Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Time : Expansion of The Universe
Options
Comments
-
Zubeneschamali wrote: »Imagine you travel to the North pole at midwinter. This puts the Sun out of the way, so maybe you can see what we're driving at.
So, there you are at the North pole, it's dark all the time, and you have a perfect view of the heavens. How long does it take the plough to make one circuit of the sky?
Hint: the answer is not 24 hours.
That clock on the wall or the watch on your hand was due to John Harrison,I suggest you listen to his description of the Lat/Long system and its AM/PM designations which keep the Earth's rotation fixed to natural noon (Ante Meridiem/Post Meridiem) and consequently 24 hour AM/PM.
There are 1461 AM/PM's in 4 years which corresponds to 1461 rotation in 4 orbital circuits or 3 years of 365 rotations and 1 year of 366 rotations with Feb 29th a number of weeks ago representing the 1461 st day/rotation closing out 4 orbital circuits.
You are just throwing around another assertion without actually knowing the history behind astronomical timekeeping,a failure I have noted many times . If you understood that circumpolar motion is only useful for rotational alignment and allow the Lat/Long system to account for why the constant progression of 24 hours days substitutes for constant rotation,you wouldn't be stuck with a mindnumbing conclusion of 366 rotations in 365 days.
I enjoy John Harrison's invention and the principle that the equatorial Earth turns 1037.5 miles per hour and a full 24901 mile circumference in 24 hours.What you believe is your own business.0 -
Zubeneschamali wrote: »Since gkell is obviously dodging this question, I'll just note that the Milky Way, our own galaxy and therefore the closest of all, contains stars over 13 billion years old, barely any younger than the Universe itself.
So now the oldest galaxies are not the most distant so effectively you are arguing against your own premise of 'big bang' -
"Following its May 2009 general overhaul, NASA's most famous telescope has become able to peer further in space and time than ever before. This is why it recently managed to observe the oldest and most distant galaxy ever found, which formed when the Universe was very young."
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Hubble-Sees-Oldest-Galaxy-in-the-Universe-180820.shtml
Such is the weird world of big bangers that they claim victory against their own theory !!.I do mind that students are subjected to non reasoning and that nothing exists of astronomy,not even the correspondence between the immediate experience of daylight turning to darkness due to the rotation of the Earth for big bangers believe in 366 rotations in 365 days !.
What a dismal era this can be where the great astronomical and terrestrial sciences mesh.0 -
You said you can see a galaxy that is not there anymore
I did, but that wasn't the question I asked you. Can you answer the question I asked you?and although some readers try to insist that the oldest galaxies are not the most distant,thereby putting themselves at odds with the main premise of 'big bang',none of them decided to take the route you did -
The idea that the oldest galaxies are the most distant is not a premise of the Big Bang theory. It is your premise because you seem to not understand that light has a finite speed.
Do you accept now that light has a finite speed?'Big bang' includes an evolutionary timeline in its premise so imagining a galaxy traveling at the speed of light for 13.2 billion years so you can have your image of the galaxy remaining the same is just another absurdity in a mess that contains nothing but absurdities.
The galaxy does not move. It is the light from that galaxy that moves. It travels from the galaxy to Earth.
You appear to not understand what light actually is.
Do you know what a photon is? If so can you explain to me what it is?0 -
Zubeneschamali wrote: »Since gkell is obviously dodging this question
Dodging a question is simply a way to save face.
I think he genuinely doesn't understand what light actually is. He doesn't seem to understand what we mean when we say the light took billions of years to travel to Earth. He seems to some how think we are saying the galaxy is moving towards us.
Considering I learnt what light was in primary school I would wonder at his level of education (or of course it is possible he is himself a child). Perhaps it was a bit rash to make fun of him, he might simply be uneducated to the basics of physics that we assume everyone knows.
Shame, the universe is far more interesting when you understand it.0 -
I think someone has set up a computer/program called "gkell2" like that "Watson" on BBC's Horizon last night, and it's just doing the best it can with the data it's been given.Considering I learnt what light was in primary school I would wonder at his level of education (or of course it is possible he is himself a child). Perhaps it was a bit rash to make fun of him, he might simply be uneducated to the basics of physics that we assume everyone knows.0 -
Advertisement
-
If you understood that circumpolar motion is only useful for rotational alignment
Hang on, let's think about this. Circumpolar motion of the stars: each star appears to execute a circle in the sky around the pole every 23 hours and 56 minutes.
But we know the stars can't be flying around our heads like that, the apparent circumpolar motion of the stars is caused by the rotation of the Earth itself around it's axis, while the "fixed" stars, being very, very far away, remain essentially motionless.
So, given that the fixed stars execute one circumpolar circle every 23 hours and 56 minutes, how long does it take the earth to turn once on its axis?0 -
big bangers believe in 366 rotations in 365 days.
The Earth's rate of rotation was well understood long before the Big Bang theory was expounded, and is entirely unrelated to it. The only thing they have in common is that you don't understand either of them.
You still haven't explained what theory is about to replace the Big Bang, now tht it's on it's way out. I do hope it's funnier than "God did it".0 -
Dodging a question is simply a way to save face.
I think he genuinely doesn't understand what light actually is. He doesn't seem to understand what we mean when we say the light took billions of years to travel to Earth. He seems to some how think we are saying the galaxy is moving towards us.
I think the 'big bang' premise is pretty straightforward that the oldest galaxies are the most distant and that is the way the public has come to think of it.
"NASA's most famous telescope has become able to peer further in space and time than ever before. This is why it recently managed to observe the oldest and most distant galaxy ever found, which formed when the Universe was very young."
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Hubble-Sees-Oldest-Galaxy-in-the-Universe-180820.shtml
You don't like the extended conclusion of this premise which is that the youngest galaxies are the nearest as 'big bang' includes an evolutionary timeline.It is actually below a flat Earth ideology as the normal perceptions of the past and the continuity of historical evolution in any discipline relies on knowing that you cannot see the past directly which big bangers imagine you can.
All that happened today was a reactionary herd mentality where nobody could get their story straight and that is all it is ever going to be,all it needs is a stream of victims who imagine they are encountering intellectual superiority instead of a race to the bottom.
'Big bang' is nothing more than an extreme version of empiricism,where the observer give himself choices he does not have and that renders the issue within the confines of a cult or as Homboldt put it - 'a vicious strain of empiricism' -
"This empiricism, the melancholy heritage transmitted to us from former times, invariably contends for the truth of its axioms with the arrogance of a narrowminded spirit. Physical philosophy, on the other hand, when based upon science, doubts because it seeks to investigate, distinguishes between that which is certain and that which is merely probable, and strives incessantly to perfect theory by extending the circle of observation.
"This assemblage of imperfect dogmas bequeathed by one age to another—
this physical philosophy, which is composed of popular prejudices,—is not only injurious because it perpetuates error with the obstinacy engendered by the evidence of ill observed facts, but also because it hinders the mind from attaining to higher views of nature. Instead of seeking to discover the mean or medium point, around which oscillate, in apparent independence of forces, all the phenomena of the external world, this system delights in multiplying exceptions to the law, and seeks, amid phenomena and in organic forms, for something beyond the marvel of a regular succession, and an internal and progressive development. Ever inclined to believe that the order of nature is
disturbed, it refuses to recognise in the present any analogy with the past, and guided by its own varying hypotheses, seeks at hazard, either in the interior of the globe or in the regions of space, for the cause of these pretended perturbations. It is the special object of the present work to combat those errors which derive their source from a vicious empiricism and from imperfect inductions." Homboldt ,Cosmos
Once you lose your soul your mind follows shortly after,that is what happens when you set limits to time and space where there are none.0 -
Word salad is a mixture of random words that, while arranged in phrases that appear to give them meaning, actually carry no significance. The words may or may not be grammatically correct, but the meaning is hopelessly confused. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_salad
What you spout is gibberish, but at its core you're no different from someone who thinks the earth is 10,000 years old.0 -
Zubeneschamali wrote: »The Earth's rate of rotation was well understood long before the Big Bang theory was expounded, and is entirely unrelated to it. The only thing they have in common is that you don't understand either of them.
You still haven't explained what theory is about to replace the Big Bang, now tht it's on it's way out. I do hope it's funnier than "God did it".
'Big bang' is not a theory,it is a mental affliction as so many today celebrated defeating their own premises for 'big bang' ,after all,what I did was point out the extended premise that the oldest galaxies are the most distant in a smaller/younger Universe.
I assure you the Earth turned once today,it will turn 100 times in 100 days and a thousand times in a thousand days.When your mind doesn't respond to what your body experiences,and you are rotating with the Earth,then you suffer a detachment from experience and that is not good.What you have done is lunged at a conclusion based not on circumpolar motion but the 24 hour timekeeping average within the confines of the 365/366 day calendar system hence the stars return constantly to your meridian based on that framework.The technical details for extracting the 24 hour day out of natural noon belongs to the Lat/Long system where constant rotation exists as an assertion rather than an observation so Harrison could build his watches on the fact of rotation through 1 degree in 4 minutes,15 degrees per hour and a full rotation in 24 hours.He could check the accuracy of his watch using the return of a star to a meridian but that reflects the calendar based averages from midnight to midnight rather than the central system where AM/PM straddles natural noon AM/PM and 24 hour clock AM/PM.
You are not arguing for 366 rotations in 365 days,you are arguing against cause and effect where your body experiences daylight turning to darkness 1461 times in 1461 days which corresponds to 4 years/4 orbital circuits of the Earth and if you think so little of the experiences of your body by adopting an unsightly 366/365 imbalance then you have little respect for yourself or creation or rather lack the ability to figure out why your body experiences the effects of daily rotation.
Such is this era.0 -
Advertisement
-
Zubeneschamali wrote: »Hang on, let's think about this. Circumpolar motion of the stars: each star appears to execute a circle in the sky around the pole every 23 hours and 56 minutes.
But we know the stars can't be flying around our heads like that, the apparent circumpolar motion of the stars is caused by the rotation of the Earth itself around it's axis, while the "fixed" stars, being very, very far away, remain essentially motionless.
So, given that the fixed stars execute one circumpolar circle every 23 hours and 56 minutes, how long does it take the earth to turn once on its axis?
You have to get your 24 hour day first which requires you understand that there are 1461 natural noon cycles in 4 orbital circuits of the Earth.You probably even heard of AM/PM in association with natural noon and 24 hour noon.
The fundamental proportion in all timekeeping is that there are 1461 rotations to 4 orbital circuits which breaks down into 365 1/4 rotations to one orbital circuit.The leap day correction which amounts to the 1461st day/rotation is a reflection that the Earth turns 365 days 5 hours 49 minutes for each orbital circuit,the calendar system ignores the 1/4 rotation's worth of orbital distance traveled in non leap years and picks it up as a full rotation at the end of the 4th cycle.That was Feb 29th 2012 as the 1461 st rotation enclosing 4 orbital circuits.
You want 1465 rotations in 1461 days via Ra/Dec and circumpolar motion and that is out of kilter with what your body experiences and when a person cannot control how his mind evaluates experiences then you are in big trouble.0 -
I didn't think anything could beat the creation thread in Christianity for craziness but there you go.0
-
The craziness is pandemic for not even the basic correspondence between the rotation of the Earth and its daily effects survives as big bangers follow a system of 1465 rotations in 1461 days.
The creationists have nothing on big bangers however both sides in imagining they represent science and religion,are merely flip sides of the same coin.
At least now you know.
All I know now is the extent some people will go to, to avoid the simplest of questions. I think it's fair to say that two or three fairly trivial questions have been directed at you, yet you have not given one straight answer. Almost every answer you give skates around the point without ever actually addressing the crux of the question being asked. You will obviously disagree with this but I think any rational person looking back over this thread will come to the same conclusion.
Edit: seems there may have been a stealth delete0 -
I think the 'big bang' premise is pretty straightforward that the oldest galaxies are the most distant and that is the way the public has come to think of it.
"NASA's most famous telescope has become able to peer further in space and time than ever before. This is why it recently managed to observe the oldest and most distant galaxy ever found, which formed when the Universe was very young."
You think wrong, as has been pointed out to you. That is not the premise of the big bang theory.
Notice the word "observe" in the passage above that you quoted. It is the observation they are talking about, not the galaxy itself.
It is not the oldest galaxies that are the most distant, it is the images of these galaxies that are the old because light can only travel at a finite speed. The galaxies are the same age as our galaxy, assuming they even still exist.
The the further the light is away from Earth the older it is when it reaches Earth.You don't like the extended conclusion of this premise which is that the youngest galaxies are the nearest as 'big bang' includes an evolutionary timeline.
Again it is not the galaxies that are the youngest, it is the light. The youngest light is the light that is closest to us because it has the least distance to travel before it reaches us.
Do you understand that?0 -
All I know now is the extent some people will go to, to avoid the simplest of questions. I think it's fair to say that two or three fairly trivial questions have been directed at you, yet you have not given one straight answer. Almost every answer you give skates around the point without ever actually addressing the crux of the question being asked. You will obviously disagree with this but I think any rational person looking back over this thread will come to the same conclusion.
Edit: seems there may have been a stealth delete
Knowing that you cannot bear to look at your own conceptual vomit you end up sterile,impotent and merely dross with no individuality,no passion and no common sense.The language of 'big bang' is not my language,it is acquired Royal Society empiricism and those who adopt its mannerisms rarely exhibit comprehension of the most basic experiences in life,that much I know.
There is another level to all this where time and space serve as the background for greater levels of comprehension and the final word I leave to another Irishman who understood the difference between time and space as people normally perceive them and the mysteriousness that is contained in nature and in art.The great Kepler could speak of the harmony of the spheres but once you try to kill the background you end up losing the ability to hear and see the stuff that really matters.You want to believe in 'expanding space' then nothing of the following will make sense,not as Joyce meant it and not as astronomers perceive the celestial arena as motions and events happening in time and space
" --In order to see that basket, said Stephen, your mind first of all separates the basket from the rest of the visible universe which is not the basket. The first phase of apprehension is a bounding line drawn about the object to be apprehended. An esthetic image is presented to us either in space or in time.
What is audible is presented in time, what is visible is presented in
space. But, temporal or spatial, the esthetic image is first luminously apprehended as selfbounded and selfcontained upon the immeasurable background of space or time which is not it. You apprehended it as ONE thing. You see it as one whole. You apprehend its wholeness. That is INTEGRITAS.
--Bull's eye! said Lynch, laughing. Go on.
--Then, said Stephen, you pass from point to point, led by its formal lines; you apprehend it as balanced part against part within its limits; you feel the rhythm of its structure. In other words, the synthesis of immediate perception is followed by the analysis of apprehension. Having first felt that it is ONE thing you feel now that it is a THING. You apprehend it as complex, multiple, divisible, separable, made up of its parts, the result of its parts and their sum, harmonious. That is CONSONANTIA.
--Bull's eye again! said Lynch wittily. Tell me now what is CLARITAS and you win the cigar.
--The connotation of the word, Stephen said, is rather vague. Aquinas uses a term which seems to be inexact. It baffled me for a long time. It would lead you to believe that he had in mind symbolism or idealism, the supreme quality of beauty being a light from some other world, the idea of which the matter is but the shadow, the reality of which it is but the symbol. I thought he might mean that CLARITAS is the artistic discovery and representation of the divine purpose in anything or a force of generalization which would make the esthetic image a universal one, make it outshine its proper conditions. But that is literary talk. I understand it so.When you have apprehended that basket as one thing and have then analysed it according to its form and apprehended it as a thing you make the only synthesis which is logically and esthetically permissible. You see that it is that thing which it is and no other thing. The radiance of which he speaks in the scholastic QUIDDITAS, the WHATNESS of a thing. This supreme quality felt by the artist when the esthetic image is first conceived in his imagination. The mind in that mysterious instant Shelley likened beautifully to a fading coal. The instant wherein that supreme quality beauty, the clear radiance of the esthetic image, is apprehended luminously by the mind which has been arrested by its wholeness and fascinated by its harmony is the luminous silent stasis of esthetic pleasure, a spiritual state very like to that cardiac condition which the Italian physiologist Luigi Galvani, using a phrase almost as beautiful as Shelley's, called the enchantment of the heart." James Joyce, Portrait Of An Artist
Astronomy has always generated an intense satisfaction for those who approach it with integrity and not as a dumping ground for 'counter-intuitive' theories which serve only as a means to an end.Astronomy is talent and effort,not an obstacle course and even if sometimes its facets can be intricate,they are never impossible.
I have said what I needed to say and leave you to your fate,whatever that may be.0 -
Knowing that you cannot bear to look at your own conceptual vomit you end up sterile,impotent and merely dross with no individuality,no passion and no common sense.The language of 'big bang' is not my language,it is acquired Royal Society empiricism and those who adopt its mannerisms rarely exhibit comprehension of the most basic experiences in life,that much I know.
Do you know that light travels at a finite speed through a vacuum?
You seem unwilling to answer this question, either yes or no. Can you shed some light on why that is?0 -
Oh it looks like he closed in account.
Perhaps it was a question beyond what he was willing to attempt to answer. Poor fellow.0 -
Never have I seen such waffle in my life.
He was attempting some bizarre form of the Chewbacca defence.0 -
AugustusMinimus wrote: »Never have I seen such waffle in my life.
He was attempting some bizarre form of the Chewbacca defence.
I think he was uneducated and picked up some waffle that he didn't understand from a Creationist website and though to show off I guess by presenting it here. He appeared unprepared for the questions that would be asked of him and in a facing saving exercise simply dodged the questions.
Again poor guy, the reality of the cosmos is far more interesting than any religious ignorance he might pick up. If he was just prepared to show a bit of humility, admit he didn't understand what he was posting, and listen to what was being said, we could have pointed him towards far more fascinating stuff.0 -
Again poor guy, the reality of the cosmos is far more interesting than any religious ignorance he might pick up. If he was just prepared to show a bit of humility, admit he didn't understand what he was posting, and listen to what was being said, we could have pointed him towards far more fascinating stuff.
Indeed even if one can just begin to comprehend the cosmos and its scale you really get an amazing appreciation for just how grand everything else is, how magnificent a place the universe the place is and how minute a part of it we occupy. But it really makes you appreciate the beauty of everything around you.0 -
Advertisement
-
He's been at this a while now and I've come across him on other sites too, his language being easy to recognise. He seems to be one of those people who believes something so strongly that any actual evidence to the contrary is just too much to handle or deal with, and is consequently totally ignored.I think he was uneducated and picked up some waffle that he didn't understand from a Creationist website and though to show off I guess by presenting it here. He appeared unprepared for the questions that would be asked of him and in a facing saving exercise simply dodged the questions.
Again poor guy, the reality of the cosmos is far more interesting than any religious ignorance he might pick up. If he was just prepared to show a bit of humility, admit he didn't understand what he was posting, and listen to what was being said, we could have pointed him towards far more fascinating stuff.
One thing is for sure you could sit him down and explain in a father Ted-Dougal way, this is the image of a galaxy---this is an actual galaxy, image>>>galaxy and all you would get is a blank stare and the rustle of tumble-weed.
It takes all sorts.0 -
-
Zubeneschamali wrote: »
It is called housekeeping on a 'moderated ' forum.The risk of being banned by an anti-Catholic dictator/moderator on the Christian forum because he does not like the arguments the Pope presented to Galileo which raises the standard of discussion would be more or less right for this era.As for 'big bang' I am done dealing with that nonsense,after yesterday where bozos declared victory against the premises of 'big bang' itself,besides the thing is on its way out whether you lot know it or not.
Astronomy is as individualistic as mountaineering,the rare few scale new peaks and new ground while the expert mountaineer follows the pioneer.Then there are the tourists at the bottom of the mountain taking pictures,this would be,in astronomical terms,those who own telescopes and imagine themselves to be astronomers by virtue of magnification and the ability to distinguish one mountain from the next.Then there are the riff-raff who stay at home,read about the mountains and imagine all sorts of stuff and this would be Royal Society empiricists like yourselves who couldn't interpret an astronomical or terrestrial observation to save your lives.
So,the Pope was partly right on the mechanical or instrumental area of astronomy even if it wasn't fully developed until,the late 17th century,you cannot use stellar circumpolar motion and the Ra/Dec convenience to proves the Earth's daily and orbital motions .Get use to the idea that you represent a new group, not entirely astrologers and certainly not the noble astronomy of geocentricity,you are a 'special' group for want of a better word,more of a culture or cult that the world could do without.Let you stick with your Royal Society mannerisms which are typically predictable,crude and narrow which is why you adhere to a 'packaged' view of astronomy.
The Earth turns once a day and a thousand times in a thousand days and that is the point of departure for the revival of genuine astronomy in an era where something as hideous as 'big bang' exists.0 -
-
Man, gkells posts are very hard to read.
Could some one translate for me and explain what his fancination with 1465 days and Ra/Dec is?
And can anyone confirm that he is not a geocentrist? Cause reading his posts, he seems to be the type..0 -
It is called housekeeping on a 'moderated ' forum.The risk of being banned by an anti-Catholic dictator/moderator on the Christian forum because he does not like the arguments the Pope presented to Galileo which raises the standard of discussion would be more or less right for this era.As for 'big bang' I am done dealing with that nonsense,after yesterday where bozos declared victory against the premises of 'big bang' itself,besides the thing is on its way out whether you lot know it or not.
Astronomy is as individualistic as mountaineering,the rare few scale new peaks and new ground while the expert mountaineer follows the pioneer.Then there are the tourists at the bottom of the mountain taking pictures,this would be,in astronomical terms,those who own telescopes and imagine themselves to be astronomers by virtue of magnification and the ability to distinguish one mountain from the next.Then there are the riff-raff who stay at home,read about the mountains and imagine all sorts of stuff and this would be Royal Society empiricists like yourselves who couldn't interpret an astronomical or terrestrial observation to save your lives.
So,the Pope was partly right on the mechanical or instrumental area of astronomy even if it wasn't fully developed until,the late 17th century,you cannot use stellar circumpolar motion and the Ra/Dec convenience to proves the Earth's daily and orbital motions .Get use to the idea that you represent a new group, not entirely astrologers and certainly not the noble astronomy of geocentricity,you are a 'special' group for want of a better word,more of a culture or cult that the world could do without.Let you stick with your Royal Society mannerisms which are typically predictable,crude and narrow which is why you adhere to a 'packaged' view of astronomy.
The Earth turns once a day and a thousand times in a thousand days and that is the point of departure for the revival of genuine astronomy in an era where something as hideous as 'big bang' exists.
I think anyone who talks about intolerance of others - whether they be religious or not - deserve censure. Your posts have shown an intransigence due to what you perceive to be the teachings of the Bible. However, you haven't shown any major intolerance. This is probably why this thread has been so long. On the whole this thread has been fairly respectful - albeit there have been one or two departures from the norm. However I should point out that this is a science forum and you have begun to become less willing to discuss science. Instead you are churning out the same tired arguments and quotes. This is creeping towards a religious agenda which has no place here. By all means be motivated by religion in what you do. But what you are doing is very unhealthy. You are rejecting years and years of data because of what you believe to be the teachings of scripture.
Anyway what makes you think that the big bang is on the way out. I've told you previously that I work in the area of cosmology so I'd be interested to know how you can state this when it's contrary to what I encounter every day.0 -
And here I thought this was all behind us. Gkell, you have no reason to fear being banned if you stay within the confines of the charter for whatever forum you are in, so I dont get this "house keeping" business.
Anyway back to the topic at hand and one of the more trivial questions asked of you,
Does a particle of light (a photon) have a finite speed in a vacuum? Yes/No/Dont know
No dancing around the question required, a one line answer would suffice. This is just a fundamental physics really.0 -
And here I thought this was all behind us. Gkell, you have no reason to fear being banned if you stay within the confines of the charter for whatever forum you are in, so I dont get this "house keeping" business. .
Don't make me laugh !,empirical drones know how to consent to being intellectual cowards hence these 'moderated ' forums mirror the parent peer review process which only accepts opinions that keeps the reputations and jobs of the reviewers and the proposer has no incentive to doing anything but please the reviewer.I have far more respect for the creationists who at least are clear in what they believe.It spares me having to watch a pathetic declaration of victory which is simply that the premise of 'big bang' is that the oldest galaxies are the most distant in a smaller/younger Universe bundled together with an evolutionary timeline.If you don't like your own extended conclusions then it has nothing to do with me,if you choose to live in a cartoon Universe that exists only in the imagination then so be it however you can't have it both ways,you either affirm the basic premise or you reject it.Now that is the end of this 'big bang' junk.
You want to discuss astronomy then behave like men,not like drones who live inside a package indoctrination you have to follow.So far none of you have managed to associate the daily experiences of daylight turning to darkness due to the rotation of the Earth once a day and a thousand times in a thousand days and that is why you follow 'big bang',you can't work with the astronomical references which refer the constant progression of 24 hours days with constant rotation.
Btw,the moderators here should be commended and should hold their nerve.This country deserves somebody who can talk straight and where common sense is an asset.The wider population assumes this is some minor tif over 'big bang' when nothing could be further from the truth,it pervades all society by virtue that the toxic strain of empiricism is a speculative/predictive approach with no responsibility for taking into account intepretative restraints.Behind the financial meltdown was speculative greed attached to mathematical modeling and the lack of common sense restraints needed to reign it in -
http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/magazine/17-03/wp_quant?currentPage=all
There's your 'big bang' for you and a lot of other empirical 'modeling' nonsense where these guys dream up conclusions and rig everything to suit the conclusion and that is why Galileo considered this approach dangerous.Despite the veneer of respectibility presented to the world as tyhe 'scientific method' I worked through the original tangled mess and the toxic strain of empiricism inherited from the late 17th century and people have a good reason to what I say.0 -
Don't make me laugh !,empirical drones know how to consent to being intellectual cowards hence the peer review process which only accepts opinions that keeps the reputations and jobs of the reviewers and the proposer has no incentive to doing anything but please the reviewer.I have far more respect for the creationists who at least are clear in what they believe.It spares me having to watch a pathetic declaration of victory which is simply that the premise of 'big bang' is that the oldest galaxies are the most distant in a smaller/younger Universe bundled together with an evolutionary timeline.If you don't like your own extended conclusions then it has nothing to do with me,if you choose to live in a cartoon Universe that exists only in the imagination then so be it however you can't have it both ways,you either affirm the basic premise or you reject it.Now that is the end of this 'big bang' junk.
You want to discuss astronomy then behave like men,not like drones who live inside a package indoctrination you have to follow.So far none of you have managed to associate the daily experiences of daylight turning to darkness due to the rotation of the Earth once a day and a thousand times in a thousand days and that is why you follow 'big bang',you can't work with the astronomical references which refer the constant progression of 24 hours days with constant rotation.
Btw,at least the moderators here should be commended.
This place is filling up with more and more people who dance around questions with poetic language. Isn't there a name for those kinda people? Oh yeah Politicians.0 -
Advertisement
-
Don't make me laugh !,empirical drones know how to consent to being intellectual cowards hence these 'moderated ' forums mirror the parent peer review process which only accepts opinions that keeps the reputations and jobs of the reviewers and the proposer has no incentive to doing anything but please the reviewer.I have far more respect for the creationists who at least are clear in what they believe.It spares me having to watch a pathetic declaration of victory which is simply that the premise of 'big bang' is that the oldest galaxies are the most distant in a smaller/younger Universe bundled together with an evolutionary timeline.If you don't like your own extended conclusions then it has nothing to do with me,if you choose to live in a cartoon Universe that exists only in the imagination then so be it however you can't have it both ways,you either affirm the basic premise or you reject it.Now that is the end of this 'big bang' junk.
You want to discuss astronomy then behave like men,not like drones who live inside a package indoctrination you have to follow.So far none of you have managed to associate the daily experiences of daylight turning to darkness due to the rotation of the Earth once a day and a thousand times in a thousand days and that is why you follow 'big bang',you can't work with the astronomical references which refer the constant progression of 24 hours days with constant rotation.
.............
You write say much while saying so little, its an impressive talent I must say.
Anyway would you care to address the rest of my post you seemed to have glossed over? Again no need for the waffle, nice concise answers will do thanks!0
Advertisement