ever wonder how they guess at the size of things so many millions of miles away?

and yes those are guesses BTW

Re: All in Perspective

so is religion

Re: All in Perspective

oh no you di'int :di_in't:

Re: All in Perspective

[QUOTE=cowardly dj;373742]ever wonder how they guess at the size of things so many millions of miles away?

and yes those are guesses BTW[/QUOTE]

I'm not too sure the astronomers would be too happy with you saying they 'guess' the size of stellar bodies. I forget the exact details but I think there are certain types of star you can estimate the size of from their emitted light spectrum. And, of course, everyone knows that you can calculate how fast a body is moving away from you from the red shift, which is proportional to how far away it is :roll:

Re: All in Perspective

you can butter it up with anything you want and it is still the best guess they can come up with. I do a lot of research on various things that concern the universe and evolution etc. Certain aspects of science deal with fact but much of what we know about the universe is guesswork. I do not say that out of an opinion, it is just the way the science works.

Re: All in Perspective

[quote=picklemonkey;373747]so is religion[/quote]

It is only guess work to those who guess at it. Without getting into a great debate again I assure you the evidence is overwheling in favor of God creating, than it is for evolution.

I can provide facts at the drop of a hat to anyone interested.

Re: All in Perspective

believing in creationism/intelligent design is as smart as thinking you're going to get 71 virgins if you blow yourself up in the name of Allah imo.

So drop it like it's hot cowardly, I'd like to see...

Re: All in Perspective

This topic changed quickly.

Re: All in Perspective

ha haaaaa welcome back cowardly, good to see ya in action buddy :)

Back to topic, I see you're putting Science as Guesswork and religion as guesswork in the minds of disbelievers?

Naa mate, Science is based on hard facts, there's virtually no guess work to how they come up with numbers unless they SPECIFICALLY state that Scientists "theorize" this or that.

Moreover, nothing on earth is "perfect" too. Even the diameter of the earth is based on measurements from machines which have a 0.0000000000000001% inaccuracy reading.

So yea, what you're seeing in that blog is a pretty accurate depiction of general size

Re: All in Perspective

<---- Imo

Re: All in Perspective

drop it like its hot?

Re: All in Perspective

[quote=Kamal;373914]Naa mate, Science is based on hard facts, there's virtually no guess work to how they come up with numbers unless they SPECIFICALLY state that Scientists "theorize" this or that. [/quote]

Science is not guesswork you say......

Let me give you a few quotes from a few evolutionists and then you tell me if you think there is no guesswork in evolution.

It takes a vivid imagination to hold evolution as true.

"Nobody has the slightest idea how anyting material could be conscious. Nobody even knows what it would be like to have the slightest idea about how anything material could be consious." (Fodor, 1992)

"There is nothing strange about consciousness except that we dont understand it.......You cant explain consciousness on the cheap...... I admit that I am not able to explain consciousness." (Scott, 1995)

"We still have not clue how mind and matter are related, or what process led to the emergence of mind from matter in the first place." (Davies, 1995)

"It seems to me that there is a fundamental problem with the idea that mentality arises out of physicality- that is something which philosophers worry about for very good reasons. The things we talk about in physics are space, time, energy, and so on. How could ourfeelings, our perception of redness or of happiness have anything to do with physics? I regard that as a mystery." (Penrose, 1997)

"The problem of consciousness tends to embarass biologists. Taking it to be an aspect of living things, they feel they should know about it and be able to tell physicist about it, whereas they have nothing relevant to say." (Wald, 1994)

[B]These next two quotes are from what the science world considers top in their league as far as evolution and the such is concerned. [/B]

"The evolution of the capacity to simulate seems to have culminated in subjective consciousness. Why this should have happened is, to me, the most profound mystery facing modern biology." (Dawkins 1976)

"Clearly we are in deep trouble... It will be realized that the modern Darwinian theory of evolution is defective in that it does not even recognize the extraordinary problem presented by living organisms aquiring mental experiences of a nonmaterial kind that are in another world from the world of matter -energy, which heretofore was globally comprehensive. [B]We believe that the emergence of consciousness is a skeleton in the closet of orthodox evolutionism. [/B]It remains just as enigmatic as it is to an orthodox evolutionist [B]as long as it is regarded as an exclusively natural process in an exclusively materialist world.[/B]" (Eccles and Robinson, 1984)

Those who claim evolution make just as good an argument against it as they do for it.

God solves the debate of why we have a conscious mind: [FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=1]And Jehovah God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. Genesis 2:7[/SIZE][/FONT]

Re: All in Perspective

[quote=cowardly dj;373936]Science is not guesswork you say......

Let me give you a few quotes from a few evolutionists and then you tell me if you think there is no guesswork in evolution.

It takes a vivid imagination to hold evolution as true.

"Nobody has the slightest idea how anyting material could be conscious. Nobody even knows what it would be like to have the slightest idea about how anything material could be consious." (Fodor, 1992)

"There is nothing strange about consciousness except that we dont understand it.......You cant explain consciousness on the cheap...... I admit that I am not able to explain consciousness." (Scott, 1995)

"We still have not clue how mind and matter are related, or what process led to the emergence of mind from matter in the first place." (Davies, 1995)

"It seems to me that there is a fundamental problem with the idea that mentality arises out of physicality- that is something which philosophers worry about for very good reasons. The things we talk about in physics are space, time, energy, and so on. How could ourfeelings, our perception of redness or of happiness have anything to do with physics? I regard that as a mystery." (Penrose, 1997)

"The problem of consciousness tends to embarass biologists. Taking it to be an aspect of living things, they feel they should know about it and be able to tell physicist about it, whereas they have nothing relevant to say." (Wald, 1994)

[B]These next two quotes are from what the science world considers top in their league as far as evolution and the such is concerned. [/B]

"The evolution of the capacity to simulate seems to have culminated in subjective consciousness. Why this should have happened is, to me, the most profound mystery facing modern biology." (Dawkins 1976)

"Clearly we are in deep trouble... It will be realized that the modern Darwinian theory of evolution is defective in that it does not even recognize the extraordinary problem presented by living organisms aquiring mental experiences of a nonmaterial kind that are in another world from the world of matter -energy, which heretofore was globally comprehensive. [B]We believe that the emergence of consciousness is a skeleton in the closet of orthodox evolutionism. [/B]It remains just as enigmatic as it is to an orthodox evolutionist [B]as long as it is regarded as an exclusively natural process in an exclusively materialist world.[/B]" (Eccles and Robinson, 1984)

Those who claim evolution make just as good an argument against it as they do for it.

God solves the debate of why we have a conscious mind: [FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=1]And Jehovah God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. Genesis 2:7[/SIZE][/FONT][/quote]

You've done a bang up job of confusing the heck out of yourself as far as [B]Theoretical [/B]Physics, Darwin's [B]Theory[/B] and [B]God[/B] go. All those are fascinating quotes but have nothing to do with this thread as compared to the MATH behind the Astronomy that has proven what the author of that blog hoped to depict and put into perspective

Re: All in Perspective

[quote=cowardly dj;373907]It is only guess work to those who guess at it. Without getting into a great debate again I assure you the evidence is overwheling in favor of God creating, than it is for evolution.

I can provide facts at the drop of a hat to anyone interested.[/quote]still waiting to see more than a few quotes from scientists

Re: All in Perspective

FYI, the size and distance of space bodies are measured by the refraction of light (on the 7 color spectrum) and the timing between the subtle changes of these colors, which are picked up by sensitive telescopes and computed using algorithms to come up with estimated sizes and distances of stellar objects. God / Jehova / Bible had no role here boss.

Re: All in Perspective

[quote=Kamal;373954]FYI, the size and distance of space bodies are measured by the refraction of light (on the 7 color spectrum) and the timing between the subtle changes of these colors, which are picked up by sensitive telescopes and computed using algorithms to come up with estimated sizes and distances of stellar objects. God / Jehova / Bible had no role here boss.[/quote]you never seize to amaze me Kamal :shock: ;)

Re: All in Perspective

I hope I said what I said correctly :lol:

Re: All in Perspective

:roflmao:

I wanted to google around and find out exactly how scientists measure distant objects

[URL]http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLJ,GGLJ:2006-35,GGLJ:en&q=how+do+you+measure+the+size+of+a+star[/URL]

Look at the search result 3rd from last :lol:

Oh the "stars" they find :lol:

Re: All in Perspective

Nice. I'd like to measure my brown star, but today I'll just settle for this: [URL="http://www.fontpool.de/forum/messages/5596.html"][COLOR=#0000cc]how to [B]measure[/B] penis [B]size[/B][/COLOR][/URL]

Re: All in Perspective

PLEASEEEE dont get this started again. I think the last thread ended up being around 20 pages of religon this and religon that.

Re: All in Perspective

[quote=Bryanw24;373962]PLEASEEEE dont get this started again. I think the last thread ended up being around 20 pages of religon this and religon that.[/quote]infidel, I spit in your presence. Jihad on you, your family and your dog :evil:

Maybe we should get a Religion forum alongside of the Politics one :D

Re: All in Perspective

yah, im in kamals boat here. faith is great to have, but lets be real here. science can be proven. religion is simply text written by people ages ago and warped by the leadership of the churches thoughout history.

to kamal. a cool side note. based upon the scale of earth, factoring in everest and the san marinas trench, if you were to take a laser instrument scaled to earth's size, and measure the curvature of the planet, it is more perfect than anything found on the planet naturally, and so far, nothing man made can even come close to how perfectly the planet is curved. the deviations on the surface of a cue ball are thousands of times worse than the deviations between the trench and everest if you factor in scale.

Re: All in Perspective

[quote=thesightless;373966]to kamal. a cool side note. based upon the scale of earth, factoring in everest and the san marinas trench, if you were to take a laser instrument scaled to earth's size, and measure the curvature of the planet, it is more perfect than anything found on the planet naturally, and so far, nothing man made can even come close to how perfectly the planet is curved. the deviations on the surface of a cue ball are thousands of times worse than the deviations between the trench and everest if you factor in scale.[/quote]

I hear ya, the rotation / revolution of the year over the last 3 billion years probably shaved off the rough edges :lol:

Re: All in Perspective

Imagine you are shooting a rifle at a 1000 yard target. If you move even a fraction of an inch on the rifle end you will be several feet off at the target end. Light being refracted causes things to seem different than they really are. A simple elementary school example is this: [URL]http://www.californiasciencecenter.org/FunLab/DoItYourself/BendAPencil/BendAPencil.php[/URL]

Now imagine anything being off by one millionth on either end spanning the space of millions of miles and you should get my point. There is no flawless accurate way to measure something that large that far away without some margin of error either great or small. One of the tricky things about light is it's ability to pass through other light beams with no apparent collision. Light from the sun and light from your car headlights obvioulsy craoss paths with no consequence. We do not know as much about light as science would like you to believe. Now factor in how little we know about our universe and you have a recipe for guesswork.

It is not science to guess, it is guesswork to guess.

Re: All in Perspective

[quote=thesightless;373966]yah, im in kamals boat here. faith is great to have, but lets be real here. science can be proven. religion is simply text written by people ages ago and warped by the leadership of the churches thoughout history.

to kamal. a cool side note. based upon the scale of earth, factoring in everest and the san marinas trench, if you were to take a laser instrument scaled to earth's size, and measure the curvature of the planet, it is more perfect than anything found on the planet naturally, and so far, nothing man made can even come close to how perfectly the planet is curved. the deviations on the surface of a cue ball are thousands of times worse than the deviations between the trench and everest if you factor in scale.[/quote]

That is true there is nothing more perfectly round than the earth. That is what we call proof of perfect design.

As far as the religion being guess work it is far from guess work. It is mere fact and that can be proven without any doubt involved.

Re: All in Perspective

[quote=cowardly dj;373971]That is true there is nothing more perfectly round than the earth. That is what we call proof of perfect design.

As far as the religion being guess work it is far from guess work. It is mere fact and that can be proven without any doubt involved.[/quote]For the second time, I'm still waiting for some of the proof that you were going to provide...

Re: All in Perspective

[quote=cowardly dj;373969]Imagine you are shooting a rifle at a 1000 yard target. If you move even a fraction of an inch on the rifle end you will be several feet off at the target end. Light being refracted causes things to seem different than they really are. A simple elementary school example is this: [URL]http://www.californiasciencecenter.org/FunLab/DoItYourself/BendAPencil/BendAPencil.php[/URL]

Now imagine anything being off by one millionth on either end spanning the space of millions of miles and you should get my point. There is no flawless accurate way to measure something that large that far away without some margin of error either great or small. One of the tricky things about light is it's ability to pass through other light beams with no apparent collision. Light from the sun and light from your car headlights obvioulsy craoss paths with no consequence. We do not know as much about light as science would like you to believe. Now factor in how little we know about our universe and you have a recipe for guesswork.

It is not science to guess, it is guesswork to guess. [/quote]

You're making your guesswork on the inaccuracies of science by confusing yourself with two totally unrelated events. A bullet being off by an inch and reaching the target off center has nothing to do with light being off by an inch in relation to measuring intergalactic distances. That doesn't change the behaviour of light when it hits the telescope. Opposed to popular belief that light travels in a straight line, light can even bend thanks to gravity but I personally know of no experiments proving that such event changes the properties of light (just like you mentioned you dont know how 2 beams of light passing through each other do anything to alter each other)

Bottom line with experiments and the science behind such experiments (and the astronomy in this case) is that when the light hits the telescope, measurements are made based on that event and answers obtained based on resulting calculations. Even if you factor in a %age of innacuracy, that inaccuracy carries across ALL calculations and so even if all ANSWERS are off by that given %age, comparing the relative size of all objects with the SAME % offset essentially negates the inaccuracy of the calculations giving you an ACCURATE comparison of size.

Even more tricky in this case is how you're trying to fit God into this

Re: All in Perspective

two words.

human error.

Re: All in Perspective

Moreover, they are at least able to offer some sort of calculative PROOF to support such experiments and show 100% of the people on the planet that the math (no matter how erroneous as you state) actually works to PROVE certain facts.

Show me a mathematical calculation that proves God.

Re: All in Perspective

if it is all true about god, then why can man create chemically and physically perfect diamonds in a lab, how can we clone organs and tissue, how can we create life from a test tube, how have we proven evolutionary scale, how come we can control everything if given the proper enviornment? how have shown that we are really nothing more than protons, nuetrons and electrons organized in a random matter? how come there is proof of life on other planets?

Re: All in Perspective

[QUOTE=cowardly dj;373906]you can butter it up with anything you want and it is still the best guess they can come up with. I do a lot of research on various things that concern the universe and evolution etc. Certain aspects of science deal with fact but much of what we know about the universe is guesswork. I do not say that out of an opinion, it is just the way the science works.[/QUOTE] that's also the way religion works.

[QUOTE=cowardly dj;373907]It is only guess work to those who guess at it. Without getting into a great debate again I assure you the evidence is overwheling in favor of God creating, than it is for evolution.

I can provide facts at the drop of a hat to anyone interested.[/QUOTE] ditto to astronomy

Re: All in Perspective

[quote=thesightless;373985]how come there is proof of life on other planets?[/quote]

more importantly, why did God CHOOSE to put life on THIS planet alone ? Was Jupiter being naughty in Gym Class ?

Re: All in Perspective

Kamal, the events may be unrelated in action but are absolutely related in concept. It is called an anology. Taking one event and using it to describe another.

You have a telescope pointed at a star billions of miles away. You have a computer program designed by man using man-made equations/parameters to equate the size of something no one has ever seen and can not imagine as there is nothing to compare it to. The simple fact of it all is that it relies on man for its parameters.

Man is not know for his humility. Man has a tendency to be wrong and never admit it to even himself. Man is the only creature that is capable of lying and even believing its own lies to the point of thinking they are absolute truths. If you think I am going to rely on a program scientists designed to measure something they want to know the size of using their own parameters and call it fact then I humbly bow out. The scientist could be wrong by 7 billion miles in diameter and never even know it. There have no way of making it fact as there has never been a physical measurement taken.

Science says it is based on tangible provable facts right? Well to me tangible provable facts is taking a basketball and measuring it physically. It is guess work when a person designs a program to measure something never seen. Too many opportunities for man to make a mistake.

Re: All in Perspective

and why do non christians prosper in life? wouldnt all non belieiving people suffer misfortune like the old testament said?

Re: All in Perspective

[quote=cowardly dj;373989]Man is not know for his humility. Man has a tendency to be wrong and never admit it to even himself. Man is the only creature that is capable of lying and even believing its own lies to the point of thinking they are absolute truths. [/quote]

and you're proving that point BRILLIANTLY with your ignorance towards science.

[quote=cowardly dj;373989]Kamal, the events may be unrelated in action but are absolutely related in concept. It is called an anology. Taking one event and using it to describe another.

You have a telescope pointed at a star billions of miles away. You have a computer program designed by man using man-made equations/parameters to equate the size of something no one has ever seen and can not imagine as there is nothing to compare it to. The simple fact of it all is that it relies on man for its parameters. [/quote]

Thanks for the english lesson but I think you forget we're on Astronomy. You are right in that a distant object in space moving and emitting light at the same time will probably end up and land somewhere else. But we're talking about stars that emit light all around and NOT the retarded straight line path of a bullet.

BOTTOM LINE is that the light DOES reach here, whether its come in a straight line or its been displaced over the billion miles and calculations are made BASED on the end journey of the light.

Based on your own response of the bullet and light being offset, the arguement is NOT WHERE the light/bullet will land if the source is OFF but the fact that its landed SOMEWHERE, where they can be evaluated and mathematical calculations be made. Is that simple enough yet ??

Secondly, before any experiment becomes acceptable in science, scientists first test the validity of such experiments on earth by mimicking experiments they use in deep space, within controlled laboratory conditions to come as close as possible to the real event.

Do you think that 1 scientist simply comes up with a mathemetical arguement and the whole scientific community just sits in their seats and accepts the proof of concept ? There's more ridicule in the scientific community than there is even in religion. It takes way more than a few nods for scientific arguements to become generally acceptable principles.

Boss do a search on the mission of sending Galileo (iirc) to Titan to measure for water and tell me GOD and RELIGION had anything to do with the scientists timing the path of the satellite BETWEEN the rings of Saturn. That is a PROVEN and DOCUMENTED [B][U]EVENT.[/U][/B] Now you tell me, if the calculations for this event based on light being displaced are actually so OFF, would they have completed the journey through the rings of Saturn and onward to crash land the robot onto Titan ?

Re: All in Perspective

To put some of the comments about religion in perspective, I for years thought that believing in God was blind faith. Most religious people can not even tell you why they believe in God. Most people say "I just do" I am sure we can all agree on that?

Up until about 2 years ago I would have said the same thing. Understanding the Bible and therefore God takes effort on the persons part. It is not based on blind faith. We can know that God exists. There are facts that are available to those who diligently study the Bible. You can not just read it and think that it is gong to come to you. If learning anything for a human what that easy then we would have no need for schools. We could just read our math books and understand it. You must study it.

The Bible is set up (i hate to use this but it is all i can think of) like a puzzle. You have to look through the pieces and put them together to get the big picture. It is not hard it just takes effort.

Most people do not take the time to understand the Bible. That is why you have so many different views on what one verse means over another. When God wrote the Bible he made it clear. It is man who has distorted its meaning over time.

If you base your belief in God on what another person says then you are limiting your own mind to the possibility of His existence. People are opinionated and full of their own pride. That is the biggest problem with trying to explain God to people. It is their own pride that gets in the way and distorts their perspective and does not allow them to accept the fact that they could have been wrong in not believing He exists. It is not a lack of evidence.

I can provide facts about God's existence all day long but a person will not accept it because they are taking preconcieved concepts to the table. God's existence can be proven just not to some people.

Re: All in Perspective

but every fact you provide to ensure us of god's existence is easily disproven with basic logic, physics, chemistry, biology

Re: All in Perspective

[quote=thesightless;373990]and why do non christians prosper in life? wouldnt all non belieiving people suffer misfortune like the old testament said?[/quote]

not sure what you refer to here

I know many christians that prosper

My best answer here is that all people suffer misfortune just not the same misfortune. Abraham of the Old Testament was an extremely wealthy man..extremely. Yet he is spoken of throught out the Old and New Testament as a man of great faith. Fortune does not dictate faith or vise versa.

I am not sure if that answers your question.

Re: All in Perspective

2 words:[list]Scientology [*]Mormons[/list]

CDJ... discuss.

Re: All in Perspective

it doesnt. if god existed, then why hasnt NYC suffered like soddom. trust me, i know for a fact that we do shit a lot worse than they did.

dude, i went to catholic school my entire pre collegiate life. st. ignatius in hicksville NY and Chaminade HS in mineola NY. i know the religion back and forth. but i realize that what religion calls a soul and mind is nothing more than a chemical reaction within the brain. reactions based on other chimcal reactions that come from the eyes, ears, nose, and skin.