philadiddle
Drumming circles around you
On a scale of 1 to 10, what do you think your understanding of astronomy is? (10 being the highest)
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.
On a scale of 1 to 10, what do you think your understanding of astronomy is? (10 being the highest)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)
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?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?
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.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.
And yet they continue to defend their position using the same arguments that you do. Go figure.The Ptolemaics spoke just as confidentally and in time were proven wrong.
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.
Except for the fact that we can SEE things?
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.
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?
Imprecisely at these apparent distances
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.
Falsifiability is not a valid principle when the actual plausibility of a statement is impossible to test properly anyway as yet.
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.
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.
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.
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?