Jump to content


Cosmological Evidence For A Young Universe


  • Please log in to reply
269 replies to this topic

#261 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 16 January 2010 - 11:49 PM

Scott don't be discouraged.  I need someone to help me enlarge this diagram.  I've emailed ikester to see how.  I want someone to show me where this thing is wrong.  The concept is hard to explain, but better seen.

I hope to show by the diagram that two objects can be placed (top view graph) on a straight line from earth in a nearly infinite number of positions (distances),and if in a proportional distance from one another--the perpendicular view from earth will produce the same dimensional arc measurement as seen in the night sky (first person view).

Remember, we are seeing space in a spherical plane, so our view of the star and background object is a perpendicular view no matter how much farther the BO is than the star.  We are seeing in 2D in a single view.

So in the diagram, I can place 1987A theoretically at 40 light years or 2000 ly on straight line (in the May view, 1987A and the background object would be in line).  I make the first line--"line may view" where earth, 1987A and the BO are all in line. I then make a right angle by drawing from "point earth--may view" to "point earth--november view.  These two lines, the diameter of earth's orbit and the line of May view to 1987A (and BO) make a right angle.  I then draw two lines from point November to intersect 1987A and BO--"line november, 1897A" and "line november,background object.  I then make a right angle on "line November,1987A" from "point 1987A" to the "point of intersection" on line "November, background object."  This is the corresponding arc distance that will appear in the night sky in a "first person view." 

Now I can move 1987A closer to earth and make the same thing happen in the "first person view."  By drawing a perpendicular line from point 1987A in relation to line november, 1987A I can find the intersection point on line november, background object.  This is the actual corresponding  distance that I got when the star was much farther.  Bottom line is that if 1987A and the background are a proportional distance from each other, then from a perpendicular view (how we see them in the sky) they will look the same.

View Post

Attached Files



#262 Guest_Thanos_*

Guest_Thanos_*
  • Guests

Posted 16 January 2010 - 11:57 PM

So, in other words, you refuse to deal with the initial assertion and go straight to side tracking and equivocation?

I said:
And you cannot provide such, so it’s your intent to attempt to throw in a question that has absolutely nothing to do with the assertion I posited? I suggest that if you want answers, you check threads that deal with such topics, for example: http://www.evolution...?showtopic=1957  There are many others.

Or, if you want to ask an off topic question (or make an off topic assertion), start a new thread for it (if you are serious that is). But, if you insist on attempting to derail a conversation; simply because you cannot deal with (or rebut) an assertion, you will have to deal with the consequences of your actions.

This is a warning Thanos.

View Post

deleting my posts will not help others not realize the standards you set for science fails on terms of your God.

#263 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 17 January 2010 - 04:59 AM

deleting my posts will not help others not realize the standards you set for science fails on terms of your God.

View Post


Deleting post that are infractions to the forum rules are a part of my job Thanos. These are standards that are set in place to keep minutia and pabulum from waylaying and derailing threads. You were given your warning, and you have chosen to continue the course.

Consider this your second warning.

#264 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 17 January 2010 - 01:41 PM

deleting my posts will not help others not realize the standards you set for science fails on terms of your God.

View Post


You also fail to realize that you haven't shown anything that Ron has presented as false... How's about actually trying next time? I mean, it might actually help further the discussion.

#265 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 20 January 2010 - 02:21 AM

Can you show me how you think that formula reads?

View Post


I actually missed this before. Scott, there is no parralax formula. If you want a formula that could be applicable I'd suggest looking up the law of sines, but that isn't the parralax formula. All you need is the date and some trig.

#266 Guest_martemius_*

Guest_martemius_*
  • Guests

Posted 20 January 2010 - 03:13 AM

I actually missed this before.  Scott, there is no parralax formula.  If you want a formula that could be applicable I'd suggest looking up the law of sines, but that isn't the parralax formula.  All you need is the date and some trig.

View Post

Well, you could say that there's a parallax formula, in as much as saying d=b tan theta - although, like you said, it's just basic trigonometry. Regardless, the point was that the speed of light doesn't factor into the relevant equations at all, and scott can't even bother to show us where he thinks it shows up. Oh well. :lol:

#267 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 20 January 2010 - 10:08 AM

Well, you could say that there's a parallax formula, in as much as saying d=b tan theta - although, like you said, it's just basic trigonometry.  Regardless, the point was that the speed of light doesn't factor into the relevant equations at all, and scott can't even bother to show us where he thinks it shows up.  Oh well. :lol:

View Post


I think you can just approximate using theta can't you??? No tan necessary???

#268 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 20 January 2010 - 11:16 AM

I actually missed this before.  Scott, there is no parralax formula.  If you want a formula that could be applicable I'd suggest looking up the law of sines, but that isn't the parralax formula.  All you need is the date and some trig.

View Post



The only reason I was suggesting the Speed of Light with the Parralax, was when the kilometers were being converted to Light Years.

I did not know, that previously it was only using the differences in position, and dates.

#269 Guest_martemius_*

Guest_martemius_*
  • Guests

Posted 20 January 2010 - 07:28 PM

I think you can just approximate using theta can't you???  No tan necessary???

View Post

Sure, I guess so.

#270 Scanman

Scanman

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 641 posts
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • West Virginia

Posted 21 January 2010 - 07:34 AM

I think you can just approximate using theta can't you???  No tan necessary???

View Post


With only the angle and measurement of the AU, trig is required for the parallax formula.

base = radius ÷ tan(theta)

Peace




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users