Chapter 5

EARTH AS THE BIGGEST LOSER, OR

WHERE, WHEN & WHY

I = 0r

Q: What's the main difference between a scientist and my coon-hound

Whistle-Britches?

A: Whistle-Britches is smartsmart enough to know when he's been

bad.

Good boy, Whistle

Scientists, on the other hand, are not. They have been behaving badly for 350 years, and there's no sign they'll realize itmuch less apologizeany time in yours or my lifetimes. As humans, we have 3 basic needs: water, food and comfort. Knowing the who, what, where and when about ourselves and our world is part of our comfort-seeking nature. Cave men had shamans. Scientists, by definition, are the appointed guardians of physical fact in current Western culture. The Shaman class in all cultures strives mightily to maintain their power vs civilians. Scientist-shamans are no different. They have their own way of projecting an aura of powerful mojo.

About 350 years ago, scientists adopted the modern understanding of the universe and our solar system--and Earth's proper place in that order. Up to then, the in thing to think was that Earth was sitting still- smack dab in the center of everything. Nicolaus Copernicus (14731543) really got the ball rolling. Evidently he was the first one willing and able to do the heavy lifting and slogging to put the astronomical proof of things together. Thus began what's known as The Copernican Revolution, which lasted for about 100 years. That's how long it took

for the entrenched belief in an Earth-centered universe to be yanked out by the roots and be officially replaced by Heliocentrism. It was a hard process. Big time paradigm change. It meant putting a whole new context on the work of all the great Thinkers who had come before, such as Plato and Aristotle. Aristotle, the very Father of "physics", had turned out to be way, way off the mark. The mind reels.

But by 1650 the process was complete. Aristotle's Universe was out. The Copernican Universe was in.

Unfortunately, Scientists went overboard. It was a classic case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Sure, Aristotle-style thinking had led to a major miscalculation about the setup of the Universe. But, dammit, he had done the best he could with the data and technology available to him. He didn't deserve to be tarred and feathered and exiled by the science of "physics"which he had after all founded! There was nothing in any of Copernicus' (or Kepler's) revelations to warrant the wholesale discrediting of reflection, thoughtfulness, observation and deductionof everything that comprises good sense.

But that is what happened. From that point on, one of the major tenets of "physics" has been the pooh-poohing of common sense. They have a buzz-word for everything to be despised and rejected as unscientific: they call it intuitiveness. They say it like Russ Limp-paw says liberal*, with curled lips and condescending eyes.*

*(My own theory is that this all stems from the Scientific ego. Scientists have always been a vain bunch. Proud of themselves. Arrogant. But to accept Copernicus would be to admit that for most of their lives they had been just as wrong about the universe as Aristotle. How to shun Aristotle without any remorseany admission of their own fallibility? I think the dissing of intuitiveness was the grease that made it slide together. The headlines could read, BEYOND INTUITIVENESS--SCIENTISTS NOW THINKING ON A HIGHER PLANE THAN EVERYONE ELSE. Thereby no apology for centuries of bad science was expectedand certainly none was offered. Redemption without confession. Sweet! So Scientists everywhere could totally Save Facewhich is very high up on a Scientist's list of essential survival gear. )

BANNED IN BOSTON (&EVERYWHERE ELSE)

BUT--BUT--HOLD ON! WAIT A MINUTWE! LOOKEY HERE: that Aristotle's conclusions turned out to be wrong did not mean that his observations were all wrong as well. Imagine that it's the night before Christmas. You've taken the pieces of your little boy's tricycle out of the box, and you're trying to assemble it. You try to use Bolt C where Bolt E is supposed to go, but it won't fit. Do you automatically conclude that Bolt C is defective and throw it away? No. You keep going through the assembly process. You keep trying to work out how the pieces fit together. Isn't that pretty much the Discovery Process? Always keep in mind the difference between an observation and a conclusion. We've all heard about the blind men examining an elephant. One guy feels the tail and assesses the animal as very much like a rope, and so forth. The mistake was not in assessing the tail. The mistake was in mistaking a limited observation for a complete assessment. Go back 350 years. You have just learned that all your life you have been mistaken in your perception of the Universe. You had everything backwards. You thought Earth was the center, but just found out that Earth is just a tiny bit player. Earth orbits the sun, not the

other way around. So the way you have been perceiving the Sun-Earth relationship has been wrong. Perceiving the Sun as moving around a stationary Earth was wrong. Earth in fact orbits around a stationary Sun, while rotating. So what you thought was reality was just an illusionor was it?

There was nothing illusionary about the periodic change men had always observed in the Sun-Earth positioning. Copernicus found nothing amiss with that perceptionin fact confirmed it. What Copernicus had told you was that the old explanation interpretation reading-- of that periodic repositioning was wrong.

You had been unscientific in articulating the possibilities. Your observations had had at least two likely evaluations: either the Sun circled stationary Earth daily, ......or Earth rotated 360 degrees relative to the Sun once a day.

But mankindbeing inescapably human-- had for centuries made one of the most human of mistakesthey had selected the most appealing explanation for their observations and called it the ONLY explanation. To improve their understanding of the universe, they needed 1) and 2) . to be more skillful in their astronomical observations,

to be more thoughtful about the interpretation process

So, as a scientist in 1650, you might well have erased your blackboard and done a quick autopsy of how you and your colleagues had gotten so off track. You had looked around you and up in the sky and

developed what looked like a plausible scenario, and pronounced it to be the only scenario, and therefore scientific fact. Earth HAD to be the stationary center of the universe.

But in hindsight you now realized that your observations of Earth as a stable, stationary platform had at least two possible explanations:

a) either a planet does not give off any dynamic evidence of its rotational / orbital nature, or b) there is dynamic terrestrial evidence of Earth's rotating and orbiting, ( but it just can't be detected /recorded intuitively).

If that seems to you like a logical position from which to begin thoughtful assimilation of Copernicus' news into the big book of science, you might wonder why that's not the way the scientists back then reacted. And well you should. What was wrong with them? How could they conclude that in the post-Copernicus world the ONLY way to reprocess mankind's centuries of observations of Earth as stable and stationary was to throw them outto exclude option a) entirely, and to go with option b)? Seems crazy, doesn't it?

But those are the cold, hard historical facts. From that point forward, to be a Scientist was to understand that Earth is NOT an inertial environmentnot absolutely. Earth is almostbut not quite really an inertial world. That feeling of perfect stillness in your bed at nightthat glass of water that looks really, really stillthose are unscientific, uninformed mis-perceptions. Illusions.

These things were deceptive-- to the non-scientists (like Aristotle). They were examples of the danger of putting too much stock in mere thinking, mere observation, mere reasoning-- mere common sense. Reliance on those things had led us astray, and henceforth were to be left to the unwashed masses, the amateurs, the unclean. (Curl your upper lip and practice sneering while saying, intuitive.) The whole stable Earth concept had to go. It was replaced by the new and improved non-intuitive view that Earth was noninertial. Earth moved. Ergo: dynamic proof of Earth's movement exists. So the post-Copernican scientific rationale went like this: 1) Now we know that The Sun is the center of our neighborhood, &

2) Earth and the other planets are just houses in the Sun's neighborhood. The planets orbit the Sun, while rotating.

3) Since Earth's rotation is a physical fact, there must be terrestrial dynamic evidence* of that fact. *(But history shows that that terrestrial dynamic evidence probably can't be detected by mere intuitive observation & processing.)

VOILA! Science had changed course (somewhat hysterically). Thinking was out. Non-intuitive solutions were in. Non-mathematical articulation was out.

THE HOLY GRAIL

From 1650 forward, the fashionable Earth paradigm had two brand new components, one central, one corollary. The central component was the accepted fact that Earth is a planet which systematically orbits the Sun, while rotating.

The corollary was the accepted fact that terrestrial dynamic evidence of Earth's rotation was here for the finding. Western Science-dom henceforward possessed both a new Earth-view, and a new Holy Grail. The quest was afoot! Get out there and find dynamical proof of Earth's rotation! Unimaginable Prizes to the Winner! HURRY! Fame, Glory, Adulation Await!

OR DID IT???
HOLD UP THERE, PILGRIM!

Yes, Copernicus' discoveries demanded a paradigm shift in the scientific perception of Earth. Too bad that THINKING had been outlawed right then. Tacking on the existence of dynamical terrestrial proof of Earth's rotation to heliocentricity was a paradigm lurch, not a shift. A stretch, not a reasoned application. Jamming on a wrong-size shoe because they loved its looks. A goof. Classical "physics" infected by a classic case of over-steering.

Where the hell in any of Copernicus' discoveries does it say that Earth is not a stable environment? Nowhere. Where the hell in any of the scientific advances in the 450 years since Copernicus published his modelin the vastly improved technology, the vastly improved astronomy, the vastly improved processing aids (computers) -is there one shred of non-astronomical physical evidence that Earth's stability is any different than as Aristotle perceived it?

Today's linear accelerometers can detect it when a baby mouse takes a baby hop. There are some fabulously sensitive dynamic sensors available today. But have you noticed that the most sophisticated accelerometers cannot detect Earth's eastward rotation? Or that today's most sophisticated seismometers cannot detect any dynamical impulses from Earth's rotation (not to mention her solar orbit V of 66,000MPH!)?

Steadfast refusal to revise beliefs when confronted with overwhelming contradicting evidence is insanity. The British have a real knack for euphemistic phraseology. Some of their best are code words for nuts. If a British jury found Foucault not guilty by reason of insanity, theyd announce that although he did in fact commit those horrendous deeds, he did so whilst the balance of his mind was disturbed.

SANITY (a.k.a.: BALANCE)

Intellectual progress is a two-part process: 1) 2) learning new stuff & applying that new stuff.

Q: Is there anything inherent in the accurate perception of Earth's role in the Solar System which means that Earthly stillness is an illusion?

A: No.

Sit beside still water and watch a sunrise. You see the changing Sun / Earth relationship. You feel a stable Earth beneath you, and you see the still water of the reflecting pool.

Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler gave us some great clues for understanding still water on a mature and sophisticated level. The problem was, the process of contemplation, of meticulous, patient reflection had become an accidental casualty -collateral damage as it were-- of the Copernican Revolution.

And so, the true meaning of Earth's astronomical selfas described by Copernicus 450+ years agohas still never been grasped by the world.

Irrational transference is the result of ignorance-- and is an everyday occurrence, regrettably. Leon Foucault and his scientific soul-mates assumed that terrestrial "physics" and space "physics" were analogous. They were happy to transfer what they (thought they) knew about terrestrial motion to ANY motion, any time, anywhere. Terrestrial "physics" had taught them that the way things behaved here in Earth could all be broken down into repeatable mathematical formulae. So you could scientifically (i.e.: mathematically) express your physical observations of the movements of solid objects. For expressing the energy needed to make a body rotate, for instance, there was the concept of moment of inertia. And there was a simple formula for figuring the moment of inertia of any given rotating object /body:

I = mr

So when Foucault saw this:

..he knew, as a fashionably scientific scientist, that the scientific way to understand this still water was that -despite appearances-- this pool was part of a rotating body. A simpleton would think the stillness of the water in a pool signified that Earth was not a rotating body. But a really scientific scientist like Foucault had superior knowledge. He knew that because Earth rotates, every bit of it, including this little pool, is rotating, and therefore every drop of water in that pool has its own kinetic energy, its very own rotation-derived moment of inertia. For 350 years this view has passed for science. If you wanted to pass any "physics" course, you have had to know this.

If

you wrote a paper and maintained that-- although

astronomy shows Earth to be a rotating body-- the stillness of an Earthly reflecting pool shows that Earth's moment of inertia (in Space) is nil:

I= 0r , or stated more purely: I=0

...you'd not only be flunkedyou'd be insulted, ridiculed, persecuted, abused, laughed at, maybe even spat at and punched and peed upon.

But every time the navigation officer on a modern submarine uses his boats Inertial Navigation System, he is using that formula. He is relying on the principle that Earth is an inertial arena (frame of reference) for all Earthly particles (in spite of Earth's travels in space).

Which is perfectly symmetrical with everything we know about OUR Earth and the Solar System's Earth. Motion in Space and in Earth are different. Sir Isaac could have saved the world a lot of grief by so noting. But he didn't. As it is taught to every student, Newton's 1st Law of Motion is bad science. The only place a state of rest --as understood by Earthlingsexists is in a gravity field like Earth. The only place motion naturally follows a straight line is in Gravityfree space. An orbiting planet is at rest although it is whistling through space while rotating. Newton's 1st Law of Motion is literally in direct conflict with reality. So "physicists" in 2009 are still confused about the basics of what makes our little planet tick. They are befuddled about what happens to an arrow shot straight up in a theoretical big vacuum tube on Earth's surface. They are befogged about Why We Don't Feel Earth Move. They are bedazzled about the potential effect of Earth's rotationallatitude-based-linear-velocities on trajectories of low-flying (sub-orbital) Earthly objects like artillery, airplanes and

rockets. They have never recognized the fact that Inertia in Space and in Earth are different concepts. They know not that: Inertia in Space means all post-launch motion is free, nor that: Inertia in Earth means NO motionnot one teeny, weeny baby mouse hop--is free.

A glass of water is in fact at rest in relation to Earth's axis of rotation. If in doubt, place the latest, most sensitive linear accelerometer on the table next to the glass of water. Unless there's an earthquake, or you're living next to some railroad tracks, the accelerometer and the glass of water will both register their natural stillness.

In a gravitational field like Earth, the constant (level rate of angular displacement) rotation of an object / body encounters constant resistance. That constant resistance is the object's weight. Its weight is the ratio of the object's mass to Earth's mass. Constant rotation isn't constant, literally. Each degree of angular displacement relative to its axis is resisted by Earth's Gravity. So each degree of angular displacement must be purchased with an expenditure (pulse) of energy. In a gravitational field, there is no such thing as perpetual motion, which would be free motion, which would be unresisted motion. So any kinetic energy which a constantly rotating terrestrial object possesses has been previously bought and paid for with easily traceable energy. Kinetic energy is part of the energy biography of the object. Kinetic energy has a short shelf life. In order for an object to remain in a state of rotation, its kinetic energy must be continually replenished. If you cut off the energy flow, as by flipping the switch on an electric motor, then you have in effect established a limit, or end time, for the object's rotating (by non-replenishing the kinetic energy).

Not so for motion in space. Once an object (like Earth) has been placed in motion through Space ( e.g.: safely orbiting while rotating) it is in a state of perpetual (free) motion. So, in the context of the solar system, Earth's rotation isn't change. When we observe Earth to be orbiting and rotating our instinct is to think we are seeing change. But we mistake placidity for disturbance. We make the common, but entirely avoidable, error of transference. But a true scientist would always carefully study the context or environment for his / her observations. When we go to bed at night we are in fact observing Earth's equilibrium in our Solar System. Earth's angular velocity @ her rotational axis does not represent change. Since space literally means nothingness, nothing resists the continuation of Earth's rotation. It has a lifetime pass to ride free. Nothing we know about the way kinetic energy works in terrestrial motion transfers to space motion. Nothing Coriolis taught the world about work and kinetic energy applies to space motionsuch as Earth's rotation.

So the fundamental formula about a rotating object's moment of inertia applies to terrestrial motion, but not to space motion. And since the m(mass) in the I (moment of inertia) actually stands for the product of mass times Gravity (local resistance in that motion environment) then once an object has been launched or set or put in space motion, it thenceforth encounters no resistance. No resistance, no effective mass. For an object already orbiting or rotating in space, I = 0r (or, simply put; 0)