- Jan 17, 2005
- 44,905
- 1,259
- Country
- Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
There is no scientific insight out of the fishbowl. It is scientific fantasy and fable.
Upvote
0
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.
I wonder if the user "dad" has ever bothered producing any useful scientific insight on anything.
Thanks for admitting that! That is pure religion of the basest sort. So now you first need to prove the universe is homogeneous! Good luck with that. Your prediction sat on that. Hilarious.I'm sorry Dad, but that's not correct.
The prediction in question was based upon the scientific principle of Uniformitarianism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformitarianism
We observe light HERE only. Period. If time does not exist or exist as we know it in deep space, then forget light moving so far in a year! Gong!The calculations factored in the same speed of light as we measure today, the same passage of time as we measure today and the same kind of nuclear and quantum interactions that we observe today.
You forgot to show the original prediction calling for a line like you showed us a pic of. Get to it.The fact that the prediction matched the observed data to such exquisite accuracy tells us that all of these things happened in exactly the same way then (13.7 billion years ago) as they do now.
We shall see.If the nature of any of these important factors had been even slightly different, the observed data wouldn't have agreed with the prediction to such an exact standard.
Except you forgot to post that prediction. Stop bragging and get down to the basics.[/quote]The excellence of the agreement clearly demonstrates that these scientific models do not fail.
The distance of the star comes from the measured stellar parallax, not from the light-travel time. The parallax of HR 8799, which is the angle that one astronomical unit (the radius of the Earth's orbit) would subtend as seen from the star, is 0.02538" (seconds of arc). Since the distance of the star (in parsecs) is equal to the reciprocal of the parallax, the distance comes out as 39.4 parsecs. You can look HR 8799 up on the SIMBAD astronomical database, and on Wikipedia, which is where I obtained the information about the parallax, and a great deal else.Unless you can prove that distance your radius is worthless. You can't. There may not even be time where the star is. So forget light moving so many miles in one YEAR! You are preaching beliefs.
What about predictions of when variable stars, such as Mira (omicron Ceti), chi Cygni or delta Cephei, will be at their brightest, or of when eclipsing binary stars, such as Algol (beta Persei), will be faint? What about predictions of the angular separations of the components of binary stars, which change as the stars orbit around each other? Do you regard these predictions as valid?yes if they involve reality and this present state world. No if they involve the far future or past.
That means you accept time as existing there and existing the same. The base line for your measure is time and space on and near earth. The other lines from there to the stars extend THAT. So it is not distance unless time exists and exists the same. You do not know the distance or size.The distance of the star comes from the measured stellar parallax, not from the light-travel time.
False! That distance as explained is really assuming time.The parallax of HR 8799, which is the angle that one astronomical unit (the radius of the Earth's orbit) would subtend as seen from the star, is 0.02538" (seconds of arc). Since the distance of the star (in parsecs) is equal to the reciprocal of the parallax,
Rather than running numbers based on a bogus belief based imaginary line...you need to face the fact that time is used. The distance is no better than the belief that time exists there.the distance comes out as 39.4 parsecs. You can look HR 8799 up on the SIMBAD astronomical database, and on Wikipedia, which is where I obtained the information about the parallax, and a great deal else.
What about predictions of when variable stars, such as Mira (omicron Ceti), chi Cygni or delta Cephei, will be at their brightest, or of when eclipsing binary stars, such as Algol (beta Persei), will be faint? What about predictions of the angular separations of the components of binary stars, which change as the stars orbit around each other? Do you regard these predictions as valid?
You couldn't do it. Yet you use that belief to build undodly nonsese on. Now you do so with no covering. Bye bye.Goodbye Dad.
When I read your statement that the prediction in question rested on my proving that the universe is homogeneous, I realized that you were asking physical science to 'prove' things.
But such proofs exist in math, not in physics. Physical scientific theories cannot be proved. By definition they are incomplete arguments to the best explanation of the available data and not complete and absolute proofs.
Not me. The truth and honest fact of the matter here is that you have no fact or knowledge and cannot take the heat when your beliefs that you thought of as science get held up for inspection."Dishonestly undefeated"
They are very small chunks. I hope you can discern between seeing something small far away and something smaller even further away.The name 'Oort Cloud' makes me think of old school Power Rangers or Star Trek
Also, I don't understand why something like that can't be seen. We can find Pluto but not this gigantic tirade of junk.
They are very small chunks. I hope you can discern between seeing something small far away and something smaller even further away.
How many of those chunks are within 75% of the size of Pluto?Trillions upon trillions of small chunks vs one Pluto, and Pluto goes right up in the Kuiper Belt.
How many of those chunks are within 75% of the size of Pluto?
Why do you say that?Out of several trillion, there's bound to be a sizable amount. Or did they go through a sifter first?
User called foxhole...ho hum.User called "dad", would you believe that I am actually posting from a different solar system? Why or why not?
Try to ask intelligent questions.Are you going to answer my question?
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?