RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (16) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: The Finest in Geocentric Models and Analysis, by Ghost of Paley< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
cogzoid



Posts: 234
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 31 2006,08:16   

Well, the time has come.  Ghost of Paley is ready to present his geocentric model for the enlightenment of all interested.  Buried on the "LUCA" thread, Paley made some claims that he seemed to have difficulty backing up.  I won't hold those past claims against him.  I think that due to the difficulty of the task ahead of him, Paley should be allowed to present fresh ideas or old ideas, if he so chooses.

GoP has stated that he will not feel obligated to answer the questions of anyone except myself, ericmurphy, and vicklund.  He may, of course, answer questions on a whim.  Unfortunately, I find myself on the brink of summer travels, and I may be unable to post for a few weeks.  But, I know that GoP is in good hands here.  For the rest of you, feel free to chime in with humorous quips, but let's be clever.  (If I see another joke about an exploding irony meter my cliché guage will surely malfunction.)

Thanks to all those that voted.  Grab some beer and popcorn, sit back, and enjoy the show.

Take it away, Paley.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 31 2006,09:49   

First, let me remind you that I haven't completely finished the model, so you're only getting a piece for now. Second, I'm not obligated to answer anyone but the Big Three, although I will grant a dispensation for Number Nine and Fractatious, if they wish to take advantage. I acted like a jerk on the other thread and didn't answer their questions....so they get a pass. Cogzoid, I hope you have a happy vacation and will look forward to your return. Let me now do a little cut n' paste. Here are Eric's objections to geocentrism:
       
Quote
In any event, to save you the trouble of wading back through almost 20 pages of previous messages, I'll repost my questions to you here:

The Hertzsprung-Russel mass-luminosity relationship. According to your model, all stars (with minor exceptions) are at the same distance from earth: 4.5 ly. This means that all stars' apparent magnitude is equal to their absolute magnitude, and therefore their apparent luminosity is the same as their intrinsic luminosity. This means that the Hertzprung-Russel mass-luminosity relationship is broken, and there is therefore no relationship between a star's mass and its luminosity, or between its temperature and its luminosity. Therefore some other explanation is necessary for the different temperatures of stars. What is that explanation?

Galaxies. Since galaxies are all the same distance from the earth as the stars are (4.5 ly), either they're not made of stars at all (and hence are "nebulae"?), or they're made of extremely non-luminous stars. But stars have been resolved in some nearby galaxies, e.g., the Magellanic clouds. Presumably these are really tiny stars? Since their apparent luminosity is the same as their intrinsic luminosity…

Cosmic elemental abundances. (Is evopeach out there somewhere?). Presumably Bill's geocentric universe precludes a big bang, and therefore precludes primordial nucleosynthesis. Therefore, one needs some other explanation for the eerie concordance between the observed cosmic microwave background radiation and the predicted abundances of hydrogen, deuterium, helium, and lithium, which are exquisitely sensitive to the temperature of that radiation. Of course, we also need an explanation for the existence of the CMB in the first place, since the Big Bang evidently didn't happen in Bill's world.

Existence of metals. (Of course, I mean metals in the sense that astrophysicists use the term). I assume that supernovae don't happen in Bill's world, since a supernova occurring 4.5 ly away would preclude the existence of the earth. So, Bill—how did metals get here? I'm assuming since there was no big bang, they've always been here, but I'm hoping your answer is a little more entertaining than "I don't need to explain how metals got here, because they've always been here."

Cosmic redshift. Obviously, neither stars nor galaxies have a recession velocity, since they're all at the same distance from the earth (4.5 ly), and presumably always have been. So what accounts for the observed redshift? Tired light? Intervening dust? God playing tricks on us?

Distance to the celestial sphere. Bill, you say you know the distance to the A Centauri system. But how did you derive that distance? By its parallax? Even if, as WKV points out, parallax could be due to a wobbly cosmic sphere, you wouldn't be able to determine the sphere's distance that way. The reason we know the distance to A Centauri is because we know the diameter of the earth's orbit around the— oh, wait. The earth doesn't revolve around the sun. So what's the base of the triangle that allows us to compute the distance to the celestial sphere?

The first objection also relates to Cepheid variable stars, which act as a "standard candle" that helps evolutionists calculate their phony distances across the universe.


Here are Fractatious's objections:
     
Quote
A monotypic group (like the mesopatamians or mesoamericans, and pre neolithic asians and africans) had knowledge, without reading scripture that did not depend on the Bible being true.. did not depend on it period. Then what?

     
Quote
Students are not required to do every single experiement and observe every single piece of evidence by themselves. They are given the results via textbooks and journals, to be accepted on faith.


But if students wished to replicate those experiments (which many have, and will continue to do), this does not require faith. Unlike Intelligent Design and Creationism, it presents the research methodology in order to be replicated, in order to derive similar results, in order to be critiqued, and expanded upon. How do you think Intelligent Designers and Creationists get their negative information concerning science? Scientists conduct research, conduct experiments and register their findings. Those findings are made available. This is done so the flaws can be ironed out - for the Intelligent Designers and Creationists however, they do not view it as such - "why has science made this available?" a student of science will probably say "to show the method and to better both the research and experiment", the Intelligent Designer and Creationist will probably answer, "to prove science wrong, and God right".

       
Quote
What are journal results? They are testimony. No different from the testimony of those who observed Christ's empty tomb.


Journal results are recordings, they are recordings of a specific piece of research. How many times was Christ's tomb opened? How many accounts were given for this? Though I understand a need to (for the theistic person) correlate scientific methodology with religious faith, I fail to see how they can be compared with any great substance. One main point: Science does not require belief or faith, science requires scientific method. If it did, I would of prayed my way through my degree and probably got it.

     
Quote
This testimony is God's revelation beginning in the Garden of Eden. This is the only way to ground human knowledge.


Interesting - religion subverted science to the point that it was considered magic. Gallileo was put on trial for his support of the Copernicusian Model. Bruno was burnt alive for it. From a historical perspective it is valid to state that the adherents to testimonial of God's revelation would rather isolate human knowledge, instead of watching it grow.


Here are Number Nine's:
   
Quote
Ghost of Paley: Congratulations. What you wrote is undoubtedly the kind of epistemic mental masturbation that got you awestruck swoons in your Intro to Philosophy class.

You are relying on hyper-relativism. Like -- oh, a manic Heraclitus or Protagoras -- you claim that all is in flux, hence no universals can be true. Then you claim that only particulars can be true. But, Paley, once you begin racing down the epistemological road to solipsism, you cannot stop partway and claim some superior stance..let's see how true your particulars are:

If Paley knows that he has a True Bible, then Paley knows that he is not a brain in a vat. Paley does not know that he is not a brain in a vat. Therefore, Paley does not know that he has a True Bible.

You cannot claim the bible as "metajustification" at all, can you? If you say you can, refute what I just said.


If they want to add more arguments, they can.

Everyone else....try to be restrained and relevant.  ;)

More later.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 31 2006,09:54   

I'm only going to say this:

It's about time you took yourself a little less seriously.

I do wish you luck with your presentation.

have fun.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 31 2006,09:58   

Perhaps I'll regret asking this, or perhaps I'm being wildly naive by asking it, but does GoP really believe the Earth is the center of the Universe and that the sun goes around it, or is this some sort of grand piece of performance art on his part? I.e., is he on the level, or is he just messing with our minds? Or is there no difference anymore?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Paul Flocken



Posts: 290
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 31 2006,10:36   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ May 31 2006,14:49)
More later.

Later, always later.*  It's always later with you people.
Always later.





*Ten points for anyone who can guess the reference.

--------------
"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie--deliberate, contrived, and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.  Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."-John F. Kennedy

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 31 2006,11:38   

I cheated:

Quote
Maybe it’s a good idea for us to keep a few dreams of a house that we shall live in later, always later, so much later . . .
—Gaston Bachelard, The Poetics of Space


--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 31 2006,11:45   

I should make a couple of admonitions before we continue, though. Appeals to scripture will butter no parsnips with me, Bill, for the reasons I gave on page 25 of the "AF Dave's UPDATED etc." thread.

Also, we're going to have to assume that the observations (although not necessarily the interpretations of those observations) are valid and accurate. I.e., if a paper cites a quasar as having a z=3.5, we're going to have to assume that measurement is accurate, absent compelling evidence from multiple other sources that contradicts it. In other words, Bill, you're going to have to argue that the evidence calls for a different conclusion, not that the evidence itself is invalid.

If we start arguing things like the relationship between color and temperature or the binding energy of iron nuclei, we'll never get anywhere and will end up wasting all our time arguing minutiae. There are certain observables you're just going to have deal with, Bill. If you want to say standard candle distance estimates are incorrect, that's one thing. But arguing things like apparent (as distinct from absolute) magnitude will get really wearisome really quickly.

Also, I should point out for everyone's benefit that I'm going into this little contest at a distinct disadvantage, in that I'm seriously mathematically challenged. I think I have a pretty good grasp of the fundamentals and concepts, but if you start lobbing equations at me, you're going to lose me really quickly. Unfortunately, Cogzoid's going to be away, so I'm going to have to rely on my wits for most of this, I imagine. Any help from those of us who believe the universe is more than 5 ly across would be greatly appreciated.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
cogzoid



Posts: 234
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 31 2006,12:24   

It turns out that I'll be around for another few weeks.  But, since I'll be entertaining visiting friends and family, I'll still be rather busy.

Paley, I was hoping that you'd start fresh with your model.  Many people weren't paying attention to the LUCA thread initially, and I don't really wish to sift through it again.  Perhaps you can start by telling us what you think the evidence shows.  What does our solar system look like?  What does our galaxy look like?  What does the universe look like?  Are we spinning in place, or are the stars wizzing around us?  Then we can start discussing the simpler implications of your model.  We can discuss epicycles and our deep space probes.  Some eager listeners don't know the basics of your model yet.

-Dan

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 31 2006,12:28   

Eric:
             
Quote
Also, we're going to have to assume that the observations (although not necessarily the interpretations of those observations) are valid and accurate. I.e., if a paper cites a quasar as having a z=3.5, we're going to have to assume that measurement is accurate, absent compelling evidence from multiple other sources that contradicts it. In other words, Bill, you're going to have to argue that the evidence calls for a different conclusion, not that the evidence itself is invalid.

I'm going to have to take the raw measurements at face value. It's not like a have an pro-level observatory on my balcony, you know.
             
Quote
If we start arguing things like the relationship between color and temperature or the binding energy of iron nuclei, we'll never get anywhere and will end up wasting all our time arguing minutiae. There are certain observables you're just going to have deal with, Bill. If you want to say standard candle distance estimates are incorrect, that's one thing. But arguing things like apparent (as distinct from absolute) magnitude will get really wearisome really quickly.

I'll try to be as transparent as possible, except......
             
Quote
Also, I should point out for everyone's benefit that I'm going into this little contest at a distinct disadvantage, in that I'm seriously mathematically challenged. I think I have a pretty good grasp of the fundamentals and concepts, but if you start lobbing equations at me, you're going to lose me really quickly. Unfortunately, Cogzoid's going to be away, so I'm going to have to rely on my wits for most of this, I imagine. Any help from those of us who believe the universe is more than 5 ly across would be greatly appreciated.

....this will be a problem. Unfortunately, the early part will have a few equations, although the underlying ideas should be relatively clear (I hope). Eric, please realise that mathematical arguments are part of any solid cosmological model, and are necessary for any valid reinterpretation of the data. Hopefully, Vicklund has some time for the math. If not, well.....anyone other than Stevestory want to fill in?* [edit: never mind, I guess?!?]

Arden:
   
Quote
Perhaps I'll regret asking this, or perhaps I'm being wildly naive by asking it, but does GoP really believe the Earth is the center of the Universe and that the sun goes around it, or is this some sort of grand piece of performance art on his part? I.e., is he on the level, or is he just messing with our minds? Or is there no difference anymore?

Sigh. I guess I can't blame you for assuming the worst about me, since even some of my fellow church members think my beliefs are a joke. But I take them very seriously. I may not be right in every detail, but I know that the earth doesn't move. As Casey would say, you could look it up.

Cogzoid: I'd like to present the model alongside the equations. Don't worry, I'm assuming that the lurkers haven't read any part of LUCA. You shouldn't need a math background to understand the basic components.

Wiggles: What the #### are you going on about?

*Sorry, Steve, but I want to deal with you later.  :)

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 31 2006,12:31   

*sigh*

this isn't starting off any more interestingly than the LUCA thread.

GoP already backpeddaling and pre-qualifying any argument he is going to make is not promising at all.

Gees!  get some balls already!  nobody takes you seriously here, and they never will, so run with it!

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 31 2006,12:40   

Quote
but I know that the earth doesn't move
If we ever get beyond talking about what we're going to talk about, I'll be interested in seeing the proof of this.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 31 2006,12:41   

Quote


*Sorry, Steve, but I want to deal with you later.



And the sun also rises,


and the sun goeth down,


and lo, there is no model from Paley.

   
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 31 2006,12:48   

Quote
First, let me remind you that I haven't completely finished the model, so you're only getting a piece for now.
Surely if you're telling us you have a model that shows a geocentric universe you should already have the model. Otherwise you don't know you have the model, unless you have already reached the conclusion, and are now going to try and use maths to prove it.

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 31 2006,12:49   

Quote
And the sun also rises,


ugh, that novel made me hate Hemingway for anything but his short stories.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 31 2006,13:11   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ May 31 2006,17:28)
....this will be a problem. Unfortunately, the early part will have a few equations, although the underlying ideas should be relatively clear (I hope). Eric, please realise that mathematical arguments are part of any solid cosmological model, and are necessary for any valid reinterpretation of the data. Hopefully, Vicklund has some time for the math. If not, well.....anyone other than Stevestory want to fill in?* [edit: never mind, I guess?!?]

Hey, I got through "A Brief History of Time" without difficulty (several times), which a lot of science (and even astronomy! ) Ph.Ds couldn't get through, so I know it can be done.

Your model still needs to explain observations. I may not get all the details, and certainly won't be able to check your math, but if your model is flat-out contradicted by observation, no amount of math will save you.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 31 2006,13:20   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ May 31 2006,17:28)
I may not be right in every detail, but I know that the earth doesn't move. As Casey would say, you could look it up.

Relative to what, Bill? It doesn't move relative to me. It doesn't move relative to Mt. Tamalpais, out there across the bay from me here in San Francisco.

But you're saying it doesn't move relative to the Sun? To Sirius? The galactic center? The Magellanic Clouds? M87? 3C273?

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 31 2006,13:35   

It's easy to find out how to derive the apparent equations of motion in a noninertial reference frame such as the surface of the earth. In a treatment such as in the classic Marion/Thornton, you wind up with this:



Where the effective force is given in terms of the force seen in the inertial frame, the force from the translational acceleration, the rotational acceleration, the centrifugal acceleration, and the Coriolis acceleration, respectively. (Image from an adaptation at http://www.astro.uwo.ca/~houde....s.pdf).

Paley's model will never be able to explain this simple equation.

   
Lou FCD



Posts: 5402
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 31 2006,13:47   

JUST POST THE FRAKKING MODEL ALREADY!

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
cogzoid



Posts: 234
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 31 2006,13:51   

Settle down, Steve.  First he presents his model, THEN we point out it's flaws.  We've waited a long time for this model, we don't want to scare him back into his hole before getting to the good stuff.  Patience.

-Dan

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5402
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 31 2006,13:53   

and I meant that in the politist possible way, of course.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 31 2006,15:02   

OK. First, we need a probabilty function whose area sums to "1". If we assume a uniform distribution (each element in the sample space is equally likely, so everything has an equally likely chance of occuring), we wind up with a rectangle:

Now, if we take a finite and uniform probability distribution, and calculate its moving average by using the convolution theorem, we get the Sinc function. Let's normalise this function:


The area under this curve is 1. But it doesn't meet the basic requirements of a density curve, so let's adjust the curve by "flipping" all the negative parts above the x-axis. This converts the function into a convolution of a triangular impulse:

Here's the plot of our new function:


Now, I previously argued that the sun, stars, and galaxies inhabit a crystalline ether, which I dubbed the quintessence. I must derive a wavefunction that satisfies Shroedinger's equation for a periodic function inhabiting a periodic potential of constant value. This can be accomplished by performing an inverse Fourier transform of our Sinc^2 function, which will also output the magnitudes and frequencies of the curve. Here, k=the wave vector. R is the x, y, z space that defines the (three) spatial dimensions.


At this point, the evos will demand an explicit wave vector. My wave vector shall simultaneously describe plane wave motions and map information space to real space. Here it is -- a klein bottle parameterised on the u,v grid firmament:

Here is the closed surface:
.
Now, Darwinists will object that this surface is not regular and thus non-orientable. But I will later show this complaint bears no fruit.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 31 2006,15:27   

OOOooooo, he's broken out the Mathematica.

To no end, of course.

   
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 31 2006,15:36   

crystalline ether?  I know GoP says he is not obligated to respond but does anyone else have some background on this?  If I'm not mistaken this has already been addressed.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 31 2006,15:39   

Quote (Ichthyic @ May 31 2006,17:49)
Quote
And the sun also rises,


ugh, that novel made me hate Hemingway for anything but his short stories.

But it did provide Hunter S Thompson with a cool title he once used for an essay, "The Scum Also Rises".

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 31 2006,16:04   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ May 31 2006,20:02)
Now, Darwinists will object that this surface is not regular and thus non-orientable. But I will later show this complaint bears no fruit.

I have a more fundamental objection: how does this model account for the parallax of nearby stars? That despite the parallax of nearby objects, the vast majority of astronomical objects have no measurable parallax? That not all astronomical objects have the same parallax? And, how does it account for the fact that the distances to nearby stars derived from parallax measurements dovetail neatly with estimates of their expected intrinsic luminosity based on detailed studies of stellar evolution?

Also—you previously stated that the cosmos has a diameter of 4.5 ly. Do you still stand by that assertion, or should I assume you have abandoned it?

And before you argue that "you'll get to that later," I'll state that this is one of the most fundamental observations your model has to account for. If your model can't account for parallax measurements that have been known and studied for hundreds if not thousands of years, Bill, your model ain't gonna make it out of the starting gate, regardless of whatever other charms it may have. The history of physics is littered with the corpses of otherwise elegant and beautiful theories which nevertheless have foundered on the shoals of observations.

On a side note—what does "Darwinism" have to do with cosmology and astronomy? The term is utterly irrelevant in this context; I suggest you come up with another one. Perhaps "astronomers" would be more appropriate?

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 31 2006,16:11   

Quote
But it did provide Hunter S Thompson with a cool title he once used for an essay, "The Scum Also Rises".


HST...

*sniff*

we hardly knew ye.

I guess he never really made it out of Las Vegas after all.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
qetzal



Posts: 311
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 31 2006,16:12   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ May 31 2006,20:02)
At this point, the evos will demand an explicit wave vector.

[snip]

Now, Darwinists will object that this surface is not regular and thus non-orientable.

Hmm. I realize I have no standing on this thread (by rule), but isn't this supposed to be a cosmological model? Why label critics of this model "evos" and "Darwinists?"

  
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 31 2006,17:16   

In case any of you were wondering, Paley's mathematical "argument" is bogus and purely obfuscatory.  Don't waste any time on it.  

Eric is right to pin him down on parallax.

You should also ask him to explain the phases of Venus and Mercury.

--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number.  -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 31 2006,17:17   

since the topic has been raised in THIS forum, you might want to check Gawp's previous thoughts on the issue in one of the other antievolution.org forums (yeah, there's several aside from ATBC):

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....3;t=247

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 31 2006,18:36   

Ghost,
Sonofabitch. Your math doesn't work for me. I tried to figure out how to calculate an orbit or tidal force and you lost me. But that isn't what I am writing to say here.

What I am writing to say here is that I just did a web search of places you've posted and I've got to say, there are one or two places you've slipped up (just a little) but you've got me beat hands down. You would be surprised I think, to know the face behind some of these masks. I know I would be surprised to know yours. Now I know why. Fun, fun, fun. And you get to keep on drivin' the T-bird.

Good luck and may the force be with you.

I really want to see your scale free hub thing next. Try to skip some of the math though. Just, well, it's your show. Do what feels good.

Peace out.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
normdoering



Posts: 287
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 31 2006,18:40   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ May 31 2006,20:02)
I previously argued that the sun, stars, and galaxies inhabit a crystalline ether, which I dubbed the quintessence. I must derive a wavefunction that satisfies Shroedinger's equation for a periodic function of constant value. This can be accomplished by performing an inverse Fourier transform of our Sinc^2 function, which will also output the magnitudes and frequencies of the curve. Here, k=the wave vector. R is the x, y, z space that defines the (three) spatial dimensions.

One of us doesn't know what you're talking about, Ghost, and I think it's you.

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1773
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 31 2006,18:47   

Nah, just ask him why there is an International Agency devoted strictly to measuring the irregularities and wobble in the Earth’s rotational axis (necessary to precisely track LEO and GEO satellites).

International Earth Rotation and Reference Systems Service (IERS)

Then ask him his explanation of why spacecraft are almost always launched in an Easterly direction to take advantage of the extra velocity boost provided by the Earth’s rotation.

Spacecraft launch phase

Then ask him why geostationary satellites (those with a very low eccentricity geosynchronous orbit), which are launched into orbit over the Earth’s equator at an altitude of 22,235 miles and a velocity of 6878 MPH (which matches the Earth’s rotational velocity) appear stationary to an observer on the ground.

Geostationary orbits

That should keep him busy refining his model.

--------------
"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

  
Bruce Beckman



Posts: 6
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 31 2006,22:28   

Quote
Payley sez: I must derive a wavefunction that satisfies Shroedinger's equation for a periodic function of constant value.


Why use Schroedinger? We've known that Schroedinger was wrong for the past 70 years. You should use Dirac's equation, especially given the high velocities I imagine your stars will be subject to.

  
Nebogipfel



Posts: 47
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 31 2006,22:57   

...crystalline ether...

Hmm. Must weigh a ton! What keeps it up, I wonder? Could we try bouncing a radar beam off it, or something?

  
stephenWells



Posts: 127
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 01 2006,07:28   

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ May 31 2006,23:47)
Nah, just ask him why there is an International Agency devoted strictly to measuring the irregularities and wobble in the Earth’s rotational axis (necessary to precisely track LEO and GEO satellites).

International Earth Rotation and Reference Systems Service (IERS)

Then ask him his explanation of why spacecraft are almost always launched in an Easterly direction to take advantage of the extra velocity boost provided by the Earth’s rotation.

Spacecraft launch phase

Then ask him why geostationary satellites (those with a very low eccentricity geosynchronous orbit), which are launched into orbit over the Earth’s equator at an altitude of 22,235 miles and a velocity of 6878 MPH (which matches the Earth’s rotational velocity) appear stationary to an observer on the ground.

Geostationary orbits

That should keep him busy refining his model.

And ask him where cyclones and anticyclones come from... he does know about Coriolis force, no? No?

And anyone who's used a GPS location device has tested General Relativity to at least first-order post-Newtonian effects...

And I'd love to know where he thinks Cassini and Voyager are, and how they got there :)

Isn't it odd that he hasn't put up a picture of his model? Little sketch of the earth and everything going around it? Maybe some distances and sizes? Look, Tycho Brahe did better than this 400 years ago:

Tychonian System

And babbling about Darwinists too... I wonder if he thinks Brahe, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Hooke, Halley and all were Darwinists?

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 01 2006,07:38   

Quote
Then ask him his explanation of why spacecraft are almost always launched in an Easterly direction to take advantage of the extra velocity boost provided by the Earth’s rotation.
Ooh, ooh, ooh! Can I play?
The reason is that NASA (and international equivalents) all assume the earth is spinning, so they never tried the other direction!

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 01 2006,07:53   

And/or NASA's just telling you that's what they do. In reality, they follow Paley's model.

   
cogzoid



Posts: 234
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 01 2006,08:22   

Paley, let's step back for a second and establish what we know.  You are working on a geocentric model.  You're starting with some topology and quantum mechanics.  Why not start at the basics so everyone can follow?  What does your Biblically-based solar system look like?  Can you compare and contrast with the post-Galileo accepted worldview?  You seemed to have lost some viewers already, while alluding to your super-fluid, crystalline, quintessence.  Perhaps now is a good time to re-explain.

-Dan

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 01 2006,09:05   

Quote (cogzoid @ June 01 2006,13:22)
Paley, let's step back for a second and establish what we know.  You are working on a geocentric model.  You're starting with some topology and quantum mechanics.  Why not start at the basics so everyone can follow?  What does your Biblically-based solar system look like?  Can you compare and contrast with the post-Galileo accepted worldview?  You seemed to have lost some viewers already, while alluding to your super-fluid, crystalline, quintessence.  Perhaps now is a good time to re-explain.

-Dan

Good point. The standard cosmological model is pretty controversial when it comes to the nature of spacetime; there isn't even a consensus yet on the number of spatial dimensions. Therefore, it seems kind of silly, Bill, to start trying to refute a theory that isn't even established yet anyway.

Why don't we try a model that at least accounts for straightforward observations, like the phases of Venus and the Jovian moons, varying parallax of nearby astronomical objects, the Hertzsprung-Russel relationship, the existence of galaxies, etc.? You don't need to come up with a model for the nature of spacetime to account for these observations, Bill. This is obviously true, since observational astronomy is a thriving and dynamic field despite not even knowing how many spatial dimensions there are yet.

I really don't think quantum mechanics is going to help you very much if you can't even explain orbital dynamics, a theory that was well-established before Planck was even born.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Nebogipfel



Posts: 47
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 02 2006,00:54   

Actually, I think it's less of a model, more the resolution of a Star Trek Voyager episode. I'm sure if we tried really hard, we could get tachyon inversion in there somehow.

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5402
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 02 2006,02:01   

ooo ooo.... how about this:

The expansion of the universe is caused by the centripetal acceleration of the rotation of the universe around the earth!

Throw in some Newton's Second Law of Motion, F=ma, add in that funky little w guy, and a sin(theta) or two, maybe a half dozen gravitons, 32 references to Einstein, a tachyon for Nebogipfel, two egg whites, mix gently and bake at 449.81 k for 6,000 years.

Cool for 2 years to eliminate burns and any residual SLoT residue and Voila!

Jesus loves you.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 02 2006,02:35   

Quote
And I'd love to know where he thinks Cassini and Voyager are, and how they got there


Cassini and Voyager, if they still exist, are in the hard drives in the basement of the same studio in Burbank, CA where they created all of those cgi images used in the evolutionistic prolefeed called "Science and nature programming." Deep space probes?--My arse! Yes, the images have gotten sharpen since the crude clay models used in the whole moon landing shoot, but its still the same charade!

In addition, I have taken a tour of that low-rent, dumbed-down Disneyland in Houston. That whole "Mission Control" folderol looks far less real than Mr. Toad's Ride. It seems people will believe anything their social superiors in academia and government tell them to believe!

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 02 2006,02:37   

And your proof of this is?



ps. the flag would move on the moon.

  
Reluctant Cannibal



Posts: 36
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 02 2006,02:54   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ June 02 2006,07:35)
Quote
And I'd love to know where he thinks Cassini and Voyager are, and how they got there


Cassini and Voyager, if they still exist, are in the hard drives in the basement of the same studio in Burbank, CA where they created all of those cgi images used in the evolutionistic prolefeed called "Science and nature programming." Deep space probes?--My arse! Yes, the images have gotten sharpen since the crude clay models used in the whole moon landing shoot, but its still the same charade!

In addition, I have taken a tour of that low-rent, dumbed-down Disneyland in Houston. That whole "Mission Control" folderol looks far less real than Mr. Toad's Ride. It seems people will believe anything their social superiors in academia and government tell them to believe!

Ghost, I have to say that I think that you are taking the low road here. A proper neo-quantum-mechanical treatment with the probes embedded in the crystalline empyrean, being whizzed about on some fantastic epicycle, would be much harder than a full-on conspiracy theory, but ultimately much more satisfying.

  
Nebogipfel



Posts: 47
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 02 2006,03:53   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ June 02 2006,07:35)
Cassini and Voyager...hard drives in the basement of the same studio in Burbank ...Deep space probes My arse! ... crude clay models ...  moon landing shoot, ... charade... low-rent, dumbed-down Disneyland in Houston. ... Mr. Toad's Ride.... people will believe anything ...

Course they are, Mr. Paley, of course they are! Now you just sit down and have a nice cup of tea, and the nurse will be along with your medication shortly.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 02 2006,04:38   

So I guess I have my answer: GoP thinks the moon landings were faked.

GoP apparently lives in an alternative universe, where, fortunately, his nutty ideas won't have any impact on the one I live in.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Steverino



Posts: 411
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 02 2006,04:44   

And the proof is....!!!......?????

He doesn't have any.  He is just another moron walking around with tin-foil on his head to prevent the gov. from reading his thoughts.

How can one possibly believe any of this drivel???  Can you imagine how difficult a secret; a phony moon landing would, to keep???

With all the money people are willing to throw at individuals to come forward and expose conspiracies; wouldn't you think someone would have spilled the beans by now???

You know why not???....Because it really happened!!!
 
All the former astronauts would beat the crap out of you for accusing them of a lie, which is what you are doing.

Paley, the next time you see Elvis and JFK having a cup of coffee and splitting a doughnut at your local choke and puke, tell'em Stevo says "hey!"

Now drop the crayons and back away from the table.

--------------
- Born right the first time.
- Asking questions is NOT the same as providing answers.
- It's all fun and games until the flying monkeys show up!

   
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 02 2006,05:47   

So Bill, about that Parallax…

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
stephenWells



Posts: 127
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 02 2006,05:57   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ June 02 2006,07:35)
Quote
And I'd love to know where he thinks Cassini and Voyager are, and how they got there


Cassini and Voyager, if they still exist, are in the hard drives

Okay, that was worth it for the entertainment value :)  Conspiracy theorists are so amusingly naive.

I notice he doesn't have any kind of response to the point about cyclones and the Coriolis effect. Or the GPS. Do you think he thinks satellites don't exist? What a loon.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 02 2006,06:18   

Quote (stephenWells @ June 02 2006,10:57)
I notice he doesn't have any kind of response to the point about cyclones and the Coriolis effect. Or the GPS. Do you think he thinks satellites don't exist? What a loon.

…and I still want to know what Bill thinks the earth is shaped like. I assume he believes that GPS satellites actually orbit the earth, since he thinks everything else does.

Quote
"…and that, my liege, is why we believe the earth to be banana-shaped."


--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 02 2006,06:57   

Quote

How can one possibly believe any of this drivel???  Can you imagine how difficult a secret; a phony moon landing would, to keep???

LOL I actually once heard a conspiracy 'explanation' of the moon landings that would have been more difficult than just going to the damn moon and being done with it.

   
Glen Davidson



Posts: 1014
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 02 2006,07:08   

What are you guys on about?  Of course the moon landings were faked.  It's just that to be convincing they had to fake them on the moon.  Never underestimate how far gov't and other collections of she-devils will go to divert attention from the black helicopters and the Cambrian fossils of humans.

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

   
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 02 2006,07:31   

I don't know who you are, imposter, but the real Glen Davidson would have taken 3,000-4,000 words to convey those points.

   
stephenWells



Posts: 127
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 02 2006,07:58   

Quote (Glen Davidson @ June 02 2006,12:08)
Of course the moon landings were faked.  It's just that to be convincing they had to fake them on the moon.

...and my hat is off to you, sir, because my brain just exploded.

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 02 2006,08:02   

Quote
Cassini and Voyager, if they still exist, are in the hard drives in the basement of the same studio in Burbank, CA where they created all of those cgi images used in the evolutionistic prolefeed called "Science and nature programming." Deep space probes?--My arse! Yes, the images have gotten sharpen since the crude clay models used in the whole moon landing shoot, but its still the same charade!


I knew you wouldn't let me down, Ghost! Yay!
:)

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 02 2006,08:11   

Also: Forget Berkeley's Empiricism and Tlönism and such, Ghost... I just think you played too much Mage: The Ascension as a kid.

Mr. Davidson: Post of the week material there, sir.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 02 2006,08:34   

Quote
That whole "Mission Control" folderol looks far less real than Mr. Toad's Ride.


why do i think that Gawp spent too much time trying to "lick toad"?

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 02 2006,09:17   

And, on to Bill's prototype accounting for parallax, then.

Bill? Bill? Hello?

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 02 2006,09:25   

Parallax is a conspiracy, Eric. Haven't you seen "The Parallax View"?

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 02 2006,09:56   

Quote (Faid @ June 02 2006,14:25)
Parallax is a conspiracy, Eric. Haven't you seen "The Parallax View"?

Actually, I have seen "The Parallax View," but I don't remember any discussion of trigonometry or apparent vs. intrinsic magnitude.

Were the ancient Greeks part of the conspiracy, I wonder.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 02 2006,10:25   

I just made a slight edit to the first installment of my model. It doesn't address any of your critiques so far, but hopefully it makes things a bit clearer.

Unfortunately, I probably won't be able to post another installment until Monday. I will use the time to test some of my ideas that relate topological properties to energy eigenvectors. I am working on a few other ideas as well.

Let me just say a few things. First, the fact that some aspects of the model are a bit hazy does not refute what I've accomplished so far. Newton and Leibniz equivocated on the definition of the derivative to avoid dividing by zero at inopportune moments; future mathematicians patched over the gaps and provided a firm foundation for the calculus. Morris Kline is priceless on this -- you really should read him. Second, my model does not need conspiracy theories, and thereby accepts government claims at face value. This will not prevent me from offering opinions on empirical phenomenon from time to time. Please do not conflate the two. Third, the relevance of my approach will soon be demonstrated.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 02 2006,10:28   

Quote
Newton and Leibniz equivocated on the definition of the derivative to avoid dividing by zero at inopportune moments; future mathematicians patched over the gaps and provided a firm foundation for the calculus. Morris Kline is priceless on this -- you really should read him.



that's about as close as you can get to the "galileo" excuse as possible without actually using the name.

c'mon... I'm sure you can do better.

You should just trash this thread and start over again.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 02 2006,10:36   

Quote (ericmurphy @ June 02 2006,14:56)
Were the ancient Greeks part of the conspiracy, I wonder.

Oh yes they were.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 02 2006,10:53   

Quote
I will use the time to test some of my ideas relating the topological constructs to energy eigenvectors.
Oh fer chrissake.  
Paley, have you gone off your meds?

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 02 2006,11:03   

Bill, again, how is an argument about the topology of space going to illustrate your model of the solar system?

No one really knows what space is shaped like. I don't mean to sound condescending, but people like Lee Smollin, Michio Kaku, Edward Witten, Lisa Randall, and others have spent decades of their lives trying to figure out this problem, with a lot more time and resources than you have. The chances that you'll be able to come up with a competing theory regarding the properties of spacetime between now and Monday are zero.

Why don't you concentrate on a more tractable problem? Explain to us how the earth, weighing 6E24 kg, manages to warp the sun, weighing 2E30 kg, into orbit around itself? I recall from the LUCA thread your claim that this is due to electromagnetism (evidently ignoring the fact that the sun and the earth are both electrically neutral), but this seems a much better place to start than some sort of convoluted derivation of the properties of spacetime when there isn't even a good theory for those properties yet.

If you want to see what the current state of the art is in such theories, I'd recommend Lisa Randall's "Warped Passages," which came out last year. If that doesn't make your geocentric head spin, nothing will.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
stephenWells



Posts: 127
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 02 2006,11:15   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ June 02 2006,15:25)
First, the fact that some aspects of the model are a bit hazy does not refute what I've accomplished so far.

You haven't accomplished anything so far.

You haven't posted a geocentric model. You haven't accounted for any observation. All you've done is post some math. Big whoop.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 02 2006,11:17   

Wiggles:
     
Quote
that's about as close as you can get to the "galileo" excuse as possible without actually using the name.

c'mon... I'm sure you can do better.

You should just trash this thread and start over again.


Why? Not only does my model remain unrefuted, nobody was even able to muss its hair. I realise that people want me to attack the evidence, but how shall I accomplish this without mathematics at hand? Icky, please explain.

The motivation for my approach will become apparent soon enough.....and if the current responses represent your collective grasp of the issues, I shall have a very easy time.

Eric:
   
Quote
No one really knows what space is shaped like. I don't mean to sound condescending, but people like Lee Smollin, Michio Kaku, Edward Witten, Lisa Randall, and others have spent decades of their lives trying to figure out this problem, with a lot more time and resources than you have. The chances that you'll be able to come up with a competing theory regarding the properties of spacetime between now and Monday are zero.

But topology remains central to my model. Don't worry--I've put more thought into this than you think. Mind the interconnections between spacetime and quantum theory and you'll get it soon enough.There's a fair chunk of mystery to be had, but like any good detective, I plan on revealing the solution in a timely manner.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 02 2006,11:31   

Quote
Not only does my model remain unrefuted, nobody was even able to muss its hair.


WHAT model?

all i saw was a bunch of non-sensical attempts at innapropriate and ill-done math, and a bizarre set of graphics that have nothing to do with anything.

not refuted?

that's like saying if I said an orange is a banana, and claimed 2+3=17 is proof of this, I have presented an irrefutable model.

LOL.

you claimed you needed more time to think, which is what you always claim, but I still say that regardless, you should scrap this heap of dung and start off with something at least more amusing, if not convincing.

But, hey, I'm not the dictator of what should or should not be done with your attempts at idiocy, you are, so if you think you've got something to work with here, don't mind me.

do proceed, doctor.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Nebogipfel



Posts: 47
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 02 2006,11:51   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ June 02 2006,15:25)
...first installment of my model... topological properties to energy eigenvectors. ... Newton and Leibniz ... definition of the derivative ...dividing by zero ... future mathematicians ... firm foundation for the calculus.... conspiracy theories, ...accepts government claims at face value. ... empirical phenomenon ... the relevance of my approach will soon be demonstrated.

Oh, I love the smell of bullsh1t in the morning...
Sorry, I realize I'm trespassing.  I'll keep quiet and see what comes up next...

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 02 2006,13:15   

I have yet to see a model of the universe here. Paley, if you've got one, post it.

   
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 02 2006,13:18   

I have to agree with everyone else, Bill. You haven't presented enough of a model for it even to be a candidate for refutation. Although, if your model claims three spatial dimensions, I wouldn't go so far as to say it's been refuted, but I would say it's on shaky ground.

Same thing for seven dimensions.

Your model hasn't had its hair mussed, because so far I don't think it has any hair.

And my statement that you have essentially no chance of proposing a model to compete with existing models of spacetime between now and Monday still stands.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 03 2006,09:23   

Bruce "Beck-Beck-Beck" Beckman:
   
Quote
Why use Schroedinger? We've known that Schroedinger was wrong for the past 70 years. You should use Dirac's equation, especially given the high velocities I imagine your stars will be subject to.

Because I believe that Einstein is wrong, and therefore can't abide the relativistic assumptions of Dirac. Given the properties of my aether as well as a periodic potential energy, Bloch seemed the best solution available. I'm trying to build a wave function that meshes with the rest of my construct.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 03 2006,10:39   

Quote
Because I believe that Einstein is wrong,...


why are you setting your sights so low?

*snicker*

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 03 2006,11:56   

So Copernicus was wrong, Einstein was wrong, Dirac was wrong, and an unspoken corollary is that Feynman was wrong too (QED is relativistic). Gee Paley, hard to believe they call you a crank.

   
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 03 2006,13:21   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ June 03 2006,14:23)
Because I believe that Einstein is wrong, and therefore can't abide the relativistic assumptions of Dirac. Given the properties of my aether as well as a periodic potential energy, Bloch seemed the best solution available. I'm trying to build a wave function that meshes with the rest of my construct.

But Einstein isn't wrong.

Bill, GTR has been confirmed so thoroughly at this point, having passed every experimental test ever devised for it, that it's essentially impossible that "Einstein was wrong." Einstein certainly didn't have the whole story, and the fact that GTR cannot currently be reconciled with quantum theory suggests that the final theory will involve some modification of GTR, but there's essentially no way that "Einstein was wrong."

But feel free to try to get where you're going without using General Relativity. But as soon as you come up with a result that's contradicted by General Relativity, I guarantee you everyone here will be convinced that you are wrong.

By the way…was Einstein an "evolutionist"?

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 03 2006,13:59   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ June 03 2006,14:23)
Because I believe that Einstein is wrong, and therefore can't abide the relativistic assumptions of Dirac.

Actually, on further reflection, it occurs to me that because you're a geocentrist, you must believe that all of the following scientists are also wrong (very partial list):

Galileo, Brahe, Kepler, Copernicus, Newton, Herschel, Lowell, Eddington, Hubbell, Shapley, Zwicky, Minkowski, Schmidt, Gunn, Schneider, and of course Hawking.

On even further reflection, given that you're not only a geocentrist but a young-earth creationist, I'd have to say that you believe virtually every single scientist for the last 500 years is wrong.

But, strangely enough, not Schroedinger. Any particular reason?

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 03 2006,14:22   

Quote
By the way…was Einstein an "evolutionist"?


of course!  haven't you ever heard of "Darwinian Physics"?

;)

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Bruce Beckman



Posts: 6
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 03 2006,21:23   

Quote
GoP: Because I believe that Einstein is wrong, and therefore can't abide the relativistic assumptions of Dirac.


Ok, fair enough. I haven't read anything about your model prior to this thread so I had assumed (incorrectly I gather) that you had some sophisticated model that could rely, in part, on the theoretical and experimental results of what would be considered 'modern physics'.

Based on your rejection of Einstein's view of space-time, can we assume that you prescribe to Galilean Relativity (absolute E3 space + absolute time)? It would seem so since you are building upon Schroedinger (hence Hamilton, Lagrange, etc.).

If so then I expect that as part of your model you will be developing an Electrodynamics that is also compatible with Galilean Relativity (along with a replacement for QED, Electro-Weak, QCD, GR, etc.). I would like to add that any work in these areas that can withstand even minimal theoretical or experimental scrutiny would be easily publishable in, for example, Physical Review. So...why are you bothering posting this stuff here?

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 04 2006,05:09   

Quote
So...why are you bothering posting this stuff here?


Because PhysRev doesn't accept papers which are crazy and stupid?

   
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 04 2006,06:17   

Quote
Because PhysRev doesn't accept papers which are crazy and stupid?
Indeed, there's no way our vaporous friend could make it in the world of science. And with his, um, interesting ideas about gays, blacks, hispanics, immigrants, liberals, scientists, media people... in short, other people, one has to wonder if he could function in any capacity that requires interpersonal interactions. Has the GhostGuy ever shared with us what it is he does for a living?

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 04 2006,06:28   

If Paley ever posts anything resembling a model, and any of you wants to amuse yourself by reformatting it and submitting it to Physical Review just to see what they say, make sure to post PR's comments here. That would be funny.

   
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 04 2006,10:23   

Russell:
       
Quote
Indeed, there's no way our vaporous friend could make it in the world of science. And with his, um, interesting ideas about gays, blacks, hispanics, immigrants, liberals, scientists, media people... in short, other people, one has to wonder if he could function in any capacity that requires interpersonal interactions.

Actually, I get along with the above pretty durn well, even the ones who know my beliefs. In fact, I get along with gay men so well that sometimes people assume I'm gay (and no, I'm not effeminate)! Some black people have criticised my views, occasionally labeling them racist, but I probably step out with blacks socially now more than I did when I was liberal <shrugs>. Why this is, I don't know, but keep in mind a disproportionate number of black people are socially conservative (now if they could just wed their beliefs to their culture......), and also appreciate honesty and good deeds. In other words, the way I treat other people (including racial and sexual minorities) is considered more important than what I believe. This is something I admire about African-American and gay culture, by the way. Straight whites are more likely to judge you by how slavishly you share their prejudices; i.e. a jerky liberal is preferable to a good conservative. I'm no saint by any stretch of the imagination, but I do my best to treat others fairly and generously, and this is the metric non-liberals use to judge a man. Well, that's not fair, I do have liberal friends....we just stay away from certain topics.
   
Quote
Has the GhostGuy ever shared with us what it is he does for a living?

My job involves some social interaction -- my boss lets me out of the cellar every now and again. :D By the way, I'm going to clarify my first installment a little....

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 04 2006,11:10   

Hey Eric, isn't it true that direct parallax measurements are only good to 1600 light years? If so, parallax might not be a problem for my revised model, which accepts measurements up to several thousand light years. This is one reason I'd like to focus on Cepheid variable stars. Those metrics are much more damaging to a young-earth, geocentric model.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 04 2006,12:13   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ June 04 2006,16:10)
Hey Eric, isn't it true that direct parallax measurements are only good to 1600 light years? If so, parallax might not be a problem for my revised model, which accepts measurements up to several thousand light years. This is one reason I'd like to focus on Cepheid variable stars. Those metrics are much more damaging to a young-earth, geocentric model.

Well, yes, parallax measurements are only accurate out to about 1,600 ly. But in principle, they're good out to the edge of the observable universe. I mean, if you waited long enough (125 million years), you could use the diameter of the solar system's orbit around the galactic center as your baseline for parallax measurements.

But it seems to be that your problem is to explain the existence of parallax in the first place. If the sun, the stars, and everything else orbits the earth, where does the parallax come from in the first place?

And while we're on the subject of Cepheids, I think your model's going to run aground on theories of stellar evolution in general. The Hertzsprung-Russel relationship is going to break if apparent and absolute magnitudes are equal, so it's more than just Cepheids that present problems for your model; it's basically every star out there. And remember, individual stars can be resolved at least as far away as M31.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
JonF



Posts: 632
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 04 2006,13:20   

Quote (ericmurphy @ June 04 2006,17:13)
But it seems to be that your problem is to explain the existence of parallax in the first place. If the sun, the stars, and everything else orbits the earth, where does the parallax come from in the first place?

IMHO "what causes aberration of starlight?" is an even better question.  I've had some good laughs watching geocentrists trying to duck or doubletalk that one.

  
Ved



Posts: 398
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 04 2006,17:18   

Quote (paley @ ,)
Deep space probes?--My arse! Yes, the images have gotten sharpe[r] since the crude clay models used in the whole moon landing shoot, but its still the same charade!

Crude clay models? Of the moon landings? They really simulated that moon dust well, the way when it's kicked up it arcs in a parabola, slowly, back to the surface. It doesn't swirl around in a cloud.

I know your model "doesn't depend on it" but I've been curious about your view of our accomplishments in rocketry since I joined here last year. So you believe that there have been no moon landings. And no deep space probes, at all?

What about satellites? You do believe people when they tell you we've sent man made satellites into orbit, don't you?

In a related thought, do you believe the earth has been struck by objects from say, beyond the moon? Do you think it's impossible that we could send a rocket up the reverse path of a meteor? Where's the cut off?

  
Reluctant Cannibal



Posts: 36
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 04 2006,23:02   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ June 04 2006,16:10)
Hey Eric, isn't it true that direct parallax measurements are only good to 1600 light years? If so, parallax might not be a problem for my revised model, which accepts measurements up to several thousand light years. This is one reason I'd like to focus on Cepheid variable stars. Those metrics are much more damaging to a young-earth, geocentric model.

Waitaminute. Ghost, am I to understand that you are an old-earth geocentrist? I suppose any permutation of view is possible, but I had never heard of that combination before.

Or does your revised model accept measurements up to 6010 LY?

  
stephenWells



Posts: 127
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 05 2006,08:07   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ June 03 2006,14:23)
Because I believe that Einstein is wrong, and therefore can't abide the relativistic assumptions of Dirac.

Which is hilarious, because:

1) Electromagnetism. Even in an ether model you'd have to at least produce length contraction and time dilation, iow you need the Lorentz group.

2) Electron spin. Without the relativistic wave equation you can't explain the electron's half-integer spin, and without electron spin, you can't explain, you know, chemistry.

3) Global positioning system. Which relies on timing signals from satellite-born clocks. And the rate of those clocks is the rate predicted by general relativity, NOT the rate predicted by either Newtonian absolute time OR special relativity alone. How does GoP think the GPS works?


Ghost of Paley: he's not just wrong, he's a century late and wrong

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 05 2006,14:24   

Previously, we saw that my surface, although quite useful mathematically, was not embedded in 3D space. So let's create complex structures J (Xu) and J (Xv) that allow us to orient our parametric klein bottle. First we'll find our partial derivative dot products (think of this as obtaining the square of their magnitudes):



Let's piece together our first complex structure. The following actually represents its absolute value:



And heeeereeees the other one:



Once again, the above image represents the absolute value. Now we can use these constructs to describe the surface's curvature, create vector fields, and calculate geodesics.

By the way, I forgot to evaluate my wavevector function as k approaches 0, so let's do it:



Here's another image of my wavesurface for evos with short attention spans.....



More later.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 05 2006,14:28   

Quote

More later.


Will any of it be an actual model, and not just Mathematia masturbation?

   
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 05 2006,14:37   

the right honorable stevestory writes:
   
Quote
Will any of it be an actual model, and not just Mathematia masturbation?

I'm breaking my theory into nice, logical bites so that all interested parties may benefit. I don't know what "Mathematia" is, so I doubt that anyone, let alone me, masturbates with it (to it?). But I find Mathematica useful for routine calculations.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 05 2006,15:03   

I have to admit, from a purely satirical viewpoint, your model is much improved today.

almost Dembskiish in its, er, complexity...

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 05 2006,15:28   

Nothing you've done can be evaluated as a cosmological model. There's just a few messy calculations, with no connection to anything.

   
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 05 2006,15:45   

If all you have to do, to have a cosmological model, is post some quantum calculations from Mathematica, with no connections to anything, here you go:



Now I'm a cosmological theorist, just like Ghost of Paley. And I didn't even make you vote.

   
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 05 2006,15:54   

And all this explains parallax how, exactly?

And what does your model say about the topology of space, Bill? Is it flat, positively curved, negatively curved, or is it just crumpled up into a ball and tossed in the wastebasket?

Does your model make any predictions that can be tested against observation? Does it have any connection to reality at all? After all, Kaluza-Klein theories are cool and exciting, but they have some problems in matching up with observation.

The math you posted doesn't mean a thing to me, which isn't surprising. But it doesn't mean anything to people who can interpret your mathematics, which…well, I guess that isn't that surprising, either.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 05 2006,15:59   

Steve:

oooohhhhh!

aaaahhhhh!

Your model has more mathiness to it, but ya needs some perty piktures too.

I love fireworks....

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 05 2006,16:22   

good point. here's some more modeliness:





there you go.

   
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 05 2006,18:03   

yes! dem's sum right perty pikturz.

now all you have to do is add some trumped-up nonsensical sound bites that superficially appear relevant to the topic at hand, and you can call it a hypothesis!

Once you've done that, we can compare it to gawp's, and we can make a new poll to see which is better at supporting geocentrism.

oh wait, I think you have to somehow overturn GR theory along the way.

Or is that already in your equations?

Just say yes or no; no need to be specific.  In fact, specificity would be discouraged in a "relativistic" model, eh?

go bold!  Big, sloppy brushstrokes are needed here to create a convincing model, I think.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 05 2006,23:28   

I find it hard to believe that GOP is serious about geocentrism.

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2006,01:26   

He's not.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
Occam's Toothbrush



Posts: 555
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2006,02:04   

I really think GoP's main satisfaction in any of this is in making all of you think he really believes this crap.

--------------
"Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life" --Creo nut Robert Byers
------
"You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?" --Anger Management Problem Concern Troll "Kris"

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2006,03:31   

Quote
Crude clay models? Of the moon landings? They really simulated that moon dust well, the way when it's kicked up it arcs in a parabola, slowly, back to the surface. It doesn't swirl around in a cloud.


Ved--

I saw Rudolph pull Santa's sleigh in a nearly parabolic path on a Rankin & Bass Christmas special. Do you think that is evidence that it is real? If not, why do you think the claymation "moon dust" has any more basis in reality?

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
JMX



Posts: 27
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2006,04:11   

Because you only need a laser and a receptor to check.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2006,04:39   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ June 06 2006,08:31)
 
Quote
Crude clay models? Of the moon landings? They really simulated that moon dust well, the way when it's kicked up it arcs in a parabola, slowly, back to the surface. It doesn't swirl around in a cloud.


Ved--

I saw Rudolph pull Santa's sleigh in a nearly parabolic path on a Rankin & Bass Christmas special. Do you think that is evidence that it is real? If not, why do you think the claymation "moon dust" has any more basis in reality?

Because not even the mighty Rudolph could lift that sleigh and all those presents unassisted. Without Dancer, Prancer, Donne and Blitzen et-al Rudolph would be Earthbound. Hence: Obviously faked.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2006,04:45   

In Steve's defense (not that he needs any on this board), I'm not doing a particularly good job in outlining my approach. I showed my work to a fellow church member and she was totally lost. She didn't understand the motivation for anything, and agreed that I overused Mathematica. You could say she couldn't see the quantum forest for the d's ( ;) ).

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2006,04:52   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ June 06 2006,09:45)
I showed my work to a fellow church member and she was totally lost. She didn't understand the motivation for anything, and agreed that I overused Mathematica.

Wait... So you mean that inventing revolutionary cosmological models is not a good way to get the chicks?

Crap. And you were beginning to give me ideas...

Oh well, guess I'll have to go back to my "World Domination" plan...

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
cogzoid



Posts: 234
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2006,05:17   

Paley, it really seems that your only motivation is to lose people.  You keep using these condescending words, as if your audience is stupid, then you show all of this hideously approached math and explain none of it.  For example, what exactly do the parameters u and v physically represent?   What do the partial derivative dot products that you so eloquently found represent?  It's simply amazing that you would bother putting all of this math up and not explain such simple aspects of it.  It makes me wonder if you understand what they represent.  It's a simple question, and one I think most of these professed non-mathematicians would like answered.

Also, I asked a few questions on the first page, and I never got a response:  What does our solar system look like?  What does our galaxy look like?  What does the universe look like?  Are we spinning in place, or are the stars wizzing around us?

-Dan

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2006,06:27   

Cogzoid:
     
Quote
Paley, it really seems that your only motivation is to lose people.

For whatever reason, I am losing people, and need to address that problem. Part of my difficulty is the sheer tedium of using the image hosting site. I try to defeat it by skipping some steps, but that dog's not hunting.
     
Quote
You keep using these condescending words, as if your audience is stupid, then you show all of this hideously approached math and explain none of it.  For example, what exactly do the parameters u and v physically represent?

The u - v variables are just my parametric coordinates for the klein bottle. A different way of describing physical space. Instead of using x for length, y for width, and z for height, I'm using u-v coordinates to represent longitude and latitude. What do meridians represent? <shrug>
   
Quote
What do the partial derivative dot products that you so eloquently found represent?

A starting point for orienting/rotating an abstract surface. As you know, klein bottles can't be represented in 3 dimensions, so the usual strategy of describing a 3D object fails. For example, we can't use a typical unit vector perpendicular to the surface to investigate the shape. Some abstraction is therefore necessary.
 
Quote
It's simply amazing that you would bother putting all of this math up and not explain such simple aspects of it.

You were the guys saying, "Don't worry about going over my head", and "I've had 400-level math classes, so I can hang." Now you want me to treat ya'll as if you don't know how to solve for x. Make up your minds, dudes.
 
Quote
Also, I asked a few questions on the first page, and I never got a response:  What does our solar system look like?  What does our galaxy look like?  What does the universe look like?  Are we spinning in place, or are the stars wizzing around us?

The stars are whizzing around a stationary earth. Happy?  :)

I'll work on the presentation.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
stephenWells



Posts: 127
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2006,07:00   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ June 06 2006,11:27)
You were the guys saying, "Don't worry about going over my head", and "I've had 400-level math classes, so I can hang." Now you want me to treat ya'll as if you don't know how to solve for x. Make up your minds, dudes.

It's not the math that's the problem. It's the fact that your math is not representing anything.

Say, for example, I'm talking about Newtonian gravity, if I want to examine the orbit of a planet about the sun, then I have to start with a model and define some terms: say that there is a sun of mass M at the centre of a cylindrical coordinate system in a Euclidean space and a planet of mass m << M at a point (r,0,0) with initial velocity u in the theta tangential direction and that the interaction between the two is F=GMm/r^2.

With those defined, giving a clear physical picture of the situation, we can then start using math to examine the behaviour of the system, because we've established what our math is describing.

All you've done is post a bunch of math with no model. Start by describing the positions of the earth, sun, moon and planets, then maybe you'll have the beginnings of a model. Until then: "this isn't right. This isn't even wrong."

Of course, your modelling is already falsified because you think GR is wrong, and the GPS system, which works, tells us that GR is right.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2006,07:05   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ June 06 2006,11:27)
You were the guys saying, "Don't worry about going over my head", and "I've had 400-level math classes, so I can hang." Now you want me to treat ya'll as if you don't know how to solve for x. Make up your minds, dudes.

Not all of us did. I made pretty clear my deficiencies in mathematics. But that does not make me dumb. I still don't see how your model intersects in any way with reality. What, for example, does a Klein bottle have to do with the nature of space? Are you claiming that spacetime and a Klein bottle are topologically similar? Because they ain't.

Mr. C's complaint isn't that he can't follow your math; clearly he can. His complaint is that your model doesn't seem to connect in any way to observation. I.e., it lacks explanatory power. Until it gets some, it's a non-starter.
Quote
Quote
Also, I asked a few questions on the first page, and I never got a response:  What does our solar system look like?  What does our galaxy look like?  What does the universe look like?  Are we spinning in place, or are the stars wizzing around us?

The stars are whizzing around a stationary earth.


Does the whizzing around the earth of those stars account for the earth's equitorial bulge? Remember, you're not allowed to say the bulge doesn't exist. Your model needs to account for observation, and it can't do it by denying the existence of the observation.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2006,07:30   

Eric:
   
Quote
Not all of us did. I made pretty clear my deficiencies in mathematics. But that does not make me dumb.

When did I suggest otherwise? :O
   
Quote
I still don't see how your model intersects in any way with reality. What, for example, does a Klein bottle have to do with the nature of space? Are you claiming that spacetime and a Klein bottle are topologically similar? Because they ain't.

But you were the one saying that no one knows much about the topology of spacetime. Now you're ruling out alternative explanations before they hit the ground.
   
Quote
Mr. C's complaint isn't that he can't follow your math; clearly he can. His complaint is that your model doesn't seem to connect in any way to observation. I.e., it lacks explanatory power. Until it gets some, it's a non-starter.

Don't worry: I will attach observation to my model in the future. And please remember I warned everyone:

1) That I'm still working on the theory

2) The first part will be heavily mathematical.

It's not like I have no checks on my model. This board is filled with math and physics majors. Every step I'm making is being scrutinized.
   
Quote
Does the whizzing around the earth of those stars account for the earth's equitorial bulge? Remember, you're not allowed to say the bulge doesn't exist. Your model needs to account for observation, and it can't do it by denying the existence of the observation.

Good observation. And I'll address this when appropriate.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2006,07:41   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ June 06 2006,12:30)
Eric:
       
Quote
Not all of us did. I made pretty clear my deficiencies in mathematics. But that does not make me dumb.

When did I suggest otherwise? :O

Well, your comments about people saying they understand your math and then failing to understand it (which clearly isn't the problem) seemed to imply so.
 
Quote
 
Quote
I still don't see how your model intersects in any way with reality. What, for example, does a Klein bottle have to do with the nature of space? Are you claiming that spacetime and a Klein bottle are topologically similar? Because they ain't.

But you were the one saying that no one knows much about the topology of spacetime. Now you're ruling out alternative explanations before they hit the ground.

No one knows the exact nature of spacetime. But in some cases, we know what its nature isn't. Particle physics only makes sense in spacetimes of certain numbers of dimensions. Five doesn't work. Seven doesn't work. At one point it looked like 10 or 26 were the magic numbers, but now it looks like it might be eleven. In any event, spacetime is not topologically similar to a Klein bottle.

You can exclude a lot of possibilities by noting that they don't match observation, even if you don't know what the ultimate answer is. By way of analogy, no one knows what the actual mass of the Higgs boson is. But we can already exclude any value below, e.g., 250 GeV.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
cogzoid



Posts: 234
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2006,08:22   

Quote
For whatever reason, I am losing people, and need to address that problem. Part of my difficulty is the sheer tedium of using the image hosting site. I try to defeat it by skipping some steps, but that dog's not hunting.
The reason you are losing people is because you provide absolutely no motivation for your maths.  And until you do, Stevestory's "model" seems to be as explanatory as yours is (care to disagree?).  Pick up any math textbook, and you'll see all of the words that go between every equation.  Those words are explaining the motivation behind the math.  And I know you think posting a paragraph of terms of a dot product is important, but it really isn't.  I have faith that Mathematica didn't drop a term.  What you need to portray is the motivation behind the math.  I asked you to explain your parameters, not for my sake (I know a parameter when I see one) but for the many other people that are reading the math.  It seems that if you were actually trying to teach people things, as opposed to just overwhelm them with tedious math, then you wouldn't have to be asked to explain why you are working out such lengthy equations.  I know a blowhard when I see one.

  
Shirley Knott



Posts: 148
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2006,08:51   

Let's just focus on one odd bit of phrasing by GoP --
"...before alternative explanations can hit the ground..."
What GoP clearly fails to realize is that for anything to be an alternative explanation, it must first be an...
EXPLANATION.

WHAT are you trying to explain, Paley?  For pages now people have been asking you to present this, and you've been wasting your time going off in other threads, abusing the [admittedly abuse-worthy] Foucoult, and other time-wasting nonsense.

Kindly lay out what your "alternative explanation" is going to explain, then lay out the purported explanation, show how it is explanatory, and let us have at it.

But you won't do that, will you?
Either you can't, or it's not part of the game you're playing.

hugs,
Shirley Knott

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2006,09:19   

Hmmm...a Mathematica model of a Klein bottle. Geocentric Universe. Color me CONVINCED!!! Signed, AirForceDave

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2006,09:53   

Quote
And until you do, Stevestory's "model" seems to be as explanatory as yours is (care to disagree?).
Maybe more. That stuff was cut and pasted from a quantum 402 class I had a few years ago. It actually models, to some degree, a particle in some kind of potential well. Don't remember what kind. Maybe a V=x^2 potential with infinite V sides? I can't remember. In any case, it has some connection to reality, and I don't see any such thing with Paley.

   
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2006,09:55   

Bill, there is absolutely no reason why you can't lay out what your geocentric toy universe looks like before you hide, a la Dembski, in the thickets of mathematical formalism. Einstein was able to lay out the majority of his thinking by reference to easily-understood concepts like passenger trains, elevators, and watches without so much as a single equation. Obviously, the proofs of his hypotheses required recourse to mathematics, but there's absolutely no reason why we have to see the proofs before we see the hypothesis they're intended to support. You absolutely can lay out what your universe looks like before you describe it mathematically. So:

We already know, by definition, that your model requires that all astronomical objects orbit the earth. Therefore, what are the orbital radii for the following objects:

Moon
Sun
The other eight planets (the famous ones, anyway)
Stars
Extra-galactic objects (e.g. other galaxies, quasars, etc., and yes, it's fine to claim that they're not really extra-galactic. I just want a distance.)

Next:

What mechanism holds those objects in their orbits?


What defines the limits of your universe? What is outside your universe?

There. You don't need to use any mathematics or equations or logic or anything to answer those questions. You might need to use math, logic, etc. to prove your hypothesis, but you're putting the cart before the horse. In order to answer the questions I've given you, you don't even need to discuss the nature of spacetime or even what those objects are composed of. They could made out of ping-pong ball material, for all it matters at this point.

But please; staring at screen after screen of equations is getting really stultifying. I've been waiting for this stuff for six months so far, and all I've seen from you is equations that don't connect in any way to an actual hypothesis.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2006,15:01   

Quote
Bill, there is absolutely no reason why you can't lay out what your geocentric toy universe looks like before you hide [sic], a la Dembski, in the thickets of mathematical formalism.


ummmm....I gotta be me?

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
jupiter



Posts: 97
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2006,15:16   

Quote
From Gawp:  
Quote
From ericmurphy:
Bill, there is absolutely no reason why you can't lay out what your geocentric toy universe looks like before you hide [sic], a la Dembski, in the thickets of mathematical formalism.



ummmm....I gotta be me?


Since your "me" appears to be an arrogant little man with little to be arrogant about, you might reconsider that decision. It can only improve your rhetorical position, not to mention your interpersonal relationships.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,03:45   

I don't want to initiate yet another official "poll" - but I decided this morning I would use my spare time either to decipher Paley's mathematical "proof" of geocentrism, or to read and contemplate Lee Smolin's "Three Roads to Quantum Gravity". Which do you suppose would be a better use of my time?

[ ] Paley
[ ] Smolin

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,04:51   

Ok guys, I get the point -- today I will give you some idea of where the math is going, and also show some observations that my model hopes to explain. I will also show why at least one of your evidences is flawed.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Rilke's Granddaughter



Posts: 311
Joined: Jan. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,04:54   

Quote (Russell @ June 07 2006,08:45)
I don't want to initiate yet another official "poll" - but I decided this morning I would use my spare time either to decipher Paley's mathematical "proof" of geocentrism, or to read and contemplate Lee Smolin's "Three Roads to Quantum Gravity". Which do you suppose would be a better use of my time?

[ ] Paley
[ ] Smolin

Smolin.  Three falls to a submission.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,06:21   

Quote (Russell @ June 07 2006,08:45)
I don't want to initiate yet another official "poll" - but I decided this morning I would use my spare time either to decipher Paley's mathematical "proof" of geocentrism, or to read and contemplate Lee Smolin's "Three Roads to Quantum Gravity". Which do you suppose would be a better use of my time?

[ ] Paley
[ ] Smolin

Having read both, I'd have to say you'll learn more from Mr. Smolin than from Mr. Paley. Plus, we're pretty sure Bill's wrong (GTR is "wrong"?), but Lee might actually be right.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,06:43   

This essay should explain why I'm using quantum theory to model the universe [all emphases mine]:
         
Quote
What does 'quantized' mean?

Setterfield:  When we refer to a series of measurements being quantized, we are referring to the fact that they are showing up in jumps and not as a smooth, continuous function.  It would be as if an accelerating car were seen as going 5 mph, then 10 mph, then 15 mph, and so on, but not at any speeds in between. This sort of series of jumps in the redshift measurements has been recorded.  It would be expected that they should be like a car when it is accelerating:  showing a smooth series of measurements.  But this is evidently not what the data is showing.  It is for this reason that the assumption of an expanding universe based on redshift measurements may be false.  Could the universe expand in jumps?



Is the Redshift Really quantized?

Setterfield: A genuine redshift anomaly seems to exist, one that would cause a re-think about cosmological issues if the data are accepted. Let’s look at this for just a moment. As we look out into space, the light from galaxies is shifted towards the red end of the spectrum.  The further out we look, the redder the light becomes.  The measure of this redshifting of light is given by the quantity z, which is defined as the change in wavelength of a given spectral line divided by the laboratory standard wavelength for that same spectral line. Each atom has its own characteristic set of spectral lines, so we know when that characteristic set of lines is shifted further down towards the red end of the spectrum.  This much was noted in the early 1920’s. Around 1929, Hubble noted that the more distant the galaxy was, the greater was the value of the redshift, z.  Thus was born the redshift/distance relationship. It came to be accepted as a working hypothesis that z might be a kind of Doppler shift of light because of universal expansion.  In the same way that the siren of a police car drops in pitch when it races away from you, so it was reasoned that the redshifting of light might represent the distant galaxies racing away from us with greater velocities the further out they were. The pure number z, then was multiplied by the value of lightspeed in order to change z  to a velocity. However, Hubble was discontent with this interpretation. Even as recently as the mid 1960’s Paul Couderc of the Paris Observatory expressed misgivings about the situation and mentioned that a number of astronomers felt likewise. In other words, accepting z as a pure number was one thing; expressing it as a measure of universal expansion was something else.

It is at this point that Tifft’s work enters the discussion. In 1976, William Tifft, an astronomer from Arizona, started examining redshift values.   The data indicated that the redshift, z, was not a smooth function but went in a series of jumps.   Between successive jumps the redshift remained fixed at the value attained at the last jump.  The editor of the Astrophysical Journal who published the first article by Tifft, made a comment in a footnote to the effect that they did not like the idea, but referees could find no basic flaw in the presentation, so publication was reluctantly agreed to. Further data came in supporting z quantisation, but the astronomical community could not generally accept the data because the prevailing interpretation of z was that it represented universal expansion, and it would be difficult to find a reason for that expansion to occur in “jumps”. In 1981 the extensive Fisher-Tully redshift survey was published, and the redshifts were not clustered in the way that Tifft had suggested. But an important development occurred in 1984 when Cocke pointed out that the motion of the Sun and solar system through space had a genuine Doppler shift that added to or subtracted from every redshift in the sky.  Cocke pointed out that when this true Doppler effect was removed from the Fisher-Tully observations, there were redshift “jumps” or quantisations globally across the whole sky, and this from data that had not been collected by Tifft.  In the early 1990’s Bruce Guthrie and William Napier of Edinburgh Observatory specifically set out to disprove redshift quantisation using the best enlarged example of accurate hydrogen line redshifts. Instead of disproving the z quantisation proposal, Guthrie and Napier ended up in confirming it.  The quantisation was supported by a Fourier analysis and the results published around 1995. The published graph showed over 60 successive peaks and troughs of precise redshift quantisations. There could be no doubt about the results.  Comments were made in New Scientist, Scientific American and a number of other lesser publications, but generally, the astronomical community treated the results with silence.

If redshifts come from an expanding cosmos, the measurements should be distributed smoothly like the velocity of cars on a highway. The quantised redshifts are similar to every car traveling at some multiple of 5 miles per hour. Because the cosmos cannot be expanding in jumps, the conclusion to be drawn from the data is that the cosmos is not expanding, nor are galaxies racing away from each other. Indeed, at the Tucson Conference on Quantization in April of 1996, the comment was made that "[in] the inner parts of the Virgo cluster [of galaxies], deeper in the potential well, [galaxies] were moving fast enough to wash out the quantization." In other words, the genuine motion of galaxies destroys the quantisation effect, so the quantised redshift it is not due to motion, and hence not to an expanding universe. This implies that the cosmos is now static after initial expansion. Interestingly, there are about a dozen references in the Scriptures which talk about the heavens being created and then stretched out. Importantly, in every case except one, the tense of the verb indicated that the "stretching out" process was completed in the past. This is in line with the conclusion to be drawn from the quantised redshift. Furthermore, the variable lightspeed (Vc) model of the cosmos gives an explanation for these results, and can theoretically predict the size of the quantisations to within a fraction of a kilometer per second of that actually observed. This seems to indicate that a genuine effect is being dealt with here.

One basis on which Guthrie and Napier’s conclusions have been questioned and/or rejected concerns the reputed "small" size of the data set.  It has been said that if the size of the data set is increased, the anomaly will disappear. Interestingly, the complete data set used by Guthrie and Napier set comprised 399 values.  This was an entirely different data set than the many used by Tifft.  Thus there is no 'small' data set, but a series or rather large ones.  Every time a data set has been increased in size, the anomaly becomes more prominent.

When Guthrie and Napier's material was statistically treated by a Fourier analysis a very prominent “spike” emerged in the power spectrum, which supported redshift quantisation at very high confidence level. The initial study was done with a smaller data set and submitted to Astronomy and Astrophysics. The referees asked them to repeat the analysis with another set of galaxies.  They did so, and the same quantisation figure emerged clearly from the data, as it did from both data sets combined.  As a result, their full analysis was accepted and the paper published.  It appears that the full data set was large enough to convince the referees and the editor that there was a genuine effect being observed – a conclusion that other publications acknowledged by reporting the results. (Guthrie, B.N.G. and Napier, W.M. 1996 Astron. Astrophys.  239: 33)

It is never good science to ignore anomalous data or to eliminate a conclusion because of some presupposition. Sir Henry Dale, one time President of the Royal Society of London, made an important comment in his retirement speech. It was reported in Scientific Australian for January 1980, p.4. Sir Henry said: "Science should not tolerate any lapse of precision, or neglect any anomaly, but give Nature's answers to the world humbly and with courage." To do so may not place one in the mainstream of modern science, but at least we will be searching for truth and moving ahead rather than maintaining the scientific status quo.

For a evolutionary confirmation, see this paper. Here's the abstract:
         
Quote
It is pointed out that the discrete velocities found by Tifft in galaxies are harmonically related to the discrete intrinsic redshifts found in quasars. All are harmonically related to the constant 0.062±0.001, and this is the fourth independent analysis in which the redshift increment 0.062 has been shown to be significant. It is concluded that there is a quantized component in the redshift of both quasars and galaxies that has a common origin and is unlikely to be Doppler related.


My model expands and improves upon Ptolemy's.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,07:40   

Here's the problem, Bill. I keep up pretty regularly on cosmology; it's an interest of mine. While I can't pretend to understand all the ins and outs of current thinking, I do have a pretty good handle on what the current state of that thinking is. I think I would have noticed if the consensus of the cosmological community was that the universe is static. For one thing, it's been known for over a hundred years that a static universe is a physical impossibility. It either expands or contracts, and is way less likely to be static than a pencil is likely to stand on end for a thousand years without falling over.

In the meantime, I can think of a perfectly straightforward explanation for any "quantization" of redshift (which, by the way, is not actually due to motion through space; it's due to the expansion of space). While the universe is homogenous to a very high degree at large enough scales, that doesn't mean that galaxies are sprinkled uniformly through space. There is definitely large-scale structure to the distribution of galaxies, which structure is often described as "sheets" or "filaments" of galactic clusters surrounding huge voids. Obviously, if there's a huge void from, say, z= 4.5 to z= 5.5, it's going to look quantized.

In the meantime, it doesn't look like Tifft has an explanation for the putative quantization of redshift. Every other explanation other than actual stretching of wavelengths due to expansion has been ruled out as inconsistent with observation, so I'm not sure what Tifft thinks is going on out there.

In any event, the evidence of cosmological redshift (not "doppler shift") is conclusive. Not only do we know what causes the redshift, but we know when it started.

If you really want to persuade us, Bill, you might want to post some quotes from sites that don't have an obvious ideological agenda. Sure, you can say the cosmologists are beholden to their theories, but they're not trying to use their theories to prove something external to their field of study, like the factual accuracy of the Bible. They're trying to find out what really happened, and so far, they seem to be doing a pretty good job of it. There are just way, way, way too many facts contradicting a) a static universe (regardless of whether it was at one time dynamic), and b) a universe less than billions of years old.

So I don't think quantum theory will get you too far in overturning the last century or so of cosmology. GTR is where it's at, Baby, regardless of whether you think it's wrong. It isn't wrong.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,07:57   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ June 07 2006,11:43)
It is concluded that there is a quantized component in the redshift of both quasars and galaxies that has a common origin and is unlikely to be Doppler related.

Interesting. No cosmological redshift is "Doppler-related"; the mechanism is entirely different,  and described by a different formula that gives different results. I would have thought the author would know this.

I can't provide a link, but a good article that corrects many common misunderstandings about cosmological expansion is "Misconceptions About the Big Bang," by Charles Lineweaver and Tamara M. Davis in the March 2005 issue of Scientific American.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,08:29   

Eric:
     
Quote
Interesting. No cosmological redshift is "Doppler-related"; the mechanism is entirely different,  and described by a different formula that gives different results. I would have thought the author would know this.

Or......you just might be mistaken.  :)

     
Quote
I can't provide a link, but a good article that corrects many common misunderstandings about cosmological expansion is "Misconceptions About the Big Bang," by Charles Lineweaver and Tamara M. Davis in the March 2005 issue of Scientific American.

That's nice. But cutting-edge research shows that this issue is a bit more complicated than Prolefeed Amurican would have us believe. From the latter:
   
Quote
The redshift distribution of all 46,400 quasars in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) Quasar Catalog III, Third Data Release, is examined. Six Peaks that fall within the redshift window below z = 4, are visible. Their positions agree with the preferred redshift values predicted by the decreasing intrinsic redshift (DIR) model, even though this model was derived using completely independent evidence. A power spectrum analysis of the full dataset confirms the presence of a single, significant power peak at the expected redshift period. Power peaks with the predicted period are also obtained when the upper and lower halves of the redshift distribution are examined separately. The periodicity detected is in linear z, as opposed to log(1+z). Because the peaks in the SDSS quasar redshift distribution agree well with the preferred redshifts predicted by the intrinsic redshift relation, we conclude that this relation, and the peaks in the redshift distribution, likely both have the same origin, and this may be intrinsic redshifts or a common selection effect. However, because of the way the intrinsic redshift relation was determined it seems unlikely that one selection effect could have been responsible for both. [my emp]


--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,09:11   

Here's a snapshot of the current confusion in the helio/Darwin camp. I sense that someone's getting a little nervous!

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Rilke's Granddaughter



Posts: 311
Joined: Jan. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,09:17   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ June 07 2006,14:11)
Here's a snapshot of the current confusion in the helio/Darwin camp. I sense that someone's getting a little nervous!

Mr. Ectowhisp, by quoting Barry Setterfield, one of the great kooks of our generation, you've forfeited whatever possible shred of intellectual respectability you might have still had.

And just explain the model; explaining your rationale for using QM is utterly irrelevant.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,09:25   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ June 07 2006,13:29)
Eric:
         
Quote
Interesting. No cosmological redshift is "Doppler-related"; the mechanism is entirely different,  and described by a different formula that gives different results. I would have thought the author would know this.

Or......you just might be mistaken.  :)

Except that I'm not. Doppler shift and cosmological redshift have entirely different causes, and are described by different formulae. Read the article.

         
Quote
 
Quote
I can't provide a link, but a good article that corrects many common misunderstandings about cosmological expansion is "Misconceptions About the Big Bang," by Charles Lineweaver and Tamara M. Davis in the March 2005 issue of Scientific American.

That's nice. But cutting-edge research shows that this issue is a bit more complicated than Prolefeed Amurican would have us believe. From the latter:

Given that you haven't read the article yet, you have no idea how complicated Lineweaver and Davis think the issue is. And nothing in your quote even touches on the topic of the difference between Doppler shift and cosmological redshift, so I'm not sure what your point is in any event. And at least on a quick reading, neither paper seems to support a static universe. After all, any systemic redshift out to cosmological distances presents a problem for a static universe, doesn't it, Bill?

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,09:25   

R's G:
Quote
Mr. Ectowhisp, by quoting Barry Setterfield, one of the great kooks of our generation, you've forfeited whatever possible shred of intellectual respectability you might have still had.

And just explain the model; explaining your rationale for using QM is utterly irrelevant.


:)

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Reluctant Cannibal



Posts: 36
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,09:40   

Anyway, what the flip does quantisation of red shift have to do with quantum mechanics? You might say that tree rings are "quantised", but that wouldn't mean that QM is the appropriate tool to study them.

It might just be that quantisation of red shift, if it existed, could be explained by a quantum effect in the first 10e-9 seconds, or whatever, but you would need to make that connection first.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,10:30   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ June 07 2006,14:11)
Here's a snapshot of the current confusion in the helio/Darwin camp. I sense that someone's getting a little nervous!

Getting nervous because sometimes it's hard to separate out intrinsic (i.e., Doppler) redshift from cosmological redshift? Sorry, don't think so.

You fundy guys always assume that because some things in various theories are controversial, therefore those theories are in serious trouble.

Sounds like wishful thinking to me.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,11:59   

Quote (ericmurphy @ June 07 2006,12:57)
I can't provide a link, but a good article that corrects many common misunderstandings about cosmological expansion is "Misconceptions About the Big Bang," by Charles Lineweaver and Tamara M. Davis in the March 2005 issue of Scientific American.

Duh. Actually, this is the link I should have provided. Same authors, more detail, and you don't hafta pay for it.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,13:16   

Eric:
     
Quote
Interesting. No cosmological redshift is "Doppler-related"; the mechanism is entirely different,  and described by a different formula that gives different results. I would have thought the author would know this.

But he does....
     
Quote
Tifft has also claimed (Tifft 2002a) that his model explaining the discrete velocities in galaxies can explain the discrete redshifts reported in quasars. However, his model, referred to hereafter as the Lehto-Tifft model (Tifft 2002b), assumes that the entire redshift is quantized, unlike the evolutionary model proposed by Bell (2002b) in which the intrinsic component is superimposed on top of the Hubble flow. This represents a major difference between the two models and means that they are incompatible. This difference has been used by Bell and Comeau (2002) to rule out the Lehto-Tifft model. [my emp]

.....so your point is moot. He was probably just using loose language in the abstract; a practice that's depressingly common among experts. So yes, I think you misread Prof. Bell. That's bad for you, since the good doctor proceeds to ring Tang and Zhang's bells in his 2006 paper. So the Davis and Dreamweaver article is perfectly orthogonal to the real issue.
 
Quote
And at least on a quick reading, neither paper seems to support a static universe. After all, any systemic redshift out to cosmological distances presents a problem for a static universe, doesn't it, Bill?

But quantised redshifts imply a central earth surrounded by concentric shells, much like the simplified model of the atom. And that's where Paley arrives.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,13:30   

Ghost. I don't buy it. I cannot believe, you really believe this.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,13:34   

You're not alone. 2/3rds of people think GoP is just a troll, rather than a complete idiot who believes what he says.

   
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,13:45   

Quote (stevestory @ June 07 2006,18:34)
You're not alone. 2/3rds of people think GoP is just a troll, rather than a complete idiot who believes what he says.

It is difficult to imagine GOP as a fool. He seems pretty inteligent. Also I find him reasonably affable with a sense of humour. Not quite your average wingnut.

Must admit though, if it is an act, he has kept it going a worryingly long time.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,14:04   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ June 07 2006,18:16)
Eric:
                 
Quote
Interesting. No cosmological redshift is "Doppler-related"; the mechanism is entirely different,  and described by a different formula that gives different results. I would have thought the author would know this.

But he does....
     

But that doesn't change the fact that a static universe is impossible. Nor does it challenge the fact that the Hubbell flow exists, and confirms that the universe is indeed expanding. Since we see nothing but redshifts (except for a few jets here and there), regardless of whether there's a harmonic series, it's hard to escape that conclusion, Bill.
       
Quote
.....so your point is moot. He was probably just using loose language in the abstract; a practice that's depressingly common among experts. So yes, I think you misread Prof. Bell. That's bad for you, since the good doctor proceeds to ring Tang and Zhang's bells in his 2006 paper. So the Davis and Dreamweaver article is perfectly orthogonal to the real issue.

But my point is not moot, and the Davis and Lineweaver article is not orthagonal to the real issue.

The real issue is this. You deny cosmological redshift, and claim that the universe is static. This belief is contradicted by observation and simple logic, and no hand-waving about harmonics will change that. Why there should be a harmonic series does not seem to be clear, but it doesn't matter anyway. All the available evidence points to an expanding universe (since the only other possibility is a collapsing universe this is perhaps not surprising given the dearth of blueshifts out there). That's the real issue, Bill.
             
Quote
       
Quote
And at least on a quick reading, neither paper seems to support a static universe. After all, any systemic redshift out to cosmological distances presents a problem for a static universe, doesn't it, Bill?

But quantised redshifts imply a central earth surrounded by concentric shells, much like the simplified model of the atom. And that's where Paley arrives.

They may imply it, but a central earth surrounded by concentric shells is ruled out by everything else, including all the objections I've already made to your hypothesis, including the biggie, which I somehow forgot to mention: the CMB.

You're making the same mistake AF Dave the Black Knight is making, Bill. Poking what you think are a few holes here and there in relatively controversial parts of a theory does not disprove that theory when it's supported by vast amounts of other evidence from dozens of different directions, nor does it support your own theory which is ruled out a priori by observation.

The biggest problem you have to deal with right away, Bill, is what keeps a 2E30 Kg object in orbit around a 6E24 Kg object, without violating Newtonian and Einsteinian physics which is already known beyond a shadow of a doubt to be true.

So you might want to start there, before you start worrying about harmonic series in hi-z cosmological objects. And remember, denying observation isn't going to help your model, Bill. Cosmological redshift is a fact of life, and so is the CMB (and its anisotropies, minor as they are). Your model will have to deal with them if it's to have any credibility. No see 'um crystalline shells might be acceptable, but no redshift and no CMB aren't.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,14:12   

Spitting-at-the mouth AFDave clearly believes what he says. Ghost obviously doesn't take himself seriously. He's just trolling.

   
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,14:19   

Eric:
 
Quote
The biggest problem you have to deal with right away, Bill, is what keeps a 2E30 Kg object in orbit around a 6E24 Kg object, without violating Newtonian and Einsteinian physics which is already known beyond a shadow of a doubt to be true.

So you might want to start there, before you start worrying about harmonic series in hi-z cosmological objects.

How can Newton and Einstein both be right?

S.S.:
 
Quote
Spitting-at-the mouth AFDave clearly believes what he says. Ghost obviously doesn't take himself seriously. He's just trolling.

Christians aren't allowed a sense of humor?

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,14:22   

Deny it all you want, you're just having fun seeing what kind of support you can dream up for obviously wrong ideas.

   
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,14:23   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ June 06 2006,09:39)
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ June 06 2006,08:31)
 
Quote
Crude clay models? Of the moon landings? They really simulated that moon dust well, the way when it's kicked up it arcs in a parabola, slowly, back to the surface. It doesn't swirl around in a cloud.


Ved--

I saw Rudolph pull Santa's sleigh in a nearly parabolic path on a Rankin & Bass Christmas special. Do you think that is evidence that it is real? If not, why do you think the claymation "moon dust" has any more basis in reality?

Because not even the mighty Rudolph could lift that sleigh and all those presents unassisted. Without Dancer, Prancer, Donne and Blitzen et-al Rudolph would be Earthbound. Hence: Obviously faked.

Well Stevie, there were also shots of the sleigh pulled by all nine reindeer in a nearly parabolic path. Does this convince you that it is real?

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,14:26   

I have no idea what you're talking about there.

   
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,14:28   

Hmm. From what I read so far, I was under the impression that Ghost dreamt up of an expanding Universe, With Earth at its center, and every single galaxy moving away from it... But now I'm not so sure- and Ghost's half-hints and smoke screens don't help.

Um, Ghost, a description of your Universe first? That's how models begin, you know...

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,14:35   

Quote (Faid @ June 07 2006,19:28)
Hmm. From what I read so far, I was under the impression that Ghost dreamt up of an expanding Universe, With Earth at its center, and every single galaxy moving away from it... But now I'm not so sure- and Ghost's half-hints and smoke screens don't help.

Um, Ghost, a description of your Universe first? That's how models begin, you know...

"I am intrigued by your theory of a donut shaped universe, Homer. I might have to steal it."

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,14:48   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 07 2006,19:35)
Quote (Faid @ June 07 2006,19:28)
Hmm. From what I read so far, I was under the impression that Ghost dreamt up of an expanding Universe, With Earth at its center, and every single galaxy moving away from it... But now I'm not so sure- and Ghost's half-hints and smoke screens don't help.

Um, Ghost, a description of your Universe first? That's how models begin, you know...

"I am intrigued by your theory of a donut shaped universe, Homer. I might have to steal it."

Not even Homer Simpson is that hungry. It took him ages to eat a big sandwich.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,14:57   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ June 07 2006,19:19)
Eric:
   
Quote
The biggest problem you have to deal with right away, Bill, is what keeps a 2E30 Kg object in orbit around a 6E24 Kg object, without violating Newtonian and Einsteinian physics which is already known beyond a shadow of a doubt to be true.

So you might want to start there, before you start worrying about harmonic series in hi-z cosmological objects.

How can Newton and Einstein both be right?

Newtonian physics is correct as far as it goes in this context. Einsteinian physics is a very, very minor correction to orbital mechanics at the distance and gravitation scales involved in the interaction between the earth and the sun.

Just because GTR extends Newtonian physics into regions of higher velocities, accelerations, and gravitational fields doesn't mean Newtonian physics gets tossed.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,15:05   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ June 07 2006,19:23)
Well Stevie, there were also shots of the sleigh pulled by all nine reindeer in a nearly parabolic path. Does this convince you that it is real?

Fair enough. Joking aside, why would the lunar landings be faked? What about the technology suposedly found from space research? Plastic advances and silicon chip minituarisation etc? How about the mirrors placed on the moon for distance measurements?

Would it not be easier to invest the money in doing it than faking it?

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,15:07   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ June 07 2006,19:48)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 07 2006,19:35)
Quote (Faid @ June 07 2006,19:28)
Hmm. From what I read so far, I was under the impression that Ghost dreamt up of an expanding Universe, With Earth at its center, and every single galaxy moving away from it... But now I'm not so sure- and Ghost's half-hints and smoke screens don't help.

Um, Ghost, a description of your Universe first? That's how models begin, you know...

"I am intrigued by your theory of a donut shaped universe, Homer. I might have to steal it."

Not even Homer Simpson is that hungry. It took him ages to eat a big sandwich.

Well, I hope at least some of the people here know who that quote is from!

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Ved



Posts: 398
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,15:34   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ June 06 2006,08:31)
why do you think the claymation "moon dust" has any more basis in reality?

Well Ghost, it's just that I've never seen dust modeled with clay, in stop motion (that's how they do claymation, right?) Not to mention in 3D.

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ June 07 2006,21:05)
How about the mirrors placed on the moon for distance measurements?

That's one, simple, hard to ignore piece of evidence right there. Lasers don't bounce off of just anything. How is it possible to receive a return signal from the Sea of Tranquility?

I wish I had access to a total station again. Is a modern surveying total station strong enough to get a signal back from the moon?

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,15:40   

I thought Bill's "harmonics" sounded familiar, and sure enough, a quick look through the Scientific American archive pulled up an article from the Aug. 2005 issue by Glenn D. Starkman and Dominick J. Schwartz on harmonics in the cosmic microwave background, which likely map to redshift (since they probably have a common cause). As I suspected, observation does present some serious challenges to the inflationary lambda CDM model, but it doesn't even begin to refute the idea of an expanding universe, nor does it provide any support for Bill's crystalline sphere toy universe.

It looks to me, Bill, like you're misinterpreting the meaning of these harmonics. Harmonics are predicted by the ILCDM model, but the observed power distributions of the harmonics are not. This is definitely a problem for the model, and for inflation more generally, but it most certainly is not a problem for cosmic expansion (which, as I said earlier, is one of two possibilities, the other being a collapse).

Further, there is some evidence that the observed harmonic discrepancies from what ILCDM predicts may be due to observational error, e.g., contamination from the milky way galaxy itself or from debris in the solar system.

In any event, these difficulties are difficulties with inflation, not with an expanding universe. And they certainly don't help Bill's model of a universe (what was it, now?) 9 ly in diameter. Again, this is, as Bill points out, "cutting edge" research, and a lot more work needs to be done before any firm conclusions can be drawn. If Bill wants to hang his entire model on these discrepancies, he'd best be prepared for disappointment.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Ved



Posts: 398
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,16:05   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 07 2006,21:07)
Well, I hope at least some of the people here know who that quote is from!

"I am intrigued by your theory of a donut shaped universe, Homer. I might have to steal it."

Stephen Hawking


"How many gazebos do you she-males need?"

Clancey Wiggum


Classic!

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2006,11:45   

eric:
Quote
As I suspected, observation does present some serious challenges to the inflationary lambda CDM model, but it doesn't even begin to refute the idea of an expanding universe, nor does it provide any support for Bill's crystalline sphere toy universe.

It looks to me, Bill, like you're misinterpreting the meaning of these harmonics. Harmonics are predicted by the ILCDM model, but the observed power distributions of the harmonics are not. This is definitely a problem for the model, and for inflation more generally, but it most certainly is not a problem for cosmic expansion (which, as I said earlier, is one of two possibilities, the other being a collapse).

Which, as we'll see, is a very damaging admission.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2006,21:12   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ June 10 2006,16:45)
 
Quote
This is definitely a problem for the model, and for inflation more generally, but it most certainly is not a problem for cosmic expansion (which, as I said earlier, is one of two possibilities, the other being a collapse).

Which, as we'll see, is a very damaging admission.

Really, Bill? Are you under the impression that if inflation turns out not to be a correct accounting for observation, your geocentric model somehow turns out to be correct?

(I guess I should make sure you understand the difference between "inflation" and "expansion." Do you?)

How does your geocentric model avoid the problem of instability if it is neither expanding nor contracting? Which, I should point out, is the least of your model's problems. Or will be, once you enlighten us as to exactly what your model is.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 12 2006,07:53   

Eric:
         
Quote
         
Quote
         
Quote
This is definitely a problem for the model, and for inflation more generally, but it most certainly is not a problem for cosmic expansion (which, as I said earlier, is one of two possibilities, the other being a collapse).



Which, as we'll see, is a very damaging admission.


Really, Bill?

Yes. Recall that inflation theory accounts for disturbing observations that threaten the entire Big Clang superstructure, including:

1) The Horizon Problem:
       
Quote
The uniformity of cosmic background radiation--varying by no more than one part in 10,000, where ever you look--posed a problem to Standard Big Bang cosmology. Suppose the universe began 14 billion years ago. We look to the west, we detect cosmic background radiation. We turn our radio antennas to the east, we detect cosmic background radiation--at exactly the same temperature. The radiation from the east and the radiation from the west are separated by 28 billion light years. Common sense tells us that the radiation from the east could not possibly be causally connected to that from the west, because information cannot travel faster than the speed of light. Nor could the regions they traveled from ever have been in communication.


2) The Flatness Problem:
       
Quote
Our universe is apparently flat. That is, it appears to have just the "right" density--or nearly so--to continue its slow expansion forever. Too much matter, and the universe eventually collapses in on itself under the influence of its own gravitational pull. This scenario, essentially the Big Bang in reverse, has been called the "Big Crunch". Too little matter, and gravity will never be able to halt the expansion of the universe. The universe eventually be populated only by gas, dust and the relics of stars, growing increasingly cold with its infinite expansion. This bleak scenario is called the Big Chill.

An intermediate scenario happens if the average density of our universe is equal to the critical density--the average density of matter needed to arrest the expansion of the universe without bringing about a Big Crunch. Cosmologists express this relationship as the ratio of the average density to the critical density: Omega. Measurements of Omega today range from 0.1 to 1. Most scientists believe that the universe is not headed for a Big Crunch.

Both the average density of the universe and the critical density change with time. When the universe was very young, and very dense, these numbers changed very rapidly. If the average density of the universe were even slightly greater or smaller than the critical density in the instant following the Big Bang, Omega would have zoomed to infinity (a quick Big Chill) or crashed to zero (the Big Crunch). The fact that we are still around, approximately 15 billion years later, is evidence that the critical density must have been extremely close--equal within 1 part in 10^15--to one after the Big Bang.


Inflation Flattens the Universe



To make the Standard Big Bang theory correspond to reality, cosmologists had to make the assumption that the average density of the universe was equal to the density immediately following the Big Bang. But how? This assumption, like the isotropy assumption, isn't explained. Since an Omega of one corresponds to a flat universe, this is known as "The Flatness Problem."


3) The Lack of Magnetic Monopoles:
     
Quote
In the early 1970s, the successes of quantum field theory and gauge theory in the development of electroweak and the strong nuclear force led many theorists to move on to attempt to combine them in a single theory known as a grand unified theory, or GUT. Several GUTs were proposed, most of which had the curious feature of suggesting the presence of a real magnetic monopole particle. More accurately, GUTs predicted a range of particles known as dyons, of which the most basic state is a monopole. The charge on magnetic monopoles predicted by GUTs is either 1 or 2gD, depending on the theory.

The majority of particles appearing in any quantum field theory are unstable, and decay into other particles in a variety of reactions that have to conserve various values. Stable particles are stable because there are no lighter particles to decay into that still conserve these values. For instance, the electron has a lepton number of 1 and an electric charge of 1, and there are no lighter particles that conserve these values. On the other hand, the muon, essentially a heavy electron, can decay into the electron and is therefore not stable.

The dyons in these same theories are also stable, but for an entirely different reason. The dyons are expected to exist as a side effect of the "freezing out" of the conditions of the early universe, or symmetry breaking. In this model the dyons arise due to the vacuum configuration in a particular area of the universe, according to the original Dirac theory. They remain stable not because of a conservation condition, but because there is no simpler topological state for them to decay to.

The length scale over which this special vacuum configuration exists is called the correlation length of the system. A correlation length cannot be larger than causality would allow, therefore the correlation length for making magnetic monopoles must be at least as big as the horizon size determined by the metric of the expanding universe. According to that logic, there should be at least one magnetic monopole per horizon volume as it was when the symmetry breaking took place.

This leads to a direct prediction of the amount of monopoles in the universe today, which is about 1011 times the critical density of our universe. The universe appears to be close to critical density, so monopoles should be fairly common.
[...]
Non-inflationary Big Bang cosmology suggests that monopoles should be plentiful, and the failure to find magnetic monopoles is one of the main problems that led to the creation of cosmic inflation theory.


As a response, Alan Guth created the Inflation Model. This model purported to explain these obsevations, by positing:
     
Quote
that the nascent universe passed through a phase of exponential expansion (the inflationary epoch) that was driven by a negative pressure vacuum energy density.

This expansion is similar to a de Sitter universe with positive cosmological constant. As a direct consequence of this expansion, all of the observable universe originated in a small causally-connected region. Quantum fluctuations in this microscopic region, magnified to cosmic size, then became the seeds for the growth of structure in the universe (see galaxy formation and evolution). The particle responsible for inflation is generally called the inflaton.
[...]
The original model of inflation,[1] proposed by Alan Guth, had the universe in a false vacuum. The universe was in an exactly de Sitter phase. In this model, regions of non-inflating universe are created through the nucleation of bubbles of true vacuum, while the rest of the universe continues inflating. When two such bubbles collide, the vast energy of the bubble walls is converted into the particles seen at the early universe. This process is called reheating. Alan Guth has described the inflationary universe as the ultimate "free lunch": new universes, similar to our own, are continuously produced in a vast inflating background. Gravitational interactions, in this case, circumvent (but do not violate) both the first law of thermodynamics or energy conservation and the second law of thermodynamics or the arrow of time problem.

However, the original model of Guth fails because, in order to guarantee a sufficient amount of inflation to solve the standard problems, the bubble nucleation rate must be too low for bubble walls to collide and for the reheating process to actually work, because the space between bubbles - which is still in the inflating phase - expands so fast that the separation between bubbles grows faster than the bubbles themselves. The energy that is released in the decay of the false vacuum is deposited entirely in the kinetic energy of the bubble walls, and none is liberated by the collision needed for the hot big bang. This is called the "graceful exit problem" and Guth's original model is now called "old inflation." Andrei Linde[2] and, independently, Andreas Albrecht and Paul Steinhardt[3] proposed a "new inflation" or "slow-roll inflation" in which the inflaton is modelled by a scalar field slowly rolling down a nearly flat potential. In this model, the expansion of the universe is only approximately de Sitter, and the Hubble parameter is actually decreasing: the expansion is slowing. While the spectrum of fluctuations generated in the false vacuum de Sitter universe of old inflation is exactly scale-invariant, new inflation produces only a nearly scale invariant spectrum.[4] This means that information about the potential during inflation can be extracted, in principle, from the cosmic microwave background by measuring the spectral index. In "slow-roll inflation", inflation terminates when the inflaton potential reaches the end of its nearly-flat part, where its slope starts to increase and the roll speeds up. This is when reheating occurs in this scenario, as particles are created via ineractions with the inflaton, on the expense of the potential's energy density.

New inflation is generally eternal: that is, the process continues eternally. Although the scalar field is classically rolling down the potential, quantum fluctuations occasionally bring it back up the potential. These regions expand much faster than regions in which the inflaton has a lower potential energy. Thus, while inflation ends in some regions, the regions in which it continues are growing exponentially, and thus continue to dominate. This steady state, which was first described by Andrei Linde,[5] in which inflation ends in some regions while quantum mechanical fluctuations keep it going in the majority of the universe, is called "eternal inflation". It is widely believed that eternal inflation, however, cannot be eternal in the past (although Andrei Linde disputes this) and so does not solve the problem of initial conditions for the universe.[6]

Additional observations, such as COBE and WMAP satellite measurements, seemed to support the theory. You can get anything you want in Alan Guth's restaurant!

Unfortunately, recent observations question the model, and ditching the model reopens many old wounds. One simply can't discard inflation and maintain an atheistic POV. More later.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
stephenWells



Posts: 127
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 12 2006,08:09   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ June 12 2006,12:53)
One simply can't discard inflation and maintain an atheistic POV.

A) What does atheism have to do with any of this?

B) You still haven't posted any geocentric model. Account for the motion of the Sun, Moon, and planets. Also account for the motion of artificial satellites, and the operation of the GPS system.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 12 2006,08:22   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ June 12 2006,12:53)
Unfortunately, recent observations question the model, and ditching the model reopens many old wounds. One simply can't discard inflation and maintain an atheistic POV. More later.

Bill, you still haven't explained how ditching inflation requires one to ditch expansion (or contraction, the other possibility). You still haven't explained how ditching inflation helps your model (if you even have a model. You do have a model, don't you?) One way or another, your model has to either expand or contract (or possibly both at different times), or it fails.

And the fact is, Bill, that inflation hasn't even begun to be ruled out of the game yet. Current observations, which haven't even been established as valid yet, call current theory into question, but they certainly haven't ruled it out on evidentiary grounds.

Meanwhile, a geocentric universe has, in fact, been ruled out by observation. But we're all keen to see you show us how it hasn't been ruled out.

More later.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 12 2006,08:39   

Here's the "more later" part.

As you pointed out, Bill, cosmic inflation does account for many otherwise puzzling observations. This is why the entire astrophysics, cosmology, and particle physics communities are persuaded that inflation is accurate. It's also why these same people believe that the harmonics problem will eventually be resolved in a way that does not rule out inflation.

On the other hand, Bill, your model (to the extent it exists) does not appear to account for any of these puzzling observations. E.g., does your model account for the existence of the CMB, to say nothing of its isotropy (and deviations from perfect isotropy), its temperature, or its incredible adherence to the spectrum of an ideal black body?

I suspect an attempt to provide answers to these questions will result in page after page of Mathematica .jpgs, so before we get there, can we at least get you to draw us a picture of what your toy universe looks like? After all, it's hard to critique a model when you don't even know what the model looks like.

Also, I have to say that your arguments in favor of your geocentric model very closely resemble the arguments in favor of ID and creationism. I.e., rather than provide arguments in support of your own model, you spend all of your time trying to find holes in the evidence supporting the other model. As if proving that A is wrong somehow demonstrates that B is right….

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 12 2006,08:47   

And—to quote my personal favorite greedy capitalist—"one more thing."

As Stephen pointed out, atheism neither requires inflation nor expansion, nor would it be ruled out by ruling out either one. Atheism works just as well in a static universe (in fact, it works better in a static universe) as it does in an expanding or collapsing universe.

I'm personally not an atheist, Bill. I think, given what we know about the universe, that it's approximately as likely that there is a god as that there isn't one. I remain persuaded, however, that the God described in the Bible is about as likely to resemble an actual creator god as I am to be able to come up with a grand unified theory of everything in my head between now and sunset tonight.

The existence of a creator god seems to be neither supported nor refuted by what we know about the cosmos. But the God of the Bible is pretty much ruled out by observation.

Now…about that model, Bill?

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 12 2006,10:29   

Eric:
     
Quote
I suspect an attempt to provide answers to these questions will result in page after page of Mathematica .jpgs, so before we get there, can we at least get you to draw us a picture of what your toy universe looks like? After all, it's hard to critique a model when you don't even know what the model looks like.

Also, I have to say that your arguments in favor of your geocentric model very closely resemble the arguments in favor of ID and creationism. I.e., rather than provide arguments in support of your own model, you spend all of your time trying to find holes in the evidence supporting the other model. As if proving that A is wrong somehow demonstrates that B is right….

No, but showing the holes in A reveals the necessity for something else, for which I propose B. Obviously, my model should also account for the previous hypothesis's successes, but this just brings us back to the starting point that everyone's bitching about. So I'll try to describe my geocentric theory qua toy universe. Just don't expect a lot of math right away.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1239
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 12 2006,11:02   

[quote=The Ghost of Paley,June 12 2006,15:29][/quote]
Eric:
       
Quote
As if proving that A is wrong somehow demonstrates that B is right….

GOP:
       
Quote
No, but showing the holes in A reveals the necessity for something else, for which I propose B.


No, it all depends on the nature of the "hole", and B appears to be all hole and no donut.  In all of the history of science, NO theory was discarded until another alternate was developed in considerable detail.  And it turns out that no generally accepted theory (that I know of) in the past 200 years has been completely discarded.  Classical physics is still "true".

--------------
"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV

"The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen

"We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

  
cogzoid



Posts: 234
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 12 2006,11:46   

Quote
So I'll try to describe my geocentric theory qua toy universe. Just don't expect a lot of math right away.
Fantastic!  We can save the math for later, don't worry.  My guess is that we won't get that far.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 12 2006,12:09   

Cogzoid:
Quote
Fantastic!  We can save the math for later, don't worry.  My guess is that we won't get that far.

I'm holding you to this statement. OK......I'll see what I can put up tonight, but the bulk might have to wait for Wednesday (since you want the last part first, I'll have to put a few things together).

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 12 2006,12:20   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ June 12 2006,15:29)
No, but showing the holes in A reveals the necessity for something else, for which I propose B. Obviously, my model should also account for the previous hypothesis's successes, but this just brings us back to the starting point that everyone's bitching about. So I'll try to describe my geocentric theory qua toy universe. Just don't expect a lot of math right away.

Yes, but as others have pointed out, Bill, B has already been ruled out by observation.  Inflation is a long, long way from being ruled out. Given that the theory is barely 25 years old, it's to be expected that there will be a few wrinkles that remain to be ironed out. Given that a geocentric view of the universe is as old as humanity (or at least as long as humans have given the notion any thought), one would have expected all the wrinkles to have been ironed out long since.

Instead, it turns out that geocentric models of the cosmos are nothing but wrinkles.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 13 2006,03:16   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ June 12 2006,17:09)
(since you want the last part first, I'll have to put a few things together).

Ghost, what you describe as "last part first" is actually the proper way to do it.
You seem an educated man, you should know that as well as I do.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 13 2006,05:42   

Faid:
 
Quote
Ghost, what you describe as "last part first" is actually the proper way to do it.

Not always. But in any case, I'm playing by "your" rules now, so you should be happy. I also realise that everyone was set up to attack one presentation, and was unprepared for my actual argument, and is therefore trying to force me into more hospitable territory. But I'm OK with it.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 13 2006,05:53   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ June 13 2006,10:42)
Faid:
         
Quote
Ghost, what you describe as "last part first" is actually the proper way to do it.

Not always. But in any case, I'm playing by "your" rules now, so you should be happy. I also realise that everyone was set up to attack one presentation, and was unprepared for my actual argument, and is therefore trying to force me into more hospitable territory. But I'm OK with it.

Well, what we were really hoping for was an actual model to criticize. So far the only thing we've really had to look at was some math with no obvious connection to the real world (was there an "argument" in there somewhere?). Unless there's some arithmetical error in your Mathematica work (how likely is that?), there hasn't really been anything to "attack" yet. Six pages into this thread.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 13 2006,08:02   

Hey guys, could you please confine your heliocentric nagging to this thread? I'd like the other threads to remain on topic. And yes, I'm working on my model.....

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 13 2006,08:58   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ June 13 2006,13:02)
Hey guys, could you please confine your heliocentric nagging to this thread? I'd like the other threads to remain on topic. And yes, I'm working on my model.....

Would it not have been a good idea to have a model before starting this thread?

  
cogzoid



Posts: 234
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 13 2006,09:42   

Quote
Not always. But in any case, I'm playing by "your" rules now, so you should be happy. I also realise that everyone was set up to attack one presentation, and was unprepared for my actual argument, and is therefore trying to force me into more hospitable territory. But I'm OK with it.
Don't flatter yourself.  We are quite prepared for your argument.  You seem to be the one that is unprepared to supply it.  In fact, you'll notice how there have already been many counter-arguments on this thread in preparation of yours.  Will it ever come?  I'm not holding my breath.  We're not trying to force you into hospitable territory, we're trying to coax you into ANY territory.  Draw a cartoon or something!

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 13 2006,10:31   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ June 13 2006,13:02)
Hey guys, could you please confine your heliocentric nagging to this thread? I'd like the other threads to remain on topic. And yes, I'm working on my model.....

To honor Bill's request, I'm cross-posting this from the "Paley Goes to the Movies" thread:
   
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ June 13 2006,12:50)
       
Quote
By the way, I know I'm getting ahead of you, but how exactly does your model even account for the existence of the CMB? Isn't your toy universe static?

Well, it accounts for it, but I'm trying to think about how to present it without bringing up too much math. Let me work on my orbits and crystal spheres and stuff for now, and then I'll whip up on inflation.

Well, in the standard model, it's not too difficult to present. It's the "surface of last scattering," i.e., the radiation released when the universe cooled enough for electrons to become bound in stable orbits around nuclei, allowing the mean free path of photons to be more than a couple of microns.

Not too hard to explain, and makes for a nice visual image, easily apprehended. Now, how hard is it going to be to explain in your model? If we're going to replace the new with the old, we want something in exchange, like an easier picture, perhaps?

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 13 2006,12:33   

Quote (ericmurphy @ June 13 2006,15:31)
Well, in the standard model, it's not too difficult to present. It's the "surface of last scattering," i.e., the radiation released when the universe cooled enough for electrons to become bound in stable orbits around nuclei, allowing the mean free path of photons to be more than a couple of microns.

Not too hard to explain, and makes for a nice visual image, easily apprehended.

And note, Bill. No math required. Not a single equation. But everyone with the foggiest notion of electromagnetism and particle interactions can understand the model, and even picture it in his or her head. Why is it so difficult for your model to be understood in the same terms?

Paging Mr. Occam! Is there a Mr. Occam in the house? We may be in need of your razor soon…

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Ved



Posts: 398
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 13 2006,12:42   

Quote
Draw a cartoon or something!

Or tell us more about the close-by part of the universe. We haven't sent probes to other planets (for some reason), we haven't been to the moon (for some reason), have we put up satellites? Is our moon a satellite?

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 13 2006,12:53   

By the way, Bill: those photographs of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, etc., are "observations," which you're not allowed to dispute (i.e., they're not "artists' conceptions," "computer drawings," etc.). So I think as far as your model is concerned, claims that those photos weren't taken by interplanetary probes aren't allowed either.

So I guess you're stuck with the fact that there have been, in fact, interplanetary unmanned voyages to various planets. Otherwise, this whole thread will rapidly degenerate into farce. Feel free to dispute the moon landings, mars exploration, etc.—just not on this thread.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 13 2006,13:27   

I have a few quick questions regarding Paley's universe.

Is anyone on earth apart from you (and us) aware of the nature of the universe?

If not why not, wouldnt people who sent satellites etc up there have noticed.

Why have our governments lied about sending probes into space. Why has no one involved in the conspiracy leaked anything.

If people are aware of the true nature of the universe, couldn't they just adjust the trajectory of probes etc to account for this.

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 13 2006,13:30   

Quote
Otherwise, this whole thread will rapidly degenerate into farce...


You mean that's not what it was supposed to be in the first place?

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 13 2006,13:32   

Quote
By the way, Bill: those photographs of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, etc., are "observations," which you're not allowed to dispute (i.e., they're not "artists' conceptions," "computer drawings," etc.). So I think as far as your model is concerned, claims that those photos weren't taken by interplanetary probes aren't allowed either.


Anything else, Daddy?  :D  
   
OK, I accept the astronaught/probe claims at face value for the purposes of this discussion.
           
Quote
So I guess you're stuck with the fact that there have been, in fact, interplanetary unmanned voyages to various planets. Otherwise, this whole thread will rapidly degenerate into farce. Feel free to dispute the moon landings, mars exploration, etc.—just not on this thread.

And in conjunction with Ved's comment let me make a condition of my own - let's focus on the Solar System for now*....after all, I'll still have to deal with those dreadful Venusian phases and GEO satellites n' Foucault et al. So it's not like I'm ducking a lot. Deal?

Chris Hyland:
Quote
Is anyone on earth apart from you (and us) aware of the nature of the universe?

If not why not, wouldnt people who sent satellites etc up there have noticed.

Why have our governments lied about sending probes into space. Why has no one involved in the conspiracy leaked anything.

If people are aware of the true nature of the universe, couldn't they just adjust the trajectory of probes etc to account for this.


Now Chris, you know this is verboten on this thread.


*although I'll also refute parallax

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 13 2006,13:42   

So the timeline looks like tomorrow evening or Thursday. I should have some stuff by then.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 13 2006,14:02   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ June 13 2006,18:32)
   
Quote
By the way, Bill: those photographs of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, etc., are "observations," which you're not allowed to dispute (i.e., they're not "artists' conceptions," "computer drawings," etc.). So I think as far as your model is concerned, claims that those photos weren't taken by interplanetary probes aren't allowed either.


Anything else, Daddy?  :D  

Just restating the ground rules, since I could smell a ruckus over those "faked" moon landings on the way.
   
 
Quote
And in conjunction with Ved's comment let me make a condition of my own - let's focus on the Solar System for now*....after all, I'll still have to deal with those dreadful Venusian phases and GEO satellites n' Foucault et al. So it's not like I'm ducking a lot. Deal?

*although I'll also refute parallax

Well, you've got to start somewhere, and it wouldn't hurt to start right where every other cosmology ever developed starts. We'll get to the other stuff—HR diagrams, Cepheids, cosmic elemental abundances, the CMB, galaxies, metals, etc.—sometime in 2015, I'm guessing.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 13 2006,16:07   

Quote (Chris Hyland @ June 13 2006,18:27)
Why have our governments lied about sending probes into space. Why has no one involved in the conspiracy leaked anything.

Chris the media has a known heliocentric bias i meen common

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
Ved



Posts: 398
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 14 2006,03:38   

Quote
So I guess you're stuck with the fact that there have been, in fact, interplanetary unmanned voyages to various planets. Otherwise, this whole thread will rapidly degenerate into farce. Feel free to dispute the moon landings, mars exploration, etc.—just not on this thread.

Well, dang. I've wanted to hear about Paley's impenetrable solar system since, oh, October. Can we start another thread unrelated to this one about it? Paley can use it as a platform to rail on liberals and evolutionists, and I can ask him why he hates America and white people. ... and laugh and laugh.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 16 2006,03:48   

Not sure if it has allready been asked but if the Sun orbits the Earth, why do we get seasons?

What causes that orbital variation?

  
Occam's Toothbrush



Posts: 555
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 16 2006,05:31   

...Holding my breath in rapt anticipation of GoP's next post assuring that he will, eventually, someday, post the next part of his 'model'...

--------------
"Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life" --Creo nut Robert Byers
------
"You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?" --Anger Management Problem Concern Troll "Kris"

  
Occam's Toothbrush



Posts: 555
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 16 2006,05:33   

Notice I did not say I was holding my breath for the actual model, just the next assurance that it will supposedly eventually be posted.

I need some oxygen here.

--------------
"Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life" --Creo nut Robert Byers
------
"You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?" --Anger Management Problem Concern Troll "Kris"

  
Occam's Toothbrush



Posts: 555
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 16 2006,05:35   

I can only imagine how many astrophysicists and cosmologists have gathered here, lurking, waiting with bated breath for GoP to post the theory they expect will revolutionize their field.  

Of course, they knew that an evolutionary biology message board was the place to come for this, since where else would one communicate such a model if they had one?

--------------
"Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life" --Creo nut Robert Byers
------
"You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?" --Anger Management Problem Concern Troll "Kris"

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 16 2006,05:39   

Quote
Not sure if it has allready been asked but if the Sun orbits the Earth, why do we get seasons?
Why wouldn't we?

   
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 16 2006,06:07   

Quote (stevestory @ June 16 2006,10:39)
Quote
Not sure if it has allready been asked but if the Sun orbits the Earth, why do we get seasons?
Why wouldn't we?

If the Sun was orbiting the Earth in a regular orbit we would not experience seasons. Seasons are the result of the Earth being at a tilt to the sun and so presenting a slightly different angle Each day of it's yearly travel.

If the sun was orbiting Earth on a flat plane we would not get seasons. Unless either the sun moved north and south (from a earthlings POV) over the year, or the Earth wobbled over a year.

TBH not too sure on the above (2nd paragraph) yet. I am still trying to work out how we would get a Solstice- Equinox etc situation if the Sun orbited Earth. Easy as anything to see why it happens with the normal (scientifically accepted) explanation.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 16 2006,06:16   

If the sun orbited the earth on a plane, but the earth was tilted w/r/t that plane, you'd get seasons again.

   
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 16 2006,06:24   

Quote (stevestory @ June 16 2006,11:16)
If the sun orbited the earth on a plane, but the earth was tilted w/r/t that plane, you'd get seasons again.

I can't see why. Could you explain it?

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 16 2006,06:38   

Wait, I see the problem. The sun can orbit the earth once a day, or the sun can orbit the earth once a year and the days are caused by the earth rotating. In the first scenario, you wouldn't get seasons, in the second you would, if the orbital axis and the rotational axis weren't parallel.

   
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 16 2006,06:51   

Quote (stevestory @ June 16 2006,11:38)
Wait, I see the problem. The sun can orbit the earth once a day, or the sun can orbit the earth once a year and the days are caused by the earth rotating. In the first scenario, you wouldn't get seasons, in the second you would, if the orbital axis and the rotational axis weren't parallel.

In a geocentric system the Sun must orbit the Earth daily...yes? Don't forget the Earth should be static in this model. That is why seasons are a problem.

EDIT: The only sensible way I can see seasons emerge is if the Suns orbit is not static. ie It move N-S-N over a yearly period. Pretty sure that would still introduce problems, such as Sun Earth relationship at night. A wobbling Earth would not be static.

So imo seaesons are a problem for geocentric models (unless you know different).

EDIT (again): Don't forget that if Earth is satic, the Sun must orbit us daily.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 16 2006,06:55   

Hmm…it seems like other posters are working harder on Bill's model than Bill himself is.

Wow.

In the meantime, I'm guessing the seasons are due to some sort of precession effect as the sun orbits the earth, but I'm having difficulty visualizing how it would work. I'm assuming Bill accepts, because he has to, the actual values for the sun-earth distance as it varies throughout the year, and realizes that the sun is actually closer to the earth in the northern winter. But it can't be a distance thing anyway, because if distance to the sun were the cause of seasons, the southern seasons wouldn't be 180 degrees out of phase from the northern ones.

Maybe the earth's rotational axis precesses against the heavens with a 365-day period. Of course, that would violate the dictum that the earth doesn't move, but at least it preserves Bill's claim that the earth doesn't actually go anywhere. Oh, and wait—the earth doesn't rotate anyway, so it doesn't have a rotational axis. So it isn't the earth's axis that precesses. Maybe the entire cosmos precesses around the earth! Wow. What a concept. So much for conservation of angular momentum. I wonder what other laws Bill will have to toss to get his toy universe to work.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 16 2006,06:57   

eh, i don't know. Geocentric just means earth-centered. You could allow rotation or not, depends on how far off your meds you are. If you don't allow rotation, you're right, you'd have to figure out some other mechanism for seasons.

Quote

So imo seaesons are a problem for geocentric models (unless you know different).


Everything is a problem for geocentric models. Which is why it's june, and Paley hasn't even tried to produce a model.

   
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 16 2006,07:02   

Please. Are you teasing me? You do know that seasons are caused by the angle of the Earth during it's orbit right? Nothing whatsoever to do with distance. Otherwise N and S hemispheres would experience the same seasons (ie Summer/Winter would be at same time for both hemispheres).

EDIT: Replaced rotation with orbit for clarity.

  
stephenWells



Posts: 127
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 16 2006,07:55   

Quote (stevestory @ June 16 2006,11:57)
eh, i don't know. Geocentric just means earth-centered. You could allow rotation or not, depends on how far off your meds you are.

The pale shade of Paley already said that he's not allowing rotation. Why, it isn't clear. Repeated questions about e.g. Foucault pendulums, Coriolis effects (you have to allow for that in artillery, let alone in weather systems), geostationary satellites, and the GPS system have been met with...

...repeated claims that he'll be posting a model real soon now.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 16 2006,07:58   

Quote (stephenWells @ June 16 2006,12:55)
...repeated claims that he'll be posting a model real soon now.

As if that is likely to happen. GoP has bitten off too much, he knows it.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 16 2006,08:09   

Bill hasn't even favored us with his opinion on the shape of the earth yet, for crying out loud.

I'm going with banana-shaped, myself.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 16 2006,08:19   

I hope noone ever asks you to prove if some lady is a witch.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 16 2006,08:21   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ June 16 2006,12:02)
Please. Are you teasing me? You do know that seasons are caused by the angle of the Earth during it's orbit right? Nothing whatsoever to do with distance. Otherwise N and S hemispheres would experience the same seasons (ie Summer/Winter would be at same time for both hemispheres).

EDIT: Replaced rotation with orbit for clarity.

Of course. Not. The earth doesn't orbit, right? Nor, evidently, does it rotate. So what causes seasons? As I said, distance won't work, because it wouldn't account for seasons differing in different hemispheres. Some sort of precession effect seems the only other alternative, but I'm pretty sure Bill will run into conservation of angular momentum problems. As it turns out, only the sun would have to precess (well, on a yearly basis; precession still turns out to be a problem over a 22,000-year time frame), but I'm trying to think where the energy comes from to tilt the sun's orbit up and down with a one-year period.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 16 2006,08:54   

Quote (ericmurphy @ June 16 2006,13:21)
 
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ June 16 2006,12:02)
Please. Are you teasing me? You do know that seasons are caused by the angle of the Earth during it's orbit right? Nothing whatsoever to do with distance. Otherwise N and S hemispheres would experience the same seasons (ie Summer/Winter would be at same time for both hemispheres).

EDIT: Replaced rotation with orbit for clarity.

Of course. Not. The earth doesn't orbit, right? Nor, evidently, does it rotate. So what causes seasons? As I said, distance won't work, because it wouldn't account for seasons differing in different hemispheres. Some sort of precession effect seems the only other alternative, but I'm pretty sure Bill will run into conservation of angular momentum problems. As it turns out, only the sun would have to precess (well, on a yearly basis; precession still turns out to be a problem over a 22,000-year time frame), but I'm trying to think where the energy comes from to tilt the sun's orbit up and down with a one-year period.

As far as I can see, the Sun would have to move up and down in it's orbit on a yearly cycle. I can't see any other way to make seasons work.

If we had a static Earth with a genuine N-S angle that rules out a tilted Sun orbit. Otherwise seasons would vary from E-W on Earth. Earth on an angle to N with an orbiting Sun (with Sun on a plane orbit) would mean no seasons.

This is only 2 objects so far. It must get much worse when other planets are considered (let-alone stars [other than the Sun] and galaxies [other than ours] etc.).

EDIT: Sorry for the elusive comments....but it is very difficult to envision (let alone explain) a geocentric universe that makes sense.

2nd EDIT: Sorry for all the editing, but it is so weird it is difficult to put in words.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 16 2006,09:14   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ June 16 2006,13:54)
EDIT: Sorry for the elusive comments....but it is very difficult to envision (let alone explain) a geocentric universe that makes sense.

2nd EDIT: Sorry for all the editing, but it is so weird it is difficult to put in words.

I know what you mean, Stephen.

Here's what I'm trying to envision: take a dinner plate, and put a black dot on the rim of it. Now, take the plate, and spin it the way you'd spin a coin, except at a lower angle. You'll notice that the black dot will precess around the rim at a speed much lower than the up-and-down movement of the plate as it spins.

What I'm trying to visualize is kind of the opposite effect, where the black dot moves around the rim quickly, while the up-and-down movement of the plate runs hundreds of times more slowly. Would that work? Is it even physically possible?

Kind of makes me think of Bill's jello-quintessence model to explain varying degrees of Doppler red- and blue-shift.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 16 2006,09:31   

Atempting to explain myself again.

If Earth is static and the Sun orbits us. That means the Sun orbits the Earth daily.

Now in summer, the Sun is high in the sky at mid-day. In winter the sun is low in the sky at mid-day.

The years would have to be accounted for by a N-S-N movement of the Sun (in respect to the Earth) over a yearly cycle.

That sort of orbit is very weird to imagine.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 16 2006,09:36   

Sorry for the delay - real life has intruded as of late. Boy, you guys are way off. I contributed to the confusion by saying my model would reflect Ptolemy, but I've changed my mind after further thought and now embrace a quantum mechanical model writ large. I'll try to supply more detail Monday. To prepare for my theory, you'd be better off reading a chemistry than an astronomy textbook.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 16 2006,09:38   

Re "That sort of orbit is very weird to imagine."
Not to mention that the background stars would have to move up and down at the same time...

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 16 2006,09:42   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ June 16 2006,14:36)
Sorry for the delay - real life has intruded as of late. Boy, you guys are way off. I contributed to the confusion by saying my model would reflect Ptolemy, but I've changed my mind after further thought and now embrace a quantum mechanical model writ large. I'll try to supply more detail Monday. To prepare for my theory, you'd be better off reading a chemistry than an astronomy textbook.

C'mon ghost, you know you are b/s'n.

Explain something as simple as this. In a geocentric solar system, why does the Earth experience seasons?

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 16 2006,09:45   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ June 16 2006,14:31)
Atempting to explain myself again.

If Earth is static and the Sun orbits us. That means the Sun orbits the Earth daily.

Now in summer, the Sun is high in the sky at mid-day. In winter the sun is low in the sky at mid-day.

The years would have to be accounted for by a N-S-N movement of the Sun (in respect to the Earth) over a yearly cycle.

That sort of orbit is very weird to imagine.

Right. So you've got two separate motions to explain, using (presumably) entirely different methods.

You've got the daily traversal of the sky by the sun. If that were all there was to it, it wouldn't be difficult (at least the kinematics wouldn't be difficult). You'd just have the sun orbiting the earth in a more-or-less circular fashion.

But then you've got another motion: the annual motion of the sun from low in the sky to high in the sky and back again.

Think of the sun's orbit (god, it's hard not to laugh when I type that) as a dinner plate, and the sun itself as a black dot on that plate. Now, spin the plate around on the dinner table at a low angle, you know, the way that generates that incredible racket as the line drawn perpendicular to the surface of the dinner plate gets closer and  closer to vertical. The problem is, the dot representing the sun moves more slowly around the plate's rim than the point where the plate contacts the table does. This is the opposite of what we want. We want the dot to go around faster.

The other problem, of course, is that as you pointed out, the seasons would vary east-to-west, not north-to-south.

At this point, I think I need to give up, and go back to a heliocentric solar system. Bill will have to pick it up from here.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 16 2006,09:52   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ June 16 2006,14:36)
Sorry for the delay - real life has intruded as of late. Boy, you guys are way off. I contributed to the confusion by saying my model would reflect Ptolemy, but I've changed my mind after further thought and now embrace a quantum mechanical model writ large. I'll try to supply more detail Monday. To prepare for my theory, you'd be better off reading a chemistry than an astronomy textbook.

Actually, Bill, I think you've got it exactly backwards. I think you would be better served by laying off the chemistry books and reading the astronomy books. I think you'll find that quantum mechanics and chemistry don't work very well for macroscopic objects. For one thing, would you care to estimate the electromagnetic attraction between two electrically-neutral objects like the sun and the earth?

Also, you can probably forget about the strong and the weak force. I don't think they'll do much to warp the sun into orbit around the earth.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 16 2006,09:56   

Quote (ericmurphy @ June 16 2006,14:45)
At this point, I think I need to give up, and go back to a heliocentric solar system. Bill will have to pick it up from here.

LOL Yes.

Gets crazy doesn't it? To think that is only 2 bodies. Surely GoP has realised by now how #### difficult a geocentric model would be.

I personally consider GoP to be inteligent. I think he now (and for some time tbh) realises this is an impossible task. Just wish he had the "ka-hoonas" to admit it.

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 16 2006,09:58   

I can't find any problem with seasons on a geocentric earth that can't be easily explained either by magic or by wishful thinking. You guys are all barking up the wrong tree. The chemistry Ghost is referring to is brain chemistry.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 16 2006,10:00   

Quote (Flint @ June 16 2006,14:58)
I can't find any problem with seasons on a geocentric earth that can't be easily explained either by magic or by wishful thinking. You guys are all barking up the wrong tree. The chemistry Ghost is referring to is brain chemistry.

LOL. That was funny!

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 16 2006,10:33   

Flint: Nice to see that you're still here. I missed your response to my latest objections to gay marriage. Oh well, that's water under the bridge now. Any input you have into my geocentrism is appreciated.

Eric: Yes, I understand your objection. But there's more to my model than meets the eye; I'll introduce a new force Monday. Anyhoo, I think of planetary orbits as homologous to electrons whizzing about the atomic nucleus. The crystalline shells correspond to the First Quantum number (i.e. a row on the periodic table), while the orbits themselves correspond to subenergy levels. My subs won't be the S,P,D,F shapes necessarily, but those collections of orbitals will give you a rough idea. Think of my kleinbottle as a belt that converts information energy into translational motion.

Stephen: It is an impossible task for traditional geocentric models, but not for mine.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 16 2006,11:19   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ June 16 2006,15:33)
Eric: Yes, I understand your objection. But there's more to my model than meets the eye; I'll introduce a new force Monday.

Mr. Bill, I'd like to introduce you to Mr. Occam…

In the meantime, I hope your force is going to do more than just force a star weighing millions of times more than a planet into an orbit around that planet. Does this mysterious force, which has so far eluded detection, perform any other function in your model?
     
Quote
Anyhoo, I think of planetary orbits as homologous to electrons whizzing about the atomic nucleus. The crystalline shells correspond to the First Quantum number (i.e. a row on the periodic table), while the orbits themselves correspond to subenergy levels. My subs won't be the S,P,D,F shapes necessarily, but those collections of orbitals will give you a rough idea. Think of my kleinbottle as a belt that converts information energy into translational motion.

But we already know that orbits aren't quantized, Bill. They decay, lose energy and gain energy in various amounts from various sources, and tidal forces can widen an orbit. So they're not quantized in either direction.

Electron orbits don't decay because they're quantized. Planetary orbits do decay because they're not quantized. Clear enough?

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 16 2006,11:46   

Eric:
       
Quote
But we already know that orbits aren't quantized, Bill. They decay, lose energy and gain energy in various amounts from various sources, and tidal forces can widen an orbit. So they're not quantized in either direction.

Electron orbits don't decay because they're quantized. Planetary orbits do decay because they're not quantized. Clear enough?

Yes, it's true that the crude quantisation you describe would have to occur between the crystalline spheres, but within the spheres other actions can take place. An analogous situation would be the complicated hybrid orbitals that often form between energy levels:
     
Quote
The proton that forms the nucleus of a hydrogen atom attracts one of the valence electrons on carbon. This causes an excitation, moving a 2s electron into a 2p orbital. This, however, increases the influence of the carbon nucleus on the valence electrons by increasing the effective core potential (the amount of charge the nucleus exerts on a given electron = Charge of Core - Charge of all electrons closer to the nucleus).

The combination of these forces creates new mathematical functions known as hybridised orbitals. In the case of carbon attempting to bond with four hydrogens, four orbitals are required. Therefore, the 2s orbital (core orbitals are almost never involved in bonding) mixes with the three 2p orbitals to form four sp3 hybrids (read as s-p-three). See graphical summary below.

To be sure, the promotion of a pure orbital to a hybrid one involves discrete jumps to a certain extent, but the hybrid orbital also involves continuous blending as seen above. Most of this phenomena are too complicated to model accurately, which, in fact, leads to a rejection of the simple dichotomy.

More later.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
stephenWells



Posts: 127
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 16 2006,11:56   

Quote (ericmurphy @ June 16 2006,16:19)
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ June 16 2006,15:33)
Eric: Yes, I understand your objection. But there's more to my model than meets the eye; I'll introduce a new force Monday.

Mr. Bill, I'd like to introduce you to Mr. Occam…

In the meantime, I hope your force is going to do more than just force a star weighing millions of times more than a planet into an orbit around that planet. Does this mysterious force, which has so far eluded detection, perform any other function in your model?

Paley's extra force clearly makes Foucault pendulums precess, and creates cyclones and anticyclones; also, it makes geostationary satellites hang motionless in the sky.

For an extra $19.95 plus tax. it will shine your shoes, slice vegetables, and compose poetry.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 16 2006,12:13   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ June 16 2006,16:46)
Yes, it's true that the crude quantisation you describe would have to occur between the crystalline spheres, but within the spheres other actions can take place. An analogous situation would be the complicated hybrid orbitals that often form between energy levels.

But then you run into problems with comets. Comets' orbits start out in the Oort cloud, as much as half a light year from the sun, and in some instances plunge all the way in, closer than the orbit of Mercury. This would an analogize to an electron orbital not only virtually contacting the proton, but almost leaving the atom entirely, and (this is the important part) occupying every conceivable distance in between. In no meaningful sense can a comet's orbit be said to be quantized at all.

As I'm sure you are aware, Bill, when an electron jumps from one orbital to another, at no point does it ever occupy the space between orbitals. This is the essence of quantization. The blending you are referring to is due to overlapping spheres of influence between the carbon nucleus, the hydrogen nucleus, and other electrons in the molecule. A comet's orbit does not depend on anything other than its velocity, and there's no reason why a comet could not achieve a ridiculously elliptical orbit in a system with no objects other than itself and the sun. There is no way to analogize from your electronic orbitals in a molecule to the orbit of a planet or a comet, because those objects can occupy any distance from their primary, regardless of whether or not there are other objects in the system.

This is why I said the chemstry books aren't going to help you.

Also, none of this gets you anywhere with explaining seasons. Just thought I'd point that out.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 16 2006,12:18   

Quote
Mr. Bill, I'd like to introduce you to Mr. Occam…


I think you'd be better off introducing him to Mr. Sluggo...

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 16 2006,14:25   

Ghost:

Sorry to have dropped out. I kind of gave up on the gay marriage when it became inarguable that:

1) You were confecting a vanishingly unlikely chain of subjective and unquantifiable circumstances leading to the future of your worst fears;

2) That even if such a future should come to pass for whatever reasons, it held no fears for me whatsoever (since a find myself unable to gin up matching prejudices); and

3) The future you feared didn't result from your imaginary sequence of events, but rather the sequence had been fabricated as a rationalization to justify fears I do not share.

I admit I didn't come in at the beginning of the geocentrism thread. All I can contribute out of context is that what "goes around" what is entirely a matter of frame of reference. From the frame of reference of an observer standing here, the universe *really does* revolve around us daily. Why should this frame be inferior to any other, except for ease of modeling?

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 16 2006,18:28   

If the Earth is not spinning on it's axis, what makes the clockwise/anticlockwise spin of water/storms etc dependent on N or S hemisphere?

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 16 2006,18:34   

Those are the Coriolis terms, which no geostationary model can account for. The extant geostationary dolts just say, "Well, that's an anomalous force we haven't figured out yet."

   
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 16 2006,18:48   

Quote (stevestory @ June 16 2006,23:34)
Those are the Coriolis terms, which no geostationary model can account for. The extant geostationary dolts just say, "Well, that's an anomalous force we haven't figured out yet."

To which everyone else replies, "Um, actually, yeah, we have."

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005