And yet:
That is still personal experience. That is not peer reviewed. The issue with personal experience is humans individually are flawed, primarily cognitive bias, we tend to accept evidence which aligns with our personal pet hypothesis and tend to not accept to the contrary. That is not saying you are wrong, but there is doubt in your evidence. One must always doubt oneself in science. Place equal effort to disprove oneself.
The scientific method is to get someone else to repeat your observations.
The fact you said you have multiple personal anecdotes means you know science is the flaw in your argument.
SpaceX is innovating. So is NASA. However, NASA is not for profit. So if you fund SpaceX you will be at some point funding equity to someone else. Now your āsupportā (as inā¦ how exactly do you support each?) is going to be relative support of each, SpaceX vs NASA, as NASA supports many things, like Mars unmanned missions. You can certainly support a particular part of science but to say NASA is not innovative is a very broad statement. NASA put successful probes on Mars, SpaceX has not, NASA is studying the Earthās climate, SpaceX isnāt. They do different things, and I for one would not feel qualified in a public forum to compare them. They seem both very innovative to me. Either defend it or retract it, or admit you are not using a scientific argument.
Also not true.
Objects move relative to us. So say an object is moving towards us, light left it 55 million years ago, it is now less than 55 million light years away. Or it is moving away from us, so light left it 55 million years ago, it is now more than 55 million light years away. Time is time, light years is distance, āisā is not ānowā not āthenā.
So the observable universe is bigger than we can observe because the light we see came from an object further away, as apart from our local group (gravitationally bound) in the main everything is going away. Hubble expansion.
Science is the current best information and thinking, and as we know more we get better. Is that āwrongā? Yes, by definition it is always wrong as it will be replaced by better in the future. Does that mean you can reject it? No, not unless you have new evidence of equal or better quality. The scientific method is to reject oneself as the cause of error (independent tests, peer review), and often scientists love to disprove something, particularly Einstein as he is a big hero.
In summary
Well you cannot do that in a public forum. You can make bad claims and if you do not delete them someone else can come along and make the same errors have you just did. Hence, either I have to back down as science, facts, are not important to me, or you must correct and retract.
Opt-in is great, ignore something is fine.
Well in the context you wrote those words, everything is history.
- the light from our galactic core left it about 100,000 years ago, and as we are gravitionally bound, is a distance of 100,000 light years ago.
- that light then entered multiple telescopes a couple of years ago, but had to be collected, processed
- then that image enters your eye, your brain processes and eventually you saw it.
In the case of the Messier 87 black hole, it is further away, but it is a much bigger black hole, and we are not viewing it edge-on through the dense dust of our galaxy. It is in our local group, we are gravitionally bound to it, so weāll be seeing it for a while, but most of the universe is expanding away from us and future generations will not be able to see them.
you blew me off, but I read word to word and was interesting as I read it.
thanks for todayās class, will come back tomorrow definitely.
