YEC explanation for traveling light.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-07-2014, 01:18 PM
RE: YEC explanation for traveling light.
(17-07-2014 12:56 PM)Jzyehoshua Wrote:  
(17-07-2014 12:51 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Indeed. Notice how this is a casual answer for schoolchildren.

I'd ask you for a real citation, but we both know you don't have access to any real scientific journals.

I'm sure it would be easier to make blanket claims that everyone who disagrees is wrong without providing any sources like some here. Smile

Oh, you mean like the time you completely misunderstood and dismissed whole bodies of modern scientific knowledge?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-07-2014, 01:20 PM
RE: YEC explanation for traveling light.
(17-07-2014 01:17 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(17-07-2014 01:11 PM)Jzyehoshua Wrote:  My initial description of parallax is well-known, that's why. My second post involved something that isn't addressed by anyone else, to my knowledge. As I pointed out there however, the universe's expansion is accelerating according to NASA, and this contradicted predictions when it was discovered in 1999.

So I was pointing out that prior calculations based on triangulation will not have properly taken into account said accelerating expansion of the universe when calculating how long light takes to reach us, simple as that. They incorrectly plotted the expansion rate of the universe in such calculations, thus the time light takes to reach us will be off also since the universe is expanding at a different rate than had been believed.

The prior calculations are not based on triangulation! You don't seem to be getting that. Triangulation is only useful for a few stars within our own galaxy, which are in general not accelerating relative to us. You are throwing technical terms around with no apparent knowledge of what they mean, or whether or not they apply to a given situation.

That, and the fact that revising past models to account for new, more accurate data is, you know, the exact definition of science.

An old, expanding universe - like an old Earth - is supported by so many interconnected and undeniable lines of observation that to deny it is nothing but wilful ignorance.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-07-2014, 01:28 PM
RE: YEC explanation for traveling light.
(17-07-2014 01:17 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(17-07-2014 01:11 PM)Jzyehoshua Wrote:  My initial description of parallax is well-known, that's why. My second post involved something that isn't addressed by anyone else, to my knowledge. As I pointed out there however, the universe's expansion is accelerating according to NASA, and this contradicted predictions when it was discovered in 1999.

So I was pointing out that prior calculations based on triangulation will not have properly taken into account said accelerating expansion of the universe when calculating how long light takes to reach us, simple as that. They incorrectly plotted the expansion rate of the universe in such calculations, thus the time light takes to reach us will be off also since the universe is expanding at a different rate than had been believed.

The prior calculations are not based on triangulation! You don't seem to be getting that. Triangulation is only useful for a few stars within our own galaxy, which are in general not accelerating relative to us. You are throwing technical terms around with no apparent knowledge of what they mean, or whether or not they apply to a given situation.

My understanding is that the speed of the cosmological redshift used to measure the expansion rate of the universe is too fast, given that the predicted expansion of the universe was wrong. Redshift shows readings not predicted by Big Bang theory, so they've had to claim the universe is accelerating.

My website refuting alleged contradictions will be at BereaWiki.com.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-07-2014, 01:28 PM
RE: YEC explanation for traveling light.
(17-07-2014 01:20 PM)cjlr Wrote:  ...revising past models to account for new, more accurate data is, you know, the exact definition of science.

It just cracks me up when they use this as a criticism. "We haven't learned anything new in 2000 years, and we're proud of it! How dare you actually change your minds!"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-07-2014, 01:32 PM
RE: YEC explanation for traveling light.
(17-07-2014 01:28 PM)Jzyehoshua Wrote:  
(17-07-2014 01:17 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  The prior calculations are not based on triangulation! You don't seem to be getting that. Triangulation is only useful for a few stars within our own galaxy, which are in general not accelerating relative to us. You are throwing technical terms around with no apparent knowledge of what they mean, or whether or not they apply to a given situation.

My understanding is that the speed of the cosmological redshift used to measure the expansion rate of the universe is too fast, given that the predicted expansion of the universe was wrong. Redshift shows readings not predicted by Big Bang theory, so they've had to claim the universe is accelerating.

Your understanding is woefully inadequate.

Start here.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-07-2014, 01:34 PM
RE: YEC explanation for traveling light.
(17-07-2014 01:28 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(17-07-2014 01:20 PM)cjlr Wrote:  ...revising past models to account for new, more accurate data is, you know, the exact definition of science.

It just cracks me up when they use this as a criticism. "We haven't learned anything new in 2000 years, and we're proud of it! How dare you actually change your minds!"

Yep. It's a special kind of special, all right.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-07-2014, 01:34 PM
RE: YEC explanation for traveling light.
(17-07-2014 01:28 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(17-07-2014 01:20 PM)cjlr Wrote:  ...revising past models to account for new, more accurate data is, you know, the exact definition of science.

It just cracks me up when they use this as a criticism. "We haven't learned anything new in 2000 years, and we're proud of it! How dare you actually change your minds!"

Pasteur was a Creationist. So were a lot of those other early scientific founders. See also William Buckland, Isaac Newton, etc.

My website refuting alleged contradictions will be at BereaWiki.com.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-07-2014, 01:37 PM
RE: YEC explanation for traveling light.
(17-07-2014 01:32 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(17-07-2014 01:28 PM)Jzyehoshua Wrote:  My understanding is that the speed of the cosmological redshift used to measure the expansion rate of the universe is too fast, given that the predicted expansion of the universe was wrong. Redshift shows readings not predicted by Big Bang theory, so they've had to claim the universe is accelerating.

Your understanding is woefully inadequate.

Start here.

Since you want to source WP, see Cosmological Redshift

My website refuting alleged contradictions will be at BereaWiki.com.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-07-2014, 01:40 PM
RE: YEC explanation for traveling light.
(17-07-2014 01:37 PM)Jzyehoshua Wrote:  
(17-07-2014 01:32 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Your understanding is woefully inadequate.

Start here.

Since you want to source WP, see Cosmological Redshift

In particular, observe Acceleration of the expansion

My website refuting alleged contradictions will be at BereaWiki.com.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-07-2014, 01:41 PM
RE: YEC explanation for traveling light.
(17-07-2014 01:28 PM)Jzyehoshua Wrote:  
(17-07-2014 01:17 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  The prior calculations are not based on triangulation! You don't seem to be getting that. Triangulation is only useful for a few stars within our own galaxy, which are in general not accelerating relative to us. You are throwing technical terms around with no apparent knowledge of what they mean, or whether or not they apply to a given situation.

My understanding is that the speed of the cosmological redshift used to measure the expansion rate of the universe is too fast, given that the predicted expansion of the universe was wrong. Redshift shows readings not predicted by Big Bang theory, so they've had to claim the universe is accelerating.

Redshift in and of itself is unambiguous. A given redshift indicates a given speed of recession, and that correlates nicely with distance. None of that has changed at all. The change has to do with the rate of change of the speed of expansion (which is the definition of acceleration), and that has to do with uncertainties about how much matter there is in the universe. None of this changes how far away the distant stars or galaxies are, or how old they are. Cosmologists can and do argue about the ultimate fate of the universe, and even about its age, but they are pretty much all on the same page. The age is measured in billions of years, not thousands, and recent discoveries haven't changed that.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Grasshopper's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: