Re: Hawking and distance of stars
- From: Gary Bohn <garybohn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 23 Jan 2006 00:17:36 GMT
mccoy@xxxxxxxxxx wrote in
news:1137965236.816768.129110@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
> Dana Tweedy wrote:
>> <mccoy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:1137956266.939400.21120@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >
>> > It's interesting that Hawking states that the distance of distant
>> > galaxies could not be known at one time because of the lack of
>> > parallax. Yet, he claims that because the luminosity of nearby
>> > stars and that their parallax could be known, thereby the distance
>> > of distant galaxies could be known through their luminosity.
>> >
>> > The problem with this idea is that the parallax of nearby stars
>> > cannot be known.
>>
>> As has been explained to you numerous times, the parallax of nearby
>> stars is easily calculated. See:
>>
>> http://www.astronomy.com/ASY/CS/forums/274087/PrintPost.aspx
>> http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/p1/parallax.asp
>> http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/glossary/parallax.html
>>
>> Even grade school science students can do this:
>> http://www.usc.edu/CSSF/History/2004/Projects/S1511.pdf#search='parall
>> ax%20calculation'
>
> In what way does anything you've cited gone beyond what Hawking has
> said? It hasn't. Placing in a bunch of geometry and mathematics
> doesn't do anything in the way of solving any problem, unless you can
> verify. The fact is, the problem is that geometry is only applicable
> if verification is possible. Since known surveying equipment has been
> certified and tested by onsite verification, we know those instruments
> of triangulation to be valid. In one years time the earth has moved
> from one end of the solar system to the other. But Alpha Centauri is
> LIGHT YEARS away, in the guess of astronomers. You thereby can't use
> triangulation involving years measurement of the earth from one end of
> the solar system to the other and expect that to somehow determine
> something that is supposed light years away.
>
> This has been explained to you many times yet it goes into one ear and
> out the other.
>
> Please stop allowing this.
>
> JM
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> DJT
>
It's pretty easy to determine the diametre of Earth's orbit and Earth's
position in the orbit. If we could not do that we would not be able to
send probes to other planets successfully.
Think about it JM, all we need to do is determine one side of the
triangle and two angles. Since many stars are far enough away to appear
to not move, in fact the angle from that 'line' we know to those stars
is so far unmeasurable, this gives us a stable point with which to
compare the position of other stars and our position in our orbit. Even
if we were out, the distances we can measure with parallax would be
affected by a very small amount, small enough that the times represented
would still be extremely old. Much older than 10,000 years.
--
Gary Bohn
Science rationally modifies a theory to fit evidence, creationism
emotionally modifies evidence to fit a specific interpretation of the
bible.
.
- References:
- What is a recessive gene?
- From: Gary Bohn
- Hawking and distance of stars
- From: mccoy
- Re: Hawking and distance of stars
- From: Dana Tweedy
- Re: Hawking and distance of stars
- From: mccoy
- What is a recessive gene?
- Prev by Date: Re: Orson Scott Card on IDC
- Next by Date: Re: Location of Creationist museums?
- Previous by thread: Re: Hawking and distance of stars
- Next by thread: Re: Hawking and distance of stars
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
