Stationary Earth Claim

[SolusLupus]

Wow, this just cracked me up:

http://www.fixedearth.com/

I can't tell if it's a parody or not.

Anyone familiar with this?

[Echnaton]

Apparently it is the work of a right-wing antisemitic crank in Georgia.  See the section "2007 anti-evolution controversy" at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Bridges

[ka9q]

Didn't the Michaelson-Morley experiment prove that the earth doesn't move? :-)

[SolusLupus]

Huh, had to look that up.  Didn't know about that.  Interesting.

I think it's a common idea that Luminferous Aether was a preposterously stupid idea that someone much smarter than everyone else (Einstein) figured out and came in to totally change the scientific mindset.  Really, though, they ran experiments on it and that's when we started to accumulate evidence against it.

I'll have to remember that for later.

[ka9q]

someone much smarter than everyone else (Einstein) figured out and came in to totally change the scientific mindset.

A lot of pseudoscientists, Apollo deniers among them, make the claim that because scientists don't know everything for sure, they know nothing at all. They like to point to past scientific revolutions like the heliocentric model and relativity and compare themselves to great figures like Galileo, Newton and Einstein.

But there's a big difference between then and now. Physics knew it had problems in the late 19th and early 20th century. There were several unresolved paradoxes like the "ultraviolet catastrophe" (blackbody radiation was proportional to bandwidth, so emitted power ought to be infinite over infinite bandwidth) and the null result of the Michaelson-Morley experiment. Einstein and others (eg., Planck) proposed solutions to these already-known problems, in part based on prior work, and they made definite, testable predictions that were quickly found to be correct.

No such serious problems are still open today. We now have a pretty good handle on the basic laws of physics that govern the universe on an everyday, human scale. Physics research is now entirely at the extremes: the universe tiny fractions of a second after the Big Bang; in or near black holes; extremely energetic collisions in volumes within that of a subatomic particle; or over distances comparable to the size of the universe.

Scientific research at "human scale" has moved up from basic physical laws to higher levels of abstraction, such as biology. Living things certainly follow the same basic laws of physics as everything else - vitalism was disproved long ago - but they're very difficult to apply directly to every detail of an extremely complicated organism. There are some ongoing attempts to model basic biological processes by first principles but it remains extremely intensive computationally. I sometimes run protein folding models on my Sony PS3, and despite having a very capable IBM Cell number crunching processor, in one day of real time it can only simulate several hundred nanoseconds in the evolution of a single, simple protein molecule. But no one seriously doubts these basic principles of physics, so the chances of somebody coming in from left field and turning all of today's physics upside down seems pretty remote.


 

[Luke Pemberton]

Physics research is now entirely at the extremes: the universe tiny fractions of a second after the Big Bang; in or near black holes; extremely energetic collisions in volumes within that of a subatomic particle; or over distances comparable to the size of the universe.

Absolutely, and even more exciting if they DO NOT find the Higgs boson. That will mean in a whole new physics. I have discussed with many colleagues whether failure to find the Higgs will be a disaster. Quite a few people in the circles that I move believe that a negative result with the Higgs is probably more desirable in some ways, as that makes it more exciting. However, it does seem to be that they are honing in on the elusive particle. Of course, the nay sayers will jump on the band wagon and declare a negative Higgs results as a triumph for their pseudoscience, rather than take the ground that it ushers in a new paradigm. I could only imagine Ralph Rene's ramblings on the Higgs, and the utter absurdity that he would spew. Now there was someone who thought he could throw a curved ball and change physics. I do like his Rayleigh scattering and Coulomb's law ideas, bonkers but funny. However, Rene's bearings really do take some topping for absurdity and utter nonsense. How anyone could take his Apollo claims seriously given his track record is beyond me. 

This is of interest to the thread Michelson–Morley experiment is best yet.

[Mr Gorsky]

Wow, this just cracked me up:

http://www.fixedearth.com/

I can't tell if it's a parody or not.

Anyone familiar with this?

That site makes my brain bleed ... and I am one of those bible-believing Christians who they seem to think should agree with them 100% (and 110% on Sundays).

I really, really, REALLY wish it was a parody but, sadly, I don't think it is.

[ka9q]

On a closely related topic, I have always wanted to come up with a demonstration of the invariance of the speed of light that's practical to do in a high school physics class. It should show that the measured velocity of a photon is the same regardless of the velocity of the source. It should be as direct as possible (i.e., it should be obvious that this is what it's demonstrating) so the students can better appreciate the result. Any ideas?

[SolusLupus]

Smoke pot?

Sorry, had a long debate with someone last night, and I'm still thinking of his comment:

"So, the mental stability of these people of Darwin, who created this all out of the occult is never questioned. I see, smoke a bit of pot get high and see things, and come to say that this is how the world was formed! But if proved right, which already hasn't even been proved. Oh well. Wow! Amazing, that's why I said, you'd question of the words being twisted in that case, but you'd never think of the whole scope in the matter of things in this ? Yeah, a hypocrite in the truest of senses."

[Echnaton]

That is a first class example of why people need to say off the stuff when they are trying to make sense. 

[gillianren]

I am told from people who know more on the subject than I that while smoking pot to create art is fine, you need to do your final appraisal sober.  That way you make sure it still works for a sober person.

[twik]

Smoke pot?

Sorry, had a long debate with someone last night, and I'm still thinking of his comment:

"So, the mental stability of these people of Darwin, who created this all out of the occult is never questioned. I see, smoke a bit of pot get high and see things, and come to say that this is how the world was formed! But if proved right, which already hasn't even been proved. Oh well. Wow! Amazing, that's why I said, you'd question of the words being twisted in that case, but you'd never think of the whole scope in the matter of things in this ? Yeah, a hypocrite in the truest of senses."

Was this person on pot (or something stronger) when they said that? Because they are English words, and they make ... phrases, I guess. But the sentences don't seem to be fully formed.

[SolusLupus]

Was this person on pot (or something stronger) when they said that? Because they are English words, and they make ... phrases, I guess. But the sentences don't seem to be fully formed.

Your guess is as good as mine, but it's certainly possible.  Probable, even.

[frenat]

Another stationary Earth guy here
http://earth-central.weebly.com/
Basically thinks nightly star trails prove the Earth doesn't move because you can't see parallax in ONE NIGHT.
He had been on the david icke forum but has now siad he's left because we're all beyond hope.

[ApolloGnomon]

When even the DIFbats think your theory is crap, it's crap. I dipped a toe into that particular vat of crazy and ran screaming.