Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

When Freepers Read Pop Science and Paul Johnson....

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Science Donate to DU
 
theorist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 01:43 PM
Original message
When Freepers Read Pop Science and Paul Johnson....
Edited on Sat Jan-29-05 01:44 PM by theorist
"A critique of Einstein" by Fred Hutchison

Discover Magazine had a special Einstein issue for September 2004. Fifty-eight pages of glossy magazine space was devoted to Einstein! Einstein seems to be growing as an American cult hero. He is not only a dominating figure in the sciences but he has a profound influence on the culture. His theory of relativity sends the message that all things are relative in the cosmos, with the strong implication that the realms of morality, truth and culture are relative. I dissent. I disagree that morality, truth and culture are purely relative. And I deny that the physical world is what Einstein says it is.

:snip:

Einstein said that movement is relative. If one is on a train pulling out of a train station, the train is moving relative to the station and station moving is relative to the train. However, when Einstein tried to prove that movement and time are relative, he ignored his dictum about the relativity of the movement of two objects. Einstein proposed that if one twin brother took off in a spaceship flying near the speed of light and if the ship returned fifty years later, the twin which stayed on earth would be old and the twin in the spaceship would still be young. But this is nonsense. The twin on the earth was moving away from the twin on the ship at nearly the speed of light. Why would not the twin on the ship get old and the twin on the earth stay young? Scientists call this the twin paradox.

:snip:

So what is my problem? Gravity on earth has nothing to do with vortexes, whirlpools, or warps in the space-time continuum. A dropped baseball falls straight down. If their were a deep enough hole in the ground, it would fall to the center of the earth. It would steadily accelerate (if there was a vacuum in the hole) until it reached the center. After it passed the center, it would lose velocity because it would be pulled back to the center. This is a simple straight line attraction between two objects. It has nothing to do with a warp in the space time continuum which works obliquely upon moving objects in space.

:snip:

It is high time for physics to outgrow Einstein. He has served his short term purpose but has become an historical dead end. I suspect that when a critical mass of physicists get up the nerve to defy Einstein, science will make a great leap forward.

Link: http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/hutchison/050128

---------------

This guy is clearly not a physicist (and definitely a freak).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Dookus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 01:49 PM
Response to Original message
1. lol
The problem occurs not only among freepers. People across the spectrum who know little about science tend to extrapolate far too much from "pop" science and then make crazy assertions.

The religious have for over a century find Darwin flawed because they don't like the "moral" implications of his theory. Of course, there's no stipulation that science be moral. It just has to be right.

I see a similar phenomenon here, though. A perfect example is the movie "What the Bleep Do We Know" wherein grandiose claims of higher consciousness are taken from quantum physics. Since I'm pretty sure quantum physicists haven't done much experimentation on souls while smashing their atoms, it's just another silly attempt to exploit science to advance an agenda.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theorist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #1
7. Great points.
"The religious have for over a century find Darwin flawed because they don't like the 'moral' implications of his theory. Of course, there's no stipulation that science be moral. It just has to be right."

This is exactly why most scientists laugh at critics of the morality of science. The whole practice is necessarily amoral. We do our best to make theories and models to describe observable and reproducible phenomena. As far as I know, the wavefunction for the human soul has not been determined yet. (I wonder what the boundary conditions would be on that one....) I'll get on it right away. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dookus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 03:04 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. sigh
my point would've been better had I not re-structured the sentence, forgetting to change "find" to "found".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JAbuchan08 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 01:55 PM
Response to Original message
2. Outgrow Einstein? Cult figure?
I seriously think that the Republican party needs to do some studying, starting with Socrates' famous axiom about knowing that one knows nothing.

On a side note I was watching a segment on Tucker Carlson's new show (I know. I know.) and his guest was quoting Winston Churchill's "Study History. Study History. Study History."
It was obvious that the history he had studied he was taking out of its context: conflating WWII with Iraq and implicitly suggesting that if people in America *really* knew the human costs of WWII they would not have supported the war effort. Oh well, so goes the new right wing "academia."

BTW myself and my einstein cult will be meeting next Wednesday.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vincardog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 01:55 PM
Response to Original message
3. The relative nature of Time/Space has been proved. Atomic clock
sent into space returned with a different 'time' than an identical one left on earth.
The fact that the writer does not like this is a shame.

The fact that the writer wants to generalize this to be a general case for moral relativism is a sham.

In short the bold faced conclusion is shit.

If you do not like science stay in the cave.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Old Mouse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-02-05 01:17 PM
Response to Reply #3
11. and the work with neutrinos proved it as well n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Swede Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 02:05 PM
Response to Original message
4. Well I guess he proves stupidity is not relative.
He bends physics to fit his ideology.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
McKenzie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 02:07 PM
Response to Original message
5. that there Uncertainty Principle ain't no damned good
if it can't be more certain and stuff so we need a new theory for being certain. No doubt Heisenberg will be the next to fall to this erudite iconoclast's axe.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostInAnomie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 02:17 PM
Response to Original message
6. To paraphrase Nietzsche
When all is revealed, the truth and what is moral will be two different things.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GAspnes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 12:12 AM
Response to Original message
9. this is ever the problem
trying to discuss science with words instead of mathematics.

He's right that the twin paradox is a paradox. That doesn't invalidate the truth of the fact that clocks moving near the speed of light seem to slow down when viewed from a point outside the reference frame.

I guess the fact that every one of Einstein's predictions, per his maths, have been observed is just too much to handle.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-31-05 09:29 PM
Response to Original message
10. How can you question this guy with his stellar credentials??
-snip-

"Fred Hutchison, a Christian layman, has had a variety of opportunities to teach, ranging from pulpit invitations to being a banquet speaker."

-snip-

So let me guess who peer reviewed the article for him.

Wait. No peer review required.

He prayed over it and Jesus corrected one typo but said it was otherwise fine.

:puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Dec 22nd 2014, 12:21 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Science Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC