RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

    
  Topic: To the Ghost of Paley., Geocentrism?< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 25 2006,09:33   

Have you given up on a geocentric universe?

If not, I have a few questions.

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 25 2006,09:50   

GoP is just a troll. He can believe in anything as long as he's having fun on this board.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 25 2006,11:14   

Quote
Have you given up on a geocentric universe?

No, I've just been sick. I feel better now, but for some reason I'm still a little lazy. Part of the reason I collected the Archy links on Dave's thread was to make things a bit easier when it's time to address that topic, although apparently the debate blew right past it. Oh well, at least people can't accuse me of sand-bagging if I pick it up later.

I know everybody wants me to stay on topic, but I don't want to rush into things without being satisfied, and it's fun to talk about different things. However, I am still glancing at Messiah periodically. Recall that my model follows Brahe's pretty closely, so any criticism of him applies to me. My innovation is not so much in the solar model itself, but the underlying force (information) which indirectly keeps the sphere of fixed stars (see diagram under "Heliocentrism") rotating on its axis and swinging the inner planets along. All the subsidiary orbits also move independently within this framework. That's one reason why I pose the informationally quantum dual to our known universe; the quantum nature of information keeps the orbits somewhat independent of each other.

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

  
creeky belly



Posts: 205
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 25 2006,12:04   

Hmm, and I guess you're trying to come up with a theory on why parallax isn't observed, or is misinterpereted, or the numerous other methods used to verify the earth's motion (WMAP, EGRET) and just about every astronomical observation in the last 200 years are fundamentally flawed.

AND

Why we should consider a theory with no formal definition (if information space is a space, then it needs to have elements, rules, operations) as a non-trivial explanation for these effects, and preferential treatment (via Occam's) over GR.

AND

Why scale invariance is not an issue when dealing with the quantum mechanics of nontrivially massive and large bodies.

I'm all ears.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 25 2006,19:32   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ July 25 2006,16:14)
My innovation is not so much in the solar model itself, but the underlying force (information) which indirectly keeps the sphere of fixed stars (see diagram under "Heliocentrism") rotating on its axis and swinging the inner planets along. All the subsidiary orbits also move independently within this framework. That's one reason why I pose the informationally quantum dual to our known universe; the quantum nature of information keeps the orbits somewhat independent of each other.

Bill, are you using the word "information" where the rest of us use "gravitation," or are you just wrong? It's pretty indisputable that gravity is what keeps planets in their orbits; the equations are irrefutably correct.

Are you going to argue that general relativity is wrong? That's just about as smart as arguing that Hitler was a liberal.

And when are you ever going to address the observations I pointed out to you, back in November, that your model needs to accommodate?

--------------
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

  
Crabby Appleton



Posts: 250
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 25 2006,19:37   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ July 25 2006,16:14)
Part of the reason I collected the Archy links on Dave's thread was to make things a bit easier when it's time to address that topic, although apparently the debate blew right past it.

Whoa, the Dromaeosaur/Thecodont/Bird Evolution arguments have relevence to a Geocentric Theory of the Universe? I can't wait to read how that works (but I know I'll have to).

You're surprised DDTTD couldn't understand the information in the links you provided him?!!!

Sarfarti and the Cult of AiG doesn't understand the dino/bird evolution argument and Sarfarti's refutation of horse evolution is even more ridiculous. Why would you expect cut and paste DDTTD to do any better?

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 26 2006,05:59   

Eric:
Quote
Bill, are you using the word "information" where the rest of us use "gravitation," or are you just wrong? It's pretty indisputable that gravity is what keeps planets in their orbits; the equations are irrefutably correct.

No, I'm describing where gravity itself comes from, and how it interacts with large bodies.

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

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 26 2006,09:27   

I see that Nicky's been polishing his understanding of optics. The result is on the "Lakes on Titan" thread. OK, you guys complain about my slow responses, but when's Nicky going to reply to The Master's devastating critique of the Nilsson-Pelger paper? Or do the evos now admit that their pet demonstration of eye evolution is fatally flawed? Nicky was supposed to be searching for an "optics" expert.........

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

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 26 2006,13:38   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ July 26 2006,10:59)
No, I'm describing where gravity itself comes from, and how it interacts with large bodies.

I'm just wondering how your "theory" is going to be an improvement over GTR, since GTR seems to account for observation pretty much exactly. Where is your model going to fit into whatever cracks there are between what GTR predicts and what observations show? There really isn't much room in there...

And how are you going to show that gravity can warp a 10E30kg object into orbit around a 10E24Kg object?

--------------
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

  
  8 replies since July 25 2006,09:33 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

    


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]