This guy was wrong.
Once upon a time, physicists considered all motion to take place against a fixed backdrop – call it what you will, but “ether” seems to be a popular term. Thinking about physical objects and their movement in this way, plenty of people believed that there was an absolute reference point for motion. For example, if two spheres (call them A and B) became closer together, then it means that A moved closer to B while B remained still, or B moved closer to A while A remained still, or as a third possibility, that A and B both moved against the backdrop of “ether” like floating balls on the surface of a swimming pool, closer together.
Because of this way of thinking, Galileo found himself in a real pickle with the church when he expounded on his theory of planetary motion. He contended that – as objective fact – the earth travels around the Sun, whereas members of the clergy contended that – as objective fact – the sun travels around the earth. The conflict between Galileo and the church is often retold, frequently for the sake of demonstrating some inexorable conflict between science and religion, and always told as a reminder of how the church got it wrong, and Galileo got it right.
As a Christian and also as a person who didn’t want to offend Catholic rulers, Galileo was in a bit of a quandry. In the Bible, in Joshua chapter 10, a miracle occurs where the sun stands still, making the day longer. Yet according to Galileo, the sun didn’t even travel around the earth, so it would be the earth, rather than the sun, which would need to stand still in order to make a day longer.
Galileo’s solution was as follows:
[A]lthough Scripture can indeed not err, nevertheless some of its interpreters and expositors may sometimes err in various ways, one of which may be very serious and quite frequent, [that is,] when they would base themselves always on the literal meaning of words. For in that way there would appear to be [in the Bible] not only various contradictions, but even grave heresies and blasphemies, since it would be necessary to give God feet and hands and eyes, and no less corporeal and human feelings, like wrath, regret, and hatred, or sometimes even forgetfulness of things gone by and ignorance of the future. Hence, just as in the Scriptures are founf many propositions which, as to the bare senses of the words, have an appearance different from the truth, but were so put to accommodate the incapacity of the common people, so, for those few who deserve to be separated from the herd, it is necessary that wise expositors should produce the true senses and give particular reasons why they were offered in those words.
[Letter of 21 December, 1613 to Benedetto Castelli, in S. Drake, Letter to Castelli, in Galileo at Work: His Scientific Biography, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978, 224)
Galileo went on to say that in disputes about complex scientific matters that are far from the biblical message of salvation, we should look to science to give us the literal truth of the matter, because, as he says above, Scripture is often much less than literal in such things, so as to be easily received by simple folk.
The point I want to drive home is that Galileo clearly thought that the view held by those clergy who opposed him (namely that the sun travels around the earth) was literally false, and that his view (that the earth travels around the sun) was literally true.
Had there been no advances in physics over the last couple of centuries, I would have to agree with Galileo. Because there have been major advances in physics over that time, I cannot. Galileo was wrong. He was excusably wrong because of the time in which he lived, but he was wrong nonetheless. It will be at once obvious that the position of both Galileo and his clerical dissenters takes for granted the view of motion that I outlined at the start of this article: All motion has a fixed reference point; it happens against a backdrop against which it can be objectively measured. This view is no longer a tenable one, largely thanks to the work of Albert Einstein on special relativity. Without going into mind numbing detail, here’s a simple summary:
In formulating his theory, Einstein dismissed the concept of the "ether," and with it the "idea of absolute rest." Prior to the generation of Einstein's theory of special relativity, physicists had understood motion to occur against a backdrop of absolute rest (the "ether"), with this backdrop acting as a reference point for all motion. In dismissing the concept of this backdrop, Einstein called for a reconsideration of all motion. According to his theory, all motion is relative and every concept that incorporates space and time must be considered in relative terms. This means that there is no constant point of reference against which to measure motion. Measurement of motion is never absolute, but relative to a given position in space and time. Returning to Galileo's cannonball, Einstein considered this: the cannonball falling from the mast of the ship would appear to an observer standing on the deck of that ship as though it dropped straight down; however, to an observer standing on the shore, the cannonball would appear to follow a curved trajectory on its way to the base of the mast. Which trajectory did the ball actually follow? According to Einstein's theory of special relativity, the answer is, both—and neither. Each observer's observation is valid in its own reference frame, yet each is no more than an artifact of the measurement, or observation, undertaken by the observer.
[added comment: Click the link to read more, but the above description applies generally to all space, to the "ether" theory, and hence has application to all motion that occurs in space, notwithstanding any more specialised focus within the theory of special relativity.]
This new (well, new at the time, anyway) view of physics reduces Galileo’s claim about which view is literally correct, his or the church’s, to rubble. If Einstein is correct, then Galileo was wrong to say that it is objectively true that the earth moves around the sun, and that it is objectively false that the sun moves around the earth. Which – if either – of those to claims is correct depends wholly on the observational perspective. An observer on the earth will correctly report that the sun travels around the earth (or stated differently, relative to the earth, the sun travels around it), and a sun dweller (!!!) will correctly report that the earth travels around the sun. Neither is incorrect, but if one accuses the other of being objectively mistaken while he himself is objectively correct, he is simply wrong (as was Galileo). This is not a defence of the Church’s claim, as obviously the principle applies to both views equally.
All this changes, of course, if there is a priveleged point from which the sun-earth relationshiop is supposed to be viewed from. Should there exist such a designated “viewing platform,” the question could be settled once and for all. If, for example, it turned out that the earth is the priveleged spot from which the relationship is meant to be observed, then the church was right all along, and a hack job has been done on the Galileo trial.
So go ahead – keep using the Galileo case to show what silly scientific conclusions theologians come to – that is, if you’re happy to push your view of physics back half a century.
EDIT: See part two HERE.
Similar Posts:
- Galileo part 2. Yes folks, he was wrong.
- 2009's Greatest Hits
- The cause of death: Arguments from silence – Quantum physics and the Cosmological argument
- Numerical identity does not require Qualitative identity
- Auckland Anglicanism, Same Sex Unions and Ordination
- On dialogue with the Orthodox
Tags: einstein, galileo, physics, science
Galileo-Church affair, downplay the wrongs done and to excuse the Church. But this is the first time I have seen Einstein dragged into it.
You have it all wrong. In no way did Einstein disagree with a heliocentric solar system. Quite the opposite, his ideas supported it.
The problem is that you have appealed to Special relativity – which applies to bodies in uniform motion – not orbiting planets. In contrast general relativity covers acceleration/gravity and shows that this distortion of space/time by a large mass (the sun) will cause a smaller mass to rotate in orbit. General relativity does not allow you to choose the Church’s position over Galileo’s – no matter where you are.
We should recognise that this conflict was not about a particular theory of geocentricity or heliocentricity and who was right or wrong. Like all scientists (all honest people) Galileo was sometimes wrong (influence of tides for example). Many ideas in science are wrong (see Most ideas in science are wrong) – and because of the way science works we find that out.
The Church was wrong on this point – again not the problem. The real problem is that they declared that they couldn’t be wrong – and punished Galileo for daring to suggest they were.
The sentence declared that his heresy was that “that one may hold and defend as probable an opinion after it has been declared and defined contrary to Holy Scripture.”
For this he was imprisoned for the rest of his life and his book Dialogue of Galileo Galilei banned for 200 years. Only recently has the Catholic Church apologised for this behaviour.
And this (not any mistakes of heliocentricity) is what is behind the religion-science conflict. While the attitude expressed in that sentencing survives there will continue to be a conflict. And every time religious apologists claim a special knowledge of reality they are feeding that conflict. Religion should learn its place.
In this International year of Astronomy when we are celebrating Galileo’s contributions of humanity we should not allow this history to be distorted. Or the names of other great scientists used in this distortion.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Sorry – first line missing:
“There seems to be a current religious apologetics fashion to rewrite the history of the “
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ken, I think you’re looking for something that aint there. You suggested that I was trying to “excuse the Church.”
Would you care to point out where I did this? The church was wrong in a similar way that Galileo was wrong. While you’re at it, I note your comment about people re-writing the Galileo affair, so it would be helpful if you could show which parts I’ve re-written, as I don’t see where I have misreported anything. Thanks.
Secondly, you say that the issue was the church’s view that it could not be wrong. Well, that’s an issue, but as anyone can see, it’s not the issue that this blog post is about. This blog entry is about whether or not Galileo was objectively right, which is a different issue altogether.
Thirdly, you equate “all scientists” with “all honest people.” That made me laugh. Thanks for that. Experience has emphatically shown me that those who see themselves as scientists are as prone to anyone else to partisanship and the practice of intellectual dishonesty.
Fourthly, it looks to me like you’re suggesting that in fact there is an absolute reference point by which we can say that the sun does not move around the earth (ether, a backdrop against which all motion happens, call it what you will). If you do not think this, then your objection to my claim about Galileo being wrong would not make sense, so you must mean this.
If this is your view, can you tell me where that reference point is? Which point in space is it? Or what is this backdrop?
Thanks.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
One more thing, Ken. I am just a little bit surprised that you say you’ve literally never seen Einstein’s views appealed to here. As I browse around at modern discussions on geocrentricism/heliocentricism, Einstein’s views are always present. Here’s one example, but Google it a little before replying. Perhaps this subject is just new to you, which is why, as you say, you’ve never heard of this connection before.
Cheers.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The Church was wrong on this point – again not the problem. The real problem is that they declared that they couldn’t be wrong – and punished Galileo for daring to suggest they were.
Actually the Church did not say they “couldn’t be wrong” in fact Cardinal Bellemare stated that if adequate proof could be provided he would grant that the position he held was mistaken. His point was that the Theological and Scientific consensus of the day supported Geocentricism ( which it did) and so until adequate proof was forthcoming Galileo should teach Heliocentricism as a hypothesis but not as true.
Galileo did not prove it, as you note his proof from the tides was wrong.
I am not condoning the Churches actions, simply pointing out that the facts are not as simple as you and others make out.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Glenn – you have confused the lack of a unique coordinate system for the earth (the Copernican principle that the earth is not unique) with the rotation of the earth around the sun. These do not negate each other at all (however you interpret the Wikipedia article).
However, it’s interesting that you claim Einsteinian support for geocentricity because that ignores general relativity – gravitation/acceleration.
Of course, if you really are sure that Einstein didn’t accept heliocentricity – a link to a quote from him is required. That is so far out of touch with General relativity I prefer to believe my own understandings until evidence is presented.
Could you provide links to a credible theistic justification for the use of Einstein here? All I can find are pretty uninformed comments – and those don’t back up your claim.
But if religious apologists are using Einstein this way I certainly wish to know about it. It should be nipped in the bud – and you should want to do that. This sort of thing makes Christianity look stupid.
I don’t know how you got “you equate all scientists with all honest people” from my comment. I certainly don’t think that. But the scientific process does work to overcome the effect of subjectivity, ideology and preconceived belief because it uses verification against reality. Reality keeps us honest. (As well as the social nature of science.)
Matt – you need to read the actual text of the Inquisition’s sentence. The facts are not as simple as you guys make out – and you cover up the important ones.
Enough of this whitewashing.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Glenn – on reading the post and comments I wish to make 2 points of clarification,
1: re Einstein. You herself say: “This view is no longer a tenable one, largely thanks to the work of Albert Einstein on special relativity. “ This is important. You specifically refer to Special Relativity – and your argument is based only on that. Special Relativity considers only bodies in uniform motion.
It does not consider bodies under acceleration. It doesn’t consider gravity. It is not relevant to the geocentric/heliocentric argument.
This is where Einstein’s later work – General Relativity – comes in. You have confused the two. From my internet search I find a few examples of others who have done that. But do you want to be associated with Brownback (Heliocentrism is an Atheist Doctrine).
General Relativity clearly supports heliocentricism – Special Relativity is not relevant.
2: Scientists and honesty. I can now see why you may have jumped to the misunderstanding you did. I wrote: “Like all scientists (all honest people) Galileo was sometimes wrong ” when I should have written “Like all scientists (like all honest people) Galileo was sometimes wrong”. Sorry for that. But, maybe Freudian slips on my part – and yours for the uncharitable interpretation.
Clearly I was making the point that we are all wrong from time to time. Honest people are able to admit that.
There is a lesson here relevant to your blog post declaring with reference to Galileo “This guy was wrong.” When on this issue he was so obviously correct.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ken, you have now misrepresented me in an obvious way: “Of course, if you really are sure that Einstein didn’t accept heliocentricity”
Can you supply a quote from me where I said that Einstein didn’t accept Heliocentricity? Please, I will be careful not to misrepresent you, but I ask that you do likewise. This is not the first time you have said this.
I can’t see that you’re writing in good faith until you a) stop misrepresenting people, and b) actually address my posts before asking me to address further questions from you, as though you think my questions to you don’t matter but your questions carry great importance. It’s impolite to ignore my questions, and then ask new uestions of me. Here’s a starter: please answer this question that I posted to your earlier:
Fourthly, it looks to me like you’re suggesting that in fact there is an absolute reference point by which we can say that the sun does not move around the earth (ether, a backdrop against which all motion happens, call it what you will). If you do not think this, then your objection to my claim about Galileo being wrong would not make sense, so you must mean this.
If this is your view, can you tell me where that reference point is? Which point in space is it? Or what is this backdrop?
Thanking you in advance, Ken. I’d really like your answer to be specific.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ken
I am basing what I say on what Cardinal Bellemare ( of the Inquisition) wrote in explaining how the Inquisition came to the conclusion they did.
The Inquisition did appeal to the scientific consensus as a reason in its statement from memory.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Could you provide links to a credible theistic justification for the use of Einstein here? All I can find are pretty uninformed comments – and those don’t back up your claim.
From an article you told me a few days ago on MandM that you had read.
“Consider even such an assured result as that the earth revolves around the sun and rotates on its axis. According to the usual interpretations of current relativity theory, there is no privileged frame of reference, no frame at absolute rest. But if that is true, then it isn’t even clear what it means to say that in fact, contrary to Copernicus, the earth revolves around the sun rather than vice versa. That’s true in some frames of reference, but not in others; and in principle (apart from matters of convenience, and the like) there is no more to be said for the former than for the latter.
It might be replied that at least Copernicus is controverted in that lie held that there is a frame at absolute rest, which we now know is false. But the usual interpretations of relativity theory are not themselves supported by knock-down drag-out arguments. One can also interpret relativity theory as nothing more than a recipe for translation from one frame of reference to another, so taken it makes no pronouncements on the question whether there is a frame at absolute rest. So taken, the claim that there is such a frame is quite consistent with it; perhaps the frame at absolute rest is given by the way God sees things. (And hence it could be, so far as knock-down drag-out demonstration goes, that the earth is the center of the universe after all!)”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Glenn – reference points are irrelevant. You are still thinking of Special Relativity – which does not apply to rotating, accelerating bodies, to gravitation. Only bodies in uniform motion.
Answer me this. Did you not refer to Special Relativity? Is that not different to General Relativity? Do you think that the earth is undergoing uniform motion, has no gravitation, not in a gravitational field and not accelerating??
It’s all really quite simple. You have misunderstood or confused the issue. On this matter Galileo was, and still is, correct. We do live in a heliocentric solar system. The earth does orbit the sun.
Can you honestly think otherwise?
Matt – I don’t know what you are talking about. Give a reference for the article. It seems very confused talking about frames of reference and then the earth revolving around the sun. Nothing about gravitation/acceleration.
Or are you replying to Glenn?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
To be specific – I do not suggest an absolute reference point at all. There is no justification for saying the earth is the centre of the universe, or the sun is the centre of the universe. But this is all quite irrelevant to the question of the earth orbiting the sun – which is what we usually mean when we talk about heliocentricity today – and with reference to Galileo.
(Perhaps you using a different interpretation or definition of heliocentricity. I just can’t understand why you are asserting the things you are).
Now I have specifically answered your question. At least do me the honour of seriously reading what I have said and answering mine.
And are you going to insist that Galileo was wrong in his assertion that the earth orbited the sun?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ken, if you say that the question of a reference point is not relevant in asking whether the earth goes around the sun or vice versa, then you are just wrong. It is clearly relevant to ask which reference point we are asking about. You are attributing a confusion to me that I do not have here. This is not subtle or tricky. It is big and plain and I don’t know why you don’t see it.
You are now being unreasonable in asking me to “seriously read” what you wrote. I made it clear that I was putting that on hold until you actually provided an answer. And your answer – which you have only just now given – is that there is no absolute reference point from which to observe the movement of the earth and the sun. Although you don’t like it, I take this as a concession of the whole argument here, combined with an unwillignness to give the appearance of conceding anything at all.
It is no good giving the rhetorical impression of stamping your feet, using bold text and insisting that I answer you. As I told you already, I will do so after you answer the question already put to you, which you now have. I was unwilling to do so before because I was waiting for an overdue answer from you. As you have now decided to answer, I am now prepared to answer you as I said I would. I do this in spite of you refusing to substantiate your claims about what I think Einstein said (if you ever feel like owning up to it, you could just concede that I never claimed that Einstein rejected heliocentrism).
I now turn to your complaint that I referred to special relativity. You say in passing that general relativity supports heliocentrism (presumably by which you mean the claim that it’s false that the sun goes around the earth). That claim wasn’t substantiated at all, so I’ll ignore it.
However, you may find the following helpful:
Michael Fowler of the University of Virginia (physics), had this to say in his article on “Special Relativity”:
There appear to be enough reputable looking sources that tie this concept to special relativity to assure me that I am not mistaken in thinking that they are closely related.
HOWEVER, it’s possible that I have incorrectly followed the lead of short pieces like this (i.e. misconstrued how they were applying their terms), and I am happy to concede that because it makes no difference to any conclusion I have drawn. The result is the same. It is not the name of the theory to which this concept belongs that matters, it is the concept itself. Please don’t miss this concession, or the follow up point – that it actually doesn’t matter, because it is the concept that matters rather than the theory to which the concept attaches.
Ken, you will dislike me saying this, but I say it earnestly. Please get some perspective and be less emotive here. Your first comment was absolutely ridden with hasty claims – not the least being claims about what I think so-and-so believed. Yet now, after all of your objections (a possible labelling issue aside), my original blog post survives every one of your attempted critiques. What’s apalling (to me, at least) is that you will walk away from this encounter thinking that you have been the defender of science here!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Your quote is again referring to Special Relativity – not applicable to an accelerating body. Clearly you don’t understand this and your ego won’t allow you to rethink your arguments.
But think about it. Will you honestly assert that we canno tell the difference between orbiting the sun or the sun orbiting the earth? Do you honestly believe that Galileo was wrong in this matter?
I guess your answer must be yes to both questions because you stick by your post which actally aims Galileo was wrong.
As I said – this sort of silliness gives religion a bad name. And such claims are actually the cause of science – religion conflict.
Next you will be telling us that Darwin was wrong!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
You guys may wish to look up this quote from Lawrence Krauss (a rather popular atheist and physicist)…
http://manawatu.christian-apologetics.org/is-science-up-for-grabs/
The energy of empty space that isn’t sero (Lawrence Krauss)
“The new results are either telling us that all of science is wrong and we’re the center of the universe, or maybe the data is [s]imply (sic) incorrect, or maybe it’s telling us there’s something weird about the microwave background results and that maybe, maybe there’s something wrong with our theories on the larger scales. (Lawrence Krauss)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hey, just to stick a spanner in the works…..
http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=WDjJIww337EC&pg=PA151&dq=%22Astronomy+on+the+personal+computer%22+%22general+description+of+the+lunar+orbit%22&lr=&ei=NnLySsGRDI7CkATSh_m9Aw#v=onepage&q=&f=false
Second paragraph:
“…The moon may thus be described as following an elliptical orbit around the sun…”
See, it all depends upon your frame of reference
IIRC, strictly speaking, the earth does not orbit the sun, or at least the exact center of the sun. Rather, it orbits the center of mass of both objects which will be slightly off the center of the sun
(assuming a two body system).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ken says “Your quote is again referring to Special Relativity – not applicable to an accelerating body. Clearly you don’t understand this and your ego won’t allow you to rethink your arguments.”
This is so ironic it’s just becoming strange. Ken – It was I who explicitly announced to you that the quote that I was about to give came from an article called “special relativity,” and then I produced a quote that does not conform to the restriction you gave. I was excusing my possibly erroneous use of that term on the grounds that plenty of other people use it the same way. Why would you complain on the grounds that the article is about special relativity?
But seriously Ken, to have you now at this stage complaining about people’s ego not allowing them to concede things is just not plausible. I mean come on, let’s review:
1. You entered this thread claiming that I was excusing the church. This was false, and I called you on it, asking for evidence. You fell silent. No evidence, and no admission of error.
2. Twice you then accused me of attempting to claim that Einstein was opposed to heliocentrism. More than once I asked you to substantiate or retract, but you were silent. No evidence and no concession.
3. You declared that the issue was the Church’s belief that it could never ever be wrong about this. When Matt showed evidence that the church asserted that it was open to evidence and would reconsider if sufficient evidence was given, you brushed it off.
4. You suggested that because your personally aren’t experienced with people appealing to Einstein’s ideas in connection with the idea of a reference point and its implications for geocentrism, it must be rare or unusual for this appeal to be made (arrogance extraodinaire!), yet when I pointed out that the examples are there and gave one, noting an easy way to find more, you brushed such facts off as examples of whackos.
5. Even after Matt showed that in an article that you are familiar with (according to you), this connection is spelt out, you remained steadfast in your suggestion that the connection is a fringe idea.
6. After you finally (finally!) agreed to answer my initial question to you, I replied to your charge that I was appealing to a theory on a another subject. I did this in two ways: I quoted a physicist who makes a connection between special relativity and the more general thesis that there is “no natural rest-frame in the universe.” Secondly, I conceded the possibility that this and other sources could be mistaken and also that I could be reading this statement as a feature of special relativity when it isn’t, but I reminded you that the idea, rather than the theory to which it attaches, is the important thing.
And then you – in the most ironic turn of events I’ve seen in some time – say that I am refusing to concede anything because of my ego.
Ken, you came in flailing wildly, uttering numerous falsehoods, and each time you’ve been corrected, you’ve fallen silent, hoping the claim in question would just go away, rather than having to admit a mistake. By contrast, the very first time I replied to your comment about relativity (after you replied to my first questions to you), I conceded the possibility of error, but explained the limits of what that error would mean.
Please consider showing a little more humility.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
OK, Glenn, you refuse to answer my questions. Perhaps you don’t feel confident of the position you have put youself in.
But I can go on your declaration in your post that Galileo was wrong. And we have your use of special relativity – which applies to bodies in uniform motion – justifying a claim that one cannot specify that the earth orbits the sun. That Galileo was wrong to claim it does – just ad wrong as the church to claim it did not.
So I can quote you on that.
It’s just that this position is so silly I was trying to get you to confirm it. I just couldn’t believe that a sensible person could use that argument.
But I guess people get themselves into that position when they start with a preconceived idea and them try to change realit to fit in with it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ken, I’ve addressed your questions. I think your pretence to the contrary has become dishonest.
Equally dishonest is your new pretence that I never conceded anything in regard to special relativity, and your suggestion that you are free to quote me sans that concession. You are being dishonest. You are being anything but fair or “scientific.” I am sure you must be able to see this.
Should you “quote” me in the manner you have described, you will, of course, be lying, and you will be indicating your willingness to be descibed as such. Suit youraself, it’s your reputation. Choose to avoid the questions that reveal your errors, and choose to ignore answers given. That, it seems, is how Ken Perott wishes to be known. As much as it would benefit you for me to remove your comments so as to cover your tracks, I will, in fact, refer to them when people want an example of Ken being dishonest.
Thanks for taking part.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
OK, Glenn. Can I ask that you not remove your post and the comment below the image claiming Galileo was wrong?
Of I bother quoting you the quotes will
be taken from that.
My interest is only as an example of how religious apologists actually promote conflict with sciene by
misrepresenting sciene and the history of science. There seems to be a real rash
of this at the ment regarding Galileo – 3 local blogs at last count.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ken you’re admitting that you’ll quote from a comment of mine about special relativity, and remain silent about a comment in that same thread about the correctness of the use of that term ansd the possibility that it is not the correct term to use, as well as the reason for so using it as explained. Simply amazing. I don’t think I’ve actually encountered a blogger with less intellectual integrity than that, and I’m glad it’s on record.
Does that method represent your normal level of honesty?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Wow, I just cam across this gem from Ken: “[R]eligion may “work” for many people. After all they seek a community and acceptance – not truth.” That’s right, not only are they (according to one person) mistaken in their truth claims, but they aren’t even seeking tuth in the first place.
The picture is more or less fully formed now: Intentional misrepresentation is normal for some (well, for Ken, anyway). A true icon of dishonesty.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
OK, outsider’s perspective here: I dont know Ken, but woah, got an axe to grind Ken?
Reading through this article, it seems pretty unobjectionable: The dispute in Galileo’s age presupposed a certain view of how motion in space ought to be viewed: fixed backdrop and all that, but this view of space and movement has been reviewed largely thanks to Einstein (and let’s at least agree that he did reject the old view of space and motion in exactly the way Glenn noted, because he did).
What is to object to here? Getting knickers in a twist over whether this is the claim of special relativity or not, or throwing in a handful of misrepresentations just to spice things up (and Ken, they are pretty obvious, as is your refusal to even acknowledge them) suggests that you just have to find a gnat to strain at – you’re somehow, for some reason, motivated to find something to take issue with. That’s my take on it, anyway (could be wrong, but I gotta call ‘em as I see ‘em).
Glenn, I’d still be a little uncomfortable saying that I “reject” heliocrentism, although I suspect this is not because of any disagreement with what you say. It’s just that people are likely to assume that if you reject heliocentrism, you must embrace geocentrism, or some other kind of “centrism.” But yes, I know, that’s the fault of the person doing the assuming.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Sandra – You have identified a problem with Glenn’s analysis in that it has led him to assert something you intuitively know is not true.
However, if you are interested in further discussion of this I will probably be writing another post at Open Parachute dealing with the current history denial going on around the Galileo-Church affair. There is already an article there – Blaming the victim.
Although Matt was quite coy with his quote it is one taken from Plantinga (he loves to quote this guy). His use of Einstein and special relativity is absolute rubbish – as you have intuitively picked up.
It needs countering. But here is not the place to do it. I am far more used to the vigorous debate we have in science where anger is rare and people are respected. We really need that to make progress.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ken, you said: “Sandra – You have identified a problem with Glenn’s analysis in that it has led him to assert something you intuitively know is not true.”
All I can say is: Oh my gosh, I can sympathise with Glenn’s complaints! In the very first sentence that you have directed toward me, Ken, you misrepresented what I said. I really hope this was an accident!
You’ve said that I intuitively know thats omething Glenn says isn’t true – but I said know such thing. You’ve said that I think the connection between Glenn’s stance on “no reference point” and Einstein is utter rubbish. I didn’t say this.
I think I’ll pass on the invite to your site if this is what I can expect to find. Anger may be rare with you (I can’t tell, I don’t even know you), but you’re being anything but fair, coolheaded and rational, I can tell you!
Incidentally, this is a blog. Why can’t you discuss it here, and why are you inviting me to have this disucssion at your blog instead. Is this about website traffic?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Welcome Sandra. At least someone got the point
I see you’ve met Ken. Well, we do leave the door open. For obvious reasons I sympathise, but I don’t think you should be expecting a concession of misrepresentation any time soon. Ken is an occasional visitor, and there’s an unfortunate pattern of emotional reactions of an anti-religious (rather than pro-scientific) nature. I’m sure I’ve said as much to Ken before. Feel free to visit often!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Sandra – of course my reference to your identification of a problem with Glenn’s argument was to your comment “I’d still be a little uncomfortable saying that I “reject” heliocrentism, ”
But you knew that, didn’t you?
And it should also be obvious that Glenn’s anger problems are the reason that such subjects can’t be discussed here. (Although, I am beginning to suspect that there is also a personality factor involved his attitude towards me specifically).
Anyway, you are welcome to involve yourself in any discussion arising from my analysis of Plantinga’s mistake.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ken, I can’t believe you. If you make a habit of being the jackass you are being now, I can imagine why people have a personality issue with you. Simply incredible.
Glenn has been more than reasonable with you here, and you’ve fully earned the negative descriptions of your behavior. I think I’ll pass on your advertisements for your site, thanks. Farewell.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Reading Ken’s comments is enough to decide that his writing is just not worth reading.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
On the contrary Bob. It seems to me that Glen has mixed up frames of references in regards to special relativity with absolute cartesian co-ordinates.
Of course if you take as your centre point a particular arbitrary point in the solar system, then this changes your perspective with regard to the motion of the sun, planets and moons. What you find though is that regardless of he point you choose, you cannot consistently explain the motion of the objects in the solar system without a heliocentric model. Attempts to do this resulted in all sorts of strange misshapen models such as the epicycles in the Ptolemaic systems.
Further to this, Galileo, Newton and Einstein’s explanations of gravity do not work if you do not accept a heliocentric model. This is the whole point.
Trying to say otherwise at this point in the game, really does nothing other than expose the lack of quality of the reasoning involved.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Good point Nick.
Special Relativity, proposed by Einstein in 1905, was more than just about relativity of motion and points of reference (as is sued in Glenn’s argument).
However, it did formalise the relativity concepts of previous scientists like Newton and Galileo himself.
So, it is a bit rich to attempt to use Galilean relativity to argue that Galileo was wrong about heliocentricity!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Fun Link: Galileo Galilei Proven Right
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ken, you claim that I have said that special relativity was about nothing other than “relativity of motion and points of reference.” In fact I said no such thing. Surprise surprise, Ken is saying untrue things about me. That’s new!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
No Glenn – Just that it was the only part of Special Relativity you based your argument on. And that part can be attributed to Galileo.
Come on – if you used the speed of light or incorporation of time into spacetime – point out where you did it. The only relativity I can see in your argument is that proposed by Galileo.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ken, “come on.” You said that Einstein’s theory “was more than just about relativity of motion and points of reference (as is sued in Glenn’s argument).”
This is manifestly false. Have a very close read of what you said. Maybe you misspoke, used words that you didn’t mean to? Said something you now reject? I don’t know, but as it stands, it’s just one more in a long line of falsehoods by you. You have displayed a pattern, and it isn’t a flattering one.
Notice how this works – I’m merely talking about your errors without attempting to psychonalayse. Try it sometime.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Oh well, there’s no getting through. You are obviously out of your dpeth and are being manipulative to aovid the issues.
However, I think I have made my point – and in a bit more detail at Einstein on Galileo’s contribution.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Absolutely astounding arrogance. I have yet again documented a claim on your part that is false, and you stubbornly refuse to admit it. This speaks volumes.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
1. I don’t think this article is saying heliocentrism is wrong or geocentrism is right.
2. Galileo was wrong to insist that his theory was true when at the time he could not provide sufficient proof.
3. Galileo claimed approval by the Church for his entire work, and that was simply false
4. From Wikipedia about Heliocentrism:
The thinking that the heliocentric view was also not true in a strict sense was achieved in steps. That the Sun was not the center of the universe, but one of innumerable stars, … Over the course of the 18th and 19th centuries, the status of the Sun as merely one star among many became increasingly obvious. By the 20th century, even before the discovery that there are many galaxies, it was no longer an issue.
Even if the discussion is limited to the solar system, the sun is not at the geometric center of any planet’s orbit, but rather at one focus of the elliptical orbit.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Bob, yeah it’s technically true that the Sun’s not the centre of any planet’s circular orbit given literal ond objective heliocentrism (it’s the “objective” that this blog post questioned) since those orbits are not eliptical, that wasn’t really the point. The point is that once you remove the concept of the ether and everything that it implies, we end up unable to say, in any objective sense, that with the earth and the sun, one travels around the other and that the converse is false.
A number of sources connect the rejection of the ether and the claim about fixed reference points to Einstein and his theory as noted above (something that Ken has an issue with, but I’m not to blame), so I have merely noted that connection that other people draw. But whether that connection is right is hardly the point. But I’m sure you can see that Bob – unlike some.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
But Glenn, the Earth still orbits the Sun no matter what reference frame you’re in.
So go ahead – keep using the Galileo case to show what silly scientific conclusions theologians come to – that is, if you’re happy to push your view of physics back half a century.
This is why I thought you were making a theological point (by implication), that theology provides better scientific conclusions than established sciences.
I am all for good theology and good science, but this post is more to do with church politics and weird semantics than either of these.
I’ve added some more comments on this at Open Parachute.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hi Glenn,
Ken has pointed this out more correctly than I, but you don’t seem to be listening to him.
You said:
It will be at once obvious that the position of both Galileo and his clerical dissenters takes for granted the view of motion that I outlined at the start of this article: All motion has a fixed reference point; it happens against a backdrop against which it can be objectively measured. This view is no longer a tenable one, largely thanks to the work of Albert Einstein on special relativity. Without going into mind numbing detail, here’s a simple summary:
You are wrong. It was Galileo himself who discards the view of a fixed reference point, not Einstein. As I understand it, Einstein’s special relativity is rejecting the view of objective time for all reference frames. It does this by postulating a fixed speed of light for all reference frames. This has nothing at all to do with heliocentricism.
I would suggest the following reading on Galilean relativity (this is part of an introduction to special relativity):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_special_relativity#Reference_frames_and_Galilean_relativity:_a_classical_prelude
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Bob. It seems to me that this article is saying exactly that heliocentrism is false. Sure, Glenn has tacked the word objective on the front, but that does not change anything. And he is flat out wrong.
The planets orbit the sun in any frame of reference you choose, because of gravity, their movement relative to the place of rest you have chosen is not relavent. This was what Galileo was getting at.
And you are wrong about Galileo insisting on something without proof. One of the main things that Galileo is celebrated for is actually that he was the first person to advance rigourous mathematical arguments based on evidence. He was the one presenting an argument with evidence, not the church. This is the whole point here. An argument from authority does not have any standing against an argument from evidence. Have a look at the following link for more details http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei#Scientific_methods
Now, this does not mean that he was right about everything (Ken pointed out the issue with the tides), but this is how knowledge is gained. Propose a hypothesis, look for the evidence etc.. etc… etc… Where the church went wrong here is by believing that something was true without requiring evidence/justification, and then punishing people who disagreed with them. However, Glenn thinks that this approach is justified in some cases, you might want to ask him about epistemic externalism one day, but I am not going there again:-)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“It seems to me that this article is saying exactly that heliocentrism is false. Sure, Glenn has tacked the word objective on the front, but that does not change anything.”
That is not correct. It changes much. To say that heliocentrism is false is to say that no matter what, it is false. To say that it is incorrect to claim that heliocentrism is “objectively” true and that other views are “objectively” false is to say that from all perspectives it is false.
Hopefully you now see this.
Oh, and Nick, you characterise epistemic externalism as “believing that something was true without requiring evidence/justification, and then punishing people who disagreed with them.”
This is one way to cast doubt over anything you say, I’ll grant.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Nick, you say: “Ken has pointed this out more correctly than I, but you don’t seem to be listening to him.” But you then go on to say that it’s not Einstein’s special relativity theory that I should be referencing.
When it comes to honesty, you have clearly learned from your master (I refer to Ken, of course). What is the one thing that I actually conceded? (Not listening, am I?)
So sure, just claim that I’m not “listening.” Whatever falsehoods help your rhetoric.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Maybe I wasn’t very precise with my sentence there Glenn. Here, I will correct it for you:
“believing that something was true without requiring evidence/justification” without the punishment bit.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
As far as you other comments are concerned here Glenn, I must admit that I don’t really understand what you have written.
Perhaps if I explain my point in another way. Your reference to frames of reference and in particular Special relativity has nothing to do with the planets going around the sun. As I have said, the planets go around the sun whether you want to look at this from one frame of reference or (objectively) across many, they still go around the sun.
And by the way, what is with your last post? It is almost incoherent. You seem to be taking this all as some sort of personal attack. I am not attacking you. I am just disagreeing with your post and pointing out where I think you are wrong.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“believing that something was true without requiring evidence/justification”
Much of modernist “science” has little to do with evidenceand often a great deal to do with ignoring it. It is a mass of theories piled on assumptions piled upon more assumptions piled on yet more assumptions. The assumptions themselves arise both from the darkened minds of the unregenerate children of Satan and are based on lies, the false worldviews of secularism and naturalism.
As for punishment, in many places questioning the assumptions of modernist “science” can get your career killed and your education ended.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Nick, I have taken nothing personally. When I commented on the honesty issue, it was not because I am upset or feel attacked. It was merely about honesty, not feelings. It was certainly coherent english, and makes fine sense.
Regarding your other recent post: I acknowledge your repeat of your position. Stating one’s position isn’t an argument, but if you want acknowledgement for stating your view, you have it.
I hope you also realise what I have conceded in regard to special relativity. I have granted – and clearly so – that it could be an error to connect a rejection of the idea of ether and the issue of privileged observers with special relativity, but as I have explained, the concept is the issue, rather than whether or not it belongs to the theory of SR. I have also noted, however, that I have connected the two because many others appear to do so, including people who know much more than I. The more I look, the more I see it said.
In spite of this concession, the actual point I made at the outset appears to be unscathed. All the genuine objections I have seen appear to be peripheral ones (e.g. “That wasn’t Einstein, it was Galileo himself!”)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Shawn – your comment is a real gem – and perhaps reveals some of the thinking behind Glenn’s mistake.
I have taken the liberty of copying over your middle paragraph to the comments on my blog post Einstein on Galileo’s contribution. It deserves wider attention.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Glenn. Perhaps my english comprehension level is decreasing living in a non english speaking country, but I don’t really see what your concession above has to do with it. On the other hand, I am quite happy to put special relativity to the side. Lets talk just about “objective heliocentrism” using different frames of reference.
You said:
This new (well, new at the time, anyway) view of physics reduces Galileo’s claim about which view is literally correct, his or the church’s, to rubble. If Einstein is correct, then Galileo was wrong to say that it is objectively true that the earth moves around the sun, and that it is objectively false that the sun moves around the earth. Which – if either – of those to claims is correct depends wholly on the observational perspective. An observer on the earth will correctly report that the sun travels around the earth (or stated differently, relative to the earth, the sun travels around it), and a sun dweller (!!!) will correctly report that the earth travels around the sun. Neither is incorrect, but if one accuses the other of being objectively mistaken while he himself is objectively correct, he is simply wrong (as was Galileo). This is not a defence of the Church’s claim, as obviously the principle applies to both views equally.
This is not correct. Galilelo knew all about different frames of reference, having invented the concept (see Galilean relativity again). This does not matter. The planets go around the sun no matter your chosen reference frame. So, the planets go around the sun “objectively”. This is the whole point. In other words. Galilelo was observing the movement of he planets from the reference frame of the earth at rest. The Ptolemaic system was an attempt to understand the motion of the planets and sun from the context of one reference frame, earth at rest. It is the Ptolemaic system that is not objectively true across different reference points. Galileo was saying, look, lets take a reference point neutral point of view, then what makes the most sense regarding the motion of the planets, sun etc..
I can’t see your argument against this.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0