[stack]

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.

As cited before, her statements are in regard to a research paper stating, "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..."

So, if you take here quote flatly and out of context, at a minimum, research using the NASA Spitzer Space Telescope shows that we need to better explore precision when it comes to deriving distances within the cosmos. If you agree with that, then you are accepting that use of the NASA Spitzer Space Telescope shows that we need to better explore precision when it comes to deriving distances within the cosmos.

You're essentially agreeing with her research, which is comprised of data from the NASA Spitzer Space Telescope. De facto, you believe a NASA launched instrument is useful and real.

[Tom Bishop]

No, posting her quote is not agreeing with any research or technologies. The statement is not made in sole reference to space telescopes. You have agreed that the statement applies to all telescopes, and is of a general nature.

Will you tell us that I am wrong and that the statement only applies to space telescopes? Answer with a statement that the quote applies to either all telescopes or only space telescopes, please.

[stack]

No, it's not agreeing with any research or technologies. The statement is not made in reference to space telescopes. You have agreed that the statement applies to all telescopes, and is of a general nature.

Will you tell us that the statement only applies to space telescopes?

Read her paper I already referenced. At the end of the day, you are agreeing with NASA data. Good for you.

[Tom Bishop]

Once again, your silence tells us that the statement applies to all telescopes. Not only space telescopes. Your argument is very weak.

You are essentially arguing that if a surveyor who uses GPS to get his position for projects made a statement that "surveyors always assume a Flat Earth in procedures and calculations regardless of whether or not GPS is used", that we must therefore accept that there are satellites in space in order to use his statement which does not rely on GPS, because he uses GPS for his projects. A rather weak argument tactic. Almost as if you are desperate to make some kind of argument.

[stack]

Once again, you tell us that the statement applies to all telescopes. Not only space telescopes. Your argument is very weak.

You are essentially arguing that if a surveyor once used GPS to get his position for a project and stated that surveyors always assume a Flat Earth in procedures and calculations, GPS or not, that we must therefore accept that there are satellites in space in order to use his statement which does not rely on GPS. A rather weak argument tactic.

I have no idea what you're trying to say. Your whole thing is this is about 'addressing' things, not 'dismissing' them, right. What you're not addressing is that the author of your favorite quote was stating such in regard to her research solely using the Spitzer Space Telescope. She was interviewed for that piece because of the paper she co-authored that solely used the NASA Spitzer Telescope to investigate and record their findings.

So by heralding her quote you are thereby heralding the tool she used to derive the findings: A NASA launched telescope.

Therfore, you herald the findings begot by a NASA instument. It's really just logic.

[Tom Bishop]

The astronomer's statement applies to all telescopes. It applies whether one accepts NASA or not, and thus can be used freely. You have failed to show, or even claim, that the statement applies only to NASA space technologies.

The statement is very plain and obvious as well, that she is talking about when we look into the sky generally. It has nothing to do with NASA, by your own silenced admission.

[stack]

The astronomer's statement applies to all telescopes. It applies whether one accepts NASA or not, and thus can be used freely. You have failed to show, or even claim, that the statement applies only to NASA space technologies.

The statement is very plain and obvious as well, that she is talking about when we look into the sky generally. It has nothing to do with NASA, by your own silenced admission.

The whole point of her paper is that through the NASA Spitzer Telescope her team could see that there may be some mass erosion of Cepheid stars that could lead to less than precise distance measurements if said erosion wasn't taken into account. All of her findings are based on observations through the NASA Spitzer Telescope. The reason she is saying we may not know the precise distance of Cepheid stars is because of her research using the NASA Spitzer Telescope.

Still glad to see you're backing NASA.

[Tom Bishop]

It doesn't matter if astronomers use NASA's telescope data. If the astronomers tell us that they don't know how to interpret what they are looking at in general it really has nothing to do with the technical nature of that telescope.

You have made an entirely artificial and transparently desperate argument.

[stack]

It doesn't matter is astronomers use NASA's telescope data. If the astronomers tell us that they don't know how to interpret what they are looking at it really has nothing to do with the technical nature of that telescope data.

Read Barmby's paper I cited. It's quite clear how they interpreted the data. That's the whole point - They achieved an interpretation after examining data from the NASA Spitzer Space Telescope.

[Tom Bishop]

It doesn't matter is astronomers use NASA's telescope data. If the astronomers tell us that they don't know how to interpret what they are looking at it really has nothing to do with the technical nature of that telescope data.

Read Barmby's paper I cited. It's quite clear how they interpreted the data. That's the whole point - They achieved an interpretation after examining data from the NASA Spitzer Space Telescope.

No, they didn't. The quote specifically says "when we look at something in the sky..." and not "when a telescope on the other side of the sun...".

The quote of a general nature and you have consistently refused to answer whether the quote applies to all telescopes or only space telescopes because doing so will instantly annihilate your argument and show it to be a sham. Instead, you dance around, screaming that she got info from NASA so therefore we have to accept everything that NASA says. Weak.

[stack]

It doesn't matter is astronomers use NASA's telescope data. If the astronomers tell us that they don't know how to interpret what they are looking at it really has nothing to do with the technical nature of that telescope data.

Read Barmby's paper I cited. It's quite clear how they interpreted the data. That's the whole point - They achieved an interpretation after examining data from the NASA Spitzer Space Telescope.

No, they didn't. The quote specifically says "when we look at something in the sky..." and not "when a telescope on the other side of the sun...".

The quote of a general nature and you have consistently refused to answer whether the quote applies to all telescopes or only space telescopes because doing so will instantly annihilate your argument and show it to be a sham. Instead, you dance around, screaming that she got info from NASA so therefore we have to accept everything that NASA says. Weak.

Her paper is all about, "when a telescope on the other side of the sun..." solely using a NASA Telescope, we found interesting things regarding the mass of Cepheid stars that may make us think how we measure distances far off in the cosmos. Interesting stuff.

Her paper solely cites the NASA Spitzer Telescope as her source for data. Therefore you must be NASA friendly at this point, at least regarding this one piece of space apparatus.

[Tom Bishop]

Incorrect. She has used many different telescopes in her life. You quoted from her bio.

How do you know that she is talking solely about space telescopes? Are you claiming that space telescopes can't determine distances, but that Earth telescopes can? We have seen that this question is too hard for you to answer, and avoidance is necessary.

She is talking about all telescopes in the quote and so it doesn't matter whether she uses NASA data for something. The sentiment is that they don't know what they are looking at, regardless of what telescope technology it comes from. A statement perfectly valid for FE to quote.

Again, your argument amounts to agreeing that they state that they don't know how to interpret the data, but that they got info from NASA, and so we must accept NASA. A very underwhelming argument.

[stack]

Wrong. She has used many different telescopes in her life. You quoted from her resume.

Indeed, she has. But for the paper she was asked about in that article/interview, it stated, "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..." She doesn't mention any other telescopes. Just the NASA one.

How do you know that she is talking solely about space telescopes? Are you claiming that space telescopes can't determine distances, but that Earth telescopes can? We have seen that this question is too hard for you to answer, and avoidance is necessary.

I never claimed anything of the sort. I'm not even sure where this line of non-reasoning is even coming from.

She is talking about all telescopes in the quote and so it doesn't matter whether she uses NASA data for something.

How do you know that?

The sentiment is that they don't know what they are looking at, regardless of what telescope technology it comes from. A statement perfectly valid for FE to quote.

"Sentiment'? If you want to talk 'sentiment' no, actually the 'sentiment' is that we can get a better understanding of deep cosmos distances using tools like the NASA Spitzer Space Telescope, which is what she and her team used solely to derive their findings.

[Tom Bishop]

" She doesn't mention any other telescopes. Just the NASA one.

So, after all, you are arguing that the quote is talking about her study specifically and not astronomy in general. Thanks for clarifying that you think her quote only applies to her study. Obviously wrong, however. She is talking about the biggest problem in astronomy.

"The biggest problem in astronomy is when a lady didn't know how to interpret NASA data in her study" - stack, probably

[stack]

" She doesn't mention any other telescopes. Just the NASA one.

So, after all, you are arguing that the quote is talking about her study specifically and not astronomy in general. Thanks for clarifying that you think her quote only applies to her stufy. Obviously wrong, however. She is talking about the biggest problem in astronomy.

"The biggest problem in astronomy is when a lady didn't know how to interpret NASA data in her study" - stack, probably

Yep, she is talking about the biggest problem in astronomy and how she and her team uses the NASA Spitzer Space Telescope to get more precise. You do realize that her precision measurement studies are with Cepheid stars, the closest one being 887 light years away. It's not like she is fumbling around trying to figure out how far away the Moon is.

I'm glad you agree with her use of a NASA tool to get more precise at these cosmically long distances.

[Tom Bishop]

Anyone with a reasonable level of education should know that if an astronomer speaks of the biggest problem in astronomy that they are talking about astronomy in general, and not a study they conducted.

I know that you HAVE to argue something. But really, this is clearly a general statement of astronomy and not about a study. Speaking to the media about her study and the wishy washy theories of astronomy, a statement was made about astronomy in general.

No, because she used NASA data in her study, we do not have to accept NASA.

No, the "biggest problem in astronomy" is not solely about her study.

I suspect that you can see this, have a position that you need to defend, and are mostly trying to convince yourself that you are right with your "logic".

[stack]

Anyone with a reasonable level of education should know that if an astronomer speaks of the biggest problem in astronomy that they are talking about astronomy in general, and not a study they conducted.

I know that you HAVE to argue something. But really, this is clearly a general statement of astronomy and not about a study. Speaking to the media about her study and the wishy washy theories of astronomy, a statement was made about astronomy in general.

No, because she used NASA data in her study, we do not have to accept NASA.

No, the "biggest problem in astronomy" is not solely about her study.

The article where she is quoted is titled:

"The Size of the Universe May Be Inaccurate"

With the abstract:

"The uncertainty about its real dimensions stem from a changing view that astrophysicists and astronomers have on stars called Cepheid variables. These objects have until now been used to calculate distances in the Cosmos, but it would appear that this was a mistake."

Her study is specific to Cepheid stars, the ones mentioned as the crux of the study/article, 100's of light years away. She used data solely from a NASA Space Telescope to develop her findings.

But I'm glad you side with her that using a NASA telescope will help us gain better precision when it comes to these unbelievably vast cosmic distances.

[AATW]

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

Because of the atmosphere.

Or, rather, that's what makes space telescopes give better, more accurate results. Otherwise why would they bother putting telescopes in space? It's very expensive so why bother? Because it gets them above the atmosphere with all the distortion which can result from light passing through it and thus yields better images and more accurate results.

The quote you cherry picked is clearly based on data obtained from a NASA space telescope if you look at it in the context which you dishonestly left out. Honestly, the way you are wriggling to try and deny that is ridiculous.

[TissueOfLies]

Wow, is this really what these forums are? endless posts on whether some scientist's innocuous quote meant one thing or another? Surely there are more interesting things to debate - like the fact that the wiki has a page om Foucault's pendulum yet totally glosses over the fact that the formulae that predict the movement of the bob can only work on a sphere, not on a rotating flat earth? What about the fact that if there really was a conspiracy, the number of engineers, scientists, pilots, astronauts, space related industries, academics, etc, etc, that would need to be involved makes it pretty much an impossibilty? When that question is answered with "compartmentalisation", is there any rigourous questioning of how that works?

One of the more convincing proofs of a globe model are southern hemisphere flights and antipodean flights, but from what I can see on this forum, not one satisfactory explanation is given for these - there are a number of threads on the topic, but every single one of them peters out into nothingness. For example, thread https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9794.0 it is explained that a bipolar model is the answer, but then when you look at the wiki page for the bipolar model, you get this gem: "The continental layout is unknown and has yet to be fully researched" So on a daily basis we travel from country to country, from town to town, more than a 100,000 flights A DAY, yet we manage this without even knowing where the continents are?! The mind truly boggles!

But carry on debating whether this scientist was talking about Earth-bound satellites or space satellites. You know that googling "Pauline Barmby email" brings up her email address quite easily? So you could ask her what she meant? Or is that too much common sense?