#25681: — 05/23  at  10:44 AM
Like Phil Johnson, Jay Richards, and Charlie Wagner, it's not nuts enough to simply doubt evolution. You have to do a big encore, really bring down the house.

#25685: — 05/23  at  10:55 AM
Sigh. Idiots are taking over the world. I simply cannot understand how people can fool themselves so badly.

#25686: Alon Levy — 05/23  at  10:56 AM
Round-Earthism is yet another sorry ideology meant to promote moral relativism. After all, if nobody is closer to the center of the world than others, there is no morality, and everyone can do as he pleases.

#25690: mattH — 05/23  at  11:18 AM
What a filter. I wish I could have an intellectual filter like that. Or not.

#25692: dr. dave — 05/23  at  11:30 AM
I discovered that website a few weeks ago. It makes me feel better to imagine the whole thing is just a extremist exercise in obstructionist logic, rather than a real "belief system".

#25695: — 05/23  at  12:05 PM
a little help...?

as others have discovered, I'm not always that good at distinguishing between even the most outlandish parody and mind-blowing twaddle that is actually intended to be for real. So can somebody help me out here? Which is this?

Regards
Duncan

#25698: — 05/23  at  12:20 PM
I just couldn't take my eyes off the term "bible science." That's my oxymoron of the week.

#25702: charlie wagner — 05/23  at  12:42 PM
There's absolutely no logical reason why the earth could not be considered to be "stationary".
There is a line in "Moby Dick" (pg 76 Modern Library Edition) where Melville (through Ishmael) states:
"...for there is no quality in this world that is not what it is merely by contrast. Nothing exists in itself."

In empty space, there can be no rotation, no movement, no velocity, no gravity. These 'qualities' can only exist WRT something else. Try to imagine the universe without any matter or energy. What would you have? Does it make any difference where you are? How can you be anywhere at all? Now imagine the universe with only one body in it. Perhaps the sun. Can this lone sun rotate? At what speed does it move? Where is it located? "Where you are" can only be described in relation to something else. A lone object in the universe cannot be any "distance" away because there's nothing to measure to (or from). And it cannot rotate, because how would we be able to know that? And can it travel faster than the speed of light? What is the speed of light wrt the universe?
Now, take all of the matter and energy in the universe and specify it's location. Not the location of each body WRT every other body. The whole thing together, WRT empty space. Can it be done? NO! Because there are no fixed points in spacetime. You can call anything you want "the center", it doesn't matter. In an earth-centered universe, the sun, planets and stars are not revolving around the earth. They are still moving relative to *each other*, just as they did before. The only thing we've changed is their position relative to spacetime. And that doesn't matter because an object in spacetime has no way of determing "where it is". The laws of Physics don't even enter into the picture because it has nothing at all to do with defining the bodies in the universe with respect to each other. That part is not changing. We're only defining one particular point as the "center" instead of a different point. It's just conceptual.

To account for non-inertial behavior, Isaac Newton proposed a universal reference frame that stood behind the observable universe that we could measure things against. In this context, the observable universe is a "laboratory" that is either stationary, or moving relative to absolute space, not relative to the Milky Way, or the Sun, or the Earth. Since there is no way of detecting or measuring our position relative to absolute space, there's no logical reason why we couldn't assign any known point to be the "center". This doesn't detract from the fact that all of the bodies within the "laboratory" are in an inertial frame of reference defined by all of the mass in the universe, and that all of Newton's laws apply to these bodies.
The concept of absolute space was not invented to allow a person to claim a particular relation with respect to it as a matter of personal taste.
It was proposed by Newton to explain non-inertial frames. In the famous experiment in which he rotated a bucket of water, he observed that the water would recede from the middle of the bucket and rise up on the sides, first being perfectly level, and then gradually rising as the bucket communicated its motion to the water.

#25703: — 05/23  at  12:43 PM
Wow, Here I am listening to geologist after geologist tell us about all the cool ACTIVITY going on in the Earth (and Mars, too).

Only to find out that it may all be a lie.

Sheesh. Is there no end to what these fools will try to delude themselves with?

#25706: — 05/23  at  12:48 PM
Charlie,
I agree with your statement about the existence (or lack thereof) of an absolute translative frame of reference. However, surely there *is* such a thing as an absolute non-rotating frame of reference, and any rotating frame of reference can be distinguished from it?

Regards
Duncan

#25708: Jim Anderson — 05/23  at  12:52 PM
Time Cube!

#25709: SFTR — 05/23  at  12:52 PM
I think that website just gave me a stroke.

Is it just me, or is there something fishy about the readers' testimonies? Read them carefully, paying special attention to the language.

Example:
"I have just terminated reading and absorbing your book The Earth Is Not Moving..
Theophile Oosterlinck, Flushing, NY

I received your book The Earth Is Not Moving and find it interesting and thought provoking. Please send me the books and pamphlets listed in the back of the book. I have enclosed $76 in payment for these...."
Tim Hemry, Novelty, Ohio

Thank you. I do appreciate your book, The Earth Is Not Moving, so much. Please send me your other books [Heaven...; Hell...; Satan...; Millennialism...; Preterit View...; Judgement...; ck. encl.] " Ben Zavorka, Cheyenne, WY

Basically, I could post all of the comments in here since they all have the same weirdness. Although the site itself has no scientific merit, the linguistics are fascinating if you are really bored.

#25710: Josh — 05/23  at  12:55 PM
Wow, great find. I can't wait until someone tries to legislate the value of pi again to be three, based on this biblical verse.

#25721: charlie wagner — 05/23  at  01:19 PM
Duncan Kitchin wrote:

"However, surely there *is* such a thing as an absolute non-rotating frame of reference, and any rotating frame of reference can be distinguished from it?"

Sure, but it would be a human construct, just like the lines of latitude and longitude on the earth. There are an infinite number of possible "north poles" and "south poles" just like there are an infinite number of "centers" for the solar system or the observable universe. WE choose the sun as the center of the solar system because it is aesthetically pleasing, but any point in the solar system would do just as well. The relative motions would be more complicated to describe, as Ptolemy discovered, but not beyond the ability of modern computers, except that the solar system is a dynamical and chaotic system and becomes unpredictable beyond two bodies.

http://charliewagner.blogspot.com/2005/05/cries-in-darkness.html

#25723: PZ Myers — 05/23  at  01:28 PM
If we choose to model the earth as stationary and non-rotating, just how fast is Betelgeuse (425 light years away) moving?

#25726: charlie wagner — 05/23  at  01:42 PM
Paul wrote:
"If we choose to model the earth as stationary and non-rotating, just how fast is Betelgeuse (425 light years away) moving?"

Short answer: very, very slow.

I had a chance to meet Lord Bertrand Russell once. I said "how are you, Sir?"
His reply to me was: "In relation to what?"

So I ask you the same question. In relation to what?

#25734: — 05/23  at  02:10 PM
Seems an interesting site. But most people who accepts Geocentrism does so for the wrong reasons; they think that the Earth must be the center of the universe because we live on it, and we are the center of the creation. But they're fools. What they don't realize is that we live in the surface of the Earth, far from the center, where hell is, which is the true center of creation, along with Satan and all the sinners. See you guys there.
Amen.

PS.: I'm not nuts, I don't believe this, that's an joke attempt, if it isn't obvious.

#25735: — 05/23  at  02:17 PM
Charlie, I agree with you as a matter of physical reality but not as a matter of geometry. The solar system, and the orbit of the earth, have well-defined shapes. These geometric objects most certainly do have a center. If we are interested only in events inside our solar system, it is perfectly sensible (and reasonable) to choose the Sun (which is effectively the center of our orbit, if not exactly) as a center. Similarly, our galaxy has a geometric center as does our universe. While these are not absolute frames, they are better than other frames for obvious reasons, especially ease of calculation (admittedly not a universal absolute).

So, after all that, I have one question: what is your point? What are you arguing for?

#25737: coturnix — 05/23  at  02:23 PM
Calculus introduces the concept of indeterminacy - not something you want YOUR kids to know about!

#25739: — 05/23  at  02:29 PM
Charlie Wagner wrote:

" Duncan Kitchin wrote:

"However, surely there *is* such a thing as an absolute non-rotating frame of reference, and any rotating frame of reference can be distinguished from it?"

Sure, but it would be a human construct, just like the lines of latitude and longitude on the earth. There are an infinite number of possible "north poles" and "south poles" just like there are an infinite number of "centers" for the solar system or the observable universe. WE choose the sun as the center of the solar system because it is aesthetically pleasing, but any point in the solar system would do just as well. The relative motions would be more complicated to describe, as Ptolemy discovered, but not beyond the ability of modern computers, except that the solar system is a dynamical and chaotic system and becomes unpredictable beyond two bodies."

sure, that's true for purely translational frames of reference. My point was that surely this is not so for rotating and non-rotating frames of reference? That is to say, there is such a thing as a non-rotating frame of reference in an absolute sense, and rotating frames of reference are distinguishable with respect to it?

Regards
Duncan

#25749: Jim Flannery — 05/23  at  03:22 PM
My favorite line on the site: "Watch the clouds and rain patterns on the TV maps. Does the earth go hundreds of MPH faster beneath them?"

It doesn't take too long to figure out that the author is not only an idiot, but a Nazi idiot; that not only does he think science is a conspiracy, but it's a jew conspiracy. Note that roughly the fourth link on the page is to revisionisthistory.com ...

That's kind of cool, isn't it? Next time you're talking to a creationist, proceed on the basis that *this* guy is in *their* mainstream. Hell, if it works for Ward Churchill ...

#25754: Josh Friess — 05/23  at  03:29 PM
Sorry if I'm stating the obvious here, but it seems like everyone is right here in spite of the apparent disagreement.

"The Earth moves around the sun."
"The sun moves around the Earth."

There's no way of physically distinguishing these two statements -- neither frame of reference is preferred.

What *can* be distinguished is whether or not the other planets move in ellipses around the Earth. And of course, they do not -- they move around the sun, which is why we identify the sun as the "center" of the solar system.

In other words, Copernicus didn't show that the Earth moved around the sun instead of vice versa -- he showed that the other planets moved around the sun instead of the Earth, in contradiction to both Ptolemy's model and the preferred thinking of the Church at the time.

#25759: — 05/23  at  03:40 PM
Josh,
I kind of agree, provided we're only talking about object in the solar system, and the rotating frame of reference argument I mentioned earlier (and yes, I know Einstein has quite a lot to say about the latter).

However, I would say that even from a purely translational frame of reference point of view, considering the Sun to be the center becomes far from arbitrary once we consider the one-year-periodic motions of nearby observable stars in our galaxy. For the Earth to be considered stationary, and the Sun rotating about us, in order to account for the observed parallax we'd also have to consider all those other stars to be moving in circles in space with a radius of 93,000,000 miles, a period of one year, in the same plane of movement as the Sun, and all exactly in phase.

Sure, it's just as valid from a purely observational viewpoint - but in terms of generating any useful answers, I prefer to invoke Mr. Ockham and say the Earth rotates around the Sun

Best Regards
Duncan

#25762: Ian Musgrave — 05/23  at  03:47 PM

WE choose the sun as the center of the solar system because it is aesthetically pleasing, but any point in the solar system would do just as well.

What a rancid pile of dingos kidneys. We chose the Sun (or rather the common gravitational centre, which is some kilometers away from the centre of the Sun), because it agrees with observational evidence, and because it forms part of a well-tested theory of gravity and motion.

You cannot put Earth at the centre of the solar system with mathematical jiggery pokery because this is violated by
1) Observations of <ahref=http://www.ast.cam.ac.uk/~mjp/parallax.html>stellar parallax</a> (this means the earth orbits the sun)
2) <ahref=http://www.sciencenetlinks.org/lessons.cfm?BenchmarkID=4&DocID=180>Focualt's pendulum</a> (this means the earth rotates, and a rotating Earth with an orbiting sun is observationally incompatible with our solar system)

There is also the observation the all <ahref=http://www.obspm.fr/encycl/encycl.html>150+ extrasolar planets</a> orbit their Suns rather than the other way around. Transiting extrasolar planets are particulary nice.

You also have no natural explanation for retrograde planetary motion, the changes in planetary brightness and diameter during retrograde motion, the phases of Venus and Mercury, the differences in speed of the planets during their orbits and precession of the equinoxes. You can create ad hoc explanations, but they violate what we know about gravity and motion.

As Kepler knew, when he abandoned his beautiful geometric system for eliptical orbits, observation trumps aesthetics every time.

#25769: Ian Musgrave — 05/23  at  04:19 PM

I wrote: You cannot put Earth at the centre of the solar system with mathematical jiggery pokery because this is violated by

I forgot to metion the observed rotation of the Sun about the common centre of gravity as well.