Response to Alec MacAndrew's Critique of Geocentrism

A while back I had posted a response to Alec MacAndrew's critique of Geocentrism on another site, but I am now posting it here on the www.galileowaswrong.com. Alec has Ph.D. in Physics so his comments are well worth reading. Unfortunately, Alec fails to apply what he learned in Physics to the Geocentric issue. One possible motivation for his reticence is that Alec is an admitted atheist and thus the idea of a non-moving Earth in the center of the universe is totally revolting to him. I understand, but science is science. Judge for yourself to see who has the better science. The URL is: http://www.catholicintl.com/articles/Answer_to_Alec_MacAndrew_on_Geocentrism.pdf

Is Einstein's Explanation of Relativity Kosher?

In a message dated 12/9/2010 5:49:51 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, noreply-comment@blogger.com writes:

ecl3rd has left a new comment on your post "GeoCatCon responses": Is it accurate to state: "the thesis of the constancy of light in inertial frames wasn't an arbitrary conjecture to meet some felt need for a stable center in one's life. The constancy of light was a consequence of Maxwell's equations. Einstein realized this and worked out a system (special relativity) which derived the consequences of this constancy. He later extended his analysis to non-inertial frames (general relativity). Posted by ecl3rd to Galileo Was Wrong at December 6, 2010 10:17 AM

R. Sungenis: Not really. It is more of a self-serving or face-saving description of how Einstein derived STR (Special Theory of Relativity) and GTR (General Theory of Relativity). We cover the Maxwell issue in GWW (Galileo Was Wrong: The Church Was Right), Vol. 1, pages, 178-195.

First of all, Einstein’s postulate about the constancy of the speed of light was modified when he invented GTR. We quote him saying so in GWW. As it stands, the speed of light is not constant in GTR inertial frames, because according to Einstein, gravity affects the speed of light. Do you know of any place in the universe that doesn’t have gravity? Do you know of any place that does not have different degrees of gravity?

Ironically, the gravity Einstein had to put into GTR that was missing from STR was the very gravity that nullified his STR postulate about the constancy of the speed of light. But Einstein needed the constancy of the speed of light because it was the only thing that would help him answer the Michelson-Morley experiment. Einstein was trapped. Either he postulated the constancy of light speed or he had to accept that the Earth wasn’t moving.

But if he accepted the constansy of light, then GTR would eventually topple that postulate and thus bring Einstein right back to having no answer for Michelson-Morley.

This is the maze of Relativity theory to which most scientists are blind, for they refuse to accept a motionless Earth as a solution to Michelson-Morley.

As for Maxwell’s equations, Einstein didn’t like the fact that Maxwell based his electromagnetic equations on the presence of ether, for ether was the death-knell for STR. In order to answer Michelson-Morley, Einstein had to get rid of the ether, since ether was causing all the problems of having to admit that the Earth wasn’t moving.

Lorentz tried to solve the problem by inventing his famous “transformation equation” √1- v^2/c^2 (or the square root of 1 minus the velocity of the earth going around the sun squared, over the speed of light squared). This would allow him to “transform” a fixed earth into a moving earth by claiming that the Michelson-Morley apparatus shrunk by √1- v^2/c^2. In other words, Lorentz’s “transformation equation” magically reinserted a moving Earth by fudging the numbers of the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment.

Einstein had a similarly devious solution in using √1- v^2/c^2, but he would do so by getting rid of the ether and foregoing having to shrink the apparatus of the Michelson-Morley experiment. Rather than saying the apparatus shrunk, Einstein said that the time shrunk, and it would shrink by the same factor that Lorentz used, namely, √1- v^2/c^2 (the square root of 1 minus the velocity of earth around the sun squared, over the velocity of the speed of light squared). That is why there is so much attention paid to “space-time” in Einstein’s theory. Hence, Einstein was forced to say that time is not absolute, but is molded by space and the events that occur in it, and therefore there is no simultaneity of events in the universe.

Again, all these fudge factors and arbitrary lengths and times were invented by Lorentz and Einstein so that they didn’t have to admit that the Michelson-Morley experiment showed the Earth was standing still in space.

Einstein also didn’t like the fact that Maxwell had two separate equations for electromagnetic activity. Relativity wants the two equations to meld into one phenomenon – a “relative” phenomenon. But Maxwell had two separate equations because he saw two separate phenomena occurring. When he moved a magnet around an electrified induction coil, an electric current was created around the magnet. But when he moved an electrified induction coil around a magnet, no electric field was created around the magnet – a truly fascinating yet puzzling result.

So Maxwell had to create two different equations for these two different phenomena. He believed that the ether between the magnet and the induction coil was the cause of these two different phenomena, since ether reacted differently in each case.

But if Einstein was determined to get rid of the ether in order to answer the Michelson-Morley experiment, and if he was determined to shy away from Lorentz’s silliness about shrinking apparatus, he had to have an explanation for why Maxwell found two different phenomena in regards to electricity and magnetism. Having two different phenomena smacked of a preferred reference frame (e.g., a non-moving earth), but Relativity rejects preferred reference frames.

So, what Einstein devised as a solution was the same he did previously when he used √1- v^2/c^2 to answer Michelson-Morley. He used math to mask Maxwell’s two diverse phenomena so as to make them one phenomenon. He did so by utilizing his famous “tensors” equations. If he could get the math to work, well, in his mind that was just as good as solving the problem of the perplexing nature of electromagnetism. It wasn't at all.

Now, although it is true that Maxwell’s equations used a constant speed of light, he did so because it was natural to assume (and terrestrial experiments of the speed of light had verified) that light always goes the same speed through ether at the surface of the earth. The only reason it would change is if something interfered with its travel. Maxwell didn’t have to worry about any v + c anomalies, since his electromagnetic equations didn’t include velocity as a factor.

So Einstein borrowed the terrestrial constancy of the speed of light from Maxwell and then turned it into a universal phenomenon and, due to the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment, he would have to insist that v + c = c, and he would make up for the difference between that and v + c = v + c by using Lorentz’s transformation equation, namely, √1- v^2/c^2. Quite an ingenious system. Yes, indeed. It is one of the most brilliant uses of mathematical fudge factors ever devised by mankind, and all to hide from the public the results of scientific experiments from Arago, Fizeau, Fresnell, Airy and Michelson-Morley that Earth was motionless in space.

This is why the world reveres Albert Einstein – because he saved them from having to go back to pre-Copernican days when the Earth was the motionless center of the universe, something men could only believe by acknowledging that Someone had put the Earth in that central position, for no fool would believe that such a privileged place in the center of the universe could happen by chance. If Lorentz and Einstein could keep the Earth moving by their mathematical abracadabra, well, that would mean that Earth could be removed to the remote recesses of space and could be given 13.5 billion years to find that cold, dark corner, and it could do so all by mere chance, with no involvement from that special Someone necessary.

By the way, the very ether Einstein rejected in forming STR is the ether he took back when he invented GTR. We quote him saying so in GWW. The whole Relativity theory is a mass of contradictions, but that's what we expect to happen when one tries to escape the truth of a non-moving Earth in the center of the universe. The latter answers all the scientific anomalies, the former just complicates them even more.

Robert Sungenis
December 24, 2010

Letter from Patron - 12/19/10

Dear Robert,

Thank you for your kind words.

Yes, I'm absolutely on board - just took me a while to catch up :)

Not long after emailing you I was reflecting on the fact that Our Lord made the sun dance to HIS tune at Fatima :)

The very next day I watched a video discussing the teachings of Alice Bailey (of Lucifer/Lucis trust located in the UN Building) and Helena Blavatsky which spoke about the sun and the solar logos. It verified exactly what I had come to realise, especially the Luciferian focus on the sun.

I've just purchased the mp3s of the first Geocentricism conference from your web site, and between that and re-reading your books I hope to educate myself enough that I may be effective in leading people to your site/materials.

It really is about the correct world view, and once you accept the Catholic position, it's actually quite liberating to stand on the Word of God. The more I reflect on the Gospels the more I'm amazed at the simplicity of Our Lord, every word He spoke He meant. His straight forwardness, humility in speech, His simplicity, is reminiscent of God revealing himself to Moses in the silence. I've learned to tremble at His words.

I just noticed your mp3 "real men go after Galileo", I totally agree with you. That's the foundation to crack.

Please keep up the great work!

Thank you once again for your kind reply.

May God Bless You Always

David

Letter from Patron - 12/18/10

Hi Robert,

I've been a long time supporter of your apostolate and have greatly enjoyed the book and conference on geocentrism.  I recently sent an email to a handful of fellow Catholics regarding my enjoyment in reading the book.  One of those Catholics posed the following response to me and I was wondering if you had previously encountered it, see below.  I know in the Q&A section of the conference a priest asked a question of Mr. Salza and you made a statement that you get the same question from Fr. Harrison about once a year. I could find no such article on your website if your response to him is there.

R. Sungenis: Ernie, first let me thank you for your long time support. It’s been a pleasure to receive your encouragement from time to time.

In honor of that support, I will answer each of the points made by the Catholic who posed these questions to you. 

Inerlocutor: "The Church has tolerated her children believing in heliocentrism for at the very least a century.

R. Sungenis: Even if it were true, this argument is actually self-defeating, for it means that the Church did not tolerate her children believing in heliocentrism for 19 centuries prior, which means that the Church of 19 centuries has the sensus fidei, not the Church of the 20^th century. It means that the 20^th century Church is leaning towards disbelief and apostasy by departing from the teaching of the Church for the 19 centuries prior. Scripture says apostasy will come (cf. 2Th2:1-11; 2Tim 4:1) but it doesn’t say that the Church of Tradition can be wrong in its consensus of belief from the Fathers onward. So the odd man out here is the 20^th century prelature, not the Church of Tradition.

As for whether the Church has “tolerated” a belief in heliocentrism, that all depends on what one means by toleration. The Church has made no formal and official statement that it is now doctrinally acceptable to believe in heliocentrism. If there is a “toleration” it is only an argument from silence. Officially speaking, even in the 20^th century the Church made motions not to support heliocentrism in any formal capacity. For example, in 1941 the Pontifical Academy of Science rejected a book written by Pio Paschini (who was commissioned by the Vatican to write the book) on the Galileo issue because the book was favorable to Galileo. At that time, the president of the PAS, Agostino Gemelli, said: “Galileo had no proofs for heliocentrism, and for that matter, neither did Newton, Bradley or Foucault.” Similarly, in the writing of Gaudium et spes at Vatican II, paragraph 40 was edited to take out any reference to Galileo, and the reason for the edit was, according to Monsignor Parente the co-president of the commission, it was “not right to say the Church was in error.”

Interlocutor: Nor can one can plausibly argue the recent popes were geocentrists

R. Sungenis: First, the private beliefs of a pope are superfluous and inconsequential in matters of binding doctrine. Second, most of them have not even been educated to the scientific evidence supporting geocentrism, much less capable of making an intelligent private decision on the matter. This is because the scientific information has been kept from them. One only need look at the position of the PAS today. It has a policy not to allow anyone from a six-day creationist perspective into the PAS, despite whether he believes so based on evidence from science. The PAS is run by atheists and agnostics today. Stephen Hawking is a lifetime member, and he doesn’t even believe in God. This is part of the apostasy that the 20^th century prelature is working under. Scripture, the saints and Marian apparitions warned it would happen. Here’s another example. For those who believe that Pope John Paul II performed a valid consecration in 1984 in obedience to the request of Our Lady in 1929, well, that means that all the popes prior (Pius XI, Pius XII, John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I) either refused to obey heaven or were negligent in their duties. So it indeed can happen. The more conservative scenario is that neither did John Paul II do a proper consecration, since he, like Pius XII in 1942, failed to mention the very nation targeted for the consecration, Russia. So is it possible for popes to be misled and negligent in their duties? You tell me.

Interlocutor: ...I am saying one who is a geocentrist must think the modern popes have been wrong in their private interpretations of cosmology and even expressed this view in their public addresses from time to time---e.g., when John Paul II praised the findings of physics and so on

R. Sungenis: Yes, that is correct, but this sword cuts both ways, and it cuts even deeper and more deadly the other way. Here are your choices: (a) either John Paul II was misled into privately believing that heliocentrism was correct, or (b) the whole tradition before him was misled into doctrinally and officially stating that heliocentrism was a formal heresy. Obviously, the Interlocutor’s medicine is worse than the disease. And consider this: John Paul II made no apology to Galileo in his 1992 speech to the PAS, nor did he concede that the Church made an error in its decision. He said the Galileo affair was a big “misunderstanding” and one of the reasons why is that science has become more “relativistic” in its beliefs. If you know anything about Relativity, it says there is no real difference in saying the Earth revolves around the sun as opposed to the sun revolving around the earth. That is why Einstein said the following:

“The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS [coordinate system] could be used with equal justification. The two sentences: ‘the sun is at rest and the Earth moves,’ or ‘the sun moves and the Earth is at rest,’ would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS” (The Evolution of Physics: From Early Concepts to Relativity and Quanta, Albert Einstein and Leopold Infeld, 1938, 1966, p. 212).

Interlocutor: ...Anyone who takes the time to read the manuals of theology written in the 19th and early 20th centuries will find that they unanimously uphold the doctrine of the pastoral infallibility of the magisterium. This doctrine states that even in non-dogmatic issues, the magisterium can never adopt a pastoral policy for the universal Church which is harmful to souls...it doesn't take long to see all the manuals explicitly or implicitly adopted this principle. And it is explicitly taught by Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange and Joseph Fenton, to name two trustworthy examples...No one can deny that the magisterium pastorally permits the teaching of heliocentrism. One could dig up several quotes from modern popes which even adopt this view. The Church could not tolerate such positions for a century if these opinions were pastorally harmful to souls. It just isn't possible...the pastoral infallibility of the Church is expressly adopted even in the official judgments of the magisterium.

R. Sungenis: Let’s just assume there are no flaws in the above argument. That being the case, let’s apply it to the 16-18^th century Catholic magisterium that condemned heliocentrism as a “formal heresy.” Did not those popes and their prelature enjoy the benefit of “pastoral infallibility”? Were they not protecting their parishioners from that which was “harmful to souls”? In fact, since the 16-18^th century magisteriums were merely following the Tradition laid down by an absolute consensus of the Fathers, the medievals, St. Thomas Aquinas, the Pius V Tridentine catechism (which teaches geocentrism in four separate places), we could say that their “pastoral infallibility” was not only pastoral but a binding and integral part of the Ordinary Magisterium for 1900+ years. According to Lumen Gentium 12, this consensus makes the belief in geocentrism “infallible” by virtue of the fact that the Holy Spirit led all these people, century after century, to believe in this very doctrine. If that is the case, then any departure from it is not another movement of the Holy Spirit (for we cannot make the Holy Spirit tell a falsehood in one era and tell the truth in another) but a movement of the devil seeking to bring the Church into apostasy, which Scripture, the saints and our 1994 Catechism affirm (see paras. 676-677). As you can see, the argument from “pastoral infallibility” defeats itself. The only logical approach is that the Church of the 20^th century has made no formal and official acceptance of heliocentrism; rather, various popes have been led to accept heliocentrism in their private beliefs because they have been deceived into thinking that science has proven heliocentrism when, in fact, science has proved the very opposite.

Interlocutor: No one will be harmed by following the pastoral guidance of the magisterium, today or in any other era in history...The Church cannot permit her children to harm themselves by false belief and practice for a century, while all along She remains silent.

R. Sungenis: Says who? What time limit has the Church officially proclaimed for how long she can remain in “silence” on an issue? In the 17^th century, Cardinal Cajetan had questioned the contents of the canon of Scripture. How could he do so? Well, because the Church had not made infallible the contents of Scripture for the previous 1600 years. St. Thomas Aquinas denied the Immaculate Conception. Why? Because the Church was “silent” on making an official dogma of it for 1950 years. There are a lot of theological issues that remain in the lumberyard of Church history. The Church addresses them when she finally gets the motivation to do so. Hence, having the Church in “silence” for a century about cosmology is hardly anything compared to how long other doctrines have remained in “silence” in the Church.

Interlocutor: No pope in the past 100 years has warned us against Galileo's "false opinions," or anything like that---correct me if I'm wrong.

R. Sungenis: Even if the above were 100% correct (which it isn’t), the two-edge sword will again defeat the argument, since all the popes prior to the last 100 years were directly preaching against heliocentrism. If you want to make the Traditional Church of 19 centuries compete against the modern day Church of one century, you will lose, for Tradition, according to Catholic dogma (Lumen Gentium 12) takes precedence and authority; and any deviation from that Tradition is error and apostasy, not truth. The only possible way that the Church of Tradition could be rejected in regards to its teaching on geocentrism is if science had found infallible and irrefutable proof that heliocentrism was correct and geocentrism is wrong. Even Bellarmine admitted this, but he knew from the very nature of the issue that science could not demonstrate a proof, and therefore he and the Church behind him had no problem condemning heliocentrism as a “formal heresy” in 1616 and 1633. The fact is, science has no proof for heliocentrism, and never has. As I noted previously, Agostino Gemelli of the PAS admitted this fact in 1941 when he stated that neither Galileo nor Newton nor Bradley nor Foucault gave us proof of heliocentrism. To the consternation of most people today, science actually gives convincing evidence (if not proof) of geocentrism, not heliocentrism, but unfortunately, most Catholics will not take the time to investigate the scientific evidence.

Interlocutor: Even more to the point, Pius XII said Catholics could (for the time being) work out the implications of macro-evolution! He didn't say evolution was true, but he did say it could be investigated to see whether it was compatible with the faith.

R. Sungenis: Well, then, why don’t a majority of Catholics take the time to investigate the scientific evidence for geocentrism? Why don’t they investigate the scientific evidence against evolution and for a creationism? It is because most of them, because they have been misled by popular science on the Galileo issue, believe that the views of popular scientists today have more authority than the Church. If they did take Pius XII’s words to heart they would find there is little evidence for evolution and little evidence for heliocentrism. Pius XII himself, in the same encyclical, warned against those who assume evolution is fact when there is no evidence it is fact.

Interlocutor: If he took this position with evolution, a fortioti he would have taken an even mild pastoral approach with heliocentrism. Clearly evolution isn't obviously incompatible with our faith, or Pius XII would have said so. Now I would argue it is much easier to make a biblical case against evolution than against heliocentrism. Ergo."

R. Sungenis: No, it is actually easier to make a case against heliocentrism, but who’s counting? All we need to show is the scientific evidence that the Earth is in the center; and the scientific evidence that it is not moving; neither of which are very difficult to do.

The point in fact remains that there is no official statement from any 20^th century pope teaching that heliocentrism is correct and geocentrism is incorrect. At best, there is only an interim of “silence,” but that is not unusual for the Catholic Church. I intend to help quell that silence by showing the Church that she needs to reinvestigate this issue; and when she does she will find that the Church of Tradition was right all along, and that it is the modern Church’s responsibility to support and defend her, not cower in obeisance to popular science. Ironically, with the evidence we have found, she will be able to use the very science that the atheists have found (and misconstrued) to show that the Earth is motionless in the center of the universe. At that time we will not be forced to give allegiance to one era of “pastoral infallibility” at the expense of another, for we will have one consistent whole. It can work no other way.

Robert Sungenis

Dec 18, 2010

Afterthoughts on GeoCatCon I - Rick Delano

The Conference was unforgettable, not least of all because of the contingent of Notre Dame students (how come y'all said you were from Canada, anyways?) who peppered the panel with questions at both sessions, and then kept me up til 1am with questions in the bar afterward.

It was interesting how the questioning shifted away from scientific to theological territory after the Conference- I theorize that the expectation of an "easy kill" on the science front was quickly abandoned in the face of the evidence presented.

I hope that Dr. Bennett's ALFA Challenge can serve as the basis for a more extensive look at GC models next time around- this year we really had to deal with the tiresome old pre-Relativity "everybody knows" arguments like Venus' phases, Mars' retrograde motion, Foucault's pendulum, etc.

But I expect that the questioners will be more up to speed next time.

Here's my early reservation for GeoCat II!

GeoCatCon responses

Dear Todd,

Thanks for attending the GeoCathConI and providing objective feedback.  Replies to your blog comments  at http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/
are below.

[Todd]  …the central issue to me has always been what the Bible actually teaches about the motion of the earth (or lack thereof).
[AMDG] Agreed. I supported Biblical GC before having any idea what the scientific proof would be.
[Todd]  …. I thought this was finally our opportunity to get down to some of the really hard questions about geocentrism. We didn't really get that.
[AMDG]    Fair enough.  What are some of the really hard GC questions on your mind, Todd? I'll try to atone for the omissions. 
[Todd]  ..... This aether supposedly explains the motion of Foucault's pendulum, which is apparently dragged by the aether of the universe as it rotates around the earth.
[AMDG] Your qualifications above infer the analysis given was insufficient or ineffective. The PP presentation is attached; the Foucault  slide is #9.  What is the conceptual problem?

[Todd]  ....  you could measure the "ether" of the universe by measuring the speed of light as it travels through water going the opposite direction.
This is an experiment he is challenging scientists (I think) to do to test for the aether.
[AMDG]  No, the Fresnel theory/Fizeau exp was an early proof of aether drag that 19th century physicists all accepted, repeated in modern times with the same results. There was no controversy over the theory or results.... until the M&MX shocked them all.  The Fresnel theory was applied to the Sagnac exp. which led to an Absolute Lab frame and a Flexible Aether - the ALFA model, using two basic axioms.
 The ALFA challenge is not a specific experiment to be tested, but a request to refute the model by testing it against any experiment, i.e., the scientific method of testing hypotheses.  So far 2 internet forums have failed, preferring to sing the praises of relativity or focus my other beliefs. Only one poster stuck to science; he thought the binary star observations disproved the ALFA model.
 I grant catching all this on the fly is difficult, but you should have received a handout that summarized the logic leading to ALFA. Since you missed that, a copy is attached.
[Todd]  …He concluded by explaining how there is some kind of signal in the cosmic background radiation just behind the constellation Leo. Then he informed us that although the zodiac is today associated with the occult, it's true origin is biblical. Leo is the "Lion of Judah," AKA Jesus Christ. Regulus (a star in Leo) is therefore signaling to us that Jesus is returning.  I'm truly at a loss for words.
[AMDG]  I'm rarely at such a loss.   Adam named the animals, but God named the stars .... many still have their Semitic names. From Virgo to Leo the Zodiac is salvation history painted in the sky for all humanity to see, whenever or wherever they walk the Earth.
 What then is the scientific explanation for the aether flow from Leo - the CMB dipole source? What is the objection to my connection of Genesis and the Psalms with the CMB dipole- other than never hearing of such before?
 btw: Regulus is more than just a star in Leo - it's the heart of the Lion of Judah....
[Todd]  .... one person asked the question I was already thinking: What about the problem of rotational speed of the universe? If the universe really does revolve around the earth once a day, then "Saturn must be going at the speed of light." Yes, I had thought of that too! ...... So how in the world does that work?
[AMDG]  The aether speed appears in the ALFA model as Vae,lab.  There is no apriori knowledge of an upper limit for this V, nor is there any contradiction in saying that the aether medium can travel faster than the photons within it.
 If mainstream science says that distance and speed of stars and galaxies are determined solely by Hubble's Doppler shift - when there are certainly other causes of red shift - why can't the observed stellar periods of a sidereal day be assigned to the motion of the aether the stars are floating in?  
[Todd]  ….So superluminal speed is not a problem. Sure. That's ad hoc.
[AMDG]   The falling pencil was an example of AAAD with no medium between to explain this illogical attraction of masses by gravity. Newton's LoG is purely empirical, with no logical mechanism of operation. Aristotle said, "from nothing comes nothing." 
  AAAD for gravity..... now that's really ad hoc.......and hocus-pocus!
[Todd]  …it's very tempting to launch into personal attacks and mockery, which would be undeniably popular and therefore increase my blog traffic.
[AMDG]  - a commentary on the level of modern scientific discourse, isn't it?

[Todd]  .... so I guess maybe if they actually take my advice, at the very least, we'll all have a better chance to communicate and understand our differences, which is perhaps the best we can hope to do.
[AMDG]  Please understand that we were under severe limits of funding (do you think $50 covers it all?) and this was the first conference (do you remember Windows 1?) .   You will see a big improvement at GeoCathConII !
[Todd]  ….Also, please include some kind of basic introduction to the factual issues in question. You launched right into a defense of geocentrism, and I was playing catch up all day on what you were talking about. For example, various speakers mentioned the Michelson-Morley experiment, but no one really explained precisely what it was, what they were trying to test, what the results were, and how the results should be interpreted.
[AMDG]  55 minutes isn't enough time to present the MS and GC cases thoroughly.  If something had to go, guess what it was. 
You can always get the relativity science anywhere, but this conference is a rare opportunity to gain rare pearls of wisdom not found elsewhere...
 I did explain - apparently, not too well - what the M&MX attempted to measure, using the analogy of a boat in a river to a photon in an aether stream.  The difference in the cross-current speeds is ~ v^2/2c^2, where v is the speed of the aether.  M&M expected to find v = 30 km/s, the orbital speed that Newton predicts for Earth. They found about 15% of that speed and declared the result 'null', meaning not zero, but not what they expected.  This shocked the whole physics world - MS at that time was mostly aethereal. Michelson's formal interpretation of his own experiment listed 4 choices.... none of the four were the obvious one - the Earth and aether were both at (or close to) being at rest.  SR in 1905 was Einstein's attempt to solve the impasse by mathemagic. 
 Except for the last word you should find this to be a fair historical summary of the M&MX.
 GC interpretation:  the Earth is at rest(Sagnac result) and the aether moves slowly around the Earth(Michelson-Gale).  The ALFA model explains these 3 exps and many more, like Fizeau.
 Any more questions, Todd?  Time is no longer an issue, so let 'er rip.

[Todd]  ….Characterizing scientists as arrogant, deceptive, or purely driven by philosophical bias doesn't help your case at all.
[AMDG]  Point well taken.  My allusions to MS scientists refers to the academic physicists who are 90% atheist and authors of textbooks and pop science, the media demagogues who control what teachers and students see and think.
 The ALFA model is significant for its simplicity.  Do we really believe that no one among the 20th century super-stars thought of this?  What they fear is the truth, just as the evols fear special creation, because it forces a life-style decision re religious faith.          ...and the children of darkness ran from the light, for they loved the darkness. 
[Todd]  ... you need to address actual biblical arguments against geostationism.
[AMDG]  There are about 60 verses that state the Sun/Moon rise/set and 3 that say the Earth is fixed.  The number that say the Earth moves: zero.   This is the basis of Biblical geostatism.   Now, what are the actual biblical arguments against this exegesis?
[Todd]  ….Stop addressing stupid arguments against geocentrism as if they were good ones.
[AMDG]  But we can't find any good ones .... only the s.... type!   Sorry, couldn't resist.
 Again I ask:   what are the good arguments against GC???
[Todd]  …. Bennett's ALFA challenge doesn't sound all that hard. It looks to this biochemist like a pretty straightforward experiment. So do it.
[AMDG]   ALFA: Not an experiment, but a model to be tested against experiments. Find one that destroys ALFA.

[Todd]  ...Instead what we got were speculations. Handwaving. If you calculate this, it supports geocentrism. If you do that experiment, it supports geocentrism. Enough with the IFs.
[AMDG]  Whoa!  The scientific method's bottom line is testing of theories by EXPERIMENT.  Rejecting or ignoring experiments conflicting with personal beliefs is unscientific and a characteristic of modern mainstream science. Is that how you do biology, Todd?
[Todd]  ... And if your idea has no way to be tested (like the superluminal velocity of the infinitely dense plenum aether that can't be detected by larger particles), then please just admit that it's a speculation.  Stop pretending to be all science-y when you're not.
[AMDG]  What about the AAAD - effects without cause - in Newtonian gravity?
 What about the Hubble law which requires red shifts to be kinematic?
  What about the evol claims of megayears based on strata depth and a few bone chips?
  Or their claims of uniform geology over gigayears? (getting closer to home now?)
[Todd]  ….You will never be taken seriously as long as you approach science with a "look but don't touch" attitude.
[AMDG]  We won't be taken seriously until establishment science returns to the objective guidance of the scientific method and Karl Popper's scientific logic and seeks the truth, not a personal ideology. MS scientists are driven by need for funding, power, prestige, jobs, grants, social standing, fear of embarrassment at being called out with the truth, ......    These are the priority push-buttons......  last on the list is the truth.
[Todd]  ..... Perhaps if the geocentrists take my advice seriously, they might convince a few more people.
[AMDG]  You can bring a horse to water but you cannot make him drink.
[Todd]  ….Or they might just convince themselves that the earth really does revolve around the sun.
[AMDG]  That would require a major rewrite of Revelation..... such as modernists are doing right now.

Thanks for your time.
AMDG,
Robert