A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

SR time dilation on remote objects ?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #561  
Old September 30th 04, 12:59 AM
vonroach
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 19:17:51 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"vonroach" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 18:59:07 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"vonroach" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 15:57:41 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:

Complete utter nonsense.

Actually, I love that reply, the values weren't
measured, they were just assumed because nothing
else fits the observations.

George

A common practice in science. Newton's entire workable theory of
gravity for example.

So you think Newton never _measured_ the acceleration
of gravity to be 32 ft/s^2, he only _assumed_ it had
that value "a posteriori" in order to "justify" the
measurements that a dropped item increased its speed
by 32 ft/s in each second?

George

He measured what he attributed to the mutual attraction between two
masses - a guess, since he had no other explanation to offer.


I don't disagree with that, it was a conjecture and
as you say a very workable one. However, what Marcel
said was that the _value_ of Omega M had not been
measured, instead "assumptions were made a posteriori
in order to justify the observations."

How else do you make any measurement in astronomy but
"assume" a value that fits the observations ;-)


Dunno, never thought about it one way or the other.

I wonder if something may one day be found in the dark part of the
universe that may change our views again.


I certainly hope so, we know QM and GR don't mesh
easily, and dark matter and dark energy aren't
necessarily black, they are dark in the sense of
being as yet unexplained. We still have a lot to
discover.

`Dark' in the sense of being inaccessible to our senses at this
juncture. Assumed to be there a posteriori to fit our ideas about the
universe which are frequently revised.
I confess that I've never actually seen space or time, but I assume a
posteriori that they are there to explain observations - motion and
aging. Others offer convincing theories that only energy processes
exist - all the rest are our assumptions and fantasy.
George


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
UFO Activities from Biblical Times Kazmer Ujvarosy Astronomy Misc 0 December 25th 03 06:21 AM
Empirically Confirmed Superluminal Velocities? Robert Clark Astronomy Misc 42 November 11th 03 04:43 AM
NASA Releases Near-Earth Object Search Report Ron Baalke Astronomy Misc 0 September 10th 03 04:39 PM
Correlation between CMBR and Redshift Anisotropies. The Ghost In The Machine Astronomy Misc 172 August 30th 03 10:27 PM
Incontrovertible Evidence Cash Astronomy Misc 1 August 24th 03 07:22 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:07 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.