Bob Should Really Learn to be More Hubble

[Johnny]

This is a very slick bait-and-switch, Johnny. You know that I used the word "assumption." The observation regarding farther galaxies moving faster cannot necessarily be implied for these deep space objects if no parallax measurements have been done on a significant amount of them.

It wasn't a bait and switch. It's not an assumption, it's an observation. The only assumption made is that the laws of the universe hold true all over the universe. If you want to question redshift data then you might as well and go ahead and question parallax data. Afterall, we've never measured the distance with a tape measure. It's just based on an assumption.

He must be referring to the fact that I got the thread title wrong.

Apples don't fall far from the tree, do they? You weren't honest from the beginning. In my first post in that thread I asked you about it and you responded pathetically with "It is more a matter of opinion than honesty". You misrepresent and distort.

 

[Adam]

Johnny, gimme a break. I made a very coherent reply after reading ThePhy's complete post.

Dr. Margon said something very telling "...which we believe..." with is a hypothetical statement about the blobs he had seen.

The post falls apart in my mind when people start talking about blobs. When we get better pictures of the blobs, then we will find that they too are mature galaxies.

 

[Johnny]

Dr. Margon said something very telling "...which we believe..." with is a hypothetical statement about the blobs he had seen...When we get better pictures of the blobs, then we will find that they too are mature galaxies.

Is that also hypothetical?

 

[ThePhy]

I have the normal aversion to getting in the sewage to answer charges from bob b, but he seems to think that my starting this thread was some kind of response to the early galaxies thread he references.

In fact I think it rather obvious that I did not compose the opening post in this thread in a few minutes. I have taken the time to acquaint myself with much of with Enyart has to say on science over the past months.

As to bob b’s claim that I

tried for a while to wheezle out of the references I gave, but then apparently gave up and disappeared

in fact I specifically responded to one of his articles when I said

And this is a beautiful example of science in action. One option is to throw up our hands and run around screaming “This proves God did it” (Remember God of the gaps), or we can sit down and look at the equations, the assumptions, and use our brains.

Apparently this went over bob b’s head, because then he started accusing me of dodging his question. So I directly answered his charge, saying

Try reading my last reply again. I specifically said that when things like this are found, we go back and re-examine our theory. I have zero problem with admitting that galaxies appeared earlier than most theories expected. If fact, the real surprise would be if the evidence comported exactly with our early estimates.

So I don’t know what aspect of bob b’s claim he thinks I have not addressed.

Perhaps bob b, that fading old man who pretends to once have understood science, has forgotten who is the master at abandoning scientific threads. For example, look at this post at the end of the “Sun Stood Still” thread in which bob b’s silly lack of scientific knowledge was shown. His answer – none (over 7 months and still waiting). Or how about the “Millions of Years” thread, in which bob b brought up ripples in the CMB as giving evidence against the big bang. Except when it was shown that not only do they not give evidence against, but evidence for, he jumped ship, over 4 months ago. Or we could even reach back farther into history when bob b responded to some math he disagreed with. Only problem was, the math he offered (elementary algebra) was shown to be nonsense, and even when the obvious blunders were fixed, it did not support the conclusions he claimed. Remember that bob, or shall I repost it here as a refresher?

It is sad watching bob b’s postings.

 

[ThePhy]

From truthman:

Dr. Margon said something very telling "...which we believe..." with is a hypothetical statement about the blobs he had seen.

I hope you hold that same level of suspicion about all things based on inferential evidence. One of the things that marks the beginning of modern science is the use of instruments to help us look into realms that our normal senses cannot detect. Within this realm are radio waves, electrons, the outer planets, the internal structure of the cell, X-rays, relativity, most of aerodynamics, and on and on. In every one of these fields, we “believe” we know what is happening, but that belief is based on things other than our own primary senses.

The post falls apart in my mind when people start talking about blobs. When we get better pictures of the blobs, then we will find that they too are mature galaxies.

Maybe your eyes are as bad as Enyart’s. I have the PowerPoint presentation Margon used (he sent it to me). In it are clearly shown the “blobs”. If you think that it is just a matter of better focus, then you are looking at something different than I am.

And, if you didn’t catch it, since the HDF that Dr. Margon was talking about they have looked deeper into space with the UDF follow-on experiment. The blobs you object to didn’t suddenly develop spiral arms and turn into normal galaxies. If you are waiting for that train, sorry but it left the station almost two years ago with the release of the UDF data. You are looking awfully silly beating that dead horse.

 

[ThePhy]

From bob b:

The implications of this finding should be obvious to anyone with half a brain who is not hopelessly dogmatically attached to current theories: astronomers don't really have a valid theory that tells them how old a galaxy is.

Actually there are several theories, and each one has things about it that are dependent on uncertain parameters. Sorry if that bothers you, but that is one reason the HDF and UDF experiments were undertaken – to try to decide among the competing ideas and tighten the uncertainties. Just like a whole lot of other scientific disciplines – that is the way it is done.

And no, scientists have not found such uncertainties to be compelling reasons for invoking the supernatural. In fact, in the numerous times throughout scientific history when other new fields of scientific investigation were being refined, to have invoked the supernatural would have brought progress to a dead stop. We can all be thankful that bob b type religious zealots do not mandate where science can and cannot go, or we would still be riding in buggies behind our team of horses.

 

[bob b]

From bob b:Actually there are several theories, and each one has things about it that are dependent on uncertain parameters. Sorry if that bothers you, but that is one reason the HDF and UDF experiments were undertaken – to try to decide among the competing ideas and tighten the uncertainties. Just like a whole lot of other scientific disciplines – that is the way it is done.

And no, scientists have not found such uncertainties to be compelling reasons for invoking the supernatural.

Inevitably that point is reached, unless one believes silliness such as the universe created itself.

As I have pointed out before, I receive criticism from fundamentalists for searching for naturalistic explanations to many things in scripture they ascribe to miracles. And then I also receive criticism from atheists because I don't go all the way and reject God.

In fact, in the numerous times throughout scientific history when other new fields of scientific investigation were being refined, to have invoked the supernatural would have brought progress to a dead stop.

Quite true. Generally speaking, I reserve the supernatural for ultimate origins such as the creation of the universe and life (with a handful, but not all, of notable exceptions mentioned in scripture).

We can all be thankful that bob b type religious zealots do not mandate where science can and cannot go, or we would still be riding in buggies behind our team of horses.

You are so dishonest. Instead of arguing the issues you resort to such slander in a pathetic attempt to weaken my scientific case, which apparently you have failed to do or you wouldn't have to resort to such unscientific attacks.

You must really hate Christians who see no reason to compromise scripture, because they show that the ideas found there are not refuted by science but instead may be clues to a better science.

BTW, I don't necessarily agree with all of what Enyart says on young galaxies as far back as can be seen, but one must at least admit that the partial fulfillment of his "prediction" was quite a surprise to astronomers.

 

[ThePhy]

From bob b:

Inevitably that point is reached, unless one believes silliness such as the universe created itself.

Since science does not know what happened at the first instant of the big bang, I don’t mind your claim. What created the universe? Since time was a product of the big bang, I don’t even know if it makes sense to ask about things before the big bang. Feel free to invoke your supernatural poofer before the big bang, as long as you keep him in such remote regions like that so he is no more than a philosophical conjecture.

As I have pointed out before, I receive criticism from fundamentalists for searching for naturalistic explanations to many things in scripture they ascribe to miracles. And then I also receive criticism from atheists because I don't go all the way and reject God.

You will have to decide what to do with your intolerant fundamentalists. Meantime I will spread the word to atheists that you have full right to believe in God, though I think most atheists, including me, have no objection to that anyway. We do mind when you have to mock science to try to salvage your beliefs. Most Christians don’t need to do that.

You are so dishonest. Instead of arguing the issues you resort to such slander in a pathetic attempt to weaken my scientific case, which apparently you have failed to do or you wouldn't have to resort to such unscientific attacks.

The old fading Christian hypocrite raises his head again. In your entry into this thread you claimed that I jumped over here to after giving up on answering your old galaxies thread. Yet I pointed out above that that is hogwash, and you have not refuted it. And then I show that you are the one that is skipping out on threads, and now I am resorting to slander? You are the one that ran away from those threads, and publicly demonstrated your mathematical incompetence. Truth is not slander.

You must really hate Christians who see no reason to compromise scripture, because they show that the ideas found there are not refuted by science but instead may be clues to a better science.

Then show it. So far, the creationists have a rather impressive list of failures.

BTW, I don't necessarily agree with all of what Enyart says on young galaxies as far back as can be seen, but one must at least admit that the partial fulfillment of his "prediction" was quite a surprise to astronomers.

Here is exactly what he said about the galaxies that would be seen in the HDF:

When they develop this photograph they’re going to see what we see wherever we look in the night sky. They’ll see normal galaxies.

Margon’s presentation has several specific examples that belie Bob’s claim.

I presume by partial fulfillment you are referring to the mature galaxies earlier than expected. Just for interest, how long after the big bang are those galaxies dated? And how does that compared to 6,000 years?

 

[bob b]

From bob b:Since science does not know what happened at the first instant of the big bang, I don’t mind your claim. What created the universe? Since time was a product of the big bang, I don’t even know if it makes sense to ask about things before the big bang. Feel free to invoke your supernatural poofer before the big bang, as long as you keep him in such remote regions like that so he is no more than a philosophical conjecture.You will have to decide what to do with your intolerant fundamentalists. Meantime I will spread the word to atheists that you have full right to believe in God, though I think most atheists, including me, have no objection to that anyway. We do mind when you have to mock science to try to salvage your beliefs. Most Christians don’t need to do that.The old fading Christian hypocrite raises his head again. In your entry into this thread you claimed that I jumped over here to after giving up on answering your old galaxies thread. Yet I pointed out above that that is hogwash, and you have not refuted it. And then I show that you are the one that is skipping out on threads, and now I am resorting to slander? You are the one that ran away from those threads, and publicly demonstrated your mathematical incompetence. Truth is not slander.Then show it. So far, the creationists have a rather impressive list of failures.Here is exactly what he said about the galaxies that would be seen in the HDF:Margon’s presentation has several specific examples that belie Bob’s claim.

I presume by partial fulfillment you are referring to the mature galaxies earlier than expected. Just for interest, how long after the big bang are those galaxies dated? And how does that compared to 6,000 years?

Specific dates are questionable because currently there is no way to determine the time scale of the expansion of the coordinates of the universe. I accept, at least provisionally, that such an expansion has taken place, because it appears to solve the "starlight travel time problem." That was the point of many of my postings on the threads in the Religion forum.

 

[ThePhy]

From bob b:

Specific dates are questionable because currently there is no way to determine the time scale of the expansion of the coordinates of the universe.

A whole lot of scientists with far more detailed knowledge than you have of this subject feel there is a way to determine the time scale.

 

[bob b]

From bob b:A whole lot of scientists with far more detailed knowledge than you have of this subject feel there is a way to determine the time scale.

Sometimes more detailed knowledge leads to a sort of institutionalized myopia.

For example, do you believe in multiple universes? A yes, no, or don't know will suffice.

 

[Johnny]

Sometimes more detailed knowledge leads to a sort of institutionalized myopia.

I suppose your aversion to "detailed knowledge" explains your position, then.

 

[bob b]

I suppose your aversion to "detailed knowledge" explains your position, then.

Not "aversion" but instead "perspective".

Two of my fields were Systems Engineering and Operations Research.

In these fields one uses the detailed information obtained by other scientists, but treats them as mathematical transforms. Having done this it permits one to concentrate on the complexities of the interactions between major subsystems, which is vitally important because "the whole is more than the sum of its parts".

 

[ThePhy]

From bob b:

Sometimes more detailed knowledge leads to a sort of institutionalized myopia.

Just another one of your generalized statements that could be said about almost anything, include Christianity. I guess when you can't provide specifics, generalized smears are the best you can do.

For example, do you believe in multiple universes? A yes, no, or don't know will suffice.

If you want to know, start a new thread. Let's try to keep this one a bit more on topic.

 

[Yorzhik]

Originally Posted by ThePhy:
But our question is not what “common knowledge” is now, or even after the HDF exposure.

No, that is exactly the question. What the general public knew about the Hubble picture was that it was a blank piece of sky. And I named my source. The source is what was remembered from reading newspapers, mentioned on the radio, talk at the water-cooler, and over the fence. That's how the general public knows things.

Now, when the general understanding is mistaken, then there are usually some famous scientist or 2 or maybe a director of some project that sets the record straight. But it wasn't. In fact, I did an informal survey of some of the office people I have contact with. Most of them didn't know about HDF (although never by that name), but some did, and they all thought it was focused on a part of space that was blank. I asked where they found out about it and those that did know about HDF didn't remember, except for one guy who thought he read it in National Geographic or Discover Magazine or Popular Science or something like that.

So the next question is: why wasn't this straightened out? I think the reason is because the scientists cannot say with enough surety that the deep galaxies look like newly forming ones should. And that is born out in the statement by the expert you posted.

 

[ThePhy]

No, that is exactly the question. What the general public knew about the Hubble picture was that it was a blank piece of sky. And I named my source. The source is what was remembered from reading newspapers, mentioned on the radio, talk at the water-cooler, and over the fence. That's how the general public knows things.

HDF waasn't done as a crowd pleaser, it was a scientific endeavor. It was not particularly important to make sure Joe Blow on the street knew the fine points of the area under observation. It was crucial that the scientists know.

So the next question is: why wasn't this straightened out? I think the reason is because the scientists cannot say with enough surety that the deep galaxies look like newly forming ones should. And that is born out in the statement by the expert you posted.

And you are dead wrong. The success of HDF was clear enough that it spawned 2 direct follow-on observations by the Hubble itself (HDF-S and UDF), as well as numerous newer efforts by other telescopes (Hawaii, Spitzer, etc.). The flow of technical papers based on this data has been substantial for over 10 years, and will likely continue far into the future. And if you feel my representation of Dr. Margon's statements are not accurate, contact him directly. That is what I did before starting this thread.

 

[bob b]

To the Phy.

"do you believe in multiple universes? A yes, no, or don't know will suffice."

No new thread is required. If you aren't sure then say so.

 

[ThePhy]

To the Phy.

"do you believe in multiple universes? A yes, no, or don't know will suffice."

No new thread is required. If you aren't sure then say so.

Not interested in your intentionally wanting to derail this thread.

 

[bob b]

Not interested in your intentionally wanting to derail this thread.

A simple yes, no or don't know would not derail this thread.

 

[ThePhy]

A simple yes, no or don't know would not derail this thread.

If it is worth asking, it should be worth discussing. A simple yes or no or maybe is not much of a discussion. You have some pathological aversion to a new thread, or do you feel my answer would contribute materially to the subject matter of Bob E's self-reflexive mockery of the HDF?