Survivalist Forum banner

41 - 60 of 239 Posts

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
14,289 Posts
Wordmahn, how old do you believe the universe is?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Basic Human Unit

·
Retrofitted Sheeple
Joined
·
29,649 Posts
Okay. Let me see if I understand this, and please be patient with me. They can't really see back in time, right? I mean, time doesn't actually roll back as they view things through the telescope. Right? They don't actually have a time machine. And, if that is true, might it be more accurate to say that they BELIEVE that what they are looking at is a glimpse of what things looked like at some point back in time? And also that they believe this based on certain assumptions? And since there are assumptions and since they really are not able to ACTUALLY roll back time and gain actual first hand experience of what it was, are their CONCLUSIONS about the specific past really empirical or theoretical?
In a sense, looking back in time is exactly what you are doing when you look through a telescope at a distant star. You are not viewing the star as it is, you are viewing the star as it was when the light you are seeing left it. If a star is 100 light years away, you are looking at the star as it was 100 years ago. This isn't based on assumption. There are a series of methods that can be used to measure the distance to stars and galaxies. Which method you use depends on the distance and the type of object, but these methods are overlappingly corroborative. If you have an interest and access(which is not difficult to get if you are interested enough) to the equipment, you can actually do the measurements for yourself. No assumption necessary.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
390 Posts
Wordmahn, how old do you believe the universe is?
That will most likely become evident as this discussion unfolds but I'd like to first demonstrate how I arrived at that by examining Human Units' thinking. If you'll stay tuned, I promise to try to answer your questions. Thanks. 😊
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
390 Posts
In a sense, looking back in time is exactly what you are doing when you look through a telescope at a distant star. You are not viewing the star as it is, you are viewing the star as it was when the light you are seeing left it. If a star is 100 light years away, you are looking at the star as it was 100 years ago. This isn't based on assumption. There are a series of methods that can be used to measure the distance to stars and galaxies. Which method you use depends on the distance and the type of object, but these methods are overlappingly corroborative. If you have an interest and access(which is not difficult to get if you are interested enough) to the equipment, you can actually do the measurements for yourself. No assumption necessary.
It's the "in a sense" part that interests me. If one is not ACTUALLY going back in time, then isnt any information they think they have gained about the past through indirect methods, by definition, less than purely empirical? And if the conclusions were came to by less than empirical means, then are there not assumptions made involving the indirect means involved? Are we certain, for example, that the speed of light has always been what it is now or is that an assumption? Has anyone stretched a measuring tape out to a distant quasar or are there there assumptions involved in determining its distance from us? Are we certain that the vast distances of space are Euclidian? Has anyone empirically verified this, or does this too involve some assumptions?
 

·
Retrofitted Sheeple
Joined
·
29,649 Posts
It's the "in a sense" part that interests me. If one is not ACTUALLY going back in time, then isnt any information they think they have gained about the past through indirect methods, by definition, less than purely empirical?
It takes time for light to travel. Whether that be from across the room, or across the universe. It still takes time. If observing that light from across the universe is not 'empirical', then what makes observing it from across the room empirical? How can you trust your eyes at all? Light is light. Whether it crosses the room or the universe, it's still light. It has specific properties. Among those properties, light travels at a specific speed in a vacuum.

And if the conclusions were came to by less than empirical means, then are there not assumptions made involving the indirect means involved? Are we certain, for example, that the speed of light has always been what it is now or is that an assumption?
Yes. More accurately, it's been constant since there has been light in this universe.The properties of physics that dictates the way light behaves predate light by a few hundred thousand years or so. Now, the timing of those properties of physics developing IS based on testing and observing the predicted results of those events and not the events themselves, so that would most likely count as 'indirect' by the somewhat cloudy definition you're using.But as we can directly observe events in the early universe, I don't see how that is any less empirical than observing what's happening outside your window.

Has anyone stretched a measuring tape out to a distant quasar or are there there assumptions involved in determining its distance from us?
Have you ever seen an ultrasonic or laser distance finder? One doesn't need a physical piece of cloth if one understand the way matter and energy behaves. As I mentioned before, there are a handful of ways to measure the distance to stars and galaxies. There are also countless numbers of observable objects with which to test the various systems by which distances are measured. Those tests do more than just confirm we can measure distances to a certain level of accuracy, but that the means by which those measures are taken are also sound. Take light for example. We know constant by which light travels has been constant since at least a few hundred thousand years after the Big Bang because we measure so many distances with it. I know that might sound counter-intuitive, but think about it for a moment: If you are measuring the distances to every object you see from furthest to nearest, and your 'tape measure' changes halfway through, there is going to be a noticeable distortion in your math. That there is no distortion is evidence that your 'tape measure' is the same as when you started. The same is true for light. We know the speed of light has remained constant, because an inconstant speed of light would be made obvious in our observations.

Are we certain that the vast distances of space are Euclidian? Has anyone empirically verified this, or does this too involve some assumptions?
What do you mean by asking if space is 'Euclidean'? Because I don't think it means what you think it means.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
390 Posts
Observing light across the room is empirical. Observing it at distances that you have no sure way of determining and thereby making sweeping conjectures about a putative deep past and the origins of all things, not so much.

In fact, we can not see the past. We can see the results of what we think happened in the past, and our thoughts about that are based on certain assumptions. Asumptions about distances, assumptions about the way time-space works, and much more. In fact, one reason there is so much flux and disagreement in cosmology, even and especially among your own deep-time people, is because of disagreements about what and how much they wish to assume on any given day.

The idea that we can know, within the precision of a few hundred thousand years how and when light originally sprang forth, well, that has to be about as un-empirical as it can get. Who was around to observe THAT? Such things are almost purely theoretical and, again, subject to massive reinterpretation depending on which theorist is in favor this year and how he's feeling. One can choose to NOT think of this as un-empirical. They can choose to simply accept all of the assumptions as facts. Perhaps because they like the conclusions. Their choices do not make it so. Forensic science is not process science. Forensic science science must always rely on assumptions because it deals with the past and no one can DIRECTLY observe the past, never mind repeat it, which are things that the scientific method requires in order to proclaim empirical certainty.

I know about rangefinders and such and I understand the principle. But you can't "lase" the distance out to Ursula Minor. For starters, the method requires that one know the precise moment at which the light began its travel. How is one supposed to know that about light traveling from a different galaxy? In the end it turns out to be assumptions based on other assumptions -- circular reasoning.

Also, we know from physics that often, paradigms that seems to work and explain reality at one order of magnitude, fall apart at another. Delve into the really, REALLY small and the nature of physics suddenly takes on a very different character as we have recently discovered. Cool things to temperatures previously impossible for us to achieve in the lab and physical properties of things change radically and in ways we did not previously imagine. We can not travel in time, and we can not travel very far in space. Until we can, all that we know about those things will be indirect knowledge, based on, and at least only as good as our assumptions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
390 Posts
Can we please get this back on topic. This is not about the size of the universe; it's for people to share their experiences.

ON TOPIC THEN --

Earlier I gave a reference to a wrong book. To anyone who is interested in this I commend the following book: "Alien Intrusion" on Amazon.com. Link provided below. And no I don't have any involvement with anyone.

Reads like a scientific detective novel. The author, a scientific researcher and skeptic, decided to look into the phenomena. Did some study, spoke to people with experiences, and decided something was indeed real. He interviewed and befriended people in leading alien research organizations, and started doing field research with them. He relays a lot of spine-tingling, first-hand experience from people they interviewed who reported encounters. He reviews the history of the alien phenomenon from earliest recorded times to present, and also the science of it. Fascinating! It's a page turner with a twist. Link provided below.

https://www.amazon.com/Alien-Intrusion-Updated-Expanded-Bates/dp/0890514356
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,779 Posts
I've had things happen that had no rational explanation. As a kid I had flying dreams which may indicate a UFO abduction. I went decades without one and had one a couple of years ago. I was picked up off the ground in a wind and was moving upward and I woke up scared. When I took a shower in the morning I had 3 dots in a row under my breastbone that weren't there the previous day. They healed quickly.

Me and my brother witnessed 2 cigar shaped crafts in a late afternoon sky in upstate NY, it had to be 1967 or 1968. It was in the distance and we both know what a plane is and what a plane is not.

I still do not believe in them the way I did years ago. I would need some real good 1st hand evidence to be a true believer.
 

·
Dirty Mind
Joined
·
2,717 Posts
April 17th of this year I was sitting on the river bank, middle of the day with clear skies. I was fishing and noticed something in the sky. At that moment there was nothing else flying to give any sort of perspective. Whatever it was it was moving fairly slow from east to west.
Planes flew in the same direction and would come and go. Meanwhile this thing seemed to barely move, but it was moving in a straight line. It also must have had some other movement to it because you could see the sun reflecting off of it every now and then.
Having seen the ISS go over head before I was pretty certain that this was not what I was seeing, however I checked and at that time the ISS was somewhere over Australia.
My nephew was at work maybe a mile NW of where I was fishing. I told him to go outside and look up and tell me if he was seeing the same thing. He saw it too. I tried to take pictures and video but at that time the sun was glaring so much I had a hard time seeing my phone and nothing showed up in the video, maybe a glimpse of that reflection I mentioned but nothing that would allow id.
Looking up it just appeared to be a slow moving dot that would occasionally reflect light.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,779 Posts
I sit out on my back deck on summer nights and watch the sky. Plenty of airplanes, small ones and big jets. I'm familiar with the lights and the speed of the crafts.

2 summers ago I was sitting there, waiting for various planets to rise. I got planes going by and one craft just goes by in a blur, ridiculous speed. Wonder what that was?
 

·
Here Another Day!
Joined
·
1,162 Posts

·
Here Another Day!
Joined
·
1,162 Posts
Chilean officials can’t identify a strange IR signal seen by its Navy

Early on the afternoon of November 14, 2014, a Chilean Navy pilot and a technician were flying their helicopter along the coast when they saw something strange. They were going north at an altitude of 1.4km in a twin-engine Airbus Cougar when something appeared in the sky and matched their velocity of 130 knots.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2017...-chilean-officials-cant-explain-ufo-sighting/
 
41 - 60 of 239 Posts
Top