The tools of science

[philadiddle]

It is physicists who tell me not to trust what I see and who suggest that some of those pinpricks of light may have supernovaed and disappeared in the time that it took for their light to reach me.

On a scale of 1 to 10, what do you think your understanding of astronomy is? (10 being the highest)

 

[mindlight]

On a scale of 1 to 10, what do you think your understanding of astronomy is? (10 being the highest)

1 with the greatest astronomer who ever lived being about 2

 

[Assyrian]

That's a 5 then.

 

[Mallon]

I see stars with my eyes. Common sense says I see them in real time just as I see everything else in my experience in that way. It is physicists who tell me not to trust what I see and who suggest that some of those pinpricks of light may have supernovaed and disappeared in the time that it took for their light to reach me. They would probably have also told the Magi to distrust the star that led them to Jesus.

I don't understand why you think the fact that starlight takes time to travel over long distances implies that we must distrust anything. The connection does not follow. It takes time for light to travel any distance, whether it be 200 light years or 1.0x10^-200 light years. At which point do you draw the line between trust and distrust? Or do you reject the idea that it takes time for light to travel altogether?

 

[mindlight]

I don't understand why you think the fact that starlight takes time to travel over long distances implies that we must distrust anything. The connection does not follow. It takes time for light to travel any distance, whether it be 200 light years or 1.0x10^-200 light years. At which point do you draw the line between trust and distrust? Or do you reject the idea that it takes time for light to travel altogether?

The big assumption here is that we see stuff cause the light from these things has travelled from these things and reached us.

How can we prove that assumption in relation to distant objects.

How could you prove that we do not see stuff cause God set up the universe with synchronised pairs of protons at billions of years distance from each other. The properties of light from the furthest pair are available to us from the near member of the pair. So we see the light show of the stars because of photons nearby rather than far away.

How could you prove that we are not stuck in same massive time dilation phenomena which in essence means that the stars can be seen in real time.

How could you prove that space was not neatly folded all around our solar system to allow the light from every star to reach us from every part of the cosmos through the folds of space or even from parallel universes in an instant.

 

[laconicstudent]

The big assumption here is that we see stuff cause the light from these things has travelled from these things and reached us.

Most photons usually have a source, yes.

How can we prove that assumption in relation to distant objects.

It isn't an assumption to say that the photons had a source.

How could you prove that we do not see stuff cause God set up the universe with synchronised pairs of protons at billions of years distance from each other.

You also can't prove that pink unicorns don't exist. We don't bother thinking about it though, because there is no evidence that they do, and that is the more relevant point.

The properties of light from the furthest pair are available to us from the near member of the pair. So we see the light show of the stars because of photons nearby rather than far away.

That doesn't make any sense. I actually have no idea what you are trying to say here.

How could you prove that we are not stuck in same massive time dilation phenomena which in essence means that the stars can be seen in real time.

We can't. But that doesn't mean you should ASSUME something. Can you prove that I am not the Second Coming of Christ? By your logic, you should now bow down and worship me as your God and King.

How could you prove that space was not neatly folded all around our solar system to allow the light from every star to reach us from every part of the cosmos through the folds of space or even from parallel universes in an instant.

Once again, you cannot disprove my claim that I am God. Therefore, you should begin praying to me immediately.

 

[Mallon]

The big assumption here is that we see stuff cause the light from these things has travelled from these things and reached us.

How can we prove that assumption in relation to distant objects.

How could you prove that we do not see stuff cause God set up the universe with synchronised pairs of protons at billions of years distance from each other. The properties of light from the furthest pair are available to us from the near member of the pair. So we see the light show of the stars because of photons nearby rather than far away.

How could you prove that we are not stuck in same massive time dilation phenomena which in essence means that the stars can be seen in real time.

How could you prove that space was not neatly folded all around our solar system to allow the light from every star to reach us from every part of the cosmos through the folds of space or even from parallel universes in an instant.

Scandal of the evangelical mind, folks.

 

[laconicstudent]

Scandal of the evangelical mind, folks.

More specifically, its a textbook classic example of the Creationists favorite logical fallacy, argumentum ad ignorantiam, or "Argument from Ignorance".

 

[mindlight]

You have never been out of the solar system and have no direct scientific evidences from any one who has. You see lights in the sky and say you understand their movements based on the evidence of what you see through a telescope. You generalise from what you know down here on earth out there to the stars. But fundamentally despite all the arrogance and mocking contempt you know as little as I do about whats really out there. We could be watching a lightshow on the inside of a big closed bowl for all you really know. The scandal is the certainty with which you speak. The Ptolemaics spoke just as confidentally and in time were proven wrong.

 

[Mallon]

The Ptolemaics spoke just as confidentally and in time were proven wrong.

And yet they continue to defend their position using the same arguments that you do. Go figure.

 

[laconicstudent]

You have never been out of the solar system and have no direct scientific evidences from any one who has.

Except for the fact that we can SEE things?

You see lights in the sky and say you understand their movements based on the evidence of what you see through a telescope. You generalise from what you know down here on earth out there to the stars.

Which is perfectly acceptable. Its called parsimony.

But fundamentally despite all the arrogance and mocking contempt you know as little as I do about whats really out there.

That is probably.... incorrect.

We could be watching a lightshow on the inside of a big closed bowl for all you really know.

Except we can observe line spectra, radioactivity, gravitational lensing, Doppler shifting in cosmic objects and all those other effects that indicates that stars are more then the points of light you suggest.

The scandal is the certainty with which you speak. The Ptolemaics spoke just as confidentally and in time were proven wrong.

Yes. It is entirely possible (though unlikely) that we could be proven wrong. Do you have any evidence that would cause me to doubt conventional physics and astronomy. Besides Bible verses?

 

[mindlight]

Except for the fact that we can SEE things?

Imprecisely at these apparent distances

Except we can observe line spectra, radioactivity, gravitational lensing, Doppler shifting in cosmic objects and all those other effects that indicates that stars are more then the points of light you suggest.

Wow it's a very special bowl then giving this light show. These are not proofs they are observed patterns from which you draw conclusions.

Yes. It is entirely possible (though unlikely) that we could be proven wrong. Do you have any evidence that would cause me to doubt conventional physics and astronomy. Besides Bible verses?

Falsifiability is not a valid principle when the actual plausibility of a statement is impossible to test properly anyway as yet.

 

[laconicstudent]

Imprecisely at these apparent distances

Do you have a scientific citation for that, or is it your personal opinion?

Wow it's a very special bowl then giving this light show. These are not proofs they are observed patterns from which you draw conclusions.

This is basic physics. Line spectra...


Line spectra in stars. Normally all atoms seek the lowest energy state. But when they are heated or an input of energy is made, the electrons can be elevated to the next shell. Since they seek the lowest state, they radiate their energy in photons.

This is why your toaster glows, lightbulbs work and neon signs work.


Now, as the photons travel outward in the star, they encounter other atoms. Since electrons have specific energy levels in each element, they absorb specific photons based on wavelength. This is analogous to how if you shine a light on a solid, some will reflect but certain wavelengths will be absorbed. So when photons travel out in stars, they hit a blanket of cooler gas and some photons of certain wavelengths are absorbed. The spectrum of light the star emits therefore contain gaps in the electromagnetic spectrum.

We can compare the spectrum we receive, account for Doppler shifting, and identify which elements are present by which wavelengths of photons are missing. We know the absorption wavelengths of elements through controlled experiments.

This isn't guessing, its an understanding of physics and how the electromagnetic spectrum works.

Falsifiability is not a valid principle when the actual plausibility of a statement is impossible to test properly anyway as yet.

But we can test absorption spectra in labs. If I shine a broad spectrum of electromagnetic radiation through a cloud of gaseous iron into a spectrograph in a laboratory setting, we can see what wavelengths are absorbed by iron.

Then, if we see the same wavelengths are absent from the emission spectra of a star, we can conclude that there is iron in the outer layer of the given star.

 

[Dark_Lite]

How do you know the world wasn't created last Thursday, with all of our memories intact?

 

[juvenissun]

How do you know the world wasn't created last Thursday, with all of our memories intact?

We have something called historical record.

If you traced back, the bottomline argument is about the uniqueness of human. Anything happened before the human creation is negotiable in terms of time. The existence (thus, the time) of the earth and the universe is human centered.

All controversies about time is rooted on the mistake of evolution, which treats human as one of the animals.

 

[Dark_Lite]

We have something called historical record.

If you traced back, the bottomline argument is about the uniqueness of human. Anything happened before the human creation is negotiable in terms of time. The existence (thus, the time) of the earth and the universe is human centered.

All controversies about time is rooted on the mistake of evolution, which treats human as one of the animals.

That historical record could have been created last Thursday, along with all of our memories of it. It just looks like it's historical.

 

[laconicstudent]

We have something called historical record.

The historical record also has evidence of human civilizations existing in the 10th millennium B.C. Interesting.

You seem to be being awfully selective about what parts of the historical record you believe in.

If you traced back, the bottomline argument is about the uniqueness of human. Anything happened before the human creation is negotiable in terms of time. The existence (thus, the time) of the earth and the universe is human centered.

No historian, archaelogist, paleontologist, geologist, astrophysicist or any other type of scientists will agree with this silly statement. You are simply, flat-out, wrong.

All controversies about time is rooted on the mistake of evolution, which treats human as one of the animals.

Eh. What? Are you claiming we aren't part of Kingdom Animalia? What are we then? Fungi? Plant? Archaea? Maybe we're in the wrong domain altogether, and we're really viruses?

 

[Sphinx777]

In biological taxonomy, kingdom and/or regnum is a taxonomic rank in either (historically) the highest rank, or (in the new three-domain system) the rank below domain. Each kingdom is divided into smaller groups called phyla (or in some contexts these are called "divisions"). Currently, many textbooks from the United States use a system of six kingdoms (Animalia, Plantae, Fungi, Protista, Archaea, Bacteria) while British and Australian textbooks may describe five kingdoms (Animalia, Plantae, Fungi, Protista, and Prokaryota or Monera). The classifications of taxonomy are life, domain, kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species.

 

[juvenissun]

That historical record could have been created last Thursday, along with all of our memories of it. It just looks like it's historical.

There is something called experience. We will remember today on tomorrow, and remember tomorrow on the day after. So, based on the experience of tomorrow and the day after, we would think that today is real. If today is real, so is likely yesterday, the day before, etc. etc. This is an elaborated definition of historical record.

This ability of thinking is called logic. Only human has it. So, the time can be traced back to the beginning of human, and all be taken as real. Whether is it really real, is, in fact, not a concern based on the meaning of human life.

Beyond the beginning of human, just like what you said, anything is possible, and the time does not have to have the same nature.

 

[juvenissun]

In biological taxonomy, kingdom' and/or regnum is a taxonomic rank in either (historically) the highest rank, or (in the new three-domain system) the rank below domain. Each kingdom is divided into smaller groups called phyla (or in some contexts these are called "divisions"). Currently, many textbooks from the United States use a system of six kingdoms (Animalia, Plantae, Fungi, Protista, Archaea, Bacteria) while British and Australian textbooks may describe five kingdoms (Animalia, Plantae, Fungi, Protista, and Prokaryota or Monera). The classifications of taxonomy are life, domain, kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species.

Very good. Thank you. Human can not be classified together with other animals based on any criterion used in taxonomy. We have too many EXTRA characters that are not seen in any animals.