ericmurphy
Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005
|
| Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Jan. 30 2006,17:35) | | Quote | | Now, about them blueshifts... |
Now, this equation governs the angle-independent motion of quintessence and explains the redshift. However, there are blueshift anomalies that need to be explained. They are explained by the fact that r(0) and r'(0) are functions of the polar and azimuthal angles of the sphere of the fixed stars. Hence, the entire sphere is not all vibrating simultaneously. Therefore, there are some stars that have blueshifts. |
Okay, how does it explain differing redshifts, which range from z=~0 to z > 3? And how does it explain the fact that different ranges of redshifts also correspond to different categories of astronomical and cosmological objects? I.e., redshifts > 0.1 are rare for intragalactic objects, redshifts > 1 are rare for anything other than extremely energetic galaxies and quasars, and redshifts > 3 are almost unheard of for anything other than quasars.
And as for blueshifts, there is no obvious correspondence between azimuth/right ascension and approach/recession velocity. If the sphere is vibrating with harmonics (I'm assuming that's what you mean when you say it's not vibrating simultaneously), there should be some fairly straighforward pattern of red- and blueshifts.
The patterns of red- and blueshift, are well-accounted for, however, by reference to the dynamics of stellar orbits around the galaxy's center of mass and to the large-scale structure of the galaxy.
Further, extremely high blueshifts are extremely rare, but extremely high redshifts are extremely common. What up with that?
Also, your implied age of the cosmos (~6,000 years) is plainly wrong. The evidence that the earth is ~4.5 E 9 years old and that the universe is 1.37 E 10 years old is essentially unassailable. In other words, for you to be right about the age of the earth, we'd have to jettison virtually everything we know about astronomy, geology, chemistry, paleontology, biology, cosmology, relativity, and quantum physics. In other words, we'd have to jettison virtually all of science.
I think there's the same problem here there was with your misunderstandings of phylogentic relationships among taxa, Bill. You seem to have a blind spot when it comes to how evidence from very different and independent lines of reasoning can all converge on the same answers. You spent a lot of time arguing about discordant results obtained from gene and protein analysis, while completely disregarding an immense body of evidence derived from totally separate lines of inquiry, like morphological comparisons, the fossil record, plate tectonics, and cladistics.
I was recently reading this article on TalkOrigins about various YEC claims. One thing that jumped out at me was that the various methods the YECs used to estimate the age of the earth varied over an enormous range of dates, from ~100 years to about 260 million years. Didn't that give the YEC guys pause as to the validity of their methods? All the various methods--stratigraphy, paleontology, plate tectonics, radiometric dating, paleomagnetics, theories about planetary formation--converge on one value: ~4.5E9 years. The YECs' methods generated estimates all over the map. The only thing they had in common was that they were all at least an order of magnitude lower than the accepted value.
That should have set off some warning bells, I would have thought...
--------------
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
|
But you don't find me on this board saying that cranks or conservatives or theists are stupid. Heck, I even like some of your prose, your way with words sometimes gives me a chuckle. Granted, it's usually because you're weaving insults into your theories... though the comment I was responding to was just dumb. Not your best work. 
