29 Nov 05
Originally posted by twhiteheadTo measure the distance of stars astronomers use trigonometric algorithms with the orbit of the earth as the base of the triangle. Being only 8 light minutes away from the sun, the diameter of the orbit of the earth is a mere 16 light minutes. This forms the base of a triangle measuring millions of light-years high - a very tall and narrow triangle indeed. Obviously a deviation of 0.0000001 % in their angle of observation throws everything out by a couple hundred-thousand light-years depending on how far the star is that is being measured. Using highly accurate telescopes the percentage of error is more negligible - so what is your point, I’m sure you are well aware that astronomy is on the edge between hard and soft science?
Do you believe that Galaxies exist ? If so what is your best estimate for the distace do some of them ? If you dont have an estimate what do you see as flaws in scientists estimates for those distances ?
I asked RBHill and he went silent.
29 Nov 05
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadI still fail to see your point. When I look through a telescope I see dots of light that I assume to be stars or planets - big deal - there are other stars and planets; what is this meant to prove? That a star cannot be created without it's light being present already?
There are about 100 billion stars in our own galaxy. And although the term 'Galaxy' is a man made word the structure can hardly be said to be "grouping the ones that are closest together" any more than a tree is just "grouping leaves that are closest together"
Anyway my real question to Halitose was whether he accepts that celestial bodies such as ...[text shortened]... they are. Or is making vague statements about scientists having no evidence the best he can do.
29 Nov 05
Originally posted by HalitoseI do not see how dating methods are accurate for the fact that we cannot run any experiment over the same time frame of earth's existance plus what the sample has been exposed during this period.As was said about how measuring the distance to stars can be thrown out greatly through a little margin of error so who is to say our vague dating methods are thrown out greatly also?Is this your point?
My position is that science uses unprovable assumptions in its dating methods. One can say I'm a weak agnostic when it comes to the age of celestial bodies. 😉
30 Nov 05
Originally posted by windmillThe fun thing about our dating methods is that they use induction, and have a predictable level of inaccuracy. Just as when conducting a proper survey, you can make a statement about the greater population, with a known level of error (the +/- x% listed in the fine print of any proper survey).
I do not see how dating methods are accurate for the fact that we cannot run any experiment over the same time frame of earth's existance plus what the sample has been exposed during this period.As was said about how measuring the distance to stars can be thrown out greatly through a little margin of error so who is to say our vague dating methods are thrown out greatly also?Is this your point?
30 Nov 05
Originally posted by echeceroWrong.If you were to make a statement per say....about the size of a future population you cannot factor in what you do not know.One little variance in this would be multiplied repeatedly by the time it reaches the estimation.Time is just as relative from a past to here as here to the future.Our test are done while time stands still with an 'UNKNOWN' level of accuracy.
The fun thing about our dating methods is that they use induction, and have a predictable level of inaccuracy. Just as when conducting a proper survey, you can make a statement about the greater population, with a known level of error (the +/- x% listed in the fine print of any proper survey).
30 Nov 05
Originally posted by echeceroWrong.If you were to make a statement per say....about the size of a future population you cannot factor in what you do not know.One little variance in this would be multiplied repeatedly by the time it reaches the estimation.Time is just as relative from a past to here as here to the future.Our test are done while time stands still with an 'UNKNOWN' level of accuracy.
The fun thing about our dating methods is that they use induction, and have a predictable level of inaccuracy. Just as when conducting a proper survey, you can make a statement about the greater population, with a known level of error (the +/- x% listed in the fine print of any proper survey).
30 Nov 05
Originally posted by windmilllol.this must be very good it's a double post!
Wrong.If you were to make a statement per say....about the size of a future population you cannot factor in what you do not know.One little variance in this would be multiplied repeatedly by the time it reaches the estimation.Time is just as relative from a past to here as here to the future.Our test are done while time stands still with an 'UNKNOWN' level of accuracy.
30 Nov 05
Originally posted by windmillNevermind. I'll stop trying to help; clearly mathematical modeling is not considered a useful tool to those who post here. Unfortunately, it affects so very much of our everyday lives, that I doubt it will be going away any time soon. Most unfortunate, given that it is apparently considered a bunch of "hooey."
Wrong.If you were to make a statement per say....about the size of a future population you cannot factor in what you do not know.One little variance in this would be multiplied repeatedly by the time it reaches the estimation.Time is just as relative from a past to here as here to the future.Our test are done while time stands still with an 'UNKNOWN' level of accuracy.
30 Nov 05
Originally posted by echeceroIt was an honest mistake!The computer i use is soooo slow....sometimes i have to click the button about 10 times to get any movement.I would like to hear more of what you have to say.I don't know what it is to mathematical model something....please explain.
Nevermind. I'll stop trying to help; clearly mathematical modeling is not considered a useful tool to those who post here. Unfortunately, it affects so very much of our everyday lives, that I doubt it will be going away any time soon. Most unfortunate, given that it is apparently considered a bunch of "hooey."
30 Nov 05
Originally posted by windmillO.K.....here's an example for you.What say everyone here was trying to fix me up for getting angry when this comp is toooo slow.Then i do a 'double post' and everyone realises they were wrong and had been hurting me by trying to fix the wrong thing.Guilt covers the entire website and everyone begins to become more patient.Everyone starts to work as a team and great changes are made to the world.Go down the track 6000 years and tell me how those people would'mathimatical model'.....MY FINGER!
It was an honest mistake!The computer i use is soooo slow....sometimes i have to click the button about 10 times to get any movement.I would like to hear more of what you have to say.I don't know what it is to mathematical model something....please explain.
30 Nov 05
Originally posted by windmillIt could not be done....
O.K.....here's an example for you.What say everyone here was trying to fix me up for getting angry when this comp is toooo slow.Then i do a 'double post' and everyone realises they were wrong and had been hurting me by trying to fix the wrong thing.Guilt covers the entire website and everyone begins to become more patient.Everyone starts to work as a tea ...[text shortened]... own the track 6000 years and tell me how those people would'mathimatical model'.....MY FINGER!
a)There could be inconclusive evidence to pin-point the exact time.
b)The curve it takes to grow into a growing being and then decline.
I believe you could pin-point something like'Noah's Ark'.If so then why has it not been done already?Because our growing intelegence has gone down the wrong path and i am certain that many areas of science are wrong that have been placed there by intelegent people through hate,selfishness,pride etc.I don't need to understand science to understand this.For what it's worth is my suggestion....Noah's Ark!
30 Nov 05
Originally posted by HalitoseOK so are you accepting that at least one star is over 1 million light years away ?
To measure the distance of stars astronomers use trigonometric algorithms with the orbit of the earth as the base of the triangle. Being only 8 light minutes away from the sun, the diameter of the orbit of the earth is a mere 16 light minutes. This forms the base of a triangle measuring millions of light-years high - a very tall and narrow triangle indeed. ...[text shortened]... point, I’m sure you are well aware that astronomy is on the edge between hard and soft science?
And my point is clear, if you accept that there is a star furthur away than say 20,000 light years then it is at least 20,000 years old or God made the light in transit in such a way that it would appear to us that there was a 20,000 year old star. He clearly wants us to believe that the star exists and is 20,000 years old.
And by the way, triangulation is not the only way to measure the distance to a given star infact I believe it is only used for the closest stars. There are many many other ways and some of them are very accurate.
If you believe that all stars are less than 10,000 years old and that we are seeing actual stars and not light created by God as an illusion, then we can conclude that there are about 100 billion stars and many galaxies each with billions of stars all within 10,000 light years of earth. A basic calculation on the expected brightness would show this to be nonsense.