The Return of Lucas Recap. CORR June 15, 2006

June 16, 2006 at 9:50 am | Posted in Journal of Anti-Science meetings | 40 Comments

The meeting was smaller than expected, only about 30 people. After a delay to solve a technical problem with the audio, Dr. Bill Lucas, from Common Sense Science and confirmed PhD in physics from William & Mary, did join us via closed-circuit television (CCTV), and, so, I finally ended up discrediting him.

I have to give credit to JD Lehman and the people at CORR who helped him, they did a fantastic job setting this up. We in the audience were facing a giant screen with Dr. Lucas’ slides on the left and Dr. Lucas himself from his home on the right. I liked this format, it was easy to see both Lucas and his slides.

So, Dr. Lucas started his presentation closer to 7:30PM than 7:00PM, but I’m not complaining. He started off explaining his “Divine Force Law,” by explaining why it is necessary. He said that using a point-particle assumption in physics doesn’t allow for the existence of God because that does not allow God to be omnipresent. He said that because of relativity God could not be omniscient. And he said that quantum mechanics does not allow for a definition of sin. These are all of his interpretations, science only uses nature to explain phenomena and can not control for or test for God, so the actions and presence of God are not considered in science, it is limited by nature. His whole point is to apparently make God a being in nature and inside the limitations of science, so he slapped some equations together to get rid of this “problem.”

Basically the “Divine Force Law” is a derived equation with no experimental data and makes wild predictions that have no support by actual phenomena. Here it is, still titled “Universal Electrodynamic Force” but he calls it the “Divine Force”:

And here’s Dr. Lucas’ slide explaining his derived equation’s superiority:

It’s more lengthy to attack Lucas’ equation than it is the prediction he claims it makes, so here we go.

This is a little tough to follow, but I’ll do my best to explain it. Lucas claims that the Earth radiates energy and so loses mass and gravity, while at the same time expanding. So, Lucas claims that the Earth loses energy and so loses mass. This is a prediction his “Divine Force” makes and he made several statements to back it up. One of them that was people in Biblical times lived so long because the intense gravity of the Earth kept more oxygen close to the surface, and said that the gravity now when a maximum life expectancy is 100 years is 1/9th that of in Biblical times when ages of 900 years are reported in the Bible. He also used this very bad geology:

Lucas claims that these images are top secret so the Navy can hide subs in the rock formations of these “stretch marks,” but he shared them with us. Lucas’ view as the the Earth started out only as large as land surface would allow, and has been expanding ever since, causing all of the continents to break apart and all move away from each other, causing these cracks, stretch marks, in the surface.

He then claimed that all bodies in our solar system show the same thing, showing images of Venus, Jupiter’s moon Ganymede, Mars, and this slide of the Moon:

Lucas claimed that is is evident that the moon is “cracking” as the “continents of the moon” spread as it expands.

He further went on to claim support with really bad chemistry, that his equation predicts a planar structure for cyclohexane. However I don’t have the slide to show this, and I focused on attacking his geology so I’ll stick with that. But I will say that while Lucas claims an sp3 C is cubic, it is very well understood in chemistry is in fact tetrahedral, and that cyclohexane flips between chair and boat formations, it certainly is not planar.

When the presentation was over, after about an hour and a half I was the first to ask a question. So I walked up to the front of the room and asked to return to the first geology slide of the presentation and I began. I’m sorry that I don’t have an audio recording of this, and the exchange was too quick and long for me to quote verbatim, but I tried my best to get the points across.

Me: “So, Dr. Lucas, your claim is that the Earth is losing mass but expanding, do you have any data to support this? I mean, have you compared the mass of the Earth today compared to that of the mass that Lavoisier came up with 200 years ago? Do you have any data to show that the Earth really is expanding?”

Lucas mentioned the cracks so I interrupted.

Me: “These cracks that you are referring to is the mid-oceanic ridge. It’s very well known and not top-secret. We don’t know too much about the deep ocean is the sea life because it’s tough to explore due to the pressure. We’re very aware of the mid-oceanic ridge and it’s actually somewhat famous for sea floor spreading and its connection to plate motion, plate tectonics.”

Lucas said, “Well, physicists have problems with plate tectonics.”

Me: “What physicists? Geologists don’t. You’re taking something that’s part of geology and saying it’s proof that the Earth is expanding, but you have no data. Geologists know that the continents are moving and we have a lot of data proving that. But it’s not all expanding away from each other. North America is going towards Asia, and how do you explain India? How do you explain the Himalayas?”

Lucas: “The Himalayas are another crack.”

Me: “The Himalayas are still growing today because India is still slamming into Asia. Everything isn’t spreading out, it’s just moving. There is data for that, and you have no data or any support at all for what you’re saying, and you’re going against very well established geology. Do you have any quantifiable data, any numbers?”

Lucas: “Yes, I do.

Me: “Then where is it?

Lucas: “I have data.”

Me: “Where? You didn’t present any. Geologists use P, S, and L waves to measure seismic events and determine what’s underneath the surface. Do you have any data about them changing, because an expanding Earth would definitely change them?”

Lucas didn’t appear to have an answer, but said something like, “These cracks…” so I moved on.

Me: “I’ve explained the cracks and you have no data. Let’s go to the moon.” JD Lehman changed the slide to the moon. “The moon does not have continents and it is not expanding. It is geologically dead. These cracks your talking about are from meteors bombarding it. The moon has no atmosphere to protect it, and hasn’t been geologically active for a very long time so it doesn’t have something like volcanism to cover up its blemishes.”

Lucas: “The moon has been hit with meteors but there are cracks.”

Me: “I see craters. Do you have any data that the moon is expanding?”

Lucas: “You can measure that with GPS.”

Me: “Then where is it? You have no data to back up your claims.”

Lucas: “I do too, Venus…”

Me: “I saw Venus has cracks too. You’re either telling me everything in the solar system is geologically dead or geologically active but still expanding, which is it?”

Lucas: “That depends on what you mean by geologically active.”

Me: “By geologically active I mean geologically active. This is horrible geology and you have absolutely no data to back up anything that you’ve said. You have absolutely nothing.”

Lucas: “It’s hard to explain everything I can’t get every little detail perfect.”

Me: “Anything would have been nice.”

Lucas: “Have you ever been to a scientific lecture?”

Me: “Well, I saw Wootters, a physicist, here, and I saw Dr. Gingerich at Bethany [I meant Bethel, I always get the 2 names confused]. I try to go to as many as I can, and I was hoping for one tonight, but that didn’t happen. This wasn’t scientific. You have no data or support. You have nothing.”

Lucas: “I do have something or I wouldn’t have gotten to present at the AAAS in Tulsa.”

Me: “You presented at the AAAS at the Tulsa conference?”

Lucas: “Yes, they reviewed it, I do have support or I wouldn’t have been able to present.”

Me: “You mentioned this when you were here in April, and I did a little research. You did not present to the AAAS you presented to the Natural Philosophy Alliance.”

Lucas: “I presented to the AAAS-SWARM.”

Me: “You’re on the list for abstracts accepted by the NPA (the list can be found here) and on the NPA’s schedule for presentation at their Tulsa conference that was at the same time and place as the AAAS, but you did not present to AAAS.”

Lucas: “It was to the AAAS.”

Me: “No you didn’t. I asked the executive director of AAAS-SWARM, David Nash, what the relationship between them and the NPA was. And he said this:

To answer your questions: No, AAAS in no way endorses NPA and the NPA and AAAS do not work together at any point. We occasionally allow them to meet at the SWARM regional meetings as their own separate group, but do not advertise or promote their meetings. We are well aware that many of the presenters present (to be kind) “controversial” views and ideas. SWARM’s position is not to attempt to censor any ideas presented in an oral format, but this should in no way be seen as supporting any theories presented in this format. I hope this answers your questions. If you have any others, please don’t hesitate to contact me.

David Nash, Executive Director

AAAS SWARM Division”

 

Lucas: “That’s not right, the AAAS accepted the papers and I presented to them.”

Me: “I asked about that and he said:

The NPA abstracts were not reviewed by SWARM, only the NPA folks. No, these presentations should not be considered a presentation to AAAS. It is there own separate meeting held with our meetings, but only superficially.

David Nash, Executive Director

AAAS SWARM Division”

Lucas: “That’s not right. The papers were reviewed by SWARM and I presented to them.”

Me: “The executive director of AAAS-SWARM says that you did not present to them, because you didn’t, you presented to the NPA. You couldn’t present this to AAAS because you have nothing, it’s garbage.”

Lucas: “David is in an official position and he has to give the politically correct answer.”

Me: “Well, it appears as though his ‘politically correct’ answer is the correct answer because he is the Executive Director of a very well respected organization that you say you presented to and that says you never presented to them, and they never reviewed you.”

Lucas: “That’s a lie.”

Me: “Are you calling David Nash a liar? No wait. Are YOU calling David Nash a liar?”

Lucas: “They reviewed me and I presented to them.”

Me: “You have absolutely no data, nothing to support your claims, and you’re making up credentials in order to be listened to.”

Lucas: “I do have data.”

Me: “Okay?”

Lucas: “If you look at Venus…”

Me: “Wait. Should I pretend to be the AAAS?”

Lucas: “You can pretend if you want.”

Me: “Because if you’re going to tell people I’m the AAAS I wish you would tell me… I wonder, what are you trying to do here? You’re not conducting yourself honestly. Can you say that presented to the NPA, because you did?”

Lucas: “I presented to the AAAS.”

Me: “The AAAS says you didn’t. You have absolutely no data and your basic geology is horrible. On top of that, you’re making up credentials. You have absolutely no credibility, sir. You are not a scientist, and I suggest you find another line of work.”

With that, I turned to go to my seat. An Indian man, a member of CORR, said to me, “That wasn’t nice.”

Me: “He’s lying and he has no accountability. What am I supposed to do? Give him the Nobel Prize?”

I sat down and I wondered why this Indian man, who I had talked to many times and seemed rational, thought that I was being rude as Dr. Moore-Jansen approached the mic.

Dr. Moore-Jansen was very cool, and very calmly explained how Dr. Lucas’ presentation would be better served by data. As a biological anthropologist, and using the example of people living at different altitudes (and in different concentrations of oxygen) he also explained that there is no correlation between increased oxygen and increased longevity, and he asked where Dr. Lucas got data saying otherwise.

Lucas: “Somebody at Johns Hopkins told me if you bathe a chronically ill person, like with diabetes, in oxygen they’ll heal.”

Me: “That’s offensive. There is no cure for diabetes, and if it just took a little oxygen we would have cured my sister who’s had it since she was 2. She’s 30 now, we’ve had time to check things out.”

Dr. Moore-Jansen said while it’s a pleasant idea he doesn’t really have anything scientific.

While others asked questions, I wondered about the Indian man and what the deal was. Then Dr. Van Stipdonk tapped me on the shoulder, “He just said Catholic University.”

So I got up and went to the mic, Dave, one of us, gave me the mic.

Me: “I’m sorry for the interruption. Did you say you have a professorship at Catholic University?”

Lucas: “No.”

Me: “I’m sorry, I thought you just said that, but it’s still interesting because here on your resume on the Common Sense Science website, available as recently as today, it says that you were a professor at Catholic University.”

Here is Lucas’ resume from Common Sense Science, available as late as June 15. 2006:

 

Charles W. (Bill) Lucas, Jr., BS, MS, Ph.D.

PERSONAL

1. Married, lives at Mechanicsville, Maryland, near Washington, D.C.

2. Four children. Second son, Joseph, is one of the Common Sense Scientists.

 

DEGREES

1. BS (with honors). Physics and Philosophy of Science, College of William and Mary (1964).

2. MS, Solid State Physics, University of Maryland (1967).

3. Ph.D., Theoretical Physics, College of William and Mary (1972).

 

EXPERIENCE HISTORY

1. Vice-President of Common Sense Science since 1997.

2. Post-Doc research in Theoretical Physics at Catholic University (1972-1995)

3. Professor of Physics at Catholic and American Universities in Washington, D.C.

 

CONTRIBUTIONS TO SCIENCE

1. Refined the Ring Model by the concept of split charge-fibers that explains all the elementary particles of the Standard Model with a classical electrodynamics approach.

2. Derived the electrodynamics force law that applies to all dynamic interactions, including gravitation, i.e., the Universal Force Law.

3. Explained Blackbody Radiation, Spectral Wavelengths, and the Photoelectric Effect as electromagnetic properties of finite-size elastic electrons.

 

SCIENCE LECTURES

Dr. Lucas presents his research in physics and philosophy of creation-science at churches, creation-science fellowship groups, universities, and secular science conferences held in many cities around the world. His illustrated lectures demonstrate the scientific and logical superiority of creation-science with ample use of data and explanation.

 

Lucas: “I know. It’s not my fault. That shouldn’t be on there. I asked them to take it off.”

Me: “So you’re telling me you’re not responsible for what’s on your resume?”

Lucas: “I got a call from Catholic University to notify me.”

Dr. Van Stipdonk yelled from the audience, “When was that? I asked them about it and they seemed concerned.”

JD Lehman interrupted: “That’s not supposed to be on there. Before he visited (the first time) I asked him about it and he said it shouldn’t be.”

Me: “He’s never had a professorship, why should I believe that’s just an accident? He never presented to the AAAS.”

I sat back down. Lehman suggested we end the meeting and asked Lucas if he had any last words. I don’t remember what Lucas said, something about the “Divine Force.”

Me: “And you have nothing.”

Lucas: “I have a lot of support. I have the papers, and they have 150-200 citations.”

Moore-Jansen: “Okay, but what do they say, that doesn’t mean they have support? Were those sources peer-reviewed?”

Me: “Have you ever been peer-reviewed?”

Lucas: “I have 40-60 peer reviewed papers in APS (American Physical Society) journals.”

Dr. Van Stipdonk did some work on this and found that he had between 6 and 8 papers that were published. Dr. Moore-Jansen looked at me and I just shook my head, “No,” and said, “but I don’t have the documentation.”

Moore-Jansen: “I’m sorry, did you say 4-6 or 40-60?”

Lucas: “40-60.”

Me: “So, if I look I should be able to find 40-60 articles by you in APS journals?”

Lucas: “Well, some of them will be hard to find, they go all the way back to 1960.”

Me: “Well, it’s pretty easy to get papers here at the university, and computers are a funny thing nowadays. I can just type in, Lucas, CW and I should be able to find 40-60 in APS journals, right?”

Lucas: “I don’t know, they go all the way back to 1960.”

Me: “1960 is no problem.”

Lucas: “I do have data too, I can email you the papers.”

I’d already seen some of them so,

Me: “I’m not giving you my email address. I don’t want you SPAMming me.”

Lehman: “He’ll send them to me, and I’ll send them out.”

Dr. Lucas signed off and the Indian man said to me again, “That wasn’t nice. I never expected that from you.”

Me: “He lied. He’s making up false credentials and he’s lying to us. He has no accountability or credibility or data. What am I supposed to do?”

JD Lehman came up to me and said, “He is not a liar.”

Me: “I’m sorry David, but the AAAS says that he didn’t present to them.”

I gave JD Lehman the emails from David Nash and Dr. Van Stipdonk explained that saying you presented to the AAAS and actually didn’t is a very big deal, and Dr. Moore-Jansen came over to explain that having a fake resume will get you into trouble. Dr. Van Stipdonk also explained a lot of the problems with Dr. Lucas’ sources, because he had Dr. Lucas’ papers and their papers were not peer-reviewed.

With that, the meeting was over, and a total success. There is no way Dr. Bill Lucas’ credibility could not be in serious question by anyone in the audience.

While it’s hard to give this man credit for anything, I believe in giving credit where credit is due. So I thought I’d just identify the least ridiculous claim he made all night. The award goes to his claim of kinship to famous filmmaker George Lucas. I put Dr. Lucas’ picture next to Mr. Lucas’ picture so you can see the family resemblance for yourself. I’m waiting for George Lucas to respond to my email to verify his claim, and I’ll make it a point to post it here.

Thank you to Dr. Van Stipdonk for pointing me in the right direction a few times, and Dr. Moore-Jansen and all the other good guys for attending.