CMB Electro Magnetic waves only seen on earth

[dad]

Just like the rest of science, these disciplines build predictive models, based on reproducible observation..

You do realize many predictions of science failed? Where is the neutron star in SN1987a..or black hole? Folks would be better off asking a psychic, who also probably had some predictions right. (in the case of so called science many predictions they claim credit for are also explained with other beliefs, there is no need to fit the evidence into their models at all)

 

[exchemist]

You do realize many predictions of science failed? Where is the neutron star in SN1987a..or black hole? Folks would be better off asking a psychic, who also probably had some predictions right. (in the case of so called science many predictions they claim credit for are also explained with other beliefs, there is no need to fit the evidence into their models at all)

So a couple of aeroplane crashes means aeroplanes don't work? You ever been in one? I mean, do yourself a favour.

Being a chemist I can't comment on your astronomical example, but of course science makes failed predictions from time to time. Unlike scripture, it makes no claim to be final "Truth".

How do you think science advances? The "plum pudding" model of the atom led to a failed prediction in Geiger and Marsden's experiment. From that failure we got the Rutherford-Bohr atom, which made a failed prediction (that electrons would spiral into the nucleus), so it was suspect from the start and required unexplained ad-hoc assumptions to get round the difficulty. But arising from it, within 20 years, thanks to Planck, Bohr, Einstein, de Broglie, Schrödinger and the rest of the boys, we got the quantum mechanical model of the atom we use today, whose predictions have been highly successful, explaining the Periodic Table, huge chunks of chemistry, atomic spectra and a lot else besides. But even that model fails to predict certain observations, such as the colour of gold........until the model is refined by adding relativity to it. And so it goes on, ceaselessly.

In science, a failed prediction causes excitement, rather than consternation, because it shows there is something new to learn about nature.

"Explaining" things by other beliefs is what mediaeval people did. Lightning strike? God did it. Plague? God's vengeance. Such "explanations" don't enable mankind to predict these things by understanding their natural causes. So, as explanations, they are clearly inferior to scientific ones. Is that really what you recommend we all do?

 

[dad]

So a couple of aeroplane crashes means aeroplanes don't work? You ever been in one? I mean, do yourself a favour.

Being a chemist I can't comment on your astronomical example, but of course science makes failed predictions from time to time. Unlike scripture, it makes no claim to be final "Truth".

How do you think science advances? The "plum pudding" model of the atom led to a failed prediction in Geiger and Marsden's experiment. From that failure we got the Rutherford-Bohr atom, which made a failed prediction (that electrons would spiral into the nucleus), so it was suspect from the start and required unexplained ad-hoc assumptions to get round the difficulty. But arising from it, within 20 years, thanks to Planck, Bohr, Einstein, de Broglie, Schrödinger and the rest of the boys, we got the quantum mechanical model of the atom we use today, whose predictions have been highly successful, explaining the Periodic Table, huge chunks of chemistry, atomic spectra and a lot else besides. But even that model fails to predict certain observations, such as the colour of gold........until the model is refined by adding relativity to it. And so it goes on, ceaselessly.

In science, a failed prediction causes excitement, rather than consternation, because it shows there is something new to learn about nature.

"Explaining" things by other beliefs is what mediaeval people did. Lightning strike? God did it. Plague? God's vengeance. Such "explanations" don't enable mankind to predict these things by understanding their natural causes. So, as explanations, they are clearly inferior to scientific ones. Is that really what you recommend we all do?

If Jesus said that evil spirits exist and sometimes do cause people to have diseases and conditions, we can take that to the bank. If Satan was permitted to bother Job, and part of the way he did that was to cause a great whirlwind to blow down a house and kill people, that shows that there can be occasions where natural phenomena is caused by the supernatural. Nowhere does it say in the bible that all natural occurrences have supernatural causes. You just bring up that strawman to try and justify or divert from the abysmal lack of ability on the part of physical only science to discern anything spiritual ever! Pathetic.

 

[Ouroboros]

Nice try. So we need to know the distance to said SN. We also need to know what time there is like. You canot do that by sitting here in OUR time and space watching how long things take HERE! Here is a gift for you...man has been no where else ever. Light and waves are only seen here. The time anything takes in light ot in info in the light etc is ONLY observed here. In other words of necessity we see things in our time! That can't tell us how much time was/is involved in some unknown part of the universe.

Oh, and to know distances we also require time to exist uniformly all along the way. We can't and do not know that this is the case for the distant universe.

Not when they've used simple trigonometry. Distanct to SN1987A for instance.

Calculating the Distance to SN1987A, Todd S. Green

After the progenitor star Sk-69 202 exploded, astronomers measured the time it took for the energy to travel from the star to the primary ring that is around the star. From this, we can determined the actual radius of the ring from the star. Second, we already knew the angular size of the ring against the sky (as measured through telescopes, and measured most precisely with the Hubble Space Telescope).

So to carry out the calculation think of a right triangle as indicated in the diagram below.

• The line from SN1987A to earth (distance) is the base.
• A line from SN1987A to the ring (the radius of the ring) is the height.
• The line from the ring to earth is the hypotenuse.
• The angle between the base and the hypotenuse is half the angular size of the ring
• trig formula: base = radius ÷ tan(angle)

Substituting:

1. radius = 6.23 x 1012 km (see note 1 below) = 0.658 light-years
2. angle = 0.808 arcseconds (see note 1 below) = 0.000224 degrees
3. distance = 0.658 ly ÷ tan(0.000224)
4. distance = 0.658 ly ÷ 0.00000392
5. distance = 168,000 light-years

Source: SN1987A and the Age of the Universe

 

[dad]

Not when they've used simple trigonometry. Distanct to SN1987A for instance.

False. You cannot measure anything when one line of that trig measure is here in out time and space and try to make it equal with deep space time or space. First, you would need to prove that time out there is the same as the time we know here. You can't do that. Therefore you are not qualified to talk about anything out there taking tens of thousands or millions of years to do anything! (light moving through space out there for example) You cannot say that light from sn1987a took 68 thousand years to get here.


You aren't even really qualified to say that a mile of space here equals a mile of space out there. You just assumed that space and time were the same everywhere...for no reason.

 

[Subduction Zone]

False. You cannot measure anything when one line of that trig measure is here in out time and space and try to make it equal with deep space time or space. First, you would need to prove that time out there is the same as the time we know here. You can't do that. Therefore you are not qualified to talk about anything out there taking tens of thousands or millions of years to do anything! (light moving through space out there for example) You cannot say that light from sn1987a took 68 thousand years to get here.


You aren't even really qualified to say that a mile of space here equals a mile of space out there. You just assumed that space and time were the same everywhere...for no reason.

I see that you still do not understand trigonometry. No time in trig..

 

[dad]

I see that you still do not understand trigonometry. No time in trig..

That depends if there is any time in our solar system and the space here. Obviously there is time here. You want to take that space together with time and claim that it is all the same out there. You need a reason to do so. Merely seeing light or waves here in our time is not a reason.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That depends if there is any time in our solar system and the space here. Obviously there is time here. You want to take that space together with time and claim that it is all the same out there. You need a reason to do so. Merely seeing light or waves here in our time is not a reason.

No time in trig. Besides I gave you evidence that refutes your fish bowl. So sad.

 

[dad]

No time in trig. Besides I gave you evidence that refutes your fish bowl. So sad.

No evidence can refute the solar system. The solar system and area is the fishbowl. If we are talking about this solar system there is time here. Really. In all of the space in this solar system there is time also. When you take a huge swath of this solar system and want to use it in a triangle to the stars, you are dealing with more than just space. You also are dealing with time. You cannot divest space of time.

You do not know what effect time has on space and space on time. If both or either were different in deep space that means we can neither say how much space out there is involved or time. We can only say how much fishbowl space is involved. (apparently you are not even aware that time also exists here) All you are trying to do is take time and space of the fishbowl here, and draw a line to the stars as if that time and space were the same all the way. You do not know that. Really. Man has not even been a light day away with probes.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No evidence can refute the solar system. The solar system and area is the fishbowl. If we are talking about this solar system there is time here. Really. In all of the space in this solar system there is time also. When you take a huge swath of this solar system and want to use it in a triangle to the stars, you are dealing with more than just space. You also are dealing with time. You cannot divest space of time.

You do not know what effect time has on space and space on time. If both or either were different in deep space that means we can neither say how much space out there is involved or time. We can only say how much fishbowl space is involved. (apparently you are not even aware that time also exists here) All you are trying to do is take time and space of the fishbowl here, and draw a line to the stars as if that time and space were the same all the way. You do not know that. Really. Man has not even been a light day away with probes.

No one said that no evidence could refute the Solar System. There is no evidence yet for this, and I doubt if any such evidence exists, but there is a possibility of such evidence. You are not reasoning properly again.

Meanwhile, there is evidence for what science finds. There is no evidence for your beliefs which makes them irrational to say the least. The Bible does not even support your beliefs which makes one wonder where you got them from.

 

[Ouroboros]

How are astronomers able to measure how far away a star is?

The first technique uses triangulation (a.k.a. parallax). The Earth's orbit around the sun has a diameter of about 186 million miles (300 million kilometers). By looking at a star one day and then looking at it again 6 months later, an astronomer can see a difference in the viewing angle for the star. With a little trigonometry, the different angles yield a distance. This technique works for stars within about 400 light years of earth. (For details on triangulation, check out How GPS Receivers Work.)

 

[dad]

How are astronomers able to measure how far away a star is?

The first rung in the ladder is to use part of our solar system in a triangle drawn to stars. There is no meaning unless time and space were the same all the way to the star.
Can you prove time and space are the same out there?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The first rung in the ladder is to use part of our solar system in a triangle drawn to stars. There is no meaning unless time and space were the same all the way to the star.
Can you prove time and space are the same out there?

This is a shifting of the burden of proof. We do have evidence that the laws are the same elsewhere. You want to claim that there is a difference. You need to prove that there is a difference.

 

[Ouroboros]

The first rung in the ladder is to use part of our solar system in a triangle drawn to stars. There is no meaning unless time and space were the same all the way to the star.
Can you prove time and space are the same out there?

They're the same each year and the distance is the same each year. If it was changing, it would change, but since it's not changing, it doesn't.

 

[dad]

They're the same each year and the distance is the same each year. If it was changing, it would change, but since it's not changing, it doesn't.

Funny. They look the same to you as perceived from here using our time and space.

 

[dad]

This is a shifting of the burden of proof. We do have evidence that the laws are the same elsewhere. You want to claim that there is a difference. You need to prove that there is a difference.

No, it's called stop pretending you know what time in deep space is like, that is ridiculous.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, it's called stop pretending you know what time in deep space is like, that is ridiculous.

Please at least try to be honest. I did not say that. You on the other hand think that you know what is in deep space. Scientists have evidence for their claims. You have nothing. Like it or not the burden of proof is upon you.

 

[dad]

Please at least try to be honest. I did not say that. You on the other hand think that you know what is in deep space. Scientists have evidence for their claims. You have nothing. Like it or not the burden of proof is upon you.

You claim I know what is in deep space..more ridiculousness. I point out science doesn't know what time is like there. Claiming science 'has evidence for their claims' has nothing to do with time in the far universe. No one has evidence for that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You claim I know what is in deep space..more ridiculousness. I point out science doesn't know what time is like there. Claiming science 'has evidence for their claims' has nothing to do with time in the far universe. No one has evidence for that.

You seem to be claiming that. But since you have admitted that you do not know the only logical position to take is that of no change. And yes, we have evidence that there is no difference. I posted it. You ignored it. By doing so you lost. You are another creationist that needs to avoid firearms if you value your own toes.

 

[dad]

You seem to be claiming that. But since you have admitted that you do not know the only logical position to take is that of no change. And yes, we have evidence that there is no difference. I posted it. You ignored it. By doing so you lost. You are another creationist that needs to avoid firearms if you value your own toes.

Try posting something that addresses the issue. The OP already talked about how waves and light were exclusively seen IN our time. Either there is no honesty here or you really do not begin to comprehend.