Re: Hawking and distance of stars
- From: TomS <TomS_member@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 23 Jan 2006 05:41:47 -0800
"On 22 Jan 2006 13:27:16 -0800, in article
<1137965236.816768.129110@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, mccoy@xxxxxxxxxx
stated..."
>
>
>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='parallax%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.
I get it -
You are saying that, unless you can set out with a tape measure,
and lay out the distance to a star with that tape measure, then you
can't be sure that you've measured the distance.
(Of course, even with a tape measure, you can't be sure that it
didn't shrink. Or that the objects at the two ends of the measurement
didn't move while you were laying out the tape measure. Or whatever.)
And you can't be sure that the radius of the earth is what it
is, because no one has ever measured that directly. We've only
inferred that, because the earth is spherical, the circumference
is pi times the radius.
I will count this as yet another tacit admission that the
evidence for evolutionary biology is so strong that the only way
to deny it is to go to ridiculous extremes like this.
Thank you.
--
---Tom S. <http://talkreason.org/articles/chickegg.cfm>
"It is not too much to say that every indication of Design in the Kosmos is so
much evidence against the Omnipotence of the Designer. ... The evidences ... of
Natural Theology distinctly imply that the author of the Kosmos worked under
limitations..." John Stuart Mill, "Theism", Part II
.
- 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: Eugenie Scott profile in Scientific American
- Next by Date: Re: ReNew America: Dover intelligent design case: Judicial ignorance on display
- Previous by thread: Re: Hawking and distance of stars
- Next by thread: Re: Hawking and distance of stars
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
