But it’s really all that a wornout establishment can provide:
In Nature’s podcast, Livio makes it clear that his purpose in writing [ Galileo and the Science Deniers, ] was to advance the warfare thesis. The podcast speaks flippantly of the “science denialism that we see today.” Surely there is plenty of that in various quarters, but this broad-brush categorization needs clarification that never comes.
Livio: This is one of the main reasons why I decided to write the book. We see science denial all over the place today….
Interviewer: Do you think that there can be any lessons that can be learned?
Livio: Well, the real lesson is “believe in science.” It’s not that science is always right, but science has this ability to self-correct. So we have to believe in science, and we have to put the science first, and before any kind of political considerations, conservatism, religious beliefs and things like that. This is a big lesson.
It seems ironic to advocate “belief in science” when science is about demonstration, not belief. Does Livio mean to imply that belief in science means acquiescence to the scientific consensus at a given time? If the evidence of empirical research contradicts the consensus, would he advocate for denying the evidence to keep the consensus secure? Or alternatively, if he were to exercise the “intellectual freedom” he praises in Galileo, by critiquing a flawed consensus, would that not make him a science denier himself?
To her credit, [reviewer Alison] Abbott notes some weaknesses in the book’s evidential support:
“It’s a chillingly relevant theme, yet the parallels he draws between Galileo’s trial and contemporary science wars feel thin, and there’s a frustrating lack of examples to demonstrate the continuity of denialism through the centuries.”
Evolution News, “Zombie History — Using Galileo to Whack Intelligent Design” at Evolution News and Science Today
Abbott might not feel comfortable speculating that the continuity isn’t there. though that’s the most likely reason, in this case, that we don’t hear about it.
In any event, demands for “belief” in science usually mean demands for belief in propaganda marketed as science. When science actually works, like a cure for cancer, everybody believes in it.
It’s telling how science writers never mention that modern science came from Christianity. Here are a few Christian scientists that gave us science as we know it:
Rene Descartes, soldier, philosopher and mathematician.
Gottfried Leibniz, philosopher and mathematician.
Isaac Newton, physicist, philosopher and mathematician.
Charles Babbage, mathematician and inventor of the general purpose programmable computer.
Lady Ada Lovelace, mathematician and the first computer programmer.
Leonardo da Vinci, painter, architect and visionary.
But it’s also telling that someone like Alan Turing, an atheist homosexual, is elevated to god-like status in computer science even though, regardless of the hype and the incessant propaganda, no software engineer ever uses anything invented by Turing. Please, don’t even mention God-hating Charles Darwin.
And, of course, Galileo was a Christian scientist/astronomer who never rejected his Christian faith.
As to this comment from the article:
Bingo! And that is precisely the question that needs to be answered. i.e. “Just what is to be considered central, not only in our solar system, but in the universe at large?”
For someone to scientifically establish that the earth is indeed in motion, you must first have some type of framework and/or grid in which to demarcate the motion of the earth in the universe. Currently, people tell the story, as was told above, that the “Earth moves about the sun”,,, “The sun itself is in motion around the Milky Way. The Milky Way, furthermore, is moving with respect to the Local Group and the local supercluster.”, and then the story of the earth moving in the universe is usually just left at that ending point of the earth moving relative to superclusters.
What is left out of the current narrative for motion in the universe, as stated above, is that the local supercluster, nor any other supercluster in the universe, can be designated as a central, and/or preferred, supercluster about which all the other superclusters of the universe can said to be revolving and/or in motion.
It is totally subjective as to which supercluster one may prefer so as to calculate the relative rates of motion of the other superclusters.
Depending on which supercluster one may prefer to anchor your grid and/or framework, in order to be able to calculate relative rates of motion in the universe, the relative rates of motion can vary quite dramatically for any chunk of the universe that one may be trying to calculate the relative speed of.
It all depends on exactly where, and which supercluster, you choose to anchor your grid for the universe in which to calculate relative rates of speed for any other particular chunk of the universe that you may be interested in knowing the rate of motion of..
In short, there is no firm answer to the question of, “Exactly, how fast is the earth moving through the universe?” since, in the end, it all turns out to be totally subjective as to which framework and/or grid. i.e. which ‘supercluster’, you may choose so as to calculate relative motions in the universe.
Again, depending on exactly which supercluster, or more precisely, exactly which point in any particular supercluster in the universe that one may choose to be central in the universe, the answers that one calculates for relative speeds in the universe will vary quite dramatically depending on just how close or far from your arbitrarily chosen point of centrality in the universe that one is calculating relative speeds from.
General relativity is of no help, in and of itself, in helping us demarcate ‘true centrality’ in the universe.
In the 4 dimensional spacetime of Einstein’s General Relativity, we find that each 3-Dimensional point in the universe is central to the expansion of the universe,,,
,,, and since any 3-Dimensional point can be considered central in the expanding 4-Dimensional space time of General Relativity, then, as the following article makes clear, it is now left completely open to whomever is making a model of the universe to decide for themselves what is to be considered central in the universe,,,
Even individual people, as the following article makes clear, can be considered to be central in the universe according to the expanding four-dimensional space-time of General Relativity,,,
There simply is no way, within general relativity itself, to demarcate ‘true centrality’ in the universe so as to enable us to calculate the true rate of speed for the earth through the universe. In fact, according to general relativity itself, the earth can, surprisingly, once again be considered central in the universe and everything can be held to be in motion around it.
As Einstein himself stated, “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.”
And as Fred Hoyle stated, “Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is ‘right’ and the Ptolemaic theory ‘wrong’ in any meaningful physical sense.”
And as Stephen Hawking himself explained, ‘our observations of the heavens can be explained by assuming either the earth or the sun to be at rest.,,, the real advantage of the Copernican system is simply that the equations of motion are much simpler in the frame of reference in which the sun is at rest.’
Contrary to popular opinion, there simply is no experiment that has ever proven that the earth is in motion in the universe, much less has any experiment ever proven that the earth is in motion around the sun.
Clearly, since galactic superclusters, and general relativity, themselves are no help to us in telling us exactly where is the ‘true center’ of the universe is, so as to enable us to properly calculate to true rate of speed for the earth through the universe, then we must find some ‘higher framework’ than superclusters themselves in which to demarcate ‘true centrality’ in the universe, and so that we may be able to calculate the true rate of speed for the earth through the universe..
As far as astronomy is concerned, we are no longer in the dark as to finding this ‘higher framework’ than superclusters.
Thanks to the almost miraculous advances of science in recent decades, and with the fairly recent discovery of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR), we now have that ‘higher framework’ than galactic superclusters that have shed light on our primary question of, “Just what is to be considered central, not only in our solar system, but in the universe at large so that we may be able to properly calculate relative motion in the universe?”
The answer to that question of ‘true centrality’ in the universe is a lot closer to home than many people expected.
While the discovery of the CMBR by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson was disconcerting enough, in and of itself, for those who preferred, (for philosophical reasons), to live in a universe that has always existed, (since the discovery of the CMBR by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson was the proverbial ‘final nail in the coffin’ for those who, (again for philosophical reasons), were opposed the Big Bang since it directly smacked of Theistic overtones of a creation event,,,,),,,
,,, While the discovery of the CMBR by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson was disconcerting enough, in and of itself, for those who preferred, (for philosophical reasons), to live in a universe that has always existed, anomalies that have recently been found in the CMBR have made the that discomfort for atheists all the more disconcerting.
Specifically, anomalies that were recently found in the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) are found to ‘surprisingly and unexpectedly’ line up with the earth and solar system,
At the 13:55 minute mark of this following video, Max Tegmark, an atheist who specializes in this area of study, finally admits, post Planck 2013, that the CMBR anomalies do indeed line up with the earth and solar system
Here is an excellent clip from “The Principle” that explains these ‘anomalies’ in the CMBR that line up with the earth and solar system in an easy to understand manner.
Moreover, due to the ‘insane coincidence’ of the flatness of the universe being fine-tuned to within one part to the 10^57, we find that “These tiny temperature variations correspond to the largest scale structures of the observable universe.”
And we find that Radio Astronomy now reveals a surprising rotational coincidence for Earth in relation to the quasar and radio galaxy distributions in the universe:
Thus, directly contrary to the presumptions of atheists, far from the temperature variations in the CMBR being a product of pure randomness as they presuppose in their inflation theory, the tiny temperature variations in the CMBR correspond to the ‘largest scale structures of the observable universe’ and that these ‘largest scale structures of the observable universe’ reveal “a surprising rotational coincidence for Earth”. Moreover, we were only able to discover this correlation between the tiny temperature variations in the CMBR and the largest scale structures in the universe via the ‘insane coincidence’ of the universe being fine-tuned to at least 1 in 10^57 as measured for its flatness.
In other words, the “tiny temperature variations” in the CMBR, (from the large scale structures in the universe, to the earth and solar system themselves), reveal teleology, (i.e. a goal directed purpose, a plan), that specifically included the earth from the beginning of the universe itself. ,,, The earth, from what our best science can now tell us, is not some random cosmic fluke as atheists had presupposed.
On top of all that, in the following paper, Robin Collins found that photons coming from the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) are ‘such as to maximize the intensity of the CMB as observed by typical observers.’
To further empirically establish humanity’s centrality in the universe in particular, in the following video physicist Neil Turok states that ““So we can go from 10 to the plus 25 to 10 to the minus 35. Now where are we? Well the size of a living cell is about 10 to the minus 5. Which is halfway between the two. In mathematical terms, we say it is the geometric mean. We live in the middle between the largest scale in physics,,, and the tiniest scale [in physics].”
The following interactive graph, gives very similar ‘rough ballpark’ figures, of 10 ^27 and 10-35, to Dr. Turok’s figures.
Whereas more recently Dr. William Demski, in the following graph, gives a more precise figure of 8.8 x 10^26 M for the observable universe’s diameter, and 1.6 x 10^-35 for the Planck length which is the smallest length possible.
Dr. Dembski’s more precise interactive graph points out that the smallest scale visible to the human eye (as well as the size of a human egg) is at 10^-4 meters, which ‘just so happens’ to be directly in the exponential center, and/or geometric mean, of all possible sizes of our physical reality. This is very interesting for the limits to human vision (as well as the size of the human egg) could have, theoretically, been at very different positions rather than directly in the exponential middle and/or the geometric mean. Needless to say, this empirical finding directly challenges, if not directly refutes, the assumption of the Copernican Principle.
To further establish the centrality of humanity in particular in the universe, in Quantum Mechanics we find that it is the measurement, and/or observation, itself that gives each observer a privileged frame of reference in the universe. As the following article states, “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,”,,,
Likewise, the following violation of Leggett’s inequality stressed the quantum-mechanical assertion that reality does not exist when we’re not observing it.
On top of all that, and completely contrary to the Copernican Principle, and/or the Principle of Mediocrity, (which are supposedly ‘working assumptions’ in science which hold that the earth, much less any particular human, is not to be considered ‘privileged’ in the universe), this recent 2019 experimental confirmation of the “Wigner’s Friend” thought experiment established that “measurement results,, must be understood relative to the observer who performed the measurement”.
Because of such experiments like the preceding from quantum mechanics, Richard Conn Henry, who is Professor of Physics at John Hopkins University, stated “It is more than 80 years since the discovery of quantum mechanics gave us the most fundamental insight ever into our nature: the overturning of the Copernican Revolution, and the restoration of us human beings to centrality in the Universe.”
Moreover, in quantum mechanics humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level.
As Steven Weinberg, who is an atheist himself, stated in the following article, In the instrumentalist approach (in quantum mechanics) humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level.,,, the instrumentalist approach turns its back on a vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else.,,, In quantum mechanics these probabilities do not exist until people choose what to measure,,, Unlike the case of classical physics, a choice must be made,,,
In fact Weinberg, again an atheist, rejected the instrumentalist approach precisely because “humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level” and because it undermined the Darwinian worldview from within. Yet, regardless of how he and other atheists may prefer the world to behave, quantum mechanics itself could care less how atheists prefer the world to behave.
As leading experimentalist Anton Zeilinger states in the following video, “what we perceive as reality now depends on our earlier decision what to measure. Which is a very, very, deep message about the nature of reality and our part in the whole universe. We are not just passive observers.”
As well, with contextuality we find that, “In the quantum world, the property that you discover through measurement is not the property that the system actually had prior to the measurement process. What you observe necessarily depends on how you carried out the observation”
As well, although there have been several major loopholes in quantum mechanics over the past several decades that atheists have tried to appeal to in order to try to avoid the ‘spooky’ Theistic implications of quantum mechanics, over the past several years each of those major loopholes have each been closed one by one. The last major loophole that was left to be closed was the “setting independence” and/or the ‘free-will’ loophole:
And now Anton Zeilinger and company have recently, as of 2018, pushed the ‘free will loophole’ back to 7.8 billion years ago, thereby firmly establishing the ‘common sense’ fact that the free will choices of the experimenter in the quantum experiments are truly free and are not determined by any possible causal influences from the past for at least the last 7.8 billion years, and that experimenters themselves are therefore shown to be truly free to choose whatever measurement settings in the experiments that he or she may so desire to choose so as to ‘logically’ probe whatever aspect of reality that he or she may be interested in probing.
Thus regardless of how Steven Weinberg and other atheists may prefer the universe to behave, with the closing of the last remaining free will loophole in quantum mechanics, “humans are indeed brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level”, and thus these recent findings from quantum mechanics directly undermine, as Weinberg himself stated, the “vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else.”
As well, as should be needless to say, this is yet another VERY powerful line of empirical evidence that directly falsifies the Copernican Principle and/or the principle of mediocrity since humans themselves are shown to have far, far, more significance, and dignity, in this universe than atheists tried to imply that we had via the Copernican Principle. For instance, Hawking once said, via the Copernican principle, that humans are merely “chemical scum” in the universe.
To go further in establishing ‘true centrality’ in the universe, I hold that Jesus Christ’s resurrection from the dead provides us with the correct solution for the much sought out ‘theory of everything.’
In theoretical physics today, the number one goal has been to unify general relativity and quantum mechanics in to a single overarching mathematical framework. Despite decades of concerted effort by the brightest minds on the face of the planet, this goal has been frustratingly elusive and appears to be, for all intents and purposes, at a mathematical dead end, (see Woit and Hossenfelder).
And yet, if we allow the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics, as the Christian founders of modern science originally envisioned,,,, (Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, James Clerk Maxwell, and Max Planck, to name a few of the Christian founders),,, and as quantum mechanics itself now empirically demands (with the closing of the free will loophole by Anton Zeilinger and company), if we rightly allow the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics then, (via that totally reasonable concession on our part), that provides us with a very plausible resolution for the much sought after ‘theory of everything’ in that Christ’s resurrection from the dead provides an empirically backed reconciliation, (via the Shroud of Turin), between quantum mechanics and general relativity into the much sought after ‘Theory of Everything”.
To give us a small glimpse of the power that was involved in Christ resurrection from the dead, the following recent article found that, ”it would take 34 Thousand Billion Watts of VUV radiations to make the image on the shroud. This output of electromagnetic energy remains beyond human technology.”
Verse:
Of supplemental note as to defending the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin:
Verse: