[Tom Bishop]

What makes you think that I dismissed them?

Your posting history.
You have a habit of using sources to back up your arguments (reasonable enough, although it depends on the credibility of the source) but then dismissing sources which don't agree with your world view. You are saying this person's opinion is credible because of his expertise. Fair enough. But you have a long history of dismissing that when it's sources which show your beliefs to be incorrect.

I am afraid that you are mistaken.

Addressing != Dismissing.

We address Aristotile's claim that he saw a sinking ship and therefore the earth must be round. It's not dismissed.

[stack]

What makes you think that I dismissed them?

Your posting history.
You have a habit of using sources to back up your arguments (reasonable enough, although it depends on the credibility of the source) but then dismissing sources which don't agree with your world view. You are saying this person's opinion is credible because of his expertise. Fair enough. But you have a long history of dismissing that when it's sources which show your beliefs to be incorrect.

I am afraid that you are mistaken.

Addressing != Dismissing.

We address Aristotile's claim that he saw a sinking ship and therefore the earth must be round. It's not dismissed.

What you are failing to 'address' is that Professor Barmby (The author of the quote in your sig) is citing research data from the NASA Spitzer Space Telescope. A NASA launched telescope that is now millions of miles away from earth. So are you now accepting NASA data/findings?

[Tom Bishop]

Professor Barmby can use or accept whatever data she wants. Her statement on astronomy's biggest problem stands.

[stack]

Professor Barmby can use or accept whatever data she wants. Her statement on astronomy's biggest problem stands.

Her statement is based upon research/data gathered by a NASA instrument in space. Nothing else. So her statement stands, yes, even if it's out of context, but the fact of the matter, it's NASA derived. So do you now believe in NASA acquired research and data?

[Tom Bishop]

Professor Barmby can use or accept whatever data she wants. Her statement on astronomy's biggest problem stands.

Her statement is based upon research/data gathered by a NASA instrument in space. Nothing else. So her statement stands, yes, even if it's out of context, but the fact of the matter, it's NASA derived. So do you now believe in NASA acquired research and data?

'When we look into the sky' is a general statement. It doesn't say 'From a space telescope'. Distances are possible to be derived from Earth but not a Space Telescope? Is that what you are arguing?

[stack]

Professor Barmby can use or accept whatever data she wants. Her statement on astronomy's biggest problem stands.

Her statement is based upon research/data gathered by a NASA instrument in space. Nothing else. So her statement stands, yes, even if it's out of context, but the fact of the matter, it's NASA derived. So do you now believe in NASA acquired research and data?

'When we look into the sky' is a general statement. It doesn't say 'From a space telescope'. Distances are possible to derive from Earth but not a Space Telescope? Is that what you are arguing?

Here's the full quote you cherry picked:

"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is,” adds Barmby, who is based at the university's Department of Physics and Astronomy.
“Measuring distances is important to understanding the properties of the things in the Universe,” she goes on to say. The expert's team used the NASA Spitzer Space Telescope to arrive at these results."

Again, "The expert's team used the NASA Spitzer Space Telescope to arrive at these results."

So do you now believe in NASA acquired research and data?

[Tom Bishop]

She made what is clearly a general statement, and you think that she's only talking about space telescopes?

Interesting. Why can we derive distances only from Earth and not from a space telescope?

[stack]

She made what is clearly a general quote, and you think that she's only talking about space telescopes?

Interesting. Why can we derive distances only from Earth and not from a space telescope?

Apparently she thinks we can do better at deriving more accurate distances using space telescopes, hence why she and her team used data from a space telescope, launched by NASA.

A bio about Pauline Barmby, Astronomer: My current research focuses on nearby galaxies, particularly the Andromeda galaxy (M31) and other galaxies in our Local Group. I’ve used quite a few different telescopes and instruments, with a lot of emphasis on infrared observations with the Spitzer Space Telescope.

So do you now believe in NASA acquired research and data?

[Tom Bishop]

She says that she has used many telescopes. Are you doubling down on your claim that her statement applies only to space telescopes, despite its general nature?

Can you please explain why space telescopes can't determine distance but that Earth telescopes can?

[stack]

She says that she has used many telescopes. Are you doubling down on your claim that her statement applies only to space telescope, despite its general nature?

Can you please explain why space telescopes can't determine distance but that Earth telescopes can?

I never said space telescopes can't determine anything. The point you are not 'addressing' is that your sig quote comes from a researcher that based the information on data from a NASA space telescope. In case you're unclear on how the data was derived from a NASA telescope in space, here's the original article from Barmby and others:

From Barmby’s paper which is cited in the article where you got your cherry-picked sig quote:

Galactic Cepheids with Spitzer: II. Search for Extended Infrared Emission
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1011.3386.pdf

"A deep and detailed examination of 29 classical Cepheids with the Spitzer Space Telescope has revealed three stars with strong nearby extended emission detected in multiple bands which appears to be physically associated with the stars...
Nevertheless, our direct evidence that mass loss is active during the Cepheid phase is an important confirmation that these processes need to be included in evolutionary and pulsation models of these stars, and should be taken into account in the calibration of the Cepheid distance scale."

So do you now believe in NASA acquired research and data?

[Tom Bishop]

I never said space telescopes can't determine anything. The point you are not 'addressing' is that your sig quote comes from a researcher that based the information on data from a NASA space telescope.

You are apparently claiming that the statement only applies to space telescopes, not all telescopes or observations. That's why you are screaming that it was a NASA telescope and therefore the statement can only be used in context of space telescopes. Please explain this stance for us. Why doesn't the statement apply to all telescopes?

[stack]

I never said space telescopes can't determine anything. The point you are not 'addressing' is that your sig quote comes from a researcher that based the information on data from a NASA space telescope.

You are apparently claiming that the statement only applies to space telescopes, not all telescopes or observations. That's why you are screaming that it was a NASA telescope and therefore the statement can only be used in context of space telescopes. Please explain this stance for us. Why doesn't the statement apply to all telescopes?

You're still missing the point and not addressing it. Her research and why she made that statement is based upon her research using a NASA Space Telescope. You are using her quote (out of context) which is based on her research using the Spitzer NASA Space Telescope. Therefore, I assume you believe that using a NASA Space Telescope helps us to get better information about the cosmos. Ergo, you believe a Nasa Space Telescope is real and useful. Am I wrong?

[Tom Bishop]

Does the statement apply to space telescopes or to all telescopes?

If you claim that it applies to all telescopes then your criticism is invalid.

If you claim that it applies only to space telescopes then you are wrong, and you know it, as it is claimed that they can do everything that an earth telescope can.

Hence, the quote does apply to all telescopes, and your clear avoidance of answering this question settles the matter.

[stack]

Does the statement apply to space telescopes or to all telescopes?

If you claim that it applies to all telescopes then your criticism is invalid.

If you claim that it applies only to space telescopes then you are wrong, and you know it, as it is claimed that they can do everything that an earth telescope can.

Hence, the quote does apply to all telescopes, and your clear avoidance of answering this question settles the matter.

As evidenced by the quote you used (out of context) and the author of said quote and the work she has done that led to that quote using the Spitzer Space Telescope to better understand celestial distances with greater precision you believe a NASA Space Telescope is real and useful. Cool.

[Tom Bishop]

So, now you are not even denying that the statement applies to all telescopes. You agree by your noticeable silence that the statement applies to all telescopes. Therefore the statement stands. It applies to all telescopes and does not have anything to do with only space telescopes.

Even if NASA's claims were true, the statement that we don't know how big the universe is, is significant. We have a statement from Astronomers that they don't know the distance of the things they are observing. A statement which, as you implicitly agree, has nothing to do with only space telescopes.

[stack]

So, now you are not even denying that the statement applies to all telescopes. You agree by your noticeable silence that the statement applies to all telescopes. Therefore the statement stands. It applies to all telescopes and does not have anything to do with only space telescopes.

Even if NASA's claims were true, the statement that we don't know how big the universe is, is significant. We have a statement from Astronomers that they don't know the distance of the things they are observing. A statement which, as you implicitly agree, has nothing to do with only space telescopes.

Still missing the point, I see. Your quote is from a scholar who used a NASA Space Telescope to arrive at her conclusions. The only guess is that you approve of NASA technology to help us unlock the secrets of the cosmos. Thanks for that.

[Tom Bishop]

By your silence we have already established that it makes no difference if she uses a children's telescope in her garden or NASA's space telescope. The biggest problem in astronomy remains the same.

[stack]

By your silence we have already established that it makes no difference if she uses a children's telescope in her garden or NASA's space telescope.

Apparently it makes a difference if you had actually read her paper I cited.

The biggest problem in astronomy remains the same.

No it doesn't if you had actually read her paper I cited. It gets better.

And the best part is that you are siding with research derived from NASA space technology. Kudos to you for coming around.

[Tom Bishop]

The quote has nothing to do with NASA's space technology. We have established that, and you refuse to disagree that the statement applies to all telescopes.

[TissueOfLies]

The quote has nothing to do with NASA's space technology. We have established that, and you refuse to disagree with the fact that the statement applies to all telescopes.

Really don't understand what's difficult here. There is plenty of evidence that has been provided that shows the context under which the statement is made. If you wish to use it in a different context, then surely the onus is on you to provide an example of when this quote is used in the context in which you are applying it, i.e. when referencing ground based telescopes?