Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!


  1. Aug 26, 2004 #1


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    I've been reading this website for the past half hour. :rofl:

    A lot of this guy's evidence just... well it doesn't make much sense. Take his statement that since the earth isn't going around the sun, parralax will give faulty results. Well, gee, I guess somebody measured something from the same spot on the planet twice (across a half a year) and found their distance to be infinity? But I never heard about it.
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 26, 2004 #2


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Wow. I never thought I'd see the words "lost cause" burned into my mind like that - and I've been in TD!
  4. Aug 27, 2004 #3


    User Avatar

    His use of an exclamation mark after every other sentence also has a way of detracting from his already non-existant credibility.

    The Earth isn't moving!
    The Big Bang never happened!
    The Bible was right all along!

  5. Aug 27, 2004 #4


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    My personal preference is the CONSTANT allusion to holy books as "proof".

    I've seen a site made by someone who believes he is jesus. The problem is, he curses every third word and is clearly ... well I won't curse here.

    *edit* Man who thinks he's jesus. You have to go through three title pages to get to the 'very well' layed out site.
    Last edited: Aug 27, 2004
  6. Aug 27, 2004 #5
    Yes, I'm familiar with this one. Been looking at it for a couple of weeks. I'm 99% sure some of our friends spamming TD forum recently got their information from here.

    He does link to another interesting argument though. Another site he links to claims you can prove stars cannot be far away by showing that since the energy density will fall off from the star as per the distance squared, by the time it reached us from many light years away there would be too few photons entering the retina to be detected by the human eye. I'm sure its bunk, but since I know nothing about the human eye, I can't make an argument... yet.

    I'll see if i can dig through his mess to find that link.
  7. Aug 27, 2004 #6
  8. Aug 27, 2004 #7
    That's beautiful. I love it. Thanks for the link. :D
  9. Aug 27, 2004 #8
    I just did some very rough calculations.

    He states (i'll play on his field when it comes to the human eye) that you need minimum 5 photons to touch an area of the eye whose diameter is 1.5 micrometers. This constitutes an area of [tex]1.76x10^-^1^2m^2[/tex]. Given an approximate energy of light withing visible range to be about [tex]5.5x10^-^1^9 J/photon[/tex], converting joules to ergs (cause thats what my solar power emmision is in) and dividing I get an energy density requirement of 15.625 ergs/m^2. (convenient!)

    Doing a rudimentary search on the web someone gave the energy output of the sun to be [tex]3.86x10^3^3 ergs/sec[/tex]. The energy density of spherically emitted light falls off as the surphace of a sphere, or [tex]4(pi) r^2[/tex].

    Solving for r gave me over 105 million light years. I did this rather quickly, so I'm sure there are errors... but unless they are methodological, I think this shows that a star like our sun can be seen from rather far away.

    So by my estimates, we could see a star the size of the sun from 105 million light years away. By his it is less than 2 light days. I wonder what he did to make his answer so tiny.

    Edit: for some reason my latex looks fine in the preview, and not in the post :/... ah well, hopefully still legible.
    Last edited: Aug 27, 2004
  10. Aug 27, 2004 #9


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Either inconsistant units


    Deliberate falsification

    would be my guess.
  11. Aug 27, 2004 #10


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    For some reason he's talking about photons per volume instead of photons per surface area on the first page. I would wager that has something to do with it.
  12. Aug 27, 2004 #11
    Yea, and he brings up movie cinematography... though why I don't know. I think it's safe to assume for the argument that the energy output is reasonably constant, meaning the amount of energy reaching your eye per unit time is reasonably constant. What could he mean? I must not be reading carefully enough.

    Ahh, I didn't include affects of the atmosphere. I'll see if I can fix that a bit later. I don't think it is going to change anything by a factor of a hundred million though.
  13. Aug 27, 2004 #12
    Woa, I'm wrong.

    That wasn't 105 million light years, that was 105 million light seconds. How embarassing.

    A more carefull examination of the process I used produced a visual range of less than half a light year. This is not including atmospheric effects. This means that we shouldn't be able to see any star the size of our sun if it is more than half a light year away.

    This isn't necessarily a strange conclusion. I mean, I used the same assumptions he did, and am now getting a similar result. So the question is, what assumption is incorrect? I feel comfortable saying the energy density from the light falls off spherically. Could it be something involving the human eye?

    Sorry for the error. I'm sneaking this in at work and didn't have a chance to take the time to deal with it as carefully as I should have.

    I'm going to go over this again more carefully. Someone else help me and see what kind of result they get. Finally, we have a (seemingly) reasonable and mathematically based argument for a small universe, and I'm itching to fight with it.
    Last edited: Aug 27, 2004
  14. Aug 27, 2004 #13


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Ok, here's a good one from fixedearth:

    Someone needs to explain to him that the moon pulls more on the "front" oceans than the earth, and more on the earth than the "back" oceans. His argument is that gravity must "STOP" as soon as it hits his "neutral zone". If that was true... the moon would fly off.
  15. Aug 27, 2004 #14


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    And more:

    I have no idea of the accuracy of those numbers, but he doesn't understand the concept that the ocean is being crushed into itself. Changing the force downwards by even a small amount is obviously going to lower the pressure and... raise the water! :surprise:
  16. Aug 27, 2004 #15


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    It just keeps coming! Here he explains how familiar he is with Kepler's laws.

  17. Aug 27, 2004 #16
    Maybe im doing my calculations wrong but I get:

    Assuming the sun at 105,000 LY :

    Intensity is P / (4*Pi*R^2)
    105,000 LY = 9.93355e20 meters
    Power of the sun is 4e26 Watts

    So power of the sun from 105,000 LY(cornea) = 32154.34 W/m^2 Intensity
    Thats intensity at CORNEA.
    Power at cornea would then be Icornea*PupilArea
    Pupil Diameter is 2mm
    So P_cornea = 0.1015e11 W
    Then the Retina intensity is the P_cornea over the sopt area, which is about 150 square microns.
    P/SpotArea = Retina Intensity = 0.1437e18 W/m^2 which is WELL above what we can see. My eye sensitivity measurement may be wrong, but we can see that thanks to the lense in our eyes it increases the intensity by 8 orders of magnitude. I think this was not in the calculations he did. The stars are relatively low intensity, which makes it hard to see reflections. I think Im right.
  18. Aug 27, 2004 #17
    I don't think you squared your radius, or something. Using your numbers I get 3.2x10^-11 W/m^2

    In any case, I can see without calculating that 4e26/(9.9e20)^2 is going to be way, way less than one.
  19. Aug 27, 2004 #18
    Lets see :

    Assuming the sun at 105,000 LY :

    Intensity is P / (4*Pi*R^2)
    105,000 LY = 9.93355e20 meters
    Power of the sun is 4e26 Watts

    > I_pupil := (4*10^26)/(4*3.14159*(9.93355*10^20)^2);

    I_pupil = .3225830396 10^(-16)

    Pupil Diameter : 2mm = 2*10^-3 m
    Pupil Area :

    > Pupil_area := (3.14159265)*((2*10^(-3))/2)^2;

    Pupil_area = .3141592650 10^(-5)

    I_pupil*Pupil_area = Power_Pupil

    > Power_Pupil:=I_pupil*Pupil_area;

    Power_Pupil := .1013424506 10^(-21)

    SpotArea = Pi*(150microns)^2

    > SpotArea:=3.1415926*(150.*10^(-6))^2;

    SpotArea := .7068583350 10^(-7)

    I_Retina = Power_Pupil / SpotArea

    > I_Retina = Power_Pupil/SpotArea;

    I_Retina = .1433702421 10^(-14)

    Thats in Watts/ m^2

    Yea, i did bad calculations. Weird.
  20. Aug 27, 2004 #19
    I almost hate to say this, but... don't laugh at the guy. Well, not for that argument, at least.

    Nobody here can prove that the Earth is moving. Or at least not that any particular point of it is moving.

    If you can, I'll be interested to hear from you. I believe that relativity says that "all observers, regardless of their state of motion, may proclaim that they are stationary and 'the rest of the world is moving by them,' so long as they include a suitable gravitation field in the description of their own surroundings." (quoted from Brian Greene). So yes, if you can prove any particular point on Earth is moving, congratulations. You'll have just caused a lot of trouble in the world of physics by disproving (or at least contradicting) relativity.
  21. Aug 27, 2004 #20


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    You can't detect your own speed, but you can detect acceleration. This how you prove wether or not the earth is moving. (It must be, since it is accelerating!)
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?