RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (16) < 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... >   
  Topic: The Finest in Geocentric Models and Analysis, by Ghost of Paley< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
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: 13407
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: 13407
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: 13407
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: 13407
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: 634
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: 13407
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?

   
  456 replies since May 31 2006,08:16 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (16) < 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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