Selbrede on Dog Ed/Stahl re Sagnac/Geocentricity

[Mifletz]

Dog Ed wrote:

you wrote: "The Sagnac Effect cannot be explained by Relativity and it
cannot distinguish whether the Earth is rotating or the universe. When
contrasted with the zero velocity Michelson-Morley experiment, it
becomes a potent evidence in favour of Geocentricity".

Reply: The Sagnac effect is non-relativistic; I believe it is easily
understood by considering the geometry of rotating bodies. In other
words, the code-phrase "cannot be explained by Relativity" should more
properly read "can be explained without bothering with
Relativity"--you could just as well say "The sum of angles in a
right
triangle cannot be explained by Relativity." Proper response: So what?

As to the second point, it's well documented in multitudes of
experiments that there is no aether drift. Therefore, either there is
no
aether, or it is co-moving with the Earth. As already noted by others
the facts that there is no detectable aether drift and that the Sagnac
effect exists does not add up to geocentrism--both are perfectly well
explained by the standard model of physics.

Again we see a geocentrist living in the past--the Sagnac effect was
first noted in the late 1800s and rigorously defined and theoretically
explained by Sagnac around 1913. I don't think any serious physicists
since that time have seen it as evidence of geocentrism. The
Michelson-Morely results were also late 1800s, and although experiments
in 1925 gave positive results for aether drift they were disproven and
Michelson-Morely reconfirmed within a couple of years. Ongoing
experiments have also confirmed M-M to rather astounding acccuracies.

There's a rather wonderful explanation of the Sagnac effect written by
Professor Geoff Stedman of the University of Canterbury (New Zealand)
at
http://www.phys.canterbury.ac.nz/res...ring_open.html.
They're using a large ring-laser at Christchurch NZ to measure
infitesimal variations in the Earth's rotation due to earthquakes and
such...cool science. (Also completely anti-geocentric, since a rotating
Earth is central to their work!)

--Don Stahl

PS: Dunash/Mifletz, this is again a repost of the standard Geocentric
line--I made exactly the same points about Sagnac and Michelson-Morley
in response to Spoq. He had no logical reply either. It's very clear to
me that geocentrists have no actual interest in the science and are
merely coughing up the same points over and over. I'm not sure why you
do it...I guess I will write out a set of standard replies to claims
that Sagnac M-M, the expanding Universe, NASA coordinate systems, etc
support geocentrism and just whack one of them in each time you post
another rehash of your same old nonsense. Yeah...that's quick and easy,
and if each essay is well-written and documented with sources it ought
to demonstrate to those that haven't had the dubious pleasure of
reading
all your earlier posts of the same material that geocentrism is,
indeed,
the province of cranks and religious fundamentalists--and not of
science. (That's not fair: it's the province of Christian
fundamentalists only!)



Selbrede's (a top Californian geocentrist) reply:

"As to the second point, it's well documented in multitudes of experiments
that there is no aether drift." These experiments all assume the motion of
the earth through the aether -- thus constituting the grounds of rejection
due to petitio principii. "Aether drift" is here synonymous with detection
of the Earth's alleged annual motion around the Sun -- this cannot be found,
and since this is presumed to exist (the antigeocentric bias in data
interpretation), alternate explanations are sought for the effect to explain
it away under color of forthrightly explaining it.

"Therefore, either there is no aether, or it is co-moving with the Earth."
This is a false dichotomy, since it grossly glosses over the third
legitimate alternative, which treats the aether as rotating diurnally about
the earth's axis. This hypothesis explains the non-detection of the earth's
alleged motion around the Sun (since that relative motion of aether and
Earth doesn't exit to be detected) and the Sagnac effect (which arises due
to the rotation of the aether around the Earth). In other words, given the
two facts of a Michelson-Morley null result and the Sagnac effect, one
legitimate interpretation (in addition to the others cited by the critic) is
that the aether exists, but the earth doesn't exhibit translational motion
through it (corresponding to annual motion around the Sun) but the rotation
of the aether about the Earth's axis (which, ex hypothesi, would more
accurately be termed the aether's axis of rotation) gives rise to the Sagnac
effect.

"As already noted by others the facts that there is no detectable aether
drift and that the Sagnac effect exists does not add up to geocentrism--both
are perfectly well explained by the standard model of physics." More
accurately, the standard model assumes that aether drift should have been
detected (because geocentricity was assumed to be untrue) and explains this
unexpected null result without admitting to its fudging and occlusion of
initial assumptions.

Where the non-geocentric aether theorists go astray is in failing to
confront the consequences of non-detection: they have to invoke aether
entrainment models so that the null result is treated as a local phenomenon,
rather than a global one (as relativity predicts). The problem is that there
must be some transitional gradient from the locally-entrained aether to
non-entrained aether more distant from the entraining mass, and that would
be detectable. No aether-entrainment proponent has been willing to deal
with this required gradient (and it is surely a continuous gradient, not a
discrete boundary). Further, entrainment ratios for the translational and
rotational cases, even under superposition, should be detectable, but are
not found to exist.

Drift isn't a good term, although it's embedded into the nomenclature, since
the heliocentric model doesn't depict the Earth as drifting. The fact is,
before Michelson-Morley performed their interferometry experiment,
scientists expected one day to soon detect both the "aether wind" of the
Earth's journey around the Sun, and the "aether scour" resulting from the
planet's alleged rotation within the aether. Geocentrists offer up a very
straightforward explanation for these effects: the ether wind wasn't found
because the Earth doesn't possess the assumed motion, and the aether scour
was found in 1913 when Sagnac performed his work. One can disagree with this
explanation, preferring alternate ones to replace it, but one cannot rule
out the prima facie acceptability of the explanation and its conformity with
the data. When will you guys pay attention to the late Sir Fred Hoyle's
extended discussions of precisely this issue in his many highly-regarded
astronomy textbooks? (P.S. While I was studying general relativity theory at
CalTech one summer, Saul Teukolsky pointed out Hoyle walking across campus.
The CalTech GR-Black Hole-astrophysics scientists were extremely respectful
of Hoyle. Why does Hoyle's inclusive perspective receive such disdain here?
Are this site's standards higher than CalTech's? Or is rhetoric king?)

[DStahl]

Well, as far as I can see most of Mr. Selbrede's counter argument consists of hairsplitting. I wrote, "Therefore, either there is no aether, or it is co-moving with the Earth." He replied: "This is a false dichotomy, since it grossly glosses over the third legitimate alternative, which treats the aether as rotating diurnally about the earth's axis."

In my understanding, a comoving aether is taken to be rotating around the earth--otherwise it would not be consistent with the Michelson-Hall experiment, and hence not very interesting at all. Mr. Selbrede's "third legitimate alternative" is just a shift of reference frame: from the frame of a stationary Universe an aether consistent with experiment must be comoving (moving along with the Earth, and rotationally fixed with respect to the Universe); from a stationary Earth the aether is stationary (no translational motion with respect to the Earth, and rotating along with the Universe).

Oh, incidentally, one mistake I had corrected on the old board: the Sagnac effect is relativistic, and is easily explained using special relativity. There's an excellent online explanation of Sagnac on mathpages.com, and when I have time I'll ferret out the proper address and append it to this post. Sorry.

I think Mr. Selbrede is right, though, in asserting that there's no evidence of aether entrainment. Again, either the aether doesn't exist or it's comoving with the Earth. (Note the above definition of comoving.) We are left with a simple situation: there is no evidence proving there is an aether. In absence of any need for the aether hypothesis, it might as well be disregarded. (If there is proof that an aether exists, perhaps Mr. Selbrede can provide it. I can't.)

As far as the disdain with which I hold geocentrists, I can only speak for myself. Mr. Selbrede holds up Fred Hoyle as an iconoclast who wrote that the geocentric reference frame is equivalent to any other, and asks, "Why does Hoyle's inclusive perspective receive such disdain here?" I think Mr. Selbrede's implication is that geocentrism is perfectly respectable scientifically. I disagree. I believe it carries a tremendous load of unspoken baggage along with it. For example, if the Earth is 4 billion years old and the Universe about 15 billion, what gravitational or electromagnetic forces caused the Earth to form at the center of the Universe's rotation? Why not a more massive body, like the Sun? Why not the center of the Milky Way galaxy? What did the Universe rotate around before there was an Earth?

To accept the geocentric hypothesis, clearly the cosmological principle (no particular reference frame and no particular location in the Universe is privleged) must be abandoned. Must we also accept that the Universe is not roughly 15 billion years old and the Earth around 4 billion? What about our understanding of how planets and planetary systems are formed from rotating nebulae--how much of this must be drastically modified or discarded in order to admit the geocentric hypothesis as viable science?

While Sir Hoyle did indeed propose and defend many nonconventional theories--perhaps he took a delight in playing the rebel?--he was also an excellent scientist. I would be quite interested if Mr. Selbrede could produce a single sober statement from Sir Hoyle stating in plain language that in fact the Sun revolves around the Earth once a day. I would also note that Fred Hoyle was certainly no young-Earth creationist, inasmuch as he was instrumental in developing the modern model of stellar nucleosynthesis--a process which requires billions of years in order to make sense of the present distribution of elements, I believe.

The reason I personally disdain geocentrism is my perception that it is not based on scientific evidence but on religious belief. G.D. Bouw, in a post on this bulletin board, plainly stated that he had no scientific proof of geocentricity and that the matter was not one of science but one of theology. This board is devoted to science. I post here because I am an interested spectator of science and technology, not in order to review the theological hypotheses of one branch of fundamentalist Christianity. Now maybe I have misjudged. Maybe geocentrists really have worked out all the disconnects between the body of scientific knowledge, from the evidence of the CMB radiaton to the chemical composition of the most ancient meteroids, so that geocentrism interfaces smoothly with the rest of science. But I don't think so.

---I believe it carries a tremendous load of unspoken baggage along with it. For example, if the Earth is 4 billion years old and the Universe about 15 billion, what gravitational or electromagnetic forces caused the Earth to form at the center of the Universe's rotation? Why not a more massive body, like the Sun? Why not the center of the Milky Way galaxy? What did the Universe rotate around before there was an Earth?---
To be fair, Selbrede is really trying to discredit all those historical facts that you are presenting. What you are listing are "facts" of natural history. Copernican (Keplerian, Newtonian, etc.) description is a statement of what is happening right now. He is pointing out that theories of what is happening right now can not be used to establish what is happening right now, since we only have the facts right now to extrapolate backwards. Stating that Copernican models are wrong because we are sure the Big Bang happened is no more logical than Bouw saying that geocentricity is true because he is sure that God created the earth. Selbrede's criticism has some merit from a procedural point of view..

---To accept the geocentric hypothesis, clearly the cosmological principle (no particular reference frame and no particular location in the Universe is privleged) must be abandoned. Must we also accept that the Universe is not roughly 15 billion years old and the Earth around 4 billion? What about our understanding of how planets and planetary systems are formed from rotating nebulae--how much of this must be drastically modified or discarded in order to admit the geocentric hypothesis as viable science?---
That is exactly where he wants you to go. If he can convince you of geocentrism, you may be compelled to reject all that natural history stuff.
My view is that there is enough observations done in the last 100 years to justify a relativistic universe. Whether its Einstein derived GR or Mach derived GR, I don't care for this purpose. No geocentric models explain why the sun can pull other objects by gravity, but the earth can not be pulled.

Furthermore, if one wants to make an approximation of the relativistic universe, the heliocentric universe is a far more robust one than the geocentric approximation. Sure one can calculate a trajectory to the moon using a geocentric model, taking all sorts of "pseudo-forces" as being true forces of distant stars. However, if one skips even one of these pseudo-forces, or adds a new one, then the calculation becomes wrong. To be absolutely certain of these forces, and there are several, one has to know the distribution of matter in the universe. If one makes a Keplerian model as an approximation, one automatically makes an error. However, over the course of a few months, it will be a small one. Taking into account interplanetary interactions, the error becomes unmeasurable. I would say the heliocentric approximation is more robust than the geocentric approximation. Selbrede has the right to decide for himself whether that makes the heliocentric one more "true,".
Obviously NASA is going to use the heliocentric one for trips that are far outside earths orbit. Voyager, that went to the outer planets, did not use geocentric calculations. Getting these long trips confused with the orbitting satellite launches, or even the moon launch, is stupid.

---I would be quite interested if Mr. Selbrede could produce a single sober statement from Sir Hoyle stating in plain language that in fact the Sun revolves around the Earth once a day.---

Sebrede is using the old shell game. Hoyle may have said something about the "equivalence" of heliocentric and geocentric point of view. Very few deny this possibility, and it is in fact commonly agreed. Selbrede puts words in our mouth, claiming that no one agrees with Hoyles view. He gets there, and somehow shifts to the geocentric point of view being preferred for some scientific reason. A logical contradiction. He calls it "polemic."


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Rosen1 on 2001-10-29 08:42 ]</font>

DogEd replied to Mifletz with regards Selbrede
---I believe it carries a tremendous load of unspoken baggage along with it. For example, if the Earth is 4 billion years old and the Universe about 15 billion, what gravitational or electromagnetic forces caused the Earth to form at the center of the Universe's rotation? Why not a more massive body, like the Sun? Why not the center of the Milky Way galaxy? What did the Universe rotate around before there was an Earth?---
To be fair, Selbrede is really trying to discredit all those historical facts that you are presenting. What you are listing are "facts" of natural history. Copernican (Keplerian, Newtonian, etc.) description is a statement of what is happening right now. He is pointing out that theories of what was happening then can not be used to establish what is happening right now, since we only have the facts right now to extrapolate backwards. Stating that Copernican models are wrong because we are sure the Big Bang happened is no more logical than Bouw saying that geocentricity is true because he is sure that God created the earth. Selbrede's criticism has some merit from a procedural point of view.

---To accept the geocentric hypothesis, clearly the cosmological principle (no particular reference frame and no particular location in the Universe is privleged) must be abandoned. Must we also accept that the Universe is not roughly 15 billion years old and the Earth around 4 billion? What about our understanding of how planets and planetary systems are formed from rotating nebulae--how much of this must be drastically modified or discarded in order to admit the geocentric hypothesis as viable science?---
That is exactly where he wants you to go. If he can convince you of geocentrism, you may be compelled to reject all that natural history stuff.
My view is that there is enough observations done in the last 100 years to justify a relativistic universe. Whether its Einstein derived GR or Mach derived GR, I don't care for this purpose. No geocentric models explain why the sun can pull other objects by gravity, but the earth can not be pulled.

Furthermore, if one wants to make an approximation of the relativistic universe, the heliocentric universe approximation is a far more robust one than the geocentric approximation. Sure one can calculate a trajectory to the moon using a geocentric model, taking all sorts of "pseudo-forces" as being true forces of distant stars. However, if one skips even one of these pseudo-forces, or adds a new one, then the calculation becomes wrong in a few months. To be absolutely certain of these forces, and there are several, one has to know the distribution of matter in the universe. If one makes a Keplerian model as an approximation, one automatically makes an error. However, over the course of a few months, it will be a small one. Using Newtonian calculations, the error becomes very small with the possible exception of Mercury. I would say the heliocentric approximation is more robust than the geocentric approximation. Selbrede has the right to decide for himself whether that makes the heliocentric one more "true,".
Obviously NASA is going to use the heliocentric one for trips that are far outside earths orbit. Voyager, that went to the outer planets, did not use geocentric calculations. Getting these long trips confused with the orbiting satellite launches, or even a moon launch, is stupid.

---I would be quite interested if Mr. Selbrede could produce a single sober statement from Sir Hoyle stating in plain language that in fact the Sun revolves around the Earth once a day.---

Sebrede is using the old shell game. Hoyle may have said something about the "equivalence" of heliocentric and geocentric point of view. Very few deny this possibility, and it is in fact commonly accepted. Selbrede puts words in our mouth, claiming that we don't agree with Hoyle's view. Once he has persuaded others that we actually disagreed with Hoyle on the equivalence, he will somehow shift the argument to stating that the geocentric point of view being preferable due to some experimental result that he doesn't understand. A logical contradiction. He calls it "polemic," I call it sophistry.




<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Rosen1 on 2001-10-29 13:03 ]</font>

[DStahl]

Hi, Rosen!

I agree with you on most points. However, I'd like to mention that I didn't intend to use the Big Bang and our standard model of planetary formation to assault geocentrism directly. The point I meant to make is that nearly all of science can be connected by 'living' knowledge to nearly all other parts of science. In other words, the acentric model connects well with other cosmological and astrophysical theories and observations, and these connect to chemical and thermodynamic theories and observations, etc. Science is quite elaborate and beautiful, really, as well as robust.

There are misjoins--bits which do not quite match up in our current state of knowledge--but these, in my opinion are far outweighed by the connections which do make sense, which do join the branches of science both by theory and by observation. To me it seems that geocentrism severs a great number of these connections. If I imagine our understanding of the acentric, relativistic, gravitationally bound Universe as a living arm attached by blood vessels, ligaments, and bone to the body of science, then I see geocentrists as attempting to replace this living arm with one made of wax. On the surface this dead arm very closely resembles the living one they wish to replace, but it does not connect with the living body in any but the most rudimentary and clumsy way.

(Hey, look Ma, I made a metaphor!) Well, I wax (hehe) a bit poetic, perhaps. But I think the metaphor explains my very strong gut reaction to geocentrism: emotionally I see geocentrists attempting a sort of intellectual vivisectionism on the beautiful, elaborate, and robust body of science. Ugh. Gives me the clamwillies!

Caveat to Mifletz, Selbrede, and Bouw: I do realize that this is not the way you see your mission. I realize that you do not wish to be 'intellectual vivisectionists'. My metaphor is meant to clarify my personal emotional reaction to geocentrism. I think I understand that you are fighting for God and the Bible as you believe these things to be. But I must disagree with your attempt to insert the religious beliefs of one faction of fundamentalist Christianity into astrophysics. I do not find it appropriate.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: DStahl on 2001-10-29 23:14 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: DStahl on 2001-10-29 23:16 ]</font>

[Mifletz]

"Martin G. Selbrede" wrote:

Actually, Don Stahl’s reply was pleasantly courteous this time. This was a most welcome
circumstance, and I hope it sets a precedent for future dialogue over an admittedly
controversial topic.

Don was looking for proof that the aether exists. This is significant, since he DOES reject
(as do I) the various entrainment hypotheses — if he’s aware that evidence for an aether
and rejection of entrainment logically entails geocentricity, he certainly didn’t flinch (which
represents exceptional intellectual integrity in this case, since every nongeocentrist who
defends the aether is compelled to defend entrainment).

Proof is always a strong term in an inductive field like science, where rigor is the Holy
Grail but there’s always some new experiment that can topple an otherwise
well-supported hypothesis (remember how an entire law of nature in the realm of particles
physics — conservation of parity — had to be abandoned once a counter-example was
found?). We can provide evidence, and apart from the fact that our hypothesis explains
the evidence, we are further strengthened in our inductions from that evidence because
the standard model ignores that evidence, or declines to discuss its implications. I could
name many, but let’s start with two important ones: the +376 ohm reactive impedance of
free space, and the most straightforward interpretation of the Planck density. The former
testifies that space has a structure, and is more than mere intuited extension. The latter
issue is rather fascinating, because the Planck density (3.6E94 g/cm3) has been arbitrarily
treated as an initial state (Big Bang before the fuse was lit), even though the equations
that give rise to that density, on the face of it, describe present reality (just like the
derived Plank dimensions give). Why should the Planck density be shuttled off to an
unobservable event and assumed not to have present relevance? We hold that there is
no basis, apart from astrophysical bias towards the Big Bang, to apply this density solely
to the initial conditions of the universe. We hold that it is a current density state,
specifically, of the subquantum domain in which the classical regime is recovered (the
statistical aspects of quantum mechanics becoming artifacts of that subquantum regime,
while nonlocality/superluminal interactions are explicable in terms of that underlying level
of reality). The geocentric aether, as has been repeatedly emphasized, is ultradense and
not rarefied as the 19th century had supposed. It bears the Planck density, and the +376
reactive impedance arises from that ultra-dense subquantum domain.

I hope it won’t spoil Don’s appreciation for Fred Hoyle if I should point out that Hoyle
submitted an amicus curiae brief in the 1985 creationist trial in Arkansas — a brief for the
creationist side — and sent his partner, Chandra Wickramasinghe, to represent him at the
trial to speak for the creationists. He made an oft-quoted comment in his brief, that the
odds of evolution were worse than the odds of a tornado sweeping through a junkyard and
assembling a fully-functional Boeing 747 in the process. (Of course, Hoyle promotes
panspermia in lieu of creationism, but when it came to defending dissident science and
freedom of academic inquiry, he regarded creationism’s credentials to be strong enough to
respect, if not agree with.)

My final comment (for lack of time, not desire to interact) is that the nebular disk
hypothesis for the evolution of the solar system would have a lot more going for it if it
could explain the utterly anomalous distribution of angular momentum between the Sun
and its planets. Condensation from a rotating disk of dust would have led to specific
angular momentum patterns, and none of these is even remotely met: the entire system
testifies against such formation. Perhaps satisfactory explanation of that dangerous piece
of data would lead some geocentrists to relent, but as things stand now, why back off if
one’s case is stronger than one’s opponents?

Looking for more fruitful discussion like this in the future.

Martin Selbrede

[sts60]

To all, please either use the quote formatting, or indent with >, or set off blocks of quoted text with something to indicate who is saying what.

Thanks.

[DStahl]

First, I feel as if Mr. Selbrede has changed the subject slightly. The original post concerned Mifletz's claim that the Sagnac effect, coupled with the null result for Michelson-Morely, is "potent evidence" for geocentrism. I countered that all the experiments concerning isotropy of the speed of light are well explained by the standard model of physics. In particular, the Sagnac effect, which both Bouw and Mifletz claim cannot be explained by relativity, is in fact quite well understood using the equations of special relativity. The two experiments are not, in fact, "potent evidence" for geocentrism. Mr. Selbrede, your latest post appears not address that.

Second, as to the impedence of the vacuum: Are you claiming that the properties of the vacuum are not explained by the standard model of physics and so are proof of the existence of an aether? I must disagree. The standard model of physics presents a coherent picture of vacuum and quantum interactions which included the Casimir effect, the masking of charge of the electron (one of the most precise agreements between theory and observation in all of physics, unless I'm mistaken), etc.

It appears, toward the end of your post, that you may be implying that because there are universal constants such as the gravitational constant, the speed of light, and the rest masses of the electron and proton--to name a few--that the Universe arose through intelligent design. The argument for intelligent design is a hoary old debate which will be with us for a while yet. Cosmologists do not understand the origin of the values for some physical constants but progress is being made, through string and inflation theories, toward some answers. This appears to be mostly a case of theists seizing anything not yet fully understood by science and claiming "There! That's where God is!" The "God of the gaps" is the common name for this fallacy. Personally, I pay it little heed.

Third, I wish that geocentrists would not try to co-opt Sir Fred Hoyle to their cause. He is, sadly, no longer alive to defend himself against the proponents of pseudoscience. In <U>Home Is Where the Wind Blows</U>, pages 415-416, he wrote, "I purposely don't want to make God too remote--nothing like the awesome God of the ancient Hebrews--because I don't believe that concept is right, impressive as it may be." (Emphasis added.) I have not had time to read the book through yet, but from other readings I am convinced that Sir Hoyle was neither a young-Earth creationist nor a geocentrist. Peripatetic and iconoclastic he may have been, but he was sophisticated and not easily lead while he was alive. Please do not try to lead him now that he is dead.

Fourth, with respect to courtesy: In a post on the previous incarnation of the BABB G.D. Bouw referred to those who believed geocentrism could be disproven as "simpletons." Mifletz, and apparently Dunash (from the old board) seem to make it a habit to forward private emails to you or to other parties for comment and then post them, without their author's permission, on this board. I call the shots as I see them, and I will say what I feel. I will not stoop to profanity, but if I feel a given position is that of a crank, pseudoscientist, con man, or charlaton, I will feel no compunction about saying so.

[The Bad Astronomer]

What is going on here? Why is Selbrede talking through Mifletz? This is very weird, and you are already on thin ice, Mifletz. Tell Selbrede to register and post here if he wants to make his point. I don't trust second party posting.

[Mr. X]

On 2001-10-30 22:12, The Bad Astronomer wrote:
What is going on here? Why is Selbrede talking through Mifletz? This is very weird, and you are already on thin ice, Mifletz. Tell Selbrede to register and post here if he wants to make his point. I don't trust second party posting.

Methinks the BA has had just about enough of this.

I'm going to take cover and lay low for a while. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_eek.gif[/img]

Can't help but think I might be getting the boot too. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_eek.gif[/img]

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Mr. X on 2001-10-30 22:26 ]</font>

[DStahl]

To quote some more from the late Sir Hoyle:

"Religions with an all-powerful God make no sense unless you also believe that God is pretty evil, or at least wholly indifferent to bad things that happen. If you believe in an all-powerful God, you have to ascribe to God a morality inferior to that of humans, which is quite a measure of condemnation. But the real point is that God is not all-powerful, God cannot overcome the evils of decay because the issue is not one that is open to choice. If you have the Universe, then you must have decay. If you have no decay, then you have no Universe. Take your pick."

...

"Today we have extremes of atheistic and fundamentalist views, and it is, in my opinion, a case of a plague on all their houses. The atheistic view that the Universe just happens to be here without purpose and yet with exquisite logical structure appears to me to be obtuse, whereas the perpetual quarrelings of fundamentalist groups is worse than that. Not all the religious quarrels I ever saw or read about is worth the death of a single child." <U>Home Is Where the Wind Blows</U>, by Sir Fred Hoyle, page 421. Emphasis added.

Again, I challenge anyone to quote a passage by Sir Hoyle that states in plain language that he believed the Earth to be only 6000 years old or that he believed the Sun revolves about the Earth once a day. If you can't manage to let the man speak in his own words, then you're not playing the game according to Hoyle.

(I hope he would have forgiven me the pun.)



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: DStahl on 2001-10-30 23:41 ]</font>

[Mifletz]

This wriiten by Martin Selbrede (mselbrede@tralas.com) and posted on his behalf.

Stahl wrote: "In particular, the Sagnac effect, which both Bouw and Mifletz
claim cannot be explained by relativity, is in fact quite well understood
using the equations of special relativity." I'm traveling this week, so
have little time to interact with all your points (although all deserve to
be addressed, and will be in due season). I'm interested in this particular
statement, insofar as Special Relativity only applies to inertial reference
frames and a rotating frame simply isn't inertial. If the frame is
undergoing acceleration (and rotation IS acceleration), you are generally
forbidden from using SR to explain the system. I know some competent
scientists (who are personal friends) who are comfortable with a General
Relativity explanation of the effect, however.

Re: Hoyle, I certain did point out that he was not a creationist, and regard
the accusation of misrepresentation to be specious on the face of it.
Nothing you quoted in reply demonstrated my use of Hoyle to be defective,
but rather confirmed what I said. When you scatter accusations of
misrepresentations throughout the thread that are palpably untrue, and omit
that my use of Hoyle was carefully qualified, you do us both a disservice:
me, by forcing me to do mop-up after a hit-and-run, and you, because you've
left evidence that emotion is preventing you from being even-handed. Believe
me, Hoyle is being better represented by me than geocentrists in general are
being represented on this board.

Your complaint that other parties mediate and appropriate my comments and
intersperse them into the thread has considerable truth to it, and I
occasionally find myself associated with comments I didn't actually make
(which took Rosen and I almost two months to straighten out, sort of, more
than a year ago). Nonetheless, I'd otherwise not participate since I don't
have the time to hunker down and work the thread(s) directly, so I've been
content to let the situation stand and have the more pointed challenges
forwarded to me sporadically for reply. It's not a good system, but it's
the one we've got.

Martin G. Selbrede

[The Bad Astronomer]

It's not a good system, but it's
the one we've got.

No, it's not the system we've got. The system is: register and then post. Given these circumstances, I am locking this thread. Mr. Selbrede, if you want your voice heard, it must be your voice, and not someone else's. People here are responsible for what they say.