Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Walter Van Der Kamp-The Heart of The Matter - de Labore Solis
Walter Van Der Kamp-The Heart of The Matter - de Labore Solis
De Labore Solis
Airy's Failure
Reconsidered
- Owen Barfield(1)
2 De Labore Solis
Contents
Abstract ….…………………………………………. 5
Abstract
De Labore Solis 7
Preface
Geocentric? Heliocentric?
The Janus-Faced Aberration Can't Tell
Aberration, Continued
not observe this increase the Earth is at rest and the starry
dome is revolving relative to us. But Airy had already
decided to know - be it on no experimentally observed
sublunar solid and indisputable grounds whatsoever! -
that this is not and can not be true. Hence he and his
supporters looked around and found applicable rational
evidence that obviated the horrendous necessity of siding
with the Inquisition in the Galileo trial of 1633. As
already shown: an aether drag only demonstrable for
water in motion relative to an observer provided the
helpful ad hoc. Alas - not at all. That ad hoc is obtained
by means of an MPP, an affirmation of the consequent.
Before we can use it we shall have to demonstrate that
Fizeau's experiment registered no more than a change in a
drag already present in the water travelling with the
Earth, for exactly that motion is on trial. True enough: if
the Earth is moving through a luminiferous aether, or
through a spatiality "at rest", however conceived or
defined, and Fresnel's coefficient hits the nail on the
head, then water-filled telescopes will not register
increased aberration. No increase is observed, and hence
we may conclude that Airy's test result is in complete
harmony with Newton's vision. Well and good, but for an
Earth at rest relative to space (or whatsoever mysterious
entity it is in which or through which light travels at the
constant velocity c), the Fresnel drag inevitably is
reduced to zero and does not affect our measurements of
stellar aberration as "explained" by Bradley.
The whole reasoning is a prime example of
begging the question. Only after an experiment like that
performed by Hoek in 1868, or that proposed by me for
the first time in 1968, shall have been performed in e.g. a
42 De Labore Solis
Doppler effects are the same for sound waves and light
wavicles", an observer "at rest" in the trajectory of a light
ray, and all observers, relative to him moving with
whatever speeds along that trajectory, yet will clock that
ray's velocity relative to them at the constant velocity c.
As science teachers know: when students for the first
time are introduced to the special theory of relativity it is
not the dullards in the class who initially are often
unwilling to reconcile themselves to it. Until, of course,
they begin to realize that a refusal logically constrains
them to part with Copernicus' system. Which system,
thanks to Galileo and his apostles, they have been
brainwashed to deem "obvious". And therefore seeing no
other way out of the dilemma, no other acceptable
possibility in sight, they close their eyes and swallow
what in their heart of hearts they know to be impossible,
but gradually and under persistent peer pressure are
converted into believing as scientific and self-evidently
true truth.
Einstein himself, for that purpose designating
logic as "common sense" once gave short shrift to the
whole matter. Objections against his theory, he
proclaimed, result from "a deposit of prejudice laid down
in the mind prior to age of eighteen".(51) I know that I
am banging my head against a wall, against a conviction
pretty much ineradicably engraved on mankind's mind.
Yet I cannot withhold myself from hoisting all relativists
with their own petard by asking them whether their
unshakable faith in Galileo's gospel is not just as well
such a deposit In Einstein's 1905 paper he considers
relativity for first order magnitudes "already
proven".(52)But where is that proof or anything
approaching it? I have been searching for those for
De Labore Solis 51
Why Impossible?
Word says, but we shall tell you what it means, for the
Divine Author talks to us in the way a father talks to little
children, who cannot really understand him yet" Thus,
from Calvin on, the speakers not being such children, but
they themselves being perfectly able to make clear to us
what God could not make clear! Speaking about
conceit...? With heliocentrism for many generations bred
in the bone, and biological evolution, relatively spoken, a
newcomer, a growing number of Christians again dismiss
the latter. Why then that unwillingness to look at the out-
dated Newtonian world picture with a grain of doubt? Let
alone to doubt the weird hypotheses secular astronomy
had to betake itself to, now that picture has become
untenable?
10. There are, but these beyond the restricted scope of
the present paper, still at least three fields of enquiry left
that may will come to play a part in future considerations
with regard to a geocentric cosmogony and cosmology.
Lingering at the fringes of the theological-exegetical free-
for-all is the vexed issue of the Gospel written in the
stars,(89) and the impetus of a restored Stellatum on that
esoteric theme. Physically there remain the topics of a
long-time stability of the Solar System, and the never
absolutely laid to rest likelihood - which I take seriously!
- of a non-Newtonian theory of gravity.(90)
ii. Pascal, facing the inescapable outcome of a
consistent Copernicanism, has said that the eternal silence
of these infinite spaces terrified him. So did it me
- until I became aware that there is not the slightest truly
scientific reason or evidence to take the modern view of
the cosmos seriously.
Thankful I am for the Eternal Word that ridicules
110 De Labore Solis
De Labore Solis
What if...?
Conclusively...
Your Excellency:
Only recently I have been able to study the
complete text of your speech of May 9, 1983 about
the Galileo affair. A critic in the scientific periodical
Nature of May 12 called it "a piece of classic
prevarication", a sentiment, which from his point of
view I can understand, but do not share. Quite the
contrary. For, unless I completely misunderstand the
closing paragraph of your oration, I conclude from your
156 De Labore Solis
Notes
1. Fred Hoyle, Astronomy and Cosmology, SanFrancisco, W.H.
Freeman & Company, 1975, p.48.
9. Ibid. p.87
12. Lincoln Barnett, The Universe and Dr. Einstein. New York,
NAL,1959, pp.9 and 73.
15. See, e.g., Loyd Swenson Jr., The Ethereal Aether. Austin,
University of Texas Press, 1972.
16. J.D. van der Waals, Ober den wereldaether. Haarlem, Erven
Bohn,1929, pp.66-87.
24. A.C.S. van Heel and C.H.F. Velzel, What is Light. New York,
McGraw-Hill, 1968, pp.179-180.
28. Loc.cit.
36. Bernard Jaffe, Michelson and the Speed of Light. Garden City
Doubleday & Company 1960, p.80.
45. A.A. Michelson & Henry G. Gale, The Effect of the Earth's
Rotation on the Velocity of Light, Astrophysical Journal. Vol
LXI, April 1925, No.3, pp.137-145.
57. Fred Hoyle, Nicolaus Copernicus. New York, Harper & Row,
1973. p.87.
66. John Byl, Martin Sanderse, and Walter van der Kamp, Simple
First-Order Test of Special Relativity, American Journal of
Physics. 53 (1), January 1985, pp.4345.
72. James Burke, The Day the Universe Changed. New York,
Little, Brown, and Company, 1985, Preface.
80. Ibid.
82. Walter van der Kamp, Houvast aan het hemelruim. Kampen J.
H. Kok, 1985, p.105.
89. See, e.g., E.W. Bullinger, The Witness of the Stars, Grand
Rapids, Kregel Publications, 1974, Joseph A. Seiss, The
Gospel in the Stars, Grand Rapids, Kregel, Henry M. Morris,
Many Infallible Proofs, San Diego, Creation Life Publishers,
1975, pp.334-343, Ben Adam, Astrologv. the Ancient
Conspiracy, Minneapolis, Bethany Fellowship, 1963.
92. Richard Rhodes, The Making of the Atomic Bomb. New York,
Simon and Schuster 1986, p.279.
101. Imre Lekatos & Alan Musgrave, ed., Criticism and the
Growth of Knowledge, Cambridge, University Press, 1976,
p.92.
113. Ibid.,p.67.
115. John Donne, An Anatomy of the World, 1611, lines 205 and
213.
De Labore Solis 171
116. See John C. Green The Death of Adam, Ames, Iowa State
University Press, 1959.
118. F. von Schiller, Die Piccolomini, Act V, Scene I "Das eben ist
der Fluch der bösen Tat, Dasz sie fortzeugend immer böses
musz gebähren."
127. Loc.cit.
131. See C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man, London, Goeffrey Bles,
1956.