.....

  • 916 Replies
  • 269684 Views
*

Pythagoras

  • 3274
  • +0/-0
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #900 on: March 24, 2013, 10:21:10 AM »
pull a switch?  ??? lol. who pulls a switch
and  yes sceptic just deny it its okay we expect no more from you.

?

A Doubter

  • 308
  • +0/-0
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #901 on: March 24, 2013, 10:22:38 AM »
Sometimes I wonder if Scepti ever doubts the existence of Scepti.  I mean, who's proven it to him?
The video demonstrates that we can not fully trust our senses.

*

sandmanMike

  • 603
  • +0/-0
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #902 on: March 26, 2013, 01:36:22 PM »
I can't believe I read all 80 pages today, and the last comment was yesterday and the first was months ago...

I'm feeling very enlightened by all of this. 

Thank you guys for helping me understand how many different things work, even if it wasn't useful for the OP.

?

A Doubter

  • 308
  • +0/-0
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #903 on: March 26, 2013, 03:13:06 PM »
I can't believe I read all 80 pages today, and the last comment was yesterday and the first was months ago...

I'm feeling very enlightened by all of this. 

Thank you guys for helping me understand how many different things work, even if it wasn't useful for the OP.

All 80 pages today?!

That's dedication!
The video demonstrates that we can not fully trust our senses.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45169
  • +98/-138
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #904 on: March 26, 2013, 03:37:43 PM »
I can't believe I read all 80 pages today, and the last comment was yesterday and the first was months ago...

I'm feeling very enlightened by all of this. 

Thank you guys for helping me understand how many different things work, even if it wasn't useful for the OP.

All 80 pages today?!

That's dedication!

No, that's someone with far too much time on their hands.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

sandmanMike

  • 603
  • +0/-0
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #905 on: March 26, 2013, 04:04:44 PM »
It's called a really slow day on Help Desk lol...

?

Shmeggley

  • 1909
  • +0/-0
  • Eppur si muove!
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #906 on: March 27, 2013, 02:56:26 PM »
This bugs me.

I went along in life being told about planets and stars and all things about space, as we all did and being a young age at the time, I had no reason to doubt it.
 After all, why would a kid doubt a professor in a white overall or a teacher that has been taught to teach you the very same things he/she was taught.

I don't discount everything I've been taught but at the same time I'm becoming extremely sceptical each day from what I have been taught over time and one of them is stars and light years.

As we all know...stars are supposedly calculated in light years for distance as mileage would involve ridiculous maths.
So we are told that a star that is 600 light years away would take us 600 years travelling at the speed of light to reach it and also that we are looking at that star as it was 600 years ago as we see the 600 year old light.

I honestly cannot get my head around it and think it's absolute BS, yet my simple answer could be construed as kid like and discounted by scientists, coupled with ridicule, so here goes.

When we view a star, we are viewing that star as it is "now" not as it was X amount of years ago.

Why do I think this?

Think about going out on a night with a torch and a friend, then telling that friend to walk 100 yards, then turn on his torch to shine at you.

You are going to see the small light of that torch in his hand...not the beam from the torch to your face as the beam would be spread out the further it gets.

A torch spans out like a funnel and it would be like anyone looking into a funnel and seeing the light at the end because that's what takes your focus.

I could be way out in my thinking here and I don't profess to say it's 100% correct but it does seem more logical to me of us seeing stars as they are, not as they were, meaning stars are a hell of a lot closer than we are told.

What do you all think?

Imagine that all the light reflecting off your friend, coming out of the torch etc. at one instant in time is spreading out from him in all directions. It forms a bubble with his image on its surface that expands at the speed of light. When that bubble reaches you then you can see the image from the instant it left your friend. Because it took some time to reach you, you are seeing an image that originated in the past.

Same with the stars. Whether they are 6 miles or 6 trillion miles away, you see what they looked like when the light left them, not as they are now.

[Edit... wow I did not realize how old this thread was, I hope my reply still sheds some "light" on the OP]
« Last Edit: March 27, 2013, 02:58:19 PM by Shmeggley »
Giess what? I am a tin foil hat conspiracy lunatic who knows nothing... See what I'm getting at here?

*

sandmanMike

  • 603
  • +0/-0
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #907 on: March 28, 2013, 08:39:13 AM »
It's called a really slow day on Help Desk lol...
Well, at least you know you won't need any sun block, now that you know that two discs of metal smashed together will only go "clang" and not "bang."  ;D

But they do go bang :)

I've seen the videos and have no reason to believe they are mis-representative of what they are showing.  If they were a hoax, their skills in faking video was 50 years before it's time and would have rivalled the cost of movie budgets today.

*

Pythagoras

  • 3274
  • +0/-0
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #908 on: March 28, 2013, 10:18:02 AM »
what tech did they have for cgi back then?

*

sandmanMike

  • 603
  • +0/-0
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #909 on: March 28, 2013, 10:21:43 AM »
what tech did they have for cgi back then?

*

Pythagoras

  • 3274
  • +0/-0
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #910 on: March 28, 2013, 10:30:41 AM »
#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Thunderbird 6 Movie Trailer

is this the CGI you are talking about sceptic? or did they have supper secret CGI we don't know about and you have no evidence of? this goes for all your hilarious Apollo faked stuff as well

*

sandmanMike

  • 603
  • +0/-0
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #911 on: April 10, 2013, 02:42:24 PM »
I haven't followed all 80 pages of this subject, but just clicked on 80 to get here.

However, somewhere I got lost. I thought this had something to do with stars and light years, or am I wrong ?  ???

This thread is 2 weeks old... why would you do this to us?!?

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • 37800
  • +1/-0
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #912 on: April 15, 2013, 04:48:50 AM »
I haven't followed all 80 pages of this subject, but just clicked on 80 to get here.

However, somewhere I got lost. I thought this had something to do with stars and light years, or am I wrong ?  ???
Read all 81 pages to know what is going on.


?

jason_85

  • 645
  • +0/-0
  • 4D n-sphere earth believer
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #913 on: April 15, 2013, 08:47:12 PM »
That's really cool, I'd never heard of "moon bounce" before :)
Jason, you are my least favorite noob.

?

Puttah

  • 1860
  • +0/-0
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #914 on: April 15, 2013, 09:14:20 PM »
Sceptimatic likes to believe that our inability to feel a car or train moving when its at its cruising speed does not apply to the Earth. Apparently, while we don't feel the car or train move, that's just because they're moving so slowly! The Earth however moves at a whopping 1000mph so we should definitely be flying off our seats, right?

Oh, and something about an atmosphere within an atmosphere... If we have traffic on the road and one car decides to slow down, in turn slowing down the entire lane, then scepti would describe that as having traffic within traffic.
Scepti, this idiocy needs to stop and it needs to stop right now. You are making a mockery of this fine forum with your poor trolling. You are a complete disgrace.

?

darknavyseal

  • 439
  • +0/-0
  • Round Earth, for sure, maybe.
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #915 on: April 19, 2013, 02:25:59 PM »
Sceptimatic likes to believe that our inability to feel a car or train moving when its at its cruising speed does not apply to the Earth. Apparently, while we don't feel the car or train move, that's just because they're moving so slowly! The Earth however moves at a whopping 1000mph so we should definitely be flying off our seats, right?

Oh, and something about an atmosphere within an atmosphere... If we have traffic on the road and one car decides to slow down, in turn slowing down the entire lane, then scepti would describe that as having traffic within traffic.

Traffic within traffic....brain....exploding.....ergplxsh

?

Puttah

  • 1860
  • +0/-0
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #916 on: April 19, 2013, 09:43:25 PM »
scepti
I don't know if this makes it any clearer. If the light years were converted into miles which is something in the quintillions of miles.
Or if you could travel at the speed of light it would take you 600 years to get you to a place 600 light years from the earth.
What we really need is a rocket ship that could travel 100 times the speed of light and we could get there in 6 years.   

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20111205193158AA1oYVA

That's terribly wrong. A light year is approximately 6 trillion miles (6x1012) while a quintillion miles is 1018, but more importantly, you can't travel as fast or faster than the speed of light. Also, if you study up on Einstein's special relativity, you'll see that if we were to get close to travelling at the speed of light, the journey will be completed in a much shorter time than 600 years. You really need to study relativity to understand how this could possibly work though.
Scepti, this idiocy needs to stop and it needs to stop right now. You are making a mockery of this fine forum with your poor trolling. You are a complete disgrace.