RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (16) < 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... >   
  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 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: 1776
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: 13407
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: 1776
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: 13407
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: 13407
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: 13407
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: 1776
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: 1776
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

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

Pages: (16) < 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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