Posted on 08/11/2003 8:57:56 AM PDT by fishtank
PDF file.
I really liked the line.....
"Can I pet him?"
"Why sure; he's a vegatarian."
As this BIG head pokes it's way thru the high leaves to their 'secure' resting spot.
You're assuming all factors are knowable and witnessable from distance. I've been trying to tell you if you'd dig the wax out of your ears, that you haven't proven that to be the case. I've used known examples to demonstrate possibility - not happenstance. I learned highschool physics. I also learned real life application rather than laboratory theorizing about what happens in a perfect vacuum with no interferance.
Say whaa?
You're assuming all factors are knowable and witnessable from distance.
You're rejecting a simple trigonometric way of determining distances based on the completely conjectural hypothesis that there is some entirely transparent object, which no one has ever seen, between this and every single star with an observed parallax; that object is sufficiently far away that it refracts light the same regardless of what side the earth's orbit it's on; that it's sufficently large that our motion and the motion of the star we're observing doesn't affect the refraction; that - unlike every other form of matter we've ever observed - it absorbs no electromagnetic radiation anywhere from the gamma ray region to the microwave region; that it affects all stars in the same cluster the same way; but that other stars which may be in front of or behind the cluster are not affected. You have no evidence for these objects, and you have no explanation for why they haven't been detected. And other than the fact that for some odd reason you don't like stellar distances the way they are, I can't imagine why you're wasting all our time with this idiocy.
Well, I've blundered before. No doubt I will again. I do it all right out in the open, for everyone to see. PH goofed!
Except he's shown no sign of acknowledging any errors. You can't admit 'em if you don't know you're wrong.
How would such a shell avoid a Raleigh-Taylor instability?
Hey, bud, this is a news forum.
Du musst Caligari werden!
Not completely, Grasshopper....
There are many different kinds of variable stars, and Cepheids are only one type. They happen to be the one type that has the direct relationship between absolute magnitude and the period of variability, thus they are useful as a "cosmic yardstick".... as you have previously pointed out.
No, not true. It was stated they were extinct because they had not been observed by those who were being listened to on the subject. More than that was perpetuated by the same crowd and is documented in the link I will provide in response to your next segment. You don't see the difference. But I do. It is a fact that they were stated to be extinct. It is a proven fact that they are not.
2&3&4. They look exactly like they were portrayed. Take a look at the following fossils - http://www.dinofish.com/image16.htm http://www.amnh.org/naturalhistory/0501/images/0501_ceolo1.jpg http://www.nature.ca/discover/treasures/trsite_e/trimages/trfossil/trswhit-m.jpg I don't see any legs. Nor do I see anything that points to lungs(and a form of locomotion on land) that would lead to such claims. I think you are making some of your stuff up.
Read a copy of "Old Four Legs" - J. L. B. Smith. Then feed me this stuff. Below is a nice set of footnotes on the point. These quotations underscore what I've been saying. Though finding a copy of the book old four legs will probably be as elusive now as finding bigfoot, it's worth a laugh or two. I understand why the only mention of it on the net that I could find is from someone using it as a weapon in argument. I guess the memory of what your side propounds dissappears in the changing dialogue as things get disproved..
here
5. There are over 80 different species of coelacanths that we know of. So for one or two of them to survive make headlines through out the world when they were discovered.
There are over 80 fish classified as coelacanths in other words. Meaning that like cats, there is diversity among types of fish. But no evidence of evolution. One is not a precursor of another - merely a brother to it. So I don't know why you offered it. It says nothing.
6. I seem to recall fossils of dragonfly's that look exactly like they do today, only that they were larger in the past. THere are fossils of cockroaches, even frogs,toads, sharks. So we have lots of examples of animals that have changes very little if at all. So that proves nothing. Evolution says that living being evolve to adapt to their environment. So if something doesn't need to change to survive/reproduce, then they won't change very much.
But your crowd propounded the notion that the ceolacanths evolved and walked onto land. The link I provided above is proof of it, your sidestepping notwithstanding.
Hmmm. There are dinosaurs that spent most of their life in the water because their girth to muscle ratio is so high that it is difficult for them to move on land. So instead of hunting them(some sauropods were only 15 meters) while they went on land to nest, our anceters decided to hunt very fast moving antelope and Wooly Mammoths with horns as large as the men at the time. Man, were our anceters stupid. More likely, ALL DINOSAURS DIED OFF MILLIONS OF YEARS BEFORE MAN EXISTED!!!!!
I didn't say man was not our ancestor "stupid." Try making a rational point. I noted there is no evidence that men hunted dinosaurs. Doesn't mean they didn't. But the lack of cave paintings of hunts including dinosaurs neither proves nor disproves the notion that it could have happened. This is like saying that 4000 years from now if a photograph can't be found of men putting large hats on their heads shaped like condoms that it never happened. If you want to parade ignorant arguments and yell, you're just helping me.
I'm sorry if you do not track time like the rest of us. But BC years come before AD years.
I do track time the same way and corrected it, noting that it would be attacked. You aren't dissappointing me in my expectations of you. Everyone who doesn't think like you or isn't perfect must be stupid. And that is the liberal, atheistic upperclass snobbery mentality. I'm having a hard time imagining you as upperclass; but, the snob part you've already aptly demonstrated.
http://stardate.org/resources/ssguide/moon.html
On this I will stand corrected as I was unaware of this. My literature does not mention it.
Using only trig we can get exact distances to many thousands of stars.
Only if you are sure of the star's position. Period. You can say otherwise all you wish; but, I know physics and I know math. And shy of knowing the position is not shifted or masked, you cannot say this. It only works in a vaccuum with no unknown mitigating factors.
Here is a nice debunking of one of your heros Kent Hovind - http://www.geocities.com/kenthovind/lies/stars.htm
I haven't quoted him and he's not a hero. So, you can go plunk that one back on a shelf somewhere.
WOW!! You won't even accept trig to find the distances to the closest stars.
No, I won't accept assumptions unless the assumptions can be proven true. It's called methodology. Proving it works nearby where there are no obstructions does not demonstrate that it works on the far distance where conditions are unknown. It's a forgone conclusion that if you're spear fishing, you can't aim where you percieve the fish to be or you will miss. That is a factual known. You don't want to admit that a condition could exist where you aim a spear at a star, if you will, and miss because you aimed at where you percieved it to be. It's brightness or percieved brightness, color, ect can be rendered irrelevant if it's location is masked. That is not blindness, it's stubborn ignorance.
On that note, I will choose to ignore you from now on.
By all means, run away. It fits your type.
It isn't nonsensical, you're only furthering my point. You said nothing could shift beyond 1 degree. I stated water does. I think I misread your comment trying to get through it quickly; but, it was a viable point. You just can't admit it because it screws your position.
Don't try to salvage my wounded pride. I've seen how you guys treat people in these science threads. I shall now flip into attack mode! I've had quite enough of your slime!
Yes, in fact it does. Light is filtered and the perception of the color spectrum is offset. If you don't know you're looking through amber, then your judgement of color is distorted. Thus measuring against color becomes impossible because of an unknown quantity. If you know you are looking through amber, then the perception can be adjusted for. How stupid do you think people are to not know that colored lenses filter light and thus color from the spectrum. I think it safe to say that most here have a pair of sunglasses for that very reason. Sheesh. Ignorance knows no bounds.
Then you know nothing about the egyptian chronology - not little, nothing.
Oh joy; what's next, the Attack of the Animated gif's?
;-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.