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
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Time : Expansion of The Universe

1457910

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,093 ✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 145 ✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 145 ✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 151 ✭✭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.


  • Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    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?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,506 ✭✭✭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?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 145 ✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 151 ✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,506 ✭✭✭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?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 145 ✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,506 ✭✭✭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?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 145 ✭✭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'.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,506 ✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 145 ✭✭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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 151 ✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 151 ✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 891 ✭✭✭Telchak


    98205960-43cf-4318-a521-f571e012b0ae.jpg


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 145 ✭✭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.


  • Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    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?


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 145 ✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,506 ✭✭✭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.


  • Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 151 ✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,564 ✭✭✭AugustusMinimus


    A straight answer please gkell.

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


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 145 ✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,506 ✭✭✭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?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 145 ✭✭gkell3


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,564 ✭✭✭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.

    chewbacca_defense_2.jpg


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,506 ✭✭✭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?

    350px-CMB_Timeline300_no_WMAP.jpg

    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


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 145 ✭✭gkell3


    chewbacca_defense_2.jpg

    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.


  • Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    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.
    You answer makes no sense and does not addess what I asked.
    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?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,636 ✭✭✭token56


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,772 ✭✭✭Cú Giobach


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    gkell3 wrote: »
    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    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.

    Wrong, to get the accuracy needed for GPS, relativity theory must be used to correct the times given by the satellites clocks.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 145 ✭✭gkell3


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,564 ✭✭✭AugustusMinimus


    gkell3 wrote: »
    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,564 ✭✭✭AugustusMinimus


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,772 ✭✭✭Cú Giobach


    gkell3 wrote: »
    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.
    Again all you say is "you are wrong".
    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,772 ✭✭✭Cú Giobach


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 145 ✭✭gkell3


    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 !!!!.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 145 ✭✭gkell3


    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 !!!!.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,772 ✭✭✭Cú Giobach


    gkell has been asked many times to provide his favoured alternative to the Big Bang theory. He has consistently avoided doing so.
    And he always will. To come up with a theory would involve him dealing with things he can't bear to think about.
    I'm guessing he's a Fred Hoyle Steady State man.
    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,506 ✭✭✭shizz


    gkell3 wrote: »
    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,636 ✭✭✭token56


    The denial and accusations being made on the part of gkell is bordering on conspiracy theory stuff tbh.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 145 ✭✭gkell3


    token56 wrote: »
    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.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement