Earth at the Center of the Universe

[Lubab]

As much as I respect the Rebbe I think that he was wrong and Rabbi R. was correct.  It was proven a long time ago scientifically that the earth revolves around the Sun based on astronomical sightings.  In fact, after going to space several times, having dozens of sattalites in the sky, and having hundreds of thousands of telescopes all proving the earth goes around the sun should be enough proof for you.  If you want to try to prove that the scientists are lying, take out a telescope and do the measurements and chartings yourself and you will see that the arey correct.  The Rebbe did not do a wise move here.  The method of fools is to use brand new scientific concepts that they don't understand to rationalize there own arguments even though they don't know what they are talking about.  I talked with a physicist who understands the theory of relativity and the argument the Rebbe claims is laughable, in fact Einstein himself believed that the earth goes around the sun. 
 
        JDL4EVER disproves the Rebbe's argument

Firstly, the earth and the sun do not rotate around each other like the Rebbe claimed.  This was the basis of his entire argument and it is 100% wrong.  If the Sun did move around the earth and the earth did rotate around the sun then he would have a good argument since according to relativity an observer can't tell which one is rotating around who.  But this postulate is completely wrong, and the Rebbe knew it.  The Sun is in fact stationary and the Earth is the only object that moves so the Rebbe's basic postulate is wrong and relativity does not apply.

Secondly, even if we ignore the obvious error in the Rebbe's argument and assume that it is correct.  Namely, that an observer can't tell by observation which one goes around who if both are moving around each other, it still can be proven mathematically or scientifically which one goes around who and mathematically and astronomically we have proven that the Earth rotates around the Sun.  Relativity only talks about the relative observations of observers in this case.  However, the objective conclusion can be proven scientifically.  For example, relativity will state that if I am moving at the speed of light, light will appear stationary, but it can be proven scientifically that light is not stationary and it only appears stationary to myself. 

Thirdly, by adding another objective observer we can tell who is going around who.  For example, a space craft is an objective observer since it is not located on Earth or on the Sun and from that objective observer there is no more relativity and that observer will distinguish who is rotating around who.  Guess what?  The astronots in space have observed nothing unusual.  So in every singe aspect the Rebbe is wrong.

Are you saying the Rebbe did not understand the theory of relativity? Are you aware that the Rebbe was one of the foremost physists of his time. Did you know that he worked in covert operations with the US Army to produce a more advaced battleship then ever had been produced berfore in WW2? He was a towering genius by the testomony of every scholar and sceintist who ever met him.He was top of his class in Berlin/  You should take treat his reasoning with a bit more repect. He knew science a great deal better than you do, and I can gaurantee you that.


I will go back and read your post again. But watch out for conclusory arguments. You seem to assume certain facts that compel you're conclusion, but those underlying facts are not as obvious as you make them out to be.

Go ask someone who really knows the thoery of relativity well and show him/her this letter.

NOTE: I just noticed you said that Rabbi R. was right and the Rebbe was wrong. In the story it says Rabbi R. held the sun goes around the earth. Maybe you should read the post again more carefully.

[mord]

The Rebbe aso went to the Sorborne

[mord]

Gerald Schroder world renowned proffesor turns famous atheist into beleiver of G=D 


http://www.geraldschroeder.com/new.html

[jdl4ever]

The Rebbe was not one of the foremost physicists of his time.  Who are you trying to fool?  He didn't even have a degree in Physics or Mathematics.  My father knows more about Physics than the Rebbe, no offense since he has an advanced degree in Mathematics and has advanced graduate training in Physics; and my father is a math genius.  (And worked on much cooler projects then the Rebbe did, but I can't say publicly PM me if you want me to tell you) The Rebbe had a degree in electrical engineering and was probably a great electrical engineer and he was indeed a great Torah genius, but he was no expert in physics and probably only had a layman's knowledge of physics based on the weak argument he presented that even a layman such as myself can disprove.  Being a Torah genius does not make you an expert in science.  The Rebbe's argument speaks for itself and it is lacking substance so decide for yourself if the Rebbe was the greatest physics expert and can go against the entire scientific community and proven observations.  The Rebbe in fact goes against very basic physics which is 400 years old, forget about relatitity.  The basics of phsyics is Newton's law of gravitational forces which in layman's terms state that the larger the object the greater the gravitational force around it so since the sun is the biggest object in the solar system and has the greatest gravitational pull so everything in our solar system will orbit the sun. 
Relativity is based on this law, and the Rebbe goes against the basic law of physics which is a proven fact.


Rebbe and R' Kahane = Torah geniuses, Tzaddikim, very smart men 
Rebbe and the Rav; not = to science experts

[Lubab]

The Rebbe was not one of the foremost physicists of his time.  Who are you trying to fool?  He didn't even have a degree in Physics or Mathematics.  My father knows more about Physics than the Rebbe, no offense since he has an advanced degree in Mathematics and has advanced graduate training in Physics; and my father is a math genius.  (And worked on much cooler projects then the Rebbe did, but I can't say publicly PM me if you want me to tell you) The Rebbe had a degree in electrical engineering and was probably a great electrical engineer and he was indeed a great Torah genius, but he was no expert in physics and probably only had a layman's knowledge of physics based on the weak argument he presented that even a layman such as myself can disprove.  Being a Torah genius does not make you an expert in science.  The Rebbe's argument speaks for itself and it is lacking substance so decide for yourself if the Rebbe was the greatest physics expert and can go against the entire scientific community and proven observations.  The Rebbe in fact goes against very basic physics which is 400 years old, forget about relatitity.  The basics of phsyics is Newton's law of gravitational forces which in layman's terms state that the larger the object the greater the gravitational force around it so since the sun is the biggest 4. object in the solar system and has the greatest gravitational pull so everything in our solar system will orbit the sun. 
Relativity is based on this law, and the Rebbe goes against the basic law of physics which is a proven fact.


Rebbe and R' Kahane = Torah geniuses, Tzaddikim, very smart men 
Rebbe and the Rav; not = to science experts

You'll win this argument because I'm no science expert by any stretch.

But I would just point a few things

1. When you are dealing with great minds like the Rebbe's, degrees don't tell the whole story. For instance, when the Rebbe was in Sorbone, he was known to often stump his PROFESSORS. He went there for whatever reasons he went there, but Rabbi J.B. Soloveitchik and the others that were there with him attested to the fact that the experience was somewhat of a 'joke' for the Rebbe. Degrees don't tell you that kind of information. Surely, you would agree that one can have expert knoweledge in a field without going through the formal steps neccesary to obtain a degree.

2. I'm not really impressed by you're speculation about how much knowledge the Rebbe had based on a letter (the full text of which was not even available). The Rebbe in his letters, used to simplify things as much as possible, and then when people would ask for more details he would give them more.

3. You think you are a layman that disproved the Rebbe, but being a layman myself, I didn't think you disproved him at all. In your arguments you continuously assume the fact you're trying to prove.

You assume that you can measure from a satellite or from earth and get the answers, ignoring the fact that the satellite and earth are only "objective" stationary points once you decided that that's going to be your reference point. The satelites are also in orbit. And the earth is also in motion. If you consider that, whatever calculations you made can't really be relied upon more than just one way that the situation could be. You can say: if this is our reference point it's like this. But if this is our reference point it's like that. But you still can't prove which reference point is correct. Do the same measurments using the sun as the objective reference point and you'll get a completely different result.

4. Regarding Newton's law of gravitational forces, all I can say is, you are making a big mistake if you think the Rebbe wasn't very familiar with it. You're showing me you don't really know who the Rebbe was if you think that.

The Rebbe WAS a very unique figure in that his knowledge spanned not only Torah but all facets of secular knowlege and he also knew how the two connected. No matter what field a person was expert in, whether it be military strategy, mathematics, art, music, the experts were always amazed at the Rebbe's proficiency after having a private audience with him. So I'm just saying don't be so quick to dismiss him.

5. I would also remind you that the scientific community may not outright lie, but they do have a history of making many matters seem a great deal more settled than the empirical data actually can show. See their views on evolution, radioactive dating and now global warming. They use tremendous extrapolation in all of these theories, which started out as theories, but one day they decide that they are fact and they make everyone into a fool if they disagree with them. The history of the sceintific community does have a lot of dogma and often the greatest discoveries were laughed at until they were later accepted.  So there is a lot of deception that goes on and you do need to be wary of it. Here too, I wouldn't be surprised if the scientific community imposed the view that the earth goes around the sun though other explanations may be also plausible.

[jdl4ever]

While a Sattelite can be subjective since it is rotating around the earth just like we are on earth like you said, a space craft is isolated in space and not in our orbit so it provides an objective vantage point.  Also, mathematically the 400 year old newton law of gravitational motion was proven to be correct many times so it is not relevent how things look like to us, the objective proof that the planets go around the sun was proven long ago mathematically with Newton's theory.   Similarly, you are ignoring the fact that the Rebbe's basic theory was incorrect since the Sun is stationary, it only rotates but does not move at all relative to the Earth. 

As for Radioactive decay, this is a scientific fact that is very easy to prove and has been proven countless number of times; this is how we have power plants today. 

As for the Rebbe, 99% of the time advanced degrees and training correspond to being an expert in an area.  Unless you can prove that the Rebbe was an expert in Physics, then he was not.  So far all evidence points to the fact that he ignores the very foundations of newtonian physics and says things about relativity that is completely wrong.  Plus, even worse is he offers no evidence.  All real scientists make claims backed up by evidence, especially if you are going against all of the scientists in the western world and thousands of volumes of mathematical and scientific evidence proving their point!  Rumors about the Rebbe arguing well with professors is merely stories that may or may not have happened and arguing with teachers does not correlate with any intelligence.  Many Yeshiva kids think they are G-d's gift to the world and like to argue dumb arguments with science professors in College who know 1000 times more than them and they think they are all that.  This does not demonstrate intelligence.  Any real scientist who wants to refute something widely accepted offers scientific and mathematical data to prove their point; they do not simply say "I think this way so it is correct even if I go against thousands of volumes of evidence". 

College science professors are not dumb.  I did research in college for 1.5 years in Chemistry and I am telling you that the professor I worked under was the most brilliant person that you ever met and he wrote a dozen papers in journals.   Even the lowly graduate student working under this guy was 10 times more brilliant than myself.  The guy knew advanced mathematics very well (I took 1 yr of calculus and the math this guy was doing was way above my head), he was an super expert in his chemistry field work, knew how to program computer languages, knew how to build complex circuits from nothing at all and had a very creative mind.  This was just the Graduate student!  The professor was 10 times smarter and more experienced than this guy!  So don't have such a lowly opinion of scientists, they are really intelligent beyond your imagination.  This is why training and experience corresponds with intellect.  The Rebbe didn't have any advanced degree in Physics or any training or experience in that area so I doubt he was even on the level of even a graduate student. 

[Lubab]

Similarly, you are ignoring the fact that the Rebbe's basic theory was incorrect since the Sun is stationary, it only rotates but does not move at all relative to the Earth. 
 

This is what we call a conclusory argument. It assumes the fact you are trying to prove.

[Lubab]

a space craft is isolated in space and not in our orbit so it provides an objective vantage point. 

It may not be in OUR orbit, but it could be in another orbit. When you say it's a an objective vantage point, you are saying that relative to our measurements here on earth. I think you're still running into the same relativity problems.

[Lubab]

As for Radioactive decay, this is a scientific fact that is very easy to prove and has been proven countless number of times; this is how we have power plants today. 

Of course there is radioactive decay.  But their theories often assume that these elements always reacted the same way with eachother even billions of years ago which is taking a big leap of faith. But the scientists don't want you to know that. They make it seem full-proof.

[jdl4ever]

a space craft is isolated in space and not in our orbit so it provides an objective vantage point. 

It may not be in OUR orbit, but it could be in another orbit. When you say it's a an objective vantage point, you are saying that relative to our measurements here on earth. I think you're still running into the same relativity problems.

? You don't make any sense.  If an astronot is standing in a space craft outside of our orbit and outside the orbit of any planet, he is at an objective vantage point and he is observing things objectively.

[jdl4ever]

Similarly, you are ignoring the fact that the Rebbe's basic theory was incorrect since the Sun is stationary, it only rotates but does not move at all relative to the Earth. 
 

This is what we call a conclusory argument. It assumes the fact you are trying to prove.

No, the Rebbe is using a conclusory argument.  I am just copying the Rebbe.  The Rebbe claimed out of the blue that both the earth and the sun are both moving around each other.  REALLY?  Prove it.  According to all the scientific data, the sun is stationary and is not moving around the earth and the earth is the only thing that is moving.  So it is up to the Rebbe to prove his statement, not me.   

[Lubab]

While a Sattelite can be subjective since it is rotating around the earth just like we are on earth like you said, a space craft is isolated in space and not in our orbit so it provides an objective vantage point.  Also, mathematically the 400 year old newton law of gravitational motion was proven to be correct many times so it is not relevent how things look like to us, the objective proof that the planets go around the sun was proven long ago mathematically with Newton's theory.   Similarly, you are ignoring the fact that the Rebbe's basic theory was incorrect since the Sun is stationary, it only rotates but does not move at all relative to the Earth. 

As for Radioactive decay, this is a scientific fact that is very easy to prove and has been proven countless number of times; this is how we have power plants today. 

 

The Rebbe didn't have any advanced degree in Physics or any training or experience in that area so I doubt he was even on the level of even a graduate student. 

This is a very foolish statement. Nobody said the professors are dumb. I'm simply saying that one can have the knowledge of a professor and even more knowledge, without having gone through the formal steps to obtain a degree. There was a time when these degrees didn't even exist.

So while it's a good indicator that if someone has a degree, they have the expertise. But you cannot assueme from that just because someone does not have the degree they don't have the knowledge. This is a big logical mistake.

[Lubab]

Similarly, you are ignoring the fact that the Rebbe's basic theory was incorrect since the Sun is stationary, it only rotates but does not move at all relative to the Earth. 
 

This is what we call a conclusory argument. It assumes the fact you are trying to prove.

No, the Rebbe is using a conclusory argument.  I am just copying the Rebbe.  The Rebbe claimed out of the blue that both the earth and the sun are both moving around each other.  REALLY?  Prove it.  According to all the scientific data, the sun is stationary and is not moving around the earth and the earth is the only thing that is moving.  So it is up to the Rebbe to prove his statement, not me.   

No. Again you are not reading carefully. Look again. The Rebbe did not say they are both moving around eachother. He said that was one of 3 possiblities and he did not hold of that possiblity. He held the sun goes around the earth.

[jdl4ever]

Similarly, you are ignoring the fact that the Rebbe's basic theory was incorrect since the Sun is stationary, it only rotates but does not move at all relative to the Earth. 
 

This is what we call a conclusory argument. It assumes the fact you are trying to prove.

No, the Rebbe is using a conclusory argument.  I am just copying the Rebbe.  The Rebbe claimed out of the blue that both the earth and the sun are both moving around each other.  REALLY?  Prove it.  According to all the scientific data, the sun is stationary and is not moving around the earth and the earth is the only thing that is moving.  So it is up to the Rebbe to prove his statement, not me.   

No. Again you are not reading carefully. Look again. The Rebbe did not say they are both moving around eachother. He said that was one of 3 possiblities and he did not hold of that possiblity. He held the sun goes around the earth.

Read the Rebbe's statement more carefully.  The 3 possibilities based on relativity only exist if the two objects are both going around each other.  If only one was moving then there would be no relativity.  The Rebbe knew this so he based his argument by claiming that both the earth and the sun were revolving around each other.   This goes against all scientific data and the Rebbe offered no evidence to disprove the preponderance of evidence that only one moves around the other.

[Lubab]

Unless you can prove that the Rebbe was an expert in Physics, then he was not. 

Oh really? And if I can't prove you're Jewish that means you're not?
As we say in law, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

[jdl4ever]

We are talking about probabilities here.  While it is possible that someone who had no degree in Physics or Mathematics and no advanced training in Physics can be an expert, it is very unlikely.  The odds are that the Rebbe was not an expert in Physics and you know this.  You admit that he had no degree in Physics, he had no advanced training or advanced degree in Physics, had no experience in that area, did no research in physics and wrote no publications in Physics  (and you know that advanced physics and mathematics must go together).    Plus so far he said silly things against the basics of Physics without any evidence which suggests that he was not an expert.  Could he still have been an expert in Physics?  Yes, but the probability is that he was not one.

[Lubab]

Similarly, you are ignoring the fact that the Rebbe's basic theory was incorrect since the Sun is stationary, it only rotates but does not move at all relative to the Earth. 
 

This is what we call a conclusory argument. It assumes the fact you are trying to prove.

No, the Rebbe is using a conclusory argument.  I am just copying the Rebbe.  The Rebbe claimed out of the blue that both the earth and the sun are both moving around each other.  REALLY?  Prove it.  According to all the scientific data, the sun is stationary and is not moving around the earth and the earth is the only thing that is moving.  So it is up to the Rebbe to prove his statement, not me.   

No. Again you are not reading carefully. Look again. The Rebbe did not say they are both moving around eachother. He said that was one of 3 possiblities and he did not hold of that possiblity. He held the sun goes around the earth.

Read the Rebbe's statement more carefully.  The 3 possibilities based on relativity only exist if the two objects are both going around each other.  If only one was moving then there would be no relativity.  The Rebbe knew this so he based his argument by claiming that both the earth and the sun were revolving around each other.   This goes against all scientific data and the Rebbe offered no evidence to disprove the preponderance of evidence that only one moves around the other.

No. The Rebbe says
One of the conclusions of the theory of relativity is that when there are two systems, or planets, in motion relative to each other-such as the sun and the earth in our case-either view, namely the sun rotating around the earth, or the earth rotating around the sun, has equal validity.

He says they are in motion relative to eachother.  He's not saying both are in motion. He's saying relative to the other one the other one is motion i.e. if you look from the sun, the earth appears to be in motion and if you look from earth the sun is in motion etc.

The Rebbe says at the bottom of the letter to confirm what he's saying with someone who is thoroughly familiar with the thoery of relativity. So why don't you just do that, instead of the two of us laymen slugging it out?

[Lubab]

We are talking about probabilities here.  While it is possible that someone who had no degree in Physics or Mathematics and no advanced training in Physics can be an expert, it is very unlikely.  The odds are that the Rebbe was not an expert in Physics and you know this.  You admit that he had no degree in Physics, he had no advanced training or advanced degree in Physics, had no experience in that area, did no research in physics and wrote no publications in Physics  (and you know that advanced physics and mathematics must go together).    Plus so far he said silly things against the basics of Physics without any evidence which suggests that he was not an expert.  Could he still have been an expert in Physics?  Yes, but the probability is that he was not one.

For the record. I don't know what degrees he had actually. I never heard he had an advanced degree in physics, but he might have. You're trying to prove he wasnt' expert because  you think what he said in the letter was "silly" and against basic principles of physics. But that's you're opinion. I'm still waiting to hear from a real expert on the topic.

[jdl4ever]

I have read the Rebbe's remarks again and he is unclear of what he is saying but he seems to be saying like you are claiming that simply the earth goes around the sun or the sun goes around the earth.  It would be nice if you have the full text since one paragraph doesn't clearly state what he is claiming.   I'll grant you that and take away my first argument against him.   But you still have many more arguments left to answer.  Firstly, the argument still remains that you can't prove anything in this case from relativity.  Relativity in this case simply shows how things appear to us and how things appear from a different vantage point.  But the relativity ambiguity is weaker if only one thing moves since it is easy to prove which one it is, but I'll leave it at that.  Relativity is merely an observation, something the Rebbe did not understand it seems.  Proof is obtained through mathematics.  Also the following arguments remain: An objective astronot viewing from space who is in no planetary orbit (plus deep space probes which have no orbit but are traveling through the middle of space) and the mathematical proof that the earth goes around the sun.  Mathematics is objective and has nothing to do with how things look relative to us.  So mathematical proof is objective proof.    Guess what?  The mathematical proof proving the earth goes around the sun is hundreds of years old and has only grown exponentially in modern times with the advent of better telescopes.

[Lubab]

Cetainly math is objective. But even in math you can wind up with more than one possiblity. Sometimes you solve for x and it could be 2 or -2 and both work out.

So too here. You could do the mathematical calculation 3 ways. Using earth as the stationary point. Using the sun as the stationary point. Or assuming they are both rotating around each other. They will all work out mathematically. Which one is correct depends on which point you choose to call the stationary one.

Considering this, I don't see how better telescopes would help clarify matters at all.

I think this is all the Rebbe is saying and I agree we need to get more of the letter.

[Lubab]

From Answers.com

"In a hagiographic biography, Laufer, citing a rabbi who heard from Soloveichik himself and a Kfar Chabad rabbi who heard it from associates of Soloveichik, says that "even though Rabbi Schneerson did not spend much time at his studies, his marks were always higher than Soloveichik's". Laufer also noted "the Rebbe was known to have received several advanced degrees in Berlin, and then later in Paris"

[jdl4ever]

Lubov, there is only one mathematical solution to this issue so this would be described as a 4x=89 equation that only has one solution.  It is very easy to obtain if the earth rotates around the sun or the sun goes around the earth.  All you need is a telescope and some charting system.  Since all planets rotate around something in a constant ellipse pattern, the location of the planets in the sky through time can be charted as their position and the variation of their size relative to time correlates with their distance.  If you plot the data of our solar system over a few years on extrapolate the data, you will be able to prove whether the sun rotates around the earth or the earth rotates around the sun since each theory predicts different patterns.  This has been done a long time ago and it proved that the Earth must rotate around the Sun since the data only fit mathematically into this theory.  Also, Kepler's law of motion which he derived from Newton became the basis of Physics and this was also proven astronomically and mathematically.  Kepler's laws state that everything must rotate around the sun since it has the biggest gravitational field and he made some simple equations describing this motion and all of them were proven correct.

[mord]

Gerald Schroder world renowned proffesor turns famous atheist into beleiver of G=D 


http://www.geraldschroeder.com/new.html

 

The Rebbe was not one of the foremost physicists of his time.  Who are you trying to fool

But this guy is
 

http://www.geraldschroeder.com/new.html

[Lubab]

Everything you are saying about the calculations is irrelvevant because they all MUST ASSUME A PARTICULAR FOCUL POINT. You could choose another focul point and it would work out For instance, take a model of the planets going around the sun rotating like they show you in school. Then pick the model up by the earth. What would happen? You're calculations would still work out, but now the earth the focul point. That' all we're saying here.

According to modern science you cannot prove an objective center. Relatavism applies.

Let's give a smaller example so this become more clear:

Under the general thoery of relativity, if I swing a bucket over my head, there is no way to scientifically prove that the bucket is moving and I am not. Maybe the bucket is the center of the universe and everything else is moving. You can make mathematical calculations either way and they will work out. Don't you agree JDL4ever? Can you prove which one is moving? You might think it weird that the bucket would be the center of the universe, but you're just not used to looking at the world in that way. That doesn't make it any less scientifically plausible.

So now tell me, if you can't even prove which one is moving, the bucket, or me, then how the heck are you gonna prove which one of the sun and earth are moving. Please explain to me how you could do this logically, because I'm at a loss.

When it comes to this issue, the era of being able to say sceince proves dogmatically that one way or the other is right when is long over and belongs in the sceince of the dark ages.

Incidentally, relativism is also at play in politics. For instance, there is no way to really prove that the Muslims are the terrorists and we are the freedom fighters. Maybe the Muslims are the freedom fighters and we are the terrorists. It depends which focul point you choose to adopt. Of course, the Torah, deals in absolute truths and can say definitively which is correct. Science however, cannot.

In this case, sceince leaves us with two (really 3) choices. The Torah comes as a matter of absolute truth says the sun goes around the earth. There are some apolegists on this issue who try to sugar-coat it, and avoid the issue. But being a Kahanist supporter I take the hard line when it comes to the Torah. And yes, this does not contradict science in any way as explained above under the theory of relativity.

[Lubab]

Rest assured JDL4ever, that greater scientists then yourself have discussed this issue with the Rebbe and have been satisfied with the answers. One of them is Professor Herman Branover (google him) , who is a Lubavitcher Chassid and scientist. Perhaps we could set up a meeting between you and him and he could explain this better than I.