Time : Expansion of The Universe

Amtmann

Anonymo wrote: »

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.

The only suitable reaction when someone repeatedly denies fact because of groundless belief, is scorn. What gkell is doing is no different to a creationist telling a palaeontologist that a tyrannosaurus fossil is 10,000 years old. All of your attempts at reason have failed, so all that is left is to either leave the madman rant outside the castle walls, or ridicule his ridiculous belief.

I for one refuse to treat with respect any unsubstantiated belief that scoffs at reality.

For too long has science been hindered by the wilfully ignorant and their 'beliefs'. In the face of religiously inspired ignorance, I stand for the Gallilean and Copernican tradition.

gkell3

shizz wrote: »

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.

You know from the other thread we were involved in where the guy rushes in and chants some technical details without explaining what conjunctions are in terms of line of sight events.There is a fear among many that if they don't spout technical jargon their mantle of astronomer will wear off but confident people don't need any special language and none of the satisfaction is lost once something is explained through common sense,many details of astronomy are intricate enough without loading them with unneeded connotations besides we are people of the 21st century with all the tools of modern imaging and graphics.

I can do the same for this issue in language anyone can understand and in the original way Ole Roemer and the astronomers in his day concluded that light took some time to travel from object to observer.

If a person is honest,they would have no difficulty in stating that yes,the premise of 'big bang' is that the oldest galaxies are the most distant in a smaller/younger Universe and tie it in with an evolutionary timeline but then they have to live with the extended conclusion which is an absurdity.I don't have time for politics and neither does astronomy,it requires a little effort and a bit of talent and repays the observer a thousand times over the effort put into it.

The reason they proposed that light takes a finite time was based on an idea Galileo had -

http://www.oceannavigator.com/content/longitude-jove-navigating-jupiters-moons

This is how you begin.

gkell3

Amtmann wrote: »

For too long has science been hindered by the wilfully ignorant and their 'beliefs'. In the face of religiously inspired ignorance, I stand for the Gallilean and Copernican tradition.

That sounds great but you are going to have severe difficulties supporting Newton's framehopping observer on the Sun to account for retrogrades -

"For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct, sometimes
stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are
always seen direct,..." Newton

The determination of Lightspeed was made using comparisons etween the orbital distances of Earth and Jupiter which includes the observation of retrograde motion,an illusion seen from a faster moving Earth,so I am all for the genuine resolution of Copernicus and can spot a false resolution when I see it .So can everyone else with modern imaging -

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif

That is actually the Earth overtaking Jupiter and Saturn,the only acceptable resolution for retrogrades and you cannot go even near Roemer's approach to finite light speed without the proper interpretation of planetary motions.

Anonymo

Amtmann wrote: »

The only suitable reaction when someone repeatedly denies fact because of groundless belief, is scorn. What gkell is doing is no different to a creationist telling a palaeontologist that a tyrannosaurus fossil is 10,000 years old. All of your attempts at reason have failed, so all that is left is to either leave the madman rant outside the castle walls, or ridicule his ridiculous belief.

I for one refuse to treat with respect any unsubstantiated belief that scoffs at reality.

For too long has science been hindered by the wilfully ignorant and their 'beliefs'. In the face of religiously inspired ignorance, I stand for the Gallilean and Copernican tradition.

Agreed.
However an unintentional outgrowth of the rants gkell has subjected us to has been a fairly interesting discussion about quite a few different topics in astronomy and cosmology.

King Mob

gkell3 wrote: »

That is actually the Earth overtaking Jupiter and Saturn,the only acceptable resolution for retrogrades and you cannot go even near Roemer's approach to finite light speed without the proper interpretation of planetary motions.

So what exactly is the "proper" interpretation of planetary motions?
And what is the speed of light measured as when we use the "proper" interpretation?

shizz

gkell3 wrote: »

You know from the other thread we were involved in where the guy rushes in and chants some technical details without explaining what conjunctions are in terms of line of sight events.There is a fear among many that if they don't spout technical jargon their mantle of astronomer will wear off but confident people don't need any special language and none of the satisfaction is lost once something is explained through common sense,many details of astronomy are intricate enough without loading them with unneeded connotations besides we are people of the 21st century with all the tools of modern imaging and graphics.

I can do the same for this issue in language anyone can understand and in the original way Ole Roemer and the astronomers in his day concluded that light took some time to travel from object to observer.

If a person is honest,they would have no difficulty in stating that yes,the premise of 'big bang' is that the oldest galaxies are the most distant in a smaller/younger Universe and tie it in with an evolutionary timeline but then they have to live with the extended conclusion which is an absurdity.I don't have time for politics and neither does astronomy,it requires a little effort and a bit of talent and repays the observer a thousand times over the effort put into it.

The reason they proposed that light takes a finite time was based on an idea Galileo had -

http://www.oceannavigator.com/content/longitude-jove-navigating-jupiters-moons

This is how you begin.

I fully agree that you don't need to "spout technical jargon" when describing certain things, and in that thread I agreed with you.

I think you are misrepresenting the idea that the oldest galaxies are the furthest. It's that the farther away a galaxy is the older in time we see it. This is due to the time taken for it's light to get to us. Surely you understand that?

gkell3

shizz wrote: »

I think you are misrepresenting the idea that the oldest galaxies are the furthest. It's that the farther away a galaxy is the older in time we see it. This is due to the time taken for it's light to get to us. Surely you understand that?

Oh great !.

The premise of 'big bang' is that the oldest galaxies are the most distant in a smaller/younger Universe and it is bundled together with an evolutionary timeline,I repeat - it is bundled together with an evolutionary timeline.

A person has to be hopelessly stupid to avoid running into the extended conclusion which ,through logical consistency of any theory,would lead to the conclusion that the nearest galaxies are the youngest.

Here is what you do,get these guys to explain to you that the oldest galaxies are not the most distant and who knows,soon you will end up just like them with the ability to hold two contradictory views while believing them both.

I have astronomy to promote so be my guest and be entertained by these empirical drones,I have better things to do.

Anonymo

gkell3 wrote: »

Oh great !.

The premise of 'big bang' is that the oldest galaxies are the most distant in a smaller/younger Universe and it is bundled together with an evolutionary timeline,I repeat - it is bundled together with an evolutionary timeline.

A person has to be hopelessly stupid to avoid running into the extended conclusion which ,through logical consistency of any theory,would lead to the conclusion that the nearest galaxies are the youngest.

Here is what you do,get these guys to explain to you that the oldest galaxies are not the most distant and who knows,soon you will end up just like them with the ability to hold two contradictory views while believing them both.

I have astronomy to promote so be my guest and be entertained by these empirical drones,I have better things to do.

Wow! Just wow!
This has been explained to you so many times now. Forget about the bundling together. Just answer whether you accept if distant galaxies are seen as they were further in the past due to the finite speed of light. This will not be taken as you accepting they are older. In trying to give you maximum benefit of the doubt it's best to find out where our paths diverge. PS don't start quoting other people from antiquity. I'm asking for your opinion on this.

shizz

gkell3 wrote: »

I have astronomy to promote so be my guest and be entertained by these empirical drones,I have better things to do.

I highly doubt that.

So what is your counter theory to the big bang model?

gkell3

King Mob wrote: »

So what exactly is the "proper" interpretation of planetary motions?
And what is the speed of light measured as when we use the "proper" interpretation?

is there any part of a faster Earth overtaking Jupiter and Saturn in the following time lapse footage that you don't understand as all planets are seen moving directly around the Sun from a moving Earth ?

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap011220.html

Let me ask you this,the time lapse footage is easy to understand,it is just a line of sight judgement astronomers make as planets move in relation to each other.Now,is there any particular need to move away from that perspective of what retrograde motion is,after all planets move in the same direction and an intelligent person realizes that retrogrades are crucial for interpreting a moving Earth in the same direction as the other planets ?.

Now we have Isaac -

"For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct, sometimes
stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are
always seen direct,..." Newton

Don;t worry,empirical drones are indoctrinated not to see the mismatch with the actual resolution,they don't even comprehend what Isaac was actually doing with his idiosyncratic 'double-modeling' take on retrogrades but I sure do -

"It is indeed a matter of great difficulty to discover, and
effectually to distinguish, the true motion of particular bodies from
the apparent; because the parts of that absolute space, in which those
motions are performed, do by no means come under the observation of
our senses. Yet the thing is not altogether desperate; for we have
some arguments to guide us, partly from the apparent motions, which
are the differences of the true motions; partly from the forces, which
are the causes and effects of the true motion." Newton

How convenient !,you probably would pretend to comprehend that but at least a century ago there were honest people who couldn't and didn't understand his method or how he got his results but I sure do !.

Look,go pretend to be brilliant men asking the 'big' questions,as far as astronomy goes,the question is only as good as the observer and that is the way it is always going to be.

King Mob

gkell3 wrote: »

is there any part of a faster Earth overtaking Jupiter and Saturn in the following time lapse footage that you don't understand as all planets are seen moving directly around the Sun from a moving Earth ?

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap011220.html

Let me ask you this,the time lapse footage is easy to understand,it is just a line of sight judgement astronomers make as planets move in relation to each other.Now,is there any particular need to move away from that perspective of what retrograde motion is,after all planets move in the same direction and an intelligent person realizes that retrogrades are crucial for interpreting a moving Earth in the same direction as the other planets ?.

Now we have Isaac -

"For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct, sometimes
stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are
always seen direct,..." Newton

Don;t worry,empirical drones are indoctrinated not to see the mismatch with the actual resolution,they don't even comprehend what Isaac was actually doing with his idiosyncratic 'double-modeling' take on retrogrades but I sure do -

"It is indeed a matter of great difficulty to discover, and
effectually to distinguish, the true motion of particular bodies from
the apparent; because the parts of that absolute space, in which those
motions are performed, do by no means come under the observation of
our senses. Yet the thing is not altogether desperate; for we have
some arguments to guide us, partly from the apparent motions, which
are the differences of the true motions; partly from the forces, which
are the causes and effects of the true motion." Newton

How convenient !,you probably would pretend to comprehend that but at least a century ago there were honest people who couldn't and didn't understand his method or how he got his results but I sure do !.

Look,go pretend to be brilliant men asking the 'big' questions,as far as astronomy goes,the question is only as good as the observer and that is the way it is always going to be.

These are not answers to either question.

What is the proper interpretation of planetary motions exactly?
And what speed do you think light travels at.

There's no need for a big long rambly, barely coherent post, just short direct answers please.

shizz

Is anyone actually saying anything to the contrary? Am I missing something with this discussion?

I think everyone here understands the concept of retrograde motion and how it can show our place in the solar system along with our orbit relative to others.

So what is the problem?

gkell3

shizz wrote: »

I highly doubt that.

So what is your counter theory to the big bang model?

Naw,you are just a product of this era,astronomy became a dumping ground for theorists who have no respect for astronomy and its traditions and no doubt you expect more of the same.

Go ahead,ask as many questions of the drones and they will supply you with everything you want to hear,that is the whole point of 'big bang',the choices no longer are restrained by time,space or physical considerations,hell,you even have the power to look at the entire history of the Universe if you have a big enough telescope !.

In another era they would have called that madness,today it is called the 'scientific method'.Enjoy your theory,you look a prime candidate for an indoctrination and forget about any individuality or self respect from here on in,the first casualty of war may be truth but in empirical circles,the first casualty is common sense,something Orwell learned from Nazi doctrine -

"In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and
you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make
that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it.
Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of
external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy
of heresies was common sense." Orwell Nineteen -Eighty-Four

I am sure your children will be proud of you when you take them outside to look at warped space and all the other empirical novelties.Good luck to you and that really is the end of 'big bang'.

shizz

gkell3 wrote: »

Naw,you are just a product of this era,astronomy became a dumping ground for theorists who have no respect for astronomy and its traditions and no doubt you expect more of the same.

Go ahead,ask as many questions of the drones and they will supply you with everything you want to hear,that is the whole point of 'big bang',the choices no longer are restrained by time,space or physical considerations,hell,you even have the power to look at the entire history of the Universe if you have a big enough telescope !.

In another era they would have called that madness,today it is called the 'scientific method'.Enjoy your theory,you look a prime candidate for an indoctrination and forget about any individuality or self respect from here on in,the first casualty of war may be truth but in empirical circles,the first casualty is common sense,something Orwell learned from Nazi doctrine -

"In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and
you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make
that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it.
Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of
external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy
of heresies was common sense." Orwell Nineteen -Eighty-Four

I am sure your children will be proud of you when you take them outside to look at warped space and all the other empirical novelties.Good luck to you and that really is the end of 'big bang'.

So, what you are basically saying is that modern scientific theories are a load of bull? Without giving a theory to the contrary? All you seem to do is quote our elder scientific minds as though what they say can never be overturned.

gkell3

Anonymo wrote: »

Wow! Just wow!
This has been explained to you so many times now. Forget about the bundling together. .

Hence 'doublethink' - you want to forget that 'big bang' bundles the oldest galaxy as the most distant with an evolutionary timeline only to bring it back when it suits -

"The keyword here is blackwhite. Like so many Newspeak words, this
word has two mutually contradictory meanings. Applied to an opponent,
it means the habit of impudently claiming that black is white, in
contradiction of the plain facts. Applied to a Party member, it means
a loyal willingness to say that black is white when Party discipline
demands this. But it means also the ability to believe that black is
white, and more, to know that black is white, and to forget that one
has ever believed the contrary. This demands a continuous alteration
of the past, made possible by the system of thought which really
embraces all the rest, and which is known in Newspeak as doublethink.
Doublethink is basically the power of holding two contradictory
beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them."
Orwell 1984

That why 'big bang' reflects a human nightmare,its adherents forget whatever it is necessary to forget to maintain an internal logical consistency so if you don't like the assertion that the oldest galaxies are the most distant bundled with an evolutionary timeline then you alleviate the contradiction by forgetting one side of the premise.

What you mustn't forget is that it is not possible to reason with somebody who can hold contradictory views simultaneously,that is the whole point of the horror and some people today see empirical modelers state that droughts are caused by global warming and so are floods,heatwaves are caused by global warming and so are severe cold spells and that is why great minds have always recognized the approach inherent in the toxic strain of empiricism as dangerous -

" I know; such men do not deduce their conclusion from its premises or
establish it by reason, but they accommodate (I should have said
discommode and distort) the premises and reasons to a conclusion which
for them is already established and nailed down. No good can come of
dealing with such people, especially to the extent that their company
may be not only unpleasant but dangerous." Galileo

Anonymo

shizz wrote: »

So, what you are basically saying is that modern scientific theories are a load of bull? Without giving a theory to the contrary? All you seem to do is quote our elder scientific minds as though what they say can never be overturned.

I think we should all adopt that stance.
Yep. Newton had the correct theory of gravity so there is no need for Einstein and his madness. Ok so using Newton's theory might mean that GPS systems don't work anymore. No problem they never really worked. It was scientists pretending to use Einstein's theory to make themselves look clever and get money from funding bodies all along. No problem. Let's focus completely on motions of the planets. But you say there is enough resolution power in telescopes today that we can make inferences on galaxy formation. Yeah but we'll never be able to see those galaxies form so we shouldn't try and understand that. But you say that lots of inferences have been made from observations of stars and galaxies and this has allowed us to understand the cosmos like never before. Well throw away your Hertsprung-Russell diagram and Hubble diagram. These are the inventions of retrobates who should erroneously based all of what they did on a finite speed of light and would have been much better off if they accepted that there are 1461 rotations in 1461 days. These people that say that the earth does indeed rotate that many times relative to the sun but that it rotates 1465 times in 1461 relative to the distant stars are all trying to fool those unwilling to investigate for themselves.

Anonymo

gkell3 wrote: »

Hence 'doublethink' - you want to forget that 'big bang' bundles the oldest galaxy as the most distant with an evolutionary timeline only to bring it back when it suits -

"The keyword here is blackwhite. Like so many Newspeak words, this
word has two mutually contradictory meanings. Applied to an opponent,
it means the habit of impudently claiming that black is white, in
contradiction of the plain facts. Applied to a Party member, it means
a loyal willingness to say that black is white when Party discipline
demands this. But it means also the ability to believe that black is
white, and more, to know that black is white, and to forget that one
has ever believed the contrary. This demands a continuous alteration
of the past, made possible by the system of thought which really
embraces all the rest, and which is known in Newspeak as doublethink.
Doublethink is basically the power of holding two contradictory
beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them."
Orwell 1984

That why 'big bang' reflects a human nightmare,its adherents forget whatever it is necessary to forget to maintain an internal logical consistency so if you don't like the assertion that the oldest galaxies are the most distant bundled with an evolutionary timeline then you alleviate the contradiction by forgetting one side of the premise.

What you mustn't forget is that it is not possible to reason with somebody who can hold contradictory views simultaneously,that is the whole point of the horror and some people today see empirical modelers state that droughts are caused by global warming and so are floods,heatwaves are caused by global warming and so are severe cold spells and that is why great minds have always recognized the approach inherent in the toxic strain of empiricism as dangerous -

" I know; such men do not deduce their conclusion from its premises or
establish it by reason, but they accommodate (I should have said
discommode and distort) the premises and reasons to a conclusion which
for them is already established and nailed down. No good can come of
dealing with such people, especially to the extent that their company
may be not only unpleasant but dangerous." Galileo

It does not do any such thing. Please just answer the question. Tell me if you disagree with it. And don't conflate it with anything else. That's a cop out.

Telchak

gkell3

Anonymo wrote: »

I think we should all adopt that stance.
Yep. Newton had the correct theory of gravity so there is no need for Einstein and his madness. Ok so using Newton's theory might mean that GPS systems don't work anymore.

You have your GPS system based on the Lat/Long system tied to the invention of accurate clocks and that was done by John Harrison working off the known principles which correlate 1461 days of 24 hour AM/PM's with 1461 natural noon AM/PM's.

None of you know your history,technical or otherwise and all Newton tried to do was attempt to link experimental sciences directly with astronomical insights through the predictive bridge of Ra/Dec.You haven't a clue what the 'theory of gravity' represents other that a superficial statement that everyone else seems to agree with but when faced with the actual nuts and bolts of it,you wouldn't be long running.

Engineering has little to do with astronomical insights and that stupid attempt to model planetary motions using watches and stellar circumpolar motion has created havoc in this era where there are people who are convinced they can model climate using computers.

King Mob

gkell3 wrote: »

You have your GPS system based on the Lat/Long system tied to the invention of accurate clocks and that was done by John Harrison working off the known principles which correlate 1461 days of 24 hour AM/PM's with 1461 natural noon AM/PM's.

None of you know your history,technical or otherwise and all Newton tried to do was attempt to link experimental sciences directly with astronomical insights through the predictive bridge of Ra/Dec.You haven't a clue what the 'theory of gravity' represents other that a superficial statement that everyone else seems to agree with but when faced with the actual nuts and bolts of it,you wouldn't be long running.

Engineering has little to do with astronomical insights and that stupid attempt to model planetary motions using watches and stellar circumpolar motion has created havoc in this era where there are people who are convinced they can model climate using computers.

Gkell, could you please outline exactly what you think the truth is?

And explain it as concisely as possible?

gkell3

Anonymo wrote: »

It does not do any such thing. Please just answer the question. Tell me if you disagree with it. And don't conflate it with anything else. That's a cop out.

So now you want me to forget that you asked me to forget an evolutionary timeline as it no longer appears that you can do without the two halves of the same 'big bang' premises so thanks for demonstrating the nightmare of 'doublethink',a term that was really a disguised version of Nazi doctrine in fictional form.


You want the oldest galaxies to be the most distant in a smaller/younger Universe bundled with an evolutionary timeline then suffer the extended conclusion of that 'big bang' premise which is that the nearest galaxies are the youngest,this is your premise and if you can't look at that conceptual vomit I don't blame you but that is the worst type of cult there is.

Do you understand that it is Not,I repeat,not possible to discuss anything meaningful with a creature who can hold two contradictory views simultaneously,I can point out exactly where those two views are located but ultimately it is a mind that is long since lost to a logic where choices are flexible to suit a conclusion or ideology.

Now that truly is the end of it.

shizz

Now I'll admit that I'm not an expert in the standard big bang model but I thought I understood the basics of it. I fail to see how it depicts that the furthest galaxies are the oldest?

I just understood that we were seeing the furthest galaxies away at a much older time due to the time taken to get to us by the light. I fail to see how this is contradictory.

I implore you to explain the reasoning. Explain how the big bang model depicts that the further away they are the older.

King Mob

shizz wrote: »

Now I'll admit that I'm not an expert in the standard big bang model but I thought I understood the basics of it. I fail to see how it depicts that the furthest galaxies are the oldest?

I just understood that we were seeing the furthest galaxies away at a much older time due to the time taken to get to us by the light. I fail to see how this is contradictory.

I implore you to explain the reasoning. Explain how the big bang model depicts that the further away they are the older.

Gkell is under the impression that astronomers claim that the older galaxies are further away based on his flawed reading of articles in the media.

People have repeatedly pointed out to him his error, but he has yet to address these points.
Particularly he has been asked whether or not he understands that light travels at a finite speed. Again he has not addressed this question.

Anonymo

gkell3 wrote: »

So now you want me to forget that you asked me to forget an evolutionary timeline as it no longer appears that you can do without the two halves of the same 'big bang' premises so thanks for demonstrating the nightmare of 'doublethink',a term that was really a disguised version of Nazi doctrine in fictional form.


You want the oldest galaxies to be the most distant in a smaller/younger Universe bundled with an evolutionary timeline then suffer the extended conclusion of that 'big bang' premise which is that the nearest galaxies are the youngest,this is your premise and if you can't look at that conceptual vomit I don't blame you but that is the worst type of cult there is.

Do you understand that it is Not,I repeat,not possible to discuss anything meaningful with a creature who can hold two contradictory views simultaneously,I can point out exactly where those two views are located but ultimately it is a mind that is long since lost to a logic where choices are flexible to suit a conclusion or ideology.

Now that truly is the end of it.

I have shown a lot of patience towards you and your ravings. You have been given the benefit of the doubt on many occasions. However right now you are comparing my post to Nazi doctrine. Fictional or otherwise that is disgraceful.
I have not given any contradictory statement. I've tried to help you see why there is no contradiction. I have even allowed for you to suspend one of the 'views' for the sake of argument. That you are not prepared to do so means you are only on this forum to espouse your nonsense views. I sincerely hope this is the end of it because you are making a complete fool of yourself.

AugustusMinimus

A straight answer please gkell.

Q. Does light travel at a finite speed. Yes or No.

gkell3

King Mob wrote: »

Gkell, could you please outline exactly what you think the truth is?

And explain it as concisely as possible?

The Earth turns once a day,100 times in 100 days and a thousand times in a thousand days,that is the principle of any clock be it a sand clock or an atomic one.

Failure to use the correct external references for timekeeping,and this is what the bridging Ra/Dec framework does,and you end up believing in an imbalance of 1465 rotations in 1461 days ,the system Isaac used in his attempt to bridge experimental sciences at a human level with astronomical insights.It is so obvious in his approach to Kepler's correlation between orbital periods and orbital distances from the Sun and ties nicely in with the principle of the Earth turning once in a day.

Tell me,what do you think of Newton's main ideology as it differs from Kepler's perspective ? -

"That the fixed stars being at rest, the periodic times of the five
primary planets, and (whether of the sun about the earth, or) of the
earth about the sun, are in the sesquiplicate proportion of their mean
distances from the sun.
This proportion, first observed by Kepler, is now received by all
astronomers; for the periodic times are the same, and the dimensions
of the orbits are the same, whether the sun revolves about the earth,
or the earth about the sun." Newton

Go ahead,many a mathematician like Rouse Ball had no idea what method he used so you have the honor of explaining it.For me it is like reading a newspaper so now it is time that you crowd did some work.

shizz

gkell3 wrote: »

The Earth turns once a day,100 times in 100 days and a thousand times in a thousand days,that is the principle of any clock be it a sand clock or an atomic one.

Failure to use the correct external references for timekeeping,and this is what the bridging Ra/Dec framework does,and you end up believing in an imbalance of 1465 rotations in 1461 days ,the system Isaac used in his attempt to bridge experimental sciences at a human level with astronomical insights.It is so obvious in his approach to Kepler's correlation between orbital periods and orbital distances from the Sun and ties nicely in with the principle of the Earth turning once in a day.

Tell me,what do you think of Newton's main ideology as it differs from Kepler's perspective ? -

"That the fixed stars being at rest, the periodic times of the five
primary planets, and (whether of the sun about the earth, or) of the
earth about the sun, are in the sesquiplicate proportion of their mean
distances from the sun.
This proportion, first observed by Kepler, is now received by all
astronomers; for the periodic times are the same, and the dimensions
of the orbits are the same, whether the sun revolves about the earth,
or the earth about the sun." Newton

Go ahead,many a mathematician like Rouse Ball had no idea what method he used so you have the honor of explaining it.For me it is like reading a newspaper so now it is time that you crowd did some work.

I have seen this time and time again. Blatantly tip-toeing around questions and spurting continuous drivel. Just please answer the questions we are posting to you. You are the one who is stating to the contrary of modern science. Please explain why.

BTW. I thought you were done?

gkell3

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

A straight answer please gkell.

Q. Does light travel at a finite speed. Yes or No.

If you understood what Roemer did as it refers to the variations in orbits between Earth and Jupiter in accounting for the positional displacement of Io we wouldn't be having a conversation about ' big bang'.

I will put it this way,like the dumb conclusion where you link circumpolar motion directly to daily rotation and come up with a hideous imbalance of 366 rotations in 365 days,you have done the same for the original 'Mora Luminis' of Roemer.

You want a direct correlation between time and distance in evolutionary terms and you get the oldest galaxies as the most distant and the youngest galaxies as the nearest.It is not possible to ask questions from people who hold two contradictory views while believing them both so you are not asking me a question,you are desperately avoiding the premises which you assume arises from finite light between observer and object.

Your statement is that the oldest galaxies are the most distant in a smaller/younger Universe bundled with an evolutionary timeline,you either accept it or you do not,it is not a question it is what you choose to believe.

AugustusMinimus

gkell3 wrote: »

If you understood what Roemer did as it refers to the variations in orbits between Earth and Jupiter in accounting for the positional displacement of Io we wouldn't be having a conversation about ' big bang'.

I will put it this way,like the dumb conclusion where you link circumpolar motion directly to daily rotation and come up with a hideous imbalance of 366 rotations in 365 days,you have done the same for the original 'Mora Luminis' of Roemer.

You want a direct correlation between time and distance in evolutionary terms and you get the oldest galaxies as the most distant and the youngest galaxies as the nearest.It is not possible to ask questions from people who hold two contradictory views while believing them both so you are not asking me a question,you are desperately avoiding the premises which you assume arises from finite light between observer and object.

Your statement is that the oldest galaxies are the most distant in a smaller/younger Universe bundled with an evolutionary timeline,you either accept it or you do not,it is not a question it is what you choose to believe.

shizz

gkell3 wrote: »

If you understood what Roemer did as it refers to the variations in orbits between Earth and Jupiter in accounting for the positional displacement of Io we wouldn't be having a conversation about ' big bang'.

I will put it this way,like the dumb conclusion where you link circumpolar motion directly to daily rotation and come up with a hideous imbalance of 366 rotations in 365 days,you have done the same for the original 'Mora Luminis' of Roemer.

You want a direct correlation between time and distance in evolutionary terms and you get the oldest galaxies as the most distant and the youngest galaxies as the nearest.It is not possible to ask questions from people who hold two contradictory views while believing them both so you are not asking me a question,you are desperately avoiding the premises which you assume arises from finite light between observer and object.

Your statement is that the oldest galaxies are the most distant in a smaller/younger Universe bundled with an evolutionary timeline,you either accept it or you do not,it is not a question it is what you choose to believe.

Just out of curiosity here, but are you looking at this kinda picture and taking it at face value?



Where clearer it would seem that if we are at the right, everything further away would be older yes?

Because if so that's ludicrous