[steveksux]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

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.

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

[Geko45]

Originally Posted by steveksux

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.

[juggy4711]

Originally Posted by Geko45

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.

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by Harper

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.

[Woofie]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

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.

[Geko45]

Originally Posted by Woofie

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.

[Harper]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

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.

[juggy4711]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

...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.

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

...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.