Baffling discovery seemingly defies laws of Physics

[Cojafoji]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation

[Choking Victim]

The process has some sound principles behind it, but it makes so many assumptions and uses such circular reasoning (it's this far away because it's this bright and it has this composition, and it has this composition because it's this bright and it's this far away) that I call its accuracy into serious question.

I don't see how you can call these measurements assumptions when they've been tested in a lab. Certain elements have a certain emission and absorption spectrum, a sort of 'fingerprint' of the elements the object consists of, a fact you seem to be aware of in your post. I suppose you can't be entirely sure until you view the object first hand, but I wouldn't go as far as calling these methods "assumptions" when they've been proven to work in a laboratory. Scientists measured objects we knew the composition of, then they applied this method to astronomical objects. We were able to get a man on the moon with the theories proposed by Isaac Newton alone, so what we know can't be that far off from reality. We're simply missing a piece of the puzzle, a piece that unified field theory would probably put into perspective.

[Rob Oplawar]

Certain elements have a certain emission and absorption spectrum, a sort of 'fingerprint' of the elements the object consists of, a fact you seem to be aware of in your post.

Yeah, that's what I meant by sound principles behind it.
Let me put it another way. Part of our determination of how big a star is relies on how far away we estimate it to be. Part of our determination of how far away a star is relies on how big we estimate it to be. See what I'm saying?
There are a lot of factors that go into making these estimations, and we can make estimates that are *probably* right within some margin of error. My thinking is that because of some of the circular reasoning and our general lack of knowledge, that margin is too big and the probability not altogether reliable enough to make the sort of claims that I hear made about our knowledge of the universe.
We can get some interesting hypotheses, but when your hypotheses leads you to create more and more convoluted hypotheses to support it ala dark matter and quasars that defy relativity, Occam's Razor should tell you to back off and re-examine your initial assumptions.

[Choking Victim]

Yeah, that's what I meant by sound principles behind it.
Let me put it another way. Part of our determination of how big a star is relies on how far away we estimate it to be. Part of our determination of how far away a star is relies on how big we estimate it to be. See what I'm saying?
There are a lot of factors that go into making these estimations, and we can make estimates that are *probably* right within some margin of error. My thinking is that because of some of the circular reasoning and our general lack of knowledge, that margin is too big and the probability not altogether reliable enough to make the sort of claims that I hear made about our knowledge of the universe.
We can get some interesting hypotheses, but when your hypotheses leads you to create more and more convoluted hypotheses to support it ala dark matter and quasars that defy relativity, Occam's Razor should tell you to back off and re-examine your initial assumptions.

Ohh, I thought you were attacking how we measure composition of astronomical objects directly. The science of astronomy has it's flaws, but we've certainly made progress since Galileo's time. There's only so many ways to study objects at unfathomable distances in the cosmos, but I'm certain that it'll only get better as our theories and technology changes. I wish we could travel to these places and study them first hand as much as the next guy, but I'm finding it improbable that we'll discover the means to get there in my lifetime.

[Rob Oplawar]

Oh yeah, definitely, we've made progress and we'll continue to make progress. I'm just a natural skeptic is all.
Yeah, we're not gonna see interstellar travel in our lifetime. That's why I'm writing fiction about the first interstellar voyage, starting around 2150 and arriving around 2450. We can dream, can't we?

e: btw, nice hypercube. It makes my brain hurt.

[Disaster]

I wish we could travel to these places and study them first hand as much as the next guy, but I'm finding it improbable that we'll discover the means to get there in my lifetime.

Well, you never know. It only takes 1 revolutionary break through.

[Dwood]

My idea is that the distance is so great that the laws governing light and such actually changes. You know, the laws of scale and such- why a grasshopper can jump the equivalent of a human jumping over the eifel tower and live, and yet we can't even make a machine roughly human size that can do it and still function.

I'm no astrophysicist or anything and know that there are flaws in that theory, just my take.

[Cortexian]

This brings back memories of staying up all night talking about quantum physics and theory with some pipe-band buddies while camping and staring up at the stars... Haha we were so drunk that night...

[n00b1n8R]

Oh yeah, definitely, we've made progress and we'll continue to make progress. I'm just a natural skeptic is all.
Yeah, we're not gonna see interstellar travel in our lifetime. That's why I'm writing fiction about the first interstellar voyage, starting around 2150 and arriving around 2450. We can dream, can't we?

e: btw, nice hypercube. It makes my brain hurt.

I tried to find that short story you (I think) posted about a house which was drugging it's owners a while ago. Couldn't find it but. Repost?

[Rob Oplawar]

I tried to find that short story you (I think) posted about a house which was drugging it's owners a while ago. Couldn't find it but. Repost?

np.
http://www.modacity.net/forums/showt...l=1#post531411