Real Science Friday: A Leading Telescope Designer in Studio

Jefferson

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
RSF: A Leading Telescope Designer in Studio

This is the show from Friday August 19th, 2011.

Summary:



* Bob Enyart Interviews a National Asset: Jim Burr is recognized throughout the world for his achievements in telescope design and manufacturing, including finally, after 400 years making binocular telescopes available to astronomers and amateurs alike! David Levy, co-discoverer of the famous Shoemaker-Levy 9 comet that crashed into Jupiter, says that Jim Burr's binocular telescopes are the greatest improvement to the concept of the telescope since Galileo!


* The Sun, the Moon, the Formation of Stars: Hear Bob and Jim describe how it is that Big Bang cosmologists cannot explain the existence of our Moon, of our Sun, of our Sun's lack of rapid rotation, of the formation of a star, and of so many other features of our solar system and of galaxies. Scripture on the other hand says that the stars are innumerable, like the grains of the sand, even though in the ancient world, like today, only about 5,000 stars were visible to the naked eye, whereas astronomers now estimate that there are 70 (or more) sextillion stars, that's a 70 with 22 zeroes after it. And if all the stars in the heavens really being formed naturally, then millions of new stars should still be coming into existence (many of which would become visible to Earth) every hour, but that's just not happening. So where are all the photos showing portions of space where there was no star, and now there is a star? The truth is that, "In the beginning God made the heavens and the earth... and He made the stars also," (Gen. 1).

* Burr Paraphrasing Dawkins: Jim paraphrases Richard Dawkins who said that Today we're not smart enough to create life but in the future, we might be intelligent enough to create life :)



Today’s Resource
: Have you browsed through our Science Department in our online store? Check out especially Walt Brown’s In the Beginning and Bob’s interviews with this great scientist in Walt Brown Week! You’ll also love Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez’Privileged Planet (clip), and Illustra Media’s&Unlocking the Mystery of Life (clip)! You can consider our BEL Science Pack; Bob Enyart’s Age of the Earth Debate; Bob's debate about Junk DNA with famous evolutionist Dr. Eugenie Scott; and the superb kids' radio program Jonathan Park: The Adventure Begins!
 

Ted L Glines

New member
RSF: A Leading Telescope Designer in Studio

This is the show from Friday August 19th, 2011.

Summary:



* Bob Enyart Interviews a National Asset: Jim Burr is recognized throughout the world for his achievements in telescope design and manufacturing, including finally, after 400 years making binocular telescopes available to astronomers and amateurs alike! David Levy, co-discoverer of the famous Shoemaker-Levy 9 comet that crashed into Jupiter, says that Jim Burr's binocular telescopes are the greatest improvement to the concept of the telescope since Galileo!


* The Sun, the Moon, the Formation of Stars: Hear Bob and Jim describe how it is that Big Bang cosmologists cannot explain the existence of our Moon, of our Sun, of our Sun's lack of rapid rotation, of the formation of a star, and of so many other features of our solar system and of galaxies. Scripture on the other hand says that the stars are innumerable, like the grains of the sand, even though in the ancient world, like today, only about 5,000 stars were visible to the naked eye, whereas astronomers now estimate that there are 70 (or more) sextillion stars, that's a 70 with 22 zeroes after it. And if all the stars in the heavens really being formed naturally, then millions of new stars should still be coming into existence (many of which would become visible to Earth) every hour, but that's just not happening. So where are all the photos showing portions of space where there was no star, and now there is a star? The truth is that, "In the beginning God made the heavens and the earth... and He made the stars also," (Gen. 1).

* Burr Paraphrasing Dawkins: Jim paraphrases Richard Dawkins who said that Today we're not smart enough to create life but in the future, we might be intelligent enough to create life :)



Today’s Resource
: Have you browsed through our Science Department in our online store? Check out especially Walt Brown’s In the Beginning and Bob’s interviews with this great scientist in Walt Brown Week! You’ll also love Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez’Privileged Planet (clip), and Illustra Media’s&Unlocking the Mystery of Life (clip)! You can consider our BEL Science Pack; Bob Enyart’s Age of the Earth Debate; Bob's debate about Junk DNA with famous evolutionist Dr. Eugenie Scott; and the superb kids' radio program Jonathan Park: The Adventure Begins!

Sounds fascinating. I will watch the show. You may want to edit this sentence: "Jim Burr is recognized throughout the world for his achievements in telescope design and manufacturing, including finally, after 400 years making binocular telescopes available to astronomers and amateurs alike!" Sounds like he is more than 400 years old. Something is maybe missing.
 

Ted L Glines

New member
Wow! Thanks for bringing this. Even as a young boy, I was fascinated by the change from caterpillar to butterfly or moth. It just seemed impossible that the caterpillar could build this structure around himself, then turn into mush, and then create a butterfly from the mush. "A caterpillar species needs to begin digesting itself, turning itself into a "bag of rich fluid," and then forming all new tissue and organs, including wings, legs, antennae, heart, muscles and nervous system, building a brand new organism, and then starting the process all over again." Here it is, all these years later, and I remain amazed by this whole process.

Here is a wild prediction: There will come a day when the Evolutionists and the Creationists will shake hands and be friends. Pretty wild, huh! Maybe not. There will come a realization that the two go hand in hand in a process which is too big for current (inside the box) thinking. This will happen.
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
The guy who built the Mt. Palomar telescope discovered the first convincing evidence for the Big Bang. That one was gigantic, and built to exacting specs that were unobtainable up to that time. His name was Edwin Hubble. So, I guess being a great telescope maker isn't a sure-fire way of knowing whether or not someone is a reliable judge of cosmology.

I'd be willing to look at Jim's numbers, if anyone would like to post them, but I suspect, he doesn't have any.

I wonder if we took a poll of professional telescope makers, how many of them would agree with Jim Burr on that point. No, actually, I don't. He's pretty much out there by himself.
 

TeeJay

New member
=Jukia;2762561]How is it that when we don't understand something, "goddid it"?

Jukia,

And why is it when it is beyond our understanding, God could not possibly have done it?

Tom
 

TeeJay

New member
=Jukia;2762561]How is it that when we don't understand something, "goddid it"?

Jukia, we know a few things for sure:

a. The universe did not create itself from nothing if it did not first exist.

b. The universe could not have always been here.

So, if it could not have created itself from nothing, and it could not have always been here, can you come up with a better explanation than "goddidit"? Rather than a "explanation" I'll take a wild guess.

Tom
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
And if all the stars in the heavens really being formed naturally, then millions of new stars should still be coming into existence (many of which would become visible to Earth) every hour, but that's just not happening.

Turns out that it is. Locally, not much is happening, so it's not surprising that new stars aren't happening out in our neighborhood, where there are no significant clouds of dust and gas to form them. But the Hubble has shown many, many examples of new starts forming.

So where are all the photos showing portions of space where there was no star, and now there is a star?

Here:
eaglenebula_lrg.jpg


And here:
hubble100000.jpg


How many pictures would you need?


The truth is that, "In the beginning God made the heavens and the earth... and He made the stars also," (Gen. 1).

Turns out, He's still making them. Not in creationist-approved ways, of course, but still...
 

Frayed Knot

New member
Yes, new stars forming today, right now.

I think those pics are from the Orion Nebula if I recall correctly, which is what, 500 light years away? That's how it looked 500 years ago when the light we're seeing started its journey, but a mere 500 years later won't make much difference in how it would look now.

There are actually stars just being "born" at the tips of those gas/dust columns. Anyone who says that stars are not forming right now is just ignorant of what we've seen in the last 15 or 20 years with the Hubble.



ETA: I looked it up and the Orion Nebula is actually 1344 light years away. And the star-forming dust/gas cloud is expected to last about 100,000 years, so it would be slightly different today but largely the same.


Jukia, we know a few things for sure:

a. The universe did not create itself from nothing if it did not first exist.
Why not? Your phrasing of "create itself" is somewhat leading in the wrong direction, but there's no reason we know why the universe could not have spontaneously occurred without an external cause. You say that we know it couldn't "for sure," but that's exactly what cosmologists think happened in one of the more widely-held scenarios.

b. The universe could not have always been here.
Why not? It looks to us like there was a time 13.7 billion years ago when everything was compressed really small, but we haven't yet figured out what led to that - was that the beginning of time, or was there a previous contraction, or is what we observe a result of the collision of membranes in some higher-dimension reality? There's no reason to think that it all could not be infinitely old with no beginning.
 

some other dude

New member
:think: Hmmm - so "1344 years ago" = "today, this hour".



:darwinsm:


Hey Frayed! Lend me ten bucks. I promise I'll repay it "today, this hour". :chuckle:
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I wonder if we took a poll of professional telescope makers, how many of them would agree with Jim Burr on that point. No, actually, I don't. He's pretty much out there by himself.

Atheists love to bring up the popularity of an idea as if it is relevant to the truth of the idea. :loser:
 

Frayed Knot

New member
SOD, sorry, I know reading comprehension isn't your thing, so I should have been even more explicit in explaining it than I already was.

We see it happening 1344 years ago (does it really matter to refute the claim that we haven't seen star formation, whether it was 1344 years ago or five seconds ago?), and we can tell from multiple lines of evidence that the process will be ongoing for tens of thousands of years, so it's a certainty that it's still going on today.

Your response is like the child who plugs his ears with his fingers. Using your same approach, one can just as easily question whether any stars besides our sun exist "today, this hour." We see them as they existed at least a few years ago. You could even question what a scientist observed on his own lab bench, because he saw the event a couple of nanoseconds after it happened.

Please stop the childishness; I think we're all adults here.
 

some other dude

New member
SOD, sorry, I know reading comprehension isn't your thing, so I should have been even more explicit in explaining it than I already was.

We see it happening 1344 years ago (does it really matter to refute the claim that we haven't seen star formation, whether it was 1344 years ago or five seconds ago?), and we can tell from multiple lines of evidence that the process will be ongoing for tens of thousands of years, so it's a certainty that it's still going on today.

Rather, a scientist would say "multiple lines of evidence suggest that the process will be ongoing for tens of thousands of years, so it's likely that it's still going on today."


If you're going to talk about science, you should learn to speak as scientists do.

Your response is like the child who plugs his ears with his fingers. Using your same approach, one can just as easily question whether any stars besides our sun exist "today, this hour." We see them as they existed at least a few years ago. You could even question what a scientist observed on his own lab bench, because he saw the event a couple of nanoseconds after it happened.

Please stop the childishness; I think we're all adults here.

:idunno: My response was to barbie. Who asked you to stick your nose in?
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
Barbarian chuckles:
I wonder if we took a poll of professional telescope makers, how many of them would agree with Jim Burr on that point. No, actually, I don't. He's pretty much out there by himself.

Stipe suggests:
Atheists love to bring up the popularity of an idea as if it is relevant to the truth of the idea.

So you're admitting to being an atheist? Oh wait, you're bringing up just one telescope maker as if that was relevant to the truth of the idea. So I guess that makes you an agnostic, um?

It's fun to watch you guys perform.

1. Creationist tries an appeal to authority ("look an expert on (something) is a creationist")

2. Christian points out that almost all experts on (something) accept the scientific explanation

3. Creationist is outraged that anyone would stoop to an appeal to authority.

This game is always a loser for you, Stipe. Wise up.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Barbarian chuckles:I wonder if we took a poll of professional telescope makers, how many of them would agree with Jim Burr on that point. No, actually, I don't. He's pretty much out there by himself. Stipe suggests:So you're admitting to being an atheist? Oh wait, you're bringing up just one telescope maker as if that was relevant to the truth of the idea. So I guess that makes you an agnostic, um?It's fun to watch you guys perform.1. Creationist tries an appeal to authority ("look an expert on (something) is a creationist")2. Christian points out that almost all experts on (something) accept the scientific explanation3. Creationist is outraged that anyone would stoop to an appeal to authority.This game is always a loser for you, Stipe. Wise up.

:chuckle: Barbarian loves his revisionist history, doesn't he?
 
Top