Boatwright Science Summary 2.5

[Daneel]

T H E B O A T W R I G H T S C I E N C E S U M M A R Y
including versions before revisions; v 2.5

released by Boaxford University Press

1.) It all started with SIGNS IN THE SKY. As John took an astronomical
Rorschach test, star-forming regions suddenly became Mary and Jesus, a
ring of gas in a planetary nebula the Eye of God...

2.) Then, there were the temperatures of the planets. John discovered
that if we ignore thermodynamics; leave out Mercury for reasons we
could leave out Mars, Venus, and Pluto too; and don't leave out Venus
with its runaway greenhouse effect, and forget about the expected
1/sqrt(r) curve; we can draw a logarythmic curve- and EARTH IS COOLER.

3.) Later, John retracted and said that PLANTS removed CO2 from
Earth's atmosphere (algae can be considered plants); so they COOLED
EARTH. (In our Universe, the Sun's temperature grows steadily, thus
there was never a runaway greenhouse effect on Earth.)

4.) Then; there came Jupiter. John said the S-L-9 impacts show IMPACTS
ON JUPITER'S SOLID SURFACE. Later, after he was told that Jupiter is a
gas planet and the *atmosphere* was impacted,

5.) he revised to say IMACTS ON THE SOLID CORE (on our Jupiter, the
cometary fragments exploded some thousand km deep; wich can be
calculated from the speeds of the impact and the expansion speed
of the fireball, and the time between the sightings); and

6.) redefined "SURFACE" to mean 50% DENSITY FROM THE CENTER...

7.) (BTW; he also forgot his claim that the S-L-9 IMPACTS COULD have
VAPORIZEd EARTH...)

8.) Events accelerated; and John invented 2 Byr fixed-length God
[creation] Days (and supposed 7th day just begun); said that HIPPARCOS
AGE OF UNIVERSE AND 4.6 BYR SUN AGE RATIO MATCH. This would be right
in our Universe. Not in the Boatwrightian: see (9), (10), (21) and
(29). In our Universe; different Christians argued either for six
24-hour-days; or that Jesus's second coming starts the 8th day (wich
is hardly 1,994,000 years from now).

9.) It was a long time we could force him to accept that the Hipparcos
team said 12+/-1 instead of 11 Byr.

10.) John thinks the UNIVERSE IS AN EXPANDING GAS CLOUD. This flies in
the face of using General Relativity [GR] to calculate the age of the
Universe (with expanding space, filled out homogenously with matter
[galaxies]). Thus, John dumps even the 12+/-1 Byr date in (8). Also,
we see matter 12+/-1 Byr away (quasars; galaxies in the Hubble Deep
Field; Cosmic Background radiation). In our Universe.

11.) THE CENTER OF EXPANSION IS THE CENTER OF THE MILKY WAY GALAXY.
Apparently, galaxies expand themselves in the Boatwright Universe. In
our one, galaxies are gravitationally bound and rotate around their
center; just like ours the Milky Way Galaxy.

12.) The EXPANSION SPEED is 0.5 C. Because we see objects receding
with near c; and because *special* relativity can be ignored this
time, too. (see (41) ).

13.) Moreover, his GAS CLOUD IS FUSIONING. There are several spin-offs
of this theory.

14.) EARTH IS 11 BYR OLD; WAS CREATED FIRST. His words: "The universe
was added as decoration." No proof; but wait until (22)...

15.) THE FUSIONING GAS CLOUD GAVE LIGHT FOR THE EARTH BEFORE THE SUN.
Plants fed on X-rays... (Fusion gives X-ray spectral lines; not even
continuum.) In our Universe, we don't see any fusion clouds 4.6+ GLY
away; only stars and quasars.

16.) THIS LIGHT WAS CONSTANT. Despite expansion, despite cooling due
to expansion, despite changing levels of fusioning elements.

17.) THE FUSIONING GAS CLOUD PRODUCED ALL HELIUM. According to real
cosmologists in this world, most of the helium was produced by the Big
Bang, in the first three minutes.

18.) THE FUSIONING GAS CLOUD PRODUCED FE< ELEMENTS. Interesting how
thermonuclear fusion does that in Boatwrightian physics; despite
instant photodissotiation of these nuclei. In our Universe, Fe<
elements are the product of neutron capture in supernovae.

19.) What about supernovae in Boatwrightian Physics?
SUPERNOVAE HAPPEN WHEN FUSION STOPS AND THERE'S A FISSION EXPLOSION.
In our Universe, all the energy is produced by the collapse of the
iron core: just potential energy, transformed to thermal energy - then
collapse to nuclear density in one second; then all the energy is
carried away by neutrinos when neutrons form. In the end, 99% is in
neutrinos; 0.99% is the kinetic energy of the blown-away rest of the
star (energy taken from neutrinos); and the rest 0.01% is radiation
equaling the light of a 100-billion-star galaxy.

20.) THE FUSIONING GAS CLOUD PRODUCED HE< ELEMENTS.
In our universe; fusion in stars later going supernova.

21.) PRE-FUSION GAVE 4.6+ APPARENT AGES OF STARS. But this doesn't
explain younger stars; nor interstellar matter having the same H/He
ratio throughout; nor that the seemingly older stars have much less
He< elements. Also; the less precise, but at least direct age for
the Sun - 5 Byr - is apparently apparent...

22.) MATTER FROM THE FUSION CONTAMINATED EARTH; CHANGING AGE FOR
RADIOMETRICS. But John discovered a fallancy in this theory: if the
composition only changes, then the apparent age is not identical with
the age of the rained-down matter. Thus:

23.) MATTER FROM THE FUSION *COVERED* EARTH; CHANGING AGE FOR
RADIOMETRICS. In our Universe, Earth's surface (the solidified *rock*,
not the atoms) is 0-4.1 Byr old.

24.) The LAYER FROM THE FUSION is called TOPSOIL, and EXTENDS 10 KM
DEEP. Here on Earth, what geologists call "topsoil" is the very young,
non-rocky layer that is rich in organic material (mainly from plants).
What is roughly 10 km deep is Earth's *crust*.

25.) COVERED PLANTS FORMED OIL POCKETS. In our universe, plants form
coal; fossil oil forms from organic material that is deceased plankton
in oxygen-poor shallow waters; covered by sediment. And; they're all
younger than 0.5 Byr.

26.) CONTINENTS MOVED ONLY SLIGHTLY SINCE CREATION (see (27) ).
It is curious that John accepts the measured speeds of continental
motion. With an average of 4 cm/year; we get 40 m per milennium, 40 km
per million yrs, 40,000 km/Byr. Thus with average speeds, Alaska could
travel from the Equator to its present latidude in 250 million years.

27.) ALASKAN OIL FIELDS ARE PROOF OF ISOTROPIC ILLUMINATION. Our
geologists tracked the motion of our Earth's Alaska with geomagnetism,
and found that it was in the tropical zone at the time its oil formed.
(Is this possible? Yes, see calculation in (26).)

28.) MEANWHILE, SOLAR SYSTEM FORMS FROM FUSION CLOUD. And plants
survive the massive asteroid bombardement...

29.) In his Universe, H CAN'T CLUMP TOGETHER; HEAVY ELEMENTS DO IT
FIRST. So obviously, God formed the oldest metal-poor stars... Also,
radiometry assumes an early solar system with a uniform elemental
distribution. Bye-bye, 4.6 Byr date, too.

30.) Why revolves Earth around the Sun? In the Boatwrightian Universe,
TURBULENCE IN THE FUSIONING CLOUD SPED UP EARTH AT 30 KM/SEC... Gas
thrust is really big in the Boatwright Universe.

31.) Because, of course, a COLLAPSING CLOUD WOULD ALL FALL INTO THE
CENTER (NO PLANETS). In our universe; *turbulence* in the pre-solar
cloud produced the remaining net angular momentum of the individual
stellar systems; and of course only a 0 K cloud would collapse
centrally. [Atoms have speeds; thus they don't free-fall but have
orbits; collisions make sure that only the minority of atoms carries
the net spin and the rest becomes the Sun.]

32.) But what about the feasibility of the fusioning gas cloud?
THE SOLAR ATMOSPHERE IS A FUSIONING GAS CLOUD!!! John sensed there's
something wrong, so later, this claim was changed:

33.) THE SOLAR CORONA AT 5-10 MILLION K IS FUSIONING. Our Sun's corona
is 1-3 million K; not fusioning; and this temperature is *kinetic*
temperature: it refers to the speed of ions wich were thrown out in
mini-flares (and eventually leave the Sun in the solar wind); and not
the thermal temperature of a Maxwellian relaxed gas.

34.) Oh yes, and THE SI UNIT OF TEMPERATURE IS THE "DEGREE KELVIN". In
our Universe, "degK" was officially banished in 1967 as an alternative
usage of "kelvin".

35.) Later; John revised his claims again. FLARES ARE THERMONUCLEAR
BLASTS. In our Universe, flares appear when magnetic fields of
opposite polarity meet and collapse; releasing tremendous energies;
accelerating ions, making 100,000,000 K kinetic temperatures.

36.) After David Batchelor from NASA corrected John; he just claimed
for a while that THERE IS FUSION IN FLARES. No one debated that;
traces of fusion happen even in Earth's atnmosphere. In our Universe,
fusion in flares is insignificant in amount.

37.) ACCELERATORS IN PRINCIPLE COULD START A NEW BIG BANG. That's
really astonishing: creating a Universe inside another Universe...
This boggles even the General Relativity-accustomed mind.

38.) THERE WAS BOTH SPACE AND TIME BEFORE THE BIG BANG. By definition;
or, better formulated, in the range where GR is meaningful; the Big
Bang is the beginning of time and space. Maybe John has a secret
theory going beyond GR...

39.) This is why *John* has the problem of *needing* EVERYTHING COMING
FROM VACUUM - oh yes;

40.) VACUUM IS 0 DEG K. In our Universe, matter/energy in space has a
temperature; vacuum (empty space) doesn't (not even 0 K).

41.) EINSTEIN IS A DORK. But E=mc^2 is true; and nothing is faster
than light. A strange genius this Boatstein.

42.) EXPANDING GAS CLOUD CAN'T CLUMP TOGETHER. We haven't seen the
expanation at this bold theory; but in our Universe, expanding clouds
can fragment wery well due to instabilities. Like gravitational ones
for the early Universe. (see (43).)

43.) ORION IS GRAVITIONALLY BOUND. While we don't know whether John's
Universe's Orion is the constellation (as in the Bible verse he uses)
or the Orion Nebula, I note that in our Universe, the constellation is
a human phantasy of independent stars, and the Nebula is a fragmenting
gas cloud slowly expanding meanwhile. Apparently the only cloud in the
Boatwright Universe violating Law #42.)

44.) PLEIADES IS EXPANDING. Pleiades is an open cluster with traces of
the original star-forming cloud. It is gravitationally bound just like
the Orion Nebula; and it is "vaporizing" (fast-moving stars leave it).

45.) DRAGONS=DINOSAURS. T-Rex spewed fire and had seven heads, and
Brontosaurus had wings...

46.) FISSION PRODUCES NEUTRINOS. In our Universe, beta decay or
electron capture does.

47.) STELLAR POLES ARE COOLER! In our Universe, they aren't.

48.) SUPERNOVAS ONLY DROP A RING OF MATERIAL. And I guess luminosity
with it, since there is nothing to be seen on the place of the SN1987A
pre-supernova star... but why a ring?

49.) DUE TO SPINNING, FUSIONING HEAVY ELEMENTS ARE IN AN EQUATORIAL
RING IN STARS. In our Universe, rotation has little effects on stellar
shapes. Fusion goes on in the densest, hottest - innermost - parts of
the fusioning regions [be it H+He, C+O or other layers].

50.) SN1987A'S RINGS WERE THROWN OUT IN A PREVIOUS EXPLOSION. This
fixes Strawman #23's error. It seems Boatwrightian supernovas have
a wide range of energies; contrary to our supernovas...

51.) ADAM LIVED 10,000 YEARS AGO. But some of his descendants died
and fossilized 100,000 years ago...

52.) SURFACES ARE 3-D. Because windows have thickness...

53.) ALL STARS HAVE A REDSHIFT AND RECEDE. All the individual star we
see with a naked eye may or may not recede; as they circle around the
center of our galaxy. Other *Galaxies* have cosmological redshift.

54.) BIRD WINGS EVOLVED FROM FISH FINS. In our Universe, birds are
warm-blooded and descendants of dinosaurs. But:

55.) WHALES ARE WARM-BLOODED FISHES! In our Universe, they're mammals.

56.) THE PROTO-BIRDS HAD NO SCELETON. To explain the lack of fossil
evidence. (See strawman #32.)

57.) DINOSAURS WERE MADE FROM BIRDS. While (among others, feathered)
dinosaur fossils predate bird fossils. In our Universe, the theory of
descent is the opposite.

5.) coming soon; and a lot of more.

Feel free to make additions (BoatTheories or problems with them).

The author thanks for additions, criticism and material:
Seraph 9000, Dr. Monkey Spank, ic...@earthling.net, Stix, Cabrutus,
Shane D. Killian, Adrian (from whose "Boatwright Universe" this post
grew out); and of course John P. Boatwright.

Bye

Daneel [a#323 | U of E student, ID #000666]
***********************************************************************
"Homo sapiens is not the foreordained of a ladder that was reaching
toward our exalted estate from the start. We are merely the surviving
branch of a once luxuriant bush. _Stephen Jay Gould_

[Robert Novella]

I'm researching an article on photographic artifacts and how they can be
accidently produced and then misinterpreted as ghosts. Does anyone have
any suggestions on the different types of artifacts and how I can
demonstrate them?

e.g.

flashback: bright reflection caused by the flash.
double exposure: 2 images on one negative taken at different times.
camera cord effect: camera cord unknowingly drops in front of lens.
light diffraction: I'm not sure how to reproduce this

Thank You
Bob Novella
exa...@bigfoot.com

[Jim Meritt]

In article <34B28E...@hysoft.com>, robert_...@hysoft.com says...

>
>I'm researching an article on photographic artifacts and how they can be
>accidently produced and then misinterpreted as ghosts. Does anyone have
>any suggestions on the different types of artifacts and how I can
>demonstrate them?

Saw a great picture of a "ghost" in a chair. Get a time exposure of an empty
room with a chair in it. Photograph the chair. Leave for a smoke (or
whatever) for most of the exposure time. Someone (you, if you are making it,
someone who didn't know in the original) come in and sit in the chair. They
cross and uncross their legs, tap their fingers and then get up and leave.
The resulting image has a transparent image of a man in the chain, no legs
and no hands. Spooky!

--
James W. Meritt
The opinions expressed above are my own. The facts simply
are and belong to none.

[Eric Hocking]

Bob, don't know if this is really what you're after, but I found it
interesting. Picked this up from a website posted at sci.skeptic. Can't
remember who it was, so I've left the followups as per your post, just in
case someone can supply more.

The technique is for filming UFO's and is attributed to John Bro.

In short, position yourself so that the sun is just blocked by an eave and
you can see the sun's 'corona'. What this area for some 5 to 10 minutes
(wear sunglasses) and soon you will see "UFO's" dashing around. This is not
an optical illusion, as you can set up a camcorder to record these objects.
I've seen some of the results and they are better than some of the best
frauds I've seen.

Hopefully someone on sci.skeptic will recognise this and be able to supply
an URL. I do have a JPEG of a sketch of the setup from the site if you're
interested. And will give full credit where credit is due if I can track
down the website.

Robert Novella wrote:

> I'm researching an article on photographic artifacts and how they can be
> accidently produced and then misinterpreted as ghosts. Does anyone have
> any suggestions on the different types of artifacts and how I can
> demonstrate them?
>

> e.g.
>
> flashback: bright reflection caused by the flash.
> double exposure: 2 images on one negative taken at different times.
> camera cord effect: camera cord unknowingly drops in front of lens.
> light diffraction: I'm not sure how to reproduce this
>
> Thank You
> Bob Novella
> exa...@bigfoot.com

--
Eric Hocking "A closed mouth gathers no feet."
Remove "nospam." from address to email.
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ehocking/

[George Holt]

In article <34B28E...@hysoft.com>, Robert Novella
<robert_...@hysoft.com> wrote:

> I'm researching an article on photographic artifacts and how they can be
> accidently produced and then misinterpreted as ghosts. Does anyone have
> any suggestions on the different types of artifacts and how I can
> demonstrate them?

Many UFO photos I've seen look a lot like 'airbells'. These leave little
irregular droplet shaped shadows on the film and are caused by air bubbles
trapped on the film during processing. The air bubbles mask the film from
the developer and leave small poorly developed patches on the negative (or
I suppose slides). I'm not sure how you could reliably produce them but in
general they are a result of the film being badly 'wetted' (in the
chemical sense).

G

George Holt, Deputy Head of Photography
Imperial Cancer Research Fund, London, UK
ho...@icrf.icnet.uk
georg...@cableinet.co.uk
http://wkweb4.cableinet.co.uk/george.holt/holtweb/index.html

[Daniel Talso]

I don't personally recommend this one, but I saw it on the Daily Show on
Comedy Central: Some folks in southern California (IIRC) are
photographing "heaven's gate". They just point their cameras at the sun
and an image of the gate appears. It turns out that it is the shutter
aperature that shows up due to the intense light in the lens. They were
mainly using polaroids. I don't know if this would occur in a more
complex lens system such as on an SLR.

Interesting note, the "correspondent" that was interviewing the
photographers never mentioned the actual cause of the image. He just
showed several of the photographs. But at one point he was talking into
the video camera while holding a polaroid camera. There was a great shot
down the lens of the instant camera and, hally-lew-ya, there was
"heaven's gate". Clever :).

In article <34B28E...@hysoft.com>, robert_...@hysoft.com says...

> I'm researching an article on photographic artifacts and how they can be
> accidently produced and then misinterpreted as ghosts. Does anyone have
> any suggestions on the different types of artifacts and how I can
> demonstrate them?
>

> e.g.
>
> flashback: bright reflection caused by the flash.
> double exposure: 2 images on one negative taken at different times.
> camera cord effect: camera cord unknowingly drops in front of lens.
> light diffraction: I'm not sure how to reproduce this
>
> Thank You
> Bob Novella
> exa...@bigfoot.com
>

--
Daniel Talso
UNM Manufacturing Engineering Program

* Please remove VIKINGSPAM from my email address before replying