|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Falsifying a young Universe. (re: Supernova 1987A) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
The same does not apply when some things are known and some things are not. What things do you claim to be known that make the difference, and how do you claim that we know them?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
It takes some time...think about it. Where does it take time and is seen to take time? Here. In labs, in the earth, solar system... that is where it takes the time we know it to take. Well, we see things that look like they're taking time in those places. But as you have explained to us, that's not a reason to say that we know that things are actually taking time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
As for the absurd sine rule issue, it does not apply to parallax. The reason is because we are not talking about equal lines all being just distance. We are talking time interwoven every centimeter of the way in the base line! It is then hypocritical and totally inappropriate for you to ignore the time aspect and try to use just the space. No can do. Time is not removable! It comes with the territory, the space. In this case the base line. The base line is within our solar system and we visit both ends of it. It is true that if you really followed your principles, you would reject this too as something that we can never know, but since you don't, you should admit that we know the length of the baseline ... ... wait, I'm appealing to you to be intellectually consistent in your intellectual inconsistency.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
My assertion is that you cannot prove time is the same or even exists persay out there. Just because we see movements does not mean we must have time there as here. And the same is true of space probes, the sun, and things six inches away from me. Your argument fails in two ways, any one of which is sufficient to eliminate an argument from scientific discourse. (1) It can be applied to absolutely anything, not just to stars. If we allow ourselves to suppose that what we see has no underlying reality behind it, then we can apply this ultra-skepticism just as well to marmalade or owls as to stars. It's just a variant of "what if this is all a dream, and we know nothing of reality?" Well, philosophers may discuss this in their armchairs, but it has no place in science. And it has no place arguing against something in particular, such as stars, when it could be used just as well against anything else. (2) If applied to stars, it works equally well (or badly) no matter how real stars are, no matter how much time they undergo, and no matter how well-evidenced all this is. Now it is the absolute hallmark of a vacuous, worthless argument that its goodness (or badness) is not in any way dependent on what the facts are. Go and find an argument that does depend in some way on the evidence --- if you can. But this sort of woolly amateur philosophy can have no weight in a scientific discussion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
As I said, I am familiar with all your arguments, and can destroy them out of hand in short order any time. Perhaps you overestimate your abilities. So far in this thread the only thing you have shown any talent for destroying is your credibility. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Your reply to my post appears to be deranged gibberish, would you like to try again? Actually reading my post first might help you, if indeed anything can help you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
And this just in: NASA has directly imaged the motion of four planets around a star 750,000,000,000,000 miles away.
GIF here: Direct imaging of four planets orbiting the star HR 8799 129 light years away from Earth - GIF on Imgur Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
The 'planets happen to be almost the exact size of these.... You are wrong. It is not possible to see things the size of electrons 750,000,000,000,000 miles away using a telescope. Indeed, it is not possible to see things the size of electrons at any distance using a telescope, because a telescope is not a microscope.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I accept time here on earth. I live it. I experience it. Yes, but you always experience it where you are, and not, for example, six feet away from you. So where is your proof that there is time six feet away from you?
I accept time in the solar system because we know how long it tales for light or communication to get around here. Well now that is just circular reasoning.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
How will we know that there is a genuine period of self-suspension though, if we don't know that time is passing where you are ? You are the wind beneath my wings.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024