Another Vain Attempt to Get Pagano to Answer?
Tim DeLaney
so I'll give him another chance. Tony has repeated
this bit of nonsense _ad_nauseam_:
"The CMB has been discovered to be completely
isotropic which contradicts the Big Bang model
which predicts the CMB but requires there to be
significant temperature differences related to the
clumpiness of the universe (that is, due to the
purported naturlistic formation of planets, stars,
and galaxies)."
Unless the entire community of Physics, and the
Nobel committee as well, are all bumbling fools,
you are not only flatly wrong, but willfully so. You
refuse, at least so far, to even consider the
possibility that others might know more about
physics and astronomy than you do. See:
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2006/info.pdf
Tony, I call upon you to do one of two things:
1. Acknowledge the error and move on, or
2. Refute the notion that you is wrong.
Note that this is not a trivial nit-pick. Hawking
has called it the COBE results: “the greatest
discovery of the century, if not of all times”.
Dredge up, if you have any left, your last
remaining shred of intellectual honesty and
address this issue head-on. If you still disagree
with the results of Mather and Smoot, tell us
why. If not, a retraction is in order.
I predict that instead of doing the honest thing,
you will do one of two things:
1. Stonewall
2. Obfuscate
Prove me wrong.
Tim
aganunitsi
<snip>
> I predict that instead of doing the honest thing,
> you will do one of two things:
>
> 1. Stonewall
> 2. Obfuscate
>
> Prove me wrong.
>
> Tim
You misunderestimate the power that is Tony Pagano. He can
simultaneously stonewall AND obfuscate. He will have you peering
around one stonewall after another, trying to get a clear view of his
point, and before you realize where you've gone you've gotten yourself
lost in the maze of stonewalls that is Tony's mind.
T Pagano
I'll give DeLaney 24 hours to rethink his position and decide whether
he wishes to persist.
DeLaney's track record of success thus far isn't terribly good. And
while I realize that besting Ray, myself, and the handful of other
creationists is considered a badge of honor, public defeat at our
hands in front of their peers----time and time again----is painfully
embarrassing. The over confident Chris Thompson just tasted some mild
embarrassment over his purported "vestigal" vampire bat cheek teeth.
For me to prevail in any given topic all I need show is that the
atheist position is not nearly as strong and unassailable as is
claimed. And while the faithful atheist DeLaney believes the atheist
press clippings as gospel truth all the facts paint a not-so-rosy
picture.
Until the morrow then. . . .
Regards,
T Pagano
Tim DeLaney
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thank you Tony for an unambiguous answer.
You have chosen to obfuscate. I am not
surprised.
Yes, I am quite certain about my position. Mather,
Smoot, Hawking, The entire Physics community
and the Nobel Prize Committee combined are --
I am quite confident -- the intellectual superior of
Tony Pagano.
I can't wait to see what your answer is. Perhaps
you will finally admit that this is all an elaborate
spoof? That your "creationist" persona is just an
elaborate scam? That this is just a Loki hobby of
yours?
Or will you disappoint me and affirm that you are
really the ultimate moron that you appear to be?
<To be continued ... >
Tim
Boikat
You must believe, like nando, that reality conforms to fantasy.
> The over confident Chris Thompson just tasted some mild
> embarrassment over his purported "vestigal" vampire bat cheek teeth.
"Denial" is not just the name of a river in Egypt.
>
> For me to prevail in any given topic all I need show is that the
> atheist position is not nearly as strong and unassailable as is
> claimed. And while the faithful atheist DeLaney believes the atheist
> press clippings as gospel truth all the facts paint a not-so-rosy
> picture.
>
> Until the morrow then. . . .
"Tomorrow"? Is that when you are going to address Tim's point?
Boikat
bpuharic
wrote:
>For me to prevail in any given topic all I need show is that the
>atheist position is not nearly as strong and unassailable as is
>claimed. And while the faithful atheist DeLaney believes the atheist
>press clippings as gospel truth all the facts paint a not-so-rosy
>picture.
>
>Until the morrow then. . . .
>
>Regards,
>T Pagano
many years ago i used to listen to radio moscow. i wondered then if
the people hosting their programs actually believed the idiot bullshit
they broadcast
i wonder the same about tony and his stupid radical taliban like view
of christianity
chris thompson
Obfuscate? I don't think that word means what you think it means.
What you just saw was Tony in full retreat mode. You will not see him
again in this thread, unless it is to claim his retreat was in fact a
victory.
Chris
Rusty Sites
You are the scorekeeper so I guess we have to take your word for it.
And
> while I realize that besting Ray, myself, and the handful of other
> creationists is considered a badge of honor,
Only slightly below winning a Nobel.
> public defeat at our
> hands in front of their peers----time and time again----is painfully
> embarrassing.
I guess you are the expert on that subject.
> The over confident Chris Thompson just tasted some mild
> embarrassment over his purported "vestigal" vampire bat cheek teeth.
And a lot of publishers of biology books as well. Don't sell yourself
short. Unless, vetigal is not an alternate spelling of vestigial and
you have given yourself an out.
>
> For me to prevail in any given topic all I need show is that the
> atheist position is not nearly as strong and unassailable as is
> claimed.
At last we get to see one of the rules of the game. Perhaps in the
future we will learn how the score is kept.
> And while the faithful atheist DeLaney believes the atheist
> press clippings as gospel truth all the facts paint a not-so-rosy
> picture.
>
I guess atheists don't clip well.
> Until the morrow then. . . .
When the rules will have changed and you have come up with a definition
of "vestigal."
Tim DeLaney
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I really do know the meaning of "obfuscate",
but my wording was misleading. When I said
"You have chosen to obfuscate", I meant that
as a conclusion, not a description of his post
of last night. His obfuscation will (presumably)
begin at 9:48 PM tonight. Tune in and watch!
I fully expect him to do the "Tony trot" (cf "Gish
gallop").
The Tony trot is characterized by an attempt
to cast doubt not only on the issue at hand,
(which he will barely touch on), but on various
and sundry issues that he thinks might tend to
to draw attention away from his gaffe. Among
these topics could be anything from the
dentition of chiroptera to an analysis of the
religious beliefs (or lack thereof) of any number
of his opponents, to recounting his (mostly
illusory) past triumphs over the Atheists.
When this thread is over, I predict that you will
have seen a prime example of obfuscation.
OTOH, you might be right that Tony abandons
the thread. In his place I'd be looking for an
out, but Tony doesn't have the sense to do that.
Tim
Greg G.
heap big snippage
> I fully expect him to do the "Tony trot" (cf "Gish
> gallop").
With his propensity for ten dollar words and dancing about the issue,
how about the "Pagano promenade"?
T Pagano
>Possibly, Tony missed my post to a previous thread,
>so I'll give him another chance. Tony has repeated
>this bit of nonsense _ad_nauseam_:
Since DeLaney's posts are typically ad hominem in their entirety I
ignore them. Like the defeated Thompson he is under the delusion that
he has found my understanding "completely" wrong. He hangs his hat on
some very minor fluctuations in the temperature distribution of the
CMB which causes as many problems for Big Bang as it solves. On the
other hand neither the isotropy nor its minor fluctuations causes any
difficulty for the geoCentric model.
>
>"The CMB has been discovered to be completely
>isotropic which contradicts the Big Bang model
>which predicts the CMB but requires there to be
>significant temperature differences related to the
>clumpiness of the universe (that is, due to the
>purported naturlistic formation of planets, stars,
>and galaxies)."
>
>Unless the entire community of Physics, and the
>Nobel committee as well, are all bumbling fools,
>you are not only flatly wrong, but willfully so. You
>refuse, at least so far, to even consider the
>possibility that others might know more about
>physics and astronomy than you do. See:
>
>http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2006/info.pdf
>
>Tony, I call upon you to do one of two things:
>
>1. Acknowledge the error and move on, or
>
>2. Refute the notion that you is wrong.
>
>Note that this is not a trivial nit-pick. Hawking
>has called it the COBE results: “the greatest
>discovery of the century, if not of all times”.
Hawking wrote [in his, "The Illustrated Brief History of Time," Bantam
Books, 1996]: "Why is the temperature of the microwave background
radiation so nearly the same when we look in different directions."
Figure 8.4 of the same source reports, "The temperature of the
microwave background radiation is almost exactly the same in all
directions."
Guth wrote [in his, "The Inflationary Universe," Addison Wesley
Publishing, 1997]: ". . . but now the [COBE] team had analyzed the
data from the entire [COBE] mission. The error boxes were shrunk
beyond visibility to only 0.03%, and the back ground spectrum was
still perfectly blackbody." In other words at complete thermal
equilibrium.
Is the temperature distribution of the CMB isotropic--without any
doubt---yes. Is there a slight non uniformity to the data---yes----a
very slight. However, taken as a whole the CMB is nonetheless
isotropic and as pointed out by Guth the energy distribution is
perfectly black body; that is, at thermal equilibrium. Guth also
points out that the isotropy is predicted by Big Bang as well as the
minor temperature variations.
But what of the very small temperature fluctuations. Guth (and Smoot
for that matter) considered the variations as corroborative of the
Inflationary Model and evidence of the formation of the large scale
structure in the universe. However, all Inflationary Models require
cold dark matter/energy which no one can find. And when it is assumed
that these minor temperature variations are due to some sort of random
quantum fluctuations (the usual assumption) in the early "Big Bang"
universe, it becomes impossible to explain the surprisingly regular
arrangement of galaxies and clusters of galaxies (with Earth at the
center).
>Dredge up, if you have any left, your last
>remaining shred of intellectual honesty and
>address this issue head-on. If you still disagree
>with the results of Mather and Smoot, tell us
>why. If not, a retraction is in order.
DeLaney hung his hat on some very minor variations which Guth claims
only ruled out the Steady State Model. What it does not rule out is
a Euclidean, non inflationary, rotating universe with Earth at the
center. And the geoCentric Model does not require conjuring of non
existent cold dark matter/energy.
>
>I predict that instead of doing the honest thing,
>you will do one of two things:
>
>1. Stonewall
>2. Obfuscate
>
>Prove me wrong.
What have we learned:
1. none of the atheist players at the time the COBE data was offered
or since have ever denied CMB's isotropy,
2. the CMB's isotropy in all directions is just as important (and
corroborative) to inflationary Big Bangism as is the very minor
temperature fluctuation,
3. the very minor temperature fluctions which are assumed to be the
result of quantum fluctuations during the universe's infancy make it
nearly impossible to explain the surprisingly "regular" arrangement of
galaxies and clusters of galaxies (with Earth at the center).
4. The inflationary Big Bang model requires cold dark matter/energy
which no one can find.
5. The geoCentric Model suffers no similar problems.
Questions for DeLaney:
1. Has my position as quoted by DeLaney above, in any meaningful way,
been tarnished?
2. Does my admission of some very minor temperature variations make
the atheist model any rosier?
3. Has DeLaney shown that any of this causes the geoCentric Model the
slightest problem?
DeLaney is so blinded by atheism that he fails to see the forest for
the trees.
Regards,
T Pagano
chris thompson
> On Wed, 7 Jul 2010 15:13:29 -0700 (PDT), Tim DeLaney
>
> >Possibly, Tony missed my post to a previous thread,
> >so I'll give him another chance. Tony has repeated
> >this bit of nonsense _ad_nauseam_:
>
> Since DeLaney's posts are typically ad hominem in their entirety I
> ignore them. Like the defeated Thompson he is under the delusion that
> he has found my understanding "completely" wrong. He hangs his hat on
Heh. The only way you would have defeated me in our discussion of
vestigial structures would have been if I had been silly enough to
stand in your way when you ran at Mach 4 from said discussion. THEN I
would have been trampled into the dust.
Chris
snip
Tim DeLaney
>
How can you say this, but at the same time
admit subsequently that there are variations
in the CMB?
> 2. the CMB's isotropy in all directions is just as important (and
> corroborative) to inflationary Big Bangism as is the very minor
> temperature fluctuation,
Ah, we've gone from "completely isotropic"
to "very minor temperature fluctuation"
> 3. the very minor temperature fluctions which are assumed to be the
> result of quantum fluctuations during the universe's infancy make it
> nearly impossible to explain the surprisingly "regular" arrangement of
> galaxies and clusters of galaxies (with Earth at the center).
Your inability to explain something has only
the most tenuous connection to reality. The
fact that modern cosmology is unable to offer
a complete detailed explanation of everything
doesn't make geocentrism any more attractive.
> 4. The inflationary Big Bang model requires cold dark matter/energy
> which no one can find.
We have found unambiguous evidence of
dark matter, despite your assertion to the
contrary. The fact that we cannot characterize
it in detail doesn't invalidate that evidence.
Dark energy seems more problematical to this
amateur observer. Perhaps someday we shall
know more.
> 5. The geoCentric Model suffers no similar problems.
>
The geoCentric (is there a reason for this quirky
use of uppercase?) model suffers from a multitude
of problems, but these have been pointed out in
great detail in previous threads.
> Questions for DeLaney:
> 1. Has my position as quoted by DeLaney above, in any meaningful way,
> been tarnished?
Well, of course it has! You claimed that the CMB
was "completely isotropic". Now you concede that
it is not. This, in itself, destroys any credibility you
might have claimed. In Pagano-esque terms, you
have been defeated.
The CMB variations were expected to be minuscule,
and so they were. But minuscule does not mean
non-existant. Atoms are minuscule, as are bacteria
and viruses.
The community of Physics (albeit with the exception
of Tony Pagano) seems to have accepted that the
work of Mather and Smoot is a quantitative
confirmation of Big Bang theory. In awarding them
the Nobel Prize in Physics, the The Royal Swedish
Academy of Sciences has agreed.
>
> 2. Does my admission of some very minor temperature variations make
> the atheist model any rosier?
BZZZZT! It is not the "atheist model" Tony. It is
the model of modern physics. And, yes, it does
support the Big Bang model to the exclusion of
the geoCentric model.
You complain elsewhere that my posts are "ad
hominem", but you seem to regard the word
"atheist" as an automatic refutation of anything
your opponent might assert. Pot ... kettle ?
>
> 3. Has DeLaney shown that any of this causes the geoCentric Model the
> slightest problem?
No, I have not, but then again, I don't claim to
done so as I am not a physicist. However, those
who are knowledgeable in the field have agreed
that the COBE measurements support the Big
Bang hypothesis.
Note well that I don't assert that it "proves" the
Big Bang happened. It doesn't, and no
conceivable measurements ever will. The
nature of cosmology is such that we will
never have complete certainty.
And since you bring it up, I personally know
of only one human being who seriously
proposes a geoCentric model. There may
well be a few others, but no mainstream
scientists among them. As a model, it is a
complete failure with no predictive power.
I must admit, however, that you have
surprised me by remaining (mostly) on
topic. I expected a smorgasboard of
irrelevant issues, and they were not
forthcoming. My prediction that you
would obfuscate was not borne out.
>
> DeLaney is so blinded by atheism that he fails to see the forest for
> the trees.
Oh, my, what an original metaphor. May I have
your permission to use it in the future if the
occasion arises?
I could say in retort that "Pagano is so
blinded by theism that he fails to apprehend
the findings of modern science." However, I
won't, as I continue to believe that you are a
Loki. I simply cannot believe that an
apparently rational human being could hold
the opinions that you purport to hold.
As I have said before, however, I could well be
wrong in this opinion. I may never know for sure.
Tim
Rusty Sites
> On Wed, 7 Jul 2010 15:13:29 -0700 (PDT), Tim DeLaney
> <delaney...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Possibly, Tony missed my post to a previous thread,
>> so I'll give him another chance. Tony has repeated
>> this bit of nonsense _ad_nauseam_:
>
> Since DeLaney's posts are typically ad hominem
Yet another lie from Tony. Is anybody counting?
> in their entirety I
> ignore them.
You ignore most posts that demonstrate that you are a deluded blowhard.
> Like the defeated Thompson he is under the delusion that
> he has found my understanding "completely" wrong.
Hey, weasel boy. The issue was that you claimed the CMB was isotropic
and you were called on it.
> He hangs his hat on
> some very minor fluctuations
They are the expected size but you said there weren't any. The fact
that you judge them to be minor does not change the fact that you were,
gasp, wrong.
> in the temperature distribution of the
> CMB which causes as many problems for Big Bang as it solves.
Can you go pop? Sure you can.
> On the
> other hand neither the isotropy nor its minor fluctuations causes any
> difficulty for the geoCentric model.
You were wrong, Tony, and, just as I predicted, you are now trying to
change the rules.
Rest of attempted diversion (or weasel) snipped.
Devils Advocaat
Let me see if I have this right.
You reckon that "proving" someone else's view on something is dubious
is "proof" that your view on that same thing is right?
Nashton
You ought to perform a silent exit from this ng, a la YOO a few months
ago. Nobody will notice.
But the Atheist feels no embarrassment, has no shame and displays
cognitive dissonance at every turn.
Tony *demolished* you on the vestigial structure thread, just as I did a
few years ago.
D9000
Cite. On both counts. Or I am inclined to disbelieve you.
Oh, why am I bothering. There won't be a cite ... there will very
likely be some sneer or insult or another, but there won't be a cite.
cassandra
There is a vestigal hope.
Rusty Sites
Isn't that so cute! The Little Bloviator (Bloviator Jr.?) trying to
emulate his hero, the Great Bloviator.
Nashton
> There is a vestigal hope.
>
Not for you.
Nashton
That was fun.
Another content-free post from the likes of you.
D9000
Wow, my predicton came true! Move over, Paul the Octopus!
D9000
Dammit, when will they make irony meters strong enough!
Rusty Sites
Wasn't it.
> Another content-free post from
Nashton, The Little Bloviator (TM)
T Pagano
As you point out Thompson has been singing this ridiculous song
concerning vestigal structures since late 2002. Mysteriously Dr
Douglas Theobald (author of the now nearly (?) famous 12 May 2010
"Nature" article) appeared in the news group a month or so later (in
early 2003) with similar arguments. Apparently Dr. Theobald is the
popularizer of these useless arguments from his t.o archive article,
"The 29 Evidences for Macroevolution."
The vestigal structure is supposedly (according to Theobald) one of
the 29 evidences for macroevolutionary change. According to Theobald
(in 2003) purported vestigal structures are evidence of
macroevolutionary change over the course of evolutionary time scales
yet producing historical evidence of the transformational and
transitional change leading to the characterization of "vestigal" is
unnecessary.
He did this only by presuming some law of biological homology which is
plainly and quite obviously false. The false law of biology is
introduced because "Stasis" of the fossil record means there
is----CONCLUSIVELY----no evidence, over an 800 million year fossil
record, of macroevolutionary change. That means any macroevolutionary
change---including vestiges of biological structures.
As far as I know it has never been argued by any of the evolutionist
heavy weights that "vestigiality" is a biologically likely outcome of
the darwinian mechanism. Disuse of bat cheek teeth----due to a
feeding behavioral change, for example----would hardly cause the loss
of enamel on the cheek teeth in subsequent generations. This is
failed Lamarckism. And a creature which lost necessary enamel to its
teeth due to (what would be a deleterious) mutation would perish long
before the harmful mutation could propagate throughout the entire
population (that pesky Haldane's Dilemma).
If Thompson had any humility at all he would stay down. Sadly the Big
Lie of Atheism is so blinding and debilitating that it causes the
deceived to walk right over the cliff edge. They only realize how
truly deceived they have been until it is too late-----that is, just
before impact.
The blindness is so debilitating that prayer is the only solution.
Regards,
T Pagano
Ernest Major
Pagano <not....@address.net> writes
>Sadly the Big Lie of Atheism is so blinding and debilitating that it
>causes the deceived to walk right over the cliff edge. They only
>realize how truly deceived they have been until it is too late-----that
>is, just before impact.
>
Would the "Big Lie of Atheism" be your conflation of the scientific
consensus, held by persons of many religions, as well as by many people
of no religion, with atheism? Fortunately I doubt that many people are
deceived.
--
alias Ernest Major
Richard Clayton
[snip]
> I could say in retort that "Pagano is so
> blinded by theism that he fails to apprehend
> the findings of modern science." However, I
> won't, as I continue to believe that you are a
> Loki. I simply cannot believe that an
> apparently rational human being could hold
> the opinions that you purport to hold.
>
> As I have said before, however, I could well be
> wrong in this opinion. I may never know for sure.
I reached that conclusion about a month ago, and Pagano's behavior in
this thread certainly hasn't changed my mind.
--
[The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
Richard Clayton
"I keep six honest serving men (they taught me all I knew); their names
are What and Why and When and How and Where and Who." — Rudyard Kipling
T Pagano
Ain't this the truth. Roughly 80 percent of the atheist posters are
nothing-but-cheer-leaders who demonstrate that they haven't the
faintest idea whether the other 20 percent know what they're doing.
The zealously faithful (and ignorant) sheep follow the lead sheep over
the cliff edge.
Regards,
T Pagano
g...@risky-biz.com
You are ignorant of what you're arguing against.
> As far as I know it has never been argued by any of the evolutionist
> heavy weights that "vestigiality" is a biologically likely outcome of
> the darwinian mechanism.
In fact it's a well accepted concept.
> Disuse of bat cheek teeth----due to a
> feeding behavioral change, for example----would hardly cause the loss
> of enamel on the cheek teeth in subsequent generations. This is
> failed Lamarckism.
No, it isn't. Disuse doesn't cause atrophy directly, but it can remove
the reproductive penalty that would accompany the atrophy of a needed
structure or trait.
>And a creature which lost necessary enamel to its
> teeth due to (what would be a deleterious) mutation would perish long
> before the harmful mutation could propagate throughout the entire
> population (that pesky Haldane's Dilemma).
And there's the point you don't understand. Why would the creature
perish if a mutation caused it to lose something it was no longer
using? In fact, why would you call such a mutation "deleterious" or
"harmful"? Natural selection serves to preserve traits that are
important for the survival and reproductive success of a species.
Mutations that "break" important traits tend to be weeded out. Those
that "break" disused traits can spread through the population without
penalty.
Moreover, as most structures require at least some additional
resources for their growth and upkeep, there can actually be
evolutionary pressure favoring the "atrophy" of certain features. A
creature that doesn't need enamel saves a little bit of energy and
building material by not making it. In some cases, that might give a
selective advantage to the "atrophied" mutation. We call such a
mutation "beneficial", by the way.
Greg Guarino
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by T Pagano <not....@address.net>:
<snip>
>The zealously faithful (and ignorant) sheep follow the lead sheep over
>the cliff edge.
....says Tony the Bellwether.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
T Pagano
While several evolutionists in the forum label themselves with several
religious titles their words betray an unambigous practical atheism.
Okimoto comes to mind immediately. I exposed Okimoto with a revew of
several years of his posts.
The theistic evolutionists in the bunch subjugate religious truths
guarranteed as true by an Omnipotent God with human conjectures which
are usually false ----this is evidence of practical atheism.
Furthermore many of the evolutionists in the bunch are terrified (as
was Hume) of being publicly branded an atheist. Why is that? Even
though snex proved with unequivocal quotes from Lenny Flank of Flank's
atheism, Flank persisted in denials. Flank quietly vanished a few
weeks later with his credibility at rock bottom.
While Harshman and others like him refuse to admit their atheism (and
their attendent atheistic world view biases) they at least have the
intellectual honesty not to deny it.
Finally consensus is like the shifting sands, it has no relationship
whatsoevr to the objective truth. Neither the size of the consensus
nor whether the consensus grows has the slightest relationship to the
verisimilitude for which the consensus was formed. Yet to those who
don't know the historical failures of consensus and to the vulnerable
it is deceptively convincing.
Atheism is the dogma of the Prince of Lies and "consensus" (as
intended by Ernest Major here) merely one of its deceptions. If that
is conflation then so be it.
Regards,
T Pagano
Ernest Major
>On Fri, 9 Jul 2010 17:35:36 +0100, Ernest Major
><{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <apagano-9afe36thoeq9d...@4ax.com>, T
>>Pagano <not....@address.net> writes
>>>Sadly the Big Lie of Atheism is so blinding and debilitating that it
>>>causes the deceived to walk right over the cliff edge. They only
>>>realize how truly deceived they have been until it is too late-----that
>>>is, just before impact.
>>>
>>
>>Would the "Big Lie of Atheism" be your conflation of the scientific
>>consensus, held by persons of many religions, as well as by many people
>>of no religion, with atheism? Fortunately I doubt that many people are
>>deceived.
>
>While several evolutionists in the forum label themselves with several
>religious titles their words betray an unambigous practical atheism.
>Okimoto comes to mind immediately. I exposed Okimoto with a revew of
>several years of his posts.
>
>The theistic evolutionists in the bunch subjugate religious truths
>guarranteed as true by an Omnipotent God with human conjectures which
>are usually false ----this is evidence of practical atheism.
As I understand the Koran (said to have dictated by the Archangel
Gabriel) or the Book of Mormon have better claims to being guaranteed as
true by an omnipotent God than does the Bible. Should we conclude that
you are a Muslim or a Mormon? You obviously reject the Catholic
position.
Apart from that, Geocentrism, the Noachian Flood and a Young Earth are
strange things to identify as religious truths. Do you identify Ray
Martinez, with his rejection of Geocentrism, and asssertion of
post-Edenic creation of species, as a practical atheist?
And one expects a genuine theist to place more weight on what they are
supposed to believe are the works of God (the universe) than on the
words of men (relgious writings, and interpretations thereof).
>
>Furthermore many of the evolutionists in the bunch are terrified (as
>was Hume) of being publicly branded an atheist. Why is that? Even
>though snex proved with unequivocal quotes from Lenny Flank of Flank's
>atheism, Flank persisted in denials. Flank quietly vanished a few
>weeks later with his credibility at rock bottom.
>
>While Harshman and others like him refuse to admit their atheism (and
>their attendent atheistic world view biases) they at least have the
>intellectual honesty not to deny it.
I've found John Harshman to be quite open about being an atheist.
>
>Finally consensus is like the shifting sands, it has no relationship
>whatsoevr to the objective truth. Neither the size of the consensus
>nor whether the consensus grows has the slightest relationship to the
>verisimilitude for which the consensus was formed. Yet to those who
>don't know the historical failures of consensus and to the vulnerable
>it is deceptively convincing.
That you find it necessary to resort to epistemological nihilism makes
it appear that you are a crypto-evolutionist.
>
>Atheism is the dogma of the Prince of Lies and "consensus" (as
>intended by Ernest Major here) merely one of its deceptions. If that
>is conflation then so be it.
I had merely observed that you did so (to prove it I would have to have
cited your posts), but thank you for agreeing that it's true.
>
>Regards,
>T Pagano
>
--
alias Ernest Major
Rusty Sites
> On Fri, 9 Jul 2010 17:35:36 +0100, Ernest Major
> <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> In message<apagano-9afe36thoeq9d...@4ax.com>, T
>> Pagano<not....@address.net> writes
>>> Sadly the Big Lie of Atheism is so blinding and debilitating that it
>>> causes the deceived to walk right over the cliff edge. They only
>>> realize how truly deceived they have been until it is too late-----that
>>> is, just before impact.
>>>
>>
>> Would the "Big Lie of Atheism" be your conflation of the scientific
>> consensus, held by persons of many religions, as well as by many people
>> of no religion, with atheism? Fortunately I doubt that many people are
>> deceived.
>
> While several evolutionists in the forum label themselves with several
> religious titles their words betray an unambigous practical atheism.
> Okimoto comes to mind immediately. I exposed Okimoto with a revew of
> several years of his posts.
>
> The theistic evolutionists in the bunch subjugate religious truths
> guarranteed as true by an Omnipotent God with human conjectures which
> are usually false ----this is evidence of practical atheism.
This would be what you assert about an omnipotent god as opposed to
human conjecture? Are you god, Tony, or just not human in some other way?
Rusty Sites
John Stockwell
> On Fri, 9 Jul 2010 17:35:36 +0100, Ernest Major
>
> >In message <apagano-9afe36thoeq9d6asesf13fjkoko03js...@4ax.com>, T
> >Pagano <not.va...@address.net> writes
> >>Sadly the Big Lie of Atheism is so blinding and debilitating that it
> >>causes the deceived to walk right over the cliff edge. They only
> >>realize how truly deceived they have been until it is too late-----that
> >>is, just before impact.
>
> >Would the "Big Lie of Atheism" be your conflation of the scientific
> >consensus, held by persons of many religions, as well as by many people
> >of no religion, with atheism? Fortunately I doubt that many people are
> >deceived.
>
> While several evolutionists in the forum label themselves with several
> religious titles their words betray an unambigous practical atheism.
> Okimoto comes to mind immediately. I exposed Okimoto with a revew of
> several years of his posts.
"Practical atheism" is the way all activities that are not religious
in nature
are conducted. This includes all of commerce and business, as well as
all manufacturing, engineering, and medicine, and of course all of
scientific
investigation.
>
> The theistic evolutionists in the bunch subjugate religious truths
> guarranteed as true by an Omnipotent God with human conjectures which
> are usually false ----this is evidence of practical atheism.
The term "theistic evolutionist" may simply mean that an individual is
religious, but not so stupid as to be a science denier.
>
> Furthermore many of the evolutionists in the bunch are terrified (as
> was Hume) of being publicly branded an atheist. Why is that? Even
> though snex proved with unequivocal quotes from Lenny Flank of Flank's
> atheism, Flank persisted in denials. Flank quietly vanished a few
> weeks later with his credibility at rock bottom.
The term "atheist" is a loaded one, and carries the air of an epithet.
Are we certain that there is no God? No. Do we have any real reason to
believe in a particular God? No. Do we have any real reason to believe
in
a God of any variety? No. This is the position of a rational non-
believer.
>
> While Harshman and others like him refuse to admit their atheism (and
> their attendent atheistic world view biases) they at least have the
> intellectual honesty not to deny it.
The real problem is not the common worldview of a modern
scientifically
knowledgeable person, which if it includes a Deity, includes one that
rationally fits the observations of the world. The problem is the
worldview that
a few self-appointed religious apologists turns its back on rational
thought,
and turns toward denialism, superstition, and willful ignorance.+
>
> Finally consensus is like the shifting sands, it has no relationship
> whatsoevr to the objective truth. Neither the size of the consensus
> nor whether the consensus grows has the slightest relationship to the
> verisimilitude for which the consensus was formed. Yet to those who
> don't know the historical failures of consensus and to the vulnerable
> it is deceptively convincing.
When consensus is based on a rational search for knowledge it is more
than
shifting sands, it is more than mere opinion. Indeed, ideas that
withstand the
test of rational inquiry are worthy of respect, and provide a useful
point of
departure for further investigations.
>
> Atheism is the dogma of the Prince of Lies and "consensus" (as
> intended by Ernest Major here) merely one of its deceptions. If that
> is conflation then so be it.
Yet, you are the one practicing the game of science denial, you must
therefore be a Minion of the Prince.
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
-John
raven1
wrote:
>The theistic evolutionists in the bunch subjugate religious truths
>guarranteed as true by an Omnipotent God with human conjectures which
>are usually false ----this is evidence of practical atheism.
What "religious truths" are guaranteed as true by an Omnipotent God,
Tony, and how do you know that?
aganunitsi
<snip>
> Atheism is the dogma of the Prince of Lies and "consensus" (as
> intended by Ernest Major here) merely one of its deceptions. If that
> is conflation then so be it.
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
Not only is it conflation, it is dualism, demonization and
scapegoating. Tell us that atheism was responsible for the Holocaust
and we can throw in apocolyptic aggression.
Really, people couldn't have come up with atheism, or a consensus on
the theory of evolution, of their own accord - a Prince of Lies was
needed? Do you believe that people accomplish *anything* on their own?
If you like to imagine that you are a loyal soldier in a great holy
war between good and evil, good on ya. Have at it. But try to do
something more constructive with that belief. You could make a cool
movie that influences kids, giving them a reason to want to uphold the
principles of "good" - Star Wars comes to mind, or The Lord of the
Rings. Although from your personality, I imagine your film would be
more like "Scared Straight!", so scratch that - stay away from the
camera, Tony!
Ognjen
> On Wed, 7 Jul 2010 15:13:29 -0700 (PDT), Tim DeLaney
>
> <delaney.timo...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >Possibly, Tony missed my post to a previous thread,
> >so I'll give him another chance. Tony has repeated
> >this bit of nonsense _ad_nauseam_:
>
> Since DeLaney's posts are typically ad hominem in their entirety I
> ignore them. Like the defeated Thompson he is under the delusion that
> he has found my understanding "completely" wrong. He hangs his hat on
> CMB which causes as many problems for Big Bang as it solves. On the
> other hand neither the isotropy nor its minor fluctuations causes any
> difficulty for the geoCentric model.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >isotropic which contradicts the Big Bang model
> >which predicts the CMB but requires there to be
> >significant temperature differences related to the
> >clumpiness of the universe (that is, due to the
> >purported naturlistic formation of planets, stars,
> >and galaxies)."
>
> >Unless the entire community of Physics, and the
> >Nobel committee as well, are all bumbling fools,
> >you are not only flatly wrong, but willfully so. You
> >refuse, at least so far, to even consider the
> >possibility that others might know more about
> >physics and astronomy than you do. See:
>
> >http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2006/info.pdf
>
> >Tony, I call upon you to do one of two things:
>
> >1. Acknowledge the error and move on, or
>
> >2. Refute the notion that you is wrong.
>
> >Note that this is not a trivial nit-pick. Hawking
> >has called it the COBE results: “the greatest
> >discovery of the century, if not of all times”.
>
> >remaining shred of intellectual honesty and
> >address this issue head-on. If you still disagree
> >with the results of Mather and Smoot, tell us
> >why. If not, a retraction is in order.
>
> only ruled out the Steady State Model. What it does not rule out is
> a Euclidean, non inflationary, rotating universe with Earth at the
> center. And the geoCentric Model does not require conjuring of non
> existent cold dark matter/energy.
>
>
>
> >you will do one of two things:
>
> >1. Stonewall
> >2. Obfuscate
>
> >Prove me wrong.
>
>
> 1. none of the atheist players at the time the COBE data was offered
> or since have ever denied CMB's isotropy,
> corroborative) to inflationary Big Bangism as is the very minor
> temperature fluctuation,
> result of quantum fluctuations during the universe's infancy make it
> nearly impossible to explain the surprisingly "regular" arrangement of
> galaxies and clusters of galaxies (with Earth at the center).
> which no one can find.
>
> 1. Has my position as quoted by DeLaney above, in any meaningful way,
> been tarnished?
Why, let's see... This is your original position, as quoted by
DeLaney:
"The CMB has been discovered to be completely
isotropic which contradicts the Big Bang model
which predicts the CMB but requires there to be
significant temperature differences related to the
clumpiness of the universe (that is, due to the
purported naturlistic formation of planets, stars,
and galaxies)."
This is your new position, as stated by yourself above:
"the CMB's isotropy in all directions is just as important (and
corroborative) to inflationary Big Bangism as is the very minor
temperature fluctuation,"
Will you say there is no difference between the two positions?
<snip rest>
Ognjen
> admit subsequently that there are variations
> in the CMB?
>
> > 2. the CMB's isotropy in all directions is just as important (and
> > corroborative) to inflationary Big Bangism as is the very minor
> > temperature fluctuation,
>
> to "very minor temperature fluctuation"
>
> > 3. the very minor temperature fluctions which are assumed to be the
> > result of quantum fluctuations during the universe's infancy make it
> > nearly impossible to explain the surprisingly "regular" arrangement of
> > galaxies and clusters of galaxies (with Earth at the center).
>
> the most tenuous connection to reality. The
> fact that modern cosmology is unable to offer
> a complete detailed explanation of everything
> doesn't make geocentrism any more attractive.
>
> > 4. The inflationary Big Bang model requires cold dark matter/energy
> > which no one can find.
>
> dark matter, despite your assertion to the
> contrary. The fact that we cannot characterize
> it in detail doesn't invalidate that evidence.
>
> Dark energy seems more problematical to this
> amateur observer. Perhaps someday we shall
> know more.
>
> > 5. The geoCentric Model suffers no similar problems.
>
> use of uppercase?) model suffers from a multitude
> of problems, but these have been pointed out in
> great detail in previous threads.
>
> > Questions for DeLaney:
> > 1. Has my position as quoted by DeLaney above, in any meaningful way,
> > been tarnished?
>
> was "completely isotropic". Now you concede that
> it is not. This, in itself, destroys any credibility you
> might have claimed. In Pagano-esque terms, you
> have been defeated.
>
> The CMB variations were expected to be minuscule,
> and so they were. But minuscule does not mean
> non-existant. Atoms are minuscule, as are bacteria
> and viruses.
>
> The community of Physics (albeit with the exception
> of Tony Pagano) seems to have accepted that the
> work of Mather and Smoot is a quantitative
> confirmation of Big Bang theory. In awarding them
> the Nobel Prize in Physics, the The Royal Swedish
> Academy of Sciences has agreed.
>
>
>
> > 2. Does my admission of some very minor temperature variations make
> > the atheist model any rosier?
>
> BZZZZT! It is not the "atheist model" Tony. It is
> the model of modern physics. And, yes, it does
> support the Big Bang model to the exclusion of
> the geoCentric model.
>
> You complain elsewhere that my posts are "ad
> hominem", but you seem to regard the word
> "atheist" as an automatic refutation of anything
> your opponent might assert. Pot ... kettle ?
>
>
>
> > 3. Has DeLaney shown that any of this causes the geoCentric Model the
> > slightest problem?
>
> No, I have not, but then again, I don't claim to
> done so as I am not a physicist. However, those
> who are knowledgeable in the field have agreed
> that the COBE measurements support the Big
> Bang hypothesis.
>
> Note well that I don't assert that it "proves" the
> Big Bang happened. It doesn't, and no
> conceivable measurements ever will. The
> nature of cosmology is such that we will
> never have complete certainty.
>
> And since you bring it up, I personally know
> of only one human being who seriously
> proposes a geoCentric model. There may
> well be a few others, but no mainstream
> scientists among them. As a model, it is a
> complete failure with no predictive power.
>
> I must admit, however, that you have
> surprised me by remaining (mostly) on
> topic. I expected a smorgasboard of
> irrelevant issues, and they were not
> forthcoming. My prediction that you
> would obfuscate was not borne out.
It seems to me that he did obfuscate, but somewhat subtly (compared to
his usual modus operandi). He was supposed to defend his position that
the CMB was completely isotropic. Instead he admitted that it was not,
and that it in fact supported the Big Bang model, and then he
pretended it wasn't the actual issue, choosing to focus on other
perceived weaknesses of the same model, at the same time claiming that
his pet "geoCentric" model wasn't proven wrong, though no one even
tried to do so in this thread.
> > DeLaney is so blinded by atheism that he fails to see the forest for
> > the trees.
>
> Oh, my, what an original metaphor. May I have
> your permission to use it in the future if the
> occasion arises?
>
> I could say in retort that "Pagano is so
> blinded by theism that he fails to apprehend
> the findings of modern science." However, I
> won't, as I continue to believe that you are a
> Loki. I simply cannot believe that an
> apparently rational human being could hold
> the opinions that you purport to hold.
>
> As I have said before, however, I could well be
> wrong in this opinion. I may never know for sure.
>
> Tim
bpuharic
wrote:
>
>
>The theistic evolutionists in the bunch subjugate religious truths
>guarranteed as true by an Omnipotent God with human conjectures which
>are usually false ----this is evidence of practical atheism.
funny how arrogant creationism makes you. notice how pagano doesn't
reference any orthodox belief to say who god is. HE knows who god is.
HE defines what true belief is.
remarkable. is there any arrogance greater than a man who says he, and
he alone, knows the mind of god?
>
>Furthermore many of the evolutionists in the bunch are terrified (as
>was Hume) of being publicly branded an atheist.
havent seen that. got any proof?
>
>While Harshman and others like him refuse to admit their atheism (and
>their attendent atheistic world view biases) they at least have the
>intellectual honesty not to deny it.
says the man who has a taliban like christianity
>
>Finally consensus is like the shifting sands, it has no relationship
>whatsoevr to the objective truth. Neither the size of the consensus
>nor whether the consensus grows has the slightest relationship to the
>verisimilitude for which the consensus was formed. Yet to those who
>don't know the historical failures of consensus and to the vulnerable
>it is deceptively convincing.
who says science is built on consensus?
>
>Atheism is the dogma of the Prince of Lies and "consensus"
yeah you christian fianatics, like your al qaida counterparts,
ususally say this about non believers
funny, tony. to a muslim fanatic, you're an atheist.
bpuharic
wrote:
>
>
>Ain't this the truth. Roughly 80 percent of the atheist posters are
>nothing-but-cheer-leaders who demonstrate that they haven't the
>faintest idea whether the other 20 percent know what they're doing.
>The zealously faithful (and ignorant) sheep follow the lead sheep over
>the cliff edge.
says the guy who thinks the CMB is isotropic (it's not); that teh
universe is geocentric (it isn't). etc etc
T Pagano
<chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jul 7, 10:45 pm, Tim DeLaney <delaney.timo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Jul 7, 9:48 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Wed, 7 Jul 2010 15:13:29 -0700 (PDT), Tim DeLaney
>>
>> > <delaney.timo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>What you just saw was Tony in full retreat mode. You will not see him
>again in this thread, unless it is to claim his retreat was in fact a
>victory.
>
>Chris
Looks like Thompson's prediction went down the shitter along with them
vampire bat cheek teeth. And DeLaney is left with a little egg on his
face.
Regards,
T Pagano
Tim DeLaney
> On Wed, 7 Jul 2010 20:24:27 -0700 (PDT), chris thompson
>
The prediction of chris thompson has proved to be
-- at least so far -- entirely accurate. Let's review
the bidding:
I quoted you as saying that the CMB was "entirely
isotropic". I provided a link that showed that the
scientific evidence conclusively showed that it
was not.
You admitted (under considerable duress, I would
imagine) that there were indeed variations in the
CMB. That is to say, you admitted that you were
wrong. You tried to weasel your way out of this
error by characterizing these variations as "minor".
And so, by asserting that you were only a little bit
wrong (does the phrase "a little bit pregnant" come
to mind?), you attempted to claim victory with the
fatuous assertion that I had egg on my face. (Oooh,
another clever metaphor, like "forest for the trees")
So, you have refused, so far at least, to face the
fact that your original assertion was wrong, which
is what chris thompson meant by "full retreat mode"
(Please correct me Chris if I am misstating your
position). You have also claimed victory with your
inane "egg on [my] face" comment, when, in fact,
you have conceded the original point.
So, chris thompson was completely correct in his
prediction. I'd suggest a little butter and jam, tony,
for you are toast.
Tim
T Pagano
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <apagano-27le36ho7lhnq...@4ax.com>, T
>Pagano <not....@address.net> writes
>>On Fri, 9 Jul 2010 17:35:36 +0100, Ernest Major
>><{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>In message <apagano-9afe36thoeq9d...@4ax.com>, T
>>>Pagano <not....@address.net> writes
snip
I'd bet good money that Burkhard won't stick his neck out for Ernest
Major's bafoonery for some time to come.
Regards,
T Pagano
Rusty Sites
Given your track record I'd bet that's wrong just because you said it.
g...@risky-biz.com
<crickets>
Mike Lyle
I may be misremembering, but I have the distinct impression that more
than one of these unfortunates can't spell "buffoonery": I'm quite
content to be proved wrong, but I fancy Martinez and the late Adman
were, among others and at least for a time, Pagano's fellow-sufferers. I
wonder if the late Dr Freud would have drawn any conclusion from this
handicap: "Freudian anorthography", I think we'd call it.
--
Mike.
Rusty Sites
I don't think I read that far but, yes, I believe you are right. I
think there was once a Chez Watt for this. Pagano never corrects any of
his mistakes even if they are spelling errors. Madman also used this
spelling and maybe there were more. Hmmm.
Prof Weird
> On Fri, 09 Jul 2010 06:49:55 -0300, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
> >On 7/8/10 11:23 PM, chris thompson wrote:
> >> On Jul 8, 10:03 pm, T Pagano<not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 7 Jul 2010 15:13:29 -0700 (PDT), Tim DeLaney
>
> >>> <delaney.timo...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>> Possibly, Tony missed my post to a previous thread,
> >>>> so I'll give him another chance. Tony has repeated
> >>>> this bit of nonsense _ad_nauseam_:
>
> >>> Since DeLaney's posts are typically ad hominem in their entirety I
> >>> ignore them. Like the defeated Thompson he is under the delusion that
> >>> he has found my understanding "completely" wrong. He hangs his hat on
>
> >> Heh. The only way you would have defeated me in our discussion of
> >> vestigial structures would have been if I had been silly enough to
> >> stand in your way when you ran at Mach 4 from said discussion. THEN I
> >> would have been trampled into the dust.
>
> >> Chris
> >> snip
>
> >You ought to perform a silent exit from this ng, a la YOO a few months
> >ago. Nobody will notice.
> >But the Atheist feels no embarrassment, has no shame and displays
> >cognitive dissonance at every turn.
>
> >Tony *demolished* you on the vestigial structure thread, just as I did a
> >few years ago.
When did that happen (outside of your imaginations) ?
> As you point out Thompson has been singing this ridiculous song
> concerning vestigal structures since late 2002. Mysteriously Dr
> Douglas Theobald (author of the now nearly (?) famous 12 May 2010
> "Nature" article) appeared in the news group a month or so later (in
> early 2003) with similar arguments. Apparently Dr. Theobald is the
> popularizer of these useless arguments from his t.o archive article,
> "The 29 Evidences for Macroevolution."
>
> The vestigal structure is supposedly (according to Theobald) one of
> the 29 evidences for macroevolutionary change. According to Theobald
> (in 2003) purported vestigal structures are evidence of
> macroevolutionary change over the course of evolutionary time scales
> yet producing historical evidence of the transformational and
> transitional change leading to the characterization of "vestigal" is
> unnecessary.
What would you require - a mutation by mutation account of every
single organism along the lineage ? A videotape documenting the
entire series ?
> He did this only by presuming some law of biological homology which is
> plainly and quite obviously false.
ie, 'displeases Tony Pagano'
> The false law of biology is
> introduced because "Stasis" of the fossil record means there
> is----CONCLUSIVELY----no evidence, over an 800 million year fossil
> record, of macroevolutionary change.
RiiIiiIIiight ! Got any EVIDENCE of 800 million year old
vertebrates ?
800 million year old human fossils ? You DO know that humans are NOT
found everywhere in the fossil record, right ? Were your flatulent
gibberings about absolute stasis valid, there should be human fossils
800 million years old (since his most Bellicose Majesty, Lord Pagano,
doth proclaimed 'there be no evidence of macroevolution !!)
> That means any macroevolutionary
> change---including vestiges of biological structures.
Good thing that reality is under no obligation to conform to your
delusions.
> As far as I know it has never been argued by any of the evolutionist
> heavy weights that "vestigiality" is a biologically likely outcome of
> the darwinian mechanism. Disuse of bat cheek teeth----due to a
> feeding behavioral change, for example----would hardly cause the loss
> of enamel on the cheek teeth in subsequent generations. This is
> failed Lamarckism.
If vampire bats were 'designed' by your Magical Sky Pixie, WHY would
they have molars/cheek teeth of any sort at all ? Evolution explains
WHY they have molars; your 'alternative explanation' is what again ?
Whether a mutation is 'beneficial', 'neutral', or 'deleterious' is
context dependent - when vampire bats started on their liquid diet,
mutations that were deleterious to tooth formation became NEUTRAL
mutations. Which can spread at little/no cost.
> And a creature which lost necessary enamel to its
> teeth due to (what would be a deleterious) mutation would perish long
> before the harmful mutation could propagate throughout the entire
> population (that pesky Haldane's Dilemma).
If the enamel is NOT NECESSARY (ie, vampire bats have a liquid diet),
then its loss is neutral or slightly beneficial.
Once again - the terms 'beneficial', 'neutral', and 'deleterious' are
CONTEXT DEPENDENT - if environmental context changes, what was a
deleterious mutation could become a neutral.
Again - if vampire bats were 'designed' by an unknowable being to have
a liquid diet, WHY would they have molars of any sort at all ?
Initiating standard Pagano Ego Inflation :
> If Thompson had any humility at all he would stay down. Sadly the Big
> Lie of Atheism is so blinding and debilitating that it causes the
> deceived to walk right over the cliff edge. They only realize how
> truly deceived they have been until it is too late-----that is, just
> before impact.
>
> The blindness is so debilitating that prayer is the only solution.
Prayers to who ? Shub Niggurath ? Azathoth ? The IPU ?
You seem to have the common mental defect of calling anyone that
disagrees with you an atheist - as if theological outlook were of any
relevance to the validity of a scientific theory.
Bill
>
> While Harshman and others like him refuse to admit their atheism (and
> their attendent atheistic world view biases) they at least have the
> intellectual honesty not to deny it.
Well, Tony, I'll go one better than not denying my atheism. I am a
wholehearted atheist. Though I rather like the Christian Catholic
culture, and while I sometimes wish Christianity were true, I am quite
sure that there is no God. So I am unambiguously an atheist. And I've
never understood why you use the word as though it were an insult.
John Harshman
> On Jul 10, 12:37 am, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>
>> While Harshman and others like him refuse to admit their atheism (and
>> their attendent atheistic world view biases) they at least have the
>> intellectual honesty not to deny it.
>
> Well, Tony, I'll go one better than not denying my atheism. I am a
> wholehearted atheist.
Me too. Tony is confused, as usual.
carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu
on general relativity and gravitation. Of the 15 plenary talks -- the
main talks on the most important topics, for the entire conference
-- two were on the anisotropies of the CMB and its importance to
cosmology.
T Pagano <not....@address.net> wrote:
[...]
> Is the temperature distribution of the CMB isotropic--without any
> doubt---yes.
No. Without a doubt, it is not.
> Is there a slight non uniformity to the data---yes----a very slight.
The deviation from isotropy has now been measured, in a reproducible
way, with great accuracy. It agrees very precisely with theoretical
predictions. In particular, the angular correlation power spectrum
-- the measure of the relationship between the temperature fluctuations
at different angles -- is a rather complicated curve, which nevertheless
agrees exquisitely with theory. You can find a graph of the observed
power spectrum, with the error bars, at http://arxiv.org/abs/1001.4635
(see figure 1), along with separate measurements of the temperature-
polarization spectrum (figure 3). Both figures also show the predicted
curves; note the very good fit.
This spectrum gives us detailed information about the very early
Universe. When the Universe was very young and very hot, the ordinary
matter was almost entirely a plasma of ionized hydrogen. The small
perturbations in the density of this plasma propagated as what were
essentially sound waves, with speeds that can be predicted accurately
from ordinary laboratory physics. This resulted in correlations of the
density at predictable distances -- the plasma was denser at crests of
sund waves, and less dense at troughs -- and these show up in the
measured CMB temperature.
(When the plasma cooled, the denser areas also served as seeds for
galaxy formation. This is also testable -- we observe correlations
in the number of galaxies that match the correlations in the CMB
temperature fluctuations. The relevant key words are "baryon
acounstic oscillations.")
> However, taken as a whole the CMB is nonetheless isotropic
Only if "taken as a whole" means "on average."
> and as pointed out by Guth the energy distribution is
> perfectly black body; that is, at thermal equilibrium.
Note that this means that the Universe was once very hot and at
thermal equilibrium. More on this later.
> Guth also points out that the isotropy is predicted by Big Bang as well
> as the minor temperature variations.
And that the quantitative features of these variations match the
predictions.
> But what of the very small temperature fluctuations. Guth (and Smoot
> for that matter) considered the variations as corroborative of the
> Inflationary Model and evidence of the formation of the large scale
> structure in the universe.
As supported by the fact that the correlation among large scale
structures matches that of the CMB fluctuations -- see above.
> However, all Inflationary Models require cold dark matter/energy
> which no one can find.
The evidence for cold dark matter predated measurements of the CMB
by decades. The main evidence comes from observing the orbits of stars
in galaxies, and gas in galaxy clusters, along with newer observations
of gravitational bending of light. The CMB observations nicely match
the independent measures of cold dark matter. If they hadn't that
would have been a problem for the theory.
Similarly, the evidence for dark energy is independent of the CMB,
coming from observations of the brightness of supernovae at various
distances. Again, the CMB observations nicely match independent
observations.
> And when it is assumed
> that these minor temperature variations are due to some sort of random
> quantum fluctuations (the usual assumption) in the early "Big Bang"
> universe, it becomes impossible to explain the surprisingly regular
> arrangement of galaxies and clusters of galaxies (with Earth at the
> center).
You're making this up. No such arrangement exists. Take a look at
http://www.sdss.org/includes/sideimages/sdss_pie2.html for a map of
the galaxies and clusters around the Earth. If you call this "regular,"
you might want to visit an optometrist.
[...]
> DeLaney hung his hat on some very minor variations which Guth claims
> only ruled out the Steady State Model. What it does not rule out is
> a Euclidean, non inflationary, rotating universe with Earth at the
> center. And the geoCentric Model does not require conjuring of non
> existent cold dark matter/energy.
Really, now? Then perhaps you can explain how this geocentric model
explains the following? [Prediction: Tony will not answer.]
1. When an object moves with respect to the CMB, the light in the
direction of motion is Doppler shifted toward the blue, and the light
in the opposite direction is shifted toward the red, making a distinctive
("dipole") pattern. The observed CMB has such a dipole, corresponding
to a speed of 370 km/sec. How does the geocentric model explain this?
2. In addition to this overall dipole, there is another dipole component
that changes direction from day to day, with a period of a year. The
Doppler shift of this component corresponds to a circular motion with
a period of one year and a speed of 7.4 km/sec -- see Kogut et al., Ap. J.
419 (1993) 1. The standard explanation is that this Doppler shift is due
to the Earth's orbit around the Sun. What, exactly, is the geocentric
model's explanation?
3. As you pointed out above, the observed CMB has, on average, a very
good black body spectrum, which, as you say, implies that it was produced
at thermal equilibrium. In standard cosmology, this is taken as evidence
that the Universe was, in early times, at thermal equilibrium. What is
the geocentric model's explanation? (Note that black body spectra of
objects at different temperatures do *not* add up to a single black body
spectrum; your answer will have to explain why it appears that the whole
Universe was once at a single temperature.)
4. You say the geocentric model does not require cold dark matter. How,
then, does it explain galaxy rotation curves, which do not match Newtonian
gravity if only the directly observed matter is present? How does it explain
X-ray temperatures of galactic clusters? How does it explain gravitational
lensing observations of masses? How does it explain the Bullet Cluster?
5. You say the geocentric model does not require dark energy. How does
it explain the observed brightness/distance relationship of supernovae?
Steve Carlip
bpuharic
wrote:
>
>Hawking wrote [in his, "The Illustrated Brief History of Time," Bantam
>Books, 1996]: "Why is the temperature of the microwave background
>radiation so nearly the same when we look in different directions."
>Figure 8.4 of the same source reports, "The temperature of the
>microwave background radiation is almost exactly the same in all
>directions."
hey tony
alot has happened in 15 years. believe it or not, science, unlike
religion, is not static. it makes discoveries.
and one was the work of smoot and mather that the CMB is not
homogeneous.
sorry
so....
you're a liar.
bpuharic
carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote:
>
>The deviation from isotropy has now been measured, in a reproducible
>way, with great accuracy. It agrees very precisely with theoretical
>predictions. In particular, the angular correlation power spectrum
>-- the measure of the relationship between the temperature fluctuations
>at different angles -- is a rather complicated curve, which nevertheless
>agrees exquisitely with theory. You can find a graph of the observed
>power spectrum, with the error bars, at http://arxiv.org/abs/1001.4635
>(see figure 1), along with separate measurements of the temperature-
>polarization spectrum (figure 3). Both figures also show the predicted
>curves; note the very good fit.
>
it is a measure of pagano's mendacity...like that of all
creationists...that he will simply ignore this.
>
>
>Similarly, the evidence for dark energy is independent of the CMB,
>coming from observations of the brightness of supernovae at various
>distances. Again, the CMB observations nicely match independent
>observations.
this work of freedman, perlmutter and others has been pointed out to
pagano on a number of occasions.
he ignores it. it doesnt fit with his lies.
>
>> And when it is assumed
>> that these minor temperature variations are due to some sort of random
>> quantum fluctuations (the usual assumption) in the early "Big Bang"
>> universe, it becomes impossible to explain the surprisingly regular
>> arrangement of galaxies and clusters of galaxies (with Earth at the
>> center).
>
>You're making this up. No such arrangement exists. Take a look at
>http://www.sdss.org/includes/sideimages/sdss_pie2.html for a map of
>the galaxies and clusters around the Earth. If you call this "regular,"
>you might want to visit an optometrist.
you're being too kind
he's lying.
>
John S. Wilkins
I should add, as I have often called myself an agnostic, not an atheist,
that I am totally atheistic wth respect to the Catholic tradition. That
god does not exist.
--
John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, Bond University
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
Greg G.
> John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > Bill wrote:
> > > On Jul 10, 12:37 am, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>
> > >> While Harshman and others like him refuse to admit their atheism (and
> > >> their attendent atheistic world view biases) they at least have the
> > >> intellectual honesty not to deny it.
>
> > > Well, Tony, I'll go one better than not denying my atheism. I am a
> > > wholehearted atheist.
>
> > Me too. Tony is confused, as usual.
>
> I should add, as I have often called myself an agnostic, not an atheist,
> that I am totally atheistic wth respect to the Catholic tradition. That
> god does not exist.
>
"I'm an explicit, positive, weak agnostic, practical and theoretical
atheist."
In my own word, I'm an agdeist.
John S. Wilkins
I am also opposed to postmodernism, opting for something like what it is
supposed to succeed. Hence I am a pre-postmodernist, or, as someone here
called me, a preposterist.
Bill
> I've just gotten back from "GR19," the main international conference
> on general relativity and gravitation. Of the 15 plenary talks -- the
> main talks on the most important topics, for the entire conference
> -- two were on the anisotropies of the CMB and its importance to
> cosmology.
>
>
> [...]
>
> > Is the temperature distribution of the CMB isotropic--without any
> > doubt---yes.
>
> No. Without a doubt, it is not.
>
> > Is there a slight non uniformity to the data---yes----a very slight.
>
> The deviation from isotropy has now been measured, in a reproducible
> way, with great accuracy. It agrees very precisely with theoretical
> predictions. In particular, the angular correlation power spectrum
> -- the measure of the relationship between the temperature fluctuations
> at different angles -- is a rather complicated curve, which nevertheless
> agrees exquisitely with theory. You can find a graph of the observed
Thanks, that was really clear. And this is why I like Pagano; he
tempts guys like you into giving clear explanations of things I do not
understand clearly.
Paul J Gans
>Steve Carlip
Thanks for a very clear and useful discussion.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
Tim DeLaney
> carlip-nos...@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote:
> >I've just gotten back from "GR19," the main international conference
> >on general relativity and gravitation. Of the 15 plenary talks -- the
> >main talks on the most important topics, for the entire conference
> >-- two were on the anisotropies of the CMB and its importance to
> >cosmology.
>
> >[...]
> >> Is the temperature distribution of the CMB isotropic--without any
> >> doubt---yes.
> >No. Without a doubt, it is not.
> >> Is there a slight non uniformity to the data---yes----a very slight.
> >The deviation from isotropy has now been measured, in a reproducible
> >way, with great accuracy. It agrees very precisely with theoretical
> >predictions. In particular, the angular correlation power spectrum
> >-- the measure of the relationship between the temperature fluctuations
> >at different angles -- is a rather complicated curve, which nevertheless
> >agrees exquisitely with theory. You can find a graph of the observed
>
> - Show quoted text -
As the original poster, I echo your sentiments.
I have learned something from Steve Carlip. (at
least I hope so.)
It will be interesting to see if Tony has the same
opinion. LOL
Tim
Tim DeLaney
> I've just gotten back from "GR19," the main international conference
> on general relativity and gravitation. Of the 15 plenary talks -- the
> main talks on the most important topics, for the entire conference
> -- two were on the anisotropies of the CMB and its importance to
> cosmology.
>
>
> [...]
>
> > Is the temperature distribution of the CMB isotropic--without any
> > doubt---yes.
>
> No. Without a doubt, it is not.
>
> > Is there a slight non uniformity to the data---yes----a very slight.
>
> The deviation from isotropy has now been measured, in a reproducible
> way, with great accuracy. It agrees very precisely with theoretical
> predictions. In particular, the angular correlation power spectrum
> -- the measure of the relationship between the temperature fluctuations
> at different angles -- is a rather complicated curve, which nevertheless
> agrees exquisitely with theory. You can find a graph of the observed
I nominate this for POTM. It explains many points
of current theory regarding the origin of the universe;
what could be more deserving of POTM or more on
topic for this newsgroup?
Tim
Jack Frieze
I'll second.
--
Jack Frieze
raven1
<delaney...@comcast.net> wrote:
>I nominate this for POTM. It explains many points
>of current theory regarding the origin of the universe;
>what could be more deserving of POTM or more on
>topic for this newsgroup?
>
>Tim
Enthusiastically seconded. I have never failed to be impressed at the
quality and information content of Carlip's posts here. I'd love to
have had him as a professor.
bpuharic
<delaney...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Jul 12, 9:34 pm, carlip-nos...@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote:
>> I've just gotten back from "GR19," the main international conference
>> on general relativity and gravitation. Of the 15 plenary talks -- the
>> main talks on the most important topics, for the entire conference
>> -- two were on the anisotropies of the CMB and its importance to
>> cosmology.
>>
>> T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> > Is the temperature distribution of the CMB isotropic--without any
>> > doubt---yes.
>>
>> No. Without a doubt, it is not.
for this, and many other posts, his nomination is seconded
Eric Root
> On Fri, 09 Jul 2010 11:52:45 -0300, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
> >On 7/9/10 11:31 AM, Rusty Sites wrote:
> >> On 7/9/2010 2:49 AM, Nashton wrote:
> >>> On 7/8/10 11:23 PM, chris thompson wrote:
> >>>> On Jul 8, 10:03 pm, T Pagano<not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> >>>>> On Wed, 7 Jul 2010 15:13:29 -0700 (PDT), Tim DeLaney
>
> >>>>> <delaney.timo...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>>> Possibly, Tony missed my post to a previous thread,
> >>>>>> so I'll give him another chance. Tony has repeated
> >>>>>> this bit of nonsense _ad_nauseam_:
>
> >>>>> Since DeLaney's posts are typically ad hominem in their entirety I
> >>>>> ignore them. Like the defeated Thompson he is under the delusion that
> >>>>> he has found my understanding "completely" wrong. He hangs his hat on
>
> >>>> Heh. The only way you would have defeated me in our discussion of
> >>>> vestigial structures would have been if I had been silly enough to
> >>>> stand in your way when you ran at Mach 4 from said discussion. THEN I
> >>>> would have been trampled into the dust.
>
> >>>> Chris
> >>>> snip
>
> >>> You ought to perform a silent exit from this ng, a la YOO a few months
> >>> ago. Nobody will notice.
> >>> But the Atheist feels no embarrassment, has no shame and displays
> >>> cognitive dissonance at every turn.
>
> >>> Tony *demolished* you on the vestigial structure thread, just as I did a
> >>> few years ago.
>
> >> emulate his hero, the Great Bloviator.
>
> >That was fun.
> >Another content-free post from the likes of you.
>
> Ain't this the truth. Roughly 80 percent of the atheist posters are
> nothing-but-cheer-leaders who demonstrate that they haven't the
> faintest idea whether the other 20 percent know what they're doing.
> The zealously faithful (and ignorant) sheep follow the lead sheep over
> the cliff edge.
>
> T Pagano
What a suck-up. Why don't you two get a room?
Eric Root
Eric Root
wrote:
> Rusty Sites wrote:
> > On 7/10/2010 4:21 PM, T Pagano wrote:
> >> On Fri, 9 Jul 2010 19:10:29 +0100, Ernest Major
>
> >>> In message<apagano-27le36ho7lhnq3hht6ha28sgk4rhdmm...@4ax.com>, T
> >>> Pagano<not.va...@address.net> writes
> >>>> On Fri, 9 Jul 2010 17:35:36 +0100, Ernest Major
>
> >>>>> In message<apagano-9afe36thoeq9d6asesf13fjkoko03js...@4ax.com>, T
> >>>>> Pagano<not.va...@address.net> writes
>
> >> snip
>
> >> I'd bet good money that Burkhard won't stick his neck out for Ernest
> >> Major's bafoonery for some time to come.
>
> > Given your track record I'd bet that's wrong just because you said it.
>
> I may be misremembering, but I have the distinct impression that more
> than one of these unfortunates can't spell "buffoonery": I'm quite
> content to be proved wrong, but I fancy Martinez and the late Adman
> were, among others and at least for a time, Pagano's fellow-sufferers. I
> wonder if the late Dr Freud would have drawn any conclusion from this
> handicap: "Freudian anorthography", I think we'd call it.
>
> --
> Mike.
If that's a measure of how "ano" they are, I'd agree.
Eric Root
Eric Root
>
(snip)
>
> Atheism is the dogma of the Prince of Lies
Satanism is the the dogma of the Prince of Lies, as is lying, which is
why creationists serve Satan while atheists are neutral with respect
to him.
Eric Root
Rusty Sites
Backspace has used that spelling as well, I discovered. I wonder if we
should defer to them on some parallel to the principle that the people
who live in a town get to decide how to pronounce it.
Rusty Sites
Sorry, that was Spintronic, not backspace. Apologies to backspace. I
just get the names confused.
carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu
> Thanks, that was really clear. And this is why I like Pagano; he
> tempts guys like you into giving clear explanations of things I do
> not understand clearly.
Why, thank you. With these nice compliments, maybe I ought to try to
be a little more complete (and maybe more comprehensible; certainly
much longer).
Very long post ahead. Here goes...
1. Telescopes are time machines.
Because light travels at a finite speed, when we look outward into the
Universe we are also looking into the past. When we look at the Sun,
we see it as it was 8 minutes ago. When we look at Alpha Centauri, we
see it as it was 4.37 years ago. When we look at a galaxy five billion
light years away, we see it as it was five billion years ago.
Of course, the details (although not the basic idea) depend on the fact
that the speed of light has not changed. This is not an assumption;
it is a carefully tested result. Testing this is not as hard as it might
seem, since lots of things depend on the speed of light -- energies of
nuclear processes, for example (E=mc^2 and all that), spectra of
atoms, stability of stars and planets. Any experiment has a limited
precision, and no experiment can tell us that the speed of light is
*exactly* constant, but the current limits are that it has changed
by at most a few parts in 100,000 over the lifetime of the life of the
Universe.
(There are some speculative cosmological models involving a "varying
speed of light," but these refer to variation in the first tiny fraction
of a second after the Big Bang, and are irrelevant for what I'm saying
here.)
2. The Universe is expanding.
Expansion is most directly observed from the red shift of light from
distant galaxies, which can be understood as a Doppler effect or --
some would say more precisely -- as a "stretching" of light waves
in an expanding space. Typically, such an expansion would imply a
center from which everything is moving, but there is one particular
pattern that does not: if the speed of an object is proportional to
its distance, then every object will see everything else moving away
from it in exactly the same pattern. (You can check this by thinking
about points on a line moving away from each other. Try it.) The
observed expansion follows exactly this pattern.
But there are other independent tests of this expansion as well.
For instance, the special theory of relativity says that an observer
watching a moving clock will see it run slow. This is unintuitive, but
is extremely well tested, most directly by putting atomic clocks on
airplanes, rockets, GPS satellites, and the space shuttle and watching
how they behave. This "time dilation" implies that if we watch a
physical process in a galaxy that is moving away from us, it will
seem to go slower. We can test this by looking at exploding stars,
supernovae; we find that the process of explosion and subsequent
cooling does run slower, in a way that exactly matches the speed
deduced from the red shift. There are other tests as well -- for
instance, looking at surface brightness of galaxies -- but they're a
bit more subtle.
Note that since looking outward is looking back in time, we can
measure not just the present rate of expansion, but its history. In
particular, we can see how the rate has changed in time.
3. The Universe was once much hotter and denser.
As the Universe expands, its energy is diluted, and it cools. In
particular, the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB) cools.
This is also observable, although so far with somewhat limited
precision. The most direct observations use the fact that the CMB
can interact with certain molecules, giving them energy and
boosting them to an "excited" state. These molecules then give off
this extra energy in the form of particular frequencies of light,
which we can observe. By looking at this light coming from distant
molecular clouds, we can work out how energetic the CMB was. The
farther away we look (and thus the further back in time), the hotter
the CMB; the results agree quantitatively with the predicted cooling.
We can now "run the movie backwards" to understand the early
Universe. As -- going backwards in time -- the Universe contracts,
it becomes steadily hotter, eventually becoming hot enough to strip
electrons from atoms to create a plasma. At the time this happens,
the Universe is also chemically simpler, since most of the heavier
elements were made in stars or supernovae, so the plasma is mainly
ionized hydrogen. Going back even farther, the Universe becomes hot
enough to break apart atomic nuclei into their protons and neutrons.
Let's now run the movie forward again. As the Universe cools, the
protons and neutrons start to hold together to make some heavier
elements -- deuterium, tritium, helium 3 and 4, and a bit of lithium.
This process is well understood, and we can predict the abundances
of the elements produced by this "primordial nucleosynthesis"; the
predictions agree very well with observation.
As the Universe cools further, it reaches a critical temperature at
which the atomic nuclei can combine with electrons to form ordinary
unionized atoms. (Proofreading: that's un-ionized; atoms have not
yet, as far as I know, formed trade unions.) This moment is commonly
called "recombination," though there's really no "re" involved.
4. The CMB shows us the Universe at recombination
Before recombination, the Universe was filled with a hot plasma, at a
very nearly constant temperature ("thermal equilibrium"). Just as a
hot bar of metal glows with a color that depends on its temperature,
a hot plasma glows with a characteristic "black body" spectrum that
is determined by its temperature.
(The pattern of light frequencies that make up a black body spectrum
is unique, and there is no known way to produce it except by a hot
body at a constant temperature. In particular, if you take a bunch
of sources at different temperatures, even if each has a black body
spectrum, the sum will *not* have a black body form. So you can't,
for instance, mock up a black body by combining light from a bunch
of stars.)
Plasmas are opaque -- light can travel only a very short distance
before scattering of an electron or a nucleus. At recombination, the
Universe suddenly became transparent, and the light, with its black
body spectrum, was suddenly able to stream freely. This is what we
now see -- cooled by the expansion of the Universe -- as the CMB.
Recombination took place at a specific temperature, so there is a
sense in which the CMB at that moment had a very nearly perfect
black body spectrum. But the matter in the Universe was not perfectly
uniform at this moment -- it had areas of higher density and areas of
lower density, though the variation was only about a part in 100,000.
Gravity affects light: as light climbs out of a gravitational field,
it loses energy, and its color shifts toward the lower energy "red"
side of the spectrum. So the CMB emerging from overdense regions
was red-shifted relative to the average, while that from underdense
regions was blue-shifted. Our present observations of the CMB thus
give us a snapshot of the variations in density at recombination.
(I should stress that the physics here is ordinary laboratory physics.
While the Universe at recombination was hot, it wasn't *terribly* hot
or dense by lab standards. We can reproduce such plasmas in the lab
and study them in detail. Primordial nucleosynthesis is different,
but is tested, sort of, in hydrogen bombs, and by experimental nuclear
fusion. When you read press releases from heavy ion accelerators like
RHIC about "reproducing conditions of the Big Bang," they're really
talking about the time a bit before primordial nucleosynthesis, when
even protons and neutrons were torn apart into a "quark-gluon plasma.")
5. We understand the CMB pretty well.
When we look at the CMB, we see small variations in its spectrum,
which, as I explained above, come from small variations in density.
These variations are not random, and their pattern is predictable
and well understood.
Imagine that you start with a uniform plasma and you "poke" it at
some spot, by slightly increasing the density. A plasma is a lot like
a gas, and such a "perturbation" will travel outward in a spherical
pressure wave, essentially a sound wave. The speed of the wave
depends on the properties of the plasma, and predictions can easily
be tested in the lab. The outcome is a pattern of overdense regions
(the crests of the wave) and underdense regions (the troughs) with a
distinctive pattern of spacing and amplitude.
When we look at the CMB, this is exactly what we see. In particular,
we see a definite pattern of correlations among "hot spots" (coming
from "troughs") and "cold spots" (coming from "crests"). The theory
doesn't just predict a few numbers, but a fairly elaborate curve, and
the observations fall right on this curve; see figure 1 of the WMAP
paper http://arxiv.org/abs/1001.4635, for example.
We can cross-check this by looking at polarization of the CMB. When
light is reflected, it comes out polarized (this is why Polaroid glasses
work against reflections off the road). The theory predicts that in
addition to being correlated with each other, hot and cold spots in
the CMB will be correlated with polarization patterns. The detailed
curve again matches observations; see figure 3 of the same paper.
(There's another pattern of polarization, the "B modes," that come
from the production of primordial gravitational waves. These are
predicted to be very weak, and have not yet been seen, but they offer
a future test as CMB observations become more accurate.)
While these observations test the theory, they also give us information
about the Universe at recombination. The properties of the pressure
waves/sound waves in the pre-recombination plasma depend on a
few parameters, most notably the density of the plasma -- and thus of
the "ordinary" matter -- and the strength of gravity, which acts as a
restoring force (think of a waves on a "spring"), and thus the total
amount of matter. These parameters can then be compared with other
independent observations.
There's a nice little app at
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/resources/camb_tool/index.html
that lets you see how various parameters change the CMB spectrum.
It lets you see both that the observations allow us to tell a good deal
about the Universe -- much of which can be checked independently
-- and that a remarkably small number of parameters have to be
adjusted to fit a very complex curve.
(Just for clarity, let me add that, contrary to what you might read
elsewhere, the directly observed CMB is not isotropic. It is quite
distinctly red-shifted in one direction and blue-shifted in the
opposite. This is just an ordinary Doppler shift, coming from the
fact that the Earth is moving relative to the CMB, at about 370 km/sec.
There is an additional annual modulation, corresponding to the Earth's
orbit around the Sun, of 7.4 km/sec; see Kogut et al., Ap. J. 419 (1993) 1,
figure 4. When authors write about the isotropy of the CMB, they
are referring to the observations *after* these effects have been
taken out.)
6. CMB fluctuations give evidence for (though not proof of) inflation.
So far, I haven't said anything about where the initial density
variations of the pre-recombination plasma came from. There are
many possibilities. We know, at least, that they must be there --
even if we try to start with a perfectly smooth, unvarying plasma,
the Heisenberg uncertainty principle tells us that there must be a
minimum level of quantum fluctuations.
"Inflationary" models propose that the very early Universe -- before
the time of primordial nucleosynthesis -- underwent a very rapid
expansion. Such an expansion would smooth out/dilute any earlier
inhomogeneities, leaving only the quantum fluctuations, which would
be "stretched" in size by the rapidly expanding space.
Such models predict a special pattern of fluctuations. In particular,
although any particular fluctuation is random, the average number at
any particular scale is predictable. This pattern on initial variations,
in turn, should show up in the details of the CMB variations. So far,
observations match the predictions of inflation very well. Most people
in the field don't consider this conclusive -- one can imagine other
ways of getting a similar pattern of initial perturbations -- but it
is suggestive.
7. CMB fluctuations seed large scale structure.
"Large scale structure" is jargon for the astronomical structure
we see today -- galaxies and clusters of galaxies, often in complex
patterns of "threads" and "walls."
The variations we observe in the CMB correspond to variations in the
density of the early Universe. Such variations grow nonlinearly. A
region with a slight excess density will gravitationally attract nearby
matter, increasing its density; an underdense region will have matter
stolen by nearby denser regions, depleting it further. Small variations
thus get magnified, eventually leading to the very large variations
-- the stars, galaxies, and clusters of galaxies -- we see today.
If this is right, then the characteristic distances between galaxies
should be related to the distances between overdense regions in the
early Universe, as measured in the CMB. They are -- when we look
at correlations among the positions of galaxies, we see a peak at an
angle that corresponds very closely to the angle between sound wave
"crests" in the early Universe.
We can also take the density variations deduced from the CMB and use
them as initial conditions for computer simulations. When we do so,
and use the right mixture of matter (including cold dark matter and
dark energy -- see below), we get patterns of structure that agree
quite well with what we see in the sky.
8. CMB observations provide independent evidence for dark matter.
Evidence for dark matter dates back to long before CMB observations.
We can measure the mass of, say, a galaxy or a cluster of galaxies in
two ways -- by counting the amount of matter we see or by measuring
its gravity. The matter we see is partly stars, but also hot, thin
X-ray-emitting gas; although this gas is very dilute, it is spread over
an enormous volume, and at large enough scales it out-masses stars.
We can measure the gravitational pull by observing orbits (much as
we measure the mass of the Sun), or by measuring the temperature of
the hot gas and working out how much gravity is needed to hold it in
place. More recently, we have begun to measure the gravity of distant
objects through gravitational lensing, that is, the bending of light
by the gravitational field.
These two basic methods for measuring mass don't agree. As Fritz
Zwicky observed as far back as 1934, the gravitational fields needed
to hold galactic clusters together requires quite a bit more mass than
what we can see. In the late 1960s, Vera Rubin showed that the same
was true for the orbits of stars in galaxies. Either we were failing
to see a large amount of matter, or our understanding of gravity was
badly wrong.
Independently, a number of particle physicists looking at extensions
of the "Standard Model" of particle physics realized that many such
models contained new massive weakly interacting particles ("WIMPs").
These would have been created in the early Universe, a bit before
primordial nucleosynthesis; putting in reasonable estimates of their
masses and lifetimes, it seemed plausible that their present density
would match that of the astronomers' missing mass.
At the moment, both "dark matter" and "modified gravity" are viewed
as serious possibilities. I suspect most people in the field lean
toward dark matter, partly because the CMB has provided independent
tests -- both the initial pattern of fluctuations and the subsequent
growth of large scale structure fall out naturally if we assume dark
matter, while it takes quite a bit of contortion to make them fit
modified gravity theories.
Still, the question is fundamentally an experimental one. There are
presently major efforts underway to search for dark matter, both in
the lab and astronomically. In the lab, one idea is that even if WIMPs
interact very weakly, they will occasionally hit ordinary matter;
experiments involve things like huge tanks of ultrapure liquid Xenon,
deep underground to avoid cosmic rays, surrounded by detectors to
look for recoiling atoms. The LHC could also create WIMPs, or, short
of that, provide evidence for extensions of the Standard Model (such
as supersymmetry) that naturally include WIMPs. On the astronomical
side, proposed new telescopes such as the LSST ("Large Synoptic
Survey Telescope") should give us a detailed three-dimensional
"tomography" of the Universe, allow us to investigate the fine details
of history and structure formation; these allow us to discriminate
between cold dark matter and many competing modified gravity models.
9. CMB observations provide independent evidence for dark energy.
Dark energy has come as much more of a surprise than dark matter.
The original evidence came from detailed observations of the history
of the expansion of the Universe. To make such observations, we need
accurate "sign posts" to measure distances, in a way that's independent
of red shift. A little more than a decade ago, it was realized that a
certain type of supernova provides a good "standard candle," a light
source with a known brightness. Of course, an object looks dimmer
the farther away it is, so by comparing the known brightness to the
brightness we observe, we can determine the distance. By comparing
distance to red shift, we can then trace out a history of expansion.
The result, to everyone's surprise, is that a few billion years ago,
the expansion of the Universe began to accelerate. This is strange,
because gravity ought to be slowing down the expansion; you can look
at the observations as a sort of "antigravity."
Now, general relativity tells us that gravity comes not only from mass
and energy (E=mc^2 again), but also from pressure. The simplest
explanation of the observed acceleration is that the Universe contains
some substance -- "dark energy" -- with negative pressure. This is
not as quite weird as it might sound; negative pressure is just
"tension."
(Imagine filling a balloon with water. The pressure of the water
pushes the balloon outward; the tension of the rubber tries to
counteract this, pulling the balloon inward. The gravitational
effects are tiny, but opposite; pressure adds gravity, but tension
adds "antigravity.")
Again, the CMB provides some independent evidence -- the spectrum
of fluctuations is best fit if we assume dark energy, in an amount that
can (independently!) be determined to match the supernova results.
Again, though, the real question is experimental. Dark energy is
probably going to be a lot harder to study than dark matter, but
there are at least two ideas under study: "tomographic" studies of
the Universe like the ones I mentioned above, which can compare dark
energy and modified gravity models, and a dedicated "dark energy"
spacecraft to trace out the fine details of the expansion of the
Universe, to see, for example, whether dark energy is changing over
time.
10. It all holds together.
The main conclusion to draw from this is not any one specific result,
but rather the extent that the independent results all fit together.
We can measure the expansion of the Universe from red shift, from
time dilation, from the CMB temperature; we can use these results
to hypothesize dark energy, and find that it matches predictions
from the CMB spectrum, and that it gives good results for computer
models of large scale structure. We can use standard plasma physics
to determine correlations among CMB hot and cold spots; we find that
not only do the results agree with observation, but that they match
correlations among galaxies seeded by those fluctuations. The same
model that gives us the CMB also predicts the abundance of deuterium
and tritium in the Universe, correctly.
There are plenty of deep mysteries left -- the nature of dark matter
and dark energy, the nature and cause of the original fluctuations
in the CMB, the question of whether inflation is right, as well as
even harder questions about the Big Bang itself, the direction of
time, the nature of quantum gravity, and the like. But I think we're
making pretty good progress.
Steve Carlip
Tim DeLaney
>
> - Show quoted text -
I wish I had waited for his latest post. IMHO, he
should be recognized as _Poster_ of the Month.
Tim
Jack Frieze
Even in this, the Iron Age of tee-dot-oh, we still get the occasional
gems of fact, clear exposition and elegant reasoning. The single
reason I still read is these outstanding posts...outstanding posts and
pun cascades...the two reasons are outstanding posts, pun cascades and
the educations in epistemolgy and dialectics that even ordinary posts
afford...the FOUR reasons are... Oh, d__n, I know I'm forgetting
something, I'll come in again.
--
Jack Frieze
Mike Dworetsky
I wonder if you are thinking of something else here, Steve. I looked at
this paper and the authors stated that they derived the CMBR anisotropy (the
speed and direction of the motion of the LSR relative to the CMBR) by (among
other things) correcting for the known Doppler shift due to the Earth's
orbit. They even gave a figure for adopted beta, the value of v/c adopted,
of 1.01e(-4), i.e. about 30 km/sec.
>
> 3. As you pointed out above, the observed CMB has, on average, a very
> good black body spectrum, which, as you say, implies that it was
> produced
> at thermal equilibrium. In standard cosmology, this is taken as
> evidence that the Universe was, in early times, at thermal
> equilibrium. What is
> the geocentric model's explanation? (Note that black body spectra of
> objects at different temperatures do *not* add up to a single black
> body spectrum; your answer will have to explain why it appears that
> the whole Universe was once at a single temperature.)
>
> 4. You say the geocentric model does not require cold dark matter.
> How, then, does it explain galaxy rotation curves, which do not match
> Newtonian gravity if only the directly observed matter is present?
> How does it explain X-ray temperatures of galactic clusters? How
> does it explain gravitational lensing observations of masses? How
> does it explain the Bullet Cluster?
>
> 5. You say the geocentric model does not require dark energy. How
> does
> it explain the observed brightness/distance relationship of
> supernovae?
>
> Steve Carlip
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu
> carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote:
[...]
> > 2. In addition to this overall dipole, there is another dipole
> > component that changes direction from day to day, with a
> > period of a year. The Doppler shift of this component corresponds
> > to a circular motion with a period of one year and a speed of
> > 7.4 km/sec -- see Kogut et al., Ap. J. 419 (1993) 1. The standard
> > explanation is that this Doppler shift is due to the Earth's orbit
> > around the Sun. What, exactly, is the geocentric model's
> > explanation?
> I wonder if you are thinking of something else here, Steve.
> I looked at this paper and the authors stated that they derived
> the CMBR anisotropy (the speed and direction of the motion of
> the LSR relative to the CMBR) by (among other things) correcting
> for the known Doppler shift due to the Earth's orbit. They even
> gave a figure for adopted beta, the value of v/c adopted, of
> 1.01e(-4), i.e. about 30 km/sec.
You're right about the number. I can't figure our where I got the
7.4 from -- I'll have to plead jet lag.
What I *meant* to say was, in particular, that figure 4 of the paper
gives a direct measurement of the Earth's velocity around the Sun.
If you use their beta, the y axis gives you the CMB temperature,
which agrees with independent measurements. But conversely, if
you use the observed CMB temperature, you can read off the value
of beta, and therefore the Earth's velocity. The amplitude of the
curve is about .26 mK, and this is equal to beta T (see eqn. 3).
Using the known value T=2.7 K, this gives a beta of 10^{-4}, or,
as you say, a speed of 30 km/sec.
Thanks for catching this.
Steve Carlip
Mike Dworetsky
Curiously, astronomers begin their investigations of the early Universe by
assuming a proven heliocentric model rather than a geocentric model of the
solar system. So Tony's demands that we prove that model via parallax,
Doppler shift, and, finally, annual variations of the CMBR (0.26 mK!!), and
his claims that all those stars do little dances of exactly the right size,
shape, and amplitude, to fool us, do seem quaint, to put it mildly.