Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Has anyone compressed a planet...or even a car to some small thing we can't even see in a microscope? There has to be time to have distances known in space. Even parallax needs time and uses time and space as the base measure point.Distances is mostly determined by statistical methods and by cross-referencing many different methods of distance measurements. Usually galaxies are used as references due to their size, and generally standard sizes as per makeup.
Distance measurement by Parallax across opposite ends of the Earth's orbit around the Sun gives concrete evidence of distances, but cannot be used beyond our stellar neighborhood. However, Parallax distance measurement gave us invaluable data needed for statistical analysis of more distant stars, even stars in other galaxies since again (which can be also used to measure distance of a galaxy), stars tend to have have standardized parameters based on their makeup.
We actually have fairly good idea of the distances, unless, the space between galaxies bend light to a significant degree somehow and that will throw off any estimates. It happens in "gravitational lensing" but significant gravitational lensing tend to occur only in clusters of galaxies. Otherwise, there is no proof of the contrary that space is warped to a degree to make any estimates pointless. Try not to be too pessimistic with the unknown, because if everyone did, we'd be worse than apes!
If you can compress an object, say 1 gram, to a zero volume (infinite density), a perfect, infinitely tiny point in space....
....The Schwarzschild Radius (SR) is the maximum distance from that point at which the object's gravitational forces can exceed the escape velocity of light.
Of course, for a 1 gram black hole, the SR would be exceedingly tiny to be seen even with a microscope.
On the other hand, for black holes millions of times more massive than our sun, the calculated SR could be as big the orbits of the inner planets in our solar system.
Of course no one has experimentally verified this.. But we have real data of light curving under the influence of gravity as calculated.
But frankly, I have very little reason to outright dismiss these theories. Since, the turn of the 20th century and with the advent of computers, we have made pretty accurate extrapolations when compared later to real life results based on computer-driven statistical analysis of available data. These "guesstimates" have actually helped considerably in the rapid advance of our knowledge and technology well into the 21st century.
FYI, I would agree with everything you said until you talked about the distances between galaxies. We're using a redshift formula based on the 'expanding space" concept rather than say a static universe/tired light concept. It would change the distances between galaxies if the real cause of redshift is inelastic scattering instead of expanding/accelerating space.
We're in general agreement with respect to gravitational lensing by the way, but it gets a little messy there too if the real cause of redshift is inelastic scattering.
You might take a gander at that Thunderbolts link sometime, and you'll get an earful of reasons to outright dismiss a lot of their claims with respect to dark matter and dark energy.
If you read that thunderbolts link, you'll see that their 2006 baryonic galaxy mass estimates were off by between a whopping factor of between 3 and 20 depending on the size of the star and the type of galaxy. I'm sure they missed a whole lot of ordinary baryonic matter in that horrifically flawed 2006 lensing study, but I know for a fact that most of it was ordinary baryonic material based on later studies of their galaxy mass estimate techniques.
Hubble actually rejected that claim by the way. He attributed the redshift relationship to "tired light"/inelastic scattering (in plasma) rather than expansion. If you don't *assume* expansion is the "cause" of redhshift, you can't assume much about distances either.
http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/science-universe-not-expanding-01940.html
Mainstream theory also failed the surface brightness test at larger redshifts. Oooops?
Has anyone compressed a planet...or even a car to some small thing we can't even see in a microscope?
There has to be time to have distances known in space. Even parallqx needs time and uses time and space as the base measure point.
My guess if it's due to inelastic scattering, absolute distances would be a lot bigger?
I agree, there seems to be many counter arguments to dark matter atm. Ironically, the fictitious force physicists immediately dismissed as unaccounted gravitational sources, could also be due to the enormous magnetic fields at play in the hearts of galaxies and other large bodies in the Universe. Also the possibility that an artificial gravity or altered frames of references may be manifested by the unique magnetic fields around these bodies. We actually shouldn't be treating these things lightly as I believe, they may provide us the clue to the next generation of high tech space propulsion systems which will ultimately lead to the warp drive.
The idea of dark matter has been around much longer than that, plus we would have to assume every mass estime ever was wrong in spite of repeated observations and duplicated results.
The universe is expanding.
It's not supernatural constructs,
and I've never heard anything remotely from him that leads me to believe he claims to know everything about cosmology.
The fact that you keep referring it to "mainstream" science, tells me everything I need to know. I'm done with this conversation.
The days of living in the dark ages of astronomy are drawing to a close, and it's only a matter of time before the mainstream starts to realize and accept that we live inside of a electrically active plasma current system, with many circuits that are connecting the various suns and galaxies together.
Seems to be that way but proving they work like circuits will be harder. First we need interstellar probes or at least an interferometer that could observe coronal activity from other stars.
How about the guy who joins the US military?
No. The parallax measure is trashed because you do not know that time exists where the stars are, or that it exists the same as here. Think about it. Without time a light year is not a year at all.Have you heard about a subject in engineering called "statics of rigid bodies".
They actually assume some things are infinitely rigid. But that is impossible right?
I hope you're just genuinely confused by hypothetical statements and not actually just trolling people.
Interplanetary distances especially the Earth's Orbit around the Sun is used as the base distance and the times against the year when the measurements were taken are used.
At least our data on interplanetary distances, planetary orbits, and dynamics is impeccable, otherwise, there's no way we could even score a near miss with Mars. But we have landed many probes in Mars, shot a probe across Pluto and even landed on a comet!
But Parallax measurement is only accurate up to 10,000 light years at present using the Hubble Telescope. Fortunately, we could use the data to for use in other methods in statistical analysis of distances way beyond that.
Going to another universe in a black hole is a fairy tale. Get it yet?
That depends who controls the forces. Right now there in an anti Christ regime in the US. Some say they even were instrumental in helping the Islamist terrorists form. Certainly the drone terror and wiping out whole countries is not a Christian endeavor either.There's a bit of a difference between joining a nation's military and joining a terrorist group that is out to kill people first and foremost.
Hitler's forces were the same and all other countries also. That doesn't make them Christian.You join a nation's military (hopefully) because you want to help defend your nation. The US Military, in fact, has you take an oath when you join it that you will do all you can to protect the US from all threats "foreign and domestic". There's nothing sinful in that.
?? The Islamists worship Satan now?Joining a terrorist group that worships Satan with the express purpose to kill everybody who doesn't agree with you, however, is wholly evil.
Does that mean your military can drone rocket bomb weddings and funerals as desired?Nowhere did Jesus ever say in the Bible to kill anybody (though I would assume that self-defense and following the orders of your government in times of war are exceptions), in fact He told us to love our enemies and pray for those who would deceitfully use us.
Only Jesus is good.So you tell me, which religion is evil and which is good?
The US military doesn't say that.The one who says "Kill everybody who doesn't agree with us" or the one that says "Love everybody, including your enemies as you love yourselves" and "Pray for those who would use you deceitfully"?
. Who cares what it seems like in his mind since he could never try it or prove it?Maybe in your mind it is, but to Stephen Hawking, it is not
Only what God created exists.Personally, I believe it's theoretically possible for alternative universes to exist, but I don't think they do.
No. The parallax measure is trashed because you do not know that time exists where the stars are, or that it exists the same as here. Think about it. Without time a light year is not a year at all.
How so? It demonstrates the contrary of dad's point.Kinda demonstrates dad's point doesn't it?
You haven't established this "truth" as true.You would expect people to be judged for denying what is true, wouldn't you? After all, its the denial of truth that gets a lot people into trouble, especially denying truth over a long period of time.
That article is great. The problem is the human mind can't be observed and measured the same way science is designed to operate. Psychologists tried to follow the way of the physicists and chemists to gain acceptance and it just doesn't work. Mind is too malleable. This why older societies had shamans and priests.
You haven't established this "truth" as true.
It attempts to. Our postmodern culture simply assumes we can measure constructs the way we can measure actual things. The amount of math we go through trying to represent those hise constructs in a study resembles s Rube Goldberg device. Science is s process for observable phdnomena. Start measuring constructs and you're going to have limited success with application and replication.Psychology uses the scientific method. Or it did when I studied it to post graduate level.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?