Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > From "LUCA" thread

Pages: (36) < ... 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... >

celtic_elk Posts: 11 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 22 2005,04:48    Quote By the way, here's my source for the SAT claim: [QUOTE] But there is a major flaw in the thesis that income differences are the paramount explanation for the racial scoring gap. Consider these three facts from The College Board's 2005 data on the SAT: • Whites from families with incomes of less than $10,000 had a mean SAT score of 993. This is 129 points higher than the national mean for all blacks. • Whites from families with incomes below $10,000 had a mean SAT test score that was 61 points higher than blacks whose families had incomes of between $80,000 and $100,000. • Blacks from families with incomes of more than $100,000 had a mean SAT score that was 85 points below the mean score for whites from all income levels, 139 points below the mean score of whites from families at the same income level, and 10 points below the average score of white students from families whose income was less than $10,000. All of this is very bad news since it suggests the possibility that even if blacks reach economic parity with whites, SAT score differences between the races may persist. Moreover, the data gives fuel to the biological racists who believe in the inherent inferiority of the cognitive capabilities of blacks. Yes, and I noticed during a recent search that several racist websites have already made much hay out of these results. But I think that culture may explain the discrepancies. [/QUOTE] I'm interested in your explanation for the disparity at high income levels.  Surely you can't be seriously suggesting that there is a fundamental cultural difference in the US between blacks and whites at the $80,00-100,000 annual income level?   Note also that the data for white students (and probably for other races as well) at varying income levels is probably subject to extreme sampling bias: many affluent students go to college, and therefore take the SATs, because they can afford it, whereas the poor students who take the SATs are self-selecting for those at the upper end of academic ability and ambition.  This is conjecture, as I don't have the data to support this at the moment, but a simple comparison of the number of students who take the SATs vs. the number of students eligible in each income bracket should prove or disprove my hypothesis.

The Ghost of Paley Posts: 1703 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 22 2005,04:56    Quote Are you implying that the other cities can't count bodies well?  What would that imply for statistics of the "softer" crimes?  Perhaps they can count bodies (but given the recent scandals attached to municipal police forces across the land, fogive me for being skeptical), but whether a killing is classified as a murder, self-defense, or suicide allows for more latitude than most people realise. Quote [Your study] succeeds in demonstrating that homicide rates are low in rural areas with no racial clashes, even when including the bustling Twin Cities.  To compare this at all with Europe you'd have to find equally rural and racially consistent areas there.  Something you have yet to do.   But the authors did compare similar regions in America and Canada. Canada might not be Europe, but their low homicide rates serve as a suitable proxy when direct comparisons to the Old Continent are unavailable. And look what happens when we can make a fair adjustment - America wins. Against some of the most gentle, laid-back citizens in the entire world. Doesn't this suggest anything at all? Quote But the murder rates flatly disagree with you.  And since victimization is subjective to the victim, I think those statistics should carry less weight than murder rates, which are as objective as one can get.  You have yet to give a good argument as to why murder rates are NOT a good single statistic that we can look at.  (Besides murder rates not helping your point.)  Oh, I think murder rates are very relevant. But I like to look at the totality of violent crime because I also don't want to be assaulted, raped, or mugged - weird, I know. These crimes have the ability to wreck a person's life, and must be accounted for in any analysis. I also worry about the distibution of violent crime. Many of our homicides "victims" are themselves criminals, so that carries less weight than, say, a schoolteacher. Sorry, but if rival gang members like to shoot each other for trivial reasons, it's not the same as a thug preying on the civilised. In other words, if Bill Cosby ever gets murdered, I'll be depressed; Tupac, on the other hand, richly deserved what he got. And no, I don't give a toss about white, asian, or Jewish thugs either. Screw them. And the liberal hoss they ride on. More later. -------------- Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

The Ghost of Paley Posts: 1703 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 22 2005,07:55    Quote I'm interested in your explanation for the disparity at high income levels.  Surely you can't be seriously suggesting that there is a fundamental cultural difference in the US between blacks and whites at the $80,00-100,000 annual income level?    I don't see why not. Many successful blacks describe themselves as "bicultural", and occasionally complain about the stress this puts on their everyday life. And I've read books where white-collar blacks express extreme frustration with the corporate (i.e. white) world, and complain about cultural isolation. Quote Note also that the data for white students (and probably for other races as well) at varying income levels is probably subject to extreme sampling bias: many affluent students go to college, and therefore take the SATs, because they can afford it, whereas the poor students who take the SATs are self-selecting for those at the upper end of academic ability and ambition.  I'm sure that this explains some of it. But then why the positive correlation between income level and SAT scores? Rich and middle-class whites somehow find a way to outscore these poverty-stricken prodigies. And don't these rich black kids have access to better schools, tutors, etc.? It seems that you're reaching here. -------------- Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

celtic_elk Posts: 11 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 22 2005,07:55    GoPaley: Also in re: the SAT claim: the source you listed (the Journal of Blacks in Higher Education) cites its source only as "The College Board's 2005 data on the SAT."  I was, however, unable to find a race-and-income breakdown for this year's scores in the official College Board national report (which, for interested parties, can be found here). It contains racial breakdowns and income-level breakdowns, but no breakdowns combining the two.  Can you provide an alternate source with the actual data?

cogzoid Posts: 234 Joined: Sep. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 22 2005,10:12    Quote Perhaps they can count bodies (but given the recent scandals attached to municipal police forces across the land, fogive me for being skeptical), but whether a killing is classified as a murder, self-defense, or suicide allows for more latitude than most people realise. Are these scandals related to how they count bodies?  I can't imagine that many suicides are wrongly attributed to being murders.  Conversely, murders that are dressed up as suicides would do nothing but give the appearance of lower murder rates.  This systematic error would apply to all countries, and doesn't help your argument in the least. Quote But the authors did compare similar regions in America and Canada. Canada might not be Europe, but their low homicide rates serve as a suitable proxy when direct comparisons to the Old Continent are unavailable. And look what happens when we can make a fair adjustment - America wins. Against some of the most gentle, laid-back citizens in the entire world. Doesn't this suggest anything at all? America didn't "win" it was comparable.  And it was only the low population states of America that were compared to the low population states of Canada.  Why didn't they use the data comparing the higher population states of America, with the higher population states of Canada?  I've got a reason in mind.  And no, the low population states of Canada are not a suitable proxy for the Old World countries.  You're smarter than that. Quote Oh, I think murder rates are very relevant. But I like to look at the totality of violent crime because I also don't want to be assaulted, raped, or mugged - weird, I know. These crimes have the ability to wreck a person's life, and must be accounted for in any analysis. I also worry about the distibution of violent crime. And once again you missed my point entirely.  I'm not saying that murders are the only crimes that matter.  I'm saying that murders are the only crime statistic that is accurate.  There are plenty of unreported rapes, robberies, and other crimes.  There are also definitional issues.  Some places lump frat guys taking advantage of a drunk girl as equal to a jogger getting dragged into the bushes in a city park.  Are both equal rapes?  There are alot of subjective statistics.  Which is why the data from my sources and your sources often disagree.  Which is also why victimization surveys are prone to error.  But a murder results in a tangible dead body, or a missing person.  It's easy to count those up.  No one "feels" murdered.  They either are or they aren't.  All of those other crimes are surely important and wreck a persons life, but they simply aren't prone to accurate statistics. Quote Many of our homicides "victims" are themselves criminals, so that carries less weight than, say, a schoolteacher. Sorry, but if rival gang members like to shoot each other for trivial reasons, it's not the same as a thug preying on the civilised. In other words, if Bill Cosby ever gets murdered, I'll be depressed; Tupac, on the other hand, richly deserved what he got. And no, I don't give a toss about white, asian, or Jewish thugs either. Screw them. And the liberal hoss they ride on. And why wouldn't this logic apply to all countries?  Don't they all have thugs?  Or is your point going to be that they don't have as many as America?  Boy, wouldn't that be a stupid point to make. And don't try to pass off white thugs as being liberal. -Dan

The Ghost of Paley Posts: 1703 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 22 2005,12:17    Quote Conversely, murders that are dressed up as suicides would do nothing but give the appearance of lower murder rates.  This systematic error would apply to all countries, and doesn't help your argument in the least.  I think your last sentence is potentially false. Crooked police in general do try to deflate the crime rate, and this would apply to all countries. But I think it's a fallacy to assume that:  1) All police agencies are equally corrupt and incompetent  2) All countries will attempt the same manipulations  Let's take the F.B.I., for example. Earlier I showed evidence of hanky-panky in how they classify perps vs victims. But did they do it to lower the crime rate? No, they were far too busy playing pin the tail on the honkey for that. Result: No net crime deflation.  But let's look at an American city during the mid-nineties. The city's finest know that the whole world watches New York, and when good things happen there, they'd like to share in the glory. Result: the crime stats plummet.  Now let's look at a European country such as Great Britain during the mid-nineties. You've got a spanking-new gun policy, you're liberalizing immigration laws, and you read the papers and see the policing success in America and Canada. You'd like a piece of the action, and what's more, you don't want to alarm the public unnecessarily. So what do you do? Well, you carry out your tried-and- failed twin strategies of yanking guns from the civilians and letting in boatloads of terrorists, fanatics, and other enemies of civilisation. Predictably, this fails. Plan B? Let's let my source take it from here: Quote A headline in the London Daily Telegraph back on April 1, 1996, said it all: "Crime Figures a Sham, Say Police." The story noted that "pressure to convince the public that police were winning the fight against crime had resulted in a long list of ruses to 'massage' statistics," and "the recorded crime level bore no resemblance to the actual amount of crime being committed." For example, where a series of homes were burgled, they were regularly recorded as one crime. If a burglar hit 15 or 20 flats, only one crime was added to the statistics. More recently, a 2000 report from the Inspectorate of Constabulary charges Britain's 43 police departments with systemic under-classification of crime – for example, by recording burglary as "vandalism." The report lays much of the blame on the police's desire to avoid the extra paperwork associated with more serious crimes. Britain's justice officials have also kept crime totals down by being careful about what to count. "American homicide rates are based on initial data, but British homicide rates are based on the final disposition." Suppose that three men kill a woman during an argument outside a bar. They are arrested for murder, but because of problems with identification (the main witness is dead), charges are eventually dropped. In American crime statistics, the event counts as a three-person homicide, but in British statistics it counts as nothing at all. "With such differences in reporting criteria, comparisons of U.S. homicide rates with British homicide rates is a sham," the report concludes.  I'll let you draw your own conclusions. Quote And why wouldn't this logic apply to all countries?  Don't they all have thugs?  Or is your point going to be that they don't have as many as America?  Boy, wouldn't that be a stupid point to make.  There's a big difference between intra-thug violence fueled by the drug trade and thugs attacking civilians. While both are regrettable, the second concerns me more since I don't plan on selling, or even buying, drugs. Quote And don't try to pass off white thugs as being liberal.  But what shall I do when the fruits of liberal policy create them? -------------- Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

cogzoid Posts: 234 Joined: Sep. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 23 2005,09:27    Quote I'll let you draw your own conclusions. Great source, Paley.  An article written by a dentist and an optometrist in Colorado for "a non-partisan, non-profit public policy research organization" that just happens to sell "What Would Reagen Do" bracelets.  You'll pardon me if I don't trust every source you shill.  There are online articles to back up almost ANY possible viewpoint.  Just because you find them doesn't make them important. The question, however, is if such bad counting continues today.  A 9 year old article (the source of your source) is hardly the best for judging the current numbers, which is what I am focusing on when comparing to other nations. (Just to explain, we are having multiple arguments at the same time.  The drop in crime in the US in the mid-90s and how the US compares to the rest of the world.) -Dan

cogzoid Posts: 234 Joined: Sep. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 23 2005,12:13    As an example of the myriad of opinions able to be found online.  This recent article hints that present day New York may be mistallying statistics.  Can this be true, Paley, under Guiliani-endorsed Bloomberg's watch? Now, I'm not going to sit here and whine about such statistical manipulation.  I'm just proving the point that almost any opinion can be found online. -Dan

ericmurphy Posts: 2460 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2005,05:35    GoP: How are we doing on our ToE? -------------- 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: Nov. 28 2005,07:48    Quote As an example of the myriad of opinions able to be found online.  This recent article hints that present day New York may be mistallying statistics.  Can this be true, Paley, under Guiliani-endorsed Bloomberg's watch?   But Cogzoid, you're only proving my case. Your own source concedes that the hopitalization rate matches Guiliani's figures during the period of the Big Drop: Quote In 1993, the last year of David Dinkins's administration, health department officials created an "injury surveillance system," hoping to monitor weapons-related assaults against young men. At first, they surveyed only hospitalizations. With the decline in shootings in the city, the number of hospitalizations caused by assaults dropped sharply, right through 1999, but then leveled off. In the meantime, seeking better information on assaults against women, health department officials expanded the survey in 1997 to include emergency room visits in addition to hospitalizations. From then until 2002, the number of assault victims who were either hospitalized or treated in emergency rooms in the city went up in every year but one for a total increase of 19 percent.  So when you say: Quote I'm just proving the point that almost any opinion can be found online.   You're just supporting my point that the Miracle was real, and not an artifact of shady bookkeeping. Quote Great source, Paley.  An article written by a dentist and an optometrist in Colorado for "a non-partisan, non-profit public policy research organization" that just happens to sell "What Would Reagen Do" bracelets.  Your inability to refute their position is duly noted. Quote The question, however, is if such bad counting continues today.  A 9 year old article (the source of your source) is hardly the best for judging the current numbers, which is what I am focusing on when comparing to other nations.  Actually, the quote came from a 2000 Inspectorate of Constabulary report, not the 1996 article you're referencing. And the report also takes current homicide classifications to task: Quote "American homicide rates are based on initial data, but British homicide rates are based on the final disposition." Suppose that three men kill a woman during an argument outside a bar. They are arrested for murder, but because of problems with identification (the main witness is dead), charges are eventually dropped. In American crime statistics, the event counts as a three-person homicide, but in British statistics it counts as nothing at all. "With such differences in reporting criteria, comparisons of U.S. homicide rates with British homicide rates is a sham," the report concludes.  I suspect that British cops would know something about British crime classification and accounting, but I've been told before that I'm hopelessly naive, so help me out, Cogzoid.   My contention that we should use as many sources as possible to triangulate the data seems as sound as ever. -------------- Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

The Ghost of Paley Posts: 1703 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2005,08:40    Quote GoP: How are we doing on our ToE?   Pretty well, although some formatting problems are forcing me to split my paper into several sections. I'll try to summarise some of the main points tonight or tomorrow..... -------------- Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

The Ghost of Paley Posts: 1703 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2005,12:52    Quote GoP: How are we doing on our ToE? Since there is a problem calculating the mass of the earth assuming Alpha Centauri and the rest of the universe orbit it, the evolutionists thing they have refuted the Biblical truth of geocentricism¡Xnot so!!!! The truth is that neither Alpha Centauri nor any other of the fixed stars orbits the earth via gravitational attraction. They are locked into a large conducting Gaussian sphere of dense ether. Gauss Law states: (1) This is the electric field outside the sphere, which in our case is the sphere of the fixed stars, and the field is 0 inside of it. Now, since authentic discontinuities do not exist in nature, the diagrams you see in evolutionistic textbooks of a field instantaneously dropping to zero are somewhat bogus. We can know the true field inside the sphere by modeling this alleged discontinuity with Fourier series. (2)            =0 R<r Now the period of this function is the distance from the sphere of the fixed stars to the center of God¡¦s creation, the earth. (Remember, this is the only section of the domain of R we care about, you can¡¦t bitch if the model does not work in the Empyrean. In addition, since this is an even-range expansion about R=0, it goes into ¡§negative R¡¨ space. This is as physically meaningless as evolutionism, but necessary for the model to work! The first terms of the series are: (3)    (4)           This is the A0 term  (5)      (6) These are the An terms. . (7)     (9) Now, this is the summation from n=1 to n=15, any more terms is too much for little evolutionistic minds to fathom. Now, we know the radius of the sphere of the fixed stars, it is 4.5 light-years. (The Triple Centauri System is something of an anomaly, since it serves as a revolving door for angels to pass in and out of the Empyrean, it protrudes a little.) We also know the value of the permittivity constant  , and the value of ƒàƒ|ƒn(Evolutionists, being basically stupid often need this explained to them.) All that is unknown now is the charge outside the sphere of the fixed stars, Q.   We can find Q by calculating how the field gradient inside the sphere of the fixed stars from the 2.7K uniform temperature the evolutionistic Soviet agents Penzias and Wilson. They called this the ¡§echo of the big bang¡¨ in order to score a propaganda victory for the motherland by ¡§proving¡¨ Gamow¡¦s theory.  In a paper published in Physical Review Letters in 1976 showing the relationship between Temperature and field gradient at a given temperature is: (10)1 Here eqe1 is the field gradient at Temperature T which is 2.7K, and eq0e1 is the field gradient at 0K.  Since the field has no angular variation, the field gradient can be assumed to be E¡¦®.  Now, here is the formula:     (11) Of course, there are still a few unexplained parts in equation 10. Indeed, those of you who actually bothered to read the paper in question and find out the evolutionists who wrote it meant the equation to be applied to solids will dismiss my application of it to this kind of problem as utterly bogus, but that is just another evolutionistic presupposition, not a reality. The ether that fills empty space is the most perfect crystalline solid you could exist. Only the existentialist evolutionistic presupposition of ¡§nothingness¡¨ allows you to believe in a ¡§vacuum.¡¨   Continuing with our discussion of equation 10,    approaches the inverse of the fine structure constant, 137 as the crystal becomes more perfect. In addition, in perfect quintessence the Debye temperature, TD also approaches the same value. (This flows from the electromagnetic nature of the universe which you will not see in papers because it proposes a direct, in-your-face challenge to the gravity-based, big bang evolutionistic model.)  The constant ƒ× is given by the formula:    (12)1 Filling in the numbers, we have:   (13) 50.7413  (Real answer) The other constant, ƒÒ can be assumed to be 1. Finally, Equation 10 with numbers comes out to be:  (14) -0.0014781 Now, when we set equation 14 equal to equation 11, and set the values for   and the radius of the sphere of the fixed stars r (4.5 light-years), and set R equal to the radius of the earth. (In the absence of the sun, the temperature would be 2.7K, so I can get away with this. This is the temperature due to the electric field gradient.) We can calculate a value for Q in the Empyrean to be: 1.46088 X10^46 C This is a very big number. I bet you¡¦re wondering how this much charge can exist. The answer is in the stars themselves. This plasma flow is how the angels keep the stars shining. How this works will be discussed in subsequent posts. -------------- Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

The Ghost of Paley Posts: 1703 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2005,12:57    K. Nishiyama, F. Dimmling, Th. Kornrumpf, and D. Riegel Theory of the Temperature Dependence of the Electric Field Gradient in Noncubic Metals Phyical Review Letters 37,357-360 1976 -------------- Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

The Ghost of Paley Posts: 1703 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2005,14:14    Sorry for all the formatting errors, but this gives a sample of my thinking. To summarize, in recognition of the relative strength of electromagnetic forces vis-a-vis gravity I have used Gauss's Law in conjunction with an equation relating temperature and field gradients to derive the cosmic microwave background value. No reference to the Big Clang required. But I will not stop here. The next section of the paper will discuss the infamous n-body problem in the context of induced dipole moments. I will then utilise Shannon's information theory to convert the excess charge to work, thus uniting my oeuvre with Dembski's. -------------- Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

ericmurphy Posts: 2460 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2005,19:29    Actually, none of that meant anything to me, since I never even took calculus in high school. But I do have one question about your postulate of a fixed sphere of stars 4.5 ly away. How does your model account of differing parallax of different stars? Actually, how does it account for parallax at all? If everything orbits the earth, shouldn't the parallax of every body out there on the sphere be zero? -------------- 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

Swoosh Posts: 42 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2005,21:52    O.  M.  G. That's classic.  Thanks for the chuckles, spooky.

W. Kevin Vicklund Posts: 68 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 29 2005,04:45    Quote This is the electric field outside the sphere, which in our case is the sphere of the fixed stars, and the field is 0 inside of it. Now, since authentic discontinuities do not exist in nature, the diagrams you see in evolutionistic textbooks of a field instantaneously dropping to zero are somewhat bogus. We can know the true field inside the sphere by modeling this alleged discontinuity with Fourier series. Please review Gauss.  It is painful to see you abuse these theorems so badly.  The equation set E® = Q/(4*PI*eps0*R*R) {R>r}      = 0 {R<r} is that of an ideal Gaussian spherical shell with thickness = 0.  A Gaussian spherical shell with non-zero thickness = x has an additional term Q(x)/(4*PI*eps0*R*R) {r+x>R>r}.  More properly stated, E® = Q(x)/(4*PI*eps0*R*R) {R>r}, where Q(x)=Q for R>r+x and 0 for R<r. So there is no discontinuity present, as the field decreases over the thickness of the proposed cellestial firmament.  So the Fourier series is wrong, and you would need knowledge of the thickness of the firmament to be able to perform the proper analysis.  Obviously, the thickness must be non-zero, "since authentic" zero thickness shells "do not exist in nature." That said, your argument is of course complete bullocks, and doesn't match with certain other observed phenomenon, such as the aforementioned parallax (btw, it is the fact that the observed parallaxes are non-equal, not non-zero, that falsifies the spherical firmament hypothesis - a non-zero but equal parallax would indicate a wobbling firmament). Finally, absolutely none of this has anything to do with evolution.  In fact, Gaussian theory predates evolution.  Please stop using "evolutionistic" to mean "any scientific theory I oppose on theistic grounds."  If you must use a term, perhaps Galileonic or something similar?  That would be much more accurate.

C.J.O'Brien Posts: 395 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 29 2005,08:47    Truly, er-- staggering, wisp. I especially like this bit: Quote I will then utilise Shannon's information theory to convert the excess charge to work, thus uniting my oeuvre with Dembski's. The similarities are already glaring. Let's see, megalomaniac delusions of overturning whole disciplines, useless and confusing formalisms, hand-waving bluster, obfuscating use of higher mathematics to impress the rubes, utter disconnect to reality... I'd say your "oeuvre" belongs in the same (circular) file as D*mbski's already, husk. -------------- The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand. --Joe G

The Ghost of Paley Posts: 1703 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 29 2005,12:26    Quote Please review Gauss.  It is painful to see you abuse these theorems so badly.  The equation set E® = Q/(4*PI*eps0*R*R) {R>r}     = 0 {R<r} is that of an ideal Gaussian spherical shell with thickness = 0.  A Gaussian spherical shell with non-zero thickness = x has an additional term Q(x)/(4*PI*eps0*R*R) {r+x>R>r}.  More properly stated, E® = Q(x)/(4*PI*eps0*R*R) {R>r}, where Q(x)=Q for R>r+x and 0 for R<r. So there is no discontinuity present, as the field decreases over the thickness of the proposed cellestial firmament.  So the Fourier series is wrong, and you would need knowledge of the thickness of the firmament to be able to perform the proper analysis.  Obviously, the thickness must be non-zero, "since authentic" zero thickness shells "do not exist in nature."  Seems so, doesn't it? But I'll justify my use of the Fourier series in the next installment, and solve a few conundrums while I'm at it. Quote How does your model account of differing parallax of different stars? Actually, how does it account for parallax at all? If everything orbits the earth, shouldn't the parallax of every body out there on the sphere be zero[or non-equal]?  Patience. It will all come together shortly. Genius moves at its own pace, after all. -------------- Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

ericmurphy Posts: 2460 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 29 2005,13:08    Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Nov. 29 2005,18:26) Quote If everything orbits the earth, shouldn't the parallax of every body out there on the sphere be zero[or non-equal]?  Patience. It will all come together shortly. Genius moves at its own pace, after all. No, it definitely wouldn't be non-equal. It might be non-zero, but if everything's the same distance from the earth, everything should have the same parallax, even if it's non-zero, due to divine sloppiness. -------------- 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: Nov. 29 2005,13:36    Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Nov. 29 2005,18:26) Patience. It will all come together shortly. Genius moves at its own pace, after all. Just to give you a running start, I thought I'd include a few other, relatively non-controversial, astronomical observations, with the request that you explain how your model accounts for them: The Hertzsprung-Russel mass-luminosity relationship. According to your model, all stars (with minor exceptions) are at the same distance from earth: 4.5 ly. This means that all stars' apparent magnitude is equal to their absolute magnitude, and therefore their apparent luminosity is the same as their intrinsic luminosity. This means that the Hertzprung-Russel mass-luminosity relationship is broken, and there is therefore no relationship between a star's mass and its luminosity, or between its temperature and its luminosity. Therefore some other explanation is necessary for the different temperatures of stars. What is that explanation? Galaxies. Since galaxies are all the same distance from the earth as the stars are (4.5 ly), either they're not made of stars at all (and hence are "nebulae"?), or they're made of extremely non-luminous stars. But stars have been resolved in some nearby galaxies, e.g., the Magellanic clouds. Presumably these are really tiny stars? Since their apparent luminosity is the same as their intrinsic luminosity… Cosmic elemental abundances. (Is evopeach out there somewhere?). Presumably Bill's geocentric universe precludes a big bang, and therefore precludes primordial nucleosynthesis. Therefore, one needs some other explanation for the eerie concordance between the observed cosmic microwave background radiation and the predicted abundances of hydrogen, deuterium, helium, and lithium, which are exquisitely sensitive to the temperature of that radiation. Of course, we also need an explanation for the existence of the CMB in the first place, since the Big Bang evidently didn't happen in Bill's world. Existence of metals. (Of course, I mean metals in the sense that astrophysicists use the term). I assume that supernovae don't happen in Bill's world, since a supernova occurring 4.5 ly away would preclude the existence of the earth. So, Bill—how did metals get here? I'm assuming since there was no big bang, they've always been here, but I'm hoping your answer is a little more entertaining than "I don't need to explain how metals got here, because they've always been here." Cosmic redshift. Obviously, neither stars nor galaxies have a recession velocity, since they're all at the same distance from the earth (4.5 ly), and presumably always have been. So what accounts for the observed redshift? Tired light? Intervening dust? God playing tricks on us? Distance to the celestial sphere. Bill, you say you know the distance to the A Centauri system. But how did you derive that distance? By its parallax? Even if, as WKV points out, parallax could be due to a wobbly cosmic sphere, you wouldn't be able to determine the sphere's distance that way. The reason we know the distance to A Centauri is because we know the diameter of the earth's orbit around the— oh, wait. The earth doesn't revolve around the sun. So what's the base of the triangle that allows us to compute the distance to the celestial sphere? I'm sure I'll think of other phenomena in need of explanation, but I thought I'd give you a few to get you started. And yes, I will expect an explanation for all of them, since there's already a perfectly good, non-geocentric, explanation for them. No one said re-writing the laws of nature was going to be easy, or quick. -------------- 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: Nov. 29 2005,15:56    Quote Just to give you a running start, I thought I'd include a few other, relatively non-controversial, astronomical observations, with the request that you explain how your model accounts for them:   That's sweet of you, Matlock. I do appreciate your criticisms, as they help refine my thoughts. To avoid distraction, I'll try to incorporate my rebuttal within the work proper. Please understand, however, that the paper must simultaneously address many criticisms, so part of it might be rough going for those without calculus. The study must strike a balance between detail and clarity, and enchant in the process. I'll do what I can. -------------- Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

ericmurphy Posts: 2460 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 30 2005,05:46    Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Nov. 29 2005,21:56)   That's sweet of you, Matlock. I do appreciate your criticisms, as they help refine my thoughts. To avoid distraction, I'll try to incorporate my rebuttal within the work proper. Please understand, however, that the paper must simultaneously address many criticisms, so part of it might be rough going for those without calculus. The study must strike a balance between detail and clarity, and enchant in the process. I'll do what I can. Actually, none of my questions are criticisms. I'm just wondering if your theory will have the breadth and explanatory power of the theory it purports to replace (I will admit that I've made certain predictions on that subject). Therefore, there's no need for any rebuttal, since I haven't made any rebuttable assertions. However, my difficulties with higher mathematics shouldn't present an obstacle to you, since the currently-existing theory accounting for the above-referenced observations has been able to explain those observations without resorting to the sort of difficult mathematical formalisms favored by (what's his name again?) The Master(sm)(?). I have every confidence you'll be able to do the same. -------------- 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: Nov. 30 2005,07:24    Quote Therefore, there's no need for any rebuttal, since I haven't made any rebuttable assertions. However, my difficulties with higher mathematics shouldn't present an obstacle to you, since the currently-existing theory accounting for the above-referenced observations has been able to explain those observations without resorting to the sort of difficult mathematical formalisms favored by (what's his name again?) The Master(sm)(?). I have every confidence you'll be able to do the same.  Fair enough. Actually, my first summary was a failed effort in that direction. I'll expand my abstracts a little more in the future. And by the way: Dembski  -> The Wizard Berlinski  -> The Master. -------------- Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

The Ghost of Paley Posts: 1703 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 30 2005,15:37    Quote Please review Gauss.  It is painful to see you abuse these theorems so badly.  The equation set E® = Q/(4*PI*eps0*R*R) {R>r}     = 0 {R<r} is that of an ideal Gaussian spherical shell with thickness = 0.  A Gaussian spherical shell with non-zero thickness = x has an additional term Q(x)/(4*PI*eps0*R*R) {r+x>R>r}.  More properly stated, E® = Q(x)/(4*PI*eps0*R*R) {R>r}, where Q(x)=Q for R>r+x and 0 for R<r. Vickland, although  still basically stupid, is intelligent for an evolutionist. Vicky, I am aware of the equations for a Gaussian sphere of thickness greater than zero. However, the sphere of the fixed stars can be assumed to have zero thickness in three dimensions, for it is actually part of a seven-dimensional ensemble that slices through our own space, while at the same time enveloping it, so my assumptions are absolutely solid. Indeed, they are hypersolid, to stretch a metaphor. In addition, you appear to be confused about the symbols; this is partially my fault; that registered trademark symbol is actually the derivative of the field with respect to R, which is the field gradient if there is no angular variation. Quote So there is no discontinuity present, At this point you're correct. There is no authentic discontinuity, even as the thickness of the shell approaches zero. (Review your Delta functions if you have trouble understanding this.) Quote So the Fourier series is wrong, and you would need knowledge of the thickness of the firmament to be able to perform the proper analysis. The thickness is differential, my use of Fourier series is absolutely correct in light of this fact. Quote Finally, absolutely none of this has anything to do with evolution.  In fact, Gaussian theory predates evolution.  Please stop using "evolutionistic" to mean "any scientific theory I oppose on theistic grounds."   Evolutionism was revealed to Nimrod by Satan at the Tower of Babel. It was not invented by a 19th century retard with a rich family who had a bunch of books ghost-written for him. Although an utter dolt, Chuckie had connections to dark powers that orcs like yourself following him can not begin to understand, even with liberal use of pinhead's cokespoon. He gave his money and  his soul to the purveyors of Atlantean magic in exchange for fame. One more thing Wally--that is your first name, isn't it?--please find an optics expert for Nicky. In conclusion, all these issues will be resolved in due time, so please, I continue to beseech all of you to be patient. -------------- Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

ericmurphy Posts: 2460 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 30 2005,19:08    I have to say, Bill, I can't tell whether you really know what you're talking about or if you're just a great spinner of tales. But if you do know what you're talking about, I cannot for the life of me figure out why you hold Mr. Wizard in such high regard. It seems like the guy isn't even very competent in his own field of information theory… -------------- 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: Dec. 01 2005,11:03    Quote I have to say, Bill, I can't tell whether you really know what you're talking about or if you're just a great spinner of tales. Here are some clues, Eric: Quote However, the sphere of the fixed stars can be assumed to have zero thickness in three dimensions, for it is actually part of a seven-dimensional ensemble that slices through our own space, while at the same time enveloping it, so my assumptions are absolutely solid. Unjustified call for multiple dimensions.  He could've picked 777 dimensions just as easily.  He also doesn't explain why a 7 dimensional ensemble would have 0 thickness in our 3 dimensions.  To help you imagine this for yourself, a 3D object still maintins a 2D length.  Why wouldn't a 7 dimensional ensemble maintain a 3D volume?  Paley is just spewing senseless jargon. Quote Now, this is the summation from n=1 to n=15, any more terms is too much for little evolutionistic minds to fathom. Needlessly working out lenghty expansions.  Don't let it impress you as much as he wants it to.  His basic assumptions have yet to be justified by anything. Paley, don't worry about going over anyone's head here with the math.  You surely won't go over mine.  I'm eager to see how much time you'll waste with your theory.  Although, I certainly shouldn't call it a waste, it gives me a great laugh. -Dan

The Ghost of Paley Posts: 1703 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2005,15:55    Cogzoid said: Quote Paley, don't worry about going over anyone's head here with the math.  You surely won't go over mine.  I'm eager to see how much time you'll waste with your theory.  Although, I certainly shouldn't call it a waste, it gives me a great laugh.  I'm glad you find science so entertaining, Cogzie. But I must admit I find some of your actions strange for such a maths wizard:  1) In our crime stats debate, you equivocated over what represents an "objective" counting stat. Early on, you compared our rape rate to those of European countries, but then balked when I brought up assaults, claiming that only murder could be accurately tallied. Surely you realise that rape has to be one of the most subjective crimes around, as many "rapists" have found to their abundant surprise (it doesn't help that victims frequently invent incidents to spite boyfriends or male coworkers - and no, I'm not speaking from personal experience, thank God).  2) When I asked you why you were so careless about confounding factors, you never answered, nor defended your decision to compare heterogeneous populations - a practice that practically begs for an eccentric outcome, which arrived in timely fashion.  3) You were strangely indifferent to the results from scientific surveys, which are often used by professional criminologists to verify police stats. Sure, victim's interpretations can differ, but that's why researchers avoid ambiguous questions. This practice is standard, and well known to beginning statistic students. Yet you seemed unaware of this.   Once again, I'm not tweaking you, and I certainly don't want to revisit the debate, so I'll let you have the final response. Quote Quote   However, the sphere of the fixed stars can be assumed to have zero thickness in three dimensions, for it is actually part of a seven-dimensional ensemble that slices through our own space, while at the same time enveloping it, so my assumptions are absolutely solid. Unjustified call for multiple dimensions.  He could've picked 777 dimensions just as easily.  He also doesn't explain why a 7 dimensional ensemble would have 0 thickness in our 3 dimensions.  To help you imagine this for yourself, a 3D object still maintins a 2D length.  Why wouldn't a 7 dimensional ensemble maintain a 3D volume?  Paley is just spewing senseless jargon.  I realise I wasn't being clear here, but I don't want to leave anyone with the impression that the n dimensional objects must inevitably map to n-1 shadows in n-space. Consider the Klein bottle, a two-dimensional manifold (or surface) that can only be physically realised in four spatial dimensions, but can be reduced to a one-sided Moebius strip! And yes, Cogzie, my source includes the relevant mappings and parameterizations just for you........ -------------- Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

cogzoid Posts: 234 Joined: Sep. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2005,18:02    Quote Once again, I'm not tweaking you, and I certainly don't want to revisit the debate, so I'll let you have the final response. You don't want to revist the debate, but apparently you want to bring it up anyway.  You'll have to pardon my tardiness in replies lately.  I often get bored by your condescending drivel.  But lately I'm also recovering from the removal of God's little gift to humans, the appendix. Quote 1) In our crime stats debate, you equivocated over what represents an "objective" counting stat. Early on, you compared our rape rate to those of European countries, but then balked when I brought up assaults, claiming that only murder could be accurately tallied. Surely you realise that rape has to be one of the most subjective crimes around, as many "rapists" have found to their abundant surprise (it doesn't help that victims frequently invent incidents to spite boyfriends or male coworkers - and no, I'm not speaking from personal experience, thank God). You're correct, I decided to throw out the rape, assaults, car thefts, etc. data, as I feel that those things are too subjective, or inaccurately gathered.  I'm allowed to refine my argument as we argue, am I not?  Was I not clear when I said "I'm not saying that murders are the only crimes that matter.  I'm saying that murders are the only crime statistic that is accurate." Quote 2) When I asked you why you were so careless about confounding factors, you never answered, nor defended your decision to compare heterogeneous populations - a practice that practically begs for an eccentric outcome, which arrived in timely fashion. Pardon me, I thought you were just being condescending.  And I generally don't reply to rudeness.  I thought that I had explained my reasoning for comparing heterogeneous populations:  "I prefer to look at all of our society, simply because I believe that we are all responsible for our society's ills.  I don't like to pass my responsibilty on to others.  And I sure hope that you don't claim that you or our fellow religious Americans have no impact on the crime problems of our inner cities."  You gave no comment to this, perhaps you passed over it?  Perhaps now would be a good time to explain how the religious Republicans are only responsible when crime is prevented. Quote 3) You were strangely indifferent to the results from scientific surveys, which are often used by professional criminologists to verify police stats. Sure, victim's interpretations can differ, but that's why researchers avoid ambiguous questions. This practice is standard, and well known to beginning statistic students. Yet you seemed unaware of this. I'm sorry, is this a question?  My apathy and surgery pain prevent me from replying to this one. Quote I realise I wasn't being clear here, but I don't want to leave anyone with the impression that the n dimensional objects must inevitably map to n-1 shadows in n-space. Consider the Klein bottle, a two-dimensional manifold (or surface) that can only be physically realised in four spatial dimensions, but can be reduced to a one-sided Moebius strip! And yes, Cogzie, my source includes the relevant mappings and parameterizations just for you........ Sure, higher dimensional objects don't have to be renderable in lower dimensions.  What 7 dimensional object is our star pattern then, such that it doesn't have 3D volume.  Perhaps you'd care to Euclidate.  I just don't want you to get a free ride on the Theory of Everything.  Why did you pick 7?  Or is it because that is a Godly number? All I can stomach at the moment, Dan

The Ghost of Paley Posts: 1703 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2005,05:52    Quote Perhaps now would be a good time to explain how the religious Republicans are only responsible when crime is prevented.  Liberals had three full decades to make an impact, and boy did they ever. It's our turn now. -------------- Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

Pages: (36) < ... 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard