RE: [CreationTalk] Time Paradigms
- >>> Victor: Read Aristarchus of Samos. Read Claudius Ptolemy. Read Cassini
>>> and Flamsteeds measurement of the parallax using two methods (diurnal
>>> and simultaneous from two places on the planet). Cassini measured a solar
>>> system that was 7% smaller than the accept AU of today. Flamsteed's diurnal
>>> method used during this century (angles) show a larger AU than the radar
>>> distance. The transits of Venus during this cuentury show a continually growing
>>> solar system (not referenced to clocks but to distance).
>> Please give an independent reference to these. Part of the problem is that these
>> measurements are somewhat error prone.>>>> Aristarchus had the Earth 1/20 the real distance. If it has been changing
>> at that rate we wouldhave been at the center of the sun just 3100 years ago so
>> that fails and even thedifference measured by Cassini would place at the center
>> of the sun just 4200yeas ago. However here is a site that destroys your claim.
>> The above link is to a collection Venus transit measurements that range from 7.7 to
>> 10.3 seconds of arc. Bythe way Cassini's measurement is with in this range.
>> showing that your socalled evidence is with in the range of measurement error.>>
> I am well aware of this site, which is not indifferent to the effects of clocks, since
> one method they use is totime the transit of Venus. Please notice, however, that
> most of thosewho used this method came up with an AU several thousand
> kilometers larger than the canonical AU established by clocks and radar.There are factors that you failed to notice. One of which is the fact Earth's orbit is elliptical the 2004 transit of Venus was on June 8 th and Earth - sun distance was 151,852,309 km (1.01507 AU) which is about 2.2 million Km more than the mean value of 149,597,870 km so they should measure an increased distance, Furthermore you are ignoring the margin of error in the measurements which is reflected in the the margin of error in the parallax. In fact if take their average solar parallax of 8.538" and subtract the smallest margin of error in the measurements which is 0.143" you get an Earth - sun distance of 151,472,227 km which means that the true value of 151,852,309 km is within the margin of error. What this means is that their results are full consistent with the accepted value.> In 1672, Flamsteed and Cassini measured the parallax to Mars. Flamsteed used
> a micrometer eyepiece tomeasure changing position of Mars (parallax) relative to
> bright stars in Aquarius(as the Earth rotated). Cassini and Richer measured the
> same parallaxwhen Mars occulted the star Psi Aquarii. Richter was on an island
> off the coast of SouthAmerica so the parallax invovled the distance between France
> and the FrenchGuianas. Flamsteed arrived at 25" and Cassini 24". That would
> makeclass=192430122-03052013> the AU of 325 years ago only 140 million kilometers or 7% less than the
> modern measurement.class=192430122-03052013>>>> This is one of several attempts to repeat Flamsteed's diurnal parallax measurement> using micrometer eyepieces and a modern telescope. They have repeated this
> experiment when Mars passesthrough the > bright stars of Aquarius near conjunction.
> The telescope is locatedonly a few miles from my home. Of course they rejected the data,
> sinceit did not fit the canonical AU value established by radar and clocks.
First of all what were the margins of error of Flamsteed and Cassini measurements? If the margin of error were just one or two arc second then the would probably be within the margin or error of the correct value.Second easement from the mccarthy observatory gave a distance to Mars of 38.1 ±4.0 million miles and the correct value was 37.4 million miles This means that the lowest value of their measurement range was 34.1 million miles which means it was within their measurements margin of error and thus it was consistent with the correct value. Their figure for the distance between the Earth and the sun was 94.2±9 million miles . The mean Earth - sun distance is 92.9558 million miles. Based on the margin of error the smallest Earth - sun distance of their measurement was 85.2 million miles. and so their measurement is with in the margin of error with the mean value of the real Earth - sun distance.The result is that all of these easements are with in the margin of error with correct value and thus any deviation has no significance. Thus you can not use it the support your claim of a decrease.>> Like any good old Earth compromisers a using the interpretations of uniformitarian geology
>> (the geology system ofthe scoffer mentioned by peter) to justify your compromising of the
>> Bible. The actual rockscan be explain in terms of the Genesis Flood which by you
>> reckoning must had tolasted at least 20,000 of our years. mighty long time to be cramped in
>> boat with smellyanimals.
>> Yet the rocks tell the truth.Yes the rocks tell the truth but the scoffer from which you get your interpretations of the rocks don't tell the truth. By the way I noticed that you did not answer my question about the duration of the Flood.> The flood did not build up layers of gypsum and then alternate that with layers of plankton
>skeletons.Actually the Flood could have easily done just that. Gypsum actually be comes less water soluble as the temperature goes up so under the warm conditions of the Flood it would have easily come out of solution and hydrological sorting in moving water could have laid down the alternating layers of gypsum and plankton.> Some parts of the Mediterranean dried eight times (especially in the East).> A great waterfall and undersea channel show how the sea refilled repeatedly
> through Gibraltar.
How do know? Were you there? The reason you think you know this is because some geologist who scoffs at the Bible and is quit likely an athirst said so. This claim is an interpretation not a fact. It is an interpretation based on the traditions of men who assume the Genesis Flood never happened.
>> Once again are adding the definition of the tense meaning to the verb. However it dose
>> not matter because thedally rising of stars (coming out at night) dose occur with
>> unbroken continuity soeither way it fits and it still has nothing to do with creation.>> I see galaxies coming out in unbroken continuity from formless matter at many ranges as
> He continues to form thestars and continues to place them in the spreading place, exactly
> as in the literal accountfor day four.
Yes but what you claim you see is based entirely on increasingly low resolution images.> The James Webb will be able to do visible light as well as far infrared.
> The ALMA will resolvemicrowaves.
Fine, and if either of them produce good quality images of these galaxies what ever the result is it will be interesting. Some how I think we will still disagree on how interpret those images.However I will ask this question once again. If we get good quality images that clearly show fully formed spiral galaxies at these great distance and I think they will, will you admit that you are wrong?Or as I suspect will you just throw this new data into your "fist law black hole" and act as if it does not exist.Ancient galaxies often shone in microwave and far infrared,
>As far I know no galaxy has ever been found with such high red shifts.Infrared would be a z = 21 and microwaves would be z = 20,001Now it is the cosmic background radiation is microwaves but that is likely to be the light God originally created on day one red shifted into microwaves.
------ Charles Creager Jr.