Jump to content


Cosmological Evidence For A Young Universe


  • Please log in to reply
269 replies to this topic

#241 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 09 January 2010 - 03:23 PM

As I explained earlier.  Parallax won't work because the distance of the background objects aren't known.  No reference points.

These distances are previously assumed upon a constant light speed such as the 1987a supernova... which the formula assumes they know the distance of the radius, therefore they think they can figure the formula using the radius as a reference point.

Again, the reference points are basically assumed, and never verified.

View Post


This distance to the object in the background isn't needed. Why are you trying so hard not to understand this???

#242 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 09 January 2010 - 05:45 PM

This distance to the object in the background isn't needed.  Why are you trying so hard not to understand this???

View Post


I'm sorry but I'm going to have to disagree with you, and the Parallax Formula. I believe it's a bunch of garbage, because certain variables... like ALL of the distances cannot be known, because they don't have any reliable point's of reference. Especially that far out in Space, that's just a fact.

I won't believe it until it's verified, and it hasn't. The formula cannot be accurately completed without known variables.

Sorry, but we will have to agree to disagree, you can call me all the names in the universe, like dumb, stupid, ignorant, retarded... but I still won't believe because these Distances cannot be known without first having known variables.

#243 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 09 January 2010 - 06:28 PM

I'm sorry but I'm going to have to disagree with you, and the Parallax Formula.  I believe it's a bunch of garbage, because certain variables... like ALL of the distances cannot be known, because they don't have any reliable point's of reference. Especially that far out in Space, that's just a fact.

I won't believe it until it's verified, and it hasn't.  The formula cannot be accurately completed without known variables. 

Sorry, but we will have to agree to disagree, you can call me all the names in the universe, like dumb, stupid, ignorant, retarded... but I still won't believe because these Distances cannot be known without first having known variables.

View Post


I haven't called you a single name, but you clearly don't understand the process yet you say it doesn't work. You don't need a point of reference.

#244 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 09 January 2010 - 06:30 PM

I haven't called you a single name, but you clearly don't understand the process yet you say it doesn't work. You don't need a point of reference.

View Post


If you don't need a point of reference, then I absolutely know it's garbage.

#245 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 09 January 2010 - 06:33 PM

If you don't need a point of reference, then I absolutely know it's garbage.

View Post


No you don't. If you want to call it that, the point of reference is the background star, all you need is the change in angular size of that star's location.

#246 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 09 January 2010 - 06:41 PM

No you don't.  If you want to call it that, the point of reference is the background star, all you need is the change in angular size of that star's location.

View Post


But you don't actually know the distance to that back ground star. You don't know how far it is. You don't have the variable you need to complete the formula.

#247 Guest_martemius_*

Guest_martemius_*
  • Guests

Posted 09 January 2010 - 06:52 PM

But you don't actually know the distance to that back ground star.  You don't know how far it is.  You don't have the variable you need to complete the formula.

View Post

Once again, just what is this formula, and how do these variables that you claim are important factor in?

#248 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 09 January 2010 - 06:54 PM

Once again, just what is this formula, and how do these variables that you claim are important factor in?

View Post


Once again, it's the same Parallax Formula that we've been discussing.

#249 Guest_martemius_*

Guest_martemius_*
  • Guests

Posted 09 January 2010 - 06:56 PM

Once again, it's the same Parallax Formula that we've been discussing.

View Post

Can you show me how you think that formula reads?

#250 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 09 January 2010 - 07:06 PM

Scott,

Did you read the links to understand how parallax works?
The two different points of reference are obtained 6 months apart, when the earth is on the two opposite sides of the sun, in order to get the greatest degree of accuracy.

Posted Image

Military 'parallax binoculars work because they use widely spaced lenses.

Peace

View Post



This traingle, is what is used for the Formula. The triangle is just a basic example of the distances shown from their points over a 6 month period. How they actually got the distances is an anomoly, because none of distances have been traveled, and there are no reference points ( stars ) that have been already travled. To calculate a formula using those variables to get the answer using the distances in all the angles.

If one of the distances is known before hand, then the Parallax Formula will work. The only problem is that without a starting point ( a distance already traveled + verified ) It is impossible to complete the formula.

By distance already traveled, this means one of the lines on the Triangle, which are basically your distances.

#251 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 09 January 2010 - 07:24 PM

I haven't called you a single name, but you clearly don't understand the process yet you say it doesn't work. You don't need a point of reference.

View Post


I just wanted to let you know that I realize that you haven't called me any names. And I apologize if I implied that you did. I know it's very difficult explaining this formula to me. I know I'm not the best at it, but when I try to think about it, and read the articles. It just doesn't make sense that you can complete the formula, without first having a starting point, or reference point.

A star distance that we already know because we have traveled, and staked the distance. That would mean we had one of the distances from the angles already figured. From there I believe we could solve the Formula.

I believe the Parallax Formula works. I really do, but the reason I claim it's useless when doing long star distances, is because none of the distance variables are known, or verified. If only one of the distances in the triangle were known, than I believe that the others could be figured from there.

#252 Scanman

Scanman

    Member

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

Posted 09 January 2010 - 07:57 PM

I'm sorry but I'm going to have to disagree with you, and the Parallax Formula.  I believe it's a bunch of garbage, because certain variables... like ALL of the distances cannot be known, because they don't have any reliable point's of reference. Especially that far out in Space, that's just a fact.

I won't believe it until it's verified, and it hasn't.  The formula cannot be accurately completed without known variables. 

Sorry, but we will have to agree to disagree, you can call me all the names in the universe, like dumb, stupid, ignorant, retarded... but I still won't believe because these Distances cannot be known without first having known variables.

View Post


Scott,

One more time...

You only need two variables to determine the distance to a star.

The AU (Astronomical unit)
The Parallax angle

Parsec Measurement
Posted Image

Posted Image

All that needs to be done now is to measure the stars positional change in arcseconds. ( this is done six months apart)

The rest is simple trigonometry

Peace

#253 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 09 January 2010 - 08:21 PM

I just wanted to let you know that I realize that you haven't called me any names.  And I apologize if I implied that you did.  I know it's very difficult explaining this formula to me.  I know I'm not the best at it, but when I try to think about it, and read the articles.  It just doesn't make sense that you can complete the formula, without first having a starting point, or reference point. 

A star distance that we already know because we have traveled, and staked the distance.  That would mean we had one of the distances from the angles already figured.  From there I believe we could solve the Formula.

I believe the Parallax Formula works.  I really do, but the reason I claim it's useless when doing long star distances, is because none of the distance variables are known, or verified.  If only one of the distances in the triangle were known, than I believe that the others could be figured from there.

View Post


That's what's so great about it. You don't need to know the distance between the Earth and anything other than the Sun. Using that, you've got one side of the triangle then you just make your observations and solve for the sides of the triangle.

#254 Guest_martemius_*

Guest_martemius_*
  • Guests

Posted 09 January 2010 - 10:49 PM

I believe the Parallax Formula works.  I really do, but the reason I claim it's useless when doing long star distances, is because none of the distance variables are known, or verified.  If only one of the distances in the triangle were known, than I believe that the others could be figured from there.

View Post

Do you really not think that we know the radius of the Earth's orbit?

And again: please write out the parallax formula as you believe it exists, and demonstrate where in that equation the variables for distance to background stars and the speed of light factor in.

#255 Guest_Thanos_*

Guest_Thanos_*
  • Guests

Posted 15 January 2010 - 05:43 PM

Well, let's see, I asked if you could show is some dark matter, and you provided a link that says they studied a galaxy cluster 3 billion light years away.

You neither provided a picture of dark matter, nor did they. But they did study a galaxy cluster 3 billion light years away. Lots of faith, no action.

View Post


Show me God?
Video please.

Thanks :o

#256 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 15 January 2010 - 06:32 PM

Show me God?
Video please.

View Post


So, are you saying dark matter is your god? Or are you saying you place your faith in dark matter, but you don't place your faith in God?

Either way, you're making a faith statement. Otherwise you'd be using empiricism in your attempted argument instead of ducking and dodging my post.

Thanks :o

View Post


You're welcome

#257 Guest_Thanos_*

Guest_Thanos_*
  • Guests

Posted 15 January 2010 - 08:27 PM

So, are you saying dark matter is your god? Or are you saying you place your faith in dark matter, but you don't place your faith in God?

Either way, you're making a faith statement. Otherwise you'd be using empiricism in your attempted argument instead of ducking and dodging my post.
You're welcome

View Post


If you require empirical evidence, so do I.
No empirical evidence for God yet. :o

#258 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 16 January 2010 - 06:00 AM

If you require empirical evidence, so do I.
No empirical evidence for God yet.  :)

View Post


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

I said:

Well, let's see, I asked if you could show is some dark matter, and you provided a link that says they studied a galaxy cluster 3 billion light years away.

You neither provided a picture of dark matter, nor did they. But they did study a galaxy cluster 3 billion light years away. Lots of faith, no action.

View Post


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.

#259 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 - 09:30 PM

As I explained earlier.  Parallax won't work because the distance of the background objects aren't known.  No reference points.

These distances are previously assumed upon a constant light speed such as the 1987a supernova... which the formula assumes they know the distance of the radius, therefore they think they can figure the formula using the radius as a reference point.

Again, the reference points are basically assumed, and never verified.

View Post


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.

Attached Files



#260 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 - 11:46 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

  • Attached File  para.bmp   1.67MB   32 downloads





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users