PANORAMA

 

Gravity Probe B Update

 

          Gravity Probe B went into orbit in 2004 to detect two effects allegedly predicted by relativity.  One is a shortening of the satellite’s orbit because of the strength of the earth’s gravitational field (the geodetic effect); and the other effect, called frame dragging, was predicted by Lense and Thirring in 1918 when they looked at what the gravitational field around the earth should look like if the universe spun around it once a sidereal day.  Both effects are geocentric effects, predicted because they should happen in a geocentric system; and thus, if relativity is to make every place in the universe look as if it were at the center of the universe—as relativity was designed to do— then these effects should be real. 

          The satellite consisted of four nearly perfect spheres, spinning gyroscopes, designed to be precessed (have their rotational axis twisted) over the course of its year-long experiment.  Magnetic measurements tracked the gyros’ rotational axes which, according to Newtonian (non-geocentric) physics should be stable but according to relativistic (geocentric) physics should make the axes drift.

          It was expected that the results would be available shortly after the end of the experiment in 2005.  However, there has been no word since the announcement that the experiment was complete.

          What happened was that the magnetic tracking data discovered an entirely unexpected effect a trillion times larger than the frame dragging effect.  The mysterious effect has been tracked to micron-sized (a thousandth of a millimeter) irregularities in the metal casings of the gyros.  These were kept at temperatures close to absolute zero and the effect was likely caused by the earth’s magnetic field. 

          Gravity Probe B has confirmed the geodetic effect.[1]  The length of the orbit was 1.1 inches shorter than predicted by Newtonian gravity, accurate to 1%.

          The Lense-Thirring effect was not clearly detected.  It is expected to take the rest of this year to filter out the noise produced by the magnetic field.  The frame dragging effect is expected to be 0.000011 degree per year.  If the result is found, as expected, it will be presented as a triumph for the General Theory of Relativity, but the truth is that the effect was predicted by a geocentric model, not a heliocentric one.

 

Belief in Creation Still Outstrips Evolutionism

 

          A USA Today Gallup Poll taken in May of 2007 reported that evolutionists’ shrill propaganda attacks against the creation account of the Bible have not had much effect.  The poll also showed a degree of confusion among those polled. 

When asked if the statement “God created man within the last 10,000 years,” is definitely true 39% of the respondents answered yes.  Another 27% answered that it is probably true, giving 68% who believe in a recent creation.  When the same question was asked about evolution, 18% answered that it is definitely true and 35% said it is probably true for a total of 53%.  This sums to 121% percent, reflecting some confusion on the part of 21% of the respondents.  There are differing theories about why 21% of the respondents would answer “yes” to both models.  The theory one chooses depends on whether one is an evolutionist or a creationist.  Evolutionists spin the result as due to those who believe in science over the Bible but who think that God had something to do with it.  Your editor believes that the 21% fall almost entirely in the “probably true” categories and may not be sufficiently versed in both sides of the argument to be able to discern which is true.  They may rely on Scripture-illiterate evolutionary apologists like Hugh Ross, who cast doubt on the authority of the Bible by producing a new, “much-needed and vastly improved” Bible ver$ion every few months.  Add to that the daily assault against the authority of both Scripture and local churches by “ministries“ such as Moody, Trinity, and Salem broadcasting networks, and you have a confusion of authorities.  So, whom should you believe, the “good, godly” Hugh Ross, the “good, godly” Henry Morris?  If in doubt, believe both, after all, why not if they both have reputations of being “good, godly” men. 

Now that, my friend, when combined with the absolutely unreasonable belief that there are absolutely no absolutes, is a wellspring of confusion.