Urban planning community

+ Reply to thread
Results 1 to 23 of 23

Thread: First Biology, Now Astronomy

  1. #1

    Registered
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Solano County, California
    Posts
    6,468

    First Biology, Now Astronomy

    From http://www.fixedearth.com/


    The Earth is not rotating...nor is it going around the sun.


    The universe is not one ten trillionth the size we are told.


    Todayís cosmology fulfills an anti-Bible religious plan disguised as "science".


    The whole scheme from Copernicanism to Big Bangism is a factless lie.


    Those lies have planted the Truth-killing virus of evolutionism

    in every aspect of manís "knowledge" about the Universe, the

    Earth, and Himself.


    Wow. I am actually a deist evolutionist (who still doesn't want "Intelligent Design" taught in school, but THIS takes the cake.

  2. #2
    Cyburbian abrowne's avatar
    Registered
    Jan 2005
    Location
    BC
    Posts
    1,584
    Reading that, deja-vu hit me. Why? Becuase I used some of those exact lines in a class last term... PHIL 145 - Critical Thinking. We had to assemble a few portfolios of logical fallacies and other errors in reasoning and then pick them apart.

  3. #3
    Cyburbian jordanb's avatar
    Registered
    May 2003
    Location
    City of Low Low Wages!
    Posts
    3,236
    I remember in my highschool physics class (in Catholic school ) we had to use geometry to map the sun's orbit around the earth.

    Remember, everything is relative. From a certain point of view, this guy is right. It's just that most of the equations get a lot more complicated from that point of view...

  4. #4
    Cyburbian jenniplans's avatar
    Registered
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Here, there, everywhere
    Posts
    274
    I took an intersession class in college called "Myths Concerning the Earth's History". It was taught by one of my geology professors and basically he went through every myth that he could find regarding the origins of the earth and man and debunked of all them with the laws of geology, chemistry, physics, and biology. When asked about the Flat Earth society, he said "Those people are just f&*!(n wierd!". I agree. Great class, great class.

  5. #5
    Cyburbian boiker's avatar
    Registered
    Dec 2001
    Location
    West Valley, AZ
    Posts
    3,895
    I didn't read much of the site.. The one thought I have is if the Earth is stationary then how are we able to accuratley launch satellites to other planets in the solar system using a flawed math and system?
    Dude, I'm cheesing so hard right now.

  6. #6
    Cyburbian Michele Zone's avatar
    Registered
    Jul 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    7,061
    Quote Originally posted by boiker
    I didn't read much of the site.. The one thought I have is if the Earth is stationary then how are we able to accuratley launch satellites to other planets in the solar system using a flawed math and system?
    God, you are sooooo, like, DUMM, ya kno? That isn't even true. It is fictional, like, ya kno?? The government makes that stuff up and then they have artists and actors and stuff make, like, you know, movies and stuff.


    Do I have to explain EVERYTHING???

  7. #7
    Cyburbian Duke Of Dystopia's avatar
    Registered
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Cyburbias Brewpub, best seat in the haus!
    Posts
    2,677
    The NUT BAGS on this site have OBVIOUSLY managed to get it WRONG!

    The entire universe was created when "Odin-Villi-We" smashed in the brains of Yimir the frost giant and then threw the oozing mass into the sky creating the universe as we know it.

    What is little known though, is that not only does the sun rotate around the earth, but that the earth rotates around an unseen axis running in a straight line that runs allong the central access of the scandanavian paninsula! The resulting woble makes our seasons!

    UUUUMMM, on second thought, I am going to stick with the VAST majority of physisists!
    I can't deliver UTOPIA, but I can create a HELL for you to LIVE in :)DoD:(

  8. #8
    Member
    Registered
    Feb 2005
    Location
    ireland
    Posts
    17
    A friend of mine is a devout born again christian - i'm not sure what cul.... sorry, sect he belongs to, but they're strong advocates of creationism.

    He linked me to a website one day which explained their reasoning. It took his firm conviction and gradually-getting-annoyed attitude to convince me that the website itself was not a parody. The site explained, among other things that dinosaurs were on the arc, and they could fit on because they were juvenile or, 'adolescent' if you will. The best (or worst depending on your ability to suffer fools) part was an advertisement they had in the left hand column for a book entitled - i **** you not - 'Dinosaurs on the arc: a feasability study.'

    If I have time, i'll try and dig up that link.


    edit:

    here we go, not the website he told me about, but this is the website of his church. Quite funny, especially their numerous out of context 'quotes' .

    http://www.whitewellyouth.com
    Last edited by martyR; 10 Jun 2005 at 9:06 AM.

  9. #9
    Cyburbian The One's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Where Valley Fever Lives
    Posts
    7,475

    Great.....

    Now all we need is a "do you believe in GOD poll" complete with right wing nut religious freak, agnostic, atheist, left wing godless pagan and who the hell knows, who the hell cares options.....
    Skilled Adoxographer
    I have two emotions....Silence and Rage

  10. #10
    Cyburbian jordanb's avatar
    Registered
    May 2003
    Location
    City of Low Low Wages!
    Posts
    3,236
    Quote Originally posted by jordanb
    Remember, everything is relative. From a certain point of view, this guy is right. It's just that most of the equations get a lot more complicated from that point of view...
    Maybe I should have made myself more clear. All movement only exists relative to an outside observer. Suppose I'm standing still in space and VacaBKM is moving rapidly towards me. To VacaBKM, it is he, in fact, who is standing still and it is I who am rapidly moving towards him. Who is right? Both of us, because movement is relative.

    Now as it turns out, if you have one body orbiting another, in fact, the same thing is true, from the perspective of a person here on Earth, the Sun is orbiting the Earth. And the same equations can be used no matter which is in the "middle" as it were, to describe the movement.

    However, if you take the Earth, and you look at the position of Mars, well, things get complicated. From the perspective of the Earth, Mars is doing all sorts of funky things -- making little loop-de-loops, backtracking, getting further away then closer, moving quickly then slowly. But in fact, it is still possible to model the movement of Mars from an Earth-centered perspective. And Plato did just that. It was very complicated though.

    What Galileo and Copernicus did was realize that if they made the Sun the center of the solar system, rather than the Earth, they could use elliptical math to model the movement of the planets -- which is the same math they'd been using to model the movement of the Sun, Moon, and stars. And in fact is far simpler than Plato's methods.

    So that was the big breakthrough, just simplified math.

    But this guy is still technically right, because all movement is relative, it's perfectly legitimate to say that the Sun is orbiting the Earth.

  11. #11
    Cyburbian
    Registered
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Santiago, Chile
    Posts
    4,767
    So if the earth doesn't rotate... how does day and night come and go? the sun rotates around the earth? somehow.... that's just so ridiculous... I bet they believe that when you see the sunset by the ocean, the sun hisses as it is dunked into the ocean

  12. #12
    Cyburbian Duke Of Dystopia's avatar
    Registered
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Cyburbias Brewpub, best seat in the haus!
    Posts
    2,677
    Quote Originally posted by The One
    Now all we need is a "do you believe in GOD poll" complete with right wing nut religious freak, agnostic, atheist, left wing godless pagan and who the hell knows, who the hell cares options.....
    I hate to brake this to you, but a "pagan" is anything BUT Godless! The exact oposite is true!

    And to bust your buble again, Pagans are not all left wing leaning political types!

    Heathens/Asatru tend to be quite conservative, thats why those hippie Wicans and the Feminist Dianic's don't always mix very well.

    Wait till you find out that Mary is really the prechristian Earth Godess fullfilling her ancient functions with the blessings of the church!

    Way to much fun!

    And just to stay on topic, Discover magazine just run an article talking about the science of near death experiences. Most of the physical mechanics have been worked out. The thing that is interesting is the areas of the brain effected by such experiences shut down similar in nature to those areas of the brain connected to religious belief and thought. In other words, when you meditate or pray in a dedicated religious manner, parts of your brain sort of shut down. I posit this question, Could it be plausible that people who fervently dislike and argue against evolution and physics, are incapable of certain brain functions allowing them to assimilate the concepts due to less active gognitive function?
    I can't deliver UTOPIA, but I can create a HELL for you to LIVE in :)DoD:(

  13. #13
    Cyburbian abrowne's avatar
    Registered
    Jan 2005
    Location
    BC
    Posts
    1,584
    Quote Originally posted by jordanb
    But this guy is still technically right, because all movement is relative, it's perfectly legitimate to say that the Sun is orbiting the Earth.
    Ehhh... no. Not really. No. Given any two bodies with mass, they will each exert a gravitational effect on the other. But motion does not equal orbit. Simplistically, whichever of the two masses "loses" and has the least effect is the one that orbits the other.

    So while it is well and good to say motion is relative, it is not correct to paint the notion of orbits with the same brush.

  14. #14

    Registered
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Solano County, California
    Posts
    6,468
    Quote Originally posted by Duke Of Dystopia
    I hate to brake this to you, but a "pagan" is anything BUT Godless! The exact oposite is true!

    And to bust your buble again, Pagans are not all left wing leaning political types!

    Heathens/Asatru tend to be quite conservative, thats why those hippie Wicans and the Feminist Dianic's don't always mix very well.

    Wait till you find out that Mary is really the prechristian Earth Godess fullfilling her ancient functions with the blessings of the church!

    Way to much fun!

    And just to stay on topic, Discover magazine just run an article talking about the science of near death experiences. Most of the physical mechanics have been worked out. The thing that is interesting is the areas of the brain effected by such experiences shut down similar in nature to those areas of the brain connected to religious belief and thought. In other words, when you meditate or pray in a dedicated religious manner, parts of your brain sort of shut down. I posit this question, Could it be plausible that people who fervently dislike and argue against evolution and physics, are incapable of certain brain functions allowing them to assimilate the concepts due to less active gognitive function?
    Have you ever heard/read the divided conscioussness theory-which posited that pre-modern man was not "conscious" in the same way we are today. I am badly paraphrasing thigs, but the theory is that the hemispheres were not linked in the same way as they are today, that "the voices of the Gods" were really communications/electrical activity from the other part of the brain, which pre-modern man did not integrate in the same way as we do today.

    I need to find the book and read it. Wish I could remember the title or the author's name!

  15. #15
    Cyburbian abrowne's avatar
    Registered
    Jan 2005
    Location
    BC
    Posts
    1,584
    That sounds fascinating - please find the book.

  16. #16
    Cyburbian Michele Zone's avatar
    Registered
    Jul 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    7,061
    Quote Originally posted by BKM
    Have you ever heard/read the divided conscioussness theory-which posited that pre-modern man was not "conscious" in the same way we are today. I am badly paraphrasing thigs, but the theory is that the hemispheres were not linked in the same way as they are today, that "the voices of the Gods" were really communications/electrical activity from the other part of the brain, which pre-modern man did not integrate in the same way as we do today.

    I need to find the book and read it. Wish I could remember the title or the author's name!
    I have said something similar ...on an e-mail list...where folks promptly stopped speaking to me because I was clearly a Fruit Cake. No, I don't think I want to repeat my comments here publically, sigh.

  17. #17
    Cyburbian jordanb's avatar
    Registered
    May 2003
    Location
    City of Low Low Wages!
    Posts
    3,236
    abrowne: You're clearly missing something (actually your post doesn't make much sense) but I'd have to use math to demonstrate it to you and I don't have internet access from home right now, and I don't have the software nor the time here to generate the formulas.

    BKM The ancient Greeks (including esp. Homer) believed that creativity was impossible for humans and all creative inspiration came from the gods (ex. the Muses). Homer thereby didn't create the story of the Iliad but was rather just parroting a muse, which put it in his head.

    The idea that the brain would be so different is laughable though. We all have an internal voice, and it's simply a matter of how we interpret it. Who is it, after all? We may believe that it is being created inside our own head. But what if it may sometimes be somebody else? Likewise, we all have dreams. Maybe they're just bits and pieces of stuff that's floating around in our head, maybe they're something special.

  18. #18
    Cyburbian Michele Zone's avatar
    Registered
    Jul 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    7,061
    Quote Originally posted by jordanb
    The idea that the brain would be so different is laughable though. We all have an internal voice, and it's simply a matter of how we interpret it. Who is it, after all? We may believe that it is being created inside our own head. But what if it may sometimes be somebody else? Likewise, we all have dreams. Maybe they're just bits and pieces of stuff that's floating around in our head, maybe they're something special.
    Sigh. For clarification: my thoughts on the subject have to do with the right and left halves of the brain working differently and if you normally think one way and SOMETIMES think another way, that might be subjectively experienced as "coming from someplace else" -- especially if raised to believe such a paradigm.

    But from what LITTLE I understand about Einstein's Theories, I have to agree with you on the relativity thing.

  19. #19
    Cyburbian Achernar's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Cambridge MA USA
    Posts
    80
    Quote Originally posted by jordanb
    I remember in my highschool physics class (in Catholic school ) we had to use geometry to map the sun's orbit around the earth.

    Remember, everything is relative. From a certain point of view, this guy is right. It's just that most of the equations get a lot more complicated from that point of view...
    Right, you have the so-called Tychonian system, in which the sun orbits the Earth and the other planets (along with other stars and the rest of the universe) orbit the sun. Back when they thought orbits were circles, it was pretty simple, but with elliptical orbits, forget about it - as you say the math is a lot more complicated. You also have the Lagrangian system, wherein both the Earth and the sun are stationary. This is used for solving the restricted 3-body problem. The Keplerian system is the most common, in which the sun is stationary and the planets orbit it. But really, the best one is the Newtonian system, wherein the center of mass of the solar system is stationary, and the planets and the sun orbit that. (This is very close to the Keplerian system because the sun is so massive.)

    The math is correct for each of these, so you can't say that one is right and the others are wrong. But Occam's Razor tells us that the Newtonian system is best, because it's the simplest.

  20. #20
    Cyburbian Michele Zone's avatar
    Registered
    Jul 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    7,061
    Quote Originally posted by Achernar
    But Occam's Razor tells us that the Newtonian system is best, because it's the simplest.
    Excuse the "physics dummy" for butting in (honestly ), but didn't Einstein's theories make Newton's theories "obsolete" -- Einstein's theories produce more accurate predictions of where the planets will be at X time, and we keep Newton's crude theories around because they are simpler (so more folks can UNDERSTAND the darn things) and you just don't need the accuracy of Einstein's theories unless you are actually trying to travel to Mars?

  21. #21
    Cyburbian AubieTurtle's avatar
    Registered
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Downtown Atlanta
    Posts
    894
    Quote Originally posted by martyR
    here we go, not the website he told me about, but this is the website of his church. Quite funny, especially their numerous out of context 'quotes' .

    http://www.whitewellyouth.com
    Here's the website with a link to the book and a FAQ about dinosaurs and the ark. It's quite (unintentionally) funny:

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs...nos_on_ark.asp
    As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron. - H.L. Mencken

  22. #22
    Cyburbian Achernar's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Cambridge MA USA
    Posts
    80
    Quote Originally posted by Michele Zone
    Excuse the "physics dummy" for butting in (honestly ), but didn't Einstein's theories make Newton's theories "obsolete" -- Einstein's theories produce more accurate predictions of where the planets will be at X time, and we keep Newton's crude theories around because they are simpler (so more folks can UNDERSTAND the darn things) and you just don't need the accuracy of Einstein's theories unless you are actually trying to travel to Mars?
    I think you understand what's going on, but it's tricky to say what it means for one physical theory to make another one "obsolete" - I don't really think that's the best term, because it carries the connotation of "make useless", which Newtonian gravity certainly is not. Newtonian gravity is what you get from General Relativity in the "weak field" limit - no super-strongy gravity fields (like black holes), and no speeds anywhere near the speed of light (ie, you can set v/c equal to 0). There are many reasons to use the weak field limit when you can, and not just because it's simpler. Sometimes it produces insights that you just can't get with all these factors of v/c everywhere.

    I've actually heard of Relativity used to justify creationist accounts. Time slows down in a strong gravitational potential, like near a black hole. The explanation was that the Earth sits in a very strong potential, so that the Earth has only aged 6000 years while the rest of the universe 14 billion years. Talk about contrived.

  23. #23
    Cyburbian Michele Zone's avatar
    Registered
    Jul 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    7,061
    Quote Originally posted by Achernar
    I think you understand what's going on, but it's tricky to say what it means for one physical theory to make another one "obsolete" - I don't really think that's the best term, because it carries the connotation of "make useless", which Newtonian gravity certainly is not. Newtonian gravity is what you get from General Relativity in the "weak field" limit - no super-strongy gravity fields (like black holes), and no speeds anywhere near the speed of light (ie, you can set v/c equal to 0). There are many reasons to use the weak field limit when you can, and not just because it's simpler. Sometimes it produces insights that you just can't get with all these factors of v/c everywhere.

    I've actually heard of Relativity used to justify creationist accounts. Time slows down in a strong gravitational potential, like near a black hole. The explanation was that the Earth sits in a very strong potential, so that the Earth has only aged 6000 years while the rest of the universe 14 billion years. Talk about contrived.
    What little I know about physics I learned reading books with my kids like "The Cartoon Guide to Physics". My kids think I am Stupid (especially the oldest) and I quit trying to "teach" them any science some time ago because I was just slowing them down. I usually use the Einstein-Newton comparison to describe the difference between my approach to education and the public schools: the schools attempt to categorize kids as EITHER "gifted" OR "learning disabled". A kid can be both and many schools just go cross-eyed because they find it damnably inconvenient that they can't chop the kid in two to simplify their task. Sigh. My sister -- who has listened to me for YEARS and has a younger child than mine -- was enormously frustrated with the school her daughter was in and it seemed like an obvious enough situation to her: her daughter is gifted but has some learning disabilities as well. I finally told her: "You are talking Einstein's Theories of Relativity and they haven't heard of them yet -- they are still using Newtonian Gravity". It was an AHA! moment for her in her battle to get her daughter an appropriate education and her frothing-at-the-mouth frustration with "Why are these people just giving me Blank Stares???!!!!".

    I know: that is completely OT. The analogy seems to work well in the circles I hang out in. Most folks know I am a "science dummy" -- just ask my kids. But I do appreciate you taking the time to reply. Maybe my son will kindly explain your answer to me.

+ Reply to thread

More at Cyburbia

  1. The Astronomy Thread
    Friday Afternoon Club
    Replies: 31
    Last post: 20 Jul 2009, 6:26 PM
  2. Planning for community astronomy
    Friday Afternoon Club
    Replies: 7
    Last post: 15 Dec 2007, 8:17 PM
  3. Astronomy quiz
    Friday Afternoon Club
    Replies: 2
    Last post: 27 Apr 2005, 2:14 PM
  4. Astronomy: 2 New Moons for Saturn
    Friday Afternoon Club
    Replies: 7
    Last post: 18 Aug 2004, 2:39 PM
  5. For the Astronomy Geeks
    Friday Afternoon Club
    Replies: 12
    Last post: 08 Jun 2004, 2:10 PM