Search This Blog

Thursday, March 03, 2011

Kevin answers the Hartnett Question...Who was wrong???!!! A look at the fourth dimension and the Creation Week

To set the scene, there was a post I made back in 2007 in which a hypothesis presented by one John G. Hartnett was presented along with a great deal of additional information.  Afterwards there was a great deal of fuss about the math Hartnett presented.. mostly after I reposted the article in another context.  I don't remember which post that one was, but I did first put the article up in 2007.   More than one commenter but I believe primarily scohen criticized Hartnett's math and since I am a historic/forensic science buff who detests higher math, I could not be certain whether he was right or not.  I assumed scohen probably knew what he was talking about.

So I did have some contacts who were capable of figuring it out but they were rather busy, one being not only an honors student at the time but the head honcho of a certain academic club I will not mention and also having become affianced, I did not bother him therefore.   The other is also in the military, a Captain who has pulled three tours of duty as an IED hunter in and around Baghdad, is married, is in charge of a military base in terms of logistics currently while also doing extra duty and, when not otherwise employed, is a city planner.   He sent me a note saying that the math worked and perhaps Hartnett made a notational error.  I can imagine he was so busy that he didn't give it much thought and, knowing his life, it is understandable.  He basically said Hartnett's equation was okay.

Commenters hated that answer and railed at me to get Hartnett to explain his mistake.   I did contact Hartnett and he never replied.   So then it occurred to me recently that I knew another math brain to whom I could go.   I talked to him about it personally when he came up for a short weekend break to see his family and stop by church.   He told me to send him an email with the formula(s) and he would determine whether they were right or wrong and if there were any constants being listed as variables or vice-versa.   For the sake of context I sent him the entire article so he could be certain of what he was seeing.   This is what I wrote and he was expecting it to come:

"Kevin,

Would you look at the two equations on this post -
http://creation.com/a-new-cosmology-solution-to-the-starlight-travel-time-problem

 


And see if a constant is being presented as a variable or vice-versa?   That is the claim of my blog commenters?  I am not good with advanced math I am more of a historic/forensic type scientist type of geek.

Thanks, hope you are having fun and learning lots of stuff!"

Now that post is the exact one I used on my site and it was the equations listed on the post (click on the link and read for yourself) that were questioned.   In fact it was boldly stated that Hartnett was wrong and that I was a liar for posting his hypothesis.  But Kevin is a math brain and an information specialist who could understand why I wanted an explanation that was more detailed than I had previously received and determined once and for all whether Hartnett or the commenters were correct.  Now let me give you Kevin's answer:

"Hey Kimbal,

The first equation is simply defining a ratio of the passage of time in two locations with t_0 being a measure of time that passes on Earth (or whatever bubble around Earth had a slower clock) and t being a measure of time that passes elsewhere in the universe.  He probably derived the ratio that he used (10^-13) based on the amount of astronomical time that he wanted to show could elapse within a day here (30 billion years), but these calculations were meant as an example, so that should be fine.

The integrals themselves are probably a more complicated way to convey his point than is necessary.  Because we have defined a ratio of time here to time elsewhere, we can simply use that ratio to convert between different time 'units'.  Essentially, the second equation converts from 1 day here (.003 years) to the equivalent number of years elsewhere by multiplying .003 years by the inverted ratio (to keep units correct).  The only variable is the measure of time that we want to convert (.003 years in the example).  Everything else is just a conversion factor (like 12inches/1foot).

The only criticism I could see about those equations is that time is typically the one variable that can be substituted freely among different equations because time is generally assumed to not slow down and speed up based on position, but that is the entire claim of this article.  Anyone that has a problem with the equations has a problem with the claim of the article itself; the equations themselves work in the context of the claims of the article.

Personally, I think our inability to explain how the universe created can be attributed to our inability to understand the fact that God is timeless and the implications of that fact.  He exists outside of time, so us trying to explain the events of the first 7 days in the context of time is futile.  When God created the universe, He did not start with a chunk of matter and energy and sculpt it into galaxies and stars and planets.  That would imply a sense of time (both in the time to sculpt and and a time at which the universe was created and started progressing through time).  Instead, when God created the universe, he created what it was AND what it was going to be. Any (4th dimensional) object within this universe could be moved around (in the 4th dimension) within our own timeline.  With that said, making the claim that the universe was created in 7 days is quite unimpressive because those 7 days are simply the points in our timeline that God chose to introduce these 4th dimensional objects, but he could have spent infinite 'time' creating those objects and could have introduced them into our timeline at any point in the objects own timeline.  Our ability to explain the creation of the universe lies in our ability to explain the timeless nature of God, and I don't see how we could ever explain something that is impossible for us to understand, although it certainly is fun to try to.

Kevin"

Kevin is a smart guy and I knew he would come through for me if he understood that it was important, so I was happy that he responded in such detail.   I had a "duh" moment as he explained it and it was clear as day.  He said this:

"...Anyone that has a problem with the equations has a problem with the claim of the article itself; the equations themselves work in the context of the claims of the article..."

So now I get it...the commenters didn't read the entire post and analyzed the equations based on their own preconceptions.   Anyone who has taken a physics course in the last fifty years would know that time/speed of light/etc.  are not actually constants but can be variables under the right conditions.   The event horizon of a white hole would, for instance, be a situation in which time there would vary widely from time elsewhere in the Universe...assuming you believe and understand to some extent Relativity Theory.  

It should also be obvious from language and phrasing that Kevin is a real person who writes with a somewhat different style than mine and is far better at math than me.  So much for you who claimed he is a mythical character.   Isn't it interesting that scohen, now proved to be wrong, is afraid to give us his GA thoughts but Kevin has no problem sharing his opinion of the math and concept of Hartnett here on the blog?
The bottom line is that this was just another case of commenters not reading through the post, just skimming and then making their ignorant claims.   Usually I spot them and point out that, if they had read the article, they would not ask those questions or make those statements.  But this time they had me going and, if Kevin had agreed the formula(s) were wrong I was going to track Hartnett down.   But now I do not have to and now I understand why he didn't explain his mistake.  HE DIDN'T MAKE ONE!!!

"...Anyone that has a problem with the equations has a problem with the claim of the article itself; the equations themselves work in the context of the claims of the article..." -  Kevin

““For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,” declares the LORD. “As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.” - Isaiah 55:8-9 

37 comments:

SciReg said...

Oh, it is a great post! I really like it!^_^

scohen said...

Radar,

I'm busy today and don't have much time to devote to this, but Kevin did say this:

"The integrals themselves are probably a more complicated way to convey his point than is necessary."

Which is, was, and has always been what I've been saying. Hartnett could have represented them with multiplication, which everyone understands.

This statement:
"And see if a constant is being presented as a variable or vice-versa? That is the claim of my blog commenters?"

Is simply not true. I never said anywhere that a constant was being represented as a variable.

Anonymous whatsit said...

... which is exactly why scohen asked for a direct dialogue with Kevin in the first place, which Radar is curiously not willing to facilitate.

Radar's filtering and misrepresentations (even if they may be based not on ill will, but a genuine lack of understanding) merely detract from the discussion.

Jon Woolf said...

Ah, so this was the infamous 'Hartnett issue.' Now I understand it.

The bit about using calculus instead of arithmetic was probably nothing more than Hartnett wanting to show off his l33t math skillz. A petty sin at worst. I'm more amused by the fact that he, Radar, or anyone else would think this argument is worth anything. It takes a completely unsupported argument -- in fact, by its own terms a completely unsupportable argument -- and claims to reach valid conclusions therefrom.

Cargo Cult science, fa'sure.

radar said...

Funny thing, when I realized I was wrong about Powerball I could own up to it. But when commenters are presented with evidence that Hartnett's equation works and that their previous castigations were wrong, they will not own up to them. I did not "filter" Kevin but rather repeated his email to me word for word.

Scohen did not say that Hartnett's math was inelegant, he said it was wrong. It is not wrong. So let's see if you are man enough to admit to it.

radar said...

Furthermore, this is my blog. It is not your blog or Kevin's blog. When and if Kevin decides to write a blog I will put it on my bloglinks and you can certainly go there and dialogue with him.

You should all be asking scohen why he is afraid to transmit his GA thoughts here to all of us. Kevin is certainly willing to have me publish his thoughts without hesitation. Anyone who has the slightest knowledge of word usage and language could tell that I did not write what Kevin said. His terminology and speech patterns are not the same as mine.

Cargo Cult? Isn't that what Darwinism has become? I mean, you guys cannot stand on evidence anymore so you have to keep repeating what sounded somewhat sane in 1880. Protoplasm is gone. Spontaneous generation is disproved. Mutation boundaries have been established. Irreducible complexity is here both in structure and information and also within complex symbiotic relationships. Talking to Darwinists is a bit like trying to explain modern science to a jungle medicine man.

creeper said...

"Funny thing, when I realized I was wrong about Powerball I could own up to it."

True, though it's not often that you realize you're wrong, even when the evidence is presented to you in very clear terms.

As is the case here.

"But when commenters are presented with evidence that Hartnett's equation works and that their previous castigations were wrong, they will not own up to them."

scohen has just told you in very clear terms why your reasoning is wrong. I'll pick it apart in more detail for you below.

"I did not "filter" Kevin but rather repeated his email to me word for word."

You filtered and misrepresented the argument to Kevin in the first place, which is why he was not able to directly address the argument.

Nevertheless, he picked up on it in his response, proving scohen right - without you realizing it.

-- creeper

creeper said...

"Scohen did not say that Hartnett's math was inelegant, he said it was wrong."

Link or retraction please.

"It is not wrong."

See scohen's actual argument.

"So let's see if you are man enough to admit to it."

scohen is smart enough to understand the actual argument he made, not the misshapen mutation you've turned it into.

scohen understands the argument.

Kevin also picked up on what scohen's argument was, and in passing proved scohen right.

Yet you, who don't understand what scohen's argument was, now stand in the middle, miscommunicating the argument to Kevin and playing schoolyard bully tactics instead of dealing with the arguments at hand - same as with the GA issue, which you're now trying to twist into scohen being supposedly afraid of transmitting his GA thoughts to you. Radar, not only has scohen done exactly that numerous times already on your blog, but the fact that he has done so has also been pointed out to you numerous times.

-- creeper

creeper said...

First of all, you now claim to have nailed down scohen, even though in the post you seem mighty confused about what the argument was or who said what etc.:

"To set the scene, there was a post I made back in 2007 in which a hypothesis presented by one John G. Hartnett was presented along with a great deal of additional information. Afterwards there was a great deal of fuss about the math Hartnett presented.. mostly after I reposted the article in another context. I don't remember which post that one was, but I did first put the article up in 2007. More than one commenter but I believe primarily scohen criticized Hartnett's math and since I am a historic/forensic science buff who detests higher math, I could not be certain whether he was right or not. I assumed scohen probably knew what he was talking about."

To clear this up, here is the post in which the subject came up: http://radaractive.blogspot.com/2008/05/more-commentary-and-answers-worldview.html - see scohen's actual argument in the comments there. This (instead of "see if a constant is being presented as a variable or vice-versa") is what you should have presented to Kevin - and what scohen would have told Kevin if you had not stood in the way.

Read scohen's actual argument, then read what Kevin wrote, and you will see that Kevin supports what scohen said.

Now why do I have an inkling that Radar is once again not "man enough" to admit such a simple fact?

-- creeper

creeper said...

Radar, if you don't believe that Kevin is in agreement with scohen's actual argument why not have him come over here to this blog, read scohen's actual argument, and have him tell us himself whether he agrees or not?

Or would that be too scary for you?

-- creeper

creeper said...

Blogger just swallowed yet another comment, presumably because it contained a link, which is what the previous comment was referring to - I'm now reposting the comment with some obvious changes to the link to try to sneak it in:

You now claim to have nailed down scohen, even though in the post you seem mighty confused about what the argument was or who said what etc.:

"To set the scene, there was a post I made back in 2007 in which a hypothesis presented by one John G. Hartnett was presented along with a great deal of additional information. Afterwards there was a great deal of fuss about the math Hartnett presented.. mostly after I reposted the article in another context. I don't remember which post that one was, but I did first put the article up in 2007. More than one commenter but I believe primarily scohen criticized Hartnett's math and since I am a historic/forensic science buff who detests higher math, I could not be certain whether he was right or not. I assumed scohen probably knew what he was talking about."

To clear this up, here is the post in which the subject came up: radaractive DOT blogspot DOT com/2008/05/more-commentary-and-answers-worldview.html - see scohen's actual argument in the comments there. This (instead of "see if a constant is being presented as a variable or vice-versa") is what you should have presented to Kevin - and what scohen would have told Kevin if you had not stood in the way.

Read scohen's actual argument, then read what Kevin wrote, and you will see that Kevin supports what scohen said.

Now why do I have an inkling that Radar is once again not "man enough" to admit such a simple fact?

-- creeper

creeper said...

Blogger just swallowed yet another comment, presumably because it contained a link, which is what the previous comment was referring to - I'm now chopping up the comment into shorter bits and trying a different way to describe the link to try to sneak it in:

You now claim to have nailed down scohen, even though in the post you seem mighty confused about what the argument was or who said what etc.:

"To set the scene, there was a post I made back in 2007 in which a hypothesis presented by one John G. Hartnett was presented along with a great deal of additional information. Afterwards there was a great deal of fuss about the math Hartnett presented.. mostly after I reposted the article in another context. I don't remember which post that one was, but I did first put the article up in 2007. More than one commenter but I believe primarily scohen criticized Hartnett's math and since I am a historic/forensic science buff who detests higher math, I could not be certain whether he was right or not. I assumed scohen probably knew what he was talking about."

-- creeper

creeper said...

To clear this up, here is the post in which the subject came up: radaractive DOT blogspot DOT com/2008/05/more-commentary-and-answers-worldview.html - see scohen's actual argument in the comments there. This (instead of "see if a constant is being presented as a variable or vice-versa") is what you should have presented to Kevin - and what scohen would have told Kevin if you had not stood in the way.

Read scohen's actual argument, then read what Kevin wrote, and you will see that Kevin supports what scohen said.

Now why do I have an inkling that Radar is once again not "man enough" to admit such a simple fact?

-- creeper

creeper said...

"Cargo Cult? Isn't that what Darwinism has become?"

In short, no. Wishful thinking again.

-- creeper

creeper said...

So there's no misunderstanding:

scohen's actual argument can be found in the comments HERE:

radaractive DOT blogspot DOT com/2008/05/more-commentary-and-answers-worldview.html

-- creeper

Captain Stubing said...

"You should all be asking scohen why he is afraid to transmit his GA thoughts here to all of us."

He already told us, so obviously he's not being chicken about that.

What we're asking is why you're so afraid of having Kevin interact with anyone but you. Clearly you must realize by now that your filtering of the communication is less than adequate. Plus you've already admitted that both scohen and Kevin know more about the issue than you do, so what's stopping you?

radar said...

Typical. After so many castigations of Hartnett the commenters are epic failures. The equation represents what Hartnett was arguing and scohen was wrong. But neither he nor anyone else can own up to it. So cry all you like, you are w-r-o-n-g.

scohen said...

My argument has always been that:
1. Integrating a constant doesn't make sense (and that's what you see here). It makes more sense to just multiply.

2. Hartnett deliberately used a more complex form to make his article look more 'sciencey'.

You can disagree with my characterization in #2, but you can't disagree with #1. Kevin even said as much:

The integrals themselves are probably a more complicated way to convey his point than is necessary. Because we have defined a ratio of time here to time elsewhere, we can simply use that ratio to convert between different time 'units'.

Yes Kevin, *exactly*. Hartnett could have just multiplied by the ratio and arrived at the correct answer.

"So cry all you like, you are w-r-o-n-g."

First off, grow up.

Second, if I was wrong, why didn't Kevin say so? He could have easily said that integrals were absolutely correct in this context and I was blowing smoke. Yet what's interesting is despite your inaccurate yet innocent mis-characterization of my argument, Kevin still understood what I was getting at.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"Typical. After so many castigations of Hartnett the commenters are epic failures. The equation represents what Hartnett was arguing and scohen was wrong. But neither he nor anyone else can own up to it. So cry all you like, you are w-r-o-n-g."

Epic failures? The commenters pointed out the following:

1. That your claims of what the commenters have stated were wrong.

This happens to be true. It was demonstrated very clearly and you've been unable to demonstrate otherwise.

The derision and schoolyard taunts that you've chosen to respond with are not arguments.

2. That Kevin confirmed instead of denied scohen's actual arguments. Unlike you, a commenter found and linked to scohen's actual argument, something you should have done in the first place and should now surely look at if you want to keep claiming that scohen was wrong in the first place. Not doing so means you're acting in bad faith from here on.

You have yet to demonstrate any understanding of scohen's argument. Either here or in the original comment thread.

If you don't believe the commenters, why not have Kevin drop by here and figure it out for you?

radar said...

Now you change your tune. I have been accused of lying for posting the Hartnett piece and several commenters said his math was wrong. I was not wrong. It could have been done more simply (Which is probably what Cecil meant when I asked him two years ago) but Hartnett could have his own reasons behind expressing it the way he did. But Hartnett's equation is not wrong as commenters claimed and posting it was not posting lies. Several of you commenters made both charges but you sure do back and fill nicely.

I understand what Kevin said and I think he summarized things beautifully.

Anonymous said...

Compare:

Scohen did not say that Hartnett's math was inelegant, he said it was wrong

to

But Hartnett's equation is not wrong as commenters claimed and posting it was not posting lies. Several of you commenters made both charges but you sure do back and fill nicely.


You shifted from attacking Scohen's position on the Harnett debacle (probably because you should because his original position is shown in these comments to be different than you originally thought) to attacking "several of you commenters'" positions on it.

Well, "several of you commenters", defend your statements that Radar is vaguely referring to!!! If you, the "several of you commenters", don't respond, Radar will once again claim victory based on your default.

lava

Anonymous said...

"Now you change your tune."

You attacked scohen directly. When did scohen ever change his tune on this subject? (Or on any subject for that matter...?)

"I have been accused of lying for posting the Hartnett piece and several commenters said his math was wrong."

As an earlier commenter said, link or retraction. I just googled this and couldn't find a single hit on your blog. There was one commenter questioning whether his math was "sound". It seems that using integrals as an unnecessary level of obfuscation can easily fall under that category.

Another commenter called Hartnett a "deceiver and liar". Hartnett's tactic does appear to have been mildly deceptive (as Jon Woolf said, a minor sin).

There is absolutely no sign of you being accused of lying in reference to the Hartnett thing. So you're "stating an untruth" here.

If you don't want to retract the claim, then cough up a link where this took place.

"I was not wrong."

In answer to your question in the heading "Who was wrong?" it looks like primarily you were wrong in how over time you have misunderstood the argument. You've shown your own confusion in the wishy-washy introduction in the post above.

Anonymous said...

"It could have been done more simply (Which is probably what Cecil meant when I asked him two years ago) but Hartnett could have his own reasons behind expressing it the way he did."

He most certainly could, though no honorable ones come to mind.

"But Hartnett's equation is not wrong as commenters claimed"

Link? Where did commenters claim this?

"and posting it was not posting lies. Several of you commenters made both charges but you sure do back and fill nicely."

Google is your friend. Before adding this to your accusations, you should be able to back it up.

From the look of it, you can't. So why keep digging that hole?

"I understand what Kevin said and I think he summarized things beautifully."

If you understand what Kevin said, then do you also understand that it supports scohen's argument?

Do you?

radar said...

You commenters said Hartnett was wrong and that if Hartnett was wrong then creation.com published lies. Now that Kevin has illustrated clearly that Hartnett was NOT wrong if you accepted his math represented his concept you suddenly back and and pretend that all that yelping about Hartnett never happened?

The first thing I asked Kevin, in person, was to check if Hartnett's math was "hinky" or whether it was wrong or if a constant was used as a variable or vice versa...more detail than I put in the email because the email was giving Kevin a place to send his commments.

You all said Hartnett's math was wrong. You were wrong. If scohen wants to change his tune that is fine with me but don't even pretend you agreed with Kevin all along, for not one of you ever made a coherent argument to equal Kevin's...and I am pretty sure he is going to come here and comment himself this week.

radar said...

Here is a typical one of your many comments about Hartnett, from the day after Christmas:

Anonymous said...

"So you keep saying I am lying? How, by presenting evidence that is uncomfortable to you? What lies?"

You mean evidence like that of John Hartnett? He was exposed for the liar and deceiver he is.

Why doesn't that open your eyes, Radar? Afraid of the truth?
1:56 PM
Anonymous said...

"So you keep saying I am lying?"

Yep.

radar said...

Here is another one:

Taxandrian said...

Fear-mongering? I don't do it.

Well then, what exactly did you mean by the phrase "I do not wish anyone to "pay the price associated with rejecting God because they believe in bad science."? What is that 'price' people will pay when rejecting God because they believe in 'bad science'? Is it something bad? Then you are fear-mongering, no matter which way you look at it.
More importantly though, why did you need to put that phrase in? Couldn't stand the article on its own merit?

Oh, and by the way: after the Hartnett debacle you are not really in a position to lecture anyone about 'bad science'. If there ever was one example of bad science, that was it. And you defended it, remember?


Yes, I remember. In fact, I remember correctly. Commenters calling Hartnett a liar and claiming his math was terribly wrong, and now no one will admit to it? Priceless!

radar said...

As for scohen? His exact words:

scohen said...

Radar,
I haven't written since you've just been copying and pasting, but I thought you might like to know that the math you put up here is utter garbage. It's not that I disagree with the numbers (and I do, they seem made up), but the author is actually trying to dazzle you with integrals. The way he uses them is incorrect, they don't make sense and he's counting on you not knowing the difference.

In short, he's insulting your intelligence while lying to you. I've written a post on my blog that discusses this in more detail.

Personally, I'd be angry if someone insulted my intellect, and I certainly wouldn't post the offending document on my blog.

Here's hoping you start writing your own posts in the future.


Here's hoping you begin to remember what you have said and own up to it in the future...

radar said...

http://radaractive.blogspot.com/2008/05/more-commentary-and-answers-worldview.html

Go ahead and take a look at the comments, where after scohen calls Hartnett a liar he goes on to say:

He himself has defined dt/dt0 as 1.0x10^-13, which is a constant. The integral of a constant doesn't make sense. Hartnett has to know that. It's even reflected further to the right in the equation, where he multiplies the constant by 0.003 to get 30 Billion Years. Either he knows this, or he is the only physicist on the planet who doesn't understand undergraduate-level calculus. You disagree with my characterization of him as a liar, but what's it called when you purposely obfuscate in order to fool your audience?

My broader point here, is that this is a tactic that we've seen you fall for before, and it's manifestly apparent from your blog that you seem to be fairly bad at evaluating scientific evidence. Furthermore, the fact that such a simple error could diffuse through the entire creationist media uncorrected is indicative of the total lack of scientific rigor under which 'creation science' operates.

You rail against peer review, but I ask you, would an error this basic (so basic that someone with only an undergraduate education spotted it well after his calculus skills have atrophied) escape in to a scientific journal? Hardly.

I've shown the above to about 15 people so far, all of whom agree that it's nonsense. What can Hartnett possibly say that will make the above gibberish make some semblance of sense? It seems implausible that we're all wrong and he's right --especially for such a simple integral.


I guess Kevin is smarter than scohen and 15 of his friends? Or did scohen make the mistake of judging the equation without reading the article? Either way, you cannot deny your own words!

radar said...

Look, I am used to having commenters make attacks on me and it doesn't amount to a hill of beans. The important thing is truth. Untrue charges were leveled against Hartnett that have been shown to be untrue. Hartnett has been used like a club to whop me and my sources with for a long time and now we see that the rebound from the attack is more severe. Like I have often said, I do not lie on this blog. It would be self-defeating.

Will scohen admit that he was wrong when his own words are presented back to him? That is far more important to the quality of his own character than to the blog. The truth has been upheld and that IS important.

The veracity of creation.com and Hartnett have been successfully defended. Hartnett's hypothesis could be either right or wrong, we do not have the means to test it, but he is most certainly NOT a liar.

If you want to find liars, investigate Haeckel or Gingerich or Dawkins or the dumbbells who claimed that the "arsenic bacteria" were a fundamentally new life form. Typically Darwinists proclaim some "proof" of their hypothesis and then, when it is shown to be a fraud, not a peep out of them.

scohen said...

Radar,
I'm not wrong, kevin confirms it --if only you'd read what he wrote.

I can give you directions from your work to your house that takes you on a tour of your city and takes an hour, or I can give you directions that get you there directly in ten minutes. Both work but I'd classify one as garbage and 'wrong'.

I can use a sledgehammer to hang a picture on my wall, or I can use a 16oz claw hammer. One is the correct tool for the job and the other is not.

Can you or Kevin show any other examples of a scientist using an integral to multiply two numbers together? I bet you that you can't. What would happen if Kevin used integrals to multiply numbers in his computer programs? Hmmm?

"The veracity of creation.com and Hartnett have been successfully defended."

Hartnett's math, specifically using an integral to multiply two numbers is garbage, and I stand by my previous statement.

radar said...

scohen, look on this comments thread and read what you and others wrote. You and they are quoted exactly and for yours I included the post link.

Charges that me and creation.com were liars would be dredged up every few weeks because of Hartnett and what you said about his work. Now you want to deny what you said? It is right there in black and white. You were wrong.

scohen said...

I maintain that Hartnett used the integral solely because it looks more complex than simple multiplication.

The entire gist of his article is basically, "If I multiply the scientifically agreed upon age of the universe by some numbers I just made up, the result is 6-10000 years.".

Integrals make this look more 'sciencey'. He uses them to make himself and his argument to be more impressive than they are. Is that a lie? It is in my book. I haven't changed anything, and if you'll forgive my quoting myself:

Either he knows this, or he is the only physicist on the planet who doesn't understand undergraduate-level calculus. You disagree with my characterization of him as a liar, but what's it called when you purposely obfuscate in order to fool your audience?

That's me from a couple years ago.

So what is what hartnett did called?

radar said...

scohen, I directly quoted you calling him a liar and also deprecating the equation, while Kevin was able to read the article, analyze the math and affirm that it does work while also stating that the equation could have been presented more simply. But Hartnett could make it more complicated to represent the process by which he came to his conclusion. You apparently were too lazy to read the article and you were wrong in your accusations and now you are too proud to admit it. Then you turn it into a an attack on me?

Your words are copied a few comments above this one. They are your words. Anyone can read your words above and see that you did indeed make false charges against Hartnett and then against me.

Obviously you are incapable of admitting your mistake and therefore your credibility is shot, while a student who hasn't even obtained his BA has left you in the dust. It bodes well for Kevin's future but speaks ill of your present condition.

scohen said...

Oh my goodness radar. After I saw hartnett's equations the first time, I check with a PhD in Physics, a PhD in math and a friend with a masters in math and all agreed with me. Even Kevin agrees with me, if only you'd see it.

I've dumbed down my argument as much as I can, and it's obvious that I'll need to take a different tack with you. Sadly, you can't even see that I haven't changed my position one iota. I've utterly failed in explaining this to you even in the simplest terms. My position is and has always been that Hartnett is lying through obfuscation.

Radar, can you not see my point *at all*?

radar said...

Scohen? Yes, I see the point that you were wrong and hate seeing your words reprinted to remind you of the fact. You took Hartnett wrong. You didn't read the article, you just jumped on the math and you and your cohorts called me and Hartnett all sorts of names and, as it turns out, unjustly and stupidly.

I hate math like that. I admit to it. I didn't even claim I believed what Hartnett claimed. But unlike you, I read the article and I understood what he was asserting. So I understood what he was saying but you were too hasty to condemn him to even read the article. Surely you are smart enough to read and understand what Hartnett asserted, so therefore you simply didn't look before you leapt.

scohen said...

Radar,
You seriously can't see that I'm saying *exactly* the same thing that I said three years ago?

Hartnett is, and has always been an obfuscator. Feel free to quote me, as my tune hasn't changed one bit. I call it lying, your mileage may vary (and I said the *exact same thing* years ago).

Kevin bears me out, and it's obvious why you prevented me from talking to him directly.

Like I said, my tactics here will change.

scohen said...

"But unlike you, I read the article and I understood what he was asserting."

Radar, I read the entire article, and all he was 'asserting' (saying) was that if he multiplied by the age of the universe by a number that he made up, it came out to less than 10,000 years.

And, how did you understand that if you don't understand integrals?