Jump to content


Cosmic Distances


  • Please log in to reply
194 replies to this topic

#141 Yorzhik

Yorzhik

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 233 posts
  • Age: 42
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Michigan

Posted 12 March 2010 - 08:58 AM

It's by looking at creationist claims that I conclude that they're just as 1+1=3.  Sure, maybe I'll see a valid claim today, but up until this point in time, I simply haven't.

View Post

Yes, we know, you already said this.

If you've put creationist claims on the same level as 1+1=3 in the past up to now, then you'll never even consider what is being said in this thread by creationists, right or wrong. In fact you won't even consider any creationist argument on any topic because claims just as rigorous as those made by any scientist, evolutionist or not, are made by creationists.

In other words, you've proved yourself close minded.

#142 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 12 March 2010 - 01:14 PM

I'm sorry, but if empirical meant only what we could physically verify then science would have accomplished nowhere near as much as it has.

All of early electrical engineering was based on experimental observations. Tesla and Maxwell couldn't shrink themselves and ride charged particles as they created a current. Was everything they did based on assumptions??? Man, I wish I could assume that well.

#143 Scanman

Scanman

    Member

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

Posted 12 March 2010 - 04:36 PM

I'm sorry, but if empirical meant only what we could physically verify then science would have accomplished nowhere near as much as it has. 

All of early electrical engineering was based on experimental observations.  Tesla and Maxwell couldn't shrink themselves and ride charged particles as they created a current.  Was everything they did based on assumptions???  Man, I wish I could assume that well.

View Post


Actually, the AC motor came to Tesla in a dream.

Peace

#144 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 12 March 2010 - 05:16 PM

I'm sorry, but if empirical meant only what we could physically verify then science would have accomplished nowhere near as much as it has. 

All of early electrical engineering was based on experimental observations.  Tesla and Maxwell couldn't shrink themselves and ride charged particles as they created a current.  Was everything they did based on assumptions???  Man, I wish I could assume that well.

View Post


Funny, but you know good and well that empirical verification takes more than just observation... it's more in depth than that.

I even used to help build tesla coils back in Junior High School, and I know from experience that it takes more than just observation to make one work. Thanks for bringing that up though so you could prove our point... yet again.

Assumptions? Hardly... but the Tesla Coils, and Electronic Pieces weren't Billions of miles away either like cosmic distances... which yet again you fail to mention because it would uncover your claim that Observation is all it takes for verification.

#145 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 12 March 2010 - 05:24 PM

I'm merely going by the definition of empirical data.

You are creating a strawman of required proof where none exist.

Visual observation will tell you empirically that there is a figure dressed in black wearing a black helmet, whether the figure is moving or not, whether it is larger or smaller, closer or farther then other objects around it.

All of this direct observation is empirical in nature.

Does it tell you everything about the figure?...no.

Does it tell you that the figure is Darth Vader?...no, only that it appears to be similar to whatever you may reference Darth Vader to look like.
No, Vision is empirical verification of particular points of data.

It might not paint a full picture, but it empirically paints a part of it.

Does vision empirically answer certain questions?...yes

Does vision empirically answer all questions?...no
I never implied anything of the sort.

Seeing = Empirical verification of particular points of data.
Some things are...some things are not.

It depends on the questions being asked.

Peace

View Post



I'm glad we agree then, except I'm not making a straw man. It's a known common fact that you cannot empirically verify that Darth Vader or Yoda exists from just watching T.V. alone.

Observation is just one part of empirical verification, but as we agree... it is not all that it takes for verification.

Some things only require Observational Verification, because in times past, you already know what said object is, or does from past experiences/knowledge... therefore Observation is all that is required.

If you see a star through a telescope, then you have Verified it's existance through observation, but that does not mean you have observationally verified the conditions on that star, or the distance of that star... That would take an actual mission to that star to find out.

#146 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 12 March 2010 - 06:31 PM

Funny, but you know good and well that empirical verification takes more than just observation... it's more in depth than that.

I even used to help build tesla coils back in Junior High School, and I know from experience that it takes more than just observation to make one work.  Thanks for bringing that up though so you could prove our point... yet again. 

Assumptions?  Hardly... but the Tesla Coils, and Electronic Pieces weren't Billions of miles away either like cosmic distances... which yet again you fail to mention because it would uncover your claim that Observation is all it takes for verification.

View Post


No, observation is one method of empirical verification. Why have you changed your objection to cosmic distances? At first, you claimed parallax didn't work because it didn't have a reference point. Now your objection is that we can't go to the star and back.

Obviously it takes more than observation to make a Tesla coil work. It doesn't take more than observation to learn and apply the concepts underlying the Tesla coil.

What's odd is trigonometry was used to figure out how far from the Earth the Sun is. Then centuries later probes were built using those measurements yet those missions went fine. Now a problem with space exploration is it is hard to include fuel for corrections. So astronomers are obviously on to something when they measure distances this way.

#147 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 12 March 2010 - 06:31 PM

I'm wondering if seismology is an empirical science. Most earthquakes are too small to be felt by people, and no one has ever seen the vibration of an earthquake travel from a fault line and deep through the Earth's crust.

What do you think Scott?

#148 Scanman

Scanman

    Member

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

Posted 12 March 2010 - 08:13 PM

If you see a star through a telescope, then you have Verified it's existance through observation...


True

...but that does not mean you have observationally verified the conditions on that star...


Partially true...you can, however, through spectroscopy, determine the elemental composition of the star, and also where it is at in it's stellar cycle.

...or the distance of that star... That would take an actual mission to that star to find out.


False

There are multiple methods for determining the distance to a star by observation only.

Peace

#149 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 12 March 2010 - 09:02 PM

True
Partially true...you can, however, through spectroscopy, determine the elemental composition of the star, and also where it is at in it's stellar cycle.
False

There are multiple methods for determining the distance to a star by observation only.

Peace

View Post



The major problem I have with Parallax, is how can you claim that you know the distance of one Object ( that you haven't even traveled to, nor do you know the distance of) then you use trig to figure the distance... How? You know none of the real distances. None of them.

Like the sun, how can you know the distance of the Earth to the Sun... without knowing any of the variables...

Earth >>>>> You don't know this distance>>>>>Star

Sun>>>>>>>You don't know this distance>>>>>Earth

Star>>>>>>>You don't know this distance>>>>>Sun

So, by not knowing any of the distances.... how can you know the distances????

#150 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 12 March 2010 - 09:09 PM

I'm wondering if seismology  is an empirical science.  Most earthquakes are too small to be felt by people, and no one has ever seen the vibration of an earthquake travel from a fault line and deep through the Earth's crust.

What do you think Scott?

View Post


The earthquakes that do make an impact sure can be felt though Jason. The mere fact that earthquakes were first felt, means that it inspired the creation of those seismic machines that are used to test even the slightest movement in the earths crust. The tiny ones, are measured very accurately. So obviously, if the earthquakes aren't coming from the ground then where are they coming from???

The sky??? Obviously, they are coming from the deep beneath the earth. You see Jason, you are actually agreeing with me, because I am stating that...

It takes more than just Observation for verification...

#151 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 12 March 2010 - 09:13 PM

No, observation is one method of empirical verification.  Why have you changed your objection to cosmic distances?  At first, you claimed parallax didn't work because it didn't have a reference point.  Now your objection is that we can't go to the star and back.

Obviously it takes more than observation to make a Tesla coil work.  It doesn't take more than observation to learn and apply the concepts underlying the Tesla coil. 

What's odd is trigonometry was used to figure out how far from the Earth the Sun is.  Then centuries later probes were built using those measurements yet those missions went fine.  Now a problem with space exploration is it is hard to include fuel for corrections.  So astronomers are obviously on to something when they measure distances this way.

View Post


I say Parallax, and the methods should work, if we are going to travel these distances so we will know how much fuel we will need for the trip. But, seeing as how none of the distance points on the Parallax are known... then that means it's just a bunch of made up nothing.

We don't know those distances, they have to be traveled, and staked for future references. Plus, I don't see anyone verifying those distances, just a bunch of people claiming verification, when there has been no probes or spaceships sent for distance verification...

Yet people are still so eager to say they don't need probes or spaceships to verify these distances... Really? Now that's about as far fetched a story as I have ever heard.

#152 Guest_martemius_*

Guest_martemius_*
  • Guests

Posted 12 March 2010 - 10:08 PM

The major problem I have with Parallax, is how can you claim that you know the distance of one Object ( that you haven't even traveled to, nor do you know the distance of) then you use trig to figure the distance... How?  You know none of the real distances.  None of them.

Let's take a simple scaled-down model of the situation: hold your index finger vertically and place it along the bridge of your nose so that you can see it equally well with both eyes. Alternately close one eye and open the other, and notice how your finger seems to hop around a lot, but also notice how far-off objects, like a distant wall, don't move around nearly as much. Now hold your finger at arm's length, still holding it vertically, and do the same thing. It doesn't hop around as much, but it still moves around more than the wall.

Now, let's just take the case where you're holding it at arm's length. By measuring the angle by which it seems to hop around on a distant object that doesn't noticeably move when you close one eye and open the other, and by also measuring the distance between your eyes, you can determine the distance to your finger -- this is accomplished by straightforward trigonometry, since you know that your situation is modeled by an isosceles triangle where you know the base as well as one of the angles -- you might recall from geometry class that that completely determines the rest of the triangle, so that you can fill in the lengths of the other sides. That's how parallax works, except for stellar parallax, the star takes the place of your finger, the two extreme positions of Earth in its orbit takes the places of your two eyes, and really, really distant stars take the place of the wall.

#153 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 13 March 2010 - 04:55 AM

I'm wondering if seismology  is an empirical science.  Most earthquakes are too small to be felt by people, and no one has ever seen the vibration of an earthquake travel from a fault line and deep through the Earth's crust.

What do you think Scott?

View Post


Earthquakes can be empirically verified by observation + other physical testing, not just looking through a telescope distantly. And thanks for bringing up the vibration of an earthquake Jason; you can feel said vibrations and observe the effects of said vibration knocking down buildings and such.

Earthquakes = empirically verifiable through more than just the limited observation only (oh yeah + plausible yet a priori theories).

Looking through a telescope distantly = Not empirically verifiable because its limited to observation only + plausible, non physical presupposed theories.

#154 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 13 March 2010 - 05:07 AM

And...again: EVEN IF all of determining astronomical distances were based on guesswork, pictures and vacuous speculation, why should all the methods agree with each other? 

View Post


Because when you attempt to verify physical phenomena (say a star cluster) with an unknown factor (say distance) you need more physical evidence than simply “observing” through a telescope distantly. When you attempt to add metaphysical evidences with out physical verifications, you haven’t empirically proven anything. You can say “all the methods agree with each other”. You can even fudge the metaphysical mythology to make it look good. But; if you haven’t physically verified the findings, you are doing nothing more than presupposing your assumptions as facts (redundancy added for emphasis).

Surely someone has an answer to that.  ...anybody?

View Post


Absolutely, read the above. ...anybody?

#155 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 13 March 2010 - 06:16 AM

Incorrect, the gathering of empirical data through the visual sense does not require the other senses or close proximity.

View Post


Incorrect Scanman, again; you are attempting to use the “deductive method” as if it were the “inductive method”. The deductive method uses observation + metaphysical methods (i.e. mathematics etc…) to support a hypothesis, and that is in no way empiricism. Although the deductive scientific method is a type of scientific investigation, it is not empiricism. In the deductive scientific method a scientist will pose a question and formulate a hypothesis as a potential explanation or answer to the question. The hypothesis will be tested through a series of experiments. The results of the experiments will either prove or disprove the hypothesis. Hypotheses that are consistent with available data are conditionally accepted but they are not empirically verified, they are “a priori” (“from the former”) because they are applied independently of experience. There is nothing experiential in looking through a telescope and making assumptions about places you have not been.

“Empirical” methods are derived from “experience” and are therefore “a posteriori” (Latin: “from the latter”). “Therefore, empirical data is information that is derived from the trials and errors of experience”. (see below)




If you believe otherwise, please cite your source.

View Post


Yes….

According to Oxford English Dictionary
According to the Oxford English Dictionary (2nd Edition, 1989), empiric is derived from the ancient Greek for experience, έμπειρία, which is ultimately derived from έυ in + πεἳρα trial, experiment. Therefore, empirical data is information that is derived from the trials and errors of experience. In this way, the empirical method is similar to the experimental method. However, an essential difference is that in an experiment the different "trials" are strictly manipulated so that an inference can be made as to causation of the observed change that results. This contrasts with the empirical method of aggregating naturally occurring data.
Adding further confusion is another connotation of empiric. Strict empiricists are those who derive their rules of practice entirely from experience, to the exclusion of philosophical theory.

The OED further states that an empiric is "one who, either in medicine or in other branches of science, relies solely upon observation and experiment" [emphasis added]. In this case, an empiricist can be someone who conducts an experiment but without using a hypothesis to guide the process, i.e., strictly by the trial-and-error method. This is counter to one of the main tenets of the scientific method, that of the hypothetico-deductive method, where the manipulation of the variable in an experiment is dictated by the hypothesis being tested.

According to McGraw-Hill

The empirical method is generally characterized by the collection of a large amount of data before much speculation as to their significance, or without much idea of what to expect, and is to be contrasted with more theoretical methods in which the collection of empirical data is guided largely by preliminary theoretical exploration of what to expect. The empirical method is necessary in entering hitherto completely unexplored fields, and becomes less purely empirical as the acquired mastery of the field increases. Successful use of an exclusively empirical method demands a higher degree of intuitive ability in the practitioner. (Percy W. Bridgman, Gerald Holton, "Empirical method", in AccessScience@McGraw-Hill, http://www.accessscience.com, DOI 10.1036/1097-8542.231000, last modified: April 10, 2000)

#156 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 13 March 2010 - 07:06 AM

I don't want to sound like the proverbial mad scientist, but I have another parallax model on paint. I will submit it to Ikester so he can finagle it, and I will get it on here. The one I did before was based on parallax using a right angle. Even though this parallax model could be demonstrated in a field with two barns in a line, there were alot of objections, because it was not in the correct parallax format.

This one is in the parallax (X) format with matching night sky views. Everything has been measured in pixels. It shows a proportional parallax effect, even with the same AU distance in the earth's orbit. That is, you can put the nearby star anywhere you want on a graph, and obtain the same night sky view by simply putting the background a proportional distance out--it's a ratio or formula that could be found by a mathematician. It's basically like the sliding the nearby star and the background in and out, using the night sky view as a guide. If you line everything up right, it's just like mechanical drawing.

#157 Scanman

Scanman

    Member

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

Posted 13 March 2010 - 08:42 AM

The deductive method uses observation + metaphysical methods (i.e. mathematics etc…) to support a hypothesis, and that is in no way empiricism.


So you are saying that addition, subtraction, division and multiplication are 'metaphysical'?...and the use of mathematics employed with the gathering of data using the physical senses, nullifies the empirical method?

So the act of physically measuring two things with a tape measure and then adding (mathematics) them together...is not empirical?

Are you saying that Euclidean Geometry is not empirical?

I can understand saying that 'mathematics' as a whole (which includes theoretical math) is not empirical...but geometry was born out of empiricism.

The most distinctive characteristic which differentiates mathematics from the various branches of empirical science, and which accounts for its fame as the queen of the sciences, is no doubt the peculiar certainty and necessity of its results.  No proposition in even the most advanced parts of empirical science can ever attain this status; a hypothesis concerning "matters of empirical fact" can at best acquire what is loosely called a high probability or a high degree of confirmation on the basis of the relevant evidence available; but however well it may have been confirmed by careful tests, the possibility can never be precluded that it will have to be discarded later in light of new and disconfirming evidence. Thus, all the theories and hypotheses of empirical science share this provisional character of being established and accepted "until further notice," whereas a mathematical theorem, once proved, is established once and for all; it holds with that particular certainty which no subsequent empirical discoveries, however unexpected and extraordinary, can ever affect to the slightest extent.


Peace

#158 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 13 March 2010 - 12:19 PM

I say Parallax, and the methods should work, if we are going to travel these distances so we will know how much fuel we will need for the trip.  But, seeing as how none of the distance points on the Parallax are known... then that means it's just a bunch of made up nothing.

We don't know those distances, they have to be traveled, and staked for future references.  Plus, I don't see anyone verifying those distances, just a bunch of people claiming verification, when there has been no probes or spaceships sent for distance verification...
http://www.evolution...&p=52283&st=140
Yet people are still so eager to say they don't need probes or spaceships to verify these distances... Really?  Now that's about as far fetched a story as I have ever heard.

View Post


Scott, have you ever learned trigonometry???

Here's another example. Before I ever develop drilling procedures the exploration department looks at the geological data of the area in question to determine whether or not its economically viable to work there. The vast majority of it is seismic data read by geologists and geophysicists using gravimeters and other devices. Now based on what is being said by some here, that isn't empirical evidence. I'm guessing Shell just likes to fund projects that are going to cost them millions of dollars based on data that isn't empirical. Funny one of the world's largest corporations would do business so foolishly.

#159 rico

rico

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 669 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Jesus, computers, physics, video games, philosophy, epistomology
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • USA

Posted 13 March 2010 - 04:47 PM

.....
We don't know those distances, they have to be traveled, and staked for future references.  Plus, I don't see anyone verifying those distances, just a bunch of people claiming verification, when there has been no probes or spaceships sent for distance verification...

Just FYI, they put a mirror on the moon and hit it with a laser and get the distance (saw on mythbusters rerun Ep: 104) more info here: http://eclipse.gsfc....polloLaser.html

#160 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 14 March 2010 - 05:42 AM

Scott, have you ever learned trigonometry???

Here's another example.  Before I ever develop drilling procedures the exploration department looks at the geological data of the area in question to determine whether or not its economically viable to work there.  The vast majority of it is seismic data read by geologists and geophysicists using gravimeters and other devices.  Now based on what is being said by some here, that isn't empirical evidence.  I'm guessing Shell just likes to fund projects that are going to cost them millions of dollars based on data that isn't empirical.  Funny one of the world's largest corporations would do business so foolishly.

View Post

Hey tharock,
I never took trig, but geometry and algebra. At any rate I understand in trig you can find the lengths for a triangle if you have one length and the angle measurements. That's great when you put a triangle on paper, but you have to get it on paper first.

We are taking what amounts to be a 2D image on the night sky and translating that onto paper to do the triangulation. I'm waiting for Ikester now for my diagram put in regular parallax format like you see in the books. It will show two different distances for the exact same night sky view and the exact same AU distance for the Earth's orbit. I did it using my geometry and mechanical drawing knowledge. I know it sounds like I'm ranting like a lunatic, but when you see it I think things might change.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users