Reply With Quote
Believe it or not, I do understand all that.
I am asking how can we know that they are so far away and a creation or start point to say they travel faster than light.
Its not that anyone can say that you're wrong with absolute certainty but rather that you ask questions that have been asked for a long time and you don't understand the very basic reasoning behind the theory to begin with. For instance, you're questioning the work of hundreds of years of physics research which on its own isn't bad. But you do it without the simple understanding of how a photon works.
And thats without even taking into account how sick of you people are because you do this on a regular basis. You protest out of pure ignorance with people who actually know what they are talking about and you've done it for such a long time that I don't think there is a person here who cuts you much slack.
Believe it or not, I do understand all that.
I am asking how can we know that they are so far away and a creation or start point to say they travel faster than light.
Who says they travel faster than light? The very reason that they appear so far away as indicated by their redshift is because the universe is expanding.
I guess you weren't following the thread.
First, you need to read about The Hubble Constant. That would give you a basic idea of how the universe expansion was originally proposed, measured, and refined as time and technology improved.
Given that such constant gives you a ratio of expansion (speed/distance), you get a scale that tell you what the 'age' of the universe should be.
Now, as far as measurements, this post from another board basically explains it fairly well:
(link)There are three systems of measurement used, depending on distance.
First, the nearest stars can be determined by use of parallax -- the shift in their positions over six months, during which the earth moves to the opposite end of a baseline of 186,000,000 miles as it orbits the sun. A hypothetical star at 3.2 light years distance would have shifted by one second of arc (1/3600 of a degree) -- that distance therefore being one parsec. A parsec is the inverse of the parallex shift in seconds -- a star at 6.4 LY would appear to move half a second of parallax, and therefore be two parsecs; one at 12.8 LY, a quarter second, and hence four parsecs; and so on.
Obviously, this measurement only works up to a limited distance -- those angles become exceedingly tiny, even with the best of equipment. However, they provide a fairly good cross-section of the types of star.
Now, we turn to the H-R diagram. On this, a star on the main sequence will be of a given intrinsic brightness (absolute magnitude) to radiate at a given spectrum. Stars off the main sequence will have certain specific characteristics, such as broadened absorption bands from the distended atmospheres of red giants, etc.
Hence by identifying a star as of a given brightness and "type," we can by the process of comparing visual magnitude with absolute magnitude calculate how far away that star is. A star that would be -3 at ten parsecs distance (its absolute magnitude) which is +1 in visual magnitude is obviously significantly farther away than ten parsecs.
A variation on this technique involves the Cepheids, which are blue supergiant stars that pulse in a period intrinsically related to their absolute brightness and size, Ergo, if a cluster of stars or galaxy contains a Cepheid with visual magnitude of +12 that has a given variability period, it is possible to figure out what a Cepheid of that period's absolute magnitude is, and hence how far away it -- and the cluster of which it is a part -- is. This extends the brightness-distance measurement to the nearest galaxies -- say 2-5 million light years out.
Beyond this, the red shift measurement is done on the basis of the expanding universe, and is only used where the other measurements will not work. A given galaxy known by Cepheid measurements to be, say 3 million LY out, will radiate in a spectrum with specific lines marking absorption by given elements, transitions of excited ions, etc. Those lines are at specific points on the spectrum. If a faint galaxy shows a spectrum where such a line pattern is shifted down the spectrum to a different wavelength, then one can assume that the spectroscopic Doppler effect of movement at relativistic speeds is occurring, and objects at extreme distances are assumed to be moving at such speeds due to the expansion of the universe due to the shifts in their spectral patterns.
No, its more like you apparently didn't understand DMX's sarcasm when he was showing you why what you were saying was flawed. God damn.
If two cars are accelerating away from each other at 70 mph in a 75 mph speed limit zone, does that mean that one car can be pulled over for traveling faster than the speed limit?
No Sherlock.
Again, I am the one pointing out it is theory, not fact. Take it as fact if you like, but keep in mind that our future understanding of science may negate it.
Then why bring up sound and propagation through a medium if you're already aware that, factually speaking, that's not even remotely comparable to photons?
Sounds you were talking out of your ass again...
Gravity isn't a "fact" either, dumbass.
I'm not convinced you know what science is.
WC who do you think you're fooling? I mean really?
There, I dumbed it down a bit so he can understand...
LOL...There, I dumbed it down a bit so he can understand...
If you say so.
I'm simply tired of trying to explain a possibility or two that others apparently cannot comprehend.
Damn, ElNono....
lol, in addition to being a theoretical physicist and parts changer, WC also used to deliver pizzas. So there is no legitimate excuse for him to not understand either analogy.There, I dumbed it down a bit so he can understand...
Yes, but it's as good as fact NOW until we get information that disputes it.
Except the "possibilities" you cite have no evidence to back them up, which is why they are dismissed. If you have evidence for these other possibilities, point it out.
Light is a particle in the sense that it is transmitted in absolute quan ies that are experimentally reproducible. In that sense it is a quanta but mre than that is just conjecture as there is no way to idependently observe 'them.'
The problem with this discussion is that WC understands the propagation of waves like sound and tides and then assumes that because those phenmenon require a medium then all things do.
That is just a baseless assertion on his part and once again a demonstration of his shortsightedness and general ignorance.
One thing is clear if you actually study field theory in any depth: it is not intuitive. things do not behave as you would expect. The hubris is when you think that things should behave as you expect. Hubris thy name is WC. Idiocy thy name is WC.
http://www.livestream.com/worldscien...e-896eacb369e9
Long, but good. Good part starts 28:00 in or so.
Last edited by MannyIsGod; 06-03-2011 at 03:09 AM.
I finished watching that above video this morning and its ing great because I swear at the 1 hour 30 minute mark they are almost perfectly addressing WC in so many ways. Its uncanny.
How the did you get the double "s" in text?
I have to say WC, you've stuck your head in the grinder. Again.
How, by asking questions others here cannot answer? There are so many unknowns. Just interjecting some of them and not as fact.How the did you get the double "s" in text?
I have to say WC, you've stuck your head in the grinder. Again.
Would you agree this thread is about either hypothesis or theory and not fact?
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 06-06-2011 at 11:05 PM.
Your questions take the topic of quantum physics three hundred years back.
Honestly, quit acting like you know anything with certainty, especially in the field of science. Science in general is based on asking the right questions. Your questions........ well I think I already pointed out what feasibility they have.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions