Robert Sungenis Challenges Stephen M. Barr to Debate Geocentrism


I got into a bit of a match with Stephen M. Barr on Free Republic. In response to an article reviewing Galileo Was Wrong Dr. Barr made some insulting statements about Dr. Robert Bennett and Robert Sungenis, Ph. D., as well as making condenscending statements regarding the book (which he has not read). Robert Sungenis, has responded..., and finished by challenging Dr. Barr to a public debate:

I [Robert Sungenis] hereby challenge Stephen Barr to an open, public and verbal debate on the issue of geocentrism (6/29/2006).

Is Dr. Barr up to the task?

Read Robert's comments to Dr. Barr.

Mark Wyatt

The Geocentrism argument? How quaint. I'm cataloging my 'the universe just might be more than 6000 years old' as we speak. Frankly though, I doubt the moderators will tolerate this kind of nonsense for very long.

Okay, you really didn't explain yourself well in the OP, but from a quick scan of the "veritas-Catholic" blog, it looks like you are pushing a Geocentric model based on some book or other. There appears to be a quoted dialog between a R. Sungenis (making various religious comments - not a good sign for this discussion) and a Stephen Barr, who from what I can tell, is pointing out some of the more obvious problems with the Relativistic Absolutist Acentric Geocentric (RAAG) model.

In any event, the ATM forum is for the presentation of unconventional astronomy concepts so please present your scientific arguments. Expect to be challenged and be ready to answer the challenges.

'Course, if this is just to be another philosophical argument over the RAAG model, I couldn't care less, but you might get some takers.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

In the excerpts from the book "Galileo Was Wrong", in chapter 5 - "Albert Einstein and the Interferometers" - Robert Sungenis and Robert Bennett say that Albert Einstien formulated relativity to preserve Copernican cosmology in the face of evidence that strongly indicated it was flawed. They are referring to the Michelson-Morlely experiment, and the fact that no difference between the speed of light could be detected in different directions and at different times.

So Sungenis and Bennett would have us believe that the Michelson-Morley experiment is strong evidence that the earth does not move. But Einstein's theory didn't just explain away this awkard result, it postulated that the result would be the same whether you were moving or not. For the MM experiment to actually be evidence for an immobile earth, the result should be different when the experiment is performed while moving relative to the earth. Relativity postulates that the result will be the same.

Have Sungenis and Bennett reveiwed the literature for measurements of the speed of light in frames of reference that are in motion with respect to the earth to see whether those experiments support their theory or relativity?

__________________
There are 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand ternary, those who don't, and those waiting for a bus.
If logic doesn't work, then surely it does.

I should know this, but why do Geocentrists always rely on the Michelson-Morley experiment as definitive proof? What was that experiment supposed to show?

__________________
"4th Law of Modern Thermodynamics: Where Mihoshi is, Chaos Reigns." ~W. Hakubi
"Gun control is hitting your target; Recycling is reloading your brass." ~ Lex of Dirty Work.

In a nutshell, and somewhat simplified, the MM experiment was supposed to show the motion of the Earth through the ether that was, at the time, believed to be the medium in which electromagnetic radiation propagated (as air is to sound waves for example). The experiment found a null result. That is, you couldn't determine from it that the Earth was moving. Geocentrists take the simplistic and naive view that this result shows that the Earth is stationary. The physics explanation is that light needs no medium to propagate in (the ether doesn't exist), that the speed of light is constant to all observers, and that the null result is expected regardless of motion. Of course, one need only repeat the MM experiment off the Earth to demonstrate the shallowness of the Geocentrists' arguments (as if that wasn't already self-evident).

__________________
"I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind." - William Thompson, 1st Baron Lord Kelvin

"If it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be, but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic!" - Tweedledee

This isn't right. This isn't even wrong. - Wolfgang Pauli

Actually, this is not true. Michelson-Morley did not get a null result. This si called lying with statistics. They hypothesized a 30 km/sec. velocity, but obtained a 4 km/sec. velocity. Thererfor they rejected the hypothesis, and called it a null resuilt. Dayton C. Miller and a host of others replicated MM results (in fact Miller's typical velocity was 10 km/sec.).

I.e., something was happening (ether drag either from a rotating universe or a rotating earth).

Mark
www.vreitas-catholic.blogspot.com
www.geocentrism.com

What were the experimental errors?

And what about more recent experimental tests?

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

Indeed. There have been recent MM-type experiments with modern equipment that have verified the null result with uncertainites down to the part per million level or better. I don't have the references at hand (I'm home and it's late) but I will provide some examples tomorrow (Trust me. I'm a doctor). Why is it that many ATM types seem to think that experiments are only done once and that scientists never bother to push the limit further? Those of us who are working or have worked as scientists know that all experiments are repeated with higher and higher levels of precision. We do this because we want to find the point where it breaks as this usually indicates new physics (or new science as the case may be.) So far all repetitions of the MM experiment are consistent with a null result.

__________________
"I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind." - William Thompson, 1st Baron Lord Kelvin

"If it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be, but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic!" - Tweedledee

This isn't right. This isn't even wrong. - Wolfgang Pauli

You are in good company, Eta C. The argument is a cowpie, and the cows know it. Papageno was all over this. My example is Gravity Probe B.

There are many recent experiments, and these are reviewed in Galileo Was Wrong. Some of them appear to support the current state of cosmology (i.e., Hils and Hall), but these were performed in metal shielded and/or evacuated apparati (even some of these had non-null results). Dayton C. Miller warned against this in the 1930's and Galaev recently, predicting the outcomes. Dayton C. Miller (and Galaev) warned that overly solid structures (especially metallic) shield against the [hypothetical] aether and that evacuated systems do not allow for sufficient aether drag (i.e., Fizeau).

Dr. Bennett presents almost 250 pages of experiments and observations and rates them (support, reject, neutral) for compliance to geocentrism, heliocentrism, aether theory, special relativity, and general relativity, then also analyzes them for the heliocentrist position vs. the geocentrist. This is in addition to the more general discussion in the first 11 chapters of many of these experiments / observations.

Mark Wyatt

This begs the question whether this aether is the medium for electromagnetic waves or not.
After all, EM waves have no trouble at all travelling in evacuated systems or inside metallic shields.
Anyway, experiments can be done to see whether there is a difference between open air and enclosed or evacuated systems.

By the way, what were the experimental errors?

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

Here are links to some of the Physics News Updates on recent MM-type experiments. The releases also contain links to the relevant journal articles should anyone want to peruse those.

A German group that uses cryogenic optical resonators

Further results from this group. Of note, this experiment shows "that special relativity passes their high-precision test with flying colors: the speed of light does not depend on its direction of propagation to within 1.7 parts in 10^15, an accuracy about three times higher compared to the best previous experiment." The link also mentions several space based experiments that will eventually put the kibosh to objections that previous experiments were only done on Earth. This group published some of its results in Physical Review Letters in a paper Modern Michelson-Morley Experiment using Cryogenic Optical Resonators PRL V91, Number 2, 11 July 2003 page 020401-1

For an American flavorA group at Stanford used microwaves instead of the lasers the German group had used. They found no anisotropy to the 10^-13 level.

__________________
"I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind." - William Thompson, 1st Baron Lord Kelvin

"If it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be, but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic!" - Tweedledee

This isn't right. This isn't even wrong. - Wolfgang Pauli

As for the Holger Muller experiments, here is a quote from Galileo Was Wrong:

The experimental care taken in this experiment is impressive, but futile, if intended to detect the influence of the ether on c. Lessons learned long before have been forgotten. The experimenter’s text below indicates the missteps taken: solid silica and sapphire crystal; and vacuum-sealed, instead of a gaseous medium.

At the core of the experimental setup is an optical cavity fabricated from fused silica (L = 3 cm, 20 kHz line width) which is continuously rotated on a precision air bearing turntable. Its frequency is compared to that of a stationary cavity oriented north-south (L = 10 cm, 10 kHz line width). Each cavity is mounted inside a thermally shielded vacuum chamber.

The apparatus diagram, although only a schematic, indicates the clutter of support and ancillary structures used in a vain attempt at accuracy. It is also a safe assumption the experiment was performed in a laboratory, buried in the bowels of a building. Can sunlight be detected in a windowless cellar? What value would be placed on a null result of < 10-15 for sunlight detection, if the cellar shielded the detector from the sun? Would we say there is no sunlight, because the experiment was done in darkness? ...

Mark

P.S. I am not sure if the Lipa experiment was reviewed. I will check the references.

Two authors of religious books locked in a shouting match. Is this your idea of entertainment? I'll go make some popcorn!

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

Where does the author of the book actually show that the experiments are misguided?

And what about answering my questions?


Off-topic: what is wrong with the quote tags?

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

Well, might I suggest you send that "assessment" on to the physicists in question. I'm sure it will be well received (not. more likely ignored as it should be). First off, this was not an attempt to detect the influence of any "ether" on the speed of light. That concept went out the window after the first MM experiment. There is no reference to any "ether" as none is required. I challenge you to look through their papers and find one reference to the word "ether" used in a non-historical way. What the are doing is probing the limits of SR and Lorentz invariance to see where they break down and finding to a high degree of accuracy that the predictions of the theory match the experimental results. Here's a question. How does your book predict the results would differ if the experiment were done in a "gaseous medium?" How would they differ if done in orbit around the Earth?

__________________
"I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind." - William Thompson, 1st Baron Lord Kelvin

"If it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be, but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic!" - Tweedledee

This isn't right. This isn't even wrong. - Wolfgang Pauli

"Test of the isotropy of the speed of light using a continuously rotating optical resonator." (Phys.Rev.Lett. 95 (2005)

We report on a test of Lorentz invariance performed by comparing the resonance frequencies of one stationary optical resonator and one continuously rotating on a precision air bearing turntable.
Special attention is paid to the control of rotation induced systematic effects.
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0508097

Here is an interpetation of the data.

"Indications for a preferred reference frame from an ether-drift experiment."
"Summarizing: we have presented a fully model-independent analysis of the extensive ether-drift observations reported in Ref.[1]. Without constraining a hypothetical preferred frame to coincide with the CMB, the experimental data select a definite (absolute) value of the average declination angle | | ∼ 43o and a RMS parameter lying in the typical range 20 · 10−10 ≤ |(1/2− +)| ≤ 60 · 10−10. This might represent the first modern indication for the existence of a referred reference frame and for a non-zero anisotropy of the speed of light. At the same time, since this range we have found for the RMS parameter is consistent with the theoretical prediction ∼ 42 · 10−10 of Refs.[5, 6], we emphasize once more the importance of a fully model-independent analysis of the data."
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0511/0511160.pdf


This one is old but nobody has explained it.
Sidereal variations, Roland DeWitt. http://www.teslaphysics.com/DeWitte/belgacom.htm