real science
these days. Instead, we labor beneath a scientific imperialism which,
having usurped the place of theology and of metaphysics in the true
hierarchy of sciences, puts upon unwitting school children and witless
TV addicts, its own preferred heliocentric-evolutionary ideology into
which it bends every empirical fact. This monstrous establishment of
academic sophistry lords it over every aspect of intellectual life
today and has succeeded in convincing almost everyone that this
"science falsely so-called" is the sole possessor and distributor of
all truth and rationality.

[see original for bolds etc.]
==================

Sound familiar?

[...]

Please show your math with the Earth as the frame of reference and distant
objects are not moving beyond the speed of light.

Doable? Show me the math.

Yes, the universe will continue doing what it is doing no matter what you
think.

>http://www.charliewagner.com

Statement of Purpose:

My only purpose in writing this web site is to have fun and keep
myself amused.There's probably nothing I can tell you that you don't
already know, or can find out easily if you want to.

You could do the math, but the math would only be predictive, not
descriptive.

There is no such thing as empty space.

Spacetime is reality, star light follows the fabric of spacetime around
massive objects, Mercury precesses...

Of course it can. The fact that you ask the question demonstrates your
lack of knowledge in the field.

That could be determined with an unmeltable faucault pendulum or by
observing what happens to the gas as it shoots off the surface of the
sun, or by measuring the distortion of space-time around the star.

One way to approach this is to think of sitting in the middle of
a rotating merry-go-round. Do you think the earth is rotating around
you? Why does the drink you are holding spill?, why do you feel dizzy
afterwards?

as niiic...@yahoo.com (zosdad) wrote:
]So, what is holding up geostationary satellites? If the earth is not

][1] Geostationary Satellite FAQ
]http://www.sat.dundee.ac.uk/pdusfaq.html

If I put a freely pivotting pendulum (a faucault pendulum) above the
North or South Pole (or anywhere significantly away from the equator)
it becomes obvious (to somebody with a basic grasp of physics and math)
that the Earth is rotating with a period of 24 hours. It is not a matter
of equations, it is a matter of reality.

Unless you are arguing that objects just float in space for no particular
reason...

http://216.239.33.100/search?q=cache:ut2Snr4gTDoC:www.catholicintl.com/
epologetics/geo1.html+foucault+pendulum+site:catholicintl.com&hl=en

(split URL)

Which is supposed to be:
www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/geo1.html
but it has changed.

In it they wrote:

One of their best tries was the Foucault Pendulum, but that has been
discredited due to the 15 degree variations caused in the pendulum
during solar eclipses,

Is this based on anything real?

I can't think of how either gravitational or tidal forces would
impact the pendulum by that much.

ho! Too cool. the Allais anomaly.

http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/ast17jun99_1.htm

During the total eclipses of June 30, 1954,
and October 22, 1959, [Maurice Allais]
detected "anomalies in the movement of the
... pendulum" during the time when the Earth, the Moon,
and the Sun were aligned.

http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/ast06aug99_1.htm

In a marathon experiment, Maurice Allais released a Foucault pendulum
every 14 minutes - for 30 days an [INLINE] d nights -without missing a
data point. He recorded the direction of rotation (in degrees) at his
Paris laboratory. This energetic show of human endurance happened to
overlap with the 1954 solar eclipse. During the eclipse, the pendulum
took an unexpected turn, changing its angle of rotation by 13.5
degrees.

http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/ast12oct99_1.htm

still no explanation

http://naturalscience.com/ns/letters/ns_let23.html

has several links

http://amok.astro.univie.ac.at/~wuchterl/Foucault/

Which I presume talks about:

Wuchterl, G., & Wirrer, A. (2000). The effect of the 1999 total solar
eclipse on a Foucault-pendulum. Astronomische Gesellschaft Abstract
Series, 17 (Abstracts of Contributed Talks and Posters presented at
the Annual Scientific Meeting of the Astronomische Gesellschaft at
Bremen, September 18-23, 2000)

Abstract

We present the result of a series of observations of the
Foucault-pendulum at the Technisches Museum Wien before, during and
after the total solar eclipse on August 11, 1999. The progression of
the azimuth of the plane of oszillation of the penduum was observed on
three days centered around the eclipse as well as 1 day centered
around the following new moon. Systematic deviations from the nominal
value for the Foucault-effect have been observed resulting in azimuth
deviations of a few degrees. Similar values have been reported in
earlier experiments. We propose a mechanism, based on
pressure-modulated air drag, to account for the observed deviations.
An eclipse-effect on a Foucault pendulum can then be explained as air
drag modulation caused by the atmospheric pressure modulations due to
the moon's shadow.

We're not talking about an inertial frame of reference with the earth
at the center. That's why you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. All
of the bodies in the universe are part of an inertial frame of
reference in which all of the laws of physics apply. I'm not disputing
this point. But where is this universe located wrt absolute space?
There is no way of detecting absolute space at all. There is no way of
knowing if the inertial system we call "the universe", by which I mean
the sum total of all of the matter and energy, is stationary, or in
uniform motion, or accelerating or whatever relative to absolute
space. I'm suggesting that it doersn't matter which body you pick to
be the "center" when measuring it's position against absolute space.
Within the inertial frame of reference that we live in, the universe
and all of it's matter and energy, all of the laws of physics still
hold true, as for any inertial frame of reference.

Can't...sorry.

True enough. And if there exists a supernatural being that created the
universe and all of the life in it and tuned it to the most precise
tolerances so that we could live here, then that will not change
either no matter what some people think. I'm just a simple human
being, waiting patiently to find out.

Indeed. "only predictive"? I would imagine that predictive is somewhat
better than descriptive. Or did you mean the reverse?

Of course, I meant absolute space. Don't make the mistake of assuming
that spacetime is reality, just because Einstein said so. He's only a
human being, you know, and he could be wrong.

Yes, Mercury precesses. And starlight seems to "bend" around massive
objects.
Important data indeed. But because my pet has 4 legs, fur, paws, and a
tail, it doesn't mean he's a dog. (Meow!)

You should be careful when you make assumptions like that. You have no
idea who I am or what I know. You talk about the "knowledge in the
field" like it was carved on stone tablets and handed down from heaven
by god almighty himself. The "knowledge in the field" is often nothing
more than ideas that are currently popular. Can you prove that there
even is such a thing as "spacetime"? I'm not saying there isn't, only
that it's an idea, not a fact.

These experiments would be measuring rotation or speed wrt to rest of
the universe, which is filled with gravity and mass. But how do you
measure it's motion wrt absolute space? I don't think you can.

This says nothing about my position wrt absolute space. These are
examples of rotational motion in inertial systems. Now, you may argue
that the whole universe is one big inertial system, so Newton's Laws
apply everywhere. What I'm suggesting is that while the whole
universe, meaning all of the mass and energy *in* the universe, may
well be one big inertial frame of reference, this universe exists
within a non-inertial frame of reference called absolute space, where
Newton's laws do not apply.This is because there is nothing in
absolute space with which the universe can interact, and against which
we can measure motion, speed, position or acceleration.

All objects "in space" in free fall, are subject to the sum total of
all of the gravitational forces of all of the other bodies in the
universe. It's the universe itself that floats in absolute space for
no particular reason.

Thanks for taking a look at my website. I hope you found some
interesting things.
I seem to have missed the point you were trying to make above in
referencing the first sentence of my opening statement. Perhaps you
could clarify.

Try thinking *outside* the box. The speed of light and all of the laws
of physics hold true only in inertial frames of reference.

My opinion of Einstein? Overrated. I put Feynman above him. QED is
much more likely to be true than relativity, which must be reconciled
with QM if it is to survive.

Magic...

Yeah! And Newton is an absolute slouch!

I'm glad you finally made that clear. You can imagine my confusion when
you said (in news:3CF63C6A...@optonline.net) :

> the earth revolves around the sun.

Once you started talking about revolving, I thought surely were are
talking about inertia.

[...]