https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/02/14/277058739/1-in-4-americans-think-the-sun-goes-around-the-earth-survey-says?fbclid=IwAR3il8AhXcnXyyHkiCl9ELZitTNK9eOdhEZoNO9c_R7OPk4XZwL0IxnOqi4

A quarter of Americans surveyed could not correctly answer that the Earth revolves around the sun and not the other way around, according to a report out Friday from the National Science Foundation.

To the question "Does the Earth go around the Sun, or does the Sun go around the Earth," 26 percent of those surveyed answered incorrectly.

In the same survey, just 39 percent answered correctly (true) that "The universe began with a huge explosion" and only 48 percent said "Human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals."

Just over half understood that antibiotics are not effective against viruses.

As alarming as some of those deficits in science knowledge might appear, Americans fared better on several of the questions than similar, but older surveys of their Chinese and European counterparts.

Only 66 percent of people in a 2005 European Union poll answered the basic astronomy question correctly. However, both China and the EU fared significantly better (66 percent and 70 percent, respectively) on the question about human evolution.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Perhaps this is why America is #1 in Pandemic Deaths?

My theory: The Sun helps life grow, the Sun is tired of giving life to corruption, the Sun burns out but not completely and goes to another spot in outer space to start new and better life.

SunGoddess Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My theory: The Sun helps life grow, the Sun is
> tired of giving life to corruption, the Sun burns
> out but not completely and goes to another spot in
> outer space to start new and better life.


Interesting theory. I agree, the sun helps life grow. In fact life wouldn't grow without light. Life wouldn't even exist. Neither would anything for that matter. Matter is just light slowed down to almost nothing. m=E/c^2
mass equals Energy (light) slowed down to 1/6.706e+8^6.706e+8.
Eventually the Sun will run out of energy and fade to black, as will the entire universe, according to astrophysicists like NdGT. The sun is always going to another spot in outer space. It is traveling over half a million mph South, clockwise around the Milky Way, and gets back to the same position every 250 million years, as is the rest of the galaxy, which is why the stars appear to all move, but stay the same relative to each other. It's pulling our planet and all the other planets in the Heliosphere, along with it. Towards the center of the galaxy, the black hole, SagA*, which is 25,000 light years away. The time it takes for light to get from SagA* to Earth is about as long as Modern Humans have existed.
And SagA* is going even faster, 1.4 Million MPH, towards the Great Attractor, which is 250 million Light years away and 400 million light years across. So if we could see it, which we can't, what we'd see, would be a picture of what the Great Attractor looked like 250 million years ago. Despite it's mind boggling distance from us, it manages to pull our galaxy and all the galaxies in our galactic neighborhood, toward it at about the same rate of speed, 1.4 million mph. (1/490 the speed of light).

My theory: m=E/c^2
Dark Matter = Dark Energy/c^2
Dark Energy = Dark Matter x C^2
Dark Energy/Dark Matter = C^2
C^2 = Cosmological Constant, Lambda
Which is different in this dimension than it is in a parallel universe, where time runs backwards.
right on the other side of the mirror
staring you right in the face.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/20/2020 02:05PM by schrodingerscat.

Wow, SC:
"... Which is different in this dimension than it is in a parallel universe, where time runs backwards.
right on the other side of the mirror
staring you right in the face"

Good stuff!

It's also interesting today there is an article talking about a new baby planet being formed in outer space!

If the sun wanted us gone, it would fart in our direction.

Run away! Run away!

Technical point: the universe appears to have begun with a huge explosion. That seems to be the best explanation given the evidence we have, but there is clearly much we don't know about how or if that is what happened.

The earth going around the sun, however, is pretty nailed down.


Q: Did NASA fake the moon landing?
A: What's NASA, and we landed on the moon?

The masses are asses.

Well I'm Canadian and I think the world revolves around me, lol

Which is better I guess than the orange guy that thinks the universe revolves around him.

You must live in Toronto...the centre of the universe!...hehe

At my age I really don't care!
And I am only 84

Dare I repeat it here? Sure. I think it was P.T. Barnum who said that no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public

It was H.L. Mencken. Barnum's quote was "There's a sucker born every minute," but there's a story there.

Edit: And after some Googling, what Mencken said was "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/21/2020 10:40PM by SL Cabbie.

That study was, what seems so far back in time, in 2012.

After all that has gone on in America since then: with the way there are so many crazy theories on Covid, don’t you think that today there are more than one out of four Americans that think the sun revolves around the earth?

Perhaps the NSF needs to be a bit more careful in its questions. Here are some answers to these questions that may surprise you:

(1) Does the Earth go around the Sun, or does the Sun go around the Earth?"

Answer: Neither.

Under the principles of Special Relativity, it can be said with equal correctness that the sun revolves around the earth. You can see this by imagining that all the other planets, comets, etc. are removed, leaving only the earth and sun. Such a removal would not affect the positions or motions of the sun or the earth with respect to each other. Under relativity it would make no sense to favor one explanation over the other. It is only in the context of Newtonian cosmology and absolute space that the earth can literally be said to "revolve" around the sun.

thttps://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2018/03/12/how-general-relativity-complicates-what-we-know-about-earthsorbit/#3a65649b4951

(2) True or False: The universe began with a huge explosion."

False: As every astrophysicist knows. No such explosion!

https://www.britannica.com/story/was-the-big-bang-actually-an-explosion.

(3) True or false: "Human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals."

I will answer this myself. False. Everyone would agree that a fundamental property of humans "as we know them today," is consciousness. However, it is highly controversial whether consciousness has any actual causal effects such that it would arise from evolutionary selection pressures. It may after all, have emerged strictly by chance. In that case something essential to human beings (and other animals) did NOT "develop" from earlier species of animals.

(Note: This is a common observation, which you can find examples of on the internet and in the evolution literature.)

(4) True of false: Antibiotics are not effective against viruses.

Apparently false:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/antibiotics-do-work-on-viruses

That's so we can get a better look at the Quakers.

No, wait ...

Just a thought. What does this have to do with

recoverying from Mormonism? Do you have a good

answer to this question?

saucie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just a thought. What does this have to do with
>
> recoverying from Mormonism? Do you have a good
>
> answer to this question?

NObody's bigger science deniers than MORmONs, except JW's.
It's a delusion, thats dangerous and enpowers delusional science deniers and that's bad for all of us.

https://www.pewforum.org/2009/02/04/religious-differences-on-the-question-of-evolution/

I'll ask again.... what does this have to do with recovery

from mormonism? I'll make it simple.... what did you say

that will help us to recover from mormonism? Denying

science ? Delusional science deniers???? I think there

is only one delusional person here and its not me. I have

never known a mormon who denied science . That is a ludacris

notion ,

Anything that helps you think helps you recover from Mormonism.

“I have never known a mormon who denied science“

Have you ever known a Mormon who denied little pieces of science?

saucie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'll ask again.... what does this have to do with
> recovery
>
> from mormonism? I'll make it simple.... what did
> you say
>
> that will help us to recover from mormonism?
> Denying
>
> science ? Delusional science deniers???? I think
> there
>
> is only one delusional person here and its not me.
> I have
>
> never known a mormon who denied science . That is
> a ludacris
>
> notion ,

Apparently the Pew Research Study is "ludacris" ?

Delusional: maintaining erroneous belief despite superior evidence to the contrary.

YOu're right about one thing,
> "Delusional science deniers???? I think there
> is only one delusional person here and its me."

It has everything to do with the mindset of Mormons. How do you argue with a Mormon and any religious person where there cannot be any agreement on the very basic facts?

There are those that see this board just as a place to vent and gossip. They ignore science and politics. Even though those two areas get to the heart of the most major conflicts with this religion. Next thing you know, there will be a disclaimer at the top of the message board saying no discussion of science. Then eventually it will say no discussion of facts.

You would have to either be lied to, brainwashed, or totally insane to believe what is obviously nonsense


https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/pgp/abr/fac-2?lang=eng

Fig. 1. Kolob, signifying the first creation, nearest to the celestial, or the residence of God. First in government, the last pertaining to the measurement of time. The measurement according to celestial time, which celestial time signifies one day to a cubit. One day in Kolob is equal to a thousand years according to the measurement of this earth, which is called by the Egyptians Jah-oh-eh.

Fig. 2. Stands next to Kolob, called by the Egyptians Oliblish, which is the next grand governing creation near to the celestial or the place where God resides; holding the key of power also, pertaining to other planets; as revealed from God to Abraham, as he offered sacrifice upon an altar, which he had built unto the Lord.

Fig. 3. Is made to represent God, sitting upon his throne, clothed with power and authority; with a crown of eternal light upon his head; representing also the grand Key-words of the Holy Priesthood, as revealed to Adam in the Garden of Eden, as also to Seth, Noah, Melchizedek, Abraham, and all to whom the Priesthood was revealed.

Fig. 4. Answers to the Hebrew word Raukeeyang, signifying expanse, or the firmament of the heavens; also a numerical figure, in Egyptian signifying one thousand; answering to the measuring of the time of Oliblish, which is equal with Kolob in its revolution and in its measuring of time.

Fig. 5. Is called in Egyptian Enish-go-on-dosh; this is one of the governing planets also, and is said by the Egyptians to be the Sun, and to borrow its light from Kolob through the medium of Kae-e-vanrash, which is the grand Key, or, in other words, the governing power, which governs fifteen other fixed planets or stars, as also Floeese or the Moon, the Earth and the Sun in their annual revolutions. This planet receives its power through the medium of Kli-flos-is-es, or Hah-ko-kau-beam, the stars represented by numbers 22 and 23, receiving light from the revolutions of Kolob.

Fig. 6. Represents this earth in its four quarters.

Fig. 7. Represents God sitting upon his throne, revealing through the heavens the grand Key-words of the Priesthood; as, also, the sign of the Holy Ghost unto Abraham, in the form of a dove.

Fig. 8. Contains writings that cannot be revealed unto the world; but is to be had in the Holy Temple of God.

Fig. 9. Ought not to be revealed at the present time.

Fig. 10. Also.

Fig. 11. Also. If the world can find out these numbers, so let it be. Amen.

Figures 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21 will be given in the own due time of the Lord.

The above translation is given as far as we have any right to give at the present time.

> Figures 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21
> will be given in the own due time of the Lord.

In other words, "I'm tired of making shit up and want a beer."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/21/2020 02:33PM by Lot's Wife.

Hi LW!

We know for a fact that exactly half of all people are below average intelligence....

At least a few of these are devout mormons...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/21/2020 05:52PM by Lowpriest.

:-)

Why is this an example of American Exceptionalism? The article even says explicitly "As alarming as some of those deficits in science knowledge might appear, Americans fared better on several of the questions than similar, but older surveys of their Chinese and European counterparts.".

Just my 2 cents from abroad.

fritz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why is this an example of American Exceptionalism?
> The article even says explicitly "As alarming as
> some of those deficits in science knowledge might
> appear, Americans fared better on several of the
> questions than similar, but older surveys of their
> Chinese and European counterparts.".
>
> Just my 2 cents from abroad.

To me it boils down to why America is #1 in # of deaths, compared to other countries.

I think it boils down to at least 4 things.
#1. Overall Health of the society (Pre-existing conditions, obesity, heart disease, poor diet)
#2. Exceptionalism (I don't have to wear a mask because God loves me which makes me invincible and fuck you if you say I do! I got a gun!)
#3. Testing and isolation of infected individuals (America has done a terrible job.)
#4. Science denial - I don't believe in "scientific consensus", I believe in paying my bills.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/21/2020 04:46PM by schrodingerscat.

That wasn't my point and it wasn't part of the article that you mentioned. So again: why is the article mentioned by you a proof of American Exceptionalism? And by "American" you mean what?

As to the points supplied later in your response: they aren't solid either. Just a few remarks: some pre-existing conditions in the USA (that's what you mean by "American", I suppose) may not have been favorable but did you check your neighboring country Mexico for a comparison in obesity? Did you check the actual professional level of your health system compared to the rest of the world? Isn't that a pre-existing condition, too, although a very good one? Do you really believe that there aren't high percentages of people refusing to wear masks in other countries, too? And do you know that the per capita percentage of tests done in the USA is actually higher than, for example, in Germany?

Well as a creationist believer there are some reasons we believe a certain way. As I studied chemistry years ago what I just couldn't rap my head around was the idea that a creator would explode stuff to build stuff, meaning through very large nuclear explosions, that cause much damage, electrons should be stripped away from atoms, to believe in the big bang we would have to change the name of the creator to the destroyer.

With an understanding like mine many of the comprehensive conclusions chemist activists make completely fall apart. Scientists aren't to be trusted.

My scientific belief in creationism rests on an inability to believe nuclear/atomic mutations. I just think that the world was created with static atoms.

"Static" goes a long way explaining you. Luckily Happiness does not necessarily require knowing stuff nor static-free hearing.

In the famous words of the Beach Boys, "Be true to your school."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/21/2020 10:37PM by elderolddog.

How do you account for isotopes of elements with the same number of protons and electrons but with different numbers of neutrons?

What is your explanation for radioactive decay and transmutation of matter?

Where do you think radon comes from?

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Decay-chain-of-the-natural-uranium-isotopes-234-U-235-U-and-238-U-The-half-life-for_fig1_322091295



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 05/21/2020 09:31PM by anybody.

I assume by "atomic mutations", you mean converting one type of atom into another.

The sun does it all the time. It converts 9 billion pounds of hydrogen into energy every second, if I remember correctly. It converts considerably more hydrogen into helium. Fortunately, the sun is a very big place. It will be a while before it runs low on hydrogen.

All those radioactive tracers they use in atomic medicine. They are all manufactured in nuclear reactors. They generally have half lives so short, that the amount found in nature is literally zero, as in zero atoms. Any that were around at the creation of the earth are long gone. They have to be created in a reactor. Often, they must be used the same day they are created, or within a very few days, because they decay so quickly.

We can actually make gold in a reactor, though it is considerably cheaper to just dig it out of the ground.

Also, stripping electrons off atoms happens all the time. Lightening. CRT tv picture tubes. Static shock when you touch a doorknob in the winter. Batteries. Electric generators. yada yada yada.

Edit: looks like the majority of radioactive traces are not created by splitting atoms, but just adding neutrons, so they are still the same element, just radioactive. Oops. Reactors that split uranium do, however, create lighter elements in the process.

I looked up the numbers. The Sun converts around 700 million tons of hydrogen to helium every second. It converts 0.7% of that, or about 5 million tons per second, to energy. Five million tons is 10 billion pounds. That's how much mass the sun loses every second.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/22/2020 01:13AM by Brother Of Jerry.

macaRomney Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Scientists aren't to be
> trusted.

which is the definition of delusion: maintaining erroneous beliefs, despite superior evidence to the contrary.

macaRomney Wrote:
------------------------------------------------------
> With an understanding like mine many of the
> comprehensive conclusions chemist activists make
> completely fall apart. Scientists aren't to be
> trusted.

I just heard Dr. Fauci say again, re CV, that your model is only as good as the information you put into it. He was referring to case and casualty counts. As your input is based on estimates the projected numbers are not mathematically correct but can provide a reasonable picture of possibilities or probabilities.

With regard to the creation of the universe, with a preconceived concept, including religious beliefs, the information being entered into the belief model is not exact which is understandable. To then exclude all other info because it doesn't match your model is risky, bound to leave room for factual errors.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/21/2020 08:58PM by Nightingale.

Forgive me for not taking your claims serious, macaRomney. I'm not inclined to trust the claims of someone who claims to have an understanding of chemistry yet doesn't know that there's a difference between wrap and rap.

And your claim of "understanding" chemistry better than some scientists is why you're the poster boy of the Dunning-Kruger Effect.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/21/2020 08:59PM by ookami.

(big smiley face)

That one statement undermines your argument, Maca...even if you had one.

You don't "trust" scientists as you would a priest or spiritual advisor. Science doesn't work that way.

Science works by observation and experiment.
You can read the papers, do the experiments, reproduce the results and find out for yourself if you want.

And BTW, if you knew what you were talking about you would know that ionized matter — a plasma — is so hot that all the electrons are gone.

Otto Hahn and Lise Meitner split the atom in 1938:

https://www.chemistryworld.com/features/hahn-meitner-and-the-discovery-of-nuclear-fission/3009604.article



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/21/2020 09:16PM by anybody.

You and your silly facts. The eyes doth roll.

Thank you, anybody. The main difference between spiritual advisors and scientists is that scientists are fact-checked by other scientists who can analyze and duplicate the experiments to check both the hypothesis and the conclusion.

And I remember the old lesson with ping-pong balls and mousetraps to demonstrate the concept of nuclear fission-- several ping-pong balls are set onto mousetraps and a loose ping-pong ball, meant to represent a neutron, is thrown at the mousetraps to start a chain reaction. Feel free to try it, but only if you have a clear container to contain the ping-pong balls and mousetraps that will go flying.

And atoms losing or gaining electrons is how ions exist. Two atoms were talking. The first atom says, "I think I lost an electron." The second atom asks, "Are you sure?" The first atom replies, "I'm positive!"

Two atoms were talking. The first atom says, "I think I lost an electron." The second atom replies, "no way." The first atom says,"don't be so negative!"

Well that's a terrifying video!

Back then there was a lot of hope that science and technology could save mankind.

Nuclear power is still the only power generating source that currently exists that does not emit carbon.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/22/2020 06:36PM by anybody.

anybody Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Back then there was a lot of hope that science and
> technology could save mankind.
>
> Nuclear power is still the only power generating
> source that currently exists that does not emit
> carbon.

Hydro electric?
Wind Turbines?
Around here they put generators in our sewers to chop up sewage and generate electricity. How does that emit carbon?

Well, besides wind, solar and hydroelectric.

But yeah, the west's fear of nuclear power is counterproductive IMHO. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_by_death_toll

Compare to COVID-19 in the last ten weeks (340,000) and God only knows how many could die from climate change.

Meanwhile, reactor designs have gotten much better, and China is going full bore on reactor development. They are going to end up selling the rest of the world nuclear reactors and automotive "skateboards" (the basic frame, battery pack and electric motors) for cars and world auto manufacturers will bolt on bodies and sell them. Guess where the vast bulk of the profit is in that arrangement?

But I am veering way off the thread topic! :(

Interesting digression, though. I realize that the new technologies are in some ways fail-safe, but Chernobyl, Tohoku, and other disasters still frighten me. Even the best countries make really stupid mistakes, and China is one of the worst in terms of quality control and the problems engendered by corruption.

Recent events have underscored that fact, too, I would presume.

Yes, I have read/watched a lot about the optimism of those years. In fact, the scene in that clip where the energy flows through the power lines seems familiar, as if somewhere in the past I saw it although I don't have any specific memory.

At one degree of abstraction, you are touching on the optimism that stemmed from the Enlightenment and its apparent implication that intellectual pursuit and science would lead to a better society. Most of that optimism left Europe during and after the Great War, back when people had yet to realize they would have to number their global conflagrations, or at least during WWII.

But the US emerged from the wars the global hegemon, with the Enlightenment optimism about social and technological progress intact. That is parenthetically one reason Christianity lasted many decades longer in North America than in Europe: history had not yet slapped the United States around as much. The civilian use of nuclear power in the 1950s must have appeared in that context as something that would aid in the advance of all things virtuous--I mean, all things American.

People in North America are today more jaded, more cynical. So the 1950s enthusiasm for nuclear power looks silly or, at least for me, frightening. Technological progress in the absence of moral growth is positively dangerous.

Sounds like one of Jay Leno's "Jaywalking" episodes.

P T Barnum was an optimist. It's much worse than one sucker a minute.

This is an "Electric Universe" not a nuclear/fusion one....

Electric Universe theory is a fun rabbit hole to go down while we cannot go outside and do things.