Sunday, March 4, 2012

Geocentrism and "Mathemagic", Part 2..."The War of the PhD's Over How To Do The Math"

A development with respect to the earlier post covering Yukio Tomozawa's remarkable paper, claiming a mathematical demonstration of the impossibility of the standard, Friedman "balloon" universe, in light of the observed dipole in the CMB.

My old interlocutor Paul Rimmer has, after a lengthy hiatus, posted a response to the Tomozawa paper here.

UPDATE 3/10: It is clear that Paul has no intention of restoring the link. Alas, in the absence of the link, it were impossible to allow his solution to be assessed.

The status quo ante remains in place.

UPDATE 3/5: Paul has pulled the link to this down...

In it, we see that Paul claims Tomozawa has made a "mistake".

But it has been pointed out that Paul's answer apparently ignores the fact that Tomozawa's paper treats the expansion- the accelerating expansion- of the CMB, while Paul's treatment apparently ignores this acceleration.

More comments are beginning to flow in, and the entire shebang will eventually be written up, in the interest of determining whether there exists any truly logical, self-consistent basis upon which to claim that one ought to "shut up and calculate", based on the assumption, of course, that everyone agrees what the calculations should represent (it appears very likely at this point that everyone does not agree about what the calculations represent).

As another PhD, whose doctoral thesis was on General Relativity, apparently prophetically indicated at the end of my initial treatment of this matter:

"The (Big Bang) models based on (General Relativity) are castles built on sand.

1)      The equality of relative velocities cannot be tested in the photon frame, as the scientific method requires.

2)      Light speed in its own co-moving frame must be zero, not c.

3)      The westbound (Speed of Light) > c.

An inconsistent theory – like relativity – is worse than being wrong.  It can show anything is true – or false.
No discussion is possible until 1 & 2 are made consistent with reality.

Why let MS choose a battleground based on contradictions?"

I have opened this discussion up to several physicists, inviting them to comment on Tomozawa's initial theorems, and Paul Rimmer's claims of a "mistake" in them.

I will be updating these responses as they come in, in order to determine whether or not there exists any consistent, logical basis upon which issues such as this one can be dealt with, under the premises of standard model, General Relativity mathematics.......

Or whether even PhD's can come up with diametrically opposite conclusions from the same observations, based on the application of the same mathematics.

Let the Math Wars begin!


  1. Hi Mr.DeLano....

    Love your work. I'd like to invite you to a little Christian forum I've set up. There are about 4 or 5 of us there who are geocentrists, I am the admin. It's a quiet forum but we have a new member, an atheist who is challenging me on the issue. He seems quite intelligent and polite and I assure you that you will not have to deal with the usual ridicule and tedious stupidity that I have observed you endure in most of the discussions I have read on various forums/blogs.

    I really hope you come along and participate. I know that our small group can greatly benefit from your knowledge and experience in the field.

    Yours hopefully. Mike.

  2. Happy to see you both here and there, Mike!

  3. Mike:

    The posting rules at your forum do not allow me to post links.

    If you want, please copy the below reply and paste on the forum for me:


    Looks like a good thread here- I haven't had a chance to go through the whole thing but first off, I think the periodic concentric SDSS structure reported in Hartnet/Hirano 2008 and Hirano 2010 is much more readily visible in the actual NASA image here:

    And you can see the reported periodicities superimposed on the galaxy distribution here:

    You have to scroll down seven pages for the second image.

    I will try and address anything that I can find that seems useful.

    Thanks for the invite!

  4. Excellent! I'm so glad you signed up at our modest little forum.

    You might be interested in our research thread on stationary Earth(I try to limit debating on this one for easy reference of documentation) here:

    Any help with our opponent would be greatly appreciated, on the previous thread I posted to you.... when you have the time of course sir. I hope you get time to read through the topic and correct any errors in my teaching. I am no physicist or mathmagician, and have only been researching the topic 2 or 3 years.

    In Christ.

  5. P.S. I pasted your post here over your post in our forum as requested.

    I think the hyperlink restriction ends after 7 days.

    So glad to have you there.

  6. When are you going to put some new posts up?

  7. Sorry, Steve, it will probably be at least another couple of months.

    Work obligations............

    But thanks for continuing to check on the blog.

    God permitting, I will get back to it later on this summer.

  8. Mr. DeLano, I look forward with anticipation to the release of "The Principle." Is there a release date for it?

  9. Thank you so much for your interest, Mirari!

    We expect the film to be ready for release before the end of summer.

    Please pray for us!

  10. Rick,

    Any chance of you joining me here at one of the biggest Christian forums online if you got time?

    I'm being hounded by gatekeepers and their minions and I wouldn't mind a bit of backup with someone of your expertise.

    Thanks, Mike.

  11. Sure, Mike. Have limited time just now but I will be happy to drop by.

  12. Mike, I am sorry to say that the registration process is not allowing me to proceed. It seems the site already has a Rick DeLano registered (but it isn't me, that's for sure).

    If the site moderator would be willing to allow me to post, I would be happy to chime in.

  13. OK Mike I got in:

  14. Thanks for your contributions Rick. It's always a pleasure reading your posts. I hope some of your gentle patience can rub off on me as I'm becoming increasingly tired of the seemingly mind-boggling incompetence of some who claim to be scientists to accept scientific documentation, or maybe as you probably also suspect...they may not be totally honest.

    I'll drop in here if I need anymore help friend.