Re: was (one thing I want to show the courtroom and public)

"Great Dayne" <ihavethecodekey@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:7ffc19ce-edef-4f65-964c-bb5c29d06645@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Aug 7, 1:06 pm, "Mike Dworetsky" <platinum...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
"Great Dayne" <ihavethecode...@xxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:0f04871d-f0e0-4c71-988f-daec456930f7@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Aug 6, 11:33 pm, Stuart <bigdak...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:





On Aug 6, 4:37 am, Great Dayne <ihavethecode...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

On Aug 5, 5:37 pm, "Steven L." <sdlit...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Great Dayne wrote:
On Aug 5, 3:12 pm, Augray <aug...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009 13:01:24 -0700 (PDT), Great Dayne
<ihavethecode...@xxxxxxx> wrote in
<c2741eef-86a3-43f7-8360-ead0afba4...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
:

On Aug 5, 2:44 pm, John Harshman
<jharshman.diespam...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Great Dayne wrote:
Now when it comes to proof of their theory, what they claim is
that
it appeared to happen in this particular instance, and use an
example
they claim just had to be because of evolution, and say it
must
have
occurred everywhere else.
That sentence is hard to imagine referents for. Maybe you could
provide
a specific or two.
Let me borrow that logic, and utilize and apply it to
elsewhere.
The example of parallax, part of the stage prop, used to make
you
think the stars are very far away. Since that was made to look
like that, then what you found in the ground ....
What is your alternative explanation for parallax?
First off parallax relies on assumptions ...
What assumptions?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I think I may have a few moments to show you what parallax is, and
the math involved and at least one of the assumptions real quick
off
the top
of my head.

First of all, the measurement comes from trigonometry, in that if
you
know the length of one
side and 2 angles, you get the third angle because in a triangle
all
three sides
add up to a certain number of degrees, so you can now calculate
the
length of the other 2 sides.

Correct.

The assumption is that the item in question you are measuring, as
the
earth orbits the sun (another assumption we
won't get into here) it is a certain distance giving you the
length
of
one side, that the item
for instance, the star (another assumption is that is indeed what
it
is) is relatively stationary.

It's not an assumption. It's an easily verifiable fact.

What they call fact in here all the time are not fact at all.

The constellations looked pretty much the same to Ptolemy and
Galileo
as
they do today. That's why the ancients called them "the *fixed*
stars."

Correct. But they are far from fixed.

On human time scales they are quite fixed. On the time scales requried
for a parallax measurement they are quite fixed.

Your point is silly.

My point is if they weren't, your parallax measurement to
dtermine distance is erroneous.
Can we agree on that?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------­--

I would not agree.

That is because you are an idiot and aren't being scientific at all.
If new evidence came in a scientist would consider it.
If the stars are moving, then you have to think for a moment.
What if they have been subtly moving the whole time
to give us the illusion of great distance?
If you don't take this into consideration, you need to
pull your head out of your ass.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

MD::

I note that you cut the part of my reply where I explained why you were a
fool and an idiot because your fantasy was not based on any facts.

You have not presented any actual evidence. You have been given an
authoritative explanation of the way in which astronomers actually measure
parallaxes and the space motions of stars. There is no "new evidence" of
the sort you claim would upset the apple cart, because we can observe and
account for the actual motions of stars as observed.

You also would have to explain why parallaxes that astronomers have
determined lead to observational diagrams such as the Hertzsprung-Russell
diagram, with its main sequence, and that this coincidentally matches
perfectly (within very small error margins) with completely independent
evidence from nuclear reaction cross-sections and physical models of stars
and their structure. Such corroboration would not be possible if your
sick-minded fantasy had any validity.

I can only conclude that you are a self-deluded fool, something that was
already evident from your other posts in this and other threads.

--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Does Hubble have to die?
    ... Calibrating Stellar Models with the Pleiades: Resolving the Distance ... ZAMS stars in our sample without the additional uncertainties ... roll constraints at times of maximum parallax factor. ... necessary to observe these fields through at least two paralliptic ...
    (sci.space.shuttle)
  • Re: The true crackpots
    ... No scientific results show evidence for SR/GTR. ... | evidence of -- light and spectra shifts for various stars. ... |> there is a black hole running loose in the x-ray dept, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: (OT) Giving up on science [Was: Giving Up on Leopard]
    ... scripture (no matter what faith) is literally true. ... From a human scale perspective the stars are fixed. ... You've presented no evidence. ... religion was based on evidence, ...
    (comp.sys.mac.system)
  • Re: was (one thing I want to show the courtroom and public)
    ... The example of parallax, part of the stage prop, used ... think the stars are very far away. ... for a parallax measurement they are quite fixed. ... You measure the 2 angles to the tree. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: A Self-creating Universe with Purpose
    ... I don't see this directedness either. ... of around 1,000,000,000,000 stars in each, ... beginnings of evidence that many/most of those stars ... Why should life, why should cognitive life, why ...
    (talk.origins)