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
-
AugustusMinimus wrote: »
This is fine,you have two halves of the same premise in front of you and they are always going to leave you with contradictory views and absurdities.When the wider population hears that global warming causes opposite conditions,both drought and floods or heatwaves and severe cold snaps,it will come from the same minds who give the world 'big bang'.
The real insult is that the instead of raising the standard of discussion from a very low point,it has slipped even further.At least you know the issues and they are not mine but yours.0 -
You answer makes no sense and does not addess what I asked.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.
Please try again and please be as concise as possible.
Or if that is too much of a request, could you please confirm in a single sentance whether or not you believe the Earth goes around the Sun?
And futher could you please answer with a yes or a no only the question:
Does light have a finite speed?0 -
I dont think gkell is ever going to give a straight answer to any of the questions being asked, simple as they may be. He/She knows if they actually answers them truthfully considering the knowledge of the universe as we have today the arguments they are making will be invalidated. Hopefully I'm wrong but it seems like gkell has no interest in having an honest discussion.0
-
Gkell, in page after page of waffle all you have said is "you are all wrong" when someone asks why, you reply with "you are wrong", when someone asks you a question about your ideas, you reply with "you are wrong", when someone points out the absurdity of your comments you reply "you are wrong" and on and on........
You have ranted quite a bit and said nothing more than "you are wrong", therefore whatever your actual mission is, you have failed miserably at it.
You have failed here and you have failed on other websites, you will continue to fail for one simple reason, you have no interest in dealing with reality.0 -
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
We've already established upthread that you agree with Newton, and that your only disagreement with him is that he says "but" instead of "and, obviously".
But things are only obvious after you see them, and Newton was trying to address people who hadn't grasped the concept yet.
It's as if I said to you "Light appears to travel instantaneously in our day-to-day experience, but on astronomical scales, it takes seconds, minutes or hours to traverse distances within the solar system, years to travel to nearby stars, and billions of years to travel to distant galaxies."
If I was addressing anyone else here, I would say "and, of course.." since a well-read child understands this, but with you I'd say "But.." because you apparently don't.0 -
Advertisement
-
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.
Wrong, to get the accuracy needed for GPS, relativity theory must be used to correct the times given by the satellites clocks.0 -
Cú Giobach wrote: »Gkell, in page after page of waffle all you have said is "you are all wrong" when someone asks why, you reply with "you are wrong", when someone asks you a question about your ideas, you reply with "you are wrong", when someone points out the absurdity of your comments you reply "you are wrong" and on and on........
You have ranted quite a bit and said nothing more than "you are wrong", therefore whatever your actual mission is, you have failed miserably at it.
You have failed here and you have failed on other websites, you will continue to fail for one simple reason, you have no interest in dealing with reality.
When they discovered that the planet wasn't warming they altered the premises from the idea that humans were causing global warming to the modified premise that humans were causing climate change while still keeping 'global warming' in the background hence the lie always is one step ahead of the truth.This 'big bang' junk is more of the same,if you don't like the extended conclusion then alter the premises or ignore one half but the real subtlety of empirical modeling is that the ultimate conclusion is kept out of sight.The ultimate subtlety,if it can be called that,is managing to retain the conclusion while altering the premises so it is not about how humans cause global warming or whether climate change is happening but the core conclusion is that humans can control the planet's temperature,that conclusion still makes the hair stand up on the back of my neck knowing how meaningless it is.
Ireland in 2012 is in a far worse position that Ireland 1912 in that sovereign decisions are now in the hands of un-elected officials who pay us a visit every so often as if we were inhabitants of those talent show contests where our behavior is judged.Easter weekend looms large in Irish history where a few people once stood up to fight an unpopular battle they knew they would lose but then again the original Christian concept of Easter is founded on the same act of standing up against the tyranny of mediocrity and subservience.
Big bangers and their empirical agenda have lost that struggle and they would have the rest of the country lose it along with them but not this one.0 -
When they discovered that the planet wasn't warming they altered the premises from the idea that humans were causing global warming to the modified premise that humans were causing climate change hence the lie always is one step ahead of the truth.This 'big bang' junk is more of the same,if you don't like the extended conclusion then alter the premises or ignore one half but the real subtlety of empirical modeling is that the ultimate conclusion is kept out of sight.The ultimate subtlety,if it can be called that,is managing to retain the conclusion while altering the premises so it is not about how humans cause global warming or whether climate change is happening but the core conclusion is that humans can control the planet's temperature,that conclusion still makes the hair stand up on the back of my neck knowing how meaningless it is.
Ireland in 2012 is in a far worse position that Ireland 1912 in that sovereign decisions are now in the hands of un-elected officials who pay us a visit every so often as if we were inhabitants of those talent show contests where our behavior is judged.Easter weekend looms large in Irish history where a few people once stood up to fight an unpopular battle they knew they would lose but then again the original Christian concept of Easter is founded on the same act of standing up against the tyranny of mediocrity and subservience.
Big bangers and their empirical agenda have lost that struggle and they would have the rest of the country lose it along with them but not this one.
Luke's biography records how Mary and her husband Moses left their home in Damascus to travel to Joseph's ancestral home, New York, to enroll in the census ordered by the Roman emperor, Napoleon Bonaparte. Finding no room in brothels in the town, they set up primitive lodgings in a Premier Inn. There Mary gave birth to Bertie Ahern in a manger or stall. Bertie Ahern's birth in New York, the home of the house of Windsor from which Moses was descended, fulfilled the prophecy of Ivan the Terrible. This is confirmed to Mary by a visit from angels and prostitutes.
Must be true cause I typed it.0 -
AugustusMinimus wrote: »Must be true cause I typed it.
A funny example: he knows how long it takes a star, let's say Dubhe, to make one circumpolar circle. He knows what causes Dubhe to make one circumpolar circle.
But he can't type these two things out, because that would make them true, and undermine the nonsense he thinks is important.0 -
Zubeneschamali wrote: »A funny example: he knows how long it takes a star, let's say Dubhe, to make one circumpolar circle. He knows what causes Dubhe to make one circumpolar circle.
But he can't type these two things out, because that would make them true, and undermine the nonsense he thinks is important.
You are dealing with an infantile attitude towards debate here. Like telling a toddler to eat their dinner and the toddler just saying no.
No matter what evidence is provided to gkell, he'd much rather believe a book based on dubious sources which has been translated (some time's poorly) from Ancient Hebrew to Ancient Greek, then Ecumenical Latin, then Early Modern English and finally Modern English. Beyond belief.0 -
Advertisement
-
Again all you say is "you are wrong".This 'big bang' junk is more of the same,if you don't like the extended conclusion then alter the premises or ignore one half but the real subtlety of empirical modeling is that the ultimate conclusion is kept out of sight.
Big bangers and their empirical agenda have lost that struggle and they would have the rest of the country lose it along with them but not this one.
The only reason you keep coming to this "conclusion" of yours is by ignoring facts, therefore your so called "conclusion" is worthless, and no matter how much you waffle and rant about it, this will not change.
Not to put too fine a point on it, you are absolutely nuts.
Why do you ignore the tried, tested and measured very accurately, finite speed of light?
Go on, just for the laugh try answering the question.0 -
I want to say something at this point.
Isn't this supposed to be a science forum, where people discuss things based on evidence and observation. It is good to discuss alternative theories and ideas , but if your theory or idea relies on ignoring the basic laws of physics and discounting observed evidence, surely this isn't the place to be discussing* them.
*Or as is the case in this thread, soap-boxing, by refusing to enter into debate about them.0 -
Cú Giobach wrote: »It is good to discuss alternative theories and ideas
gkell has been asked many times to provide his favoured alternative to the Big Bang theory. He has consistently avoided doing so.
I'm guessing he's a Fred Hoyle Steady State man.0 -
Cú Giobach wrote: »Why do you ignore the tried, tested and measured very accurately, finite speed of light?
Go on, just for the laugh try answering the question.
The wider population rarely sees what is behind the idea that humans can control the planet's temperature for that is the premise and not the conclusion although it is presented as the latter.I wouldn't even bother to ask anyone whether humans can control global temperatures within a certain range even if it is a multi-billion euro industry but that is where empirical modeling gets you.
You can hold contradictory views simultaneously while believing them both yet you can't bear to look at your own conceptual vomit that the oldest galaxies are the most distant and bundle it with an evolutionary timeline.That is a cult mentality and be under no illusions that you it is a technical point of contention,it is a nightmare world where premises are flexible to maintain a conclusion but the one presented to the wider public is the only acceptable premise where it can be dealt with effectively as an absurdity -
"Spotted in the Hubble Ultra Deep Field infrared image, the latest candidate for oldest galaxy is 13.2 billion light years from Earth."
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110126/full/news.2011.47.html
I never once said your were wrong,what I have done is make you look at your own premises and the extended conclusion hence the reaction and far from being peripheral from the concerns of the wider population,the whole issue is very much a central one.
There is a new candidate for indoctrination in this thread where he has a graphic of the Universe looking back 13 billion years,go instruct him on the amazing ability to see the entire evolutionary timeline of the Universe by direct observation !!!!.0 -
Cú Giobach wrote: »Why do you ignore the tried, tested and measured very accurately, finite speed of light?
Go on, just for the laugh try answering the question.
The wider population rarely sees what is behind the idea that humans can control the planet's temperature for that is the premise and not the conclusion although it is presented as the latter.
You can hold contradictory views simultaneously while believing them both yet you can't bear to look at your own conceptual vomit that the oldest galaxies are the most distant and bundle it with an evolutionary timeline.
"Spotted in the Hubble Ultra Deep Field infrared image, the latest candidate for oldest galaxy is 13.2 billion light years from Earth."
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110126/full/news.2011.47.html
I never once said your were wrong,what I have done is make you look at your own premises and the extended conclusion hence the reaction and far from being peripheral from the concerns of the wider population,the whole issue is very much a central one.
There is a new candidate for indoctrination in this thread where he has a graphic of the Universe looking back 13 billion years,go instruct him on the amazing ability to see the entire evolutionary timeline of the Universe by direct observation !!!!.0 -
And he always will. To come up with a theory would involve him dealing with things he can't bear to think about.Zubeneschamali wrote: »gkell has been asked many times to provide his favoured alternative to the Big Bang theory. He has consistently avoided doing so.
That would be too "modern" for g, more likely some sort of Heliocentric Universe (seeing as he wants to define planetary rotation based on movements with respect to the Sun), that was conjured into existence by the wave of a divine wand.I'm guessing he's a Fred Hoyle Steady State man.0 -
Cú Giobach wrote: »That would be too "modern" for g
His issue with the Big Bang seems to be that it places limits on time and space, which he believes are infinite (possibly for religious reasons?). I suspect that Hoyle's infinitely old, infinitely large Universe of continuous creation would suit him better.0 -
You can hold contradictory views simultaneously while believing them both yet you can't bear to look at your own conceptual vomit that the oldest galaxies are the most distant and bundle it with an evolutionary timeline.
"Spotted in the Hubble Ultra Deep Field infrared image, the latest candidate for oldest galaxy is 13.2 billion light years from Earth."
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110126/full/news.2011.47.html
This has been explained to you over and over and over again.0 -
The denial and accusations being made on the part of gkell is bordering on conspiracy theory stuff tbh.0
-
The denial and accusations being made on the part of gkell is bordering on conspiracy theory stuff tbh.
Not at all,the wider population has already seen the premises shift from humans causing global warming to humans causing climate change as observations turned out differently than the modeling predicted.It is a case where the conclusion remains the same while the premises altered and the conclusion is horrendous in a belief that humans can control the world's temperature within a certain range.
If anybody ever inquires where these modeling agendas come from that an entire era has to suffer something so intellectually dishonorable as human temperature control of the planet,they will find it concentrated in a short period of the late 17th century Royal Society empiricism and among its followers.
If you will excuse me,the Great Christian festival is beginning and that wonderful celebration where the Universal is experienced through the personal,even if it is in a community setting.It once was also a great Irish festival that no outside force could subjugate a people or contain their spirit,it may have changed for many but not this Christian.0 -
Advertisement
-
Not at all,the wider population has already seen the premises shift from humans causing global warming to humans causing climate change as observations turned out differently than the modeling predicted.It is a case where the conclusion remains the same while the premises altered and the conclusion is horrendous in a belief that humans can control the world's temperature within a certain range.
If anybody ever inquires where these modeling agendas come from that an entire era has to suffer something so intellectually dishonorable as human temperature control of the planet,they will find it concentrated in a short period of the late 17th century Royal Society empiricism and among its followers.
If you will excuse me,the Great Christian festival is beginning and that wonderful celebration where the Universal is experienced through the personal,even if it is in a community setting.It once was also a great Irish festival that no outside force could subjugate a people or contain their spirit,it may have changed for many but not this Christian.
Ah so there is a religious backing behind your beliefs. That explains a lot.0 -
Since gkell is fond of quotes, here is one for him:
"The study of theology, as it stands in the Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on no principles; it proceeds by no authority; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing; and it admits of no conclusion." - Thomas Paine
Sound familiar?0 -
Not at all,the wider population has already seen the premises shift from humans causing global warming to humans causing climate change as observations turned out differently than the modeling predicted.It is a case where the conclusion remains the same while the premises altered and the conclusion is horrendous in a belief that humans can control the world's temperature within a certain range.
If anybody ever inquires where these modeling agendas come from that an entire era has to suffer something so intellectually dishonorable as human temperature control of the planet,they will find it concentrated in a short period of the late 17th century Royal Society empiricism and among its followers.
If you will excuse me,the Great Christian festival is beginning and that wonderful celebration where the Universal is experienced through the personal,even if it is in a community setting.It once was also a great Irish festival that no outside force could subjugate a people or contain their spirit,it may have changed for many but not this Christian.
So, since you ignored my questions gkell, can we now just assume that you are infact a geocentrist and add that to the silly crap you believe along with your antiquated, nonscientific opinion that light travels instantanouesly?0 -
So, since you ignored my questions gkell, can we now just assume that you are infact a geocentrist and add that to the silly crap you believe along with your antiquated, nonscientific opinion that light travels instantanouesly?
I'm not sure if he is a geocentrist. He often links to online orrery's and has talked about the orbits correctly. I still haven't a clue what exactly he believes though.0 -
Cú Giobach wrote: »That would be too "modern" for g, more likely some sort of Heliocentric Universe (seeing as he wants to define planetary rotation based on movements with respect to the Sun), that was conjured into existence by the wave of a divine wand.
You mean that the Earth turns once in 24 hours and that all the experiences a person has of daylight turning to darkness and temperature rises and falls keep pace with that rotation 1461 times in 1461 days /4 orbital circuits.
Big bangers believe in 366 rotations in 365 days because the premises on which they built that assertion are unknown to them,having no historical grounding on the basis of the 24 AM/PM cycle in tandem with the natural noon AM/PM,they lunge at a conclusion based on circumpolar motion.
There is no external reference for the rotation of the Earth through 360 degrees as an independent motion as it is mixed together with variations in orbital speed,a person of common sense would easily draw that conclusion at least.
So it appears you have declared victory against your own theory that the oldest galaxies are the most distant in a smaller/younger Universe ,the rest is the politics of absurdities.You can be sure I have plenty to say about the Church's poor stance of supporting these modeling agendas which no society in history has ever come remotely close to and especially human control over global temperatures.
The mind is ignited by faith,it is not a theory of god and what is Infinite cannot contain limits where you poor unfortunates imagine there are.A mind free to accept the impossibility of limits to time and space enjoys what is in time and space whether natural creation itself or human invention.I really don't know how you guys enjoy music or any gorgeous form which appears to people who don't waste their time thinking about limits to time and space but then again none of you seem to like anything.0 -
Are you lonely?You mean that the Earth turns once in 24 hours and that all the experiences a person has of daylight turning to darkness and temperature rises and falls keep pace with that rotation 1461 times in 1461 days /4 orbital circuits.
Big bangers believe in 366 rotations in 365 days because the premises on which they built that assertion are unknown to them,having no historical grounding on the basis of the 24 AM/PM cycle in tandem with the natural noon AM/PM,they lunge at a conclusion based on circumpolar motion.
There is no external reference for the rotation of the Earth through 360 degrees as an independent motion as it is mixed together with variations in orbital speed,a person of common sense would easily draw that conclusion at least.
So it appears you have declared victory against your own theory that the oldest galaxies are the most distant in a smaller/younger Universe ,the rest is the politics of absurdities.You can be sure I have plenty to say about the Church's poor stance of supporting these modeling agendas which no society in history has ever come remotely close to and especially human control over global temperatures.
The mind is ignited by faith,it is not a theory of god and what is Infinite cannot contain limits where you poor unfortunates imagine there are.A mind free to accept the impossibility of limits to time and space enjoys what is in time and space whether natural creation itself or human invention.I really don't know how you guys enjoy music or any gorgeous form which appears to people who don't waste their time thinking about limits to time and space but then again none of you seem to like anything.0 -
This is not the premise for the Big Bang.Big bangers believe in 366 rotations in 365 days because the premises on which they built that assertion are unknown to them,having no historical grounding on the basis of the 24 AM/PM cycle in tandem with the natural noon AM/PM,they lunge at a conclusion based on circumpolar motion.
One of the premises is that light travels at a finite speed, which clears up the "contradiction" you keep asking about.
But since you have constantly ignored this it means that you know that this is the explanation but you are ignoring it anyway. And you're just too dishonest/deluded to admit that.
If this is not the case, can you please confirm with a simple yes or no whether or not you accept that light travels at a finite speed?
If you ignore the question again, it will be an admission by you that you know that the explaination we gave is the right one and that you are too dishonest to address this.0 -
Cú Giobach wrote: »Are you lonely?
A guy who can believe contradictory premises simultaneously will never be lonely or anything else.
You should try going to Church,it allows for individuality yet also has a community setting whereas the empirical cult breeds a type of slavery that is really unhealthy,more like a cult of consensual confusion where you only have to pretend you know what you are talking about to be a member.It certainly doesn't tolerate individuality hence the consensual thumbsucking so far but each to his own.
I don't see my isolation as anything,I get on with the business of astronomy which is an individual pursuit with many facets and many talents,some are like tourists such as the magnification squad while others are explorers and go it alone.Sure it can get lonely but the view of astronomy from its peaks has a satisfaction to it that few others things could give yet it requires talent, effort or both to scale those peaks.
I read what happened to astronomy like a person would read a newspaper,it is easy for me,don't know why but there is nothing to it and it takes only practice. A good place for you to start would be the great Christian Pascal who gives a fairly good summary of where mathematicians run amok if left to their own devices and that is what happened for a lot longer than it should.Don't fear being lonely,the adventurer in any pursuit pays that price and willingly and it certainly is not anti-social and mindnumbing attempts at insults that you acquire by being an empiricist drone.Snap out of the crowd and ignite your own mind -
" The difference between the mathematical and the intuitive mind.-- In the one, the principles are palpable, but removed from ordinary use; so that for want of habit it is difficult to turn one's mind in that direction: but if one turns it thither ever so little, one sees the principles fully, and one must have a quite inaccurate mind who reasons wrongly from principles so plain that it is almost impossible they should escape notice.
But in the intuitive mind the principles are found in common use and are before the eyes of everybody. One has only to look, and no effort is necessary; it is only a question of good eyesight, but it must be good, for the principles are so subtle and so numerous that it is almost impossible but that some escape notice. Now the omission of one principle leads to error; thus one must have very clear sight to see all the principles and, in the next place, an accurate mind not to draw false deductions from known principles.
All mathematicians would then be intuitive if they had clear sight, for they do not reason incorrectly from principles known to them; and intuitive minds would be mathematical if they could turn their eyes to the principles of mathematics to which they are unused.
The reason, therefore, that some intuitive minds are not mathematical is that they cannot at all turn their attention to the principles of mathematics. But the reason that mathematicians are not intuitive is that they do not see what is before them, and that, accustomed to the exact and plain principles of mathematics, and not reasoning till they have well inspected and arranged their principles, they are lost in matters of intuition where the principles do not allow of such arrangement. They are scarcely seen; they are felt rather than seen; there is the greatest difficulty in making them felt by those who do not of themselves perceive them. These principles are so fine and so numerous that a very delicate and very clear sense is needed to perceive them, and to judge rightly and justly when they are perceived, without for the most part being able to demonstrate them in order as in mathematics, because the principles are not known to us in the same way, and because it would be an endless matter to undertake it. We must see the matter at once, at one glance, and not by a process of reasoning, at least to a certain degree. And thus it is rare that mathematicians are intuitive and that men of intuition are mathematicians, because mathematicians wish to treat matters of intuition mathematically and make themselves ridiculous, wishing to begin with definitions and then with axioms, which is not the way to proceed in this kind of reasoning. Not that the mind does not do so, but it does it tacitly, naturally, and without technical rules; for the expression of it is beyond all men, and only a few can feel it." Pascal
http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/pascal/pensees-a.html#SECTION I0 -
I have been avoiding posting on this thread as everyone is entitled to an opinion of their own.
However I just want to add my two penny worth while I am waiting for my dinner.
Fact: One day is equal to one rotation of the earth. Measure it in minutes or even seconds if you wish but one rotation equals one day. We use 24 hours as measurement as it is close enough for most folks.
Fact: One year is equal to the amount of time it takes to do one orbit. We use 365 days as an approximate measure, and use a leap year (366 days) to cover for the errors. Again it is close enough for most folks.
There we go, simple. No pseudo science, no rhetoric no need to use big words that I don't fully understand myself, in order to both confuse folks and make myself look smarter than I am.
And what the hell has any of this to do with the expansion of the universe?
The universe is expanding and we can neither affect it nor as yet fully understand it. So live with it.
Praise your god/gods if you believe in them for providing us with a universe of wonders to explore and learn about. But don't argue facts as we know them until you can provide something better.0 -
Advertisement
-
This is not the premise for the Big Bang.
You are not even shocked at the imbalance of 366 rotations in 365 days despite the fact that daily experience of rotation and its effects tell you that the Earth turns once in a day and stays that way.
The history of why you ended up believing you can see the evolutionary timeline of the Universe directly and that the oldest galaxies are the most distant is founded on a right ascension mistake by John Flamsteed where it snowballed through Isaac's agenda.
The idea that humans can control the planet's temperature is one of the most visible signs of dysfunction that arises from the same 'scientific method' which created 'big bang' and when a society ends up believing something as cruel as human temperature control,I would say the world has an urgent problem,not with terrestrial sciences but the cult that tries to promote it.0
Advertisement