Posted on 03/13/2007 12:35:30 PM PDT by truthfinder9
Intelligent Design Scientists Will Showcase Evidence Challenging Evolution at Knoxville Conference
KNOXVILLE What is intelligent design and what scientific evidence supports it? Why is it so controversial? How does it differ from Darwins theory of evolution? Is there a purpose to the universe? What new scientific facts are turning evolutionary theories upside down? This one-day conference will answer these and other intriguing questions.
The emerging scientific theory of intelligent design is a hot topic at universities and research institutions around the world, and is now the focus of a day-long conference called Darwin vs. Design, coming to the Knoxville Convention Center on March 24th.
Join The New York Times bestselling author Lee Strobel and a panel of scientists and experts at the Darwin vs. Design Conference as they explain the evidence for Darwins theory of evolution and the emerging scientific theory of intelligent design Saturday, March 24th.
Featured speakers include:
-Lee Strobel, journalist and bestselling author of The Case for a Creator.
-Dr. Stephen Meyer, Director, Center for Science and Culture (CSC) at Discovery Institute, and co-editor of Darwinism, Design, and Public Education
-Dr. Michael Behe, Lehigh University biochemist and author of the bestselling book Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, and CSC senior fellow
-Dr. Jay Richards, co-author of The Privileged Planet, and CSC senior fellow
Attendees will interact with intelligent design scientists and philosophers whose discoveries in cosmology, biology, physics, and DNA present astonishing scientific evidence that is overturning the evolutionary thinking of the past. Conference goers will hear firsthand the astounding implications these discoveries are having on our society, our politics and our culture.
The conference is $55 for General Admission and $5 for Students and teachers (with valid school ID at time of admission). Advance purchase group rates are also available by contacting conferences@discovery.org. Purchase tickets online at www.ticketweb.com (use key word Darwin). For more information visit our website at www.darwinvsdesign.com.
Ooh, you're right. I'd forgotten that 1 turn around the Sun every 'year'!
Then there's that goofy fact that the Earth's orbital time is not 365 days, but 365 days, 5 hours, 48 minutes, 45 seconds (and some stuff...)!
Does THAT mess things up?
As the Gieco® caveman says....
It could be the key piece....
That had to be a big "Oh $h|t!" moment!!
I've written code I just COULD not debug before.
I finally threw away what I was working on and rewrote it, this time it worked right.
Eyeballing the old VS the new I could NOT see the difference - they looked the same!
I used a COMPARE function on both sources and the computer found what I could not, a comma where a Dp should be.
test, Test, TEST!!
A really cool observation of this effect is at the playground!
hAVE A COUPLE OF FOLKS FACE EACH OTHER ACROSS this THING (Wanna buy a caps lock key?), spin it and toss a ball back and forth!
My bologna has a first name.....
You should ask, "Why won't you agree with us now; even though you know we will change our position later?"
All software has bugs. All software can be simplified.
Therefore all software in the world can be reduced to one line that does not work!
A good IDE like Eclipse or Visual Studio should help with things like that, but I know what you mean. Just last week I had a function that was incorrectly calculating a score for a survey. I wasted 4 hours trying to figure out why. Finally one of my new hires, a fresh-out-of-college fella, wanders by and I ask him to look at it, fresh eyes.
He leans over and says, "Right there, you used the wrong variable!
Some days . . . :-)
Um, for a second time.
Look at Michelson-Gale, don't look at Michelson-Gale-Pearson. That's a different experiment.
Michelson-Gale does indicate an ether.
Michelson-Gale-Pearson was another attempt at a Michelson-Morley experiment and again returned a null result for the motion of the earth around the sun.
You aren't even talking about Panin anymore.
You're talking something else entirely.
At times it DOES seem this way! ;^)
There seems to be a mix-up of Michelson-Gale(-Pearson) and Michelson-Pease-Pearson. Do you have any links to them?
AFAIK, all of them tried to find an effect of lateral (MPP) or rotational (MG) movement relative to an ether (or aether, if you prefer so).
Michelson-Gale-Pearson was another attempt at a Michelson-Morley experiment and again returned a null result for the motion of the earth around the sun.
As I said, it's about a movement through the ether - the movement around the sun is something different.
But, to come closer to home:
Do you think that the moon revolves around the (center of the) earth? Or do you allow for earth and moon revolving around their center of gravity, i.e., the earth wobbles :-) ?
Don't make the mistake of confusing models with reality. My point was that you cannot physically distinguish between the models, not that that models aren't different.
And MM didn't *show* that the speed of light was constant. The null result was 'interpreted' to mean that the speed of light was the same in all reference frames. It could also be interpreted as showing that the earth is not moving. The null result was entirely unexpected.
The motion of the earth is assumed. Calculating something does not mean that it represents reality. You assume that you have a moving center of mass. The evidence to support it is distinctly missing.
Airey's failure is another failure to find evidence that the earth is moving and Einsteins's comment about the different CS for heliocentrism and geocentrism being equivalent is accurate as stated.
Ernst Mach also showed that planetary orbit arguments are invalid because the laws geometry would have to be broken for their to be an essential difference between geocentrism and heliocentrism.
The evidence for heliocentrism just isn't there. It is a belief, not a fact.
I find lots of information by just typing 'Michelson-Gale' into google.
No doubt about that! So, is the Michelson-Gale-experiment you refer to this one (from wikipedia):
The Michelson-Gale-Pearson experiment is a modified version of the Michelson-Morley experiment which tests the aether drag along the rotating frame of Earth. That is, if aether is dragged rotationally by the Earth, as was assumed by many, the Michelson-Gale-Pearson experiment would be able to detect this effect.
[snip]
Interestingly the experiment was expected to generate a positive result both for an entrained aether as well as due to relativistic effects. The main difference would be the magnitude of the effect. It was thus a surprise to everyone when the MGP experiment also returned what appeared to be a null result, or at least a rather inconclusive one. The results consisted of 269 measurements that showed an effect of -0.04 to +0.55 fringes, which could be seen as evidence of the rotational effects, but at the same time they were not statistically significant.
BTW - what's about the moon?
Statt nun einen bewegten Körper auf den Raum (auf ein Koordinatensystem) zu beziehen, wollen wir direkt sein Verhalten zu den Körpern des Weltraumes betrachten, durch welches jenes Koordinatensystem allein bestimmt werden kann. Voneinander sehr entfernte Körper, welche in bezug auf andere ferne festliegende Körper sich mit konstanter Richtung und Geschwindigkeit bewegen, ändern ihre gegenseitige Entfernung der Zeit proportional [ ] Die eben angestellten Betrachtungen zeigen, daß wir nicht nötig haben, das Trägheitsgesetz auf einen besonderen absoluten Raum zu beziehen. Vielmehr erkennen wir, daß sowohl jene Massen, welche nach der gewöhnlichen Ausdrucksweise Kräfte aufeinander ausüben, als auch jene, welche keine ausüben, zueinander in gleichartigen Beschleunigungsbeziehungen stehen, und zwar kann man alle Massen als untereinander in Beziehung bestehend betrachten [ ] auch ich erwarte, daß astronomische Beobachtungen zunächst nur sehr unscheinbare Korrektionen notwendig machen werden, so halte ich es doch für möglich, daß der Trägheitssatz in seiner einfachen Newtonschen Form für uns Menschen nur örtliche und zeitliche Bedeutung hat.
(Ernst Mach)
No that's not it.
So, which is it?
Michelson-Gale detected the relative rotation of earth and universe within 2%.
In order for your foucault pendulum to mean anything, you have to assume that the universe influences it in a heliocentric model but does not in a geocentric model. An inconsistency is necessary for your example to be valid. Not good.
A space station may generate a non null result for MM if the instruments are sensitive enough.
You remind me of a Muslim in that you pretend that science says one thing when you know it says something else.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.