Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Multiple Failures of the neoTychoan Model
40 views
Skip to first unread message
Mark Isaak
Mar 27, 2012, 4:05:36 PM3/27/12
to
It has been more than two days since I asked Pagano what good his
neoTychoan model was (actually well over a week, but two days since I
challenged him in a new thread), and he has chosen not to give a valid
reply, so we may go with the default answer: It is good for nothing.
But Pagano's model is not merely useless; it is counterproductive. Here
are problems I have noticed with it. I little doubt there are others.
1. Pagano's model makes calculations of celestial movements impossible.
Pagano claims his model and the heliocentric model are instrumentally
equivalent [1], but they are anything but. Pagano defines a center of
mass, more-or-less correctly for Newtonian physics, as the average of
positions of things weighted by their masses. But then he goes on to
claim that there are gravitational forces towards this center of mass
which keep everything in the universe orbiting around it [2]. That
simply does not work. Gravitation obeys an inverse square law;
consequently, objects are attracted more to closer objects than to
distant big objects, even if the big object is the center of mass of the
whole universe. Try it yourself. The center of mass of the earth-sun
system is inside the sun. Drop an object when the sun is overhead and
see whether it fall towards the earth or towards the center of mass.
And before Pagano claims that the rest of the universe is pulling the
object towards the earth, note that the same experiment has been done on
the Moon, with objects falling consistently down to the Moon and away
from the earth.
One consequence of Pagano's model is that adopting it would make any
space program impossible, since it is impossible to make sense out of
the fictitious forces Pagano must invent to get planets and stars to go
where they go. Even a geostationary orbit, which is a simple high
school physics problem on a rotating earth, becomes impossible for
Pagano to explain, much less to calculate.
2. Pagano's model does not explain Hubble's Law, the observation that
more distant galaxies tend to be more red-shifted. Pagano writes that
his model "easily explains the red shift evidence as rotational velocity
around the Earth" [1], but rotational velocity has nothing to do with
red shift, so he in fact has no explanation at all. Furthermore, his
model must, but does not, account for why some relatively nearby
galaxies, still plenty distant for rotational velocity to be
significant, are blue-shifted.
3. Pagano's model is wildly incompatible with special relativity and
laws of causation. When an event on Earth causes a change in the length
of the sidereal day, Pagano's model says that every distant star and
galaxy in the universe instantly and synchronously adjusts its orbit
around the earth to instantiate the change, despite the lack of, and
practical impossibility of, any communication between all those bodies
and the earth. On the other hand, the change is trivially and
completely explained as a change in the rate of earth's rotation.
4. Pagano's model is inconsistent with Airy's stellar aberration
experiment, in which Airy found stellar aberration unchanged using a
telescope filled with water. Frankly, I do not know why this is a
problem for Pagano's model. But Pagano says the results should differ
between his model and heliocentrism [1], and Airy's experiment is
consistent with heliocentrism (the water affects speed of light equally
in all directions, leaving the angle of aberration unchanged), so I'll
take Pagano at his word.
5. Pagano's model omits curved space [1]. Since curvature of space has
been observed, his model cannot be correct.
6. Pagano's model is inconsistent with Christian theology. Pagano says,
"The Earth should be in a special place." [1] Apparently he is
unfamiliar with the concept of humility (expressed in the Bible by such
phrases as "the first shall be last"). There is no theological reason
why the Earth should be in a special place. That concept comes from
people's wish to be special. Augustine, perhaps the greatest Christian
theologian of all time, warned explicitly against bending theological
interpretations to define the physical world [3]. Pagano's model defies
Augustine. Practically all other theologians in the last 500 years
accept heliocentrism too. Pagano's model defies them all.
It surely cannot be coincidence that few people are more in need for
humility than Pagano. His unfailing declarations of victory in the face
of his every defeat, his need to change subject lines to put down others
by name, his lying about others' religions -- all demonstrate the
problem. And his lack of humility affects his model as well, since it
prevents him from accepting corrections to the errors he makes -- about
dark matter, interpretation of galaxy supercluster maps, and others. The
center of the universe is simply not a healthy place to live.
[1] Message-ID <apagano-uqfum7lr4lp5o...@4ax.com>
[2] Message-ID <apagano-13hvm7135c02n...@4ax.com>
[3] Augustine, "The Literal Meaning of Genesis",
http://college.holycross.edu/faculty/alaffey/other_files/Augustine-Genesis1.pdf
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
neoTychoan model was (actually well over a week, but two days since I
challenged him in a new thread), and he has chosen not to give a valid
reply, so we may go with the default answer: It is good for nothing.
But Pagano's model is not merely useless; it is counterproductive. Here
are problems I have noticed with it. I little doubt there are others.
1. Pagano's model makes calculations of celestial movements impossible.
Pagano claims his model and the heliocentric model are instrumentally
equivalent [1], but they are anything but. Pagano defines a center of
mass, more-or-less correctly for Newtonian physics, as the average of
positions of things weighted by their masses. But then he goes on to
claim that there are gravitational forces towards this center of mass
which keep everything in the universe orbiting around it [2]. That
simply does not work. Gravitation obeys an inverse square law;
consequently, objects are attracted more to closer objects than to
distant big objects, even if the big object is the center of mass of the
whole universe. Try it yourself. The center of mass of the earth-sun
system is inside the sun. Drop an object when the sun is overhead and
see whether it fall towards the earth or towards the center of mass.
And before Pagano claims that the rest of the universe is pulling the
object towards the earth, note that the same experiment has been done on
the Moon, with objects falling consistently down to the Moon and away
from the earth.
One consequence of Pagano's model is that adopting it would make any
space program impossible, since it is impossible to make sense out of
the fictitious forces Pagano must invent to get planets and stars to go
where they go. Even a geostationary orbit, which is a simple high
school physics problem on a rotating earth, becomes impossible for
Pagano to explain, much less to calculate.
2. Pagano's model does not explain Hubble's Law, the observation that
more distant galaxies tend to be more red-shifted. Pagano writes that
his model "easily explains the red shift evidence as rotational velocity
around the Earth" [1], but rotational velocity has nothing to do with
red shift, so he in fact has no explanation at all. Furthermore, his
model must, but does not, account for why some relatively nearby
galaxies, still plenty distant for rotational velocity to be
significant, are blue-shifted.
3. Pagano's model is wildly incompatible with special relativity and
laws of causation. When an event on Earth causes a change in the length
of the sidereal day, Pagano's model says that every distant star and
galaxy in the universe instantly and synchronously adjusts its orbit
around the earth to instantiate the change, despite the lack of, and
practical impossibility of, any communication between all those bodies
and the earth. On the other hand, the change is trivially and
completely explained as a change in the rate of earth's rotation.
4. Pagano's model is inconsistent with Airy's stellar aberration
experiment, in which Airy found stellar aberration unchanged using a
telescope filled with water. Frankly, I do not know why this is a
problem for Pagano's model. But Pagano says the results should differ
between his model and heliocentrism [1], and Airy's experiment is
consistent with heliocentrism (the water affects speed of light equally
in all directions, leaving the angle of aberration unchanged), so I'll
take Pagano at his word.
5. Pagano's model omits curved space [1]. Since curvature of space has
been observed, his model cannot be correct.
6. Pagano's model is inconsistent with Christian theology. Pagano says,
"The Earth should be in a special place." [1] Apparently he is
unfamiliar with the concept of humility (expressed in the Bible by such
phrases as "the first shall be last"). There is no theological reason
why the Earth should be in a special place. That concept comes from
people's wish to be special. Augustine, perhaps the greatest Christian
theologian of all time, warned explicitly against bending theological
interpretations to define the physical world [3]. Pagano's model defies
Augustine. Practically all other theologians in the last 500 years
accept heliocentrism too. Pagano's model defies them all.
It surely cannot be coincidence that few people are more in need for
humility than Pagano. His unfailing declarations of victory in the face
of his every defeat, his need to change subject lines to put down others
by name, his lying about others' religions -- all demonstrate the
problem. And his lack of humility affects his model as well, since it
prevents him from accepting corrections to the errors he makes -- about
dark matter, interpretation of galaxy supercluster maps, and others. The
center of the universe is simply not a healthy place to live.
[1] Message-ID <apagano-uqfum7lr4lp5o...@4ax.com>
[2] Message-ID <apagano-13hvm7135c02n...@4ax.com>
[3] Augustine, "The Literal Meaning of Genesis",
http://college.holycross.edu/faculty/alaffey/other_files/Augustine-Genesis1.pdf
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
Mitchell Coffey
Mar 27, 2012, 4:28:27 PM3/27/12
to
On Mar 27, 4:05 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net>
wrote:
Query: Who began the convention of writting the names of astromonical
models in camel case? Kepler?
Mitchell Coffey
wrote:
> It has been more than two days since I asked Pagano what good his
> neoTychoan model was [...]
Query: Who began the convention of writting the names of astromonical
models in camel case? Kepler?
Mitchell Coffey
Boikat
Mar 27, 2012, 4:27:32 PM3/27/12
to
On Mar 27, 3:05 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net>
wrote:
If Pagano thinks that, how does he explain red shifts for distant
galaxies near the north celetial pole?
>
> 3. Pagano's model is wildly incompatible with special relativity and
> laws of causation. When an event on Earth causes a change in the length
> of the sidereal day, Pagano's model says that every distant star and
> galaxy in the universe instantly and synchronously adjusts its orbit
> around the earth to instantiate the change, despite the lack of, and
> practical impossibility of, any communication between all those bodies
> and the earth. On the other hand, the change is trivially and
> completely explained as a change in the rate of earth's rotation.
>
> 4. Pagano's model is inconsistent with Airy's stellar aberration
> experiment, in which Airy found stellar aberration unchanged using a
> telescope filled with water. Frankly, I do not know why this is a
> problem for Pagano's model. But Pagano says the results should differ
> between his model and heliocentrism [1], and Airy's experiment is
> consistent with heliocentrism (the water affects speed of light equally
> in all directions, leaving the angle of aberration unchanged), so I'll
> take Pagano at his word.
>
> 5. Pagano's model omits curved space [1]. Since curvature of space has
> been observed, his model cannot be correct.
Pagano would never let an observation get in his way. Maybe he's
channeling McNameless?
>
> 6. Pagano's model is inconsistent with Christian theology. Pagano says,
> "The Earth should be in a special place." [1] Apparently he is
> unfamiliar with the concept of humility (expressed in the Bible by such
> phrases as "the first shall be last"). There is no theological reason
> why the Earth should be in a special place. That concept comes from
> people's wish to be special. Augustine, perhaps the greatest Christian
> theologian of all time, warned explicitly against bending theological
> interpretations to define the physical world [3]. Pagano's model defies
> Augustine. Practically all other theologians in the last 500 years
> accept heliocentrism too. Pagano's model defies them all.
>
> It surely cannot be coincidence that few people are more in need for
> humility than Pagano. His unfailing declarations of victory in the face
> of his every defeat, his need to change subject lines to put down others
> by name, his lying about others' religions -- all demonstrate the
> problem. And his lack of humility affects his model as well, since it
> prevents him from accepting corrections to the errors he makes -- about
> dark matter, interpretation of galaxy supercluster maps, and others. The
> center of the universe is simply not a healthy place to live.
>
> [1] Message-ID <apagano-uqfum7lr4lp5obi16agk6qmp0avpsku...@4ax.com>
> [2] Message-ID <apagano-13hvm7135c02n70q1fvkob2q2itsnat...@4ax.com>
> [3] Augustine, "The Literal Meaning of Genesis",http://college.holycross.edu/faculty/alaffey/other_files/Augustine-Ge...
wrote:
galaxies near the north celetial pole?
>
> 3. Pagano's model is wildly incompatible with special relativity and
> laws of causation. When an event on Earth causes a change in the length
> of the sidereal day, Pagano's model says that every distant star and
> galaxy in the universe instantly and synchronously adjusts its orbit
> around the earth to instantiate the change, despite the lack of, and
> practical impossibility of, any communication between all those bodies
> and the earth. On the other hand, the change is trivially and
> completely explained as a change in the rate of earth's rotation.
>
> 4. Pagano's model is inconsistent with Airy's stellar aberration
> experiment, in which Airy found stellar aberration unchanged using a
> telescope filled with water. Frankly, I do not know why this is a
> problem for Pagano's model. But Pagano says the results should differ
> between his model and heliocentrism [1], and Airy's experiment is
> consistent with heliocentrism (the water affects speed of light equally
> in all directions, leaving the angle of aberration unchanged), so I'll
> take Pagano at his word.
>
> 5. Pagano's model omits curved space [1]. Since curvature of space has
> been observed, his model cannot be correct.
channeling McNameless?
>
> 6. Pagano's model is inconsistent with Christian theology. Pagano says,
> "The Earth should be in a special place." [1] Apparently he is
> unfamiliar with the concept of humility (expressed in the Bible by such
> phrases as "the first shall be last"). There is no theological reason
> why the Earth should be in a special place. That concept comes from
> people's wish to be special. Augustine, perhaps the greatest Christian
> theologian of all time, warned explicitly against bending theological
> interpretations to define the physical world [3]. Pagano's model defies
> Augustine. Practically all other theologians in the last 500 years
> accept heliocentrism too. Pagano's model defies them all.
>
> It surely cannot be coincidence that few people are more in need for
> humility than Pagano. His unfailing declarations of victory in the face
> of his every defeat, his need to change subject lines to put down others
> by name, his lying about others' religions -- all demonstrate the
> problem. And his lack of humility affects his model as well, since it
> prevents him from accepting corrections to the errors he makes -- about
> dark matter, interpretation of galaxy supercluster maps, and others. The
> center of the universe is simply not a healthy place to live.
>
> [2] Message-ID <apagano-13hvm7135c02n70q1fvkob2q2itsnat...@4ax.com>
> [3] Augustine, "The Literal Meaning of Genesis",http://college.holycross.edu/faculty/alaffey/other_files/Augustine-Ge...
>
> --
> Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
> "It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
> honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
> pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
Boikat
> --
> Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
> "It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
> honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
> pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
John Stockwell
Mar 27, 2012, 4:48:23 PM3/27/12
to
On Mar 27, 2:05 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net>
wrote:
giant
concentric spherical shells, centered on the Earthm that rotate once
every 24 hours.
There was
a paper by Hans Therring wherein Therring showed that inside a
massive
spherical shell of large radius, there is a "centrifugal"-like and a
"coriollis"-like force that is predicted by general relativity. This
is a consequence
of "frame dragging". Einstein was interested in this, because it would
mean
that physics was truly independent of coordinate system, and this fits
with the
notion that the interactions among all of the particles in the
universe is the
source of intertia. Frame dragging is a real phenomenon, but there is
no
physics to back up the notion that the universe really is rotating
about
a stationary earth.
>
> One consequence of Pagano's model is that adopting it would make any
> space program impossible, since it is impossible to make sense out of
> the fictitious forces Pagano must invent to get planets and stars to go
> where they go. Even a geostationary orbit, which is a simple high
> school physics problem on a rotating earth, becomes impossible for
> Pagano to explain, much less to calculate.
The magic of hand waving. Thirring's frame dragging would be invoked,
without calculation, to save the day for Pagano.
>
> 2. Pagano's model does not explain Hubble's Law, the observation that
> more distant galaxies tend to be more red-shifted. Pagano writes that
> his model "easily explains the red shift evidence as rotational velocity
> around the Earth" [1], but rotational velocity has nothing to do with
> red shift, so he in fact has no explanation at all. Furthermore, his
> model must, but does not, account for why some relatively nearby
> galaxies, still plenty distant for rotational velocity to be
> significant, are blue-shifted.
Yep.
>
> 3. Pagano's model is wildly incompatible with special relativity and
> laws of causation. When an event on Earth causes a change in the length
> of the sidereal day, Pagano's model says that every distant star and
> galaxy in the universe instantly and synchronously adjusts its orbit
> around the earth to instantiate the change, despite the lack of, and
> practical impossibility of, any communication between all those bodies
> and the earth. On the other hand, the change is trivially and
> completely explained as a change in the rate of earth's rotation.
Wave the magic hand and invoke the notion that space-time is actually
revolving carrying the stars and galaxies along for the ride. Nothing
says
that space has to obey the speed of light maximum.
>
> 4. Pagano's model is inconsistent with Airy's stellar aberration
> experiment, in which Airy found stellar aberration unchanged using a
> telescope filled with water. Frankly, I do not know why this is a
> problem for Pagano's model. But Pagano says the results should differ
> between his model and heliocentrism [1], and Airy's experiment is
> consistent with heliocentrism (the water affects speed of light equally
> in all directions, leaving the angle of aberration unchanged), so I'll
> take Pagano at his word.
The water filled telescope experiment is based on the incorrect
assumption
that the light wave is a propagating wave in a medium. Light
transmission in
the fluid is a process of absorption and reemission (which is why
light is slower)
in the fluid. The light is thus carried with the telescope. Airy's
experiment was
doomed to fail.
>
> 5. Pagano's model omits curved space [1]. Since curvature of space has
> been observed, his model cannot be correct.
Yep.
>
> 6. Pagano's model is inconsistent with Christian theology. Pagano says,
> "The Earth should be in a special place." [1] Apparently he is
> unfamiliar with the concept of humility (expressed in the Bible by such
> phrases as "the first shall be last"). There is no theological reason
> why the Earth should be in a special place. That concept comes from
> people's wish to be special. Augustine, perhaps the greatest Christian
> theologian of all time, warned explicitly against bending theological
> interpretations to define the physical world [3]. Pagano's model defies
> Augustine. Practically all other theologians in the last 500 years
> accept heliocentrism too. Pagano's model defies them all.
You can make up any kind of "Christian Theology" you want.
Let's not forget
7. There aren't any concentric spherical shells. The Sloan Sky Survey
killed
that one.
>
> [1] Message-ID <apagano-uqfum7lr4lp5obi16agk6qmp0avpsku...@4ax.com>
> [2] Message-ID <apagano-13hvm7135c02n70q1fvkob2q2itsnat...@4ax.com>
> [3] Augustine, "The Literal Meaning of Genesis",http://college.holycross.edu/faculty/alaffey/other_files/Augustine-Ge...
wrote:
> It has been more than two days since I asked Pagano what good his
> neoTychoan model was (actually well over a week, but two days since I
> challenged him in a new thread), and he has chosen not to give a valid
> reply, so we may go with the default answer: It is good for nothing.
>
> But Pagano's model is not merely useless; it is counterproductive. Here
> are problems I have noticed with it. I little doubt there are others.
>
> 1. Pagano's model makes calculations of celestial movements impossible.
>
> Pagano claims his model and the heliocentric model are instrumentally
> equivalent [1], but they are anything but. Pagano defines a center of
> mass, more-or-less correctly for Newtonian physics, as the average of
> positions of things weighted by their masses. But then he goes on to
> claim that there are gravitational forces towards this center of mass
> which keep everything in the universe orbiting around it [2]. That
> simply does not work. Gravitation obeys an inverse square law;
> consequently, objects are attracted more to closer objects than to
> distant big objects, even if the big object is the center of mass of the
> whole universe. Try it yourself. The center of mass of the earth-sun
> system is inside the sun. Drop an object when the sun is overhead and
> see whether it fall towards the earth or towards the center of mass.
> And before Pagano claims that the rest of the universe is pulling the
> object towards the earth, note that the same experiment has been done on
> the Moon, with objects falling consistently down to the Moon and away
> from the earth.
Pagano would tell you that he believes that the universe consists of
> neoTychoan model was (actually well over a week, but two days since I
> challenged him in a new thread), and he has chosen not to give a valid
> reply, so we may go with the default answer: It is good for nothing.
>
> But Pagano's model is not merely useless; it is counterproductive. Here
> are problems I have noticed with it. I little doubt there are others.
>
> 1. Pagano's model makes calculations of celestial movements impossible.
>
> Pagano claims his model and the heliocentric model are instrumentally
> equivalent [1], but they are anything but. Pagano defines a center of
> mass, more-or-less correctly for Newtonian physics, as the average of
> positions of things weighted by their masses. But then he goes on to
> claim that there are gravitational forces towards this center of mass
> which keep everything in the universe orbiting around it [2]. That
> simply does not work. Gravitation obeys an inverse square law;
> consequently, objects are attracted more to closer objects than to
> distant big objects, even if the big object is the center of mass of the
> whole universe. Try it yourself. The center of mass of the earth-sun
> system is inside the sun. Drop an object when the sun is overhead and
> see whether it fall towards the earth or towards the center of mass.
> And before Pagano claims that the rest of the universe is pulling the
> object towards the earth, note that the same experiment has been done on
> the Moon, with objects falling consistently down to the Moon and away
> from the earth.
giant
concentric spherical shells, centered on the Earthm that rotate once
every 24 hours.
There was
a paper by Hans Therring wherein Therring showed that inside a
massive
spherical shell of large radius, there is a "centrifugal"-like and a
"coriollis"-like force that is predicted by general relativity. This
is a consequence
of "frame dragging". Einstein was interested in this, because it would
mean
that physics was truly independent of coordinate system, and this fits
with the
notion that the interactions among all of the particles in the
universe is the
source of intertia. Frame dragging is a real phenomenon, but there is
no
physics to back up the notion that the universe really is rotating
about
a stationary earth.
>
> One consequence of Pagano's model is that adopting it would make any
> space program impossible, since it is impossible to make sense out of
> the fictitious forces Pagano must invent to get planets and stars to go
> where they go. Even a geostationary orbit, which is a simple high
> school physics problem on a rotating earth, becomes impossible for
> Pagano to explain, much less to calculate.
without calculation, to save the day for Pagano.
>
> 2. Pagano's model does not explain Hubble's Law, the observation that
> more distant galaxies tend to be more red-shifted. Pagano writes that
> his model "easily explains the red shift evidence as rotational velocity
> around the Earth" [1], but rotational velocity has nothing to do with
> red shift, so he in fact has no explanation at all. Furthermore, his
> model must, but does not, account for why some relatively nearby
> galaxies, still plenty distant for rotational velocity to be
> significant, are blue-shifted.
>
> 3. Pagano's model is wildly incompatible with special relativity and
> laws of causation. When an event on Earth causes a change in the length
> of the sidereal day, Pagano's model says that every distant star and
> galaxy in the universe instantly and synchronously adjusts its orbit
> around the earth to instantiate the change, despite the lack of, and
> practical impossibility of, any communication between all those bodies
> and the earth. On the other hand, the change is trivially and
> completely explained as a change in the rate of earth's rotation.
revolving carrying the stars and galaxies along for the ride. Nothing
says
that space has to obey the speed of light maximum.
>
> 4. Pagano's model is inconsistent with Airy's stellar aberration
> experiment, in which Airy found stellar aberration unchanged using a
> telescope filled with water. Frankly, I do not know why this is a
> problem for Pagano's model. But Pagano says the results should differ
> between his model and heliocentrism [1], and Airy's experiment is
> consistent with heliocentrism (the water affects speed of light equally
> in all directions, leaving the angle of aberration unchanged), so I'll
> take Pagano at his word.
assumption
that the light wave is a propagating wave in a medium. Light
transmission in
the fluid is a process of absorption and reemission (which is why
light is slower)
in the fluid. The light is thus carried with the telescope. Airy's
experiment was
doomed to fail.
>
> 5. Pagano's model omits curved space [1]. Since curvature of space has
> been observed, his model cannot be correct.
>
> 6. Pagano's model is inconsistent with Christian theology. Pagano says,
> "The Earth should be in a special place." [1] Apparently he is
> unfamiliar with the concept of humility (expressed in the Bible by such
> phrases as "the first shall be last"). There is no theological reason
> why the Earth should be in a special place. That concept comes from
> people's wish to be special. Augustine, perhaps the greatest Christian
> theologian of all time, warned explicitly against bending theological
> interpretations to define the physical world [3]. Pagano's model defies
> Augustine. Practically all other theologians in the last 500 years
> accept heliocentrism too. Pagano's model defies them all.
>
> It surely cannot be coincidence that few people are more in need for
> humility than Pagano. His unfailing declarations of victory in the face
> of his every defeat, his need to change subject lines to put down others
> by name, his lying about others' religions -- all demonstrate the
> problem. And his lack of humility affects his model as well, since it
> prevents him from accepting corrections to the errors he makes -- about
> dark matter, interpretation of galaxy supercluster maps, and others. The
> center of the universe is simply not a healthy place to live.
Pagano definitely is a crank.
> It surely cannot be coincidence that few people are more in need for
> humility than Pagano. His unfailing declarations of victory in the face
> of his every defeat, his need to change subject lines to put down others
> by name, his lying about others' religions -- all demonstrate the
> problem. And his lack of humility affects his model as well, since it
> prevents him from accepting corrections to the errors he makes -- about
> dark matter, interpretation of galaxy supercluster maps, and others. The
> center of the universe is simply not a healthy place to live.
Let's not forget
7. There aren't any concentric spherical shells. The Sloan Sky Survey
killed
that one.
>
> [1] Message-ID <apagano-uqfum7lr4lp5obi16agk6qmp0avpsku...@4ax.com>
> [2] Message-ID <apagano-13hvm7135c02n70q1fvkob2q2itsnat...@4ax.com>
T Pagano
Apr 8, 2012, 7:38:37 PM4/8/12
to
On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 13:05:36 -0700, Mark Isaak
<eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net> wrote:
>It has been more than two days since I asked Pagano what good his
>neoTychoan model was (actually well over a week, but two days since I
>challenged him in a new thread), and he has chosen not to give a valid
>reply, so we may go with the default answer: It is good for nothing.
1. Isaak is asking what instrumental value does the neoTychoan model
<eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net> wrote:
>It has been more than two days since I asked Pagano what good his
>neoTychoan model was (actually well over a week, but two days since I
>challenged him in a new thread), and he has chosen not to give a valid
>reply, so we may go with the default answer: It is good for nothing.
hold. Under the doctrine of "Instrumentalism" theories are not
strictly speaking true or false, but are to be regarded as tools.
Under this view theories are justifiable based upon their utility
rather than their truthlikeness.
2. The problem with Isaak's instrumentalism is that most false
universal-like theories (like neoDarwinism, Big Bangism) have some
limited domain wherein they are true and therefore have utility in
that domain. However, outside that domain the supposedly "useful"
tool may mislead its user. I on the other hand am interested in
whether the theory is true over its whole domain. As such I can trust
its utility over its whole domain of applicability.
3. The relative motions and forces between the heliocentric model and
the neoTychoan model are virtually identical. NASA uses which ever
reference frame makes the calculations easier. NASA describes its
GeoCentric frame as the Earth Centered Inertial frame (ECI). So
apparently it does have utility to that hallowed agency.
4. Atheists like Isaak have no interest in the truth as such he
couldn't care less whether the neoTychoan model is true.
>
>But Pagano's model is not merely useless; it is counterproductive. Here
>are problems I have noticed with it. I little doubt there are others.
>
>1. Pagano's model makes calculations of celestial movements impossible.
>
>Pagano claims his model and the heliocentric model are instrumentally
>equivalent [1], but they are anything but.
instrumentalism. As such I don't claim that they are "instrumentally"
equivalent but that their actual, real, relative motions are virtually
indistinquishable from one another (that is, between the heliocentric
and neoTychoan model). Einstein, Mach and others opined the same.
snip for a reply at another time.
Regards,
T Pagano
T Pagano
Apr 8, 2012, 9:29:03 PM4/8/12
to
On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 13:05:36 -0700, Mark Isaak
<eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net> wrote:
<eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net> wrote:
>It has been more than two days since I asked Pagano what good his
>neoTychoan model was (actually well over a week, but two days since I
>challenged him in a new thread), and he has chosen not to give a valid
>reply, so we may go with the default answer: It is good for nothing.
>
>But Pagano's model is not merely useless; it is counterproductive. Here
>are problems I have noticed with it. I little doubt there are others.
>
>1. Pagano's model makes calculations of celestial movements impossible.
>
>Pagano claims his model and the heliocentric model are instrumentally
>equivalent [1], but they are anything but. Pagano defines a center of
>mass, more-or-less correctly for Newtonian physics, as the average of
>positions of things weighted by their masses. But then he goes on to
>claim that there are gravitational forces towards this center of mass
>which keep everything in the universe orbiting around it [2].
I never claimed any such thing.
>neoTychoan model was (actually well over a week, but two days since I
>challenged him in a new thread), and he has chosen not to give a valid
>reply, so we may go with the default answer: It is good for nothing.
>
>But Pagano's model is not merely useless; it is counterproductive. Here
>are problems I have noticed with it. I little doubt there are others.
>
>1. Pagano's model makes calculations of celestial movements impossible.
>
>Pagano claims his model and the heliocentric model are instrumentally
>equivalent [1], but they are anything but. Pagano defines a center of
>mass, more-or-less correctly for Newtonian physics, as the average of
>positions of things weighted by their masses. But then he goes on to
>claim that there are gravitational forces towards this center of mass
>which keep everything in the universe orbiting around it [2].
How some system of bodies came to be revolving around some COM cannot
be explained by Newton's Laws of Motion or Gravitation. Newton said
as much in his opus concerning our Solar System; he wrote that while
his laws could explain (a) why they remained in an existing orbit and
(b) they could predict the position of those revolving bodies at any
point in time in their orbits he had no explanation for how they came
to be in those orbits with their angular momentums. He attributed
those initial conditions to God.
We don't know how the planets in the heliocentric model acquired their
angular momentum; however, so long as no external force acts on those
bodies to change their angular momentum (slow them down, for example)
they will maintain their orbits around its COM. That is, the
gravitation force vector towards the COM is balanced by the
centrifugal force resulting from its motion.
All of this applies equally for all the bodies in the neoTychoan
model. The neoTychoan model is merely a larger system of which the
heliocentric system (minus the Earth) is a sub-system. In other
words any rule Isaak might offer to disprove the possibility of the
neoTychoan model will likewise strike down the heliocentric.
Isaak doesn't lay a glove on the neoTychoan.
> That
>simply does not work.
> Gravitation obeys an inverse square law;
>consequently, objects are attracted more to closer objects than to
>distant big objects, even if the big object is the center of mass of the
>whole universe. Try it yourself. The center of mass of the earth-sun
>system is inside the sun.
momentum around the center of mass (COM) of some system-----regardless
of its distance from the COM-----also has a centrifugal force vector
which balances the gravitational vector towards the COM (at least in a
stable orbit).
Since our Sun makes up 99+ percent of the mass of the Solar System it
is not hard to understand why the Solar System's COM is at or near the
Sun. As Isaak points out the COM of our Solar System is NOT colocated
at the Sun's center. As such even our Sun revolves around the Solar
System's COM. Our Sun has an unusual orbit. Was Isaak under the
impression that our Sun was stationary with respect to the Solar
System's COM?
Isaak still doesn't lay a glove on the neoTychoan Model.
>Drop an object when the sun is overhead and
>see whether it fall towards the earth or towards the center of mass.
>And before Pagano claims that the rest of the universe is pulling the
>object towards the earth, note that the same experiment has been done on
>the Moon, with objects falling consistently down to the Moon and away
>from the earth.
likewise be fatal to the heliocentric system. Both are systems of
rotating bodies around a COM.
That the eight planets in our Solar System revolve around that
system's COM hardly prevents the behavior of other sub-systems. The
behavior of other sub-system's depends entirely upon the intial
conditions of the bodies in those sub-systems. Likewise for the
neoTychoan Model.
The Earth-Moon subsystem is an example. Isaak's example of a small
mass (a basketball) very near the surface of a much larger body like
the earth is another example. A third example would be an Earth
orbital satellite which achieved its orbital velocity and distance
from the Earth via an external force (the rocket engine's thrust). The
existence of these subsystems is hardly a reason against the
possibility of much larger systems. Newton's Laws don't prevent the
existence of sub-systems.
Isaak hasn't laid a glove on the neoTychoan Model.
T Pagano
Apr 8, 2012, 9:39:53 PM4/8/12
to
On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 13:05:36 -0700, Mark Isaak
<eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net> wrote:
<eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net> wrote:
Born which I'll merely reproduce here:
[BEGIN PAGANO QUOTE]
The relative motions and forces between the Heliocentric and
NeoTychoan models are identical. Einstein, Mach, Born and Thirring
said this explicitly. The instrumental value between the two models
is indistinguishable. Walter Thirring did the calculations using
Einstein's field equation to prove it. Max Born wrote (Isaak does
know who Max Born is, doesn't he?):
". . .Thus we may return to Ptolemy's point of view of a "motionless
Earth." This would mean that we use a system of reference rigidly
fixed to the Earth in which all stars are performing a rotational
motion with the same angular velocity around the Earth's axis. . .one
has to show that the transformed metric can be regarded as produced
according to Einstein's field equations, by distant rotating masses.
This has been done by Thirring. He calculated a field due to a
rotating, hollow, thick-walled sphere and proved that inside the
cavity it behaved as though there were centrifugal and other inertial
forces usually attributed to absolute space. Thus from Einstein's
point of view, Ptolemy, [Tycho], and Copernicus are equally right.
What point of view is chosen is a matter of expediency."
[END PAGANO QUOTE]
This places Isaak in a position against Einstein, et. al.
the rest snipped for a reply at a later time.
Regards,
T Pagano
John Vreeland
Apr 8, 2012, 11:50:22 PM4/8/12
to
On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 21:39:53 -0400, T Pagano <not....@address.net>
wrote:
For some reason I had assumed that Pagano was against Relativity
theory. I see now that I was incorrect. As Pagano correctly points
out, the proper application of the relevant relativistic physics show
that the concept of a "center of the UNiverse" is meaningless, as is
any discussion about whether the Earth rotates or not, since this
would simply be an assumption of your chosen coordinate system.
However, it should be noted that in the natural sun-centered
cosmological model the relativistic terms in the equations are mostly
negligible, while for any other system, they tend to dominate. Thus,
assuming that the Earth is at the center of the Universe and does not
rotate must be seen as largely perverse.
On the other hand, there are situations where you assume that the
Earth is stationary. Using a map to find highway directions, for
example. It would be perverse indeed if you had to take coriolis
effects into account while driving to grandma's house. If you suddenly
needed to account for the sun and the moon orbiting the Earth so
quickly then you would change coordinate systems.
Likewise, we tend to ignore the fact that our star is orbiting the
center of the galaxy. It would be perverse if all the moon landing
calculations had to be made with reference to Cygnus X-1, or the
gravitational center of our Local Group of galaxies, or the
gravitational center of the Universe, which we have already stated
does not exst.
All reference points are arbitrary and are chosen at the convenience
of the conversation. What was the point of this discussion again? I
seem to have lost it.
--
Some aspects of life would be a lot easier if Creationists were required to carry warning signs. Fortunately, many of them already do.
wrote:
theory. I see now that I was incorrect. As Pagano correctly points
out, the proper application of the relevant relativistic physics show
that the concept of a "center of the UNiverse" is meaningless, as is
any discussion about whether the Earth rotates or not, since this
would simply be an assumption of your chosen coordinate system.
However, it should be noted that in the natural sun-centered
cosmological model the relativistic terms in the equations are mostly
negligible, while for any other system, they tend to dominate. Thus,
assuming that the Earth is at the center of the Universe and does not
rotate must be seen as largely perverse.
On the other hand, there are situations where you assume that the
Earth is stationary. Using a map to find highway directions, for
example. It would be perverse indeed if you had to take coriolis
effects into account while driving to grandma's house. If you suddenly
needed to account for the sun and the moon orbiting the Earth so
quickly then you would change coordinate systems.
Likewise, we tend to ignore the fact that our star is orbiting the
center of the galaxy. It would be perverse if all the moon landing
calculations had to be made with reference to Cygnus X-1, or the
gravitational center of our Local Group of galaxies, or the
gravitational center of the Universe, which we have already stated
does not exst.
All reference points are arbitrary and are chosen at the convenience
of the conversation. What was the point of this discussion again? I
seem to have lost it.
--
Some aspects of life would be a lot easier if Creationists were required to carry warning signs. Fortunately, many of them already do.
*Hemidactylus*
Apr 9, 2012, 12:05:20 AM4/9/12
to
own awards show.
--
*Hemidactylus*
Michael Siemon
Apr 9, 2012, 12:51:56 AM4/9/12
to
In article <wvqdnbt8e_xjwh_S...@giganews.com>,
*Hemidactylus* <ecph...@hotmail.com> wrote:
...
of math. As far as I can tell (from several decades on t.o.) Tony knows
no math whatsoever. He has never made a mathematical argument, nor has
he ever responded to one (or rather, not with anything other than
rhetorical blather).
That is a rather curious position for someone "arguing" astronomy and
basic mechanics. Until he can produce something at the level of high
school physics [as opposed to high school debate sophistry] in support
of his putative "theories" I cannot see why anyone bothers to respond
to his ridiculous purloining of context-free sentences from populari-
zations by people he doesn't understand. Post-modern deconstruction of
English statements about physical theory hardly constitutes "reason".
He does not even manage to rise to the giddy heights of being sophomoric.
It is only because his respondents jerk their knees to his sophistries
that he keeps doing this crap. Ignore him, fergawdsakes!
*Hemidactylus* <ecph...@hotmail.com> wrote:
...
>
> Tony has defeated everyone and has returned to proclaim victory in his
> own awards show.
I note that Tony has "defeated everyone" without _ever_ producing a hint
> Tony has defeated everyone and has returned to proclaim victory in his
> own awards show.
of math. As far as I can tell (from several decades on t.o.) Tony knows
no math whatsoever. He has never made a mathematical argument, nor has
he ever responded to one (or rather, not with anything other than
rhetorical blather).
That is a rather curious position for someone "arguing" astronomy and
basic mechanics. Until he can produce something at the level of high
school physics [as opposed to high school debate sophistry] in support
of his putative "theories" I cannot see why anyone bothers to respond
to his ridiculous purloining of context-free sentences from populari-
zations by people he doesn't understand. Post-modern deconstruction of
English statements about physical theory hardly constitutes "reason".
He does not even manage to rise to the giddy heights of being sophomoric.
It is only because his respondents jerk their knees to his sophistries
that he keeps doing this crap. Ignore him, fergawdsakes!
Mark Isaak
Apr 9, 2012, 3:07:16 AM4/9/12
to
On 4/8/12 4:38 PM, T Pagano wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 13:05:36 -0700, Mark Isaak
> <eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net> wrote:
>
>> It has been more than two days since I asked Pagano what good his
>> neoTychoan model was (actually well over a week, but two days since I
>> challenged him in a new thread), and he has chosen not to give a valid
>> reply, so we may go with the default answer: It is good for nothing.
>
> 1. Isaak is asking what instrumental value does the neoTychoan model
> hold. Under the doctrine of "Instrumentalism" theories are not
> strictly speaking true or false, but are to be regarded as tools.
> Under this view theories are justifiable based upon their utility
> rather than their truthlikeness.
>
> 2. The problem with Isaak's instrumentalism is that most false
> universal-like theories (like neoDarwinism, Big Bangism) have some
> limited domain wherein they are true and therefore have utility in
> that domain. However, outside that domain the supposedly "useful"
> tool may mislead its user. I on the other hand am interested in
> whether the theory is true over its whole domain. As such I can trust
> its utility over its whole domain of applicability.
No, you are not interested in the whole domain of applicability, because
> On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 13:05:36 -0700, Mark Isaak
> <eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net> wrote:
>
>> It has been more than two days since I asked Pagano what good his
>> neoTychoan model was (actually well over a week, but two days since I
>> challenged him in a new thread), and he has chosen not to give a valid
>> reply, so we may go with the default answer: It is good for nothing.
>
> 1. Isaak is asking what instrumental value does the neoTychoan model
> hold. Under the doctrine of "Instrumentalism" theories are not
> strictly speaking true or false, but are to be regarded as tools.
> Under this view theories are justifiable based upon their utility
> rather than their truthlikeness.
>
> 2. The problem with Isaak's instrumentalism is that most false
> universal-like theories (like neoDarwinism, Big Bangism) have some
> limited domain wherein they are true and therefore have utility in
> that domain. However, outside that domain the supposedly "useful"
> tool may mislead its user. I on the other hand am interested in
> whether the theory is true over its whole domain. As such I can trust
> its utility over its whole domain of applicability.
the domain over which your system is applicable is tiny, whereas
nongeocentrism is universally applicable.
> 3. The relative motions and forces between the heliocentric model and
> the neoTychoan model are virtually identical. NASA uses which ever
> reference frame makes the calculations easier. NASA describes its
> GeoCentric frame as the Earth Centered Inertial frame (ECI). So
> apparently it does have utility to that hallowed agency.
NASA uses stationary geocentrism (a non-rotating earth) never, because
it never works.
So Pagano's system always fails away from the earth and for anything
travelling rapidly through the air more than a couple miles over the
earth. That
> 4. Atheists like Isaak have no interest in the truth as such he
> couldn't care less whether the neoTychoan model is true.
Pagano: the need to lie.
>> But Pagano's model is not merely useless; it is counterproductive. Here
>> are problems I have noticed with it. I little doubt there are others.
>>
>> 1. Pagano's model makes calculations of celestial movements impossible.
>>
>> Pagano claims his model and the heliocentric model are instrumentally
>> equivalent [1], but they are anything but.
>
> As a believer in realism (as was Einstein) I care little for Isaak's
> instrumentalism. As such I don't claim that they are "instrumentally"
> equivalent but that their actual, real, relative motions are virtually
> indistinquishable from one another (that is, between the heliocentric
> and neoTychoan model). Einstein, Mach and others opined the same.
Mark Isaak
Apr 9, 2012, 3:25:11 AM4/9/12
to
On 4/8/12 6:29 PM, T Pagano wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 13:05:36 -0700, Mark Isaak
> <eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net> wrote:
>
>> It has been more than two days since I asked Pagano what good his
>> neoTychoan model was (actually well over a week, but two days since I
>> challenged him in a new thread), and he has chosen not to give a valid
>> reply, so we may go with the default answer: It is good for nothing.
>>
>> But Pagano's model is not merely useless; it is counterproductive. Here
>> are problems I have noticed with it. I little doubt there are others.
>>
>> 1. Pagano's model makes calculations of celestial movements impossible.
>>
>> Pagano claims his model and the heliocentric model are instrumentally
>> equivalent [1], but they are anything but. Pagano defines a center of
>> mass, more-or-less correctly for Newtonian physics, as the average of
>> positions of things weighted by their masses. But then he goes on to
>> claim that there are gravitational forces towards this center of mass
>> which keep everything in the universe orbiting around it [2].
>
> I never claimed any such thing.
I remind people that Pagano established definitively in Part 1 that
> On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 13:05:36 -0700, Mark Isaak
> <eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net> wrote:
>
>> It has been more than two days since I asked Pagano what good his
>> neoTychoan model was (actually well over a week, but two days since I
>> challenged him in a new thread), and he has chosen not to give a valid
>> reply, so we may go with the default answer: It is good for nothing.
>>
>> But Pagano's model is not merely useless; it is counterproductive. Here
>> are problems I have noticed with it. I little doubt there are others.
>>
>> 1. Pagano's model makes calculations of celestial movements impossible.
>>
>> Pagano claims his model and the heliocentric model are instrumentally
>> equivalent [1], but they are anything but. Pagano defines a center of
>> mass, more-or-less correctly for Newtonian physics, as the average of
>> positions of things weighted by their masses. But then he goes on to
>> claim that there are gravitational forces towards this center of mass
>> which keep everything in the universe orbiting around it [2].
>
> I never claimed any such thing.
Pagano is a liar.
> How some system of bodies came to be revolving around some COM [...]
is completely irrelevant.
> We don't know how the planets in the heliocentric model acquired their
> angular momentum;
> however, so long as no external force acts on those
> bodies to change their angular momentum (slow them down, for example)
> they will maintain their orbits around its COM.
meaningful sense. The center of mass is constantly moving relative to
*all* the bodies in the universe.
> That is, the
> gravitation force vector towards the COM is balanced by the
> centrifugal force resulting from its motion.
forces of the nearest major bodies, not the center of mass. The
gravitational force does not necessarily even point to the COM.
> All of this applies equally for all the bodies in the neoTychoan
> model.
what you apply is simply wrong. I repeat: Do the math.
> That the eight planets in our Solar System revolve around that
> system's COM hardly prevents the behavior of other sub-systems. The
> behavior of other sub-system's depends entirely upon the intial
> conditions of the bodies in those sub-systems. Likewise for the
> neoTychoan Model.
> The Earth-Moon subsystem is an example. Isaak's example of a small
> mass (a basketball) very near the surface of a much larger body like
> the earth is another example. A third example would be an Earth
> orbital satellite which achieved its orbital velocity and distance
> from the Earth via an external force (the rocket engine's thrust). The
> existence of these subsystems is hardly a reason against the
> possibility of much larger systems. Newton's Laws don't prevent the
> existence of sub-systems.
>
> Isaak hasn't laid a glove on the neoTychoan Model.
or the sun-Mars model? What if you want to send a spacecraft from the
Earth close to the Moon and on to Mars? When do you switch from one
model to the next? You can't. Your system is a hopeless failure.
Mark Isaak
Apr 9, 2012, 3:30:43 AM4/9/12
to
liar.
The neoTychoan model that Pagano describes has nothing to do with what
quantum physicist Max Born describes. Most notably, Born does not dwell
on where a center of mass is.
Mark Isaak
Apr 9, 2012, 3:37:17 AM4/9/12
to
On 4/8/12 4:38 PM, T Pagano wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 13:05:36 -0700, Mark Isaak
> <eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net> wrote:
>
>> It has been more than two days since I asked Pagano what good his
>> neoTychoan model was (actually well over a week, but two days since I
>> challenged him in a new thread), and he has chosen not to give a valid
>> reply, so we may go with the default answer: It is good for nothing.
> [...]
> <eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net> wrote:
>
>> It has been more than two days since I asked Pagano what good his
>> neoTychoan model was (actually well over a week, but two days since I
>> challenged him in a new thread), and he has chosen not to give a valid
>> reply, so we may go with the default answer: It is good for nothing.
>
> snip for a reply at another time.
It is probably worth pointing out, also, that you missed your deadline
> snip for a reply at another time.
by well over a week, so no matter what replies you make now, the fact
remains, and will always remain, that you LOST! No claiming victory
this time.
(And of course, since you have proven yourself a liar, your claims of
victory never mean anything anyway.)
jillery
Apr 9, 2012, 4:25:41 AM4/9/12
to
On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 19:38:37 -0400, T Pagano <not....@address.net>
wrote:
>On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 13:05:36 -0700, Mark Isaak
><eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net> wrote:
>
>>It has been more than two days since I asked Pagano what good his
>>neoTychoan model was (actually well over a week, but two days since I
>>challenged him in a new thread), and he has chosen not to give a valid
>>reply, so we may go with the default answer: It is good for nothing.
>
>1. Isaak is asking what instrumental value does the neoTychoan model
>hold. Under the doctrine of "Instrumentalism" theories are not
>strictly speaking true or false, but are to be regarded as tools.
>Under this view theories are justifiable based upon their utility
>rather than their truthlikeness.
>
>2. The problem with Isaak's instrumentalism is that most false
>universal-like theories (like neoDarwinism, Big Bangism) have some
>limited domain wherein they are true and therefore have utility in
>that domain. However, outside that domain the supposedly "useful"
>tool may mislead its user. I on the other hand am interested in
>whether the theory is true over its whole domain. As such I can trust
>its utility over its whole domain of applicability.
>
>3. The relative motions and forces between the heliocentric model and
>the neoTychoan model are virtually identical. NASA uses which ever
>reference frame makes the calculations easier. NASA describes its
>GeoCentric frame as the Earth Centered Inertial frame (ECI). So
>apparently it does have utility to that hallowed agency.
I hope all interested parties notice Tony's use of positional
equivalence as evidence for geocentrism.
wrote:
>On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 13:05:36 -0700, Mark Isaak
><eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net> wrote:
>
>>It has been more than two days since I asked Pagano what good his
>>neoTychoan model was (actually well over a week, but two days since I
>>challenged him in a new thread), and he has chosen not to give a valid
>>reply, so we may go with the default answer: It is good for nothing.
>
>1. Isaak is asking what instrumental value does the neoTychoan model
>hold. Under the doctrine of "Instrumentalism" theories are not
>strictly speaking true or false, but are to be regarded as tools.
>Under this view theories are justifiable based upon their utility
>rather than their truthlikeness.
>
>2. The problem with Isaak's instrumentalism is that most false
>universal-like theories (like neoDarwinism, Big Bangism) have some
>limited domain wherein they are true and therefore have utility in
>that domain. However, outside that domain the supposedly "useful"
>tool may mislead its user. I on the other hand am interested in
>whether the theory is true over its whole domain. As such I can trust
>its utility over its whole domain of applicability.
>
>3. The relative motions and forces between the heliocentric model and
>the neoTychoan model are virtually identical. NASA uses which ever
>reference frame makes the calculations easier. NASA describes its
>GeoCentric frame as the Earth Centered Inertial frame (ECI). So
>apparently it does have utility to that hallowed agency.
equivalence as evidence for geocentrism.
jillery
Apr 9, 2012, 4:34:20 AM4/9/12
to
nonsense is like an itch I must scratch. I beg your indulgence, and
offer the rationalization that I am not the worst offender in this.
Bill
Apr 9, 2012, 4:43:26 AM4/9/12
to
On Apr 9, 3:34 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 21:51:56 -0700, Michael Siemon
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <mlsie...@sonic.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 21:51:56 -0700, Michael Siemon
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >In article <wvqdnbt8e_xjwh_SnZ2dnUVZ_hqdn...@giganews.com>,
interesting things, and he often prompts interesting replies. What I
DON'T get is why smart people are still replying to Kleinman's nearly
3000 posts all making essentially the same handful of mathematical
errors. He's obviously not going to learn, and he's not saying
anything new or interesting or provoking anyone else to say much new
or interesting. That's an itch I don't get.
jillery
Apr 9, 2012, 9:00:05 AM4/9/12
to
On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 01:43:26 -0700 (PDT), Bill <broger...@gmail.com>
wrote:
I am told confessing one's allergies is good for your soles, or
something like that, even if Tonyitis itself it not. As for DrDritis,
I have so far managed to avoid catching it, but the parallels are too
close that even someone like myself can't fail to notice.
wrote:
something like that, even if Tonyitis itself it not. As for DrDritis,
I have so far managed to avoid catching it, but the parallels are too
close that even someone like myself can't fail to notice.
Paul J Gans
Apr 9, 2012, 8:13:39 PM4/9/12
to
--
--- Paul J. Gans
0 new messages