Quote of the Day: Science/Technology and Human Development

Technology, viewed in itself, is ambivalent. If on the one hand, some today would be inclined to entrust the entire process of development to technology, on the other hand we are witnessing an upsurge of ideologies that deny in toto the very value of development, viewing it as radically anti-human and merely a source of degradation. This leads to a rejection, not only of the distorted and unjust way in which progress is sometimes directed, but also of scientific discoveries themselves, which, if well used, could serve as an opportunity of growth for all. The idea of a world without development indicates a lack of trust in man and in God. It is therefore a serious mistake to undervalue human capacity to exercise control over the deviations of development or to overlook the fact that man is constitutionally oriented towards "being more". Idealizing technical progress, or contemplating the utopia of a return to humanity's original natural state, are two contrasting ways of detaching progress from its moral evaluation and hence from our responsibility. (Pope Benedict XVI, Caritas in Veritate)

Quote to ponder: Idolatry of Science

"The fatal flaw in our developed societies and their idolatry of science—because that's what it is, a form of idolatry and avarice for power—is that their idea of man is too vain and too despairing, too big and too small at the same time. We're less than gods but more than smart monkeys. And the glory God intends for each of us can only be found one way, through one Man." - Archbishop Charles Chaput, Using and Being Used

The Pope and Science

Quote of the Day:

“Science can purify religion from error and superstition. Religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes.”

Pope John Paul II

The Reasonableness of the Universe

(cross-posted from Studeo)

Ria surprised John and I with a beautiful book as a New Year's present. It's Benedictus: Day by Day with Pope Benedict XVI. We actually got to open it just after midnight, in the very first moments of the new year. :)

Here's today's quote. It's awesome.

The more we know of the universe the more profoundly we are struck by a Reason whose ways we can only contemplate with astonishment. In pursuing them we can see anew that creating Intelligence to whom we owe our own reason. Albert Einstein once said that in the laws of nature "there is revealed such a superior Reason that everything significant which has arisen out of human thought and arrangement is, in comparison with it, the merest empty reflection." In what is most vast, in the world of heavenly bodies, we see revealed a powerful Reason that holds the universe together. And we are penetrating ever deeper into what is smallest, into the cell and into the primordial units of life; here, too, we discover a Reason that astounds us, such that we must say with Saint Bonaventure: "Whoever does not see here is blind. Whoever does not hear here is deaf. And whoever does not begin to adore here and to praise the creating Intelligence is dumb"... God himself shines through the reasonableness of his creation. Physics and biology, and the natural sciences in general, have given us a new and unheard-of creation account with vast new images, which let us recognize the face of the Creator and which make us realize once again that at the very beginning and foundation of all being there is a creating Intelligence. The universe is not the product of darkness and unreason. It comes from intelligence, freedom, and from the beauty that is identical with love. Seeing this gives us the courage to keep on living, and it empowers us, comforted thereby, to take upon ourselves the adventure of life.

Geocentrism – where’s the physics?

(The New Geocentrism, Part IV)

A response to Mr. Wyatt's comments on my previous post, "Relative claims to absolute Truth" (Part III of this series).

First some minutiae:
Mr. Wyatt is correct about the numbering of the articles. To give credit where it's due, however, it was Mary Daly (hedgemaker) and not I who wrote the original article, "The New Geocentrism."

Mr. Wyatt objects to my claim that he believes geocentrism to be obligatory, saying: “I have not stated that they still oblige, necassarily [sic].”

I am happy that Mr. Wyatt does not believe geocentrism is an article of faith. If that is the case, however, I am at a loss to understand why he considers the issue serious at all; it's just a curiosity of physics. Therefore, I would suggest that there are much more important areas to which Mr. Wyatt could contribute this time and energy. The culture war is in great need of persistence and energy, especially on the marriage and life issues fronts.

The Physics
In the following, I give Mr. Wyatt's statements in block quotes, with my responses following. Point numbers refer to the numbered points regarding the physics in my previous post, "The New Geocentrism, Part III."

Points 1-2:
Mr. Wyatt opines that the first two points of my commentary flow from my "presumptions." However, he quotes from Rosser as follows:

"...If one considers the rotating roundabout as being at rest [i.e., fix the earth], the centrifugal gravitational field assumes enormous values at large distances, and it is consistent with the theory of General Relativity for the velocities of distant bodies to exceed 3 x 10^8 m/sec under these conditions." (An Introduction to the Theory of Relativity, W. G. V. Rosser, London, Butterworths, 1964, p. 460)

What is Rosser saying here?
"If one considers the rotating roundabout as being at rest [i.e. fix the earth]..."

1. The roundabout (earth) is rotating.

2. We can pretend (OK "consider") it to be at rest

3. by using a rotating coordinate system, aka a rotating frame of reference.

4. "Under these conditions," i.e. within this rotating frame of reference, distant objects can have faster-than-light (FTL) velocities.

5. Yeah, general relativity gives us the math to do it. (Special relativity does not allow rotating frames of reference, but general relativity does.)

That's exactly what I said in my first two points, which is to say it's the physics, not my presumptions.

Point #3:
Mr. Wyatt says:

First, if the universe is rotating, then special relativity does not apply, general relativity is required.

This is incorrect as stated. The “rules” of special relativity do apply to inertial observers viewing rotating objects, but not to rotating (and other accelerating) frames of reference. The universe as a whole is not sufficiently “flat” for special relativity to apply throughout, but that is completely independent of any rotation that might exist.

If an object were to locally overtake a star at a relative speed greater than "c", then in that case, even under general relativity, Cerenkov radiation would be locally generated, because in that case space-time would be [approximately] flat.

I assume he means, "If a star were to overtake its own light, ...." Nevertheless, it is heartening to see that he is willing to concede a couple of points here.

1. This statement is a tacit admission that the stars are not really, actually, traveling faster than light, i.e. the light they themselves generate. They only look like they do (which is why I called it apparent motion).

2. If we can show that objects in a local region (i.e. approximately flat space-time) would have to exceed the speed of light, we can prove that the geocentric position is tenable ONLY with a rotating frame of reference.

Let's look at a very local region of space, namely the Solar System. If Mr. Wyatt is correct in stating that the geocentric position uses a non-rotating, non-translating frame of reference -- indeed it could be called the ultimate inertial reference frame -- then special relativity applies in this local region.

A quick calculation yields the fact that an object at a distance of a mere 27.6 AU (astronomical unit = the average distance from the earth to the sun) would have to be traveling at the speed of light to circumnavigate the earth in 24 hours. Guess what? Many objects within the solar system have distances this great from the earth.

A well-known example is Pluto, formerly known as a planet, now re-christened a dwarf planet. Its average distance from the earth is approximately 39 AU, putting its average speed at about 1.4c (c is, of course, the speed of light). Further, because of its large orbital eccentricity, its minimum distance from the earth is approximately 28.6 AU, while its greatest distance is about 50 AU. Thus, Pluto's required orbital speed ranges from just over the speed of light to around 1.8c. So not only do we have FTL motion, we have accelerating and decelerating FTL motion.

An even more striking example from the many that could be given involves the famous comet Halley. At its nearest approach to earth, this comet is well under 1 AU distant (for example, in 1986 it came to within 0.42 AU of earth); however, at its greatest distance, it is about 35 AU from us. The astute reader will notice that this places its required orbital speed around the earth at much less than the speed of light when it is close to the earth, but as it moves away, it must accelerate to the speed of light and beyond. There's a word to describe this behavior: impossible.

The FTL velocity required of Pluto at all times and the acceleration / deceleration required of comet Halley from subluminal to superluminal and back again violates special relativity if the observer on earth is in an inertial frame of reference as Mr. Wyatt asserts. And we should, as he admits, see Cerenkov radiation if they really moved at FTL speeds.

Hence, the inertial frame of reference assumption must be wrong; therefore, the frame of reference for the geocentric universe is a rotating one, as Mr. Wyatt's own quote from Rosser indicates.
Bottom line: the geocentric view requires a rotating frame of reference.


Next item:

As to sciencemom's ballerina, unfortunately, general relativity has to consider the the universe rotating around the tip of her nose just as real as the ballerina rotating in a static universe, because general relativity excludes the concept of absolute space.

Yes, and thus of absolute motion. I think Mr. Wyatt has very nearly grasped Mary's point made in the original "The New Geocentrism" post, i.e. that the geocentric universe is no more "real" than the ballerina-nose-centric universe she suggests. Just for the record, I don't have a problem with the big bang theory put forward by Fr. Georges LeMaitre.

Amazing the corner that Catholics back themselves into to be "cool" to the world!

I have refrained from indulging in ad hominem arguments as they are both counter-productive and uncharitable. I would appreciate it if you showed me the same courtesy, Mr. Wyatt. We're discussing the physics, not either of our personal motivations which neither of us can know.


Point #4 (on lack of rotation of the universe):

Correct, it is difficult to rule out entirely, and just stating so does not constitute evidence.

It was not meant to be "evidence," but rather an acknowledgment of the limits of science. My point was that observational measurements cannot tell us for certain that there is no rotation, for the simple reason that measurements are only so accurate. When measuring small quantities, what looks like zero today may look like some small non-zero value next century. But read the rest of it. Direct measurements indicate that rotation is no more than 0.1 arc seconds per century. One published paper caused a great stir for claiming to have measured 10^-13 rad/yr (which is much less than 0.1 arc seconds per century).

Yet Mr. Wyatt continually refers to a "rotating universe" – one that rotates around the earth's axis once every 24 hours – as though it is a real thing and not a mathematical construct. That would be almost 5 billion times the maximum rotation indicated by measurements, and would undoubtedly result in fun alterations to the shape of the universe. A rotating universe would assume the shape of an oblate spheroid, which is not the shape of the real universe; the faster the rotation the more significant the flattening. (One can observe this effect in rotating galaxies, for example.) Even given that we cannot see the whole universe, we would still see the effect in the structure and mass distribution of the visible universe. Of course we don’t actually see any such thing.

Rotation means acceleration, and acceleration can always be measured, though uniform linear motion cannot. Rotation would also create a pattern of motion that would be seen in the CMBR (cosmic microwave background radiation). Such rapid rotation would be very readily detected.

Plus, objects in a universe that rotates around an axis would experience a centrifugal force proportional to their radial distance from the axis. Thus, objects in the “equatorial” plane of a fast-rotating universe, such as the one Mr. Wyatt suggests, would experience a significant outward acceleration; however, objects on the axis would not. This would result in a systemic anisotropy in measured redshifts: a very clear pattern of location-dependent variations. Again, no such pattern exists in real life.

Bottom line: all the evidence indicates that the universe does not rotate significantly

Besides, as I showed earlier, the geocentric position requires a rotating frame of reference. This is because the earth does rotate. The apparent “rotation of the universe” is merely the result of our living in this rotating frame of reference.

On to point #5:

Again, sciencemom misses a fundamental point. True if one stared down on the sun then one would "see" the entire universe rotating around the sun!

Mr. Wyatt has either misinterpreted or completely missed my point here. I do not believe the universe rotates around the sun, or the milky way for that matter. Mary made this quite clear at the end of part II of this series, "Up to Date Cosmology." The planets, dwarf planets, asteroids, and miscellaneous other bodies in the solar system do orbit the sun.^* (Obviously moons orbit some of the planets, not the sun directly.)

[*This is an approximation because, technically, objects orbit their mutual barycenter (center of mass); however, since the sun is so much more massive than everything else in the system, the barycenter is always very close to the sun. For example, the barycenter of the Sol-Terra-Luna (sun-earth-moon) system is within the body of the sun, very close to its center. The statement about the planets and their moons employs a similar approximation.]

Since she claims this to be an inertial reference frame, and she is being precise, she must be proposing some form of milky-way-centrism! One in which the universal center corresponds to a point that sits above hte [sic] sun's orbit at least at one point in time.

The first sentence is a classic non sequitur. And as to the second, I don't recall proposing that the universe even has a physical center, let alone that it resides at #1 N. Solar Avenue.

When I spoke of an inertial reference frame, I was indeed being precise. For those who aren't sure what the term means, it refers to a non-accelerating (thus also non-rotating) frame of reference. I chose the location above the sun merely for convenience in observing the solar system. A location near the Andromeda galaxy wouldn't be nearly as opportune.

True if one stared down on the sun then one would "see" the entire universe rotating around the sun!
...
Rather, I think sciencemom is confusing coordinate transforms with reality, and trying to imply that the abstract mathematical concept of inertial reference frames, as applied in especially special relativity, "prove" that the universe is not rotating.

I said what I said because it is precisely what I meant. There are no coordinate transforms involved in my comments about what one would see.

And, I find a contradiction between Mr. Wyatt's two comments cited above. In the first, I am apparently trying to show that the universe rotates around the sun. Yet in the second (from the same paragraph!) I am accused of trying to show that the universe does not rotate at all. Weird. The fact is, I am trying to do neither. I am simply describing what one would see from an inertial frame of reference placed above the sun's north pole merely for viewing convenience.


Wrap-up :

as shown in great detail in Galileo Was Wrong, most of our observations and mnay [sic] experiments support a central and non-moving (rotating or translating) earth!

Again, I find a strange dichotomy between this assertion that one can "prove" a non-moving earth, and the previous assertions having to do with the fact that in general relativity there is no absolute space or motion. Further, it is physically impossible, even in classical physics, to prove non-motion for the simple reason that there is no way to detect uniform linear motion.

Science itself admits that it cannot demonstrate the rotation or translation of the earth (as independent of a counter movement of teh [sic] universe).

This is also untrue, as I believe I have amply demonstrated above when I showed that the geocentric view requires a rotating frame of reference. Besides, ring lasers can measure absolute rotation. I plan to soon post a brief article on physical evidence for the earth's rotation.

Finally Scriptures, the Fathers, and a number of popes have testified or made declarations in favor of geocentrism. None have explicitlky [sic] denied it. Why not at least consider it?

I have considered it, and find it untenable. Readers may wish to check out Mary Daly's "Up to Date Cosmology" post for more on the Church's view.


Conclusions:
For the reasons I discussed before, and in more detail above, the geocentric system requires a rotating frame of reference. It's the physics, not my presumptions, that dictates this. All the physical evidence indicates that the universe does not rotate significantly, and that the earth does rotate.

Perhaps a simple thought experiment will clarify the situation for most of us. If we could somehow remove just the earth from the solar system, the rest of it would continue to operate pretty much as before, except for earth’s moon. However, if we could remove the sun, the solar system as a system would fall apart.

The most that can be said for the geocentric view is that "it sure looks that way from our position here on earth and we can express that idea mathematically using general relativity," but that doesn't make it Truth. This seems to me to be a classic case of "confusing coordinate transforms with reality," to borrow a phrase from Mr. Wyatt.

Back to Part III

On to Final Note

Science Can't Explain It All, Says Benedict XVI

My friend Martha sent this... I especially enjoyed Benedict XVI's quote: "Man cannot place in science and technology so radical and unconditional a trust as to believe that scientific and technological progress can explain everything and completely fulfill all his existential and spiritual needs."

Calls for an Openness to Philosophy and Theology VATICAN CITY - Benedict XVI praised the extraordinary possibilities opened to humanity by science, but he cautioned that technology cannot explain everything.

The Pope expressed this today to members of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, who are gathered in Rome for their plenary assembly. The theme of the assembly is "Predictability in Science: Accuracy and Limitations."

In his English-language discourse, the Holy Father said, "This increasing 'advance' of science, and especially its capacity to master nature through technology, has at times been linked to a corresponding 'retreat' of philosophy, of religion, and even of the Christian faith.

"Indeed, some have seen in the progress of modern science and technology one of the main causes of secularization and materialism: Why invoke God's control over these phenomena when science has shown itself capable of doing the same thing?"

"If we think, for example," he said, "of how modern science, by predicting natural phenomena, has contributed to the protection of the environment, the progress of developing nations, the fight against epidemics, and an increase in life expectancy, it becomes clear that there is no conflict between God's providence and human enterprise."

"Science, however, while giving generously, gives only what it is meant to give," Benedict XVI cautioned. "Man cannot place in science and technology so radical and unconditional a trust as to believe that scientific and technological progress can explain everything and completely fulfill all his existential and spiritual needs.

"Science cannot replace philosophy and revelation by giving an exhaustive answer to man's most radical questions: questions about the meaning of living and dying, about ultimate values, and about the nature of progress itself."

Read more here.

In this issue of Crisis: a review of The Language of God

The current issue of Crisis brings a review of the book by the well known head of the Human Genome Project, Francis S. Collins, entitled The Language of God. Juxtaposing Collins with "arch-atheist" Richard Dawkins, Benjamin Wiker's beefy review tells of Collin's conversion to evangelical protestantism and his troubles with the concept of ID aka Intelligent Design. At almost two pages, the review is filled with interesting facts and quotes, and also with a short presentation of the author's newly coined term: BioLogos.

Certainly a must-read review for readers who look to stay abreast of the current waves of the theistic evolution dialogue.

Illustration source here

Update: Time's cover article this week is about this book,
with a debate between Collins and Dawkins!

From the publisher's website:

Dr. Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project, is one of the world's leading scientists. He works at the cutting edge of the study of DNA, the code of life. Yet he is also a man of unshakable faith in God and scripture. He believes that God cares about us and can intervene in human affairs -- on rare occasions, even miraculously. Collins has personally discovered some of the scientific evidence for the common descent of all living creatures, even though he repudiates the materialist, atheistic worldview argued by many prominent Darwinists.

In short, Dr. Collins provides a satisfying solution for the dilemma that haunts everyone who believes in God and respects science. Faith in God and faith in science can be harmonious -- combined into one worldview. The God that he believes in is a God who can listen to prayers and cares about our souls. The biological science he has advanced is compatible with such a God. For Collins, science does not conflict with the Bible, science enhances it.

For many years Dr. Collins kept his views largely to himself, as he helped oversee the Human Genome Project's stunning sequencing of the code of life. Now, in what may be the most important melding of reason and revelation since C. S. Lewis's Mere Christianity, Dr. Collins explains himself in detail. The Language of God makes the case for God and for science. Dr. Collins considers and rejects several positions along the spectrum from atheism to young-earth creationism -- including agnosticism and Intelligent Design. Instead, he proposes a new synthesis, a new way to think about an active, caring God who created humankind through evolutionary processes.

He has heard every argument against faith from scientists, and he can refute them. He has also heard the needless rejection of scientific truths by some people of faith, and he can counter that, too. He explains his own journey from atheism to faith, and then takes readers on a stunning tour of modern science to show that physics, chemistry, and biology can all fit together with belief in God and the Bible. The Language of God is essential reading for anyone who wonders about the deepest questions of all: Why are we here? How did we get here? And what does life mean?

Find out more: Read an excerpt

Free Press, July 2006

Hardcover, 304 pages
ISBN-10: 0-7432-8639-1
ISBN-13: 978-0-7432-8639-8

from the Catholic Children's Treasure Box

We have loved these 1950's volumes since our oldest kids were beginning to read... they live in our holy bag--a bag of books the younger ones are allowed to enjoy at church. Last Sunday I came across this quote on the inside of the back page of issue No. 19... Some very simple concepts are worth reading again and again.

It is ridiculous to think that there could be any conflict between science and religion, for both are concerned with reporting the truth, which is one. The scientist observes reality from one point of view, the priest from another. But it is the same reality in every case. It is a mistake, however, to regard the Bible as a manual of science. Both Saint Augustine and Saint Thomas teach that when the Bible tells of some natural phenomenon, it sets it down in terms of its outer appearances. Thus the sacred writers speak quite casually of the sun rising and setting. Science today teaches the revolution of the earth around the sun. Nevertheless, even today our almanacs faithfully list the hour of "sunrise" and "sunset," so we should not be hard on the sacred writers who used the same manner of speech thousands of years ago. This manner of speaking does not constitute an error.

Catholic Childrens' Treasure Box, originally published by Maryknoll Sisters durign the 50s, is available from Tan Books in 20 volumes. From their website:

The Treasure Box books present a wonderful combination of fun, innocence and the Catholic Faith. They teach the Faith in a simple way, and they inspire children's hearts to love God. The pictures are truly beautiful, unlike the cartoon illustrations found in many children's books today. These books are full of Catholic doctrine, presented reverently and simply at a young child's level, in a manner to capture the child's interest and raise the heart to God. (This product can also be purchased as part of the following sets: Treasure Box Set Books 1-10, and Treasure Box Set Books 1 - 20)

GKC on Pluto Decision

Just so it doesn't get lost in the shuffle, I'm bringing this up from the comment box...

This is from Dr. Thursday:

Has no one quoted GKC on this?

"I do not believe in dwelling upon the distances that are supposed to dwarf the world; I think there is even something a trifle vulgar about this idea of trying to rebuke spirit by size. And as the first idea is not feasible, that of making the earth a strange planet so as to make it significant, I will not stoop to the other trick of making it a small planet in order to make it insignificant. I would rather insist that we do not even know that it is a planet at all, in the sense in which we know that it is a place; and a very extraordinary place too. That is the note which I wish to strike from the first, if not in the astronomical, then in some more familiar fashion."
[GKC, The Everlasting Man CW2:155]

Complete quote from paragraph 159 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church

Faith and science: "Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth." "Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are."
The Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 159

Give a Reason for the Hope that is in Them

"No amount of pious training or pious culture will protect the faithful, or preserve them from the contamination of the age, if they are left inferior to non-Catholics in secular learning and intellectual development. The faithful must be guarded and protected by being trained and disciplined to grapple with the false systems of the age…. They must be better armed than their opponents - surpass them in the strength and vigor of their minds, and in the extent and variety of their knowledge. They must, on all occasions and against all adversaries, be ready to give a reason for the hope that is in them. "

Orestes Brownson (1803-1876)
from Catholic Polemics (as quoted in The Catholic Book of Quotations by Leo Knowles - Our Sunday Visitor)