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.
That was an example of if we put something in, not some claim of that being some literal program. Are you hyper, and wound too tight?KerrMetric said:Wrong again.
Are you actually lying here to put on a show?
This is false. We use math. There are no "evolutionary" processes involved. For more information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomical_distance.dad said:As illuminating as it sometimes may be, it really depends on what gets put in. What do you think we specify to a computer when working on a stellar problem? We don't rub the monitor, and expect some genie to pop out after we ask, how old and far away ids that star? We put in the distance, based on present light years, and present nuclear decay, perhaps, etc.
If it is an evolutionary set of assumptions underlying the process, we get evolutionary answers. Not rocket science, that.
It's not an assumption. I am not assuming the past was the same I am measuring it was the same. So unless you descend into the pseudo-solipsism you are stuck with actual measurements contradicting your nonsense.dad said:Of course it is, and a meaningless one, unless you can do more than assume the past was the same. Even some basic thing like gravity. Imagine if even something as simple as 4 hydrogen atoms being the same weight as one helium atom - if gravity was not here as we know it in the distant past.!!!
dad said:That was an example of if we put something in, not some claim of that being some literal program. Are you hyper, and wound too tight?
No, I don't. There must be assumptions involved in cosmological calculations. You can't deny it, no matter how you try to rephrase it!KerrMetric said:I'm just pointing out you use the word assumption in an unfounded manner.
You think you are measuring time and the past, but you aren't in the degree you believe. You assume the data represents great time, not measure great time yourself. Be honest.KerrMetric said:It's not an assumption. I am not assuming the past was the same I am measuring it was the same. ....
dad said:No, I don't. There must be assumptions involved in cosmological calculations. You can't deny it, no matter how you try to rephrase it!
dad said:You think you are measuring time and the past, but you aren't in the degree you believe. You assume the data represents great time, not measure great time yourself. Be honest.
That should be easy. Name a few things about the stars you think represent old age.KerrMetric said:Give me what "must" (your word) be an assumption.
dad said:That should be easy. Name a few things about the stars you think represent old age.
Fine, since you're too smug to pick, I will.KerrMetric said:Stars or cosmology? You have danced between the two in the last few posts.
dad said:Fine, since you're too smug to pick, I will.
The decay of the sun. Will it burn out? Was it decaying a long time? How exactly do you 'know'?
about to google...re. frequency: the further the object the longer the wavelength the redder the light?KerrMetric said:Please Google this. There are many websites with diagrams that explain this better than I can write a sentence or two about it.
Your frequency question makes no sense.
devotee said:about to google...re. frequency: the further the object the longer the wavelength the redder the light?
but why am i confident that the object is fifty light years away?Dal M. said:Because the speed of light in a vacuum is a constant. If we see an object fifty light years away, then it must be at least fifty years old, or else the light wouldn't have had the time to reach us yet. If we see an object fifty thousand light years away, then it must be at least fifty thousand years old.
The Hubble telescope has spotted galaxies twelve billion light years away.
devotee said:but why am i confident that the object is fifty light years away?
Because when something is under 200 light years away you don't even need more advanced methods. You can simply measure position at two different points in earth's orbit of the sun and use 11th-grade trignometry to determine the distance.devotee said:but why am i confident that the object is fifty light years away?
So I can generalise from the trignomety: if I accept trignometic findings for distance on Earth, I can be confident the same principles apply in space - at least to a certain distance.Dannager said:Because when something is under 200 light years away you don't even need more advanced methods. You can simply measure position at two different points in earth's orbit of the sun and use 11th-grade trignometry to determine the distance.
devotee said:So I can generalise from the trignomety: if I accept trignometic findings for distance on Earth, I can be confident the same principles apply in space - at least to a certain distance.
As I failed math and sceince at high-school...why do the principles not apply to objects further than 200 light years? Do the angles become meaningless?
Exactly.devotee said:So I can generalise from the trignomety: if I accept trignometic findings for distance on Earth, I can be confident the same principles apply in space - at least to a certain distance.
That's precisely it. Sounds like you didn't come out of your math courses too bad off if you're able to pick that up. Were our instruments more precise we could use measurements that allow us to tell distances through trignometry of greater than 200 light years, but for right now that's about as far as we can get without involving more advanced formulae. The angles become ridiculously minute.As I failed math and sceince at high-school...why do the principles not apply to objects further than 200 light years? Do the angles become meaningless?
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?