Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Book Review: Galileo Was Wrong
Catholic Truths ^ | 6/28/2006 | Mark Wyatt

Posted on 06/28/2006 4:20:12 PM PDT by Markjwyatt

Galileo Was Wrong, Vol. I Finally Released!

Robert Sungenis, Ph. D., and Robert Bennett, Ph. D. have just released Galileo Was Wrong, Vol. I (the Scientific Evidence). This book demonstrates through history, philosophy, and mainly through science itself that modern science has not demonstrated that the earth moves or is not in the center of the universe. It demonstrates that in fact observation after observation and experiment after experiment indicate that the earth does not move and is in the center of the universe. Scientists after scientist admit candidly that "it appears that the earth is standing still" or that " we appear to have a priviliged position" (i.e., are at center). Of course there are explanations as to why every observation indicates that we are at the center and not moving, yet we "know" that we are not at center and are moving. By studying the history of the observations and experiments the authors clearly show that the observations and experimental results, when they present themselves, are rejected out of hand by the scientists, without even considering one of the simplest explanations- THE EARTH IS AT CENTER AND IS NOT MOVING. Rather science becomes more complicated to reconcile the observations with the undemonstrated assertion that the earth is moving and not in the center. Now we must accept that the universe is a 4-dimensional hypercube or donut (in order to escape the possibility that we are at center) and that objects (and clocks) shrink in the direction of travel (to escape the interferometric evidence that we are not circling the sun at 30 km/second), etc.

This book will change the reader's view on what is reality and what is not.

(Excerpt) Read more at veritas-catholic.blogspot.com ...


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: catholicism; christianity; galileo; geocentricity; geocentrism; geocentrists; holocaustdenial; markwyatt; religion; robertbennett; robertsungenis; science; sectarianturmoil
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-54 next last

1 posted on 06/28/2006 4:20:16 PM PDT by Markjwyatt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Markjwyatt

I cut this from the blog, but it is a slightly outdated version. Nothing significant, just the current version reads a little easier.

MArk


2 posted on 06/28/2006 4:22:56 PM PDT by Markjwyatt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Markjwyatt
THE EARTH IS AT CENTER AND IS NOT MOVING.

Why could it move when it's flat?

3 posted on 06/28/2006 4:23:28 PM PDT by Darkwolf377
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Markjwyatt

You don't really believe this, do you?


4 posted on 06/28/2006 4:28:27 PM PDT by Michael Goldsberry (Lt. Bruce C. Fryar USN 01-02-70 Laos)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Darkwolf377

The turtle the earth sits on is moving.


5 posted on 06/28/2006 4:29:04 PM PDT by cripplecreek (I'm trying to think but nothing happens)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: RadioAstronomer

Ping! A companion piece to the creationist mythology. Enjoy!


6 posted on 06/28/2006 4:30:24 PM PDT by saganite (Billions and billions and billions-------and that's just the NASA budget!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Markjwyatt

Showing that at the time of Galileo's trial that what he said was not proved beyond all doubt. He went far beyond the evidence. At the same time, we must remember that it wa Aristotelians professors , not the Church, who were most resistent to his theories.


7 posted on 06/28/2006 4:30:25 PM PDT by RobbyS ( CHIRHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Michael Goldsberry

If you had read the book, I think you would at least be open to it. I have studied this for a few years before the book came out, but it is clear that we have not demonstrated movement of the earth.

Robert Sungenis shows pretty clearly that as science ran into observations that would indicate earth at center, they modified the science rather than accepting geocentrism. He also shows pretty clearly that no one has questioned [the basic premise of] heliocentrism since Copernicus. True there were some key observations (i.e., parallax in the early 19th century), but there are geocentric explanations for parallax.

Over all heliocentrism (or its modern variant acentrism with barycentric solar system) is just accepted as fact, and science is tailored to say it is the case, rather than (as it is presented to the public) science is searching for the truth.

Think about it-how could earth end up in the center? There is only one way I can think of: God willed it so.

Science cannot tolerate such a conclusion.

Mark


8 posted on 06/28/2006 4:35:12 PM PDT by Markjwyatt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS

Perhaps, so, but it is the Church who ultimately condemned him. If you read Geocentrism 101, Part III and the supplement on my blog (where the article is) I go through a lot of detail on that.

Mark


9 posted on 06/28/2006 4:37:01 PM PDT by Markjwyatt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Markjwyatt; PatrickHenry; HOTTIEBOY
but it is clear that we have not demonstrated movement of the earth.

!

My telescope says different.

No, wait! I'm the center of the universe and everything revolves around ME!

Yeah! That's it!

10 posted on 06/28/2006 4:42:51 PM PDT by Michael Goldsberry (Lt. Bruce C. Fryar USN 01-02-70 Laos)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Michael Goldsberry

Amazing how our scientists have managed to hit non moving targets in space using those flawed sun at the center theories isn't it?


11 posted on 06/28/2006 4:46:10 PM PDT by cripplecreek (I'm trying to think but nothing happens)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Markjwyatt

The Church condemned him because of its attachment to Aristotle, not Christ. But Galileo's personal arrogance play ed a huge role.


12 posted on 06/28/2006 4:49:25 PM PDT by RobbyS ( CHIRHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Markjwyatt

Good Grief, This is like the 5th Robert Sungenis related thread I seen this week. Question? Does he still have this bet out that if we can prove the universe is earth centric that he will give a person $100,000, maybe it was a million I can' remember . 2) Are you trying to trove FR to get ideas to take him up on this bet (3) IF you by some far chance win, will you freep mail the person that helped give you the "answer" to win the bet and share the grand prize.


13 posted on 06/28/2006 4:49:41 PM PDT by catholicfreeper (I am Blogging for the GOP and Victory O6 at www.theponderingamerican.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Markjwyatt

I have talked enough to Robert Bennett by e-mail to be able
to say that he does not even understand physics at the level of a college freshman physics major. He misunderstands basic things. If he has a Ph.D. it cannot be in theoretical physics from any reputable physics department. He uses terms like "inertial frame", and "Lense-Thirring effect" without any understanding. He made arguments to me about stellar parallax that involved elementary blunders. My own credentials? I have a Ph.D. in theoretical physics from Princeton Univ. (1978) and have published over 125 papers in research journals on fundamental physics.

Stephen M. Barr


14 posted on 06/28/2006 4:49:43 PM PDT by smpb (smb)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

Relative motion. What the scientists believe to be the true reality is not important. As long as the calculations are done right, they will hit the target. Both models heliocentric, geocentric) properly done will give the right answer.

This is explained in the book.

Many of those targets (near earth) were hit using trajectories calculated from geocentric reference frames.

Mark


15 posted on 06/28/2006 4:50:47 PM PDT by Markjwyatt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

Darned right! Newton, Einstein... Bone Heads!


16 posted on 06/28/2006 4:52:48 PM PDT by Michael Goldsberry (Lt. Bruce C. Fryar USN 01-02-70 Laos)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: smpb

Are you the author of "Modern Science, Ancient Religion"?

I disagree on Dr. Bennett. His chapter 12 is a pretty significant piece of work.

Mark


17 posted on 06/28/2006 4:53:20 PM PDT by Markjwyatt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: smpb

Dr. Barr:

I remember you stating in a previous post (last year) that rotation is absolute in general relativity. This is factually untrue. It is absolute in special relativity. Einstein invented general relativity to solve this issue (relativity of rotation).

We can all make errors.

Mark


18 posted on 06/28/2006 4:55:57 PM PDT by Markjwyatt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: longshadow; VadeRetro; balrog666; Senator Bedfellow; RadioAstronomer; js1138; whattajoke; Shryke; ..
"The Earth Does Not Move!" Ping List
Don't ask to be added to or dropped from this list. Just don't.

19 posted on 06/28/2006 4:56:14 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Unresponsive to trolls, lunatics, fanatics, retards, scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

What a marooooooooon! -Bugs Bunny


20 posted on 06/28/2006 4:59:41 PM PDT by balrog666 (There is no freedom like knowledge, no slavery like ignorance. - Ali ibn Ali-Talib)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS

RobbyS says: "The Church condemned him because of its attachment to Aristotle, not Christ. But Galileo's personal arrogance play ed a huge role."

That is a theory. That is not what the Church itself said:

Whereas you, Galileo, son of the late Vincenzo Galilei, Florentine, aged seventy years, were in the year 1615 denounced to this Holy Office for holding as true the false doctrine taught by some that the Sun is the centre of the world and immovable and that the Earth moves, and also with a diurnal motion; for having disciples... ...and for replying to the objections from the Holy Scriptures, which from time to time were urged against it, by glossing the said Scriptures according to your own meaning: and whereas there was thereupon produced the copy of a document in the form of a letter, purporting to be written by you to one formerly your disciple, and in this divers propositions are set forth, following the position of Copernicus, which are contrary to the true sense and authority of Holy Scriptures:

The Sacred Tribunal being therefore of intention to proceed against the disorder and mischief thence resulting, which went on increasing to the prejudice of the Sacred Faith, by command of His Highness and of the Most Eminent Lords Cardinals of this supreme and universal Inquisition, the two propositions of the stability of the Sun and the motion of the Earth were by the theological Qualifiers qualified as follows:

The proposition that the Sun is the centre of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to the Holy Scripture.

The proposition that the Earth is not the centre of the world and immovable but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically and theologically considered at least erroneous in faith.

...We say, pronounce, sentence and declare that you, the said Galileo, by reason of the matters adduced in trial, and by you confessed as above, have rendered yourself in the judgement of the Holy Office vehemently suspect of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the doctrine – which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures – that the Sun is the centre of the world and does not move from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the centre of the world;...


Mark


21 posted on 06/28/2006 5:04:23 PM PDT by Markjwyatt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Markjwyatt

Having now read some of your posting history, it seems to me that you are something of a one-trick pony.

Allow me to ask a pressing question unrelated to your favorite topic:

Should gumdrops be illegal in Switzerland or not?


22 posted on 06/28/2006 5:09:28 PM PDT by Michael Goldsberry (Lt. Bruce C. Fryar USN 01-02-70 Laos)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
The turtle the earth sits on is moving.

How do you knw for sure? It could be that the elephant that the turtle sits on, is moving. Hmmmm?

23 posted on 06/28/2006 5:10:03 PM PDT by ikka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: smpb
Re 14: It would be interesting if you could post some of the exchanges.

I engaged Sungenis and Bennett two years ago and soon saw that they were nutters. Bennett has no understanding of a rotating reference frame, no understanding that rotation implies an accelerated system, and his dismissal of the Coriolis "force" was laughable.

The offer of $100k to prove them wrong is laughable. Note that they are the sole deciders and can change the rules at whim. The simplest way for them to always 'win' is: we do not accept your evidence. This parallels the creationist arguments against evolution.

24 posted on 06/28/2006 5:10:09 PM PDT by thomaswest (One man's clarity is another man's misinterpretation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Michael Goldsberry

Screw it, I'm going with the earth on a turtles back theory. Nobody can prove it wrong.


25 posted on 06/28/2006 5:10:36 PM PDT by cripplecreek (I'm trying to think but nothing happens)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
"The TRUTH OF THE TIMECUBE™ CANNOT BE DENIED!" placemarker
26 posted on 06/28/2006 5:14:36 PM PDT by longshadow (FReeper #405, entering his ninth year of ignoring nitwits, nutcases, and recycled newbies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Markjwyatt

Cripes! I was under the impression that Sungenis was a member of the Flat Earth Society. I was wrong! He's a member of the Earth is the Center of the Universe Society and it's his HEAD that's flat...


27 posted on 06/28/2006 5:16:03 PM PDT by rjgrace
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smpb

I never got to finish that previous conversation.Here it is:

Sir, I am afriad you don't understand GR correctly. While Einstein was indeed influenced by Mach's ideas, GR is not really a Machian theory, though it predicts some effects that are reminiscent of Machian ideas (like dragging of inertial frames). One can find some books that say that GR is Machian, but the general consensus is that it is not. In GR, uniform motion is relative, but accelerated motion is absolute --- just as in Newtonian physics. The question of whether something is rotating or not is an ABSOLUTE question with one and only one correct answer. Yes, one can go to a frame in which a rotating object looks like it is not rotating --- however, such a frame is not an inertial frame; more specificly, it is a rotating frame. And one can tell that it is so by looking at the "fictitious forces" that appear in that frame. It is absurd to say that the whole universe could be rotating about an axis that goes through the earth. Distant stars could only be kept in circular orbits about such an axis by some centripital force directed toward that axis. Here the people like Sungenis will babble about dragging of inertial frames. They say that the distant matter going around will drag the stars around the axis. Not so. Not least of the problems with this idea is that one cannot write down a global rotating coordinate system, since the time coordinate lines would become superluminal at some finite (and not so large) distance. To put it another way, if all the stars go around the earth every 24 hours, then stars more than a light-year away would be going faster than light. But all this is nonsense anyway. Anyone who has a solid grasp of GR knows that in it accelerated motion is an ABSOLUTE concept. Finally, let me say that I actually do research in areas that require GR. I have refereed papers for journals such as Classical and Quantum Gravity. As I said, I teach GR at the graduate level --- do you?



17 posted on 10/11/2005 6:58:42 AM PDT by smpb (smb)




I agree, there is some controversy as to whether GR is Machian. I should have stated that it contained Einstein's interpertation of Mach.

Still in GR there are no fictitous forces in rotation. They become real forces as described by Thirring, Barbour and Berlotti, Bondi, etc. Einstein invented GR specifically so he could relativize rotation (a shortcoming of SR). When you reduce to the approximation of a Post-Newtonian formulation, then you are more SR-like, but as a general principle, rotation is relative in GR.

As to the point at which velocities of the stars become superluminal, this is the Schwartzchild radius, and Bondi has demonstrated that a shell of matter at this radius represents the effect of the rest of the universe. This lends support to Thirring, Barbour Berlotti, etc.

This also lends support to the ideas that aether theory can reproduce many relativistic effects (i.e, frame dragging). It tends to reduce GR to a more local action as it is usually described. Aether theories, especially with graviton type gravity tend to be more local in action also, while Mach's principle is more universal. Never the less, the matter at the farther reaches of the universe do have an effect at the earth, it is just a matter of how to represent it.

Mark


28 posted on 06/28/2006 5:18:59 PM PDT by Markjwyatt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Markjwyatt

You're pretty wacky...aren't ya.


29 posted on 06/28/2006 5:19:22 PM PDT by Focault's Pendulum (Durka Durka Mohammed Jihad Sherpa Sherpa Bak Allah)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: smpb

It wouldn't surprise me to learn Bennett has no such degree. Sungenis doesn't have the PhD he claims, so it would only follow...


30 posted on 06/28/2006 5:20:00 PM PDT by rjgrace
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

Yeah, but I read somewhere that the Turtle got so large it collapsed upon itself due to its own gravity. Later, Professor Hawkin came along and lit his bong on the hair growing from the blob.

Well, something like that...


31 posted on 06/28/2006 5:29:13 PM PDT by Michael Goldsberry (Lt. Bruce C. Fryar USN 01-02-70 Laos)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: saganite
Actually, this story is in a totally different category.

Frankly, from my point of view, the whole world moves around to accommodate me, and at night the universe wheels in the sky above.

For a variety of very good reasons the speed of light seems to be a constant from my vantage point.

32 posted on 06/28/2006 5:34:05 PM PDT by muawiyah (-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Markjwyatt
Re 28: To put it another way, if all the stars go around the earth every 24 hours, then stars more than a light-year away would be going faster than light. But all this is nonsense anyway. Anyone who has a solid grasp of GR knows that in it accelerated motion is an ABSOLUTE concept.

"But all of this is nonsense anyway." A dismissal by assertion.

It is not a valid argument to question the motivation of the proponent--the truth of the proposition is independent of motivation. But....

When an idea is presented that attempts to overturn 300+ years of observations and serious human thought and when that idea is advanced to show that the Roman Catholic Church "has always been right in all theological and moral aspects", one may wonder what is going on here. Their motivation is NOT to provide a better understanding of our life and universe, but to promote a religious agenda.

The authors see the overthrow of heliocentrism as a moral crusade. Their objective is show an "ABSOLUTE" truth to bolster their faith in their notion of God and a Christian 'revealed truth', as 'proof' that Hindu and Buddhist and secular understandings are dead wrong. They offer a particularly weird manifestation of fundamentalism.

33 posted on 06/28/2006 5:48:09 PM PDT by thomaswest (One man's clarity is another man's misinterpretation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Michael Goldsberry
Darned right! Newton, Einstein... Bone Heads!

Epicycles! We need a new theory of why stuff moves in epicycles around the stationary Earth.

Maybe we have to go back to angels pushing things around.

34 posted on 06/28/2006 6:03:20 PM PDT by VadeRetro (Faster than a speeding building; able to leap tall bullets at a single bound!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Markjwyatt
Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't your tradition also say that everything revolves around the Earth?

It is pretty obvious that Io, Ganymede, Callisto, and Europa do not. It was Galileo's discovery of Jupiter's four largest moons that led to his rediscovery of the helio-centric theory.

35 posted on 06/28/2006 6:10:07 PM PDT by Cruising Speed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Markjwyatt
True there were some key observations (i.e., parallax in the early 19th century), but there are geocentric explanations for parallax.

This is an interesting comment. I assume the reference is to the fact that at least some nearby stars move slightly with respect to distant stars as we move from winter to summer or fall to spring or, in fact, any 6 month period. This would be the result of viewing the nearby stars from a position in space that differs by 186,000,000 miles (twice our distance from the sun.) I do believe that this has been observed and would give quite an accurate measurement of the distance to these nearby stars.

Correct me if I'm wrong about this.

OTOH, I'm trying to think of an alternative explanation for the shift in postion that would pass the smell test. If there is an explanation I would like to hear it.

36 posted on 06/28/2006 6:18:56 PM PDT by InterceptPoint
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

Here a Nutter, There a Nutter, Everywhere a Nutty Nutter Placemarker
37 posted on 06/28/2006 6:30:47 PM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman (Gas up your tanks!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: InterceptPoint; Markjwyatt
This is an interesting comment. I assume the reference is to the fact that at least some nearby stars move slightly with respect to distant stars as we move from winter to summer or fall to spring or, in fact, any 6 month period. This would be the result of viewing the nearby stars from a position in space that differs by 186,000,000 miles (twice our distance from the sun.) I do believe that this has been observed and would give quite an accurate measurement of the distance to these nearby stars.

Correct me if I'm wrong about this.

You're not wrong. But the reason Copernicus's view won acceptance despite active persecution by the church is that the motions of the planets make sense in a heliocentric system. You don't need epicycles and cycles within epicycles (for which no mechanism exists anyway) to make sense of it all.

Think about Venus. Venus catches up to us every so often, at first following the Sun down in the evenings, then passing so close to the Sun we can't see it, then appearing in the morning out in front of it. It's on an inside track so it has a shorter "year" to complete its orbit. All of this makes sense as we understand things heliocentrically with Kepler's Law.

If the Earth were at the center of the solar system, never mind the universe, the path of Venus through our sky would make no sense. It's not what Kepler's Law would predict at all. Pre-Copernicus, funny epicycles were invoked. Yes, Venus circles the Earth but it's really circling a point which circles the Earth. Except sometimes the real planetary motions are so ragged that they had to say the planet was circling a point circling a point circling the Earth.

People were ready for a simpler explanation. Galileo, Kepler, and Newton came through. Since Galileo's time, we can see other bodies orbiting in other systems (starting with the moons of Jupiter) and they don't do epicycles. They do Keplerian/Newtonian orbits.

38 posted on 06/28/2006 6:36:38 PM PDT by VadeRetro (Faster than a speeding building; able to leap tall bullets at a single bound!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

Good for you. I think.


39 posted on 06/28/2006 6:45:39 PM PDT by saganite (Billions and billions and billions-------and that's just the NASA budget!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: ikka

it's turtles, all the way down....


40 posted on 06/28/2006 6:45:44 PM PDT by Nabber
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Markjwyatt

you are absolutely wrong, Mark! All experts in General Relativity would agree that in GR acceleration is an absolute concept. The concept of an "inertial frame" is a crucial one in GR. An inertial frame is a non-accelerating frame. One can tell by local measurements whether one is in an inertial frame or not. This is non-controversial. Anyone who knows GR understands this. It is true that Einstein was led to GR by Machian ideas, and according to Mach's ideas acceleration is relative. But it is generally agreed by that the theory Einstein actually came up with is NOT Machian. Though he was inspired by Mach's ideas, Einstein's theory does not actually realize Mach's principle of the relativity of acceleration.


41 posted on 06/28/2006 6:53:43 PM PDT by smpb (smb)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Markjwyatt

I am the author of "Modern Physics and Ancient Faith". Bennett is an ignoramus, and you can quote me on that.


42 posted on 06/28/2006 6:55:11 PM PDT by smpb (smb)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: InterceptPoint

The simplest explanation is the neo-Tychonic model: Earth stable at center, universe rotates, holding earth stable at center (expalined in the book). Sun revolves with the universe (though has a small difference in velocity), planets orbit the sun with elliptical orbits (earth is not a planet in this case). The stars revolution is centered on the sun.

This is an exact geocemetric inversion of heliocentrism.

Other more complex explanations are based on aether, aether flow, and abberation.

Mark Wyatt


43 posted on 06/28/2006 6:55:39 PM PDT by Markjwyatt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: smpb

Samuel M Barr says:

"you are absolutely wrong, Mark! All experts in General Relativity would agree that in GR acceleration is an absolute concept. The concept of an "inertial frame" is a crucial one in GR. An inertial frame is a non-accelerating frame. One can tell by local measurements whether one is in an inertial frame or not. This is non-controversial. Anyone who knows GR understands this. It is true that Einstein was led to GR by Machian ideas, and according to Mach's ideas acceleration is relative. But it is generally agreed by that the theory Einstein actually came up with is NOT Machian. Though he was inspired by Mach's ideas, Einstein's theory does not actually realize Mach's principle of the relativity of acceleration. "

An inertial frame is a non-accelerating one in general relativity (or any other theory), yes. BUT YOU CAN MAKE ANY FRAME IN THE UNIVERSE A REFERENCE FRAME. and the rest of the universe will accelerate around it and account for the forces which makes the frame you chose a fixed frame. This is the general principle of relativity.

General relativity describes the system (in this case the universe) relative to the rest of the universe from the perspective of the reference frame. Thus relativity.


Mark Wyatt


44 posted on 06/28/2006 7:01:12 PM PDT by Markjwyatt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Markjwyatt; Religion Moderator
Why is this thread in Religion when it's quite clearly YOUR blog?
45 posted on 06/28/2006 7:06:24 PM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman (Gas up your tanks!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Markjwyatt; InterceptPoint
The author Philip Jose Farmer had yet another thought on the matter that explained the "speed of light" problem for stars as far out as a light year.

He proposed the "pocket universe".

46 posted on 06/28/2006 7:08:41 PM PDT by muawiyah (-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Markjwyatt

You're quite the brave soul, posting something like this.

I believe it is the truth.


47 posted on 06/28/2006 7:09:31 PM PDT by reductio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Markjwyatt
The simplest explanation is the neo-Tychonic model: Earth stable at center, universe rotates, holding earth stable at center (expalined in the book). Sun revolves with the universe (though has a small difference in velocity), planets orbit the sun with elliptical orbits (earth is not a planet in this case). The stars revolution is centered on the sun.

To the extent that this is totally unfalsifiable, it is scientifically useless. To the extent that it says anything heliocentric theories do not, it is wrong.

48 posted on 06/28/2006 7:10:44 PM PDT by VadeRetro (Faster than a speeding building; able to leap tall bullets at a single bound!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Markjwyatt

Mark, You are talking nonsense. Rotation is not relative in GR. Period.

By the way, Robert Bennett told me, when I pressed him, that he does not believe in either special or general relativity! I can send you the e-mail where he said this to me. Bennett talks (as you do) about the Lense-Thirring effect and the dragging of inertial frames, but the Lense-Thirring effect is something that exists in General Relativity and not in Newtonian physics. Yet Bennett says he believes in Newtonian physics and not General Relativity. He totally inconsistent!
He rejects GR and then appeals to a GR effect.

I just looked you up in the ISI database and find that no one named M.J. Wyatt has ever published a research paper in physics. There is an M.J. Wyatt who has published a few papers in engineering. What are your credentials for arguing about General Relativity with someone who has taught graduate courses in it at a major university? (In fact I am teaching it again next fall.) You have what some people call Chutzpah. Look, fellah. I do this stuff for a living. Do you also tell brain surgeons and airline pilots about the technicalities of their fields? Sorry to be harsh, but God is not served by his followers speaking nonsense.

Bennett is an ignoramus when it comes to physics and Sungenis is a bigger one. Sungenis wrote some brilliant theological works (like "Not by Faith Alone") but he is now dabbling in things he knows zippo about. He still obviously has the fundamentalist idea of every man his own Pope, except that instead of rejecting 2,000 years of Church Tradition, as he used to do as a fundamentalist, he now rejects 400 years of well established physics. Just as he used to think he could figure out the whole Bible on his own without the aid of Tradition, so now he thinks he can figure out the physical universe on his own without knowing what theoretical physicists have been up to for the last 400 years. Chutzpah to the nth degree.


49 posted on 06/28/2006 7:14:39 PM PDT by smpb (smb)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: smpb


Samuel Barr says:"All experts in General Relativity would agree that in GR acceleration is an absolute concept."

Another way of putting the same point is to say that, in Newtonian mechanics and special relativity, rotation is “absolute” because the transformations between inertial frames (Galilean or Lorentzian) preserve rotational states. Thus the “absoluteness” of rotation arises precisely from singling out one type of frame, by one type of transformation, instead of allowing arbitrary transformations and arbitrary frames. Einstein held that this epistemological insight had a natural mathematical representation in the principle of general covariance, or the principle that the laws of nature are to be invariant under arbitrary coordinate transformations. More precisely, what this means is that coordinate transformations are no longer required (as in the affine spaces of Newtonian mechanics and special relativity) to take straight lines to straight lines, but only to preserve the smoothness of curves (i.e. their differentiability). The general theory of relativity was intended to be a generally covariant account of spacetime, and its general covariance was intended to express the general relativity of motion. And the theory came into being because Einstein perceived a deep connection between this project and that of finding a relativistic theory of gravitation.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spacetime-iframes/

Mark Wyatt


50 posted on 06/28/2006 7:33:16 PM PDT by Markjwyatt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-54 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson