Deposition of Hilton Fay Hinderliter - Page 3
suggestive or persuasive evidence that alpha decay rates had been constant through time?
A: Not necessarily.
Q: Why not, sir?
A: Because I think it would be philosophically conceivable that we do not know everything, every characteristic of radioactive decay theory or possible characteristics of the environment that might influence radioactive decay rates.
Q: Doctor, recognizing that there is always the possibility of some factor that one has been able to think of, do you regard it as suggestive evidence for constancy if you have performed experiments as to every factor that you can think of and have found that none of them altered the decay rates?
A: Would you repeat the beginning of the question?
(Question read by Reporter.)
A: I would say that such an argument would have bearing on what happens in experiments now, but it would not necessarily imply what happened in the past.
Q: Why is that, sir?
A: Because, conceivably, the universe might have operated under some different mode of behavior in the
I am not saying there is evidence it did, but, from a philosophical point of view, we have no way of knowing whether it did or not.
Q: Would you say then that evidence in decay rates are constant under current physical conditions, no matter how those conditions are altered experimentally, at least suggests that any alteration in the decay rates in the past must have been as a result of some condition other than those which have been tested experimentally?
A: I think it is impossible to answer that question because I think the beginning of it assumed that decay rates are constant and you asked questions about evidence showing that they are not constant.
Q: Doctor, is it your view that radioactive decay rates today, and over the last twenty-five years, or more, have been constant?
A: I am not of any strong conviction that they have or have not.
I think it is conceivable that they might not have been, but I do not argue that they have not been.
I do not take a position wherein I claim
that they have not been constant.
Q: Were you aware of any experiments which have been conducted, the results of which purport to demonstrate that decay rates have been constant over the experimental period?
A: I think the general — the fact that decay rates have been measured implies that they are not to some degree constant; otherwise, it would be impossible to measure a half-life. I think you are referring to experiments that have shown that they have varied somewhat.
Q: Perhaps, the misunderstanding here is because my question was unclear. If we assume that experiments have been conducted as to the alpha decay process, and they have indicated that alpha decay is constant today when it has been sought to be measured and the experiments have further been conducted that sought to vary that decay rate by applying extremes of temperature or extremes of pressure or combining the parent radioactive nuclide with different combinations of chemical elements, and none of those experiments seeking to alter the decay rate had done so, no matter what conditions were applied, given those assumptions, would you regard that as
suggestive evidence that at least any alteration in decay rates in the past must have taken place by some conditions or circumstances other than those which had been tested experimentally?
A: To the extent that I can remember all of that, yes.
Q: Are you satisfied that you do remember, or would you like to have the question read back?
A: You can read the question one more time.
(Question read by Reporter.)
I would consider that a reasonable conclusion., yes.
Q: Doctor, are you familiar with the concordia/discordia technique in uranium/lead age determination?
A: I have heard of it. I have not studied it enough to be able to criticize it without further study.
I think there are people more qualified to address that than myself. In other words, I do not think I have time between now and the trial to become an expert on that.
Q: Have you heard that there are
geochronologists who regard that method as capable of demonstrating whether or not a particular sample has been a closed chemical system?
A: I believe I am aware of such arguments being made.
Q: Do you have any views as to the soundness of that contention?
A: Without further study on it, I don't think I could take a position on that one way or the other.
Q: Doctor, are you familiar with the isochron technique for use with rubidium/strontium and potassium/argon dating techniques?
A: I am familiar with the term "isochrons". I have read materials about such isochron methods. Offhand, I don't remember which decays they refer to.
Q: Are you aware of any geochronologists who contend that use of the isochron technique in potassium/argon or rubidium/strontium methods permit the determination of whether or not the sample dated has been a closed chemical system?
A: Yes, I am.
Q: Sir, do you have any view on the soundness
of that contention?
A: No. I wouldn't take a position on that. I can say, personally, I am skeptical of the idea that the isochron argument could determine whether there has been any transport in or out of the sample.
Q: Could you explain the basis for your skepticism?
A: I guess just common principle, if one were — it's just in principle to me, I cannot see how — maybe, I should say, when I read the things I read about isochrons, I was not convinced that the isochron method was convincing evidence that transport had not occurred.
At the present time, I cannot remember any reason why I felt that way when I read the articles, unless I go back and read them again or maybe be exposed to the argument given by people more qualified to challenge the isochron argument.
Q: Doctor, are you familiar with the argon-40/argon-39 method of reaching age determinations?
A: I believe I heard of it.
Q: Have you ever heard the contention that
use of the age spectrum technique with argon-40/ argon-39 method is capable of identifying whether or not a particular sample has been a closed chemical system?
A: I don't remember that phrase, "age spectrum".
I may have read it, but I don't remember whether I have.
Q: Doctor, have you had any course work in isotopic chemistry?
Q: Sir, are you aware of the contention that there are certain chemical isotopes which occur in nature only as the product of radioactive decay series?
A: I am aware of a contention that certain ones existing in certain samples could only have occurred as a result of decay.
Q: Do you have a view on the soundness of that contention?
A: I think this gets into Robert Gentry's work with certain polonium isotopes, and I believe that the argument there is that all of certain short half- life polonium isotopes must have been the product of a
radioactive decay from a parent, but that assumption is called into question by the data that Gentry has. From there on, he is better to answer that question than I am. (Continued on the next page.)
Q: Are you aware of any other instances in which the contention that certain isotopes occur in nature only as the product of radioactive decay?
A: Possibly as with regard to certain argon isotopes.
Q: Do you recall which ones?
A: No, I don't.
Q: Are you aware of any radiometric dating technique which seeks to avoid the necessity for an assumption as to the initial isotopic abundance of the parent radio-nuclide by measuring only a radiogenic daughter and taking no measurement of a parent nuclide at all?
A: I would imagine that such a scheme — I may have heard of such a scheme being proposed but I would question it in principle because it would be no more conclusive than the assumption that such a radio-nuclide did not exist in the initial sample.
Q: Dr., if we could return for a few minutes to your testimony about short period comets. Sir, I believe you stated earlier that short period comets are observed to decrease in luminosity.
Q: Do you know why that takes place?
A: I believe it is caused by the blowing- away of cometary material by the sun as the comet passes into the vicinity of the sun.
Q: I am afraid my notes are not perfectly clear on this. Was it correct that you stated earlier that the lifetime of short period comets may be used to derive an age for the universe or for the solar system?
Q: Because if the decrease in luminosity observed in short period comets is extrapolated backwards in time, more than a few — I am afraid that I did not write down what you said.
A: More than a few tens of thousands of years.
Q: If it is extrapolated further back than that, it requires the assumption that the initial state of the comets must have been unreasonable, by virtue of their being extraordinarily bright; is that a fair statement?
A: Extraordinarily bright or extraordinarily large or massive, one or the other or both.
Q: Sir, is it your view that this evidence about short period comets bears on the scientific
soundness of either creation-Science or evolution- science as a theory?
A: I believe when that subject was raised, we were discussing the dating methods, and I said that the short period comet argument can be used to develop a dating method that would give a young age for the universe. To the extent that the young age would contradict the evolution-science model, it would have bearing on that then.
Q: Do you have a view about the accuracy of this short period comet method for calculating the age for the universe?
A: Accuracy in terms of saying the age of the universe is a certain value?
Q: Yes, sir.
A: I think it is mostly in order of magnitude thing. It would be difficult to draw a line and say this size or brightness of a comet would be reasonable and anything beyond that would be unreasonable.
Q: Are there any assumptions that are implicit in this method for estimating age by the evidence from short period comets?
Q: What are they?
A: I believe they would be the same kind of assumptions or, let's say, some assumptions parallel to those involved in radioactive dating. For example, the rate of disintegration of comets has been constant in the past and that nothing came into the system which would be analogous to the transport phenomena.
Q: Are you aware of any other explanation for the observed evidence on short period comets and their decrease in luminosity other than a short age for the universe?
Q: Can you tell me what that is?
A: I believe there is an explanation that there is beyond the orbit of Pluto, which is the outermost planet, there is some material available which can be brought into a cometary orbit by perhaps the passing of a star through the vicinity, and that causes new material to be added or it causes such material to become a comet.
Q: That is, to become a short period comet?
A: I believe so. Short period comets generally have some connection with Jupiter. I might
have to qualify the previous statement, without checking into whether the short period comets — I believe the short period comets are the ones that are explained, whose origin is explained as this material beyond the solar system.
Q: Dr., have you a view as to which of the two explanations, that is, the one that you have just described about material beyond the orbit of Pluto, and the explanation of a short age for the universe, better fits the current state of the scientific evidence?
A: I think they would be equally — they could be judged as equally valid possibilities.
Q: Are you aware of any observations which tend to support either explanation?
A: The phraseology of that question causes me to wonder because observations that the short period comets do decrease in brightness would be part of the argument for the solar system being young. So that would be supported by observations. On the other hand, I know of no observations being made of any material in this supposed cloud of protocometary matter existing out beyond the orbit of Pluto.
Q: Are you aware of any observations which imply the existence of the protocometary material we have been discussing?
A: I can't remember of any such awareness.
Q: Are you aware of any instances in which a previously unknown short period comet has been observed to appear and then reappear in a short period comet orbit?
A: I can't think of any instances of that.
Q: Would you regard such an observation, that is, of previously unknown short period comets which is observed approaching the inner solar system and then observed to round the sun, depart from the solar system and return several times on a short period comet orbit as implying support for the existence of the protocometary material beyond the orbit of Pluto?
A: That would seem reasonable on the surface. However, in an analogy with radiometric dating where one would assume that finding material that shows evidence of transport phenomena having occurred or comparing the age, calculated age for a known sample with an age determined by other methods and finding a contradiction, those things, I believe, have
happened but if they can be explained away by the radiometric people, I think if somebody analyzed the short period comet argument, he could come up with a comparable ad hoc hypothesis.
Q: Dr., are you aware of any reason for not accepting the reasonableness of the line of argument that I described in my last question, except for the analogy that you described as to radiometric dating in your last answer?
A: I can't think of any other, no.
Q: Dr., I would like to turn our attention to one of your articles from the Creation Research Society Quarterly, the one of the shrinking sun, if we may.
Dr., in that article, on the first page near the bottom of the first column, there is a reference to the Fireplace Model. Could you explain to me exactly what you meant by that?
A: That generally refers to the idea of the sun deriving its energy by some sort of burning as wood or coal would burn in a fireplace.
Q: Is that just ordinary chemical combustion?
Q: Is the statement within the article your own view; namely, the Fireplace Model cannot be an explanation for the sun's energy mechanism because recorded history is of greater duration than would be the duration of the sun under that model?
A: I have never done any actual calculations on my own on that. In reading other analyses, I remember that the numbers were quoted as something within the span of recorded history. Therefore, I accepted the idea that it is not — that the Fireplace Model does not remain as a major contender, say, for a model for the sun's energy generation.
Q: Is it true that your rejection of that model was based on not calculations that you have done, but your memory of other calculations that indicated —
Q: Dr., is it correct that you have no view of your own on this matter, but it is a matter of assessing the accuracy of calculations by others?
A: At the present time, I would say I have not recalculated the calculations of people who had already done extensive theory work on models
of the sun's energy generation. If I had any reason to suspect that those were in error, I would consider the recalculation would be in order.
Q: Sir, do you have any view as to what the interior temperature of the sun is?
A: Do you mean do I have a view as to what it is or do I have a view concerning claims as to what it is?
Q: Both. Take them one at a time. Do you have a view, yourself, as to what the interior temperature of the sun is?
A: Not with any degree of certainty, no. would say within limits. In other words, it would probably be at least as warm as the surface of the sun but no greater temperature than that expected by the nuclear fusion model.
I assume it would be in that range but that is a wide range. So I have no reason to opt for one of those over another.
Q: Do you have any awareness of whether there is a generally accepted view as to the interior temperature of the sun?
A: I think among people who adhere to the nuclear fusion scheme, there would be a generally
Q: Do you know what that is, sir?
A: I just have to take a wild guess without looking it up. I think it was 40-million degrees Kelvin.
Are you aware of any of the arguments for why the temperature of the center of the sun must be, let's say — assuming that it is 40-million degrees Kelvin, the figure you used, are you aware of any of the arguments for why that must be the temperature of the center of the sun?
A: I think within the nuclear fusion model, such a temperature would be necessary in order for the proposed fusion reactions to proceed at the required rates.
Q: Are you aware of any contention that the interior temperature of the sun must be that high in order to prevent gravitational collapse of the sun?
A: I think I may have heard of that argument but that argument would assume that the sun is in equilibrium with respect to gravitational collapse and not now collapsing.
Q: Do you have a view as to whether or not
that assumption is sound?
A: I would have no personal preference as to whether that view is sound or unsound.
Q: Do you think the present state of the scientific evidence suggests that that view is sound or unsound?
Q: Sir, is your answer because you are not aware of the state of the present scientific evidence or that it equally supports that contention and its opposite?
A: I think that any argument against the reasonableness of an explanation that the sun is not now in equilibrium, gravitational equilibrium, any argument against that as a possibility would incorporate some of the problems that I mentioned before with models for the formation of the solar system.
Q: Dr., would you say that your article that we have been talking about here takes a view as to whether or not the sun is in gravitational equilibrium?
A: The abstract of one of those articles made a statement the conveyed the idea that I was. I don't believe the text of the article takes a
position that gravitational collapse is more believable than the nuclear fusion model; possibly that it is more believable than the constant rate nuclear fusion model but I don't think I implied by this that the gravitational collapse would be superior to some on/off fusion model. At the present time, I would say those are both possibilities.
Q: Sir, if we could look just at your article from the June 1980 issue of the Creation Research Society Quarterly, would you say that you took a position in that paper as to whether or not the sun is undergoing gravitational contraction?
A: I would have to read the article first. I think. I haven't read it lately.
Q: I take it you are saying you do not recall whether or not you took a position in that article on whether or not the sun was undergoing gravitational contraction?
Q: Sir, do you recall whether you wrote the title that is given for your article here on the June 1980 issue, that is, "The Shrinking Sun: A Creation as to Prediction, Its Verification and the
Resulting Implications for Theories of Origins"?
A: Yes. I wrote that title.
Q: What prediction did you have reference to in the title?
A: The prediction that it might be possible that data, scientific data, would show or would argue for gravitational collapse — not necessarily gravitational collapse. It would be data that would imply a collapse and that would be the shrinking part.
Q: Can you say what the verification is, which you have reference to in the title?
A: The verification referred to John Eddy's data claiming to show that the sun had decreased in size.
Q: I will also draw your attention to page 58 in the article, the second column, the first full paragraph under the subheading "Call In The Shrink." The second sentence reads, "To be blunt, solar contraction is the refreshing breeze that simply blows away the foggy dilemma." From that we have just looked at, do you recall whether or not your article took a position on whether or not the sun was involved in gravitational contraction?
A: I would say given my position now and even my position when I wrote the article, that statement might have been better worded. Solar contraction could be a refreshing breeze that simply blows away the foggy dilemma.
Q: Then do I take it correctly that you are saying your current view is that the Sun could be undergoing gravitational contraction and that you would not say that the present evidence suggests that the sun is undergoing gravitational contraction?
Q: Is it fair to say that to the extent your article from the June 1980 Creation Research Society Quarterly seems to state more that the sun's undergoing gravitational contraction, that you now have a different view?
A: I would say now I do not have a different view than I had when I wrote the article. Perhaps I should have rephrased that sentence to correctly express my views at that time. I would have looked at the context of the whole thing and see if I could make it clear in other statements that I then considered gravitational
contraction as a possible explanation on, not necessarily the correct explanation. Maybe I should qualify this by saying that at the time I wrote this article, I leaned heavily on John Eddy's expertise or competence. And I notice under the last paragraph in the article on page 59, "As it turns out, the contraction has actually been observed," et cetera. Maybe it would be more accurate to state that my views now are not the same as that statement. In looking back, I felt at the time I was really not arguing that contraction was the necessary mechanism, but that recollection may refer to a time after I had read other criticisms of Eddy's data. So it might be more accurate to say that I have somewhat changed my position since the time I wrote this article, at least in the frame of mind I was in when I wrote those words.
Q: Do I take it then, sir, that your view of the reliability of Dr. Eddy's observations is different now from what it was when you wrote this article; is that right?
A: I have come across no reason to question Dr. Eddy's observations but I have heard counter
arguments claiming there is no evidence for the shrinkage of the sun. So I guess I would be less emphatic now in stating that the evidence purporting to show the contraction of the sun is conclusive.
Q: Dr., can you describe for me what the counter-evidence that you are aware of, which perhaps calls Dr. Eddy's observations into question?
A: I can vaguely remember it but I can't pin it down I have it in my file at home. I have articles referring to it. I might point out, too, there is additional evidence or I have heard or read reports of additional evidence besides that published by Dr. Eddy that would also argue for the shrinkage of the sun. That had to do with, I believe, recent observations of solar eclipses but I can't remember the specifics.
Q: Dr., are you able to summarize for me your discussion of solar neutrinos, perhaps the Neutrino Paradox as it bears on the question of whether the sun is undergoing gravitational collapse?
A: You mean the things in addition to what is in the article? I think it is pretty much explained in the article.
Q: I am asking if you consider it possible the summarize the article's exposition briefly?
A: According to the accepted theory of radioactivity and the stipulations incorporated into the nuclear fusion model for the sun's energy generation, a certain amount of neutrino flux was expected; that would be neutrinos observable at the position of the Earth.
At the time that the Fusion Model was designed or worked out, there was no experimental way to count neutrinos or detect neutrinos. But, then, later experimental methods were devised for the detection of neutrinos, and when measurements were made of the neutrino flux at the Earth, the observed numbers were much smaller than expected on the basis of solar theory which itself is based on the nuclear fusion model. Does that answer your question?
Q: I think so.
Dr., calling your attention to page 58 in the article, the part under the subheading, "The Experimental Results" in the second column, there is a statement there that the number of neutrinos observed falls far short of the expected number that
no more than one/tenth of the expected number are observed.
Do you know if the experimenter who was seeking to detect neutrinos has continued that experimental technique since the time of the result that you referred to?
A: I believe he has continued it to some degree. I am not sure how long.
Q: Do you know if there had been subsequent observations of more than the number?
A: You mean significantly more than?
Q: Yes, sir.
A: I don't know of any such.
Q: Have you heard that Mr. Davis is presently recording observations about three times as great as those that you have referred to here?
A: No, I have not heard that. I have not checked into the data lately.
Q: Turning to page 59 of the article, in the summary paragraph, there is a statement, part of which is italicized:
"It is clear we have witnessed a major scientific defeat for evolutionism." Could you tell me what you meant by
"major scientific defeat for evolutionism"?
A: I think it explains it further. It says as we have seen its vital organ, and then it refers to the billion year minute, persuading astrophysicists to reject the possibility of solar contraction.
Q: I am still not certain I understand exactly what you regarded as "a major scientific defeat for evolutionism."
Was it in the neutrino count observations which showed only a tenth as much as expected or Dr. Eddy's results indicating gravitational contraction of the sun?
A: I would say that both of those accumulations of data directed people's attention to the fact that evolution had conveyed the idea that gravitational collapse was not a viable theory for the sun's energy generation, and the defeat was that now these data have directed people's attention to where they would consider gravitation contraction as a possibility, which removes the exclusive position that nuclear fusion had, as an explanation for the sun's energy source, which, of course, ties to the billions of years age of the sun.
Q: Do you know that there was a conference
on the sun held at Goddard Space Flight Center in 1980?
A: I can't remember that.
Q: Were you aware that three separate investigating groups, I think one from England, one from MIT, and one from the Goddard Center, have published results calling into question Dr. Eddy's observations?
A: I may have been familiar with it but I don't remember it by name.
Q: If we assumed that three groups since Dr. Eddy's publications have suggested that his observations are not, in fact, accurate and Dr. Davis is presently recording three times as many neutrino counts as you had understood at the time of your article, would you still regard the subject matter, the article here, as a major scientific defeat for evolutionism?
A: I think I would, yes.
Q: Why is that, sir?
A: The answer to that question would get into the nature of a scientific community.
Q: Could you explain to me what it is about the nature of the scientific community that
causes you to regard the subject matter, despite the changes that we have alluded to, as still constituting a major scientific defeat for evolutionism?
A: Yes. I would say it would not surprise me if pressure was exerted on such person as Dr. Eddy or Dr. Davis to re-present, reformulate or give less emphasis or present as less convincing the data they had formerly presented.
Q: Sir, are you suggesting that the intellectual honesty of evolution scientists is not necessarily reliable?
Q: Would you similarly attribute the three research groups that I referred to earlier who had made observations contradicting Dr. Eddy's as also the result of, essentially, intellectual dishonesty?
A: I would not assume that was necessarily true of them. I would consider it as a possibility.
Q: Could you tell me what it is that causes you to call into question the intellectual honesty of evolution scientists?
A: Yes. Some of the other documents I gave to you included letters I had written to the journals Science and Science 1981, both of which
recently printed articles that contain statements that were not true when addressing issues related to the creation/evolution controversy.
Q: What statements were they?
A: One article in the Journal of Science began with the statement that the law recently passed in Arkansas — I think I can remember what it said — that that law would essentially mandate the teaching of the biblical account of creation. I know that is not what the law said. I wrote to the editor of Science, asking that that be corrected.
Q: You are saying you do not regard it as fair to say that that is essentially what the Arkansas statute requires?
A: The Arkansas statute specifically forbids the teaching of religious writings, and the biblical account of the creation is a religious writing.
Q: I think I understood your paraphrase of the statement in Science to be that the Arkansas statute essentially required the statement of the biblical account of creation, and I take it you regard it untrue as to interpreting the Arkansas
statute as essentially requiring that?
MR. CLARK: He said what he thinks the Arkansas statute says.
Q: I understood you just said now what you thought the Arkansas statute says. Is it true you also would regard anyone who thought that the Arkansas statute required whatever your paraphrase was, essentially the teaching of the biblical account — that you believed that understanding of the Arkansas statute cannot be held honestly?
A: I would say anybody writing an article, which as a major aspect of the article addresses the law of Arkansas, under the assumption that such a person would have studied the law to know what it says, I would say yes, such a person could not honestly conclude that the law in Arkansas effectively mandates the teaching of the biblical account of creation.
Q: I would like to turn just for a moment to your second article, the one in the December, 1980 issue of the Creation Research Society Quarterly and, particularly, looking at page 145, the last page of that article. In the first full paragraph on the first
page, the first sentence reads: "So with the realization that vast age stellar evolution retains no substance worthy of further refutation" — and I will omit a parenthetical—"let's consider what the really reliable source — the Bible — has to say." Could you tell me what you meant by referring to the Bible as the really reliable source in that context?
A: Yes. In the things that I have studied about the Bible, that I find no inconsistency or no reason as not necessarily as a scientific view, but from logic and just general source of knowledge, I find no reason to question the Bible as a reliable source of — I should have said dependable statements.
Q: Sir, in what documents would be the source for the concept of vast age stellar evolution?
A: I think, generally, writings of astrophysicists mapping out a scenario how stars evolved from one stage to another over vast periods of time.
Q: Then is it fair to characterize this statement as saying that you regard the Bible as a more reliable source than the publications of astrophysicists about this notion of stellar evolution?
Q: Sir, I would like to look at a letter that you gave us in the document production this morning, which I think was to Harold Armstrong. I do not know if Mr. Armstrong has a PhD and whether I should call him a Dr. or not.
Is he the editor of the Creation Research Society Quarterly?
Q: The letter I have reference to is from you to Harold Armstrong, dated September 20, 1979. On the last page near the bottom, I will read a couple of sentences:
"Also, I wrote to Hansen about geocentricity. His reply along with your remarks on the subject have `expanded my mind' from the constraints put upon it by my previous schooling. There are some interesting things to think about in that category." Could you tell me who the Mr. Hansen referred to was?
A: I could find out who he is. Offhand, I don't remember his first name but I know enough about him that I could provide his name.
Q: Is he an author or can you tell me
how it is that you know him?
A: He is, I believe, a professor of computer science in Ohio.
Q: Can you tell me how you happened to write to Mr. Hansen about geocentricity?
A: Yes. I had read somewhere that he was a spokesman for a group advocating geocentricity.
Q: Could you tell me what you understand by the term "geocentricity"?
A: Geocentricity would mean that the Earth would be at the center of the solar system.
Q: Do you recall what the reply that you received from Mr. Hansen about geocentricity was?
A: Yes. He answered some questions that I asked him about possible arguments that I thought would refute geocentricity.
Q: Were you satisfied by the refutations that he offered?
A: Not satisfied that geocentricity was in any sense the way it is, but satisfied that arguments, apparently conceivable arguments, could be given in favor of geocentricity.
Q: Do you recall what any of those arguments in favor of geocentricity are?
A: Offhand, no.
Q: Could you tell me what you meant by the phrase "the constraints put upon it by my previous schooling"?
A: Yes. It had been stated, I think, and is generally stated in scientific discussions or discussions of the history of science, that scientific data disproved the possibility of geocentricity.
Q: Is it your present view that scientific data does not disprove the possibility of geocentricity?
Q: Sir, are you aware of what some of the scientific evidence which purports to disprove geocentricity is?
A: I believe so.
Q: Could you describe it?
A: One in which I wrote to Hansen about was Foucault Pendulum. Another one I believe is the subject referred to as Coriolis Force.
Q: Dr., are you aware of the notion of stellar parallax as an argument against geocentricity?
A: I believe I have heard that, yes.
Q: Can you tell me what you do not regard any of the scientific evidence as currently disproving
the possibility of geocentricity?
A: Yes. One reason would be that I have a physics text written by people who I have no reason to consider quacks, which states that geocentricity cannot be demonstrated to be superior to the Copernican view.
They are just different ways of interpreting the observations.
Q: Sir, I wonder if you are saying that the physics text that you have in mind states that geocentricity cannot be demonstrated to be superior to the Copernican view?
A: Is that what you meant to say?
Q: Did you mean to say that the text said that the Copernican view cannot be demonstrated to be superior to the geocentricity view?
A: No. The text stated that the geocentric view cannot be demonstrated to be inferior, not superior.
Q: Do you recall the name of the text or any of the authors?
A: I believe the author's name was Brancazio.
Q: Do you recall the title?
A: No, but I could produce the title, I
Q: Do you recall the publisher or when it was published?
A: No. It was relatively recent; within the last eight years; not before the Copernican Revolution.
Q: Do you recall the substance of the basis for the statement that geocentricity cannot be shown to be inferior to the Copernican view?
A: No, I don't really recall the reasoning for it.
MR. WOLFE Off the record (Discussion held off the record.)
(Whereupon, at 4:30 p.m., the deposition was adjourned.)
_______________________________ Hilton Fay Hinderliter
Subscribed and sworn to before me
November 25, 1981 137
I N D E X
WITNESS EXAMINATION BY PAGE
HILTON HINDERLITER MR. WOLFE 4
E X H I B I T S
PLAINTIFF'S FOR ID.
] Vita 4