Saturday, June 25, 2011

RESPONSE: Galileo rout: Galileo rout

RESPONSE: Galileo rout: Galileo rout

The referenced page is just absurdly incorrect and a very simple thought experiment will demonstrate this very clearly.

The orbital circumference of the moon1 is 2,413,000,000 meters, and the average orbital velocity is 1022m/s, dividing circumference/velocity gives us ~27.327 days2. This is how long it actually takes the moon to go ALL THE WAY around the Earth in its orbit.

But when we observe the moon it appears to go all the way around the Earth every single day, it doesn't take 27.327 days! If the Earth were NOT rotating then we would see the moon only move 1/27.327th of the way across the sky in a 24 hour period.

So the hypothesis proposed is clearly and demonstrably false.

The moon doesn't actually go all the way around of course, it just appears to. In actuality, it really does only move 1/27.327th of the way around. The additional apparent motion is due to the rotation of the Earth.

Where did he go wrong? Well, you cannot simply subtract the two velocities because they are at different distances from the center of rotation. Simply stated, the moon has to go much further, than the surface of the earth has to go around. So even though we're rotating at ~1/2 the velocity3, we zip around and around and around (27 times) while the moon only goes once around the Earth.

This guy is either lying about the facts on purpose or he was lying about his knowledge and ability with orbital dynamics. Either way he is bearing false witness. This guy, who is so desperate he would lie to protect his beliefs, and others like him paints Christians in an extremely poor light. Us "non-believers" see this same pattern of dishonesty over and over.

1 the actual value varies somewhat due to the slight eccentricity (0.0549) of the orbit, see the Wiki page on the Moon

2 do not confuse with the anomalistic, sidereal, tropical, draconic, or synodic orbital periods; all of which have different definitions and values

3 near the equator, near the North or South poll there is almost no rotational velocity at all; which is another factual error in his assertions


  1. The guy admitted the failure, replied to your comment and introduced new argument as scientific argument against rotation of The Earth around itself.

  2. Excellent! My follow-up, also submitted over at his blog (and should be read in that context or the references won't make much sense).

    Haha, I never realized the pun in that phrase in this case. Revolution also means "a dramatic change", "orbit", and "rotation". So it was a dramatic change in our understanding of how the Earth rotates and orbits the sun. Revolution, Revolution, Revolution you see.

    Science is based on an evaluation of the evidence - not what people think of the evidence. What we think about the evidence can and has changed, in every case BECAUSE the evidence showed some prior hypothesis to be WRONG. I'm not aware of any pre-heliocentric hypotheses that would be granted the status of a well-supported theory. It was all presupposition and guesswork with very little if any support from the data.

    Science is nothing more than our best attempts at removing sources of error and bias from our data and our conclusions. Unlike religion which claims to be infallible but has been demonstrated to be wrong time and time again - science doesn't claim perfection - it only strives for it. But it is ridiculous to claim that because we lack perfect knowledge in every possible subject and fact that we cannot know anything at all. Are you incapable of knowing when you are sitting at a Chair? Surely not.

    Equally, the ideas we are indoctrinated and inculcated with as children are very difficult to break out of.

    For example, you were, in a sense, justified in believing that your prior "evidence" proved the immobility of the Earth based on your understanding. But fortunately I was able to demonstrate to you that you had misunderstood the evidence and now even you reject your former hypothesis. This is science.

    The facts didn't change, your understanding of them changed and you rejected a flawed hypothesis.

    But what you haven't yet done is consider ALL of the data - instead, you have changed to more flawed hypotheses.

    If you wish to be intellectually honest now there are four things you must do next.

    (1) You must carefully evaluate your hypotheses and form them into mathematically rigorous statements.

    (2) You must make strict predictions from these falsifiable hypotheses in every test you can imagine AND every test people most knowledgeable in this field can help you formulate.

    (3) You must compare your predictions of those tests against actual measurements.

    (4) when you honestly find the predictions to be wrong you must reject the failed hypotheses

    And I can see that you have made some attempt at this. That's GOOD!

    But you haven't done a through job yet. I can see errors in your revised statements.

    Please take another crack at this and update me when you are done and I will take another look.

    One site you can use to help you with the map perhaps is

    I'm extremely impressed that you admitted your error - that is far more difficult to do than many people realize.

  3. Some facts that must be accurately accounted for in your theory:

    The tidal bulge on the Earth is not towards the moon, and not lagging behind the moon, but is out in FRONT of the moon [the moon pulls the mass of the Ocean towards it but the Earth rotates this bulge out ahead of the orbit of the moon - this gravitational bump ALSO pulls the moon towards this greater mass, accelerating the moon ever-so-slightly and causing it to move slightly, but measurably with modern technology, further away from the Earth]. [turn on all three options]

    The annual and diurnal aberration of starlight

    Parallax measurements to nearby stars (combined with aberration measurements in phase)

    The phase resonance of Earth-Moon due to Tidal locking

    Lunar libration

    The daily apparent motion of the moon going completely around the Earth despite it having 2,413,000,000 meters to go which takes ~28 days

    The motion of a Foucault pendulum which varies by latitude

    Earth-Moon, Earth-Sun barycentre measurements

    The Lagrangian point(s)

    Precession of the Equinoxes and ecliptic

    Apparent motions of the distant stars (combined with parallax measurements which measure their distance)

    Apparent motions of the planets, comets, asteroids, etc

    All of these facts are accounted for with the modern heliocentric model (relativistic) to many decimal places of accuracy based on one simple principle of mutual gravitation of mass and do not require distant galaxies to move at trillions of times the speed of light.

  4. John DS from Galileo rout>> It is very important to know that daily rotation of The Earth around itself isn't a self-evident truth but is a conclusion.

    First of all, the question of "truth" is an extremely complex one: non-trivial questions are almost never self-evident - this is WHY science came into existence in the first place - it became clear that without careful methodology errors and biases ruined the conclusions people had been drawing.

    There are tautologies and things that are simply "true" by definition, and there are things we have accepted as true in the past that, when questioned, turn out to be false.

    In this case, we KNOW stars are very far away because we can directly measure the parallax shift for the closest stars: And for the more distant stars the parallax shift is so tiny our finest instruments cannot measure it directly (fortunately, there are other ways of determining distance) - but we know they must be very far away.

    A Video on stellar parallax:

    If you accept that there are distant stars and galaxies then the conclusion that the Earth must be the one in rotation to make them appear to move 360 degrees in a short 24-hour period is rather self-evident. Combined with the aberration measurements and tidal effects the conclusion that the Earth is in rotation AND revolves around the Sun is about as Iron Clad of a truth as you can get.

    If you wish to REFUTE that there are distant stars then you must provide an accounting for all the measurements that support it, as I listed in my previous comment. Because the heliocentric theory has it spot on to as many decimal places as our best instruments can measure.

  5. John DS from Galileo rout>> I checked the times that elapsed each day

    You must provide your data, measurements, calculations, AND methods so that they can be evaluated for inaccuracy. This is otherwise a completely empty claim.

    John DS from Galileo rout>> There are faked experimental proofs

    And what of the mass of fraudulent 'Christians' and others who lied, stole, and murdered in the name of Religion/Spirituality/God?

    Ray Comfort, Harold Camping, Edgar Cayce, Ahn Sahng-Hong, Ariffin Mohammed, Arnie Stanton, Arnold Potter, Bahá’u’lláh, Benny Hinn, Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, Bob Wadsworth, Brigham Young, Carlton Pearson, Charles Capps, Charles Spiegel, Clarence McClendon, Creflo Dollar, Dan Millar, David Berg, David Koresh, David Shayler, D. James Kennedy, Ellen G. White, Ellie Bernstein, Ernest Norman, Frederick Price, George Ernest Roux, Haile Selassie I, Hal Lindsey, Hogen Fukunaga, Hoh-Ming Chen, Inri Cristo, Jack Van Impe, James Ussher, Jerry Falwell, Jessie Duplantis, Jim Jones, Joel Osteen, John Avanzinni, John Hagee, John Kilpatrick, John Nichols Thom, Jose Luis de Jesus Miranda, Joseph Smith, Joyce Meyer, Juanita Bynum, Kenneth Copeland, Kenneth & Gloria Copeland, Kenneth Hagin Jr., Kenneth Hagin Sr., Kim Clement, Krishna Venta, Laszlo Toth, Marilyn Hickey, Marina Tsvigun, Mark Charonna, Marshall Applewhite, Michael Drosnin, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, Mitsuo Matayoshi, Morris Cerullo, Moses Cerullo, Oral Roberts, Pat Robertson, Paul and Jan Crouch, Richard Roberts, Rick Joyner, Rinehard Bonnke, Robert Schuller, Robert Tilton, Rodney Howard Browne, Rod Parsley, R.W. Shambach, Sathyanarayana Raju, Sergei Torop, Shoko Asahara, Sun Myung Moon, Sylvia Browne, T.D. Jakes, Thomas Harrison Provenzano, Uri Geller, Wayne Bent, William Cooper, William W. Davies, Yahweh ben Yahweh, and thousands of others?

    Have you REALLY tried to compare frauds, liars and hucksters with Science on one-hand and Religion/Spirituality/God on the other?

    I can think of only a handful of frauds in Science, committed by scientists and not upon Science. There are some false starts as well but those are not frauds and were not accepted Scientific theories either - anyone can publish some false claims (as you yourself did); but your writing is not accepted Scientific theory. Even in your weak example of Piltdown Man, this was not even an accredited scientist who perpetrated the fraud. Come to think of it - he was probably a Christian. And there WERE scientists who immediately questioned the authenticity of Piltdown Man and the fraud was eventually revealed BY Scientists. More importantly, it changed absolutely NOTHING in evolutionary theory itself. It was a question of migratory time tables.

    Now let's look at the bible.
    According to the biblical scholar, at least 11 of the 27 New Testament books are forgeries, while only seven of the 13 epistles attributed to Paul were probably written by him.
    Individuals claiming to be Paul wrote 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, 2 Thessalonians, Ephesians and Colossians, he adds.
    Contradictory views, discrepancies in the language and the choice of words among the books attributed to Paul are all evidence of this forgery, the author asserts.

    Whoops! Looks like a Biblical Piltdown Man

  6. So apparently I'm blocked from now.

  7. I see John DS has removed my comments, and is still making demostrably false claims over on his site.