So it is with biblical geocentrism claims.

This is an additional follow-on to Mr. Martin's In Response to Dr Bridgmans “Stupid Geocentrist Tricks“. I've already made some reply in the comments to the original article. Most of Mr. Martin's statements were rants where the same errors were being repeated and expanded upon, but one very fundamental error caught my attention.

Martin: “One of the problems found in the link above is that of the ad hoc nature of the barycenter, which produces conflicts within the Newtonian model and Kepler’s orbital laws.“Any 'conflicts' between the Newtonian and Keplerian model stem from Mr. Martin's own misunderstanding.

The barycenter (AKA center of mass) is a consequence of Newton's laws and is perfectly consistent with them (wikipedia). All objects with mass have a center of mass, and the barycenter can be defined for any combination of masses. A ball has a barycenter, the center of mass of a uniform sphere is at the geometric center of the sphere. A chair has a barycenter. An automobile has a barycenter, as do all the parts within it. A ship at sea has a barycenter. A rock sitting on a hillside has a barycenter.

The barycenter still exists even if the body (or bodies) under consideration is in motion. Imagine the differences in the motions of the moving parts, such as valves, camshafts, pistons, and belts, and their barycenters, in the interior of an automobile engine:

- While the car is at rest
- While the car is moving on the road under its own power
- While the car is idling on a flatbed train car while the train is moving.

*ad hoc*. Automobile engineers understand them.

The barycenter allows us to analyze a system with many parts by providing a method of analyzing the system a few components at a time.

When combined with a central force law (a force that acts along a line between the two particles under consideration), the barycenter has the additional utility that the motion of a system of particles can be analyzed in two parts - the motion AROUND the center of mass, and the motion OF the center of mass. The center of mass then provides a convienent frame of reference for analyzing the system. Engineers and astronomers use this fact routinely.

Here are derivations, starting from Newtonian classical mechanics, deriving Kepler's laws and the center of mass from Newtonian force and gravitational laws. These derivations illustrate how the motion of the two objects under gravity can be separated into these two separate motions. These are presented for undergraduate physics classes.

- Motion in a Central-Force Field by Alain J. Brizard
- Central Force Motion
- Physics 302: Equations of Mechanics
- Sir Isaac Newton: The Universal Law of Gravitation

Using my N-body code, I've actually run several simulations of how the same Keplerian 2-body system appears in different reference frames, specifically an arbitrary frame, a center-of-mass (barycenter) frame, and a reference frame centered on the more massive object where Kepler's Laws apply (see Doin' Real Science: Simulating Particles). I have a few demonstrations of Mr. Martin's claimed problem configurations (described below) in preparation for future posts.

Mr. Martin elaborates on his nonsense, repeating many of the claims from other posts...

Invalidations of Newton's and Kepler's orbital mechanics

Here’s some simple invalidations of Newton’s and Kepler’s orbital mechanics –All of these statements demonstrate the same conceptual failure, that Mr. Martin regards the barycenter (center of gravity, center of mass) and/or the focus of planetary orbits, as if they must be a FIXED point in space.

1. The orbital mechanics of Newton dictates the earth orbits the sun’s center of mass in an ellipse, yet Newtonian mechanics states the earth also orbits the solar system barycenter. As the solar system barycenter is almost never at the center of mass of the sun, then the earth simply cannot be orbiting the sun in an ellipse. Therefore Newton’s principle of barycentric motion invalidates Kepler’s laws of elliptical motion.

2. Newton’s orbital mechanics dictates the earth orbits the sun’s center of mass in an ellipse. Newton’s orbital mechanics dictates the earth orbits the earth-moon barycenter ever month. Now if the earth is fixed in its elliptical orbit around the sun, then both the earth-moon barycenter and the moon orbit the earth every month, to maintain the earths elliptical orbit shape around the earth every year. Yet if this occurs, Newton’s notion of the barycenter as the center of mass about which the masses orbit as affirmed in the sun-earth motion and then denied in the earth-moon motion. As Newton’s center of mass concludes to a contradiction with more than two bodies in motion, the theory of the center of mass and with it, mass as a cause of gravity, is invalidated.

3. Newton’s orbital mechanics dictates the earth orbits the solar system’s center of mass in an ellipse. Yet, Newton’s orbital mechanics dictates the earth orbits the earth-moon barycenter every month. To properly account for the Earth’s monthly motion around the earth-moon barycenter and the motion of the earth around the solar system barycenter, the earth cannot be orbiting the solar system barycenter in an ellipse as demonstrated above, so the other options available to explain the sun-earth-moon orbits are –

A- The earth-moon barycenter orbits the solar system barycenter in an ellipse. But this option is not in accord with Newton’s notion of a barycenter, where it is a stationary point, relative to the motion of bodies. Furthermore, if the earth-moon barycenter orbits the solar system barycenter, then the earth’s yearly orbit does not conform to Kepler’s orbital laws.

B- The Earth-moon barycentric motion is independent of the earth-solar system barycentric motion. But such movements are never independent in the real, indicating Newton’s notion of the barycenter is not a reflection of the real.

C- The earth does not orbit in the Earth-moon barycentric motion, nor does it move around the solar system barycenter, but is stationary at the barycenter of the universe. This solution gives some respectability to Newton’s notion of the barycenter, but is normally denied by modern science out of blind prejudice.

But that is wrong. I can define a reference frame attached to any object, or point in space, that I choose. All the frames are equivalent. It is a fact that some reference frames are more convenient for calculation than others (which makes the Earth a preferred frame ONLY when we are near the Earth).

The barycenter of the Earth moves around the Earth-Moon barycenter. The barycenter of Earth-Moon system moves around the barycenter of the Solar System (and the Sun). The barycenter of the solar system moves around the barycenter of the Galaxy. There is no conflict in these nested motions, just as there are no conflicts for the moving parts of the engine inside a moving car.

Thanks to Newton's laws, and this can be proven with mathematical rigor, the barycenter provides a point where, in the case of NO EXTERNAL forces, a body can be treated as point moving along the trajectory of the barycenter. It is a useful principle to understand for anyone designing or building mechanical systems as noted in Q4 of Geocentrism: Failing More Basic Physics...

To believe the Geocentrist claim of a problem with barycentric and Keplerian motion is to believe that the past 300 years of the development of mechanics (and all the inventions developed from that knowledge) is incorrect. Perhaps Mr. Martin thinks these developments were some kind of fluke, unrelated to the mathematics that guided the way?

Mr. Martin repeatedly implies that mathematical models have no actual connection to reality, arguing that a condition that exists mathematically does not exist 'in the real'. If the fact that engineers and scientists use these concepts to build real things doesn't make it 'real', then what does make these concepts, and the larger concepts we derive from them, real? Once in this Geocentrist fantasy-land, one's only choice is to believe that all space flight is a hoax. To maintain such a delusion, you have to avoid watching satellites go overhead (Wikipedia, Hobby Space: Satellite Watching).

That the math works might be mysterious to some, but the simple fact is the math does provide accurate predictions of reality (see Mathematics, the Language of Science). The power of that description has made modern technology possible. Mr. Martin and his co-horts have provided no such capability.

The math Works. Geocentrist pseudo-science does not.

**Some other interesting resources on the topic:**

- Newton's Second Law for an Extended Object
- Wikibooks: Physics with Calculus/Mechanics/Center of Mass
- Here's some visualizations of the motion of objects and their center of mass

## 9 comments:

Tom - All of these statements demonstrate the same conceptual failure, that Mr. Martin regards the barycenter (center of gravity, center of mass) and/or the focus of planetary orbits, as if they must be a FIXED point in space.

JM – As far as I can tell there is little or nothing in my statements concerning a fixed barycenter. My arguments boil down to this – Newtonian mechanics says a two body system will have an elliptical orbit when one body is of greater mass than the other. But Newtonian mechanics also requires the influence of other bodies in larger systems. If we apply this to the earth’s orbit we notice that say when Jupiter is close to the earth, then the solar system barycenter moves outside the sun and the earth no longer moves around the sun in an ellipse as required by Keleprs laws of elliptical orbits. This is pretty much what the wicki article says in agreement with me -

In all cases of two-body motion, rotation is about the barycenter of the two bodies, with neither one having its center of mass exactly at one focus of an ellipse. However, both orbits are ellipses with one focus at the barycenter. When the ratio of masses is large, the barycenter may be deep within the larger object, close to its center of mass. In such a case it may require sophisticated precision measurements to detect the separation of the barycenter from the center of mass of the larger object. But in the case of the planets orbiting the Sun, the largest of them are in mass as much as 1/1047.3486 (Jupiter) and 1/3497.898 (Saturn) of the solar mass,[11] and so it has long been known that the solar system barycenter can sometimes be outside the body of the Sun, up to about a solar diameter from its center.[12] Thus Kepler's first law, though not far off as an approximation, does not quite accurately describe the orbits of the planets around the Sun under classical physics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler%27s_laws_of_planetary_motion

My other statements merely combine the motion of the earth around the sun, with that around the earth-moon barycenter to also conclude that Newtonian mechanics is incompatible with Keplers laws. The arguments are simple enough to understand.

Tom - But that is wrong. I can define a reference frame attached to any object, or point in space, that I choose. All the frames are equivalent. It is a fact that some reference frames are more convenient for calculation than others (which makes the Earth a preferred frame ONLY when we are near the Earth).

JM – define any reference frame you want, but it wont help you answer the problems posed, because the problems show the multiple barycenter motions and influences of multiple bodies in the solar system cause the earth to move in an orbit not predicted by Keplers laws. Therefore Newtonian mechanics is only compatible with Keplers laws if we ignore these rather obvious problems.

Tom - The barycenter of the Earth moves around the Earth-Moon barycenter. The barycenter of Earth-Moon system moves around the barycenter of the Solar System (and the Sun). The barycenter of the solar system moves around the barycenter of the Galaxy. There is no conflict in these nested motions, just as there are no conflicts for the moving parts of the engine inside a moving car.

JM – All of this is besides the point thought Tom. The earth moves around the sun-earth barycenter as one of the ellipses foci, but when the barycenter moves due to other planets, then the barycenter of the earths motion must move outside the sun, causing Keplers ellipse laws to fail. Again this is simple enough to understand.

Tom - Thanks to Newton's laws, and this can be proven with mathematical rigor, the barycenter provides a point where, in the case of NO EXTERNAL forces, a body can be treated as point moving along the trajectory of the barycenter. It is a useful principle to understand for anyone designing or building mechanical systems as noted in Q4 of Geocentrism: Failing More Basic Physics...

JM – This is another problem with Newtonian mechanics. It is fundamentally ad hoc in its claims such as “the barycenter provides a point where, in the case of NO EXTERNAL forces, a body can be treated as point moving along the trajectory of the barycenter.” This seems simple enough to understand, but what is this barycenter in the universe? Is it the earth-moon, or the earth-sun, or the galaxy, or a point between galaxies, or some arbitrary point in the universe where all the forces cancel? Well according to Newtonian theory we can say just about any barycenter qualifies as this magical point of null force, simply because the theory allows the author to ad or remove whatever masses are required to be removes, just so long as Keplers laws are satisfied. The arbitrary nature of the barycenter and what is included and excluded is a gaping hole in Newtonian mechanics, making it logically invalid.

Tom - To believe the Geocentrist claim of a problem with barycentric and Keplerian motion is to believe that the past 300 years of the development of mechanics (and all the inventions developed from that knowledge) is incorrect. Perhaps Mr. Martin thinks these developments were some kind of fluke, unrelated to the mathematics that guided the way?

JM – None of this follows from my arguments. Newtonian mechanics is merely a convenient mathematical tool derived from assumptions concerning the nature of gravity, geometry and some physical experiments to determine some constants. However once the logical holes are shown within the theory, then the theory is merely a useful tool and should never be elevated to anything beyond its weakest conceptual parts. As the theory is very weak in some of its conceptual parts, then the theory can only logically be used as an estimate to locate bodies and as an estimate when designing orbits.

Tom - Mr. Martin repeatedly implies that mathematical models have no actual connection to reality, arguing that a condition that exists mathematically does not exist 'in the real'. If the fact that engineers and scientists use these concepts to build real things doesn't make it 'real', then what does make these concepts, and the larger concepts we derive from them, real? Once in this Geocentrist fantasy-land, one's only choice is to believe that all space flight is a hoax. To maintain such a delusion, you have to avoid watching satellites go overhead (Wikipedia, Hobby Space: Satellite Watching).

JM – one problem in Newtonian mechanics is its assumptions of instantaneous action at a distance over any length. Lets take a competing theory in relativity, which says such action can only occur at the rate of c. So we now have two theories that mathematically account for gravity at two velocities. As such, Newtonian mechanics, is at best, merely an unprovable theory, which other theories deny, at worst, a false theory, which requires a force to act over any distance in an instant.

Another problem with Newtonain mechanics is it assumes the space between the bodies is a void, without properties. As this void does not have properties, then logically it cannot propagate a force. But gravity is assumed to propagate at an infinite velocity through the void. Evidently this is a clear breach of cause and effect, making the theory logically invalid.

Another problem with Newtonian mechanics is modern physics has discovered space is filled with particles and space does have properties. But as such properties are ignored within Newtonian mechanics, then the force on any body, which is assumed to be caused by the masses, and not by any properties of space, is scientifically problematic. Therefore Newtonian mechanics is invalid.

Tom - That the math works might be mysterious to some, but the simple fact is the math does provide accurate predictions of reality (see Mathematics, the Language of Science). The power of that description has made modern technology possible. Mr. Martin and his co-horts have provided no such capability.

The math Works. Geocentrist pseudo-science does not.

JM – Here’s two predictions made by the geocentric model that were not expected in any model that uses Newtonian mechanics and the assumed motion of the earth. The null result of the Michelson Morley experiments and the zero change in angle of star light in the Airy experiment. These experimental results fall squarely into the geocentric model and are only explained within the heliocentric model through special pleading used in relativity theory, with its accompanying absurdities.

JM

To John Martin:

ALL theories are an approximation, and some approximations work just fine under certain conditions. For most building construction, the approximation that the Earth is FLAT works quite well - but that doesn't mean the Earth IS flat.

* How different are planetary orbits in the solar system if analyzed in Newtonian physics vs. General Relativity? The fact is that it is very small and makes little difference unless you are observing for substantial amount of time (decades) or at very high precision (say to launch and land a spacecraft). It wasn't until the mid-1800s that we detected the deviations in Mercury's orbit due to relativity. High-precision N-body solar-system models (such as DE-421) used for interplanetary navigation do include corrections for relativity.

JPL Development Ephemeris

Description of JPL Solar System Ephemeris

* Kepler's Laws are the two body case.

The moment you examine more than two bodies, Kepler's Laws become an approximation suitable only in limited applications.To rigorously apply Kepler's Laws in as if they were an absolute in cases of more than two bodies is wrong. Period. It makes about as much sense as arguing the gas laws must be wrong because they don't work for liquids. Thank you for clarifying this case, as it requires only a small modification to my n-body computer run for this scenario which is in preparation for a future post. The wiggles multiple planets produce in the solar motion is exactly what we look for when searching for extrasolar planets via the Doppler method.* No one 'knows' how electrons work, yet we can define mathematical laws of their behavior that let us use them as tools regardless of some deeper understanding of how they 'work'. So it is with gravity, relativity, and other physical laws. One can always claim we don't understand it at some 'deeper' level, but the laws still work.

* Considering that many tests of relativity have been done with satellites at locations OTHER THAN THE EARTH, the null MMX result is still consistent with no preferred reference frame. We've also flown MMX-like instruments in space, and they don't behave differently there.

The unpleasant fact for you is that these techniques actually work, regardless of your flawed understanding of mathematics, geometry, and physics.

You wish to claim the entire knowledge-base for space travel is wrong - but then don't or CAN'T explain how it ACTUALLY WORKS if your claim is true. From a practical perspective, claims that the Earth defines an absolute standard of rest are useless for anything beyond, at best, near-Earth orbit.

Tom - ALL theories are an approximation, and some approximations work just fine under certain conditions. For most building construction, the approximation that the Earth is FLAT works quite well - but that doesn't mean the Earth IS flat.

JM – I agree and when I say Newtonian mechanics and relativity are not reflections of the real, or based upon the real, then it seems we also agree. For both models require assumptions to be made as the founding principles upon which the models are developed. These assumptions and the geometry and maths are almost completely idealized (with the exception of say some measured constants). Lets see some examples of how diverse these two models are –

1. Relativity says gravity is caused by the bending of space time and Newtonian mechanics says it is caused by mass attraction.

2. Relativity says events only travel as c and Newtonian mechanics says gravity is universal and instantaneous.

3. Relativity concludes to black holes and Newtonian mechanics does not.

4. Relativity requires no absolute space and Newtonian mechanics does

5. Relativity requires time to be local and relative and Newtonian mechanics requires time to be universal and absolute.

6. Relativity says time dilates and Newtonian mechanics does not require time dilation

7. Relativity says light is always at c and Newtonian mechanics does not require light at c.

8. Relativity says light at c is an absolute bench mark from which events are observed and Newtonian mechanics does not require this.

9. Relativity says lengths contract and Newtonian mechanics says lengths do not contract.

10. Relativity requires space to act according to Minkowski space and Newtonian mechanics does not.

11. Relativity says all observations are relative to the observer and Newtonian mechanics permits observations relative to absolute space.

12. Relativity is foundational to the standard model and Newtonian physics is invalidated by the standard model, for absolute space is violated.

Relativity and Newtonian mechanics are often used together to provide more refined maths answers to mechanics, yet when we look at the many differences between the two models we see that mathematically combining the two models, means that physically, the universe must be acting according to contrary principles for the maths to be valid. Evidently this is logically absurd and as such, modern mechanics must admit that such models are merely idealized models and nothing more.

Tom - * How different are planetary orbits in the solar system if analyzed in Newtonian physics vs. General Relativity? The fact is that it is very small and makes little difference unless you are observing for substantial amount of time (decades) or at very high precision (say to launch and land a spacecraft). It wasn't until the mid-1800s that we detected the deviations in Mercury's orbit due to relativity. High-precision N-body solar-system models (such as DE-421) used for interplanetary navigation do include corrections for relativity.

JM – So the ephemeris is also only a model to predict celestial body locations over time. So that same principles apply to the ephemeris as well. The calculations are based upon assumptions and so too, the predicted results are also idealized. Does this mean that time dilates and lengths contract are required by relativity, or does it mean such is assumed and then placed into the calcs. Evidently it is the latter only and as such, any calcs are then only idealized and nothing more.

Tom - Kepler's Laws are the two body case. The moment you examine more than two bodies, Kepler's Laws become an approximation suitable only in limited applications. To rigorously apply Kepler's Laws in as if they were an absolute in cases of more than two bodies is wrong. Period. It makes about as much sense as arguing the gas laws must be wrong because they don't work for liquids. Thank you for clarifying this case, as it requires only a small modification to my n-body computer run for this scenario which is in preparation for a future post. The wiggles multiple planets produce in the solar motion is exactly what we look for when searching for extrasolar planets via the Doppler method.

JM – The moment more than two bodies are introduced Keplers laws fail to account for the motion of the body. To say the motion is only approximated means that a bary center difference of about 2 million km between the sun-earth system and the solar system barycenter is not a problem. But the reality is that it is a problem, for no body orbits in a two body system, but it orbits in a multi body system that must be accounted for by a model. So when a model has only very limited value, then we should be open to investigating other options to explain planetary motion. One such option is to understand gravity not as an attraction of the masses or a bending of space-time, but as an action of a ubiquitous substance that permeates the universe and acts upon bodies.

Tom - * No one 'knows' how electrons work, yet we can define mathematical laws of their behavior that let us use them as tools regardless of some deeper understanding of how they 'work'. So it is with gravity, relativity, and other physical laws. One can always claim we don't understand it at some 'deeper' level, but the laws still work.

JM – The laws only work in restricted scenarios and I would dispute that the laws required in relativity are really laws at all, simply because the special relativity paper is so logically flawed that any laws required in special relativity are logically invalid. Take for example the claims that time dilates and lengths contract. In the special relativity paper, the thought clock is said to dilate, so how is science expected to experimentally test the time dilation of a thought clock in the real? If it uses a real clock, then is this the same as a thought clock? No. So time dilation as defeind in special relativity is merely a case of special pleading which cannot be tested by the inductive method in the real.

On the matter of length contraction, how can this be tested when the contection observed is always caused in the other reference frame. So if we place a measuring device on the moving object, then this device will also shrink relative to the non moving observer, and as such length contraction will never be measured. Alternatively the measuring device relative to itself attached to the moving object cannot shrink for an object cannot move relative to itself. As such length contraction is never measured in the moved object frame either. Therefore the notion of length contraction is not measurable within the inductive method.

Tom - * Considering that many tests of relativity have been done with satellites at locations OTHER THAN THE EARTH, the null MMX result is still consistent with no preferred reference frame. We've also flown MMX-like instruments in space, and they don't behave differently there.

JM – well the CMB dipole demonstrates there is a preferred reference frame within the universe and this is prohibited within the expanding universe model, which is based upon relativity. An article entitled the universe with and without a center, by Yukio Tomazawa, here - http://arxiv.org/pdf/1108.1148v1.pdf This article demonstrates that when general relativity is used, the model prohibits the existence of a CMB dipole. So the model requires no preferred reference frame, yet the universe has a preferred reference frame.

The claim that relativity has been tested on satellites around the earth cannot be verified because the earth frame is always used to place a bias in the atomic clocks. This shows the earth frame is a preferred frame, at least according to maths convenience. Your claim that there is no preferred reference frame in satellites in locations other than the earth needs to be evidenced.

Even if for the sake of argument you do provide some evidence, then at best all you can conclude is that the relativity model permits a local reference frame to be applied to a local object relative to another local object. This is no big deal at all and it certainly does not evidence the principle within relativity that there is no preferred reference frame in the universe.

Why? Simply because the theory only ever uses local frames and never a universal frame to verify its claim in the real. As such, to claim there is no preferred reference frame in the universe, because a theory, which only ever uses local frames is used in a local experiment, produces results that are consistent with the theory, only means the theory can be used in local experiments, where no local preferred reference frame is required. That’s all you can conclude about the theory and the apparent success of that theory.

Even so, relativity is so logically contorted that that claim of no preferred reference frame in the universe is merely a conclusion, based upon many illogical arguments made in the original relativity papers.

Tom - The unpleasant fact for you is that these techniques actually work, regardless of your flawed understanding of mathematics, geometry, and physics.

JM – The unpleasant reality for you is the claims in relativity that light is always at c, time dilates and lengths contract have all been either observed to be false, are illogical claims or cannot be verified by the inductive method. So any claims to techniques that actually work, requires us to ignore these very evident problems within the theory.

Tom - You wish to claim the entire knowledge-base for space travel is wrong - but then don't or CAN'T explain how it ACTUALLY WORKS if your claim is true. From a practical perspective, claims that the Earth defines an absolute standard of rest are useless for anything beyond, at best, near-Earth orbit.

JM – I wish to claim that Newtonian mechanics is of only limited use and cannot be used to tie down geocentrists who view forces within the universe, such as gravity as being caused by a mechanism other than mass attraction. I also claim relativity theory is logically invalid, and not verifiable according to the inductive method. As such, any claims that relativity is a technique that actually works, is a claim that has no teeth.

One such example of time dilation. Is time dilation –

1. A change in tick rate of a thought clock? If so, then how can a thought clock be used in the real by a real clock that is subject to real forces?

2. A change in tick rate of a thought clock and if so, does this mean the units of time of the thought clock change as well? If so, how do you know and what are the ramifications of this? If not, then any change in tick rate, really means the thought clock is not ticking at the bench mark unit rate (say the standard second) and this means the thought clock is not really measuring time in the local frame at all, but only a different tick rate within a thought clock. Therefore time dilation is merely a thought fiction.

3. A change in rate of a real local clock. If so, how does the local tick rate relate to the physical functionality of the clock according to forces acting on the clock. If the clock is placed within a gravity field, then this means the gravity field is a force acting on the clock to change the atomic vibration rate. Evidently this is not time dilation, but the action of a force on a body, to make the body move slower or faster. As such, time dilation is not measurable in the real.

JM

To John Martin,

Now that I have some of the newer posts out (Geocentrism & the Barycenter. II., The Geocentrists' 3-Body "Problem") I've let some of Mr. Martin's posts through as they contain little new, just Mr. Martin's same repetitive and useless rants.

Again, we come back to Mr. Martin's strange definition of "real".

Apparently the ability to measure things, determine the physical principles of how they work, and then build new things, does not determine "Real" according to Mr. Martin. Such mathematics is apparently only a convenient fiction which enables Mr. Martin to enjoy the benefits of technology while denying much of the science which made it possible.

"Reality" is apparently whatever Mr. Martin says it is.

So all of Mr. Martin's statements can be boiled down to the fact that his version of Geocentrism is useless for doing things like designing, building, and operating machines like airplanes, rockets and spacecraft. It appears to only be useful for manipulating people.

When Mr. Martin is confronted with facts that expose his misunderstanding of classical physics (such as planetary orbits) he retreats back to the more complex area of relativistic physics, which he understands even less.

Mr. Martin's 'evidence' has completed its degeneration into a circular 'reality du dour'.

Post a Comment