Re: Two Studies (was in Sizing Up the Universe)
From: greywolf42 (mingstb_at_marssim-ss.com)
Date: 06/25/04
- Next message: greywolf42: "Re: Aether, light, and mediums ... mmmmkay?"
- Previous message: greywolf42: "Re: The Ether is believed to be Dark Energy"
- In reply to: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: Two Studies (was in Sizing Up the Universe)"
- Next in thread: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: Two Studies (was in Sizing Up the Universe)"
- Reply: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: Two Studies (was in Sizing Up the Universe)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 18:09:31 -0700
Bjoern Feuerbacher <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message
news:cbbnf3$l30$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
> greywolf42 wrote:
> > Bjoern Feuerbacher <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message
> > news:cb91e1$rup$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
> >
> >>greywolf42 wrote:
> >>
> >>>Bjoern Feuerbacher <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message
> >>>news:cb706a$s6b$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>greywolf42 wrote:
> >>>
> >
> > {snip Bjoern's attempt to focus on his silly allegory about a murder}
>
> This was a minor part of my reply, not the "focus", and *you*
> essentially started that by saying:
> "After I had dealt with a series of chuckles from Bjoern in the above
> thread,..."
>
> So, as usual, you misrepresent what actually happened.
The 'murder' was the one issue out of the *prior* thread that you chose to
focus on from the prior thread. Instead of the following physics topics
that you could have chosen:
"We CAN see back to within 300,000 years of the Big Bang."
Extinction.
Direct measures of distance.
Indirect measures of distance.
Transmission speed of light.
Assumption that redshift always equates to distance.
Linear vs. nonlinear equation of redshift vs. distance.
Hubble vs. Wirtz' priority for the redshift / distance relation.
Cepheids.
Hubble's data scatter.
The units of redshift.
Halton Arp and his banishment for finding 'inconvenient' data.
When to do statistical studies, and when to assume it's merely
'coincidence.'
The BB's historical problem with failing to predict later observations.
Cepheid use for the Hubble calibration.
The lack of theoretical basis of the Tully-Fischer relation.
Any argument used by a 'creationist' must be invalid, a priori.
Globular cluster ages, and/or the age of the universe.
The scientific method vs. the Ptolemaic method.
The difference between observation and theory.
The substance of Ptolemaic theory (as understood by historians).
CMBR spectrum and power spectrum.
I'll quit here. I was only about 1/2 way down.
And allegorical murder was the best thing you could find in the post?
{snip higher levels}
> >>>>What I meant was observing several
> >>>>points, and calculating the distance from those observations by using
> >>>>essentially a triangle. Similar to parallax methods, but in these
> >>>> cases, the triangle points in the other direction (the base line of
> >>>> the triangle is "out there").
> >>>
> >>>In the case of triangulation (of which parallax is a special case) the
> >>>baseline is a known quantity. In the case of 'reverse' geometrical
> >>>methods, the distance between the 'two points' is not known (only
> >>>the angular distances on the celestial sphere are known).
> >>
> >>Yes, obviously.
> >
> > It apparently wasn't obvious to you before.
>
> It was. Why on earth do you think otherwise?????
Because you not only claimed that parallax was not triangulation, but were
rudely assertive about it.
> > (You snipped your earlier
> > insistence that the latter was 'triangulation.'
>
> If one can determine the base line based on some other observations,
> the method *is* triangulation.
No. If one can determine the baseline from first principles, it is
triangulation.
> >>>Which makes these methods
> >>>dependent upon some *other*, theoretical distance calculation.
> >>
> >>And you see a problem with that?
> >
> > Not at all. It simply isn't triangulation or a pure geometric distance
> > determination.
>
> As soon as the distance has been determined, it *is* triangulation.
Ummm, no. The distance must be determined *by* triangulation, to *be*
triangulation. The baseline must be determined by some primary method.
(See immediately below.)
> >>>We can't *know* the size of the baseline "out there."
> >>
> >>Why do you feel the need to distinguish between "know" and "accurately
> >>determine by observations"?
> >
> > One is fundamental obervation. The other is theoretical calculation.
>
> Err, no. The baseline is *also* determined based on *observations*.
> One doesn't see it *directly*, but the calculations are *based on
> observations*.
If the observations are not fundamental (as is the case in Herrnstein, et
al), the baseline is determined *based on* other theoretical distance
assumptions and calculations. Yes, there *are* observations involved -- but
these are the old Hubble terms.
> >>If one follows your line of thought, one can't "know" quite a lot of
> >>things.
> >
> > It would help you in the scientific method to be able to distinguish
> > between observations and theoretical conclusions.
>
> I can. Determining the baseline above uses both.
Then they are not fundamental. Because the baseline requires another theory
to before it can be determined (in this case the hubble term).
> > Using the theological term 'know'
> > is not useful. (Then again your theological approach probably helps you
> > in your academic career.)
>
> "know" has little do to with theology.
I consider it theological. However, I'll accept metaphysical. It is not
part of the scientific method.
> [snip]
>
> >>>>>Geometry is claimed from "direct measurement of orbital motions in a
> >>>>>disk of gas surrounding the nucleus of this galaxy." How many people
> >>>>>remember a similar claim about the detection of actual motion in the
> >>>>>Andromeda galaxy, years ago?
> >>>>
> >>>>a hint for you: they compare the distance measured in this way with
> >>>>our determinations of that distance. The different results agree.
> >>>
> >>>I'm not a bit surprised. But how does that address the historical
> >>>situation, above? Which also 'agreed' with (some) expected distance
> >>>determinations.
> >>
> >>References, please.
> >
> > Do you admit to ignorance about the publication of observation of proper
> > motions in the Andromeda galaxy?
>
> Yes, I admit my ignorance about this.
Fair enough. I'll dig around and find it. (It was in the '20s, if I
remember rightly).
>
> > Or are you disputing this? Or are you simply trying to weasel?
>
> No. Now, why don't you simply give the references, instead of
> again engaging in mud slinging?
Because it will take some digging. It is a well-known historical issue in
astronomy. Have you ever taken an astronomy course?
> [snip]
> >>>>>Of course, the primary problem is that the jet angle cannot be known
> >>>>>from direct observation.
> >>>>
> >>>>But can be deduced from the observations in many cases.
> >>>
> >>>Not yet. They're still hoping to find some way to do this.
> >>>But no one's figured out how to do this yet -- despite 30 years
> >>>of hoping.
> >>
> >>Err, this directly contradicts what you quoted above:
> >>"We have presented several techniques for measuring or usefully
> >>constraining these parameters." "these parameters" include the jet
> > angle.
> >
> > Not the 'usefully constrained' part.
>
> Why did you ignore the "measuring" part?
Because they can't measure the jet angle yet.
> Your bias is showing...
Yes, it is. I have a bias against claims made that are not supported by
observations or calculations.
> [snip]
>
> >>>In fact, I couldn't.
> >>>Because there *are* no results.
> >>
> >>Oh, the other method of you: ignore the results.
> >
> > Hmmm. Must have missed them.
>
> They are there, in the stuff you quoted themselves.
>
> > Could you quote the precise distances from the paper? (He said
> > sweetly.)
>
> Err, we were talking about "results" here in general, not about
> *PRECISE* distances. As usual, you simply shift the goalposts...
LOL! Results *MUST* be specific. The fuzzy, spin-doctor quotes about
'constrained' parameters is a laugher on it's own.
> >>>Only a status report stating that maybe
> >>>someday they'd be able to figure out a way to get results.
> >>
> >>That directly contradicts what you quoted above. Have you severe reading
> >>comprehension problems, or are you simply lying?
> >
> > Cute. "Useful constraints" are not measurements.
>
> "We have presented several techniques for measuring or usefully
> constraining these parameters."
>
> Why do you ignore the "measuring" part?
Because there are no 'measurements' in the paper. Which is why you can't
point to any. They came up with some 'techniques' that *MIGHT* (Someday.
If somebody figures out how.) end up measuring things.
> Your bias is showing.
As noted above, you are correct.
>
> >>>I merely
> >>>ridiculed the 30 years of zero-result, taxpayer-funded effort.
> >>
> >>The above was *not* a zero-result.
> >
> > They still can't determine jet angle. They hope to be able to do this
> > after sufficient additional funds are given to them.
>
> So what? This is quite different to "a zero result"!
Not being able to determine jet angle is a zero result. Without jet angle
one has nada.
> >>>That always concludes with the need for more funding.
> >>
> >>Which in this case led to a result.
> >
> > The result was the call for more funds, because they still can't
> > determine the jet angle.
>
> Ever heard the term "preliminary result"?
In requests for more funding, of course.
> >>>Why did you focus on the request for more money, and ignore the (lack
> >>>of) physics in the reference you provided?
> >>
> >>Pardon??? Which lack of physics are you talking about???
> >
> > The fact that they still can't determine jet angle.
>
> Why is that a lack of physics?
Because without it they *have* no method of measuring anything substantive.
> And why do you *still* ignore the "measuring" part in
> "We have presented several techniques for measuring or usefully
> constraining these parameters."?
Because 'techniques' are not results or fundamental measurements. They are
hopes for future measurements.
> > And without the jet angle, they are DITW.
>
> They are what?
Sorry. Obviously the acronym was too arcane, or too American.
"Dead In The Water." Extracted from naval battles. A ship that was 'dead
in the water' was damaged so badly that the engines could not move the ship.
It was going nowhere, and could be easily torpedoed, shelled or otherwise
sunk. Sometimes scuttled simply because it was a liability and would put
the other ships at risk, if they tried to tow or fix it.
--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for return e-mail}
- Next message: greywolf42: "Re: Aether, light, and mediums ... mmmmkay?"
- Previous message: greywolf42: "Re: The Ether is believed to be Dark Energy"
- In reply to: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: Two Studies (was in Sizing Up the Universe)"
- Next in thread: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: Two Studies (was in Sizing Up the Universe)"
- Reply: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: Two Studies (was in Sizing Up the Universe)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
