GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-30-2012, 12:33   #151
steveksux
Massive Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 13,374
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Yes. But if you see a galaxy a billion light years away, and you've been able to see it for a decade or so, at that distance, considering that light can bend, how accurate is your calculation of it's speed and direction? How accurate is our determination of the chemical makeup of structures outside our solar system?
Math. When you know how light bends and why, its just math. You know the limits of precision of your measurements, that gives you the margin of error for your determinations of speed and direction.

Simply because you're ignorant doesn't make it unknowable.

Quote:
I'm not saying the big bang (and or big chill) didn't happen, I wasn't there. I'm not saying the universe isn't expanding. I'll trust that to be true, even though I haven't spent a lot of time looking through a telescope. Come to think of it, most of us haven't spent enough time looking through a telescope.
You're just saying: "I'm a troll and I like to see my words in print on the internet".

Randy

Last edited by steveksux; 09-30-2012 at 12:33..
steveksux is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-30-2012, 17:07   #152
Geko45
CLM Number 135
Smartass Pilot
 
Geko45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Short final
Posts: 13,329


Quote:
Originally Posted by steveksux View Post
Math. When you know how light bends and why, its just math. You know the limits of precision of your measurements, that gives you the margin of error for your determinations of speed and direction.

Simply because you're ignorant doesn't make it unknowable.
We understand it so well in fact that we can use the known and calculable effects of the speed of light, time dilation and relative velocities to create a global positioning system that can pinpoint your location here on Earth to within a few feet with only a handheld device.

Yep, that's right, if our understanding of any of these phenomenon were wrong then GPS as it exists today would be nonfunctional, but don't expect any of these facts to deter the incessant pleas for it being unknowable.
__________________
CavDoc: "If you have to pretend that a person with a different opinion has an opinion other than his own in order to score points in an argument, you've forfeited any points that you pretended to have."
CavDoc: "You consider yourself as non-religious, and I consider you a religious zealot."

JBnTX: "Freedom of religion doesn't mean you can worship any God, anyway you see fit or not even worship any God if you so choose. [...] Christianity should be the only religion protected under the constitution, and congress shall make no law restricting its practice."

Last edited by Geko45; 10-25-2012 at 15:00..
Geko45 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2012, 00:01   #153
juggy4711
Nimrod Son
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Galveston County, TX
Posts: 3,807
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geko45 View Post
We understand it so well in fact that we can use the known and calculable effects of x to create x.

Yep, that's right, if our understanding of any of these phenomenon were wrong then x as it exists today would be nonfunctional...
X being a variable, there are so many things that x could stand for in the above statement. Existence as we know it, is completely dependent on our understanding of basically every thing science has discovered from the late 1800s forward.
juggy4711 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2012, 06:16   #154
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,118


Quote:
Originally Posted by Harper View Post
There's also no need to pretend that the important details you're ignorant of, the physicists must be also. I mean seriously, continually pointing out things you don't know and implying physicists' knowledge is no greater than yours is not an argument for anything.
There is no need to hide the speculation and inference needed to come to conclusions. The only way to validate some of the claims, like being able to tell the chemical makeup of stars millions of light years away is to go there and test them.

There is nothing wrong with understanding the difference between:

This star is mostly hydrogen and we think this star is mostly hydrogen.
Cavalry Doc is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2012, 07:47   #155
Woofie
CLM Number 293
Disirregardless
 
Woofie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Here
Posts: 9,877
Send a message via AIM to Woofie
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
There is no need to hide the speculation and inference needed to come to conclusions. The only way to validate some of the claims, like being able to tell the chemical makeup of stars millions of light years away is to go there and test them.

There is nothing wrong with understanding the difference between:

This star is mostly hydrogen and we think this star is mostly hydrogen.
Not really. Every element emits it's own unique spectral line. When the light from an object is examined, the presence of a particular pattern indicates the presence fo that element. It's just more math.
__________________
"Turns oit i had irrisputable proof i was out of the country" - youngdocglock

"I don't need to figure probabilities, and I don't need facts." - JBnTx

"Maybe they should drink like Woofie and come up with pure brilliance." - OXCOPS
Woofie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2012, 08:21   #156
Geko45
CLM Number 135
Smartass Pilot
 
Geko45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Short final
Posts: 13,329


Quote:
Originally Posted by Woofie View Post
Not really. Every element emits it's own unique spectral line. When the light from an object is examined, the presence of a particular pattern indicates the presence of that element. It's just more math.
He's just gonna say that spectral analysis on a distant star has never been confirmed directly by going there in person to test it. Therefore, it's unknowable. He's a one trick pony.
__________________
CavDoc: "If you have to pretend that a person with a different opinion has an opinion other than his own in order to score points in an argument, you've forfeited any points that you pretended to have."
CavDoc: "You consider yourself as non-religious, and I consider you a religious zealot."

JBnTX: "Freedom of religion doesn't mean you can worship any God, anyway you see fit or not even worship any God if you so choose. [...] Christianity should be the only religion protected under the constitution, and congress shall make no law restricting its practice."

Last edited by Geko45; 10-02-2012 at 08:22..
Geko45 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2012, 08:58   #157
Harper
Senior Member
 
Harper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 2,444
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
There is no need to hide the speculation and inference needed to come to conclusions. The only way to validate some of the claims, like being able to tell the chemical makeup of stars millions of light years away is to go there and test them.
Again, your ignorance is not everyone else's. Stop listing stuff you know nothing about, we'll be here forever.
Harper is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2012, 19:09   #158
juggy4711
Nimrod Son
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Galveston County, TX
Posts: 3,807
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
...We THINK there may have been a big bang (or maybe a chill), but we don't really know. We think the universe is expanding. If it is, then something must have caused it to be expanding. What that something is, is cool to ponder. There is no need to pretend we have the problem solved without any important details left out.
You simply do not grasp physics at this level. To keep insisting on language like BB, BC, or cause and effect demonstrate that you do not understand it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
...There is nothing wrong with understanding the difference between:

This star is mostly hydrogen and we think this star is mostly hydrogen.
There is something wrong with that because that isn't the case. It's actually like:

This star is mostly hydrogen and if the math used to determine that it was mostly hydrogen was wrong, all of existence as we know it would not be possible.

You don't have to like or believe it, but it is what it is.

Every observable, measurable and repeatable test we can come up with continues to prove that the math is correct. Taking issue with the language used to describe it is pointless. As it has been explained to you multiple times, language is not capable of properly describing the math.

Last edited by juggy4711; 10-02-2012 at 19:10..
juggy4711 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:57.



Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 1,246
382 Members
864 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 11:42