Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 178594 comments on the www.scientificblogging.com story from Feb 24, 2008, titled Should evolution be taught in high school?. In it, www.scientificblogging.com reports that:

Microbiologist Carl Woese is well known as an iconoclast. At 79 years of age, Woese is still shaking things up. Most recently, he stated in an interview with Wired that...

"My feeling is that evolution shouldn't be taught at the lower grades. You don't teach quantum mechanics in the grade schools. One has to be quite educated to work with these concepts; what they pass on as evolution in high schools is nothing but repetitious tripe that teachers don't understand."

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.scientificblogging.com.

Psychology

Hollywood, FL

#109808 Nov 28, 2012
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
I really don't expect him to understand. I am an optimist, but not that much of one.
Here's the whole article dodger.

Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
I already refuted this. I gave you links to better understand what Gravity Probe B found and why it is significant. You did not read them again.
It is not talking about planets at all. For this portion of the experiment it was looking at highly massive, rapidly spinning pulsars. The intense gravity and rapid spin create relativistic effects because gravity waves only travel at the speed of light. If you looked up the reference you would understand this.
I can do another mental experiment to explain this, but you would not read it and understand it.
Fun Fact: the surface of the fastest known pulsar travels at over 80 million miles per hour.

Here's the article:
NASA's Gravity Probe B (GP-B) mission has confirmed two key predictions derived from Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity, which the spacecraft was designed to test. The experiment, launched in 2004, used four ultra-precise gyroscopes to measure the hypothesized geodetic effect, the warping of space and time around a gravitational body, and frame-dragging, the amount a spinning object pulls space and time with it as it rotates. GP-B determined both effects with unprecedented precision by pointing at a single star, IM Pegasi, while in a polar orbit around Earth.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/gpb/
Psychology

Hollywood, FL

#109809 Nov 28, 2012
So dodger,--
Where in the gravity probe B article, does it talk about your pulsars? Did they write it in disappearing ink that only you can see?

You really are funny dodger.

NASA's Gravity Probe B (GP-B) mission has confirmed two key predictions derived from Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity, which the spacecraft was designed to test. The experiment, launched in 2004, used four ultra-precise gyroscopes to measure the hypothesized geodetic effect, the warping of space and time around a gravitational body, and frame-dragging, the amount a spinning object pulls space and time with it as it rotates. GP-B determined both effects with unprecedented precision by pointing at a single star, IM Pegasi, while in a polar orbit around Earth.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/gpb/

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#109810 Nov 28, 2012
Psychology wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's the article:
NASA's Gravity Probe B (GP-B) mission has confirmed two key predictions derived from Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity, which the spacecraft was designed to test. The experiment, launched in 2004, used four ultra-precise gyroscopes to measure the hypothesized geodetic effect, the warping of space and time around a gravitational body, and frame-dragging, the amount a spinning object pulls space and time with it as it rotates. GP-B determined both effects with unprecedented precision by pointing at a single star, IM Pegasi, while in a polar orbit around Earth.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/gpb/

Yes. And this is not a case for "spin gravity". It is called "frame dragging" (or the Lense–Thirring effect). It is not an effect of spin but is what happens to space as a massive object spins. This neither increases nor decreases the amount of gravity.

Geodetic Effect:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geodetic_effect

Frame Dragging:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame-dragging

Actually, this might be clearer than Wikipedia:
http://www.phy.duke.edu/~kolena/framedrag.htm...
Psychology

Hollywood, FL

#109811 Nov 28, 2012
Do your friends also get the same articles you get, with the disappearing ink?

Do y'all have a special handshake? Roflmao

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#109812 Nov 28, 2012
Psychology wrote:
<quoted text>
Then tell us dodger, if not pull, what? Is it space magic? Lol

Picture worth a thousand words?

http://s2.hubimg.com/u/4379001_f520.jpg

Gravity is the effect of mass on space-time.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#109813 Nov 28, 2012
Psychology wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's the whole article dodger.
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
I already refuted this. I gave you links to better understand what Gravity Probe B found and why it is significant. You did not read them again.
It is not talking about planets at all. For this portion of the experiment it was looking at highly massive, rapidly spinning pulsars. The intense gravity and rapid spin create relativistic effects because gravity waves only travel at the speed of light. If you looked up the reference you would understand this.
I can do another mental experiment to explain this, but you would not read it and understand it.
Fun Fact: the surface of the fastest known pulsar travels at over 80 million miles per hour.
Here's the article:
NASA's Gravity Probe B (GP-B) mission has confirmed two key predictions derived from Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity, which the spacecraft was designed to test. The experiment, launched in 2004, used four ultra-precise gyroscopes to measure the hypothesized geodetic effect, the warping of space and time around a gravitational body, and frame-dragging, the amount a spinning object pulls space and time with it as it rotates. GP-B determined both effects with unprecedented precision by pointing at a single star, IM Pegasi, while in a polar orbit around Earth.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/gpb/

What up?

Did you read my gravity experiment yet? Do you understand it yet?

Where is (net) gravitation the greatest, at the surface of the earth, at the center or 1 million miles away?

You REALLY need to know this before we move on.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#109814 Nov 28, 2012
Psychology wrote:
So dodger,--
Where in the gravity probe B article, does it talk about your pulsars? Did they write it in disappearing ink that only you can see?
You really are funny dodger.
NASA's Gravity Probe B (GP-B) mission has confirmed two key predictions derived from Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity, which the spacecraft was designed to test. The experiment, launched in 2004, used four ultra-precise gyroscopes to measure the hypothesized geodetic effect, the warping of space and time around a gravitational body, and frame-dragging, the amount a spinning object pulls space and time with it as it rotates. GP-B determined both effects with unprecedented precision by pointing at a single star, IM Pegasi, while in a polar orbit around Earth.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/gpb/

I apologize if I caused confusion with my side-bar to pulsars.

I used pulsars as an example of these effects which are greatly magnified compared to the earth. The best way to study the Geodetic effect, frame dragging and the Gravitomagnetic effect has been pulsars (prior to GPB). Pulsars have more observational assumptions and therefore it is was easier to quibble about the results prior to Gravity Probe B.

It was not my intention to suggest GPB studied pulsars (it studied the earth). It CONFIRMS earlier data from pulsars.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#109815 Nov 28, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
I subscribe to a dozen creationist journals and none of them believe that. That's is totally ridiculous. Where do you get these crazy ideas?
OK, so my question stands.

What fossil, if ever found, would have the characteristics that you would admit made it "transitional"?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#109816 Nov 28, 2012
Psychology wrote:
Here's the article:
NASA's Gravity Probe B (GP-B) mission has confirmed TWO KEY predictions derived from Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity, which the spacecraft was designed to test. The experiment, launched in 2004, used four ultra-precise gyroscopes to measure the hypothesized geodetic effect, the warping of space and time around a gravitational body, AND frame-dragging, the amount a spinning object pulls space and time with it as it rotates. GP-B determined both effects with unprecedented precision by pointing at a single star, IM Pegasi, while in a polar orbit around Earth.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/gpb/
You will note in you article's words that warping of space time around a gravitational body and frame dragging are described as two different effects. TWO KEY effects, distinct, not ONE effect where spin causes or contributes to gravity as you claim.

I don't really care about your ignorant blather, but you are clearly not even able to comprehend the very articles you cite in favour of your mimbojimbo nincompoopery.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#109817 Nov 28, 2012
Psychology wrote:
<quoted text>
Then tell us dodger, if not pull, what? Is it space magic? Lol
No, it's called attraction. Do you ever read anything that you don't type? Anything?
Psychology

Hollywood, FL

#109818 Nov 28, 2012
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes. And this is not a case for "spin gravity". It is called "frame dragging" (or the Lense–Thirring effect). It is not an effect of spin but is what happens to space as a massive object spins. This neither increases nor decreases the amount of gravity.
Geodetic Effect:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geodetic_effect
Frame Dragging:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame-dragging
Actually, this might be clearer than Wikipedia:
http://www.phy.duke.edu/~kolena/framedrag.htm...
Tell us about frame dragging dodger,ale it precise and sum it up in 100 words or less.
Psychology

Hollywood, FL

#109819 Nov 28, 2012
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You will note in you article's words that warping of space time around a gravitational body and frame dragging are described as two different effects. TWO KEY effects, distinct, not ONE effect where spin causes or contributes to gravity as you claim.
I don't really care about your ignorant blather, but you are clearly not even able to comprehend the very articles you cite in favour of your mimbojimbo nincompoopery.
Well then help us here puffer,-- we'll take this how you want it.

Splain frame dragging, seeins how you claim to understand.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#109820 Nov 28, 2012
Psychology wrote:
<quoted text>
Tell us about frame dragging dodger,ale it precise and sum it up in 100 words or less.

1. What would you like to know about frame dragging?

2. Why can't you look it up yourself?

Here is a picture. Maybe that will be more clear.

http://einstein.stanford.edu/Library/images/s...
Psychology

Hollywood, FL

#109821 Nov 28, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it's called attraction. Do you ever read anything that you don't type? Anything?
Then by all means, do tell us what it means, if not a push or pull. ;)

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#109822 Nov 28, 2012
Psychology wrote:
<quoted text>
Well then help us here puffer,-- we'll take this how you want it.
Splain frame dragging, seeins how you claim to understand.

Well to start off with there is gravity. So imagine you are looking at a transparent beech ball and imagine it is the earth (with mass) and you are a dot on the surface. Now, which direction are you going to be pulled? It will be (on average) toward the center of the ball, correct?

Now imagine you are at the center of the beech ball globe; which way will gravity pull you? Well, it will pull you in all directions equally, correct? So the net effect is no gravity. Are you with me so far?

You can do the same thought experiment and imagine you are 2/3's of the way from the surface to the middle of the beech ball. What is the net effect of gravity there? Well, gravity will be pulling in all directions but the gravity in the direction of the center is going to still be greater and you will be pulled in that direction, BUT with less force than if you are standing on the surface.

Now, one more mental experiment to try. Imaging that you are a million miles away from the earth out in space (over 4 times the distance to the moon). Is the gravitational force affecting you going to be less, more or the same as if you were standing on earth. Of course it will be less, correct? Gravity (just like electromagnetic energy) decreases as a function of the square of the distance (e.g. if you double the distance the force is 1/4 as strong).

So..... the gravitational field is the same strength at the center of the earth, it is simply acting in all directions and not unidirectionally as on the surface.

If you are with me so far I can move on to how gravity and rotation causes frame dragging in Relativity.
Psychology

Hollywood, FL

#109823 Nov 28, 2012
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
1. What would you like to know about frame dragging?
2. Why can't you look it up yourself?
Here is a picture. Maybe that will be more clear.
http://einstein.stanford.edu/Library/images/s...
Hey, you're the one ignoring the rest of the article in favor of frame dragging aNd geodetic effect, as if you know it all, so since you claim to teach, then you should be able to Splain these things in easy terms for us nobody's. Big smile,

Dodger
Psychology

Hollywood, FL

#109824 Nov 28, 2012
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Well to start off with there is gravity. So imagine you are looking at a transparent beech ball and imagine it is the earth (with mass) and you are a dot on the surface. Now, which direction are you going to be pulled? It will be (on average) toward the center of the ball, correct?
Now imagine you are at the center of the beech ball globe; which way will gravity pull you? Well, it will pull you in all directions equally, correct? So the net effect is no gravity. Are you with me so far?
You can do the same thought experiment and imagine you are 2/3's of the way from the surface to the middle of the beech ball. What is the net effect of gravity there? Well, gravity will be pulling in all directions but the gravity in the direction of the center is going to still be greater and you will be pulled in that direction, BUT with less force than if you are standing on the surface.
Now, one more mental experiment to try. Imaging that you are a million miles away from the earth out in space (over 4 times the distance to the moon). Is the gravitational force affecting you going to be less, more or the same as if you were standing on earth. Of course it will be less, correct? Gravity (just like electromagnetic energy) decreases as a function of the square of the distance (e.g. if you double the distance the force is 1/4 as strong).
So..... the gravitational field is the same strength at the center of the earth, it is simply acting in all directions and not unidirectionally as on the surface.
If you are with me so far I can move on to how gravity and rotation causes frame dragging in Relativity.
Are you daffy dodger? None of the above speaks to frame dragging.
Mugwump

Bradford, UK

#109825 Nov 28, 2012
Can I just say, to Diarrhea Dogen and Psycho-Billy - kudos on keeping it civil and persevering.

Physics never my strong point - so at least I am getting some free info
Psychology

Hollywood, FL

#109826 Nov 28, 2012
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Well to start off with there is gravity. So imagine you are looking at a transparent beech ball and imagine it is the earth (with mass) and you are a dot on the surface. Now, which direction are you going to be pulled? It will be (on average) toward the center of the ball, correct?
Now imagine you are at the center of the beech ball globe; which way will gravity pull you? Well, it will pull you in all directions equally, correct? So the net effect is no gravity. Are you with me so far?
You can do the same thought experiment and imagine you are 2/3's of the way from the surface to the middle of the beech ball. What is the net effect of gravity there? Well, gravity will be pulling in all directions but the gravity in the direction of the center is going to still be greater and you will be pulled in that direction, BUT with less force than if you are standing on the surface.
Now, one more mental experiment to try. Imaging that you are a million miles away from the earth out in space (over 4 times the distance to the moon). Is the gravitational force affecting you going to be less, more or the same as if you were standing on earth. Of course it will be less, correct? Gravity (just like electromagnetic energy) decreases as a function of the square of the distance (e.g. if you double the distance the force is 1/4 as strong).
So..... the gravitational field is the same strength at the center of the earth, it is simply acting in all directions and not unidirectionally as on the surface.
If you are with me so far I can move on to how gravity and rotation causes frame dragging in Relativity.
None of the above is about frame dragging,

Dodger

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#109827 Nov 28, 2012
Psychology wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey, you're the one ignoring the rest of the article in favor of frame dragging aNd geodetic effect, as if you know it all, so since you claim to teach, then you should be able to Splain these things in easy terms for us nobody's. Big smile,
Dodger

Psychology wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's the article:
NASA's Gravity Probe B (GP-B) mission has confirmed two key predictions derived from Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity, which the spacecraft was designed to test. The experiment, launched in 2004, used four ultra-precise gyroscopes to measure the hypothesized geodetic effect, the warping of space and time around a gravitational body, and frame-dragging, the amount a spinning object pulls space and time with it as it rotates. GP-B determined both effects with unprecedented precision by pointing at a single star, IM Pegasi, while in a polar orbit around Earth.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/gpb/

Frame Dragging is, per you own quote, "the amount a spinning object pulls space and time with it as it rotates".

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 4 min Chimney1 162,192
Why Are There No Transitional Animals Today? (Mar '09) 10 min ChristineM 898
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr Brian_G 18,907
News Darwin on the rocks (Sep '14) 5 hr DanFromSmithville 1,732
No Place For ID? 9 hr Dogen 116
proof of gods existence .....or lack there of 13 hr Kong_ 20
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 13 hr Dogen 141,291
More from around the web