Copernicus was wrong!
Could you believe that?! I am cited in conservapedia, the religious right's response to wikipedia! See for yourself. I am born again! Hallelujah!
So how am I helping the defenders of intelligent design? I wrote this article in which I explained that, in view of modern science, in particular Einstein's general relativity, it is possible to describe the universe from the geocentric point of view. It would require the change of the coordinate system to the non-inertial frame that moves with the Earth. Of course, such a description would be immensely complicated and impractical, but the principle is correct. Of course, from this statement there is only one tiny step to the claim that "Heliocentric and geocentric theories are both used today, depending on which allows more convenient calculations." Frankly, I had no idea anybody still used epicycles to calculate the movement of planets, but what do I know about science curricula at religious universities.
There is a tiny problem though: Conservapedia is not very fond of the relativity theory either. Here's en interesting excerpt:
There is a correlation between enthusiasm for the theory of relativity and political views, and there is an unmistakable effort to censor or ostracize criticism of relativity. Physicist Robert Dicke of Princeton University was a prominent critic of the theory of relativity and that may have hurt him professionally, even though his theory "has enjoyed a renaissance in connection with theories of higher dimensional space-time." Despite being one of the most accomplished physicists in the 20th century, Dicke was never awarded a Nobel Prize just as other outspoken critics of scientific theories were passed over in granting the Nobel Prize to less-accompished colleagues.
Darn it! I had no idea that any time you criticize a scientific theory, you face terrible persecution (burning at a stake, being passed over by the Nobel committee?). Einstein was lucky--he destroyed the well established theory of ether and still got away with a Nobel price.
So how am I helping the defenders of intelligent design? I wrote this article in which I explained that, in view of modern science, in particular Einstein's general relativity, it is possible to describe the universe from the geocentric point of view. It would require the change of the coordinate system to the non-inertial frame that moves with the Earth. Of course, such a description would be immensely complicated and impractical, but the principle is correct. Of course, from this statement there is only one tiny step to the claim that "Heliocentric and geocentric theories are both used today, depending on which allows more convenient calculations." Frankly, I had no idea anybody still used epicycles to calculate the movement of planets, but what do I know about science curricula at religious universities.
There is a tiny problem though: Conservapedia is not very fond of the relativity theory either. Here's en interesting excerpt:
There is a correlation between enthusiasm for the theory of relativity and political views, and there is an unmistakable effort to censor or ostracize criticism of relativity. Physicist Robert Dicke of Princeton University was a prominent critic of the theory of relativity and that may have hurt him professionally, even though his theory "has enjoyed a renaissance in connection with theories of higher dimensional space-time." Despite being one of the most accomplished physicists in the 20th century, Dicke was never awarded a Nobel Prize just as other outspoken critics of scientific theories were passed over in granting the Nobel Prize to less-accompished colleagues.
Darn it! I had no idea that any time you criticize a scientific theory, you face terrible persecution (burning at a stake, being passed over by the Nobel committee?). Einstein was lucky--he destroyed the well established theory of ether and still got away with a Nobel price.