RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

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

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

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


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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