Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [M & B] Re: comments on Jason Lisle's cosmology

Expand Messages
  • PIASAN@aol.com
    In fairness..... Jason Lisle does have a physics PhD. To me, the fact he ignores such obvious issues with his model is simply a reflection of his dedication
    Message 1 of 6 , Mar 5, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      In fairness..... Jason Lisle does have a physics PhD. To me, the fact he ignores such obvious issues with his model is simply a reflection of his dedication to a literal Genesis and AIG's "statement of faith."

      To his credit, Lisle does reject "apparent age" citing pretty much exactly the same reasons I have pointed out many times to Willis, Benton, and Macdonald.






      -----Original Message-----
      From: Todd Greene <greeneto@...>
      To: Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Sat, Mar 5, 2011 6:15 am
      Subject: [M & B] Re: comments on Jason Lisle's cosmology


      Another observation about this is the manner in which people such as Jason Lisle
      perate. It's the typical crackpot/young earth creationist method. They spout
      ut things they've made up without even attempting to actually deal with people
      n the scientific community who have training and demonstrated professional
      xpertise in the subject. (Indeed, in the case of young earth creationist, it is
      heir deliberate intention to ignore people in the scientific community who have
      raining and demonstrated professional expertise in the relevant subjects.)
      hus, they make stuff up in a vacuum and get no critical feedback. They don't
      ven get to the point of writing a research article (even a theoretical research
      rticle) meeting even the basic standards of professional science, because they
      efuse to even discuss their ideas with scientists.
      And THEN they publish this stuff for the ignorant sheep.
      And THEN the ignorant sheep eat it up - for no reasons whatsoever having
      nything to do with any actual science.
      - Todd Greene

      -- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, PIASAN@... wrote:


      Baty commented about Jason Lisle's proposed cosmological model. Here are some
      omments I've made on other lists as I'm seeking input from others who
      nderstand the physics better than I.

      #### Begin crosspost #####


      OK.... I've had a bit of time to try reading Lisle's proposal. While some of
      t is over my head, it looks like a rehash of his "dual speed" model for light
      n which light travels toward an observer at infinite speed and away from the
      ource at half of "c." Since our measurements of the speed of light are based
      n "round-trip" values, this would give the accepted speed of light while
      esolving the YEC light travel time problem.

      As I see it, there are three major issues here:
      1) It creates a paradox in which light reaches an observer at two different
      imes. For example, if we have 18.6 miles between the source and observer,
      ight would reach the observer 0.0002 seconds after being sent (as measured by
      he source) and at the instant it is sent (as measured by the observer).

      2) Lisle claims his model can't be tested. In his discussion, he uses two
      tations "A" and "B." He discusses why it is impossible to synchronize the
      locks of those two stations. For example, if one of them is moved, that will
      hange the rate of time passage for the moving station. Unfortunately, the
      hange in time due to motion over such a (relatively) short distance would be
      nsignificant compared to the time required for the light to travel based on the
      ccepted value of "c." It took me only a few seconds to come up with a solution
      o the synchronization issue. Simply place a third station "C" halfway between
      tations "A" and "B." Send a pulse from C to A and B. Under either the
      enerally accepted model and Lisle's proposal the pulse would reach both A and B
      t the same time and their clocks would be synchronized. It would then be a
      imple matter to send a pulse from either station to the other and test Lisle's
      roposal. Alternatively, one can send a synchroni
      zation pulse from A to B. If Lisle is correct, both stations would then have
      he same time. You could then send a pulse from B to A which should have no
      elay as measured at A.

      3) Perhaps most importantly..... GPS relies on the time delay of signals
      ent from satellites to receivers to calculate position. If there is no time
      elay, the GPS system wouldn't work. The very fact that GPS works speaks
      trongly against Lisle's model.





      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Todd Greene
      There s no fairness about it at all. Since the guy completely ignores dealing with other physicists his Ph.D. in physics is meaningless. The fact that he did
      Message 2 of 6 , Mar 5, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        There's no fairness about it at all. Since the guy completely ignores dealing with other physicists his Ph.D. in physics is meaningless. The fact that he did correct work to earn his Ph.D. doesn't mean he's doing science now. A snake oil salesman with a Ph.D. who ignores dealing with professional peers simply means he knows how to pile the manure higher and deeper with people who don't know better.

        - Todd Greene


        --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, PIASAN@... wrote:
        >
        >
        > In fairness..... Jason Lisle does have a physics PhD. To me, the fact he ignores such obvious issues with his model is simply a reflection of his dedication to a literal Genesis and AIG's "statement of faith."
        >
        > To his credit, Lisle does reject "apparent age" citing pretty much exactly the same reasons I have pointed out many times to Willis, Benton, and Macdonald.
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > -----Original Message-----
        > From: Todd Greene <greeneto@...>
        > To: Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com
        > Sent: Sat, Mar 5, 2011 6:15 am
        > Subject: [M & B] Re: comments on Jason Lisle's cosmology
        >
        >
        > Another observation about this is the manner in which people such as Jason Lisle
        > perate. It's the typical crackpot/young earth creationist method. They spout
        > ut things they've made up without even attempting to actually deal with people
        > n the scientific community who have training and demonstrated professional
        > xpertise in the subject. (Indeed, in the case of young earth creationist, it is
        > heir deliberate intention to ignore people in the scientific community who have
        > raining and demonstrated professional expertise in the relevant subjects.)
        > hus, they make stuff up in a vacuum and get no critical feedback. They don't
        > ven get to the point of writing a research article (even a theoretical research
        > rticle) meeting even the basic standards of professional science, because they
        > efuse to even discuss their ideas with scientists.
        > And THEN they publish this stuff for the ignorant sheep.
        > And THEN the ignorant sheep eat it up - for no reasons whatsoever having
        > nything to do with any actual science.
        > - Todd Greene
        >
        > -- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, PIASAN@ wrote:
        >
        >
        > Baty commented about Jason Lisle's proposed cosmological model. Here are some
        > omments I've made on other lists as I'm seeking input from others who
        > nderstand the physics better than I.
        >
        > #### Begin crosspost #####
        >
        >
        > OK.... I've had a bit of time to try reading Lisle's proposal. While some of
        > t is over my head, it looks like a rehash of his "dual speed" model for light
        > n which light travels toward an observer at infinite speed and away from the
        > ource at half of "c." Since our measurements of the speed of light are based
        > n "round-trip" values, this would give the accepted speed of light while
        > esolving the YEC light travel time problem.
        >
        > As I see it, there are three major issues here:
        > 1) It creates a paradox in which light reaches an observer at two different
        > imes. For example, if we have 18.6 miles between the source and observer,
        > ight would reach the observer 0.0002 seconds after being sent (as measured by
        > he source) and at the instant it is sent (as measured by the observer).
        >
        > 2) Lisle claims his model can't be tested. In his discussion, he uses two
        > tations "A" and "B." He discusses why it is impossible to synchronize the
        > locks of those two stations. For example, if one of them is moved, that will
        > hange the rate of time passage for the moving station. Unfortunately, the
        > hange in time due to motion over such a (relatively) short distance would be
        > nsignificant compared to the time required for the light to travel based on the
        > ccepted value of "c." It took me only a few seconds to come up with a solution
        > o the synchronization issue. Simply place a third station "C" halfway between
        > tations "A" and "B." Send a pulse from C to A and B. Under either the
        > enerally accepted model and Lisle's proposal the pulse would reach both A and B
        > t the same time and their clocks would be synchronized. It would then be a
        > imple matter to send a pulse from either station to the other and test Lisle's
        > roposal. Alternatively, one can send a synchroni
        > zation pulse from A to B. If Lisle is correct, both stations would then have
        > he same time. You could then send a pulse from B to A which should have no
        > elay as measured at A.
        >
        > 3) Perhaps most importantly..... GPS relies on the time delay of signals
        > ent from satellites to receivers to calculate position. If there is no time
        > elay, the GPS system wouldn't work. The very fact that GPS works speaks
        > trongly against Lisle's model.
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
      • PIASAN@aol.com
        By way of filling in the record on Jason Lisle s cosmological proposal..... it isn t new. He was proposing the dual velocity model for light years ago
        Message 3 of 6 , Mar 5, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          By way of filling in the record on Jason Lisle's cosmological proposal..... it isn't new.

          He was proposing the "dual velocity" model for light years ago (before he had tenure) under the pen-name "Robert Newton." That is why I said (in my initial comments): "it looks like a rehash of his 'dual speed' model."

          One doesn't need to read very far in his "new" work to know exactly why this version was (almost certainly) never submitted to the mainstream scientific journals.... and why it will gain no traction toward scientific acceptance. As Todd points out, it may reinforce the beliefs of those who are already convinced of a literal Genesis. They will point to his publication in AIG's house journal as a "peer reviewed" publication. They will claim it is the "bias of atheistic science" that prevents its acceptance in the general scientific community. Vast numbers of them will be completely unaware their GPS wouldn't work if Lisle is right.

          It will be interesting to see what Willis has to say about Lisle's model and my proposed tests of it. (Though I think the fact GPS works should be a sufficient test.)


          -----Original Message-----
          From: Todd Greene <greeneto@...>
          To: Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Sat, Mar 5, 2011 10:04 pm
          Subject: [M & B] Re: comments on Jason Lisle's cosmology



          There's no fairness about it at all. Since the guy completely ignores dealing
          ith other physicists his Ph.D. in physics is meaningless. The fact that he did
          orrect work to earn his Ph.D. doesn't mean he's doing science now. A snake oil
          alesman with a Ph.D. who ignores dealing with professional peers simply means
          e knows how to pile the manure higher and deeper with people who don't know
          etter.


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.