Limits of Science

Excellent. So when I stare up and observe the Andromeda Galaxy, I notice that it is made up of the same types of stars that make up our Galaxy. Those stars are observed to behave exactly as our neighbouring stars behave. By simply looking at the angular size of Andromeda on the sky (about four times the width of the moon) and making the most liberal estimates of the minimum possible separation distances of the stars in Andromeda, I conclude from trigonometry alone that Andromeda must be at least several hundred thousand light years away (from more comprehensive observations we know it is 2.2 million lyrs).We also see processes occuring in the stars in Andromeda that are identical to the processes we see in the Sun and neighbouring stars. The speed of light is critical to the rate of these processes, and we see these processes occuring at the same rate in Andromeda. We can only conlcude that the speed of light is the same there as it is here.And so I am left with the conclusion that Andromeda is at the very least several hundred thousands year old.Comments?[Edit: changed distance of andromeda from several hundred to several hundred thousand... doh!]This message has been edited by cavediver, 04-12-2006 08:27 AM

Don't feel bad, I used to get paid to say it

Simple, you need to check my post from last month Message 75The point is, why do all these observations tally up so well to produce such a consistent picture? I agree that your scenario is possible, but I would expect to see a mess as we push observations back towards the fall... Who arranged everything so that it all looked so perfectly naturalistic? I can think of two possibilities, but either way I can only conclude that it is a form of deception. Which is why I am led to the conclusion I made in that other post.This message has been edited by cavediver, 04-12-2006 05:49 PM