Professor Jason Rosenhouse has written an unflattering review of Michael Ruse’s new book, Atheism: What Everyone Needs to Know, which also discusses the trial of Galileo. Rosenhouse gets one important point right about Galileo, while lambasting Ruse’s assertion that “much of the problem was brought on Galileo by himself.” (In the interests of fairness, I should mention that Ruse’s book has been highly praised by no less an authority than Harvard biologist E. O. Wilson.) For my own comments on the Galileo affair, see my earlier posts here and here [scroll down to #2]).
Rosenhouse writes (bolding in all passages below is mine – VJT):
The fact is that the Galileo story is exactly what Ruse’s “anti-religious zealots” say it is. It so perfectly expresses the conflict between science and religion that the most hard-core atheist could not have scripted it better. Galileo got into trouble not just because he advocated heliocentrism, but because he argued that scientific questions should be answered by science and not by scripture. That was anathema to The Church. Church authorities spent years lecturing Galileo on precisely what he was and was not allowed to say. They exercised near-total thought control over acceptable opinion at that time. What does Ruse think a conflict between science and religion looks like?
As we’ll see, Galileo did indeed argue for a much stronger degree of scientific autonomy than his ecclesiastical contemporaries: Rosenhouse is right on that point. However, it turns out that Galileo also held that science could only establish truths deductively, which means that he would have regarded modern scientific claims which rely on inductive logic as open to reasonable doubt. In other words, Galileo’s conception of which questions can be answered by science was much narrower than ours. Also, Galileo accepted the reality of publicly observable miracles – which puts him directly at odds with the modern conception of the scientific method.
What’s wrong with leaving scientific questions to scientists?
“Leave scientific questions to the scientists” sounds like common sense – but it isn’t. First of all, what counts as a “scientific question”? Is it a question which scientists can answer, or a question which scientists should answer? If “scientific question” denotes the former, then why should the scientific answer to a question take precedence over the religious answer to the same question? But if the term denotes the latter instead, then how do we know which questions scientists should answer, and which ones they shouldn’t?
A second problem with the slogan, “Leave scientific questions to the scientists,” is that it implicitly assumes the truth of metaphysical naturalism: basically, it says that we should answer questions about the world as if there were nothing outside it, or as if the only causes in operation were those which scientists can investigate. The will of the Creator (if there be one) is not directly amenable to scientific investigation, any more than the characters in a story are capable of knowing what the author will decide next. But if a supernatural Being exists, then our relationship to Him is like that of the characters in a story to the author, or like that of the characters in a video game to the games’s creator – the only difference being that the human characters in God’s cosmic drama have been endowed with libertarian free will by their Creator, making them capable of defying Him (but not, ultimately, capable of thwarting His purposes). What science does is study the world as if God’s will were time-invariant – which it might or might not be, if His choices are genuinely free – or as if God’s will were unimportant – which it certainly is not, if God is real.
A third problem with Rosenhouse’s slogan is that it fails to distinguish questions which can be answered by direct empirical observation with questions which can only be answered by formulating hypotheses, which need to be tested. It is one thing to declare that we should trust the evidence of our senses – or for that matter, our measuring instruments – without letting religious revelations over-rule it. It is quite another thing to say that religious revelations should never be allowed to trump our scientific hypotheses about a class of events, some of which take place in the distant past or future, making them incapable of being observed by us.
What Rosenhouse forgot to mention about Galileo
Galileo was no naturalist. It needs to be borne in mind that despite his belief in the autonomy of science, Galileo firmly believed in publicly verifiable miracles, such as Joshua’s commanding the sun to “stand still” (even though he explained this miracle in a different way from his geocentric contemporaries). Galileo also believed that God had personally designed the bones, veins, flesh and feathers of birds, in exquisite detail (which makes Galileo an Intelligent Design theorist), and he also affirmed that “the human mind is a work of God, and one of the most excellent” (which makes him a “mind creationist”). Galileo was also something of a mystic: he saw himself as the recipient of great truths that were previously known only to God, and he expressed his gratitude to God for being the first to experience these revelations. Finally, Galileo died on good terms with the Church: indeed, Pope Urban VIII sent his special blessing to Galileo as he lay dying. After his death, Galileo was interred not only in consecrated ground, but within the church of Santa Croce at Florence. (For further references, please see my post on the subject, here.)
What Rosenhouse got right about Galileo
 |
Galileo facing the Roman Inquisition. Painting by Cristiano Banti, 1857. Image courtesy of Wikipedia.
Nevertheless, it needs to be acknowledged Galileo’s principles for Scriptural exegesis were quite radical, and this was one reason why he got into trouble with the Catholic Church. In a previous post of mine, I discussed Pope John Paul II’s 1992 address, Faith can never conflict with reason (L’Osservatore Romano N. 44 (1264) – 4 November 1992), which specifically addressed the Galileo controversy. I then went on to quote from an article by Dr. Gregory W. Dawes, titled, Could there be another Galileo case? Galileo, Augustine and Vatican II, in Journal of Religion and Society 4, 2002:
In his 1615 letter to the Grand Duchess Christina of Lorraine, Galileo argues for a “principle of limitation”: the authority of Scripture should not be invoked in scientific matters. In doing so, he claims to be following the example of St Augustine. But Augustine’s position would be better described as a “principle of differing purpose”: although the Scriptures were not written in order to reveal scientific truths, such matters may still be covered by biblical authority. The Roman Catholic Church has rejected Galileo’s principle, opting rather for Augustine’s, leaving open the possibility of future conflicts between scientists and Church authority…
Perhaps the clearest indication of Galileo’s desire to limit biblical authority is to be found in a third set of passages [in his letter to the Grand Duchess Christina, written in 1615 – VJT], where he discusses what should be done when the results of the natural sciences seem to come into conflict with the Bible. Galileo first adopts the traditional line — for which he also cites Augustine — that biblical authority should not be invoked in opposition to the firmly established results of natural enquiry (GA, 96, 105). But he then goes further in suggesting that biblical authority should not be invoked to oppose any claims that might be firmly established in the future…. It is not only matters which have been demonstrated with certainty which are — in practice — to be exempted from the authority of the Bible. It is also matters which are capable of being “demonstrated with certainty or known by sensory experience.”
… Cardinal Baronio’s remark [viz. that the Bible was meant to tell us how to get to Heaven, not how the heavens go – a remark which was subsequently quoted by Galileo in order to buttress his arguments – VJT] can be interpreted to mean no more than that Scripture and science have different purposes, a point made by Augustine in the fifth century and by Vatican II in the twentieth. It does not exclude the possibility that, in pursuing these differing goals, the two fields of knowledge may overlap. Indeed the Pope’s address [i.e. Pope John Paul II’s 1992 address, titled, “Faith can never conflict with reason” – VJT] implicitly acknowledges this fact when it speaks of the problem faced by the Church at the time of the Galileo affair. That problem, the Pope writes, was that of “knowing how to judge a new scientific datum when it seems to contradict the truths of faith.” In the end, of course, the Pope believes that such contradiction can be only apparent, but this is not because religion and science represent “non-overlapping magisteria.” On the contrary, if there were no overlap in what religion and science teach, there would be no possibility of even the apparent conflict of which he speaks. It follows that — in the Pope’s own words — “it is therefore not to be excluded that one day we shall find ourselves in a similar situation” to that which prevailed in Galileo’s day. It seems that Stephen Jay Gould is too quick to conclude that the Catholic Church embraces his NOMA principle (Gould 1999: 70–82). Despite some apparent indications to the contrary, and despite the fact that its impact on the sciences today would be relatively insignificant, the possibility of another Galileo case cannot be excluded.
In my post, I then identified monogenism – the belief that the entire human race is descended from a single pair of individuals, named Adam and Eve – as an example of an issue where the claims of science and religion might appear to contradict one another. I then added a few references for those who are interested in what science says about the possibility of a primal couple:
It has been argued that science has ruled out the possibility of monogenesis (see Dennis Venema’s article, Does Genetics Point to a Single Primal Couple? for a non-technical summary of the evidence); for a response, see Dr. Ann Gauger’s chapter,”The Science of Adam and Eve,” in Science and Human Origins, by Ann Gauger, Douglas Axe, and Casey Luskin (Seattle, WA: Discovery Institute Press, 2012), pp. 105-122, and see also Dr. Robert Carter’s online article, Does Genetics Point to a Single Primal Couple? A response to claims to the contrary from BioLogos. For an online response to Francisco J. Ayala’s 1995 article, The Myth of Eve: Molecular Biology and Human Origins (Science 270: 1930–6), see here, here and here, and also here. For a response to Li and Durbin’s 2011 paper, Inference of human population history from individual whole-genome sequences (Nature 475, 493–496 (28 July 2011), doi:10.1038/nature10231), see here. For a response to Blum and Jakobsson’s paper, Deep Divergences of Human Gene Trees and Models of Human Origins (Molecular Biology and Evolution (2011) 28(2): 889-898, doi: 10.1093/molbev/msq265), see here.
For those readers who are interested, Dr. Dennis Bonnette’s peer reviewed article, “The Rational Credibility of a Literal Adam and Eve,” has just been published in the Spanish Thomist journal, Espiritu 64, n. 150 (2015): 303-320. It is available in downloadable form here (click on Texto completo (pdf) to open the file).
Just how radical was Galileo, anyway?
Galileo’s views on the autonomy of science were quite radical for his day. Nevertheless, I believe it would be a mistake to construe him as arguing for a NOMA-style separation of science and religion, along the lines of the late Stephen Jay Gould. Professor Craig Boyd’s article, Using Galileo: A Developmental and Historical Approach (Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, Volume 59, Number 4, December 2007, pp. 283-288), highlights an important reason why Galileo was far less radical in his views than Professor Rosenhouse makes him out to be: namely, that the modern scientific method employs a notion of demonstration that is strikingly different from that of Galileo (and before him, St. Augustine), who mention only two kinds of scientific demonstration in their writings:
(i) a “pure” mathematical notion, based on self-evident principles (i.e. Aristotle’s narrow notion of a demonstration); and
(ii) an empirical notion, based on “the facts of experience” (a notion which was also appealed to by Augustine).
Combining these two, we might add a third notion which Galileo would also have accepted:
(iii) a deductive demonstration which employs reasoning, based on certain facts which are confirmed by experience – in other words, the kind of demonstration that Sherlock Holmes might use when solving a murder case. The phrase, “knowledge acquired by unassailable arguments or proved by the evidence of experience,” which was used in St. Augustine’s writings, could include this third type of demonstration as well.
What all these notions have in common, however, is that they are either immediately evident or deductions from what is immediately evident. Writing in the early seventeenth century, Galileo likewise envisaged demonstration as proceeding deductively. In this respect, he did not depart from Aristotle’s thinking. Galileo’s major modification of the Aristotelian idea of a demonstration was that it should proceed on the basis of sensory observation, instead of Aristotle’s fixed essences. However, modern science proceeds inductively, as Professor Craig Boyd points out in his article:
The assumption Galileo makes here is that demonstration itself can “prove” the truth of his own perspective along the lines of a modified Aristotelian notion of demonstration wherein a major premise followed by a minor premise produced a conclusion, in a deductive manner. For Galileo “demonstration” included this idea but instead of appealing to Aristotelian essences in the reasoning process, he employed mathematics and sensory observation. Today we no longer accept this view of demonstration and therefore Galileo’s commitment to this method would ultimately undermine his own arguments since on this view neither truth nor “demonstration” are possible since “scientific method” proceeds inductively. (Op. cit., p. 285.)
If Galileo was unable to even prove his own heliocentric theory in a purely deductive manner, on the basis of sensory observations that would rule out alternative geocentric theories once and for all (such as scientific observations of stellar parallax and Foucault’s pendulum, which were not made until two centuries after Galileo’s death), how much less would he regard a hypothesis such as the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution (or for that matter, any other naturalistic theory of evolution) as being capable of scientific proof, since such a theory is forced to posit unobservable and non-replicable events, such as the origin of life and the relatively rapid and unrepeatable diversification of the various phyla of animals (the “Cambrian explosion”)? Galileo, with his strictly deductive notion of “proof,” would never have made the inferential leap to Darwinian evolution, as he would have regarded the question of origins as one which science can never settle.
In short: while Galileo might have agreed (in a qualified fashion) with Jason Rosenhouse’s catchy slogan that “scientific questions should be answered by science and not by scripture,” Galileo’s notion of what counts as a strictly scientific question was far narrower than our modern notion. To view him as a seventeenth-century advocate of the autonomy of science – as the term is understood today – is to commit an historical anachronism.
(Readers who would like to learn more about Galileo’s exegesis of Scripture, and how it differed from that of St. Augsutine and St. Thomas Aquinas, can find out more here.)
That’s a bogus distinction. All manner of complex technological instruments+theory about how they work (starting back with telescopes in Galileo’s day) mediate between our senses and the conclusions we make. Very little modern science is direct unassisted observation. Supernaturalists can perfectly well impose unconstrained miraculous explanations wherever they like to avoid conclusions they don’t like.
Inferences about history aren’t any different than inferences about the very small, very far away, etc. We use well-tested technological instruments — stratigraphy, isochron dating, carbon dating, DNA sequencing, alignment, phylogenetics, etc. — to infer the ancientness of events, to infer the detailed history of common ancestry, etc. And supernaturalists can perfectly well impose unconstrained miraculous explanations there too, unconstrained by conservation of mass/energy, math, or anything else. It’s the severe lack of constraint in the explanation that’s the problem. Supernatural “explanations” are explanations where the explanation has as many free parameters as there are data points. They can fit any data. That’s the problem with them, and why scientists don’t use them. If anything, “ID” is, if anything, *worse* than straight-up God-did-it explanations (if you take seriously the idea that ID is theology-free, which I don’t but most UD-ers do), since you don’t even have whatever vague constraints on the explanation that analogy to Biblical miracles might provide.
” Supernaturalists can perfectly well impose unconstrained miraculous explanations wherever they like to avoid conclusions they don’t like. ”
They don’t have a problem with the law of Biogenesis, it is people like you that rejects how nature is known to operate that hate conclusions. They accept that you have to go outside of a natural cause for how life originated based on accepting how nature is observed to operate.
You hate that conclusion so you reject how nature is known to operate with your faith life arose spontaneously in nature.
Maybe you want to go on Mr Davidson’s thread and tell people who may believe in a supernatural cause or who may be agnostic about the intelligent cause For how a living organism/s originated, why they are wrong to accept how nature is known to operate and that they should accept your faith of a living organism originating spontaneously.
Furthermore, as you hate the idea of a cause beyond nature for how nature came into existence then you either believe the logical contradiction that nature existed prior to its existence or you believe an infinite amount of natural events could have occurred prior to this time.
Thus you would believe in the tautological oxymoron of “infinite finiteness”
It is not logically possible to count back an infinite amount of past natural events therefore there cannot have been an infinite amount of past events prior to this time. That means nature began to exist and therefore requires a supernatural cause.
Instead of training to be a story teller, maybe you should have spent more time training in logic.
Why do you people lack so much awareness?
Torley
Nick Matzke
Matzke says the distinction between phenomena that we can observe directly at this moment and phenomena that we cannot observe directly at this moment is “bogus.”
What an odd thing to say. Nick, by “bogus” do you mean the distinction is false? I hope not. Plainly “phenomena one can apprehend directly” are in a different class from “phenomena in the distant past that one cannot apprehend directly.” There is even a name for the study of the latter to distinguish it from the study of the former: “historical science.”
Or perhaps you disagree with Ernst Mayr:
Mayr, Ernst, Darwin’s Influence on Modern Thought, based on a lecture that Mayr delivered in Stockholm on receiving the Crafoord Prize from the Royal Swedish Academy of Science, 23 September 1999; published on ScientificAmerican.com, 24 November 2009.
Matzke
Do you not see that the word “infer” there gives the store away with respect to your thesis? Unless you believe an “inference” is the same as an “observation.”
Can it really be that Dr. Matzke does not know the difference between an observation and an inference? It beggars belief, but a plain reading of his comment seems to indicate that is the case.
Torley
Matzke
Nick, you are aggressively missing Dr. Torley’s point. Perhaps an example will make it clear. There is substantial evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ, including eye witness accounts from those who say they saw Jesus die on Friday and then saw him alive on Sunday.
Now, it is a perfectly reasonable scientific hypothesis that a person who dies after being brutally whipped, crucified, and stabbed in the side and then after death placed in a sealed tomb will stay dead. Does that scientific hypothesis preclude the religious revelation that Jesus in fact rose from the dead being true? Of course not. It is not a logical impossibility for Jesus to have risen from the dead (as a square circle is a logical impossibility). If there is a God, and if that God willed Jesus to rise from the dead, then the eye witness accounts are true, even if they would otherwise be precluded as preposterous on scientific grounds. The premises of that argument (God exists; God willed Jesus to rise from the dead) are not matters about which science has anything to say. That is Dr. Torley’s point, and you rebuttal does not even understand that point, much less defeat it.
Matzke
ID has this going for it with respect to, for example, the OOL problem: A currently operating cause (intelligence) that has been shown to produce phenomena such as those to be explained (massive amounts of complex specified information and multiple exquisitely arranged, irreducibly complex machines). Materialist OOL does not even have plausible speculations. When those two things are reversed, come talk to me about ID being *worse.*
Hi Nick Matzke,
Thank you for your post. I am of course perfectly well aware that descriptions of how scientific measuring instruments work are theory-laden. In Galileo’s own day, there were some people who didn’t trust the observations that had been made via his telescope.
But when we’re talking events about which take place in the distant past or future, we’re making certain background assumptions, not just about how our instruments work, but how the world at large works, and we run into the well-known problem of induction. To be sure, we can formulate scientific hypotheses about the past and the future, and we can test them and amass evidence for them. But that way of testing hypotheses cannot possibly address the intentions of the Author of the universe.
Science tells me that the Sun is a G-type star which won’t die for another 5 billion years. But science can say nothing in response to the view (held by some religious people) that God will bring the universe to an end some time within the next few hundred years. We just don’t know.
Hi Nick,
Have you figured out what a sequence space is yet?
Is your book on macro-evolution coming out soon?
As to heliocentrism in general, and the Copernican principle, which was derived from heliocentrism, in particular:
A Christian, who holds a PhD in molecular biology, stated the following in regards to geocentrism:
Actually, contrary to what is popularly believed apparently even among educated Christians, the answer, due to advances in science, is NOT obviously “yes.”
Here are the specific verses in question that he cited:
Supposedly the Copernican Principle rendered such verses in the Bible as now being merely nice little poetic verses instead of factual verses that speak about reality.
The banishment of those verses to poetic nether-land has been, much like Twain’s death, greatly exaggerated.
The Copernican Principle is stated as such:
In direct contradiction to the Copernican/Mediocrity Principle, there have now been recent discoveries in science, specifically concerning the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) and quantum mechanics, which directly challenges the Copernican principle’s conclusion of ‘mediocrity’ for the earth in the universe, and even overturns it for humans in particular.
Since seeing is believing, in the following video one can actually see the ‘centrality’ of the earth in the universe in relation to the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation
Here is a still shot of the image at the 3:36 minute mark of the preceding video which highlights the centrality of the earth in the universe in relation to the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation:
The following video, which shows the mapping of the CMBR by the Planck satellite, is also very good for getting this centrality of the earth in the universe’ across:
Robert Wilson, Arno Penzias, and George Smoot are all on record as stating that the CMBR lines up with what was predicted in the bible thousands of years before the CMBR was discovered
Here are a couple of Bible verses that, in dramatic fashion, back up Wilson, Penzias, and Smoot’s contention that the CMBR matches what we would expect from the bible:
Ross Andersen puts the implication of the CMBR like this:
As well, it is important to note that gravity, although it may establish centrality in the solar system and in the galaxy, does not establish centrality in the universe.
In fact, there is no privileged frame of reference in General Relativity whatsoever so as to be able to say whether one place is more central than another place in the universe is.
Even Einstein himself stated as such:
Fred Hoyle, discoverer of stellar nucleosynthesis, weighs in here:
George Ellis, who, along with Roger Penrose and Stephen Hawking, helped extend General Relativity to show that not only energy and matter had a definite beginning in the Big Bang but that space and time also had a definite beginning in the Big Bang, weighs in here:
In fact, in General Relativity there is a fundamental inability to demarcate locations in the first place so as to even be able to say ‘where’ centrality may be in the universe.
Thus the presumption that gravity determines centrality in the universe, and which was the presumption, due to heleocentrism, behind the acceptance of the the Copernican principle, is no longer a valid presumption to make.
In other words, the rationale that was originally behind the Copernican principle, of using gravity to determine centrality, is no longer a valid argument to make against the earth being considered central in the universe.
With all that in mind, it is now interesting to point out that an ‘anomaly’ in the CMBR data lines up with the solar system:
Of note: The preceding article by Huterer was written before the Planck data (it was written with WMPA & COBE data), but the multipoles observed were actually verified by the more robust Planck data in 2013.
Moreover, besides the solar system, the earth’s rotation is also found to uniquely line up with “anisotropies in the sky distributions of powerful extended quasars and some other sub-classes of radio galaxies”. Particularly as they relate to a plane passing through the two equinoxes and the north celestial pole.
Moreover, not only is the Cosmic Background Radiation found to align with the solar system, and with Earth’s rotational periodicity, but the CMBR is also now found to be set up for intelligent life like human life to discover it:
In fact, contrary to the generalized form of the Copernican principle which holds that ‘humans are not privileged observers of the universe’, the ‘observer’ is, in fact, given a special frame of reference in Einstein’s relativity equations (given a special frame of reference in both special and general relativity):
Actually, both of Einstein’s breakthrough insights for Special Relativity and for General Relativity came from Einstein giving the ‘observer’ a distinct frame of reference.
For example, the ‘happiest thought’ of Einstein’s life was when he envisioned ‘an observer freely falling from the roof of a house’. Which happens to be the thought experiment which gave Einstein his breakthrough insight into General Relativity:
And in special relativity, an ‘observer’ moving away from the face of a clock at the speed of light happens to be the ‘thought experiment’ that gave Einstein his breakthrough insight into into special relativity.
As well, in Quantum Mechanics it is the ‘observer’ that is found to have the ‘privileged’ position in the universe.
Richard Conn Henry, Professor of Physics at John Hopkins University, puts the situation between quantum mechanics and the Copernican principle as such:
Thus, apparently while an incomplete understanding of the universe and science led to the Copernican principle, and the demotion of man and earth to fairly low significance in the universe, it turns out that the two most powerful scientific theories of our day, both Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity, as well as perhaps the most important scientific discovery of all time, i.e. the CMBR, all powerfully turn the Copernican principle on its head and restore the Earth, and man, back to their rightful place in God’s grand scheme of things.
I think Galileo and Copernicus would both be very happy to find that out.
Verse and Music:
Thought control? i was banned from this Rosenhouse blog thing long ago. It was boring anyways.
The church did not lecture Gally on science. it lectured on conclusions about nature. Don’t teach the wrong conclusions. Just like they say today in schools in banning creationism. No differing difference.
The roam catholic church was enforcing conclusions and wrong ones and this is why there was a protestant reformation.
Worse the church was enforcing conclusions from pagan greeks long ago.
Yet it was a catholic problem and not a Christian one.
The bible didn’t talk about any things related to physics save in general ways.
Its the right of Christiandom to enforce Christian conclusions. Yet we live in contract with each other to be frere in drawing any conclusions. This contract is broken by the present censorship from the state however.
Modern enemies of Christianity use the case of Gally to not overcome Christian resistane in institutions or any science place BUT instead to censor christian conclusions from getting rebuttal or equal time.
They use it also to say Christianity was wrong but it was just Catholic Catholic faith in pagan Athens.
Yup they blew it but physicians heal thyself.
STOP USING GALLY TO SAY CREATIONISM IS INTERFERING WITH TRUE SCIENCE RESEARCH.
Its stupid desperation.
.
Permalink to 10 and 11:
The Copernican Principle Has Been Overturned:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/14RdDQoXhbteijyNb_1srr6Kfu-qXv7SN7Tm58ZPhqkQ/edit
In addition, Max Born wrote:
Let’s be clear that the Ptolemaic model, which posits a fixed, non-rotating Earth, has been falsified. We know that because Mercury does not orbit the Earth.
daveS, perhaps you should actually read my posts before making comments that do not follow?
It really does not reflect well on your honesty (or intelligence) to state a point that I spent a large part of my post refuting. Namely, the discredited notion underlying the Copernican principle that gravity determines centrality in the universe.
Gravity, contrary to your naive Mercury not revolving around the earth quip, does not determine centrality in the universe.
If it helps you get through your mental block, please note that I said centrality in the universe, not centrality in the solar system.
In other words, General Relativity has shown gravity to be useless for determining centrality in the universe.
It certainly does not seem like that difficult of a concept to grab, but apparently you, despite being corrected a few times now, fail to grasp this fairly simple concept. Hopefully, with a bit of thoughtful reflection on your part, you can see your elementary failure in logic of trying to use gravity to determine centrality in the universe.
bornagain,
Perhaps you should read my post. Does it even mention gravity, or any assumption that centrality in the universe is determined by gravity? That would be interesting, in view of the fact that Ptolemy was working roughly 1500 years before Newton.
Ptolemy observed that orbits exist. He didn’t explain them in terms of gravity. He posited that the Earth is the orbital center of the universe. As the planet Mercury shows, this is false, so Ptolemy was wrong in this respect. Even Einstein would agree with that.
“Einstein would agree with that.”
and yet
go figure!
http://funlava.com/wp-content/.....genius.jpg
Matzke:
Except there isn’t any detailed history of common ancestry. Thanks to you and yours we don’t even know what makes an organism what it is and that means common ancestry is an untestable concept.
bornagain,
None of that has anything to do with whether Mercury orbits the Earth, as Ptolemy asserted.
I challenge you to answer the following question.
daveS, I claimed that gravity is, as Einstein himself admitted, useless for determining centrality in the universe.
That both the Earth and Mercury orbit the sun in the solar system due to the greater gravity of the sun is therefore moot and void for determining true centrality in the universe.
I made this point clear several times now and yet you keep repeating the fact that planets, particularly Mercury, orbits the sun due to the greater gravity of the sun as if that refutes the point I am making in regards to determining true centrality in the universe.
It is said that Einstein also said “Insanity is repeating the same mistakes and expecting different results.”
In this present discussion you qualify for that distinction of insanity.
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/ac/0c/49/ac0c496cae1c3f53705c7f998e022c56.jpg
Is that a “True” or a “False”?
If the answer is “False”, why did you write “and yet” at the beginning of your post #18, as if my statement about Einstein was untrue?
daveS, you still are (purposely?) failling to pick up the subtle distinction that even Einstein himself made.
Since gravity is useless for determining true centrality in the universe, then I am free to say that the Earth (or any other point in the universe I may choose to pick) stays still and everything in the universe revolves around it.
As Einstein put it in regards to General Relativity:
The only way you can counter this ‘demotion of gravity’ in regards to trying to determine true centrality in the universe is by, as you have been trying to do, sneaking gravity back into the discussion and saying that Mercury orbits the sun, not the Earth, due to gravity.
So what!!! I don’t care!
My point is exactly the fact that Einstein himself made. Namely, that gravity is useless for determining true centrality in the universe.
Thus, I am free to disregard gravity and use the other evidences from the CMBR and quantum mechanics that I cited to establish true centrality in the universe.
To emphasize the uselessness of Gravity in determining true centrality in the universe, here is a recent article on the subject:
I really don’t know how to make this point any clearer for you so that you can understand it, (if you truly don’t understand the point instead of just being purposely obstinate in your atheism), so I will leave the discussion here and let you have the last word.
Any further comments from you regarding you saying gravity plays any part in determining true centrality in the universe can be addressed to my trusty secretary. i.e. ‘the hand’
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_O-QqC9yM28
bornagain,
Again, I’ve made no assertions about gravity. You are the one who keeps bringing it up. Remember who didn’t know about universal gravitation? Ptolemy, that’s who.
You can say anything you want, of course. That doesn’t make it true.
At his point I will bring up gravity. Have you worked through the consequences, assuming the Earth truly is the orbital center of the universe? The Andromeda galaxy would be orbiting Earth once per day! Do you know what sorts of forces would be required to cause an entire galaxy 2.5 million light years away to accelerate at such a rate? And that’s one of our nearest neighbors!
Edit: Anyway, I’m quite sure that if a “Darwinist” stated that the rest of the universe orbits a stationary Earth, there would be a callout thread within minutes.
“Again, I’ve made no assertions about gravity. You are the one who keeps bringing it up. Remember who didn’t know about universal gravitation? Ptolemy, that’s who.”
And, in his ignorance of gravity, he asserted an Earth centered universe. So your point is exactly what about Ptolemy?
“At (t)his point I will bring up gravity.”
Again, a major part of my paper was dedicated to pointing out that gravity is useless for determining true geometric centrality in the universe. So again your point with gravity in trying to overturn an earth centered model for the universe is what exactly?
to repeat,
And lo and behold that is exactly what you have done.
As well, it seems you are having a very hard time understanding ‘talk to the hand’
So again, please address further comments to ‘the hand’
My point is that Ptolemy asserted that the Earth is the orbital center of the universe. Ptolemy was wrong about this.
However, you insist he was right here:
That is, you are saying that we can regard the Earth as the stationary orbital center of the universe.
But I get the impression that you do understand that such a universe, with the Earth at its orbital center, is contrary to the laws of physics. It’s clear that the Andromeda galaxy orbiting the Earth once per day is totally implausible.
Here’s a simpler thought experiment. Suppose a tiny, 1-gram meteoroid is in a geosynchronous orbit around the earth. The meteoroid is rotating at 5 rotations per second around an axis perpendicular to the plane in which the orbit lies.
Now look at the situation from a reference frame where the meteoroid is stationary. From that perspective, the Earth is orbiting the fixed meteoroid 5 times a second. This is clearly impossible. Hence the meteoroid cannot be the orbital center of the Earth-meteoroid system.
Hence we are not free to say that the Earth (or the meteoroid) is stationary and everything in the universe revolves around it.
You can use whatever coordinate system you want, but that’s a different issue. I won’t get out a speeding ticket if I tell the cop who clocked me going 80 mph that I prefer to use a coordinate system in which my car is at rest.
daveS, I asked you to ‘please address the hand’. When you can’t even get that simple instruction right, what am I to think about you?
you state:
Actually, it is not ‘me’ insisting Ptolemy was right. It is me insisting that Einstein, Hoyle, Ellis, and Born are right in their support of Ptolemy’s initial hunch.
Your argument is not with me (or my hand), your argument is with those men.
And since those great men of science say I can disregard gravity in my formulation of geometric centrality in the universe, I will. And I will only consider what the CMBR data and Quantum Mechanics say. i.e. Which happens to be evidence that is very friendly to overturning the Copernican principle
bornagain,
I didn’t expect you to double down on this point.
If you were a space traveler moving through a region far away from any very large bodies, and you observed an asteroid with diameter 100 meters orbiting a rock the size of a ping-pong ball at 10 revolutions per second, wouldn’t you be surprised? If the asteroid and rock had approximately the same density, wouldn’t you begin to suspect you were witnessing a violation of the laws of physics?
Edit: Anyway, why don’t you and/or your colleagues write up some physical examples showing how all this works. Instead of relying on quotes from famous physicists, give us some actual numbers and calculations. Prove that, even in light of our modern knowledge of the solar system, a coordinate transformation can make Mercury *actually* orbit a stationary Earth.
daveS, what part of ‘talk to the hand’ do you not understand?
You falsely accuse me of ‘doubling down’ as if you had a case to make in the first place. You don’t!
Moreover, you are the one countering Einstein, Hoyle, Ellis, and Born not me.
Thus it is you that is doubling down, tripling down, and quadrupling down, not me.
For you to even have a coherent argument at this point, you need to show where those great men of science were wrong in their claim that general relativity allows you to, once again, consider the earth may be central in the universe.
Einstein, Hoyle, Ellis, and Born all state that the point of reference one chooses to make measurements from in general relativity, i.e. chooses to make ‘central’ in general relativity, is arbitrary.
I agree with them since they are great men of science and disagree with you since you are, even though you are made in the image of God, basically just an atheist troll on a blog.
as to this statement you made:
“you observed an asteroid with diameter 100 meters orbiting a rock the size of a ping-pong ball at 10 revolutions per second, wouldn’t you be surprised? If the asteroid and rock had approximately the same density, wouldn’t you begin to suspect you were witnessing a violation of the laws of physics?”
In the preceding statement in which you asked me to consider different points of observation in the universe, you used the words ‘observed’ and “witnessing”.
That was Einstein and company’s entire point. The reference frame you choose to make measurements from in general relativity, to ‘observe’ from, is entirely up to you.
If I choose to make the ping pong ball the still center of the entire universe then, according to Einstein and company, I have violated no principle within general relativity. i.e. No laws of physics within general relativity are broken if I choose to do so!
Like I said, your argument is with them, not with me.
Of final note as to ‘violation of the laws of physics’,
Do you not consider it a huge violation of the laws of physics that, according to quantum mechanics, the universe does not even exist until it is ‘measured’, i.e. until it is consciously observed? Or do supposed violations of the laws of physics only count when you are trying to argue against a Theistic universe?
Due to advances in quantum mechanics, the argument for God from consciousness can now be framed like this:
Verse:
of note:
Have you ever heard of Kepler’s Third Law? There are formulas which give the orbital period of a small body about a much larger body, if you know the mass of the larger body and the separation.
If you assume the 100-meter diameter asteroid has density 3 g/cm^3, and that the small rock is 1 km away, traveling in a circular orbit, then this formula gives us an orbital period of about 7 days.
That’s according to classical mechanics, which will give you results almost indistinguishable from GR.
Let’s now assume the asteroid is spinning on its axis, relative to an inertial frame, perpendicular to the plane of the rock, and in the same direction. In fact, say the rock is now in an almost asteroid-synchronous orbit, rotating at 1 degree per day slower than the rock revolves. If we declare the asteroid to be the still, non-rotating center of the universe, now the rock takes about a year to complete one period.
Which contradicts Kepler’s Law. Do you see the problem?
Correction to 4th from last sentence:
daveS I ignored your gravity example, for what seems like the 50th time, since if I want to make a ping pong ball the center of the entire universe, according to Einstein and company, I can. I have violated, according to Einstein and company, no principle within general relativity by arbitrarily choosing the ping pong ball as the still center of the universe from where I choose to make measurements.
Argue with Einstein and company. They are the ones who are saying I can choose wherever I want to be the still center of the universe. Nothing you can say or do, especially appealing to gravity to try to counter what Einstein himself said, will ever change what they said can be done in regards to general relativity.
Again, you are arguing with them, the giants of science who literally wrote the book on General Relativity, not me (or with my hand).
It really is amazing how hard headed atheists can be. Apparently even Einstein himself is not good enough to correct an atheist on a point about gravity especially if the atheist is determined not to believe that point about gravity since it might lead to a Theistic inference.
And you’re calling me hard-headed?
In the second scenario with the asteroid (and observer) rotating, what would you say the orbital period of the rock is? I honestly would like to know.
Let’s see an atheist troll on a blog says I can’t say the earth is the center of the universe but Einstein, Hoyle, Ellis, Born and Musser say I can. Who to listen to? An atheist troll or the Geniuses?
Gosh, that’s such a hard choice. I guess I’m really going to have to think that choice over for a while. 🙂
Tell you what, sleep on it and tell me what the orbital period is tomorrow.
daveS, I don’t care what the orbital period is. I only care that Einstein says I can choose to make the earth center of the universe if I want and that it violates no principle within general relativity.
You saying I can’t do so when he said I can do so is like a bug hitting a windshield. And even that example is probably giving you way too much credit, since you, compared to Einstein, won’t even leave a smudge of bug juice when you splatter challenging his authority.
Of related note: At the 13:55 minute mark of the following video, Max Tegmark, an atheist, finally admits, post Planck, that the CMBR data does indeed line up with the earth and solar system
“I don’t care”. Not the strongest response.
Notice in my post #26 I explicitly stated that you can use whatever coordinate system you want, Earth-centered or not. I never said that violates any physical principles. However, if you compare results from two coordinate systems incorrectly, that can lead to problems.
Are you saying that Einstein is comparing two coordinate systems incorrectly when he says I can use choose the earth as center of the universe if I so want?
If so, I confidently say that you are completely wrong in your challenge to Einstein.
If you are challenging Einstein, and are trying to say that I cannot choose the earth as the center of the universe if I so desire as Einstein himself says I can, then instead of debating an unknown Christian on the internet, I suggest you do the required experimental and mathematical work, write your study up, publish it in the appropriate journal, and see who salutes.
If you do succeed in overturning General Relativity, which is verified to something like 14 decimal places, then I just might admit Einstein was wrong and that you were right.
Not likely, but maybe if the evidence is good enough.
Until then, you are not even bug juice on a windshield.
No, I’m not saying anything about Einstein. I’m referring to the asteroid/rock example.
daveS, so you are not challenging Einstein? And since I am merely allowing the earth to be central in the universe as Einstein said I could allow then I guess you have nothing further to say.
I have said nothing challenging Einstein in this entire thread. I have challenged your claims that you can correctly assert that Mercury orbits the Earth, and that a 100-meter diameter asteroid could orbit a small rock.
daveS, so you are not challenging Einstein? But it is Einstein who is saying that I can choose any position that I want to be center of the universe.
So I choose the earth to be the still center of the universe. i.e. “the sun moves and the earth is at rest”.
Since you are not challenging Einstein, then why are you so upset when I choose “the sun moves and the earth is at rest” as my CS.
I am merely allowing what Einstein said I could allow.
I am not adding anything to what Einstein said I am allowed to do. Namely, ALL I am doing is allowing the earth to be considered central in the universe.
As long as you have no problem with me allowing the earth to be central in the universe just as Einstein himself said I could do, then there is really nothing else for me to defend.
That, the earth being allowed to be central in the universe according to Einstein, is pretty much the only thing I was trying to establish in my original post before I laid out some of the other evidence, from CMBR and QM, that completely overturns the Copernican principle.
It is a straightforward argument really.
1. Show that General Relativity does not contradict an earth centered model
2. Show that the latest Planck data supports a earth/solar system centered model
3. Show that Quantum Mechanics gives conscious observation a ‘central’ position in the universe
Easy as 1,2,3 & a,b, c
You can choose whatever coordinate system you like, even one in which the Earth is central, is at rest, and not rotating. (I’m saying this for at least the third time).
You cannot accurately say that Mercury orbits the Earth or that a 100-meter asteroid orbits a small rock.
You are the one adding all that mercury/small rock orbiting ping pong junk. I could care less about those needless distractions that you have brought up.
I have merely, however badly, consistently defended only one position in this thread.
Namely, I have defended Einstein’s position that “the sun moves and the earth is at rest” does not violate any physical principles of general relativity.
You say you are not challenging Einstein.
Thus, as long as you have no trouble with Einstein’s claim, then there is nothing else left for me to defend.
In fact, that is the only point that I had originally claimed, (In fact I cited Einstein in my original post that you took exception to) and apparently you say you are not challenging that claim.
Like I said, since you are not challenging Einstein and the allowing of the earth to be central in the universe, then I could care less about your distractions with ping pong balls, mercury and such.
I am more than satisfied with “the sun moves and the earth is at rest”
Hi bornagain and daveS,
Since you two seem to be going at it hammer and tong, you might find the following links useful:
Does the Earth move around the Sun? by physicist Sean Carroll.
Catholic Website with interesting links on geocentricity:
http://www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
Enjoy!
Ok then.
Now you just have to explain the Coriolis effect we experience on Earth.
And if the Earth is at rest, and the sun (and Mercury) move, aren’t we back to square 1, where the Earth is the orbital center of the universe?
Thanks for the links, vjtorley, I will look at them more carefully tomorrow.
I don’t have to explain anything since you say you are not challenging Einstein’s claim:
Are you saying you are now challenging Einstein’s claim that Either CS 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.”?
You said that you were not challenging Einstein’s claim that “the sun moves and the earth is at rest” is consistent with GR.
But now you want me to defend some detail that certainly makes it appear that you are challenging Einstein’s claim.
Are you or are you not challenging Einstein?
As long as you are not challenging Einstein’s claim that “the sun moves and the earth is at rest” is consistent with the principles of GR then I have no problem and have nothing to defend.
But if you now want to challenge Einstein’s claim, then, as I said before, I suggest you do the required experimental and mathematical work, write your study up, publish it in the appropriate journal, and see who salutes.
If you do succeed in overturning General Relativity, which is verified to something like 14 decimal places, then I just might admit Einstein was wrong and that you were right.
Not likely, but maybe if the evidence is good enough.
Until then, you are not even bug juice on a windshield.
The Coriolis effect shows that the Earth is indeed rotating. This effect was known long before the advent of GR.
Regarding the CS issue, for the nth time, you can use whichever coordinate system you prefer. Even one with the Earth at the center, at rest, with no rotation.
Just as I can use a coordinate system in which I am at the center, at rest, with no rotation. Notice this doesn’t mean I actually am always central, at rest, and never rotating.
But if the Earth actually is at rest, and the sun, Mercury, etc are all moving in bound orbits (i.e., elliptical), how do could the solar system be arranged other than in this manner? Do you believe that’s an accurate representation?
daveS, so you are now challenging Einstein’s claim that “the sun moves and the earth is at rest” is consistent with the principles of GR?
It certainly appears so to me!
Like I said, As long as you are not challenging Einstein’s claim that “the sun moves and the earth is at rest” is consistent with the principles of GR then I have no problem and have nothing to defend.
But if you now want to challenge Einstein’s claim, then, as I said before, I suggest you do the required experimental and mathematical work, write your study up, publish it in the appropriate journal, and see who salutes.
If you do succeed in overturning General Relativity, which is verified to something like 14 decimal places, then I just might admit Einstein was wrong and that you were right.
Not likely, but maybe if the evidence is good enough.
Until then, you are not even bug juice on a windshield.
Again, I’m not challenging Einstein. Any point in the universe could be considered “at rest”, “central”, and “not rotating”, given appropriate coordinates. Well, I guess you would need to specify three points to pin down a non-rotating reference frame.
If you want a non-rotating Earth, however, the Coriolis effect is going to be a problem.
To reiterate
daveS says
“I’m not challenging Einstein.”
Einstein said that “Either CS could be used with equal justification.” as far as General Relativity was concerned
So I choose the “the sun moves and the earth is at rest” CS of Einstein
ergo, daveS does not challenge my “the sun moves and the earth is at rest” CS
case closed!
The Copernican Principle Has Been Overturned:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/14RdDQoXhbteijyNb_1srr6Kfu-qXv7SN7Tm58ZPhqkQ/edit
Heh. Just keep in mind that this is not evidence that the Earth is stationary. The Coriolis effect and parallax show that’s not the case.
So are you now saying Einstein was wrong and that I cannot have a CS for the universe based on “the sun moves and the earth is at rest” CS?
Okie Dokie, since you are now claiming that the Coriolis effect and parallax falsify Einstein’s contention that “the sun moves and the earth is at rest” CS is no physically different than the “the sun is at rest and the earth moves” CS as far as our best description of gravity is concerned, and since that transferable CS contention of Einstein’s is, according to Hoyle, “the main tenet of Einstein’s theory”, then it clearly appears to me that you are now challenging Einstein’s theory of gravity as an accurate description of gravity for the entire universe.
And like I said before, if you now want to challenge Einstein’s claim that either CS can be used with equal justification as far as gravity is concerned, then, as I said before, I suggest you do the required experimental and mathematical work, write your study up, publish it in the appropriate journal, and see who salutes.
If you do succeed in overturning General Relativity, which is verified to something like 14 decimal places, then I just might admit Einstein was wrong and that you were right.
Not likely, but maybe if the evidence is good enough.
Until then, you are not even bug juice on a windshield.
Of related note to the 1 in 10^120 finely tuned expansion of the universe, i.e. the cosmological constant of General Relativity.
In what I consider an absolutely fascinating discovery, Einstein’s General Relativity has shown that 4-dimensional (4D) space-time, along with all energy and matter, was created in the ‘Big Bang’ and continues to ‘expand equally in all places’:
Thus from a 3-dimensional (3D) perspective, any particular 3D spot in the universe is to be considered just as ‘center of the universe’ as any other particular spot in the universe is to be considered ‘center of the universe’. This centrality found for any 3D place in the universe is because the universe is a 4D expanding hypersphere, analogous in 3D to the surface of an expanding balloon. All points on the surface are moving away from each other, and every point is central, no matter where you live in the universe. And as such, it may now be possible for the Earth to be, once again, considered ‘central in the universe’.
That every 3-Dimensional place within the universe may be considered central in the universe may seem very counterintuitive to most people, but that is exactly what has now been shown.
In regards to trying to understand this counterintuitive finding, it is helpful to note that ‘higher dimensional’ mathematics was developed by Reimann, (who was a devout Christian),, and that that development in higher dimensional mathematics was necessary before Einstein could elucidate the 4-D spacetime of General Relativity, (or even before Quantum Mechanics could be elucidated);
It is also interesting to note that higher dimensions, such as these higher dimensions from which our universe is sustained and upon which it is founded, would be invisible to our 3-Dimensional sight:
Verse:
So in a holistic sense, when taking into consideration the higher dimensional foundation of space-time, (and when taking into consideration the ‘Privileged Planet principle’ of Gonzalez[12, 12a] which overturned the mediocrity principle, and which gives strong indication that the Earth is uniquely suited to host complex life in this universe), it may now be possible for the Earth to be, once again, considered ‘central in the universe’.
This intriguing possibility, for the Earth to once again be considered central, is clearly illustrated by the fact the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR), remaining from the creation of the universe, due to the 4-Dimensional space-time of General Relativity, forms a sphere around the earth. I find the best way to get this ‘centrality of the Earth in the universe” point across is to visualize it first hand. Thus I reference the first few minutes of this following video, and a quote, to clearly get this ‘centrality in the universe’ point across:
Moreover, this ‘circle’ of the CMBR that is found by modern science to encompass the Earth, from the remnant of the creation event that brought the entire universe instantaneously into being, was actually predicted in the Bible centuries earlier:
No, please read my post again. You can have whatever CS your heart desires (and so can I). The question of whether the Earth actually is at rest and not rotating is independent.
You could set up a coordinate system in which the rotor of an ultracentrifuge is stationary and nonrotating, despite the fact that it really is spinning at 100,000 rpm (which is testable).
The physics of the situation is independent of coordinate systems. Which makes me wonder why people attach such significance to them.
Edit: One more example. Suppose we decided to shift our latitude/longitude system so that “90 degrees North” now referred to Miami, and “90 degrees South” referred to the antipodal point on the globe. Also choose a new prime meridian, say one which passes through Vancouver, BC. We could all adjust our GPS systems and use this coordinate system with no problems. It wouldn’t require any adjustment to the laws of physics, however. They are independent of the arbitrary choice of coordinates we make to identify points on the globe.
Foucault Pendulum demonstrating the Earth’s rotation and revolution around the sun:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMxLVDuf4VY
daveS, I really don’t know what you are going on about. You don’t contest my use of Einstein’s General Relativity in my argument overturning the Copernican principle.
Where Einstein says that I violate no principle of general relativity with an earth centered model of the universe. You apparently readily agree that my use of his equivalence principle is correct when pressed on the issue.
But then you turn right around after you make that concession to Einstein and say that my use of an earth centered model is incorrect because of some experiments that you believe violate the equivalence principle of Einstein.
Now daveS, either General Relativity is a correct description of gravity and the statement “the sun moves and the earth is at rest” is no physically different than the statement “the sun is at rest and the earth moves” as far as our best description of gravity is concerned, or the statement that they are physically equivalent, (i.e. Einstein, Hoyle, Born) is incorrect.
For instance Hoyle states
You cannot have it both ways daveS. Either both models ‘are entirely equivalent from a physical point of view….’ are both models are not entirely equivalent.
If they are not entirely equivalent from a physical point of view, as you are apparently trying to claim, then you are in fact, despite your protests to the contrary, challenging Einstein’s description of gravity in General Relativity.
I suggest you submit the experiments that you are referencing to the Nobel committee since you seem to think they violate Einstein’s equivalence principle in General Relativity.
Moreover, I find all of your flip flopping on Einstein to be rather humorous since I have many more lines of evidence from Quantum Mechanics and the CBMR data that do the actual empirical work of overturning the Copernican Principle. Which was the ONLY point I was trying to make anyway of my original post. (i.e. post 10 and 11 that you originally took exception to!)
The only thing I ever really required from General Relativity to make the argument airtight was the concession from Einstein for a earth centered model. A concession that you conceded, when pressed, is correct.
You going on about supposed experimental discrepancies does absolutely nothing to the main thrust of my argument, since it is secondary to the actual empirical evidence I present in my argument to overturn the Copernican principle.
The Copernican Principle Has Been Overturned:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/14RdDQoXhbteijyNb_1srr6Kfu-qXv7SN7Tm58ZPhqkQ/edit
Of supplemental note:
The following site is also very interesting to the topic of ‘centrality in the universe’;
The preceding interactive graph points out that the smallest scale visible to the human eye (as well as a human egg) is at 10^-4 meters, which ‘just so happens’ to be directly in the exponential center of all possible sizes of our physical reality. As far as the exponential graph itself is concerned, 10^-4 is, exponentially, right in the middle of 10^-35 meters, which is the smallest possible unit of length, which is Planck length, and 10^27 meters, which is the largest possible unit of ‘observable’ length since space-time was created in the Big Bang, which is the diameter of the universe. This is very interesting for, as far as I can tell, the limits to human vision (as well as the size of the human egg) could have, theoretically, been at very different positions than directly in the exponential middle;
Whoa—where do you think I said that??
Anyway, my hypothesis is that you just don’t understand coordinate systems very well.
BTW, in your stationary, non-rotating Earth model, what’s the explanation for precession of a Foucault Pendulum? And have you thought about the Kepler’s Law question I posed?
daveS, you flip flopped again.
You cannot have it both ways daveS. Either both models ‘are entirely equivalent from a physical point of view…. (Hoyle)’ are both models are not entirely equivalent.
Are you saying that they are not are not “entirely equivalent from a physical point of view…. (Hoyle)”?
If so, you need to contact the Nobel committee and tell them that Einstein was incorrect in his equivalence principle.
I’m sure they will connect you with the perpetual motion machine department in no time! 🙂
Anyway daveS, arguing with you about anything is pointless.
And the only reason I did it now was to expose you for the fraud that you are.
You are an atheist that is given to being mushy.
For instance, from time to time when pressed, you claim you are not a Darwinian materialist, and you also claim, when pressed, that you believe that you are a real person and that you have have a mind, (at least the last time I debated you you said you did). I hold that you did so just so as to avoid being refuted in an particular argument, but then when it suits your atheistic druthers, and you are in a different debate, you turn around and do defend both materialistic propositions as if you believe they were true.
Frankly, your ‘two-faced’ argumentation style disgusts me.
Heh. What did I flip-flop on? Where did I question the equivalence principle? Give me specific quotes.
Whatever daveS. I’m more than satisfied that my point is made.
Let me know how that Nobel is coming.
I’m out of here.
The Galileo Affair was not about religion nor was it about science. It was about politics, specifically the 30 Year War. Galileo’s trial took place right in the middle of this war (1618-1648) between Catholic France and the Catholic Hapsburg’s. (I know that Protestant Germany was involved as well as Protestant Scandinavia but without France on their side it would have been a short war.)
Galileo took the side of the Hapsburg’s while Pope Urban, his mentor and friend, supported France by not intervening on the side of the Hapsburg’s. Galileo betrayed Urban and portrayed him as a simpleton in his treatise written under the seal of the Duke of Tuscany, who supported the Hapsburg’s and was trying to depose Urban.
jerry: The Galileo Affair was not about religion nor was it about science.
The charge was religious heresy. The tribunal was the Inquisition. Politics and religion were intertwined.
So what? That doesn’t mean the Galileo Affair was about religion.
Science and religion were intertwined as the science of the day supported a geocentric view and the scientists convinced the Church that their science supported the Bible.