Evidence for God from Science

Like many others, I follow the ongoing controversy about stickers in science textbooks. I felt, that I had to do my part in defense of the scientific Method. I thought I could prove the validity of the scientific method by demonstrating it on a less contagious issue. I decided to go with Einstein's relativity. After all, I hold degrees in aerospace as well as physics. And spend quite some time setting up interferometry experiments. I have some understanding of the matter.

To my dismay, I found that relativity is not that scientific after all. It is
not even logical. That occurred to me, for the first time back in May. You
could say, that the good lord turned me from Saulus to Paulus.

However I spend some time putting together a scientific article in order to
present my findings for review. I submitted the article to many peer reviewed publications. Always got an immediate response. It read:

> We regret to inform you that we do not publish “This Kind of article" <

That came to me as a surprise. I assure you, my article does not contain any circular arguments, or divisions by zero nor do my calculations produce any ridiculous predictions. The math is very simple, and the results absolutely intuitive. I double-checked my mathematical argument, my diagrams and my conclusions. I could not see what they mean by “This Kind of Article”.

So I asked if they could point out the factual errors of my argument. I never got an answer. In fact nobody ever bothered to read it. It strikes me as odd, that those publications do not have any reservations when it comes to the publication of theories about, Super strings, 11 Dimensions, The big splat, The big bang and many other fantastic things. So way should they refuse to even read my quite simple solution of the Michelson-Morley experiment?

Is it not permitted to question the “Miracles of science”?

I do not claim infallibility. All I ask for is an objective review. How else can I verify the correctness of my findings? I decided to put the whole thing online you can find it at:

http://www.primacausa.com

It contains a classical solution of the Michelson-Morley experiment, which takes the Fizeau effect into consideration. You may find it Interesting.

Your article stated "I'll start with the time dilation effect. It is a real effect and has been verified experimentally. But does it support relativity? Here is what I mean. You pack an atomic clock into an airplane, and fly it a couple of times around the globe. When you get it back, you will see that it ran slower then its twin you kept in your lab. Does that prove relativistic time dilation?

What about the pilot of the airplane. He may, relatively speaking, consider himself as being at rest and the lab rotating under the airplane. He will calculate a time dilation for the clock in the lab. According to him, the clock in the lab has to be the slower one. It can't be that both clocks are slower then the other. Fortunately we do not have to result into ugly arguments. Experiments like that have been performed countless times. The clock that makes the trip is always found to be the slower one. That rather supports the idea of absolute motion then relativity. "

What you fail to mention is that yes from both points of reference the clock in the other has slowed down however, as the airplane decelerates to the relative motion of the twin clock on the earth the dialation effects the pilot and not the twin clock. The acceleration of the two are not relative.

Your inertia quote here "Lets see what happens if we replace the light pulse with a rubber ball. You can easily bounce the ball between the ceiling and floor of a moving bus, and compare the trajectory you recorded with the trajectory observed by some guy standing at the bus stop. The rubber ball will be seen from both observers to move along the same trajectories relativity assumes for the light pulse! Once again, the catch is: "
No they do both follow the same path. The light beam will bounce up and down just as the ball would as if the train were not moving in that frame of reference.

Ok, what exactly are you trying to prove?

The Michelson-Morley experiment is a historically failed experiment that neither proved nor disproved anything. Its failure did, however, lead scientists of the time to reevaluate what they held as true.

So how does picking it apart prove or disprove anything?

Finding the flaws in the MMX, and reevaluating the results, may demonstrate that the experiment does not disprove the existence of the Luminiferous aether, however it does not prove it, nor does it, in itself, disprove Relativity.

Shouldn't then your conclusion be, that we must look beyond MMX to be able to make any assertions whatsoever?

But I fail to see how Relativity being true, threatens your belief in God. With every scientific discovery, I stand in wonder, at God's magnificent creation.

SpaceCase wrote:Ok, what exactly are you trying to prove?

The Michelson-Morley experiment is a historically failed experiment that neither proved nor disproved anything. Its failure did, however, lead scientists of the time to reevaluate what they held as true.

So how does picking it apart prove or disprove anything?

Finding the flaws in the MMX, and reevaluating the results, may demonstrate that the experiment does not disprove the existence of the Luminiferous aether, however it does not prove it, nor does it, in itself, disprove Relativity.

Shouldn't then your conclusion be, that we must look beyond MMX to be able to make any assertions whatsoever?

But I fail to see how Relativity being true, threatens your belief in God. With every scientific discovery, I stand in wonder, at God's magnificent creation.

Nicely said, SpaceCase. We should embrace true science and not shy away from it. After all, like anything else, it is part of God's creation and can only further our understanding of Him.

ncheropoulos wrote:I thought I could prove the validity of the scientific method...

What does that mean? (I would think you would need an epistemological argument, but that wouldn't constitute proof, just rationale.)

By "validity", did you mean "utility". If that's the case, I think your readers probably care more about issues more central to their lives than atomic clocks launched into space or tennis balls bouncing on trains travelling at nearly the speed of light. Anyone who doesn't understand the scientific method isn't going to be wooed by an extremely esoteric example.

Personally, I had some issues with the paper and I could make some guesses as to why the paper was rejected. Incidentally, many papers get rejected and it doesn't mean there's a conspiracy to shut you up and protect the fragile establishment.

I like that you're getting the ideas out there. That's admirable. It seems like the folks on SciForums are giving you the peer review you were after.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php ... ge=1&pp=20

Good luck.

Byblos wrote:

SpaceCase wrote:Ok, what exactly are you trying to prove?

The Michelson-Morley experiment is a historically failed experiment that neither proved nor disproved anything. Its failure did, however, lead scientists of the time to reevaluate what they held as true.

So how does picking it apart prove or disprove anything?

Finding the flaws in the MMX, and reevaluating the results, may demonstrate that the experiment does not disprove the existence of the Luminiferous aether, however it does not prove it, nor does it, in itself, disprove Relativity.

Shouldn't then your conclusion be, that we must look beyond MMX to be able to make any assertions whatsoever?

But I fail to see how Relativity being true, threatens your belief in God. With every scientific discovery, I stand in wonder, at God's magnificent creation.

Nicely said, SpaceCase. We should embrace true science and not shy away from it. After all, like anything else, it is part of God's creation and can only further our understanding of Him.

Would I be correct if I interpreted that you do not lump modern biology, which includes evolution, along with the "true sciences"?

BGoodForGoodSake wrote: Would I be correct if I interpreted that you do not lump modern biology, which includes evolution, along with the "true sciences"?

Sounds like you're digging up another battle, since we were talking relativity, not evolution...

SpaceCase wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:
Would I be correct if I interpreted that you do not lump modern biology, which includes evolution, along with the "true sciences"?

Sounds like you're digging up another battle, since we were talking relativity, not evolution...

That's ok Space, I'll answer the question (I feel like I'm in the witness chair). Yes, I do include modern biology as true science. Yes I do include evolution as true science, though limited. No I do not include neo-darwinian evolution as true science.

I thought you knew me by now, BGood. I'm surprised you asked the question.

Byblos wrote:

SpaceCase wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:
Would I be correct if I interpreted that you do not lump modern biology, which includes evolution, along with the "true sciences"?

Sounds like you're digging up another battle, since we were talking relativity, not evolution...

That's ok Space, I'll answer the question (I feel like I'm in the witness chair). Yes, I do include modern biology as true science. Yes I do include evolution as true science, though limited. No I do not include neo-darwinian evolution as true science.

I thought you knew me by now, BGood. I'm surprised you asked the question.

Sorry!

I was just surprised that you wrote true science.
forgive me.
=)

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Byblos wrote:

SpaceCase wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:
Would I be correct if I interpreted that you do not lump modern biology, which includes evolution, along with the "true sciences"?

Sounds like you're digging up another battle, since we were talking relativity, not evolution...

That's ok Space, I'll answer the question (I feel like I'm in the witness chair). Yes, I do include modern biology as true science. Yes I do include evolution as true science, though limited. No I do not include neo-darwinian evolution as true science.

I thought you knew me by now, BGood. I'm surprised you asked the question.

Sorry!

I was just surprised that you wrote true science.
forgive me.
=)

All's forgotten.