PDA

View Full Version : Neville Jones



The Saint
2005-Sep-27, 03:56 AM
Although he's also a geocentrist, Jones really "luvs" Bouw!

Does Jones come up with anything new here, or are they the same hoary chestnuts?
http://www.geocentric-universe.com/page81.htm

JayUtah
2005-Sep-27, 05:13 AM
No, Jones is pretty much out to lunch and seems to have just grabbed a bunch of the standard arguments and presented them as some sort of scientific claim. Here's my reivew of a paper he wrote on the moon hoax subject.

http://www.clavius.org/bibjones.html

Sticks
2005-Sep-27, 07:26 AM
Where does he get this from?

I hold that the creation of images of living creatures is contrary to Scriptural instruction.
That has got me worried now that as someone who takes photographs for the church directory I have been doing something henous :eh: :(

All I can think of is the bit about graven images (Exodus 20:3) but that was about the worship of idols :eh:

Then there is this


I have also watched Ralph Rene (whose book, "NASA Mooned America," is well worth reading) very effectively demonstrate the disruption caused by a hand-held leaf blower on a pile of gravel, as well as the almost impossible movement of his fingers in a glove pressurized to 5 psi above vacuum.


Did we cover these "demonstrations" here or on Clavius?

worzel
2005-Sep-27, 08:33 AM
Did we cover these "demonstrations" here or on Clavius?They're hardly worth covering they are so ridiculous. The leaf blower is operating in an atmosphere - not exactly analogous to the moon. The glove in a vacuum doesn't have constant volume joints.

Jones has been trying to prove Geocentricity with out much luck for some time now. I think his claim that the moon landing contradicts Geocentrism is an attempt to bolster his fallacious proofs with all the moon hoax bunk out there - and maybe convert a few woowoos in the process.

Sticks
2005-Sep-27, 09:24 AM
I thought I would look at some "creationst" sites to see how they handled the geocentricity issue.

Apologetic Press (http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2178) goes along with accepted scientific opinion on this issue

The Institute for Creation Research (http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=382) seems to say that because of relativity we can not prove geocentricity of heleocentricity and so stays on the fence :eh:

After that I kind of gave up for the moment.

BTW anything on the photography of living creatures issue?

Maksutov
2005-Sep-27, 10:39 AM
Where does he get this from?

I hold that the creation of images of living creatures is contrary to Scriptural instruction.That has got me worried now that as someone who takes photographs for the church directory I have been doing something henous :eh: :(

All I can think of is the bit about graven images (Exodus 20:3) but that was about the worship of idols
[edit]BTW anything on the photography of living creatures issue?It appears you're really hung up on that (BTW, if you're doing something "henous" then it's meaningless, but if you're doing something "heinous", then you're in deep (well, you know the Bush phrase)). If for some reason it turns out (to your way of looking at it) that such things are verboten, then what are you going to do?

Eliminate your avatar?

http://img396.imageshack.us/img396/9185/sticks1cc.jpg

Smash gravestones?

http://img396.imageshack.us/img396/425/maryfowler6ho.th.jpg (http://img396.imageshack.us/my.php?image=maryfowler6ho.jpg)

Petition against photomicrography of algae?

http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/147/dinobryan1qe.th.jpg (http://img301.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dinobryan1qe.jpg)

Start burning books that have pictures?

http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/3283/renoir5id.th.jpg (http://img301.imageshack.us/my.php?image=renoir5id.jpg)

What about word pictures, you know, when great writers cause distinct images of living things to appear in your mind when you read their words?

Join the Taliban in the destruction of ancient art?

http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/8500/20010322buddha26vb.jpg

Or get active re the outlawing of astrophotography (some of those stars may harbor life, which therefore becomes part of the image)?

http://img393.imageshack.us/img393/6447/199544alargeweb3tl.th.jpg (http://img393.imageshack.us/my.php?image=199544alargeweb3tl.jpg)

Then there is the alternative:

To join with the reasonable people who ask, "What issue?"

N C More
2005-Sep-27, 11:29 AM
The Institute for Creation Research (http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=382) seems to say that because of relativity we can not prove geocentricity of heleocentricity and so stays on the fence :eh:


Yep, I just *love* this line of reasoning. Relativity does little for the vast majority of their faith based claims but because it leaves this one aspect unresolved they readily embrace it. For some reason they don't seem to comprehend that relativity doesn't offer any more support for geocentrism than it does for any other "centrism"! This is the same selective cherry picking used to support intelligent design. Science is deemed useful only when it offers support for their faith based claims. This sort of thing irritates me. :wall:

Sticks
2005-Sep-27, 11:32 AM
To join with the reasonable people who ask, "What issue?"

That is sort of what I was asking, (apologies about my poor spelling BTW)

I encountered this kind of thing before, when a member of the church informed me that it was unscriptural to eat black pudding. (The arguments about that issue are beyond the scope of the board)

Some have hang ups about dancing, mixed bathing at swimming pools, Harry Potter and the like

The point is, especially in certain religious circle, say or admit to the wrong thing and you are a heretic, and then other nasties follow. When I know where something is coming from, I can tackle it and at least put up a defence, but this photography issue has come out of the blue, and it make you wonder how common is that belief, and what position are the people in who hold it, and what damage can they do

If you thought normal politics was bad, you have not seen church politics. I have, even down to the local level in another time and another place, and it was not very pleasant, even when like me you try and stay neutral.

I ask not because I want to ban images, but because of sheer paranoia :shifty:

worzel
2005-Sep-27, 11:40 AM
Yep, I just *love* this line of reasoning. Relativity does little for the vast majority of their faith based claims but because it leaves this one aspect unresolved they readily embrace it. For some reason they don't seem to comprehend that relativity doesn't offer any more support for geocentrism than it does for any other "centrism"! This is the same selective cherry picking used to support intelligent design. Science is deemed useful only when it offers support for their faith based claims. This sort of thing irritates me. :wall:Yeah. Creationists often present this relativistic argument in a way that suggests that there is therefore a 50% chance of Geocentrism being right and a 50% chance of Heliocentrism being right - relativity being unable to say which, which only leaves the "evidence" of the bible. Defending Geocentrism by attacking the Heliocentric strawman with relativity takes some mental gymnastics :)

Maksutov
2005-Sep-27, 12:09 PM
[edit]The point is, especially in certain religious circle, say or admit to the wrong thing and you are a heretic, and then other nasties follow.I can identify with that. When I was a child, as a "compromise" (a long story) between my Catholic and Lutheran parents, I was sent to the local Congregational church, a descendant of the New England Puritan church. It was very interesting being called a "heretic", "evil", and "hell-bound" at age 7.


[edit]If you thought normal politics was bad, you have not seen church politics. I have, even down to the local level in another time and another place, and it was not very pleasant, even when like me you try and stay neutral.When it came time to replace the semi-senile minister of said Congregational church, the political infighting I was exposed to was not only on a par with national politics, but one of the reasons why, at age 14, I walked out of that institution (and all organized religion) and never looked back. Now, in retrospect, I'd describe it as "my baloney meter being pegged".


I ask not because I want to ban images, but because of sheer paranoia :shifty:Sorry to hear that. Hope you eventually get over it. Hang in there.

Sticks
2005-Sep-27, 02:20 PM
So far the congregation I am with does not have the internal church politic that I had to endure elsewhere, but as the minister receives some support from overseas, one always feels that one has to watch what one says in an open forum. Be paranoid, be vey paranoid :shifty:

I used to post on a list server, and then it got quite political and vitriolic. I used the excuse of a holiday to Lundy, an island where the Bristol Channel meets the Atlantic to unsbscribe, a month or so after on one of them brown smelly stuff hit an electric air moving device. I will spare you further details, but I was lucky that at that time I had left. :eek: :whistle:

Any hue, I am still wondering if the image ban is based on the prohibitions on the worship of idols

However I have found two Old Testament examples where images of living creatures was either commanded or tacitly approved of

1) The Bronze snake made by Moses (Numbers 21:8-9)
2) The Decorations in the first Solomonic temple (1 Kings 6 and 7)

Not certain about examples in the New Tetament, there is the coin that Jesus held when asked about paying taxes, which had a portrait of Caeser on, (a definite no no to Jews at that time as they saw that as a graven image), where he gave the "render unto Caeser" response (Mat 22:19-21). There is the coment from Paul about idols being nothing (1Cor 8:4). Not to mention the imagery that Jesus uses in his parables.

But any hue
Even if it is from the Old Testament, although there was a lot of condemming of idols, which were objects of worship, in those two other places the "creation of images of living creatures" was not contrary to scriptural injunction. (I still await to see if he gets this from anywhere else :shifty: )

What was condemned from what I can see was the construction of an image in order to worship it. There is one psalm that mocks this concept, with arguments that those of no faith could agree with.

If Mr Jones has over looked those two examples which belong in the bible side of things, which should be his forte, what else has he over looked

<<Shouts of "Quite a lot">> I hear you all cry in front of your monitors as you read this

ToSeek
2005-Sep-27, 04:24 PM
They're hardly worth covering they are so ridiculous. The leaf blower is operating in an atmosphere - not exactly analogous to the moon. The glove in a vacuum doesn't have constant volume joints.

Jones has been trying to prove Geocentricity with out much luck for some time now. I think his claim that the moon landing contradicts Geocentrism is an attempt to bolster his fallacious proofs with all the moon hoax bunk out there - and maybe convert a few woowoos in the process.

If Jones's version of Geocentricity is true, then the Moon is orbiting the Earth almost once per day rather than once per month, and any Apollo spacecraft out there is going to be swatted into oblivion by a Moon hurtling toward it at 8 miles per second. Jones isn't just riding the coat-tails of the Apollo hoax, he has to claim that just about every space mission from geocentric satellites on out is faked, else his theory would collapse.

N C More
2005-Sep-27, 04:50 PM
If Jones's version of Geocentricity is true, then the Moon is orbiting the Earth almost once per day rather than once per month, and any Apollo spacecraft out there is going to be swatted into oblivion by a Moon hurtling toward it at 8 miles per second. Jones isn't just riding the coat-tails of the Apollo hoax, he has to claim that just about every space mission from geocentric satellites on out is faked, else his theory would collapse.

Bingo, this is one of many good arguments against geocentrism that these guys just tap dance around. It's amazing to see the lengths they will go to in order to protect their faith based position.

JayUtah
2005-Sep-27, 04:50 PM
Celestial mechanics has been around for more than a century. Its red-headed stepbrother, orbital mechanics, is a very useful, very predictive, and very physically-based model. Jones would have to reinvent all of that in order to make his theory true. Often the nuttiness of a theory can be determined by how much of accepted history and science must be wholly rewritten to accommodate it.

ToSeek
2005-Sep-27, 05:20 PM
Celestial mechanics has been around for more than a century. Its red-headed stepbrother, orbital mechanics, is a very useful, very predictive, and very physically-based model. Jones would have to reinvent all of that in order to make his theory true. Often the nuttiness of a theory can be determined by how much of accepted history and science must be wholly rewritten to accommodate it.

For Jones, everything after Copernicus is suspect, including Kepler and Newton. (He repeatedly refers to Newton's theory of gravity - possibly the single best-established and most-used theory in science - as a "guess.")

Sticks
2005-Sep-27, 06:55 PM
Yeah. Creationists often present this relativistic argument in a way that suggests that there is therefore a 50% chance of Geocentrism being right and a 50% chance of Heliocentrism being right - relativity being unable to say which, which only leaves the "evidence" of the bible. Defending Geocentrism by attacking the Heliocentric strawman with relativity takes some mental gymnastics :)

At least the Apologetics Press (http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2178) site does not pull this double talk. It plainly goes along with Heleocentrism by the looks of it and no appeals to Relativity.

There are some creationists who are not geocentrists. That must be a start, sort of ?

worzel
2005-Sep-27, 07:01 PM
For Jones, everything after Copernicus is suspect, including Kepler and Newton. (He repeatedly refers to Newton's theory of gravity - possibly the single best-established and most-used theory in science - as a "guess.")But he still uses it to "prove" that the moon landing couldn't happen [ and that the moon isn't there to boot :) ]

This is what is so infuriating about Jones, either he must accept his proof and the corollary that the moon is just an illusion, or he must accept that the theory on which his proof rests is flawed (Geocentric Newtonian Mechanics in this case). But no, not only has he proved the moon landing couldn't happen, but he has also called into question the very foundations of Newtonian mechanics because his "proof" also leads to other ridiculous conclusions :rolleyes:

tbm
2005-Sep-27, 10:17 PM
"I note in passing that Cuban schoolchildren are clearly better educated than their Americon cousins."

Well, at least they can probably spell "American".

Round one to the Cubans!

tbm

BTW, as I was reading the debate, my Cuckoo clock went off. Yep!!

worzel
2005-Sep-27, 10:51 PM
http://www.geocentric-universe.com/page40.htm (http://www.geocentric-universe.com/page40.htm):mad:

He's still got my name on there as the only acknowledgement! And the only input I had was to point out a fatal mathematical mistake in his first version of the proof. Not only has he never actually acknowledged this, but he has come up with a completely different (and equally flawed) argument and I can't even protest his acknowledgement (which makes it look as if I support his current conjuring trick) because I am banned from his forum and he has personally told me that any email I send him will be treated as spam before he sees it - all ostensibly because I don't believe in God and won't stick to his agenda which requires us to move on to the Apollo hoax and brush under the carpet his previous glaring errors that I have exposed!

I suppose he thinks he's had the last laugh, he probably thinks I'm under the impression that my name actually means something :lol:

Ok, rant over.

hhEb09'1
2005-Sep-28, 05:51 AM
And the only input I had was to point out a fatal mathematical mistake in his first version of the proof.It could be worse. He took down the page I "helped" him with, and claimed there never was an error. :)

Yorkshireman
2005-Sep-28, 08:50 AM
I'm also on the Neville Jones credits pages (http://www.geocentric-universe.com/page7.htm). What irony.

To respond to Sticks, Jones is not any kind of conventional Christian. His belief is a pick and choose of the bits of the Bible he feels are 'uncorrupted' by later revisionists, and as others have pointed out here, his cosmology is more like a variant of 'The Truman Show' than any real science. (Samples: small, gravityless Moon whirling round the Earth, entire cosmos a few tens of thousands of kilometres in radius, Earth is the only world, all space missions are faked - not just Apollo.)

Specifically regarding the images of living creatures thing, he debated this with members of his forum here (http://www.freelists.org/archives/geocentrism/03-2005/msg00537.html). As you can see, he got few (read:no) people agreeing with him. Also, why has he a picture of a tree on his own website? Bit pagan, that...

worzel
2005-Sep-28, 09:38 AM
It could be worse. He took down the page I "helped" him with, and claimed there never was an error. :)Yeah I remember, you had him on the ropes before he'd even thought out his exit strategy.

Sticks
2005-Sep-28, 11:31 AM
Specifically regarding the images of living creatures thing, he debated this with members of his forum here (http://www.freelists.org/archives/geocentrism/03-2005/msg00537.html). As you can see, he got few (read:no) people agreeing with him. Also, why has he a picture of a tree on his own website? Bit pagan, that...

I have noted that he is using for his law, OT passages, now in the OT there were instructions about animal sacrifices and restrictions on eating pork, does he observe all the Levitical food laws to be consistant?. Without going into a lot of theology here, beyond the scope of this board, he needs a command copied across in to the NT to make this binding on us today. That was why I wittered on about getting trying to get NT references of the authorised use of images. NT law supercedes OT law. The best secular example I can think of is the replacement in the colonies across the pond of English law with new fangled American law.

Even so with my earlier examples, even in the OT period there was the authorised use of images of living creatures, with one example being specifically commanded to be produced.

ToSeek
2006-May-04, 09:16 PM
I just went looking for Neville Jones's website to see if he had any recent updates, and it's gone - the domain name has expired.

SpitfireIX
2006-May-04, 11:31 PM
Last year I printed copies of Jones's paper, along with Jay's comments, and gave them to both of my physics professors, because they like to go to lectures by Young Earth Creationists and ask embarrassing questions during the q&a afterwards. A few days later I asked one of them if he'd read it, and he said, "I started to, but I had to stop, because it was too disturbing." :eek:

SpitfireIX
2006-May-04, 11:59 PM
I did a Google search for "Neville T. Jones," and the first hit was from Clavius. :dance:

I couldn't find his paper anywhere else on the web, either.

I did come across a letter (http://www.fixedearth.com/Jones%27%20Mars%20letter.htm) that Jones wrote to The Guardian claiming that the "distance" from the Earth to Mars of 7.2*10^10 m is incorrect, because this would mean that the planet would subtend an angle of only about 20 arc seconds, but the human eye can't resolve anything smaller than 24 arc seconds. Can anyone explain this? My assumption is that this is incorrect, but I haven't had optics (yet), so I don't know for sure. No mention of whether the "distance" is the minimum, maximum, or average. Also no mention of whether the letter was actually published.

PhantomWolf
2006-May-05, 01:04 AM
I did come across a letter that Jones wrote to The Guardian claiming that the "distance" from the Earth to Mars of 7.2*10^10 m is incorrect, because this would mean that the planet would subtend an angle of only about 20 arc seconds, but the human eye can't resolve anything smaller than 24 arc seconds. Can anyone explain this? My assumption is that this is incorrect, but I haven't had optics (yet), so I don't know for sure.

It's not optics, it's trigonometry.

θ = Cos-1(rmoon/dmoon)

editedto add, unless you're talking the min resolution of the eye. :) That's google. ;)

SpitfireIX
2006-May-05, 02:51 AM
I did come across a letter that Jones wrote to The Guardian claiming that the "distance" from the Earth to Mars of 7.2*10^10 m is incorrect, because this would mean that the planet would subtend an angle of only about 20 arc seconds, but the human eye can't resolve anything smaller than 24 arc seconds. Can anyone explain this? My assumption is that this is incorrect, but I haven't had optics (yet), so I don't know for sure.

It's not optics, it's trigonometry.

θ = Cos-1(rmoon/dmoon)

editedto add, unless you're talking the min resolution of the eye. :) That's google. ;)
Yes, I was talking about the angular resolution, which is given on Wikipedia as 1-2 arc minutes. I would guess that we can see the light, but we can't truly perceive the round shape of Mars with the naked eye. I'll try to remember to ask one of my physics profs tomorrow.

Thanks for the trig review, though--after my trig mind blank during my statics final last night, I clearly needed it. :doh:

PhantomWolf
2006-May-05, 03:25 AM
I would guess that we can see the light, but we can't truly perceive the round shape of Mars with the naked eye.

That would be why it appears as a point of light in the sky, just like the stars, though obviously brighter. The human eye is very good at differentiating between bright and dark sources of light (or even dark and darker ones) even if it can't determine the shape and size of the object that is emitting/reflecting that light

mid
2006-May-05, 01:55 PM
Indeed. All our inability to resolve Mars with the naked eye means is that it's effectively a point source. Not that it's invisible.

After all, Polaris is 431 light years away and only 30 times as big as our Sun. Is he suggesting that we can't see that, either?

mid
2006-May-05, 01:57 PM
Oops. A bit more reading suggests that's exactly what he's saying. Or, rather, that his numbers mean that, since he can see stars in the night sky, all of modern astronomy is a pack of lies, and those stars aren't nearly as far away as we claim.

JayUtah
2006-May-05, 07:55 PM
Resolution is generally defined as the ability to distinguish separation between two features or objects, not to see an object per se.

If one's visual acuity is expressed as a certain angle, and two objects are separated by more than that angular distance, then diffraction will not be a limiting factor in the perception of those two objects as separate objects and not as the same object. That in no way expresses anything about the overall visibility of a single object. And it pretty much hammers the last nail in the coffin of Jones' claims to any sort of expertise in astronomy or physics.

There are indeed many assumptions associated with expressions of acuity and resolution. In astronomy the assumption is that the objects are bright against a black background, and are indeed point sources. There are also assumptions about the mathematical feasibility of deconvolving the diffraction patterns. The latter can lead to estimates of acuity that differ by factors as great as 2.

twinstead
2006-May-05, 07:57 PM
Jay I have a brilliant and witty response ready for your most recent post, as soon as I figure out what it is about ;)

JayUtah
2006-May-05, 09:16 PM
I've waited all day for the opportunity to use "deconvolving" in a sentence.

Basically, as has been said, the ability to see a single object like Mars -- especially when it's bright against a black background -- has little to do with visual acuity. The angular diameter of the object itself is entirely irrelevant.

As you are probably aware, diffraction is the physical phenomenon affecting reflection and refraction that occurs when light encounters the boundary of an object. A portion of the light is scattered deterministically by interactions at the molecular level. One of my customers actually uses one of my computers to process diffractive reflection of a laser beam from a surface in order to perform real-time quality control on the surface finish at the microscopic level. The "grainy" pattern you see when a laser lights a surface is diffraction.

Visually the diffraction pattern introduced by optical surfaces focusing a single point source resembles a soft-edged bullseye pattern that fades in peak amplitude with each outward step. The center bullseye circle is the important thing. The source is a point, but it resolves through the optics as a circle. The question is how far apart two circles have to be in order for you to recognize that they are two overlapping circles and not just one lumpy circle.

If you draw a line across the middle of the field of view of a telescope and use the position along that line as the x-axis of a graph, and the intensity of light measured at that position as the y-coordinate, you can graph the classical pattern produced by optical diffraction. The graph looks like a high sinusoidal peak in the middle with a symmetrical arrangement of much smaller peaks falling away rapidly to either side.

With two objects very close together it will be difficult to separate one peak from the other because their signals are convolved (superimposed). The question is how far apart those two patterns have to be in order to see them as two patterns and not just a noisy single pattern. Generally that's held to be a peak-to-peak distance half the base width of the main peak. The distance on the x-axis will correspond to an angular separation in your field of view in the telescope.

The exact width of those peaks depends on the overall size of the primary and the wavelength of the light. So if you can make the peak narrower (i.e., larger primary) then they can be closer together while still appearing to be separate.

Signal processing engineers have a variety of techniques for separating (deconvolving) these peaks ("signals") even if they are relatively close together, so the estimate of acuity that is limited by diffraction necessarily entails an assumption of what method will be used to deconvolve the image.

If the source is not a point source, it will not appear in the view as a point source. It will appear as a shape with diffracted edges. On the graph it will look like a truncated peak -- with a flat top. The diffraction principles still apply, but only at the edges.

The source becomes a point source when it is no longer possible to distinguish whether its peak on the graph has a flat top. At that point, getting farther away from the source reduces the amplitude of that peak until it is no longer detectable.

If you want to put that in visual terms, you get close enough to Mars so that it shows up as a distinct disk. Then you recede from it. At a certain point it falls below your ability to recognize it as a disk. It is a point source. As you continue to recede, the amplitude of the source decreases until it is no longer bright enough to see.

twinstead
2006-May-05, 10:38 PM
Ah, now it makes sense. Thanks Jay

SpitfireIX
2006-May-06, 01:46 AM
Ah, now it makes sense. Thanks Jay

Yes, thanks, Jay--I figured you'd know the answer.

Maksutov
2006-May-08, 02:38 PM
Yes, thanks, Jay--I figured you'd know the answer.W. R. Dawes would be impressed too...up to a limit, that is.