ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

The Lies from LIGO

Updated on August 26, 2016
Here we observe the earth orbiting the Bible
Here we observe the earth orbiting the Bible | Source

Unprincipled Part Two

Continued from Part One:

A discussion of the article by Sungensis entitled “The Lies from LIGO”

As stated in part one, “creation of matter, space and time” is an irrational proposal. Therefore debating whether or not LIGO detects a remnant of the Big Bang is a silly thing to do. Besides, as in all scientific understanding, we explain our observations conceptually, not with more observations (experimentally).

It is also not necessary to debate the merits of relativity, Quantum Mechanics and String Theory as Sungensis is wont to do in his article. Why? Because all of these fail at the hypothesis stage of scientific inquiry.

We find the crux of Sungesis’ argument here:

“Not only do the LIGO claims influence the secular science community, they also affect the Christian science community. Various leaders in the Creationism movement have clung to Einstein’s relativity theories as if they were handed down by God Himself.”

Of course there is little difference between “Secular science community” and “Christian science community” when proof, evidence, and true or false are employed in the method of inquiry. What one believes, their opinion, what they are convinced of, is THEIR religion. Any religious person’s attempt to apply science to confirm their faith is therefore religion. Science just explains. After the conference, what one believes is for them alone. No arm twisting, convincing, or preaching involved!

Sungensis takes exception to Humphrey’s notion that LIGO detection of gravity waves are “one of the best proofs of Einstein’s theories.” He refers to an article in Creation Matter entitled: “Gravity Wave Observations are Powerful Evidence for Relativity and Black Holes.”

Relativity has long been debunked by rational scientists, and there is no great need to examine “paragraph-by-paragraph” Humphrey’s article to show that “LIGO offer(s) no evidence or proof for Relativity.” Neither are we interested in convincing anyone of “LIGO and its interpreter’s lies.” Let’s address the interpretation of the experiment instead, and do this conceptually.

Fizeau, Foucault, Michelson and all current experiments calculate the velocity of light using angles rather than actually measuring the velocity of light. Michelson’s experiment did indicate that there is no ether, therefore invalidating the wave theory of light, but the calculations are based on Snell’s Law of Velocity.

Snell’s Law of velocity is conceptually flawed because it supposes light travels at different speeds depending on the medium it is passing through. However, light is neither a particle nor a wave. Again, this is something that we can solve conceptually:

The Lunar Laser Ranger bounces a laser of or a mirror array on the moon and times it’s return to a detector.

“Distance traveled by a particle would be less than the distance traveled by a wave packet. A stream of particles represented by a sine wave would indicate an up and down path along a rectilinear path or trajectory. If a particle travels X distance then a wave packet travels >X. Look at a sine wave. Depending on the amplitude of the waveform, the length of the "wavy line" forming the sine is as much as twice as long (or more) as the distance between two points!

“We time the first returning photon at 2.56 seconds meaning that it took 1.28 seconds for the light to arrive at the mirror on the surface of the moon and the same amount of time to get back.

“Depending on the amplitude of the waveform, a wave packet could take a path as much as 2x further or more. Therefore it would have to travel twice the distance in the same time or in other words, the wave packet would have to travel twice the speed of a single particle traveling a straight line path at the same distance. Light can not travel faster than C. Therefore, light can not travel as a wave packet, or the detector is not really detecting individual photons as claimed.” – Rational Science Vol. I, Chapter 11, “Light Particle or Wave.”

What is important about all these experiments is that they confirm that light travels rectilinearly, and also confirms Ray Reversibility of Light. These are discussed in detail in various articles and chapters of my books, as well as other sources. That light travels rectilinearly is covered in the Files section at Rational Scientific Method facebook group, and ray reversibility in Bill Gaede’s book WGDE, and Fatfist's HubPage article here:

The issues of light need to be addressed, but not experimentally, conceptually: Is light an object? Is it a phenomenon? Is light a particle, a wave, both, or neither? See my article on the history of light science, “The Nature of Light - The Phiz Whiz Is Not the Brightest Bulb on the Tree," Chapter 15, Rational Science Vol. II:

“So after hundreds of years the mathemagicians are still talking about how light behaves, not what light is. They bypass the hypothesis stage by not illustrating the object, instead they are describing (not explaining) the phenomena. The theorist uses the functional definition of light instead of explaining what light is. Uncertainty and Complimentarity identify particle with position and wave with momentum. Light leaves as a particle, travels as a wave and arrives as a particle.

“The mathemagical theorist has abandoned the scientific method of inquiry by confusing verbs and nouns, objects and concept, hypothesis with theory, and functional definitions with explanations. They have abandoned science altogether by focusing on behavior rather than architecture.

“When their experiments showed them that a particle was impossible, researchers should have abandoned their theories, not the scientific method. When their observations indicated to them that light can not possibility be a wave, they should have abandoned their theories, not their common sense.”

Several paragraphs in Sungensis’ rebuttal of Humphrey’s article are devoted to relativity’s length contraction. For the individual that wishes to explore this further on his own, discussion about length contraction can be found here: and also on Bill’s website and in his book.

Sungensis does make a good point here: “Here’s the rub. Lorentz had no evidence or proof that the westward arm had contracted. All he had was his dogmatic belief that the Earth was revolving around the sun, and from that foundation he ASSUMED that the parallel arm of Michelson’s apparatus HAD TO contract. Obviously, it wasn’t empirical science that led Lorentz to this conclusion. It was the scientific dogma that the Earth was revolving around the sun, which then led Lorentz to invent an ad hoc theory that the arm of Michelson’s interferometer HAD TO contract, ipso facto, no questions entertained to the contrary.”

His point is well taken about invented ad hoc theory and “no questions entertained to the contrary.” AND here’s the rub: This is what happens when one uses the defunct “scientific” method of inquiry relying on evidence and proof rather than actually explaining phenomena using objects. Dogma about what body revolves around which, in this case, depends on ones religion. BUT let’s see if Sungensis offers any explanation for his geocentric view.

The claim:

“… if one believes the Earth is moving, the only explanation to Michelson/Morley is length contraction in one of the arms of the apparatus. Likewise, if one believes in gravity waves (per Einstein), then the only way one can account for its existence is by assuming a length contraction of one of the LIGO arms, but in both cases there is not one ounce of proof that the arm actually contracted.”

There may be another explanation, and I suggest that the nature of gravity and light needs to be understood, and the application of a rational scientific method of inquiry be applied before making such sweeping claims. For if there are no particles or waves, but an underlying physical mechanism for light and gravity heretofore not understood, then neither of the two ideas mentioned are logically valid.

Whether the earth moves or not is not a matter of belief, it is more a matter of the definition for motion than anything mentioned thus far. I wonder if Sungensis has ever scientifically defined the term. I submit he has not. Neither has anyone else in the Christian or Scientific communities he speaks of.

If, as he states, “…that the light beams themselves in both Michelson/Morley and LIGO were retarded by an external force in order to cause the phase differences or 'fringe shifts' in the light beams when they converged at the Central detector” nullifies Special Relativity, it still does not follow that that “would mean the Earth actually is standing still in space and that modern science has no credible explanation for this apparent motionlessness of Earth.”

It could just mean that the experiments are founded on flawed premises built upon flawed hypotheses and theories of light and gravity. No need to invent another irrational proposal like the previously debunked geocentric universe.

That “Gravity waves are a necessary consequence of the gravitational field equations” is neither here nor there as we can rationally rule out any such consequence. “Gravity waves” is a nonsensical term to begin with. Gravity is the attraction between bodies and waves is what something is doing. It is grammatically incorrect to say attraction waves. It is also irrational. All words in the human language resolve to either concepts or objects. Both gravity and wave are concepts. Science hopefully explains reality. Hopefully, physics understands the difference between the two. All phenomena are the result of surface to surface contact between two or more objects. There are no exceptions to this. Not one.

To his credit Sungensis recognizes that there is no fabric of space which can make a wave. However, this is not because Einstein’s relativity claimed that space was a “vacuum of nothing,” it is because of basic principles of grammar, reason, and science. It does not follow that “…the alleged 'contraction' of Michelson's interferometer arm” requires “Einstein needed to show the difference between a moving Earth and a motionless earth…” This is not an either or scenario. There are many explanations potentially available. AND until Sungensis tells us what HE means by motion and motionless, we can’t understand HIS argument.

Sungensis’ incredulity seen voiced in this question, “How would two objects even know of each other’s existence if there was no communication in the 'space' between them?” shows that he has ruled out other physical mechanisms underlying gravitational attraction, or perhaps he has a different idea. Maybe it’s one provided by the church that opposed Galileo. What if there is no space between two objects and gravity is a result of interconnecting ropes between all atoms in each object considered (as in Rope Hypothesis)? If space is nothing, then how can space be “between” two objects? This is not an issue confined to Special Relativity, or length contraction. This is a conceptual issue that needs to be addressed, of course, but let’s not rule out any rational explanation for the phenomenon gravity.

General Relativity’s warped space is also not the only “explanation” for gravitational and light phenomena. Relativity is faced with far more problems than the contradictions between Special Relativity and General Relativity.

Sungensis talks about percentages of ether and points out some silliness when he says “…Michelson/Gale was measuring a rotation between space and Earth, whereas the 1887 Michelson/Morley was measuring a revolution of the Earth around the sun.” For how can one measure anything “between” earth and space if space is nothing? But he takes it too far when he makes this claim:

“Incidentally, Geocentrists can easily explain this difference, since there is a daily rotation of space around the Earth (hence, Michelson had a 100% detection of the ether of space daily going around the Earth), but the Earth is not revolving around the sun (hence, Michelson had no detection of the Earth traveling 66,000 mph around the sun). e sun). We surmise, then, that the ‘less than 10%’ ether found in 1887 was due to the slight spillage of the ether into the Michelson/Morley interferometer from space's daily rotation around the Earth. It’s very simple. A child could understand.”

And I thought he was pointing out the silliness of space being something which can be measured or compared to when he was really poking fun at percentages and saying it is an either or situation, and therefore it must be 100% detection of ether. This is yet another false duality. I covered the Fizeau and M&M experiments in greater detail in the article entitled, “Sorce Theory and Other Fantasies,” found in the Files section at RSM. It is not a matter of ether spilling into the interferometer, but a result of gravity. Quoting from that article:

Talking about the Fizeau and M&M experiments, “I propose that the canvas and sealed chamber have nothing to do with the results. Instead it is the altitude. The distance is greater from the center of the earth to the mountain top than the distance to the equator, or lower altitude. Therefore, there is a greater drag coefficient with respect to the apparatus at the higher altitudes. The question is what is causing the drag? The greater the distance between objects, the less pull between objects.

“Therefore, the so-called drag coefficients are really a result of less pull on the apparatus with a corresponding greater percentage of experiment error due to the ratio between the velocity and instrument tolerance at different altitudes.”

Sungensis then takes issue with the merging of two black holes, not because black holes are non-existent, but because he wonders how gravity can affect light in a black hole but not the laser beams in the LIGO arm when it contracts the LIGO arm itself. It’s a good question, but the issues are better addressed at a more basic level where there is an understanding of the basic mechanism for light and gravity. AND anyways, what does Sungensis propose in the alternative? Let’s not forget that Sungensis takes issue with Humphreys because he champions Relativity, NOT because he is a creationist!

The next bone of contention is with measuring distance in the universe. He mentions some problems here, but neglects some important conceptual issues, not the least of which is, "What does anyone mean by 'the Universe' and what does anyone mean by distance?" I cover different methods of measuring celestial object’s distance from the earth in a series of articles found in Rational Science Vol. II, entitled, “Distance to the Stars.” Here’s an excerpt:

“What does it mean to measure distance, anyways? I'll define using Wolfram scientific definitions:

“’distance: the property created by the space between two objects or points’

“’measure: the act or process of assigning numbers to phenomena according to a rule; how much there is or how many there are of something that you can quantify’

“Of course, there's no way to really directly measure the distance to a star, unless we flew there in a spaceship and pulled a piece of string behind us (one that we already had the length of). Maybe we could use balls of string, the distance to our sun: 92,960,000 miles (149,600,000 km) and keep count of how many we use?

Really though, in that case, we would be measuring string, NOT space!

AND regardless of the method proposed they are measuring rulers, not space!

Anyways, how far away the two black holes are is trivial unless one can explain how a black hole can possibly exist in the first place.

Then Sungensis complains thusly: “Humphries, being an Evangelical who has some semblance of allegiance to the Bible, is forced to account for at least some face value or literal understanding of Genesis, which he believes he accomplished by mixing and matching Genesis with Einstein. This, in Humphrey's mind, allows him to make a distinction between how time passes on Earth as opposed to how it is passes in deep space when viewed on Earth. Suffice it to say, it's all a bunch of theoretical nonsense that doesn't have the slightest evidence, much less proof. Einstein's theory is simply a wax nose that Humphreys can twist any way he likes so that he can fit it into his already convoluted interpretation of Genesis.?”

Sounds to me like SunnyGenesis takes exception to Humphries mixture of Genesis and Einstein and lack of proof thereof, yet, he himself wishes to twist our wax noses by forcing cosmology to fit into the bible’s purported geocentric view. Maybe he should remove the Planck from his own eye before working on Humphries splinter.

Just because it is suggested “that gravity travels the same speed as light” does not qualify the statement that “Gravity, as a compression wave of ether, can be shown to be virtually instantaneous, even as Newton suggested.” Once again we are only being offered Sungensis' alternative, as though there are no other options available. Disproof of one is not proof of another. Two irrational proposals does not a rational proposal make. Each hypothesis and theory must stand on its own. What is the explanation for geocentrism beyond the claim it is the biblical point of view?

The rest of the arguments for and against relativity are mute since we assume Relativity is a failed proposition and have discussed this in many conversations, books, and articles. Again, we solve these issues conceptually, not with experiments. Yet, in the words of Sungensis: “The truth is, NONE of them prove Relativity.”

In order to seek the truth we turn to religion. To understand reality we turn to science, and never the twain shall meet.

The next segment looks for evidence and proof, and finds none. Is that a surprise? Not even worth mentioning what was covered. Read it yourself and you tell me what’s in it.

After that comes the misleading titled segment: “So What Caused the Phase Difference in LIGO?”

No alternative explanation is offered, just chest-beating and back-patting of himself over faulting Humphries. The most telling paragraph in that segment is this:

“First, one would think that after 35 years of looking for gravitational waves that the MIT paper could cite numerous examples of their existence. After all, isn’t that what science is supposed to do, namely, give us a lot of evidence so that we can have enough to confirm or deny the theory being proposed? Instead, they rely on one report and have no other evidence for the very foundation of their analysis of LIGO.”

The real question is not why haven’t they detected, proven, found evidence for black holes and gravity waves, the real question is why haven’t they explained gravity in the first place? Why do they still reify abstract concepts into the nouns of reality? The answer is: Because they are still using the defunct mainstream scientific method which is NOT science at all It is religion!

I can also tell you why SunnyGenesis is still looking for evidence. He’s NOT! He has all the evidence he needs in his Bible.

.Continued Part Three, Geocentrism:


    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No comments yet.

    Click to Rate This Article