Re: Common Sense Science

From: George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com>
Date: Mon Aug 15 2005 - 15:49:38 EDT

----- Original Message -----
From: "The Fenske's" <dbfenske@telus.net>
To: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 1:14 PM
Subject: Common Sense Science

> Time to leave lurker mode for just a few moments.
>
> I'm teaching a first year chemistry course this september, and have been
> reviewing sections on atomic structure. This triggered my memory that a
> while ago, someone here posted a link to Common Sense Science
> (www.commonsensescience.org), a creationist group who apparently have a
> big problem with Quantum Theory, and propose a spinning ring model of the
> atom, where electrons are spinning rings that sit localized in space.
> They claim it's the best model of the atom ever. Well, I for one can't
> see how it explains anything, but perhaps I'm a little slow! Anyways, I
> was wondering whether this is actually taken seriously, even in
> creationist circles, these days. Do AIG approve? Or are these guys (who
> include the Thomas Barnes of earth's magnetic field fame) really out on
> the fringes? Have any of you looked into this material?

I haven't looked into the Common Nonsense Science stuff but in his book
_Physics of the Future_ did try to develop an atomic model based on
classical mechanics & E&M. He labored mightily but wasn't even able to come
up with the Rydberg formula. From his comments about the Bohr model &c I
got the impression that he didn't even know what modern quantum theory was.

The whole thesis of the book (published by ICR in 1983) is that the physics
of the future is the physics of 1890. Barnes of course rejected relativity
as well as quantum theory but again seems to have known nothing about modern
developments of the theory - i.e., since about 1930.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
Received on Mon Aug 15 15:51:51 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Aug 15 2005 - 15:51:53 EDT