@sonhouse saidYou cannot tell how old they are, you don’t have a clue how everything started. I also don’t push a young universe for the same reason, even the Bible doesn’t address it. So the age is a non-starter processes however we can speak to processes.
@KellyJay
Observations of galaxies where we now can tell how old they are by actual measurements and you are permanently stuck with a 6000 year old universe and that is not even related to Jesus.
@KellyJay
You dis an entire branch of science and probably would never stoop to actually study the stars and how we determine how far away they are and how old they are.
Same with age of objects on Earth, if we have organics, we can get a fairly accurate age reading back to around 50,000 years but there are a half dozen techniques that involve for instance how light effects rocks exposed to the sun for hundreds of centuries. Then there is really long range tech, like radioactive decay studies that can peg times of many millions of years.
Another way is just to dig into a sediment bed and knowing how long each layer takes, just count the layers, I have no idea of the exact time frame for a layer of say ocean bottom to get a single layer deposited but suppose it takes 100 years for one layer a couple of millimeters thick, then if there are a thousand layers, that would say it took 100,000 years for the total thickness we measure.
Same with stars, we have a decent understanding of the age and distance of stars because of one fact, there are literally trillions of them in the universe and those in various levels of development. There are stars called standard candles because the physics going on inside them produce a star with X amount of radiation for a whole class of such stars so just measuring the power reading or intensity if you will, there is a formula where a weak standard candle is say at 10 million light years away and a stronger one is in the next big galaxy over, Andromeda which clocks in around 1 million light years away so just the apparent intensity shows the distance.
Then Hubble found some 100 years ago galaxies were receding from us and the rate of that recession from us depends on the distance, knowing that, we come up with the 'cosmological constant' which right now has 2 separate numbers both indication a small difference between the two measurements maybe a 10% difference depending on what tech is used to measure which is called the 'Hubble Tension' and cosmologists are a bit freaked out about why we don't have a single number that tells distance based on redshift of the light from stars, Still, Hubble tension or not the numbers are still within 10% of each other so I can say galaxy z is 120 million light years away or maybe 110 million light years away, either way it is a hell of a distance🙂
Hubble noticed the redshift of stars got deeper red the further away they were and that red shift can give an excellent reading of the distance away, within 10% considering the Hubble tension problem, they would like it to be within 1% but till they figure out why measuring one way gives on result and measurement another way gives a 10% different answer.
One Phd just wrote a paper about that, he found in his research it appears our galaxy is somewhere around the middle of what he calls the Void, where there are less galaxies in our area of space, about a 20% difference as opposed to stuff say 10 billion light years away but a rough sphere a billion light years from on end to the other. He says that can explain the Hubble tension.
Using AI we can now analyze petabytes of data gathered by dozens of telescopes on Earth and in space like Hubble and create 3 dimensional map showing distance of galaxies billions of light years away.
And of course you can refuse to accept those readings but they are the result of about 300 years of astronomy and cosmological research ongoing as we speak.
The James Webb scope parked about a million miles from Earth is rewriting cosmology as we speak also. Finding too many galaxies at the edge of what is observable, too early in what we think should be there so work is ongoing to suss out that kind thing, but that is what science is all about.
@sonhouse saidIt’s quite simple you can be spot on accurate on distances and rates, that only gives you distances and rates. What you do not know again is how the origin of the universe begins, so just having those numbers isn’t different than seeing a car on a highway moving at 70mph, it does not tell you where the car was an hour ago.
@KellyJay
You dis an entire branch of science and probably would never stoop to actually study the stars and how we determine how far away they are and how old they are.
Same with age of objects on Earth, if we have organics, we can get a fairly accurate age reading back to around 50,000 years but there are a half dozen techniques that involve for instance how light effect ...[text shortened]... ould be there so work is ongoing to suss out that kind thing, but that is what science is all about.
The distance past is ripe with assumptions, but again I will grant you any time you want, you don’t even have to provide a reason. The road blocks are the processes, information, and timing.
@KellyJay
If you took astronomy 101 you would learn how they do age of stars.
When you have literally trillions of stars to analyze with our advanced instruments like the James Webb scope a million miles out in space or the Hubble in orbit or the ELT, extremely large telescope in the process of being built, an optical telescope with the size that rivals radio telescope in diameter, anyway when you see literally billions of stars right here in our own galaxy and billions of galaxies, you see patterns, that is what humans are good at and I told you some of the technique for sussing out ages of stars and such but your religious bias makes you incapable of believing centuries of advancement in science and astronomy and cosmology.
All you have are negative thoughts about science, geology included, you SAY you don't believe in the young Earth BS but you can't get yourself to admit there are real techniques that do show ages.
Prime example of religion clouding your own ability to think.
I know you can think, you are a coder and that takes at least SOME smarts.
My professional life has to do with semiconductor manufacturing machines and only did a little coding in fortran long ago.
On a separate note, I am up to 380 tracks on soundcloud, the latest tune just a couple of days ago, guitar solo, I called Raptor enjoying the clouds if you want to go there and listen.
@sonhouse saidReligion has nothing to do with my complaint it’s simply pointing out we have to make great assumptions which can’t be falsified. And you call these facts?
@KellyJay
If you took astronomy 101 you would learn how they do age of stars.
When you have literally trillions of stars to analyze with our advanced instruments like the James Webb scope a million miles out in space or the Hubble in orbit or the ELT, extremely large telescope in the process of being built, an optical telescope with the size that rivals radio telescope in ...[text shortened]... le of days ago, guitar solo, I called Raptor enjoying the clouds if you want to go there and listen.
@KellyJay
You bring up Popper and you just can't accept science. Seems to me BECAUSE of your religious faith not allowing you to accept the results of science.
Sounds like you would not accept scientific results if you actually had a Phd in physcs.
@sonhouse saidPlease, tell me anything I have said that is religious in this discussion! I have limited my responses to logical complaints, but you avoid those, and not answered me one word on the ins and outs of the logic, you go to my religious faith, very disingenuous of you!
@KellyJay
You bring up Popper and you just can't accept science. Seems to me BECAUSE of your religious faith not allowing you to accept the results of science.
Sounds like you would not accept scientific results if you actually had a Phd in physcs.
@KellyJay
Ok accepting it is not religious., Then what is going on you reject scientific work that has taken centuries to build? It sounds like it is just your opinion they are wrong, if so, show me papers refuting their dating. If for instance it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt Earth was in fact 4 billion years old, would you accept that?
@sonhouse saidScience is always supposed to question what we call the truth! Therefore if you think we are not allowed to question some 'truth' people have that has its foundation in science you are defending a dogma, not science.
@KellyJay
Ok accepting it is not religious., Then what is going on you reject scientific work that has taken centuries to build? It sounds like it is just your opinion they are wrong, if so, show me papers refuting their dating. If for instance it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt Earth was in fact 4 billion years old, would you accept that?
@sonhouse saidI already gave you reasons for questioning age when all we know are distance and rate with the car example, did you even read what I said, or did you ignore all of my parts of this conversation because you wrote me off as religious?
@KellyJay
Ok accepting it is not religious., Then what is going on you reject scientific work that has taken centuries to build? It sounds like it is just your opinion they are wrong, if so, show me papers refuting their dating. If for instance it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt Earth was in fact 4 billion years old, would you accept that?
@KellyJay
Of course we can say X theory is wrong but they do it in scientific papers properly vetted by professionals, not some random dude going 'It's all wrong' with nothing to back that statement up but words.
Theories get proven wrong all the time and if a scientist sees something he or she thinks is wrong and they feel strongly about it, they come up with a paper showing exactly where and why the old theory is wrong. That IS the scientific method.
@sonhouse saidSo fine, as long as when we say facts support our points of view, we should at least prove they are facts, not the latest possible reason a lot of people accept as a possibility it could be true. When we say things like the "natural cause" it should be because we can see those things taking place in nature, not because it agrees with our philosophical worldview of what nature is supposed to be.
@KellyJay
Of course we can say X theory is wrong but they do it in scientific papers properly vetted by professionals, not some random dude going 'It's all wrong' with nothing to back that statement up but words.
Theories get proven wrong all the time and if a scientist sees something he or she thinks is wrong and they feel strongly about it, they come up with a paper showing exactly where and why the old theory is wrong. That IS the scientific method.
The scientific method can be the best possible reason or explanation, or something we can repeat in a lab through observation and testing. If you are saying the only thing you'll accept as scientific is something a scientist says, why bother talking to anyone else you just made most of the world's thoughts on anything worthless.
@sonhouse saidNothing can be said to you here matters, no matter how strong the case can be made if you only accept things written in papers by scientists. That position is not a position of science, that that is a psychosocial worldview belief.
@KellyJay
Of course we can say X theory is wrong but they do it in scientific papers properly vetted by professionals, not some random dude going 'It's all wrong' with nothing to back that statement up but words.
Theories get proven wrong all the time and if a scientist sees something he or she thinks is wrong and they feel strongly about it, they come up with a paper showing exactly where and why the old theory is wrong. That IS the scientific method.
@KellyJay
So you would say expect me, a technician with a couple years of college to write some kind of paper refuting some claim of a theory I object to?
Did you forget about the part where you need to know a good deal about math and I know you are expert in your field of coding but let's see you transfer that to proving 100 years of scientific work is wrong dating a frigging hill.
It takes folks with similar levels of education or maybe a lone genius like Sidis could come up with some reasonable refutation but in order to be taken seriously you better be a Phd or at least have a masters degree in the field you are refuting.
There are flat Earth dudes who swear on a bible Earth is 20 miles thick and shaped like a pancake and satellites are an international conspiracy because there is no such thing as being able to get into space, they are all computer generated fakes.
Do you think someone like that would get anywhere trying to Popper up the Earth not being more or less round?