Bufofrog
-
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Bufofrog
-
-
-
-
58 minutes ago, dimreepr said:
What's weird is that you think we already understand how free our will is; for instance, when we have a sherry or two our definition is both positive and negative...
How would you define a blind man's freedom?
I thought this was about free will as opposed to a deterministic future. I see I am wrong and this is a discussion that is going down several philosophical rabbit holes.
-
-
2 hours ago, tmdarkmatter said:
What I want to say is that before speculating with the movements of the furthest galaxies and expansion of the universe, we should first try to figure out what kind of redshift or blueshift we can find in those objects surrounding us, so we can define what the effects of different movements on redshift should be, before we can confirm if galaxies are indeed moving away from us or if their redshift has another cause (like gravity).
We have.
2 hours ago, tmdarkmatter said:Creating special rules for galaxies that are "not gravitationally bound" would only lead to false theories.
That is not a 'special rule' that is part of the theory.
-
-
2 hours ago, tmdarkmatter said:
This means the movement of Andromeda on its own axis, not our movement around the center of the milky way (?)
No, the sentence was about sideways motion of Andromeda relative to the milky way.
2 hours ago, tmdarkmatter said:Andromeda has its own tangential movement, so we should see one half of Andromeda more redshifted than the other half.
OK.
2 hours ago, tmdarkmatter said:By the way, this red- or blueshift should even be much more intense in the center of the galaxies, where the movements are much faster.
Not as much as you might think. The outer edges of galaxies rotate almost as fast as the center.
2 hours ago, tmdarkmatter said:If the center of the Andromeda galaxy moves at a speed of 2000 km/s and our position is not in a 90 degree angle to the surface of the galactic disk, we should be able to observe this movement, especially with Andromeda, where we are definitely not in an angle of 90 degree (just check a picture of Andromeda).
OK.
2 hours ago, tmdarkmatter said:Now if you say that there is no detectable blueshift/redshift because of this movement, than the universe is also not expanding, because the cause of redshift would not be the movement of galaxies/light sources.
I didn't say there wasn't a detectable blue/red shift that I recall.
-
Edited by Bufofrog
3 hours ago, tmdarkmatter said:So are scientists having in mind these "pedestrian speeds" when calculating the redshift of Andromeda or not?
Yes.
From Wiki about Andromeda–Milky Way collision:
Taking also into account the Sun's motion, Andromeda's tangential or sideways velocity with respect to the Milky Way was found to be much smaller than the speed of approach (consistent with zero given the uncertainty) and therefore it will eventually merge with the Milky Way in around 5 billion years.
-
1 hour ago, tmdarkmatter said:
Well, I guess that if the "pedestrian speeds" should be ignored, I think I can make a joke about ignoring the movements of Andromeda too
Great joke.
1 hour ago, tmdarkmatter said:because we are moving much faster around the center of the galaxy than Andromeda is moving into our direction.
While that is true it has no relevance to much of anything except that the speeds are different.
-
2 hours ago, tmdarkmatter said:
If we can ignore these pedestrian speeds, shouldn't we also ignore the blueshift of Andromeda? This blueshift is way too low for us to take it into account.
You can ignore it when you are trying determine the red shift of very distant galaxies.
2 hours ago, tmdarkmatter said:All this drama of Andromeda hitting the milky way is just fake news, because the blueshift is just too low and is completely negligible.
The Andromeda galaxy is going to hit milky way, it isn't fake. This stuff really seems to be confusing you, have you tried googling the topic to gain some more understanding?
-
-
6 hours ago, Sensei said:
..or you were predestined to say such words..
Philosophical discussions can be shortened to the statement "I know that I know nothing"..
If one needs brain exercises, one should start creating algorithms, i.e. solving solvable problems, rather than wasting (precious human life) time on unsolvable ones..
I more or less agree with that. I find philosophical discussions tedious and boring. I think I have reached my limit on this particular thread.
-
4 hours ago, mistermack said:
To have a choice, you have to have a brain that is capable of making that choice. It's false to argue that another bear could make a different choice. With ther brain and life experience of the bear, there is no choice.
That has nothing to do with free will vs a predetermined future.
-
8 minutes ago, mistermack said:
I really don't see how you can say that. Take the example of a Grizzly Bear, starving hungry, that comes across an unprotected fawn. Can it choose to kill or leave the fawn, anything physically possible? Of course not.
I would say, "of course". I can't imagine why he wouldn't eat the fawn and it would be pretty stupid not to eat the fawn but of course he has the choice.
-
2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:
So a predetermined sense of free will for all sane individuals?
Sure. Maybe Yahweh just started the universe last Wednesday programed all our past memories and the future is all set in stone. I guess without evidence you can make any claim you want. However, I feel 100% that I am making freewill decisions and that's more than enough for me. IOW with the absence of evidence I gotta go with my gut.
-
6 hours ago, dimreepr said:
IOW politicians, of that knowledge; then prison's could become obsolete, because most people would have a better understanding of what justice actually means...
What are you talking about? Why in the world would prisons become obsolete?
6 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:You seem to have convinced yourself. How have you managed to do that?
I (like every other sane person) feel 100% that I make my own decisions for one.
-
5 hours ago, dimreepr said:
If philosophy can determine just how much free will we actually have (I think it may not be as much as I think (50%ish), and I'm bloody sure it's not as much as you think (90%+)) and can persuade our populous
I put our free will at 100%. By that I mean the future is not predetermined. I can choose to do anything that is physically possible, the result of my choice may have dire consequences, but I am certainly free to make that choice.
-
12 hours ago, Chris Sawatsky said:
The Big Bang was the moment 13.8 billion years ago when the universe began as a tiny, dense, fireball that exploded
That is a pop-sci article explanation. In pop-sci articles the authors typically are trying to give the nonscience reader and idea of the overall concept in a very brief article which is usually at the expense of accuracy. Authors of these articles usually use analogies (like the big bang was an explosion) that can be misleading.
-
-
-
9 hours ago, grayson said:
When you are talking about v, are you talking about V, or v (Volume or velocity).
Every use of 'v' in your equation is velocity so I am not sure why you think I would be talking about a volume.
9 hours ago, grayson said:Because if v is velocity, than the only time v shows up is in the Lorentz factor, which is the speed of the observer
Did you forget that V1 and V2 are also velocities? When you say "speed of the observer", what is the speed is relative to?
-
-
-
Is the universe at least 136 billion years old, is the universe not expanding at all, did the universe begin its expansion when Hubble measured its redshift for the first time or was light twice as fast 13.5 billion years ago than it is today?
in Astronomy and Cosmology
·
Edited by Bufofrog
The numbers and the facts are the persuasive part.