|
|
|
|
the_ignored
SFN Addict
2562 Posts |
 Posted - 06/22/2003 : 18:46:59
|
Would it be fair to say that I'd be overacting if I said that this made me uneasy?
Check out [url=http://tccsa.freeservers.com/adventure/adventure_books.html]Adventure Safaris Books[/url]
quote:
Design Vs. Chaos, A New Model of the Atom Based on Classical Science and a Biblical World View, 2000. (Cost $20.00 includes quiz booklet and ideas for building models )
Benefits of a New Model of the Atom
1. The spinning-ring model has the potential to explain gravity based upon electrical forces.
2. The new model defines light as a wave and explains its movement in outer space. It rejects the duality principle that light is both a wave and a particle (a logical contradiction and an assumption inconsistent with God's nature and design) .
3. The new model puts physics back on a firm scientific (and biblical) basis instead of a philosophical basis.
4. The new model reduces the number of assumptions that must be made for nuclear modeling.
5. The chaos theories of the cosmos and nuclear energy are shown to be false. The spinning-ring model shows that God is a God of order, and the model is founded upon cause-and-effect classical science.
6. Five forces have been associated with theoretical physics for hundreds of years. These are electrical force, magnetic force, gravitational force, the weak nuclear force, and the strong nuclear force. This book will show that the theory of weak and strong nuclear forces is rejected by the spinning-ring model of the atom. The Common Sense Science team believes their model will also eventually explain gravitational force based on electromagnetism. This simplifies all forces in the universe to two: electrical and magnetic.
quote:
Design v. Chaos Review
Energy. The Grant Unification Theory (GUT)
This new model has the potential for a Grant Unification Theory of the universe. The Common Sense Science team feels they will be able to understand what causes gravity based upon this model.
Two forms of energy:
1. Energy = waves (electromagnetic)
Gen. 1:3 "And God said, Let there be light: and there was light."
2. Energy with charge = matter [atoms] (electromagnetic waves with a charge of negative or positive to hold the atom together)
Gen. 1:4 "And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness."
The basis of all physical objects in the universe is electromagnetism (electricity and magnetism)
The Bohr Model of the Atom
The Bohr Model has 3 assumptions known to be wrong.
Relativity and Quantum Theory, based on the Bohr Model, cannot give a true picture of God's Creation.
Relativity and Quantum Theory, deny design and a creator God.
The New Model of the Atom (Lucas/Bergman)
The New Model (Lucas/Bergman) has a cause and effect basis.
It reduces all forces in the universe to two:
1. Electricity
2. Magnetism
Major discoveries that will help spread the Gospel can result from this new Model of the Atom
|
>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.
What brought that on? this. Original posting here.
Another example of this guy's lunacy here. |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
 Posted - 06/22/2003 : 19:01:15 [Permalink]
|
| Been out for three years now and this is the first I've heard of it. Must not be terribly compelling, media-wise. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
The Rat
SFN Regular
Canada
1370 Posts |
Posted - 06/22/2003 : 20:19:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Energy. The Grant Unification Theory (GUT)
Grant Unification Theory?!?!?! If that's a direct quote they don't even know their terminology. Who's this 'Grant' guy? Everyone knows it was named after Dr. Grand! |
Bailey's second law; There is no relationship between the three virtues of intelligence, education, and wisdom.
You fiend! Never have I encountered such corrupt and foul-minded perversity! Have you ever considered a career in the Church? - The Bishop of Bath and Wells, Blackadder II
Baculum's page: http://www.bebo.com/Profile.jsp?MemberId=3947338590 |
|
|
|
NottyImp
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
143 Posts |
Posted - 06/23/2003 : 01:36:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The Common Sense Science team
Ah yes, common sense, that same "sense" that has led scientists astray for well over two thousand years.
I'd love to see their maths on the "ring model" of the atom, and a thorough destruction by a competent physicist. It still amazes me how creationists quite literally just make things up when they don't like what mainstream science is doing. And these people claim to be "honest"? |
"My body is a temple - I desecrate it daily." |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 06/23/2003 : 06:14:39 [Permalink]
|
Actually, the entire premise can be fairly easily demolished. At least, it appears, from this,quote:
2. The new model defines light as a wave and explains its movement in outer space. It rejects the duality principle that light is both a wave and a particle (a logical contradiction and an assumption inconsistent with God's nature and design).
that the author(s) think that the wave/particle duality issue only applies to light, when in reality, it applies to every subatomic particle. Thinking of electrons as particles only (the "common sense" thing to do) is a big mistake if you want to make sure your physics are correct.
Obviously, if the book is correct, we'll all find out about it eventually, as it'll be the new physics. On the other hand, since the book aims to entirely replace quantum mechanics and relativity, both of which have tons of evidence showing that the assumptions are correct, it's unlikely anyone will take it seriously.
See also The Crackpot Index. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 06/23/2003 : 21:44:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
2. The new model defines light as a wave and explains its movement in outer space. It rejects the duality principle that light is both a wave and a particle (a logical contradiction and an assumption inconsistent with God's nature and design).
This is especially rich coming from the religion that promotes the Trinity.
|
I believe that, as a species, human beings define their reality through suffering and misery.
-Agent Smith |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 06/24/2003 : 03:38:18 [Permalink]
|
I liked this part:
quote:
6. Five forces have been associated with theoretical physics for hundreds of years. These are electrical force, magnetic force, gravitational force, the weak nuclear force, and the strong nuclear force. This book will show that the theory of weak and strong nuclear forces is rejected by the spinning-ring model of the atom. The Common Sense Science team believes their model will also eventually explain gravitational force based on electromagnetism. This simplifies all forces in the universe to two: electrical and magnetic.
Still haven't figgered out exactly what the 'spinning ring' model of the atom is supposed to signify. Also haven't seen any evidence in support of it and don't expect to.
So, basicly what we have here is more creationist blather over a sbuject that they know possibly even less about that I. And I know doodly-squat about quantum mechanics.
Common Sense Science Team indeed!
 |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 06/24/2003 : 09:09:59 [Permalink]
|
From here...quote:
What is Common Sense Science
and why is it needed?... Progress in understanding the physical world accelerated when men like Galileo...
The irony here is that Galileo did away with a "common sense" notion of Aristole's, that heavy things fall more quickly than lighter things. See the latest Skeptical Enquirer for more.quote:
A hundred years ago most scientists would have been of the opinion that the universe was primarily electromagnetic in nature. This was due to the astounding successes that had been made in the field of electrodynamics by Ampere, Faraday, Gauss, Maxwell and others in explaining a great deal of natural phenomena.
None of which means that the universe is, indeed, "primarily electromagnetic in nature." Appeals to history in a changing realm of knowledge are ludicrous.quote:
From the start there were problems and inconsistencies with the new theories: 1) Mathematics equations replaced physical models of matter.
Um, electromagnetic theory is mostly a bunch of equations. How does one make a working physical model of a magnetic field, anyway?quote:
2) Postulates that violated known laws of electrodynamics were adopted.
So what? At the level of the very small, things change.quote:
3) Cause and effect relationships were replaced with random chance events.
That's simply a lie. Some events are necessarily random, but cause-and-effect relationships still exist under both quantum theory and relativity.quote:
4) New force laws were required and invented to make the new theories of matter work.
Again, so what? After all, the law of gravity wasn't handed down from on high.quote:
A suitable and proper model of matter and elementary particles must meet these criteria:
> Models of elementary particles must be physical models with structure in order to explain the physical nature of matter. Mathematical equations that avoid physical structure are inferior to physical models that explain physical reality.
> Models of elementary particles, atoms, and all forms of matter must be consistent with experimental data and proven laws of physics based on data.
> A general theory that simplifies and explains a large body of fundamental phenomena without contradiction or contrivance is preferred to numerous theories, multiple assumptions, and various models.
> There must be some mechanism for fundamental processes that occur within and between physical objects. Models must always depend upon the laws of physics in accordance with the law of cause and effect.
Only the second and third requirements are truly needed. The other two have been invented by the CSS folks specifically for the purpose of dismissing quantum mechanics and relativity as nonsense. Of course, relativity and quantum mechanics meet the second and third requirements already.quote:
The McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science and Technology (1992) defines an elementary particle as "A particle that is not a compound of other particles." By this definition, there are about 500 particles that have been "discovered" in collider experiments...
Oh, well, it's always best to use definitions which are plainly wrong. Apparently, the CSS folks don't understand the models they're trying to get rid of. The whole thing smacks of "argument from incredulity," or "I don't understand it, therefore it must be wrong."quote:
Despite sensational claims of finding all six types of quarks predicted by modern theory, a quark has never been directly observed, and its existence is known only by inference and correspondence of its expected properties with the light, heat and path generated by a violent collision.
And it's almost the same thing with "one trillion dollars." I guess the CSS folks will take on the non-existence of the National Debt next.quote:
It is logically inconsistent, of course, for the electron to be an elementary particle that has no quarks when it is the decay product of a neutron that is supposed to be composed of three quarks.
There's no "of course" about this statement. It is not logically incosistent for two different particles to be made of two different things.quote:
Modern physicists do not have a single picture of "the way the world really is;" instead there are eight ideas of "quantum reality." These eight views of reality are quite different; yet all are considered by leading scientists to be valid, or a least successful in terms of explaining experiments.
None of these eight views is very scientific, but are, instead philosophical. Apparently, the CSS folks cannot tell the difference.quote:
Scientists will admit that quantum theories do not correspond to "common sense"---meaning, the law of cause and effect.
As pointed out earlier, gravity does not correspond to "common sense." Common sense isn't.quote:
The principal features of quantum theory contradict "cause and effect" relationships by assuming that random, spontaneous events can and do occur within a quantified limit (specified by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle).
That is so clearly not the Uncertainty Priniciple it's a wonder that the CSS folks can claim it is with a straight face.quote:
The majorit |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Darwin Storm
Skeptic Friend
87 Posts |
Posted - 06/24/2003 : 17:10:26 [Permalink]
|
| I am always amused when the scientifically illiterate decided to critque science, especially when they have little evidence to support their non-sensical models. One of my favorite is that "the uncertainty principle" does away with cause and effect. Obviously they have no clue what the principle states, which is that there is a limit on the precision you can measure the velocity and position of a particle, and that the more precisely you measure one, the more precision you lose in measuring the other . |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
