Failures of Science

[astronelson 339]

I came across this site a while back, and just remembered it now. I do hope it's not serious, although I think that hope may be, sadly, unfounded.

http://www.aptheory.info/

Parts I find particularly interesting:

The Earth is 12,000 times smaller than the sun, travels 57 million miles per yr., NOT 586 million as commonly believed, does not circumnavigate the Sun and has four separate paths of motionquote>

I can't believe no-one noticed this, even when we sent those probes out into space. Oh well, NASA must have been lying!

Einstein’s theory of general relativity and the theory of quantum gravity held solar system have been disproved by Edwin Hubble using Mt. Wilson’s 250cm telescope with a Doppler shift.quote>

Interesting. So you can get Doppler shifts for telescopes now. I always thought they were caused by things moving towards or away from you.

I also thought General Relativity was shown to be accurate to an extraordinarily high degree, using, among other things, a telescope named after Edwin Hubble. Guess all those scientists must have been lying.

THE AP THEORY STATES THAT THE SOLAR WINDS ARE THE VELOCITY SOURCE THAT PROPELS OUR SOLAR SYSTEM ABOVE THE SUN'S SURFACE, NOT* QUANTUM GRAVITY AND, THE SOLAR SYSTEM IS NOT CIRCUMNAVIGATING THE SUN.

*disproved theory falsely stating gravity had propelling and/or repelling capabilities e.g., simultaneously causing 4 daily tides on earth, solar system circumnavigation of the sun, 24 hour rotation of earth while keeping earth equidistant from other planets, etc.

quote>

So we're not orbiting the object that has 99.99% of the solar system's mass then?

And I thought the Earth and Moon spinning around their barycentre coupled with the earth's daily rotation (which, oddly, also seems to have been explained by quantum gravity - I thought it was conservation of angular momentum) caused the tides. I also thought momentum kept us travelling forward and gravity curved the motion around into an orbit. Silly me, it was those solar winds!

Also, we're equidustant from other planets now?

The impurities from the molten sub-atomic particles...quote>

Not only can sub-atomic particles be made into a liquid, they can have impurities too, it seems!

Were I to document every failure of science on the website, I would have to copy and paste the entire thing here. But enough from me. What Failures of Science can you find?

[Wrightguy0 40]

yeah, i got a few sentences into that and i couldn't read any more, it's bullcrap, a joke, whoever made this is a dumb as they come, nuff said

boggy is so going to tear this article apart

[fukuda 351]

form large ice mountains of frozen hydrogenquote>

Oh wow

and the breached liquid and matter reduced to their sub-atomic state of quarks, neutrinos and leptons.quote>

Oh god what

Global Warming explained!

..Too bad the earth's eras ain't regular at all

[Easy Bakes 253]

Not a Failure of science  but a failure of execution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconducting_Super_Collider

Has to be the one of bigest waste's of money for science ever

condidering they never even finished it.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

That site reminded me of a colleague of mine at one company who insisted that Schrodinger was full of s**t and everything could be explained by molecular/crystalline vibrations. I didn't get his vibes, and neither did the scientific community. You can't possibly believe how serious he was about this. He even submitted papers to learned journals, which were uniformly returned with notes like "Haven't you ever reviewed the Quantum Theory?" etc. He was harmless, but quite dotty.

"They are all insane, excepting thee and me; and sometimes I wonder about thee." Anon.

[Duke87 1,070]

I love this part:

(2) From West to East in a 360 degree rotation at 600 mph. One rotation takes 23 hours 56 minutes & 4.09 seconds. Propelled by the solar winds, (not gravity), the spinning globe is the source of gravity on earth.quote>

Just one problem, guys. The imaginary force produced by continuous circular motion is outward. If that was the source of gravity, we'd all be falling up.

[Korot 6]

Originally posted by Duke87The imaginary force produced by continuous circular motion is outward. If that was the source of gravity, we'd all be falling up.quote>

Wrong. The imaginary force is pointed inwards, towards the center. Take a car going through a corner. It looks like you push against the car door, but in reality, the car door pushes you, to stop you from continuing right ahead, while the car turns. Because the imaginary force points towards the center, the only effect it has is on direction, but not on speed. The turning of the car wheels, would send the car in to the turn, but, since the only force applied to you is friction from the seat, continue straight ahead. Because the car turns, you do not collide with the seat in front of you, or the wind shield, but with the car door. A diagram would explain better, but I'm not good at making them.

Regards,

Korot

[pagenotfound 53]

My response to this excuse for scientific endeavor:

Wut.

[Vahr 341]

Lets clear this up:

Centripetal force is what keeps you inside the car. That force is exerted by the door.

Centrifugal "force" (rather, tendency) attempts to push you out of the car.

On Earth, gravity attracts us to the Earth, acting as the centripetal force.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: Korot

{stuff}

quote>

I'm not wrong, you're just misreading my statement.

To use your example: the car (door et. al.) exerts a force on you towards the center of the circle, keeping you in the car. But your own inertia makes you want to move towards the door. This "imaginary force"  appears to be pushing you outward from the center of the circle. It's also what this "AP theory" is claiming is the cause of gravity - which obviously then doesn't work because it's pointed the wrong way.

Think about it in terms of a this example: take a globe and slap a bunch of mud on it. Spin the globe around real fast. Does the mud cling closer to the globe's surface, or does it start flying off? Okay, now, if the Earth spinning around was the source of gravity, would we not then be "flying off"?

The question this of course begs is "well then why don't we fly off?". It was a key criticism of Heliocentrism. The answer is thus: start by considering the differences in size and rotational speed. The acceleration of the Earth's surface is a few orders of magnitude less than that of the surface of the fast spinning Globe (the math/physics necessary to demonstrate this were not known in Galileo's time). Spin the globe around more slowly and note that the mud doesn't fly off. This is because the intermolecular forces making the mud "stick" to the surface aren't overcome. In the same way, actual gravity (due to the Earth's mass) is more than capable of overcomming this imaginary "force", as it's over 300 times stronger.

[Easy Bakes 253]

I think we all  may have seen this theory before.

Neal Adams Expanding Earth theory.