SaturnV Posted March 9, 2007 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 0 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 156 Content Per Day: 0.02 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/18/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted March 9, 2007 Actually, I was out all night after making that post. Perhaps you should rework your equations and take into account the Relativistic Doppler Effect, as well as the fact that the expansion of spacetime is taking place behind the photon's path of travel. No, I shoudln't, because the space time expands both ahead of and behind the photon. In fact, it doesn't matter whether there is a photon or not, the space time still expands at the same rate, which is about 72 km/s/mparsec. almost the entirety of distant objects motion comes from the expansion of space itself, and not from local motion through space time. a parsec is about the distance to alpha centauri, a mega parsec is a million parsecs. So every second about 7.2 centimeters of NEW space appears between alpha centauri and earth, and this has nothing to do with either body's individual motion through space-time. Okay, I thought you were referring to the motion of your quasars distorting spacetime around them. In fact, the problem you propose doesn't really need the quasars themselves to be moving, just spacetime expanding. The expansion of spacetime would be a problem if light were merely a particle, but it it not-it also acts as an electromagnetic wave. As the light from the quasars makes its way toward Earth, spacetime is stretched, but the light wave also gets stretched with it. That's what accounts for the Redshift, or the lengthening of the wavelength of light emitted from distant objects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaturnV Posted March 9, 2007 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 0 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 156 Content Per Day: 0.02 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/18/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted March 9, 2007 Proving the distance to a distant object by examining red shift is not possible, because you still have to make ASSUMPTIONS about the object. You have to ASSUME the object's radiation is in a given frequency range, which means you have to ASSUME it is of an approximate mass in a certain range, etc. So red shift should not be used to calculate the distance to a distant quasar unless the exact mass of the quasar is already known. Since you cannot know the mass of the quasar except through some means of measurement, and since you can't use the color of the light to determine the mass of the object, you cannot say anything about the mass or position of the quasar except point in its apparant direction. I.e. If you know an ojects real position, and you know the frequency of the radiation coming from the object which actually reaches your telescope(of whatever kind), then you could calculate the frequency of the radiation as it leaves the object. But you cannot find position by simply assuming a mass, or an initial frequency, for an object, and then plug in some numbers based on the measured frequency. Since the actual frequency of the radiation is unknown, and the actual distance to the object is unknown. The object could be much closer, and have a lower frequency than you assume, or it could be much farther away, and have a much higher frequency than you assume. Fortunately, we have atomic emission spectra to help out with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaturnV Posted March 9, 2007 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 0 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 156 Content Per Day: 0.02 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/18/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted March 9, 2007 [Fortunately, we have atomic emission spectra to help out with that. ....which is based on...you guessed it, the color, i.e. frequency, of the radiation...but if the frequencies have been modified by an unknown amount due to red shift... Actually, it's based on getting the values for the emission lines of hydrogen or helium from an atomic emission spectrometer, comparing those values to the light coming from whatever star you're looking at, counting how far over the lines are shifted, then finally plugging that value back into the Redshift Equation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaturnV Posted March 10, 2007 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 0 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 156 Content Per Day: 0.02 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/18/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted March 10, 2007 its still making arbitrary assumptions to begin with. I don't know why you can't see that. Which part? AES, or Hubble's data? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Lorax Posted March 10, 2007 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 183 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 1,892 Content Per Day: 0.30 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/24/2007 Status: Offline Birthday: 09/07/1985 Author Share Posted March 10, 2007 Lol – you don't even have a clue - you have so much as admitted you know nothing about the mechanism(s) to support Darwinian evolution. Without those mechanisms your reptilian scales have not sprouted feathered wings – in fact your defense has not even evolved the appendages needed to slither out of the slime pool. No mate your “defense” is still very much in deep doo-doo. But it will be entertaining reading your future posts I can assure you. I believe Horizoneast is angry because he was just shot down in the Noah's Ark thread. He later told me in a private message to "get a life." Your search for the truth is admirable, Dave. Don't let Horizoneast discourage you; he has a big ego and a small heart. As for feathers, they have been found in many dinosaurs. Actually, feathers and scales evolved from the same tissue (mesoderm and endoderm) and they are made mostly of the same stuff (keratin). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Lorax Posted March 10, 2007 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 183 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 1,892 Content Per Day: 0.30 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/24/2007 Status: Offline Birthday: 09/07/1985 Author Share Posted March 10, 2007 And you do have empirical evidence for the mechanisms needed to support your reptilian scales sprouting into feathered wings - right? Btw – I have asked you to present them before but I haven’t seen them yet. I'm going out with some friends to enjoy my nonexistent life, but when I get back I will link to some published articles that should help you understand the issue. My private message to you to get a life was in response to the many unsolicited emails you have sent me stating that you do not have a life but that you do struggle with the non-scientific concepts of Darwinism. If you don’t like my responses then stop sending me unsolicited nonsense (spam). Your big heart is showing again, Horizoneast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Lorax Posted March 10, 2007 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 183 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 1,892 Content Per Day: 0.30 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/24/2007 Status: Offline Birthday: 09/07/1985 Author Share Posted March 10, 2007 I am pleased to hear you are taking my advice and leaving your bunker for awhile Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomPJr Posted March 13, 2007 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 5 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 387 Content Per Day: 0.06 Reputation: 3 Days Won: 0 Joined: 11/30/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 10/11/1977 Share Posted March 13, 2007 For example, the "meat" in my cat's food has been in a BAG for weeks or months by the time I buy it in the grocer, and its probably more soy, corn, and rice than anything else. So Noah has meat-canning facilities now? C'mon, you're making this up as you go along. Recall that the story says God brought the animals to Adam, back when they were first created. Additionally, if God could tell Noah how to make the ark, then he could surely help him figure out which animal went where when he was done with the flood. As I said before, just think about that for ten minutes, before you reply. You have yourself, your wife, three sons and their wives, crops to sow and get in, a house to build, and then you have to organise getting the two giant sloths back to Patagonia. After them, you have to get the vicunas to the top of the Andes. Then the llamas, and the alpacas. Then off to the jungle to plant the boas, and the rare poisonous frogs, and the millions of insects. Then a quick sail to the galapagos to do those pesky penguins, and those tortoises... etc etc etc That's just South America. Meanwhile, the polar bears are complaining about the heat, and are eyeing you up for breakfast. Your only tools are, maybe, a primitive boat, and bronze age tools. No compass, no GPS, no star almanac, no map, no knowledge of the planet's geography. And all the above ignores the basic biological fact that populations of two animals are not viable. Dave... you are making big assumptions that they had insect and frogs and that the sloths were full grown. I think that they probably had baby animals on the ark....and there was no need to take insects or amphibians....come on! Also, there was no such thing as a carnivor at that time. You will probably disagree because of the shape of their teeth, but look at a Panda bear for example....they have quite big fangs and eat only leaves. The bible gives a great explanation of what took place, you should read it. Also, you said in a previous post that the water had nowhere to go.....oh yes, I think it did. You see, the bible says that whiole it rained, the fountains of the deep broke, and water came gushing out of the earth. This helped flood the entire earth. Then, when God was ready, he let the waters return. Much of the water returned below the surface of the earth. If you know much at all about science and geology, then you know that there is water under the surface. The land mass today is probably quite less than iwas before the flood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomPJr Posted March 13, 2007 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 5 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 387 Content Per Day: 0.06 Reputation: 3 Days Won: 0 Joined: 11/30/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 10/11/1977 Share Posted March 13, 2007 Lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaturnV Posted March 13, 2007 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 0 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 156 Content Per Day: 0.02 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/18/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted March 13, 2007 A chevy pick-up and suburban are made of much of the same stuff and are very similar in appearance and function.... Did the pick-up evolve into the suburban or vise-versa, or did they have the same designer? I bet some dinosoars did have feathers, big deal! they didn't evolve thatway....they were created that way. Do Chevy pickups and Suburbans procreate? What are the methods of genetic inheritance among pickups? Most importantly, what sort of selective pressures might the environment place on a pickup truck that will influence the likelihood of it passing on its genes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts