Off Topic Dark Matter and other Astronomy information.

[BBFs Unpopular View]

Cosmos For Creationists
http://www.iflscience.com/space/cosmos-creationists

 

[Foredeckdave]

Ah! I now see where you got your information about Christianity from. But that's OK its par for the course with you.

 

[Diego]

As those who follow other religions do not believe in the same things as Christians they are by definition non-believers in Christian terms. Now I do not have a comprehensive enough knowledge of other religions to know if they would support my contention. So I can only suggest that you ask them.

But they have faith in a Diety regardless of the name so surely they are believers?

 

[BBFs Unpopular View]

Ah! I now see where you got your information about Christianity from. But that's OK its par for the course with you.

Who are you talking to you delusional old fart? Maybe quote what you are replying to?

Creationists are looking for time on Cosmos for "balance" Creationism is not science.

As for Christianity, how can I believe in a magical guy when I don't believe in a magical event that created the universe out of nothing. I don't "get" information about Christianity. I was born into it without a choice. As are millions others. Get em while they are young yeah

 

[Foredeckdave]

Who are you talking to you delusional old fart? Maybe quote what you are replying to?

Creationists are looking for time on Cosmos for "balance" Creationism is not science.

As for Christianity, how can I believe in a magical guy when I don't believe in a magical event that created the universe out of nothing. I don't "get" information about Christianity. I was born into it without a choice. As are millions others. Get em while they are young yeah

Now try and apply whay you think are scientific principals to what you have just said dickhead! You cannot make a comparison between differing standpoints when you have little or no knowledge, let alone understanding.

As for being born into it then you prove my case for me. God gave you the right of free will and you took it - even though you were ill-informed. Now don't tell me that man gave you that right or science or that you won that right for yourself as you can't provide that 'evidence'.

Now just try and think a little more deeply for once in your miserable existence. Do you think that there just might be a critical difference between academic papaers and entities like Cosmos? If so what are they?

 

[Skylarker]

Sisu - One question for you.


If I sat and read all 18 pages of this thread would my head explode?

 

[BBFs Unpopular View]

Now try and apply whay you think are scientific principals to what you have just said dickhead! You cannot make a comparison between differing standpoints when you have little or no knowledge, let alone understanding.

As for being born into it then you prove my case for me. God gave you the right of free will and you took it - even though you were ill-informed. Now don't tell me that man gave you that right or science or that you won that right for yourself as you can't provide that 'evidence'.

Now just try and think a little more deeply for once in your miserable existence. Do you think that there just might be a critical difference between academic papaers and entities like Cosmos? If so what are they?

Obviously my existence is not miserable. I am not hampered by a closed mind and a fixed set of beliefs. You on the other hand, abusive to those that hold different views and ridicule anything at odds with those beliefs. I would not say your existence is miserable though, ignorance is bliss apparently.

 

[BBFs Unpopular View]

Sisu - One question for you.


If I sat and read all 18 pages of this thread would my head explode?

Dunno, probably

I tend to blaze up first, think of it as a buffer to prevent mental overload

Better off watching this, a very good documentary on this subject. What RHC called anti science, which is proof of being able to commit heresy in science, is actually decades or work from different fields, mythology astronomy physics and plasma physics/cosmology.

It puts forward a scientific argument, not anti science as red called it when he has not even looked at the actual work, now that is akin to religious fever
An introduction to new findings and theories
It's a good watch even if you dont agree, opens up so many new possibilities.
[video=youtube;5AUA7XS0TvA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=5AUA7XS0TvA[/video]

A new take on shared mythological archetypes around the world. A new take on ancient history
[video=youtube;t7EAlTcZFwY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7EAlTcZFwY&feature=player_detailpage[/video]

New doc on comets from the same research. Very good.
[video=youtube;34wtt2EUToo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=34wtt2EUToo[/video]

 

[Tobes]

Now try and apply whay you think are scientific principals to what you have just said dickhead! You cannot make a comparison between differing standpoints when you have little or no knowledge, let alone understanding.

As for being born into it then you prove my case for me. God gave you the right of free will and you took it - even though you were ill-informed. Now don't tell me that man gave you that right or science or that you won that right for yourself as you can't provide that 'evidence'.

Now just try and think a little more deeply for once in your miserable existence. Do you think that there just might be a critical difference between academic papaers and entities like Cosmos? If so what are they?

Not a very 'Christian' response that like......

I take it you merely believe the doctrine as opposed to living by its principles Dave?

 

[Foredeckdave]

I have declared myself to believe in Christianity. I think I am a practising Christian. As you know, practice makes perfect and I don't claim to have got there yet

A pre-requisite for being a Christian is that you are a human being, with all the strengths and flaws that that entails. Therefore you have to accept that you will not always meet the standards that are expected due to human frailties. However Repentance and Forgiveness are well defined principles within Christianity.

 

[BBFs Unpopular View]

Not a very 'Christian' response that like......

I take it you merely believe the doctrine as opposed to living by its principles Dave?

Religion suffers a from something science does. Interpretation. Also, one often breaks from those religious principles when defending one's beliefs. The Religious anti gay stance is a perfect example of this contradiction. A more extreme example is a lot of the conflict throughout history. "your version of love and peace is different from ours, so I am gonna kill you"

 

[Foredeckdave]

What the hell do you think science is? It is in essence an interpretation of reality that pragmatically fits the environment it exists in i.e. it works until something better comes along. But then what can you expect from a mere tool of philosophy?

Now, please stop talking about faith as religion. Religion is doctrinal and therefore the result of man made organisations. That is totally different from and to a faith relationship with God via Jesus.

 

[BBFs Unpopular View]

The point that this known universe goes back into a singularity has been established (orthodox?) since Hubble.

This is misinforming.

The Hubble constant was arbitrarily obtained based what is now knows as inaccurate classing of galaxies into groups regarding luminosity. "Standard candles" used in measurement of distance.

Remember that this is also actually theory. Not fact. It's unprovable. Our best guess would be using triangulation or radar, problem with radar is it only reaches our solar system and even if we could send microwaves to the nearest galaxies we'd have to wait a hundred years to get the signals back.

Triangulation or more accurately parallax is the only real way we have of measuring distance without factoring in unproven variables like luminosity of candles as it is now shown that similar galaxy "candles" have different luminosities which points to the failure of the Hubble constant.

You must log in or register to see images

Parallax is a proven, reliable way of measuring distance. Trigonometry provides the means to calculate the perpendicular distance from the base of an isosceles triangle to the apex, given the length of the baseline and the size of the angles at either end. The accuracy of triangulation depends critically upon the length of the baseline in proportion to the distance to the target, so as to avoid too narrow an angle at the apex. The diameter of the Earth’s orbit about the Sun provides a baseline that is 2 Astronomical Units long, giving an outer limit of accurate measurement of 300 light years, that's as far as astronomy is accurate, no more. As we send sats out further we can increase the baseline giving us accuracy at longer distances.

Anything further is based upon the notion that we can identify so-called standard candles, which are classes of recognisable objects that all have the same level of intrinsic brightness.

Problems with this, the main one is calibration, precisely determining the absolute magnitude of the candle. The second problem is establishing which objects qualify for membership of a particular class of candles.
A stock method for extra-galactic distance measurement is given by the rate of oscillation of stars known as Cepheid Variables. There is a definite correlation between the time taken for a variable star to fluctuate and how bright it appears to be. Unfortunately, improved instrumentation has subsequently shown that Cepheid Variables are in fact not a class of standard candles at all. Supernovae (exploding stars) are also invoked as standard candles, to measure distances appreciably greater than those apparently given by period-luminosity in variable stars. They have since been exposed as having non-standard intrinsic brightness.

There is reason for doubt on the Hubble constant, a lot rests on it and it needs to be solid but atm it is anything but.
Each step on Hubble's extragalactic distance ladder introduces more uncertainty

 

[BBFs Unpopular View]

In 1933 Dr Dayton Miller concluded more than a quarter-century of investigative experimentation by stating that the original Michelson-Morley data were skewed by the effect of temperature and by adjustment for a preconceived aether wind direction. Factor those out and you get a fringe shift equivalent to 10 km/sec, a figure later confirmed by Miller’s own experiments.

Despite some desperate rearguard action by relativists attempting to discredit his results, they have stood the test of time. Einstein himself conceded variously in correspondence and in Science that should Miller’s data be validated, his (Einstein’s) theories would fail. In July 1925, Dr Einstein wrote in a letter to Edwin Slossen: “My opinion of Miller’s results is the following… Should the positive results be confirmed, then the special theory of relativity, and with it the general theory of relativity, in its current form, would be invalid.”

In 1998, the highly respected physicist and Nobel laureate Maurice Allais published a rigorous analysis of Miller’s 1925-26 experimental results in the magazine 21st Century Science & Technology. His conclusion is that Miller’s results are indeed authentic and cannot be attributed to any spurious or fortuitous effects.

Allais wrapped it up thusly: “Consequently, the Special and General Theory of Relativity, resting on postulates invalidated by observational data, cannot be considered as scientifically valid.”

From this we can see there were challenges to Einstein's SR and GR based in scientific observation and experimentation yet it all seems to be missing from textbooks for emerging astrophysicists.

Ah well.

You must log in or register to see images

GPS was originally worked out with Newtonian mechanics by Tom Van Flandern. It provided the same answers as as Einstein's relativity. His equations were subsequently rejected and replaced by Einstein’s for no other reason than political expediency. Science suffers from politics like any other walk of life, people assume science is pure, is it ****.

 

[BBFs Unpopular View]

An excellent talk on the fiction that is man made global warming. Anyone actually bothered, look at the data presented before you shoot it down.

[video=youtube;5MvAnECkaME]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=5MvAnECkaME[/video]

 

[Ivan Dobsky]

From this we can see there were challenges to Einstein's SR and GR based in scientific observation and experimentation yet it all seems to be missing from textbooks for emerging astrophysicists.

Ah well.

You must log in or register to see images

GPS was originally worked out with Newtonian mechanics by Tom Van Flandern. It provided the same answers as as Einstein's relativity. His equations were subsequently rejected and replaced by Einstein’s for no other reason than political expediency. Science suffers from politics like any other walk of life, people assume science is pure, is it ****.

No it's not Sis, but anyone is free to challenge the orthodoxy. I remember a series by that Professor Jim Al Kelideh (sp) recently on BBC, and he spoke of a scientist that hung himself eventually, he was so mocked by the established scientific community over his beliefs. Turns out he was bloody right. I forget his name - maybe RHC can fill us on?

Anyhow, point is that science is as political as any hierarchy. FFS, look at the reaction to Darwin by some of the most established scientific figures of the time. And Newton was no angel - he took it as his personal mission to destroy Hook's reputation.

 

[astro]

The human effect on global warming is a #fact.

Ben Davidson is a moron.

Can a moderator merge this so we have just 1 "OT - Bullshit Conspiracies" thread, and then move that thread to General Chat please.

 

[Super G Ted'inho]

You must log in or register to see images

 

[BBFs Unpopular View]

The human effect on global warming is a #fact.

Ben Davidson is a moron.

Can a moderator merge this so we have just 1 "OT - Bullshit Conspiracies" thread, and then move that thread to General Chat please.

Attack the data from physicists and NASA and all of it publicly available information not the messenger, none of the data is his. If he is talking crap then you are saying NASA and Solar physics is crap.

Why did you comment if you didn't watch it.

Ah life is full of fools who believe stuff based on who is telling them

Also, you're one for mentioning conspiracy

 

[astro]

Attack the data from physicists and NASA and all of it publicly available information not the messenger, none of the data is his. If he is talking crap then you are saying NASA and Solar physics is crap.

Why did you comment if you didn't watch it.

Ah life is full of fools who believe stuff based on who is telling them

Also, you're one for mentioning conspiracy

Because it has nothing to do with LFC or football and there is already another OT thread full of scientific misinformation