What Does a Physics Degree Get You?

Free food.

I woke up yesterday, and as I do everyday, I checked my email. There I saw that I had been tagged on FaceBook by Steve, a relative of mine. He posted the following:

Need some help from my academia family and friends! I need to present "in layman terms" how cold it would have to be outside to freeze 2 gallons of water @ -19ºC. 

Background: The product I sell has a moisture cured urethane in it and is activated by water. I am working in Canada where the lowest ever temp recorded was -60ºC (1947) so how long would it take to freeze a 2 gallon sprayer of room temp water which is about 10ºC at -19ºC. 

1st person that can explain it (so my block head can understand it) win's a perfectly smoked brisket delivered or shipped to "His or Her" home!!

Now he posted this at 5 am (7am Texas time), and I was still blissfully asleep. One and a half hours later, he wrote

So far my simple question is still unanswered! (Tick Tock) BTW when the west coast awakens my family physicist Vann Priest will have no problem with this so you all had better hurry!!

CREDIT: Steve

By the time I awoke at 8:30, Steve had already gotten some really good answers from Brian and Karen, so I was afraid I lost a chance at some Texas smoked brisket. I should make clear that Steve has this awful habit of posting his BBQ on FaceBook, and whenever he does, I drool all over my shirt. However, since he didn’t yet award it officially, I figured I might still have a chance.

CREDIT: Steve

A brief shout-out to Kevin who is quite an accomplished smoker. Kevin's brisket is also scrumdiddlyumptious, and I have been privileged to taste it on several occasions. It might be awhile before Kevin or I get another brisket though. He just became the father of twin boys.

So here’s my answer.

First the water has to cool to 0ºC. Newton’s law of cooling states that the rate at which the temperature of an object changes is proportional to the difference in temperature between the object and the environment. Fancy way of saying that if you want to cool something off really quickly, you put it in the refrigerator; if not, leave it in the kitchen.

Mathematically, Newton’s law is written

T is the temperature, t is time, TE is the temperature of the environment, and k is some constant. This is a straightforward first order differential equation.  The solution is

The problem though is that to find the time t we need to know both constants, k and C. There’s a lot of complicated physics that goes into k and C; however, to find C, we can set the time equal to zero. We know the initial temperature of the water and the environmental temperature. Punching a few numbers into my handy calculator gives me 3.37. We could do something similar to find k, but we would need to know the temperature of the water sometime later. I don’t have that information, so I can’t find the time it takes to cool down to freezing.

I’m not going to let that stop the analysis though. Once the water reaches 0ºC, it begins to turn into ice. The temperature stays at zero until all the water freezes. We can find how long it takes by knowing that the energy transfer happens by thermal conduction. Here’s the equation governing this phenomenon.

Q is the amount of energy that is being transferred (usually called heat), t is again the time, T is the temperature of the object through which the energy is being transferred, and x refers to the thickness of the object. There are two constants here too. A is the cross-sectional area of the object, and k (a different k) is called the thermal conductivity. (Once again, a lot of complicated physics rolled into a single number).

Here is a major complication. I can look up the thermal conductivity and figure out the area and the thickness.  The total amount of energy transferred in so problem; Q = mL where m is the mass of the water and L is the amount of energy required to change the state of the water per kilogram. But this differential equation is for one dimension only.  To do it in all three directions is some tough mathematics.

There’s no easy way to solve Steve’s problem.

Or is there?

I’m an experimental physicist. Let’s do the experiment. The freezer in most refrigerators is about -19ºC. Let’s put one gallon of water in the freezer and see how long it takes. The time it takes for 2 gal will be about twice as long.

Two hours into the experiment and the first thin layer of ice begins to form. In another hour, there’s a significant amount of ice. So Steve has about four hours before he needs to worry, and a Texas smoked brisket is on its way to California.

Why I Love/Hate Web 2.0

From the time I was born until I was about 16, my father owned a burger joint.  The Castle Burger. He opened every day at 11 am. For many of those years, I remember the local dentist, a nightclub owner, and two other men would take a booth and drink coffee for an hour or so.  They would sit there, sip on the coffee, and talk about current events.

That’s how much social commentary happened. Over a cup of coffee, a glass of beer, at the dinner table. Unbeknownst to everyone at the time that began to change in 1993.

That’s when the European particle physics lab, CERN, gave the world the World Wide Web.

I joined the Internet in the fall of 1994, and I created my first web page shortly thereafter. To do that, I learned some basic html at an American Association of Physics Teachers workshop and taught myself more advanced coding by examining the source code of pages I liked. Web page production became a hobby, and I changed the look of my pages almost annually – just because I could.

One had to be technically literate to create a page, or one had to have the money to have one created. The information was static and flowed one way – from the content creator to the viewer. For the most part, I think the Internet shared whatever credibility more established media enjoyed.

Then sometimes in the 2000s, the Web changed. We now had Web 2.0. Users became content creators without having to bother creating a web page.

Everyone could now contribute. MySpace and Facebook allows us to easily stay in touch; Wikipedia makes it easier for experts to share their knowledge; Tumblr, WordPress, and Blogger make it simple for anyone to share their thoughts.

The true democratization of the Internet.

I joined this democracy movement in April 2010. I created my FaceBook profile. I was motivated by my desire to reach out to my students at Rio Hondo College. I tell them what I think of them - they are the best students at Rio Hondo and they will be the best students at whatever university or college they transfer to, but despite their obvious interest and perhaps because of the times, they are not always aware of the scientific, engineering, and technological advances being made everyday.  I thought that I could do something to sneak in some learning.

Then I got a bit bored in July 2011. So one afternoon I signed into Blogger and started Oenobareus, my blog dedicated to science and reason written after a glass or two of Pinot Noir.

That is what I love. Both the blog and FaceBook let me share what interests me, and my expertise. Plus they give me a creative outlet. I try to be informative, occasionally funny, and every once in while, I let out some righteous anger.

Let me share some of my favorite blog posts:

Transformers 3 - Dark ofthe Moon: I applied some basic physics to calculate the gravitational effects of Cybertron on the Earth.
Don’t Ask Marilyn - parts 1 through 4: Marilyn vos Savant is a columnist in Parade magazine. In a 2011 column, she defends herself against a math teacher in a problem in probability. The post prompted several emails and three other posts where I patiently explain probability and entropy.
Santa Claus Science: Did you know it takes 11 million reindeer to pull Santa’s sleigh?
Flying Aircraft Carriers:Physics and Engineering in The Avengers: Another piece inspired by a movie. What I really enjoy about this piece is that I hope that students (and others) realize how one can do a quick calculation without sophisticated theories.
July 4th isHiggsdependence Day: Announcing the discovery of the Higgs boson. This was particularly fun as I have a brother-in-law named Higgs.
Twas the Night Before What?: A Newtonian twist on Clement Moore’s poem.
Au-some: There were many reports in the press how scientists had discovered the nuclear process by which gold was created. What I like about this one is I really had to delve into the literature. Nowhere in the article was gold mentioned.

These are some of my favorites, because I was sharing my expertise.

Why do I hate Web 2.0?

It all started late in 2011. I received a friend request from Aaron, an acquaintance of a former student. He stated he was interested in intellectual discussions. As it turned out he was a libertarian, anarchist, christian, young earth creationist.

I made a smart-ass comment about Bristol Palin when Aaron asked how to end teen pregnancy. That led to me educating myself on the issue and my post Making Babies. Which led to You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

And thus began my intense dislike for Web 2.0.

Through Aaron I found True Dinos, a Facebook profile of a Texas fellow who like dinosaurs. This young earth creationist (YEC) witnessed a pterosaur when he was 11 years old.

It was at True Dinos that I ran across Cowboy Bob Sorensen and The Question Evolution Project.

Here’s what you need to know about TQEP:

Welcome to "The Question Evolution Project". This is a resource that points to information showing the failings of evolution. We are also here to encourage people to speak out against evolutionary indoctrination.

Evolutionism dominates the media, education and so on. Pages like this are "equal time" to present information that is ignored and often suppressed. We attempt to help raise awareness that true science is not afraid to examine contrary evidence and allows alternative theories to the interpretation of the evidence (such as creation science). Specifically, evolutionists should not have the right to shout down, censor, censure or intimidate creationists / ID proponents.

I first earned the ire of Cowboy Bob, a biblical literalist, by insisting he confront his hypocrisy. I asked him if he was a geocentrist. Bob blustered about suing me for posting screenshots from FaceBook.

I mocked Bob after that by finding a photo of him and attaching this description: “Bob has read one book. It has made him an expert in biology, geology, physics, and chemistry.” Nine months later, Bob filed a Digital Millenium Copyright Act complaint and the photo was removed from FaceBook. But not for long.  I filed a counter-notification and a few weeks later, access was restored.

Another character is Kirk Hastings. Kirk has a few FaceBook profiles: What is Truth?, Freedom From Atheistic Scientism, and The Question Irreligiosophy Project. Kirk has a habit of pasting quotes. I came across one that I had to investigate.

Radio telescopes, linked with computers, simultaneously search millions of radio frequencies for a nonrandom, nonnatural, extraterrestrial signal—any short sequence of information. Yet, the long sequence of information in the DNA of every living thing on Earth is a signal from an intelligence—a vast intelligence—a Creator. Almost all those searching for extraterrestrial life believe it evolved naturally in outer space. If they ever accepted the DNA evidence for a Creator, the evolutionary basis for their search would disappear.

He credits a journalist for the journal Science and helpfully cites the volume, date, and page number.

I downloaded the article and searched for the quote. Even after calling him out for his dishonesty, he continued to claim that he was accurately quoting the journalist and insisted the quote from the very article I had in my hand. Only very recently has he deleted the post from his timeline. I’ll take that as an admission of guilt.

There is no shortage of creationists to joust with. There are also plenty of cranks out there who are willing to engage. Stupid politicians will continue to provide comedy gold as well as provoke anger.

But I reserve a special enmity for commenters. Even before Web 2.0, I never understood call-in radio shows, interviews with the person on the street, and the like.

Commenting seems to bring out the very worst especially behind a wall of anonymity. Just this past Friday night, the CBS affiliate aired a story that hits me rather personally.

For thirteen years – up to 2011 – I worked with students and teachers at a private elementary school. I coordinated the science program, developed science lessons with the teachers, and taught all levels from pre-school to 8^th grade. Until you’ve been in a classroom with these teachers, it’s hard to appreciate the job they choose to do.

So it was with deep sadness that I read this story. If true, a teacher violated the trust of a student, the parents and his co-workers.  If false, a man’s career is sidelined and his reputation is ruined. The article states that the teacher is forbidden by the California Department of Social Services from having any contact with any children in any facility licensed by the department. The Whittier police department closed its investigation and the District Attorney is not filing any charges

Let me read you some of the 863 comments [as of 9:20 am, Sept. 8.] These are not necessarily the worst of them.

• Should have identified the despicable deviant teacher by name.
Typical MSM and Union rats at work.
• Oh good, another liberal sicko exercising its uninvited deviant sexual desires on others, and once again, on a child. When liberals are not busy murdering children, or making it easier for others to murder children, they are busy molesting the children. They call it, "being progressive".
• No wonder he got in trouble...
He didn't say "Obama says".
• KILL the perv!
• On one hand you have the government brainwashing your children with communist ideologies and on the other hand they are being molested by these freaks. If god doesn't deal with these vermin then the people will. Soon. VERY soon.
• Another liberal pedophile who we have teaching our kids.He needs to be swinging from a tree at the end of a rope.
• sounds like black to me.
•  If I remember correctly, all pedophile teachers are sent to Kalifornia to teach. Kalifornia does not discriminate based on sexual preference. The zoophiles are sent there as well. What a wonderful inclusive place to raise a family.
• Not only are the Public School "teachers" Lefty Lemmings but they are also Pedophiles.
• I've never known a male to work as a preschool teacher.
• If it were a male of European decent or a Christian of any decent they would have blasted the face and name everywhere. I am gonna bet it was either a homosexual or a minority.
• Its now open season on Johnny's fartbox. Homosexual Sodomite Pedophiles are going to be raping children all over this nation this school year. You get what you voted for.
• only anal tongue darts are acceptable in California

And with that, thank you for letting me get all this off my chest.

Are You Smarter Than an 8th Grader?

You have probably already seen this test; it's been all over ABC News, FaceBook and has been emailed back and forth. It comes courtesy of the Bullitt County History Museum.

On the museum site with the test's answers, the curators warned that

obviously it tested some things that were more relevant at that time than now, and it should not be used to compare student knowledge then and now.

However, it's quite clear not everyone has read this advice. Here are some comments from the Huffington Post:

• For all the arm chair critics, what this shows is how far our expectations have fell.
• What this test shows is how low our expectations are for what children ought to know today.
• You feel threatened by this test because it shows how lacking our education system is.
• They valued education much more than people do today.
• This test reflects a decided dumbing down of the US population to my mind.

By the way, can anyone find the grammatical error in the first comment?

[Scroll down.]

To these critics, I say

Here's one thing that California 8th graders are expected to do in math.

Students use linear equations and systems of linear equations to represent, analyze, and solve a variety of problems. Students recognize equations for proportions (y/x = m or y = mx) as special linear equations (y = mx + b), understanding that the constant of proportionality (m) is the slope, and the graphs are lines through the origin. They understand that the slope (m) of a line is a constant rate of change, so that if the input or x-coordinate changes by an amount A, the output or y-coordinate changes by the amount m ⋅ A. Students also use a linear equation to describe the association between two quantities in bivariate data (such as arm span vs. height for students in a classroom). At this grade, fitting the model, and assessing its fit to the data are done informally. Interpreting the model in the context of the data requires students to express a relationship between the two quantities in question and to interpret components of the relationship (such as slope and y-intercept) in terms of the situation.

From the reading standards for information:

Determine the meaning of words and phrases as they are used in a text, including figurative, connotative, and technical meanings; analyze the impact of specific word choices on meaning and tone, including analogies or allusions to other texts. 

From the writing standards:

Conduct short research projects to answer a question (including a self-generated question), drawing on several sources and generating additional related, focused questions that allow for multiple avenues of exploration.

From the speaking and listening standards:

Delineate a speaker’s argument and specific claims, evaluating the soundness of the reasoning and relevance and sufficiency of the evidence and identifying when irrelevant evidence is introduced.

From the language standards:

Use knowledge of language and its conventions when writing, speaking, reading, or listening.a. Use verbs in the active and passive voice and in the conditional and subjunctive mood to achieve particular effects (e.g., emphasizing the actor or the action; expressing uncertainty or describing a state contrary to fact).

I could go on with the literacy standards for history, social studies, science, and technical subjects, but I won't. I'll get to my point.

People often confuse knowledge with intelligence. Knowing what the name of the climate zones is still important, especially today with the rate the climate is changing, but knowing those zones is useless out of context; that is, unless you're appearing on Jeopardy or playing a bar trivia game.

Smart people know a lot of stuff, but smart people know what do do with that information.

Kirk Hastings' Pants Are on Fire

CREDIT: PhotoBucket

We last saw Kirk Hastings when he wrongly accredited some creationist mumbo-jumbo to a respected science journalist. He has yet to correct the FaceBook page Freedom From Atheistic Scientism. Isn't there a word when a person makes a claim he knows to be false?

This is not the only time Kirk has distorted the truth, but first let me insert here my thanks to Question Kirk Hastings, a FaceBook page dedicated to documenting Kirk. 

Here is Kirk quoting Colin Patterson, a paleontologist affiliated with the British Museum and a Fellow of the Royal Society.

Out of context that statement might seem to express doubt in modern biological theories. However, when one reads that statement in context, it takes on a whole new meaning.

Gillespie's book [Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation]is a historian's attempt to explain the amount of space that Darwin gave to combating the creationist arguments. Gillespie shows that what Darwin was doing was trying to replace the creationist paradigm by a positivist paradigm, a view of the world in which there was neither room nor necessity for final causes. Of course, Gillespie takes it for granted that Darwin and his disciples succeeded in this task. He takes it for granted that a rationalist view of nature has replaced an irrational one and of course, I myself took that view about eighteen months ago. Then I woke up and realized that all my life I had been duped into taking evolutionism as revealed truth in some way. 

Furthermore, Patterson gave the "fairly rumbustious talk" that this statement came from at an informal meeting dealing with systematics (classification).  In a letter, Patterson wrote "my talk was addressed to professional systematists, and concerned systematics, nothing else."

One more example of taking something out of context. Here Kirk repeats a statement from a radio and YouTube commentator.

What did Stephen J. Gould really write? 

The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change. All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt.

 How does Gould feel about being quoted in such a dishonest manner?

Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists -- whether through design or stupidity, I do not know -- as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. The punctuations occur at the level of species; directional trends (on the staircase model) are rife at the higher level of transitions within major groups.

I find it funny that this example is used on Wikipedia as an example of quoting out of context.

What does Kirk have to say for himself. On a different FaceBook page he administers, The Question Irreligiosophy Project, he writes

Creationists can make mistakes like anyone else, and I haven't seen that they generally have any problem correcting them when necessary (after all, they believe the Bible when it says "You shall not lie"). 

Lest I be accused of lying, here is the screen shot.

Cowboy Bob Strikes Out

Today I received the email below from the FaceBook authorities that access to this image is no longer being disabled.  Bob had the option to seek a federal court order restraining me from using it, but maybe the cowboy read up on Section 105 of the copyright code.

We have restored or ceased disabling access to the content you identified in your counter-notification. If you do not see the content, it is possible we were unable to restore it due to technical limitations. In this case, you may re-upload the content at your discretion.  

The above action is taken pursuant to section 512(g)(2)(C) of the DMCA. 

For more on this, see Cowboy Bob Strikes Again. 

Eating Dynamite

David Taylor, a former student of mine and current materials science student at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, did this wonderful calculation and posted it on FaceBook.

I have only a couple of notes to add. 

1. Units 2 and 3 of the San Onofre Generating Station north of San Diego each generated 1 Gigawatts when they were running.

CREDIT: Jelson25

2. This is what 1/2 and 1 pound blocks of TNT look like.  Now imagine 120,000 one-pound blocks of TNT.

CREDIT: Soldier of Fortune 

3. E=mc^2. Three milligrams of matter is about a drop of water.

CREDIT: José Manuel Suárez

4. NPR reported that Americans are now eating nearly 2700 calories a day totaling one ton of food a year.

 5. By the way, I know that TNT is not a component of dynamite.  Nitroglycerine is, but Eating Dynamite is a better title.

Cowboy Bob Sorensen Strikes Again

UPDATE: 3:29 p.m. PDT: Cowboy Bob leaves two comments and I respond.
UPDATE 2:01 p.m. PDT: Cowboy Bob responds. See below.

Cowboy Bob
CREDIT: Vann Priest;
original photo obtained from
Gods that don't exist and people who talk to themselves

Back on September 30, 2012, I created this graphic and posted to the FaceBook community, Question the 'Question Evolution Project'.  Just this past Friday, June 14, 2013, I received an email from the FaceBook authorities that it was removed because Cowboy Bob Sorensen (AKA Stormbringer, Piltdown Superman, Uncle Pilty, and numerous other aliases) filed a complaint claiming that I violated his copyright under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).

Following FaceBook's advice to resolve this directly, I emailed Bob this morning.

Dear Cowboy Bob,

I recently received notice from FaceBook that they "received a notice from a third party that the content infringes their copyright(s)."  That content was removed under the procedures of Section 512(c) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).

The content was a meme I generated using a photo that presumably is one of you and posted to the community Question the 'Question Evolution Project'. The photo I used came from a blog entitled Gods that don't exist and people who talk to themselves.

I contend that the use of your photo is fair use as defined in Section 105 of the copyright law (title 17, U.S. Code).  As such, I do not require your permission to use it, but I am contacting you in the hope that we can resolve this directly.  If you would quickly email FaceBook with your consent to my use of said photo and reference Notice # 394967200609674, I would greatly appreciate it.

As I mentioned above, the use of that photo is fair use; I will be filing a DMCA counter-notification with FaceBook. In support of my contention, I note that you filed a similar claim against Gods that don't exist sometime around February 2013.  The author of that blog filed a successful DCMA counter claim and your photo is once again prominently displayed.

With regards,

Cowboy Bob threatened me with a law suit once before, because… Well, let's use his words.

That was 11 months ago.

Should Cowboy Bob succeed in keeping that graphic off of Facebook, I've found another picture I'll use from here on out.

Cowboy Bob
CREDIT: Quick Draw McGraw/
Hanna-Barbera Productions

Cowboy Bob replies:

No, it has never been legally used. Botten used it without permission. "Fair Use" is an American law, and I was unwilling to undertake the expense of international legislative action. This is in no wise "Fair Use", as it is my property, used without my permission, for the sake of libeling and defaming me; it is not "parody", it was used strictly for juvenile and petty humiliation. So you DO require me permission to use it, and I deny your claim.

Does your college approve of your vindictive, childish behavior? This, plus your previously documented stalking of me, will not help your "case", and you are also embarrassing your employer.

Cowboy Bob

2 Peter 3:8 & Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity

On March 26, Steve Hess posted to The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science (Official) FaceBook page. I have copied the text verbatim.

I guess me merging einstines equations with the bible isn't science enough for you, what do you honestly know about quantum mechanics and cosmology?  And we are the ignorant ones

Followed by Mr. Hess's derivation of something again copied verbatim.

here is something interesting if you take peter 3:8 which mention's a difference in time and plug it into einestines special theory of relitivity you get this. here i will show you

EDIT: I miscopied one number -  7.5060981.

To save you the trouble of running to a Bible, here is the verse Mr. Hess is referring to.

But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. (NIV)

Mr. Hess is impressed that the Bible seems to predict the speed of light.  However, he lacks understanding of what the time dilation formula is about.

What this equation deals with is the relative motion of two laboratories (okay - inertial reference frames for the physicists).  If lab A is moving by lab B at a constant velocity then when the observer in lab B looks at a clock in lab A, he measures clock A to be running slow.  That is, if clock B ticks off 60 sec, then clock A will tick off a time less than 60 sec.

So if the lord is in lab B watching us whiz by at 99.9999999996% of the speed of light then he would measure 1000 years go by while we age just one day or if we are watching him hurtle through space with that speed, we would measure 1000 years while he(?) experiences just one day.

Lest one worry about the word theory which has a different meaning to scientists than to the nonspecialist, this is a well documented effect.  One well known experiment* was performed by David H. Fritsch and James H Smith. Smith, by the way, was the professor who taught me special relativity at the University of Illinois. They measured that muons, a component of cosmic rays, survive 8.8 times longer as they pass through the Earth's atmosphere than they do at rest in a physics lab.  The factor 8.8 corresponds to the time dilation factor these muons have by moving at a speed  99.5% of the speed of light.

*David H. Fritsch and James H. Smith, "Measurement of the Relativistic Time Dilation Using μ-Mesons," Am. J. of Phys., 31, 342-355 (1963).

Here's the original image posted by Mr. Hess.

I'm Being Sued?

Almost a month ago, I wrote about how I had been banned by a couple of Facebook users FaceBookers, The Question Evolution Project and True Dinos.  In the post I invited both of them to respond.  It took them three weeks, but Cowboy Bob Sorensen did on this blog,

and Aaron Tullock did on his True Dinos Facebook FB page.

I'm a physicist, not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure I didn't post anything illegally.  Both of the Facebook pages are public, as are their web pages.  I believe that the Fair Use Doctrine may apply.

As to the defamation charge, Aaron needs to know the difference between slander and libel.  Notwithstanding the vocabulary, I think libel is " to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others." [dictionary.law.com]  If Aaron can point out the untruth, I will gladly retract.

By the way, Cowboy Bob and Aaron, calling you out for your scientific nonsense is not ridiculing you for spreading your gospel.  I'm ridiculing you for believing in creationist gibberish.

Lastly, I will take this opportunity to once again invite them to address the issue that led them to ban me.

Both Cowboy Bob and Aaron are biblical literalists.  The bible literally says the Sun orbits the Earth.  [A historical point here.  Galileo was tried and convicted by the Catholic Church in 1633 for promoting the heliocentric model for which Pope John Paul II apologized in 1992.]  Do they adhere to the biblical view or is their bible wrong on this matter?  To make matters easy on them I will once again provide a link to true biblical literalists that know what the bible says on this. Galileo Was Wrong; The Church Was Right.

They are invited to comment here using whatever language they deem appropriate.  I ask that they do not do so anonymously.  They will not be banned.

I wonder if they will extend to me the same courtesy?