Friday, March 8, 2013 8:03:45 AM
When we see anything, the image that we see is the light that was previously created by or more usually reflected or scattered from the thing that we see. We do not see what is there now, we see the thing as it was when the light was emitted. Seeing things is a primary source of gaining knowledge, there is nothing implied or inferred or indirect about it. Light from stars is one kind of cosmic ray. When you look at a star you see it as it was when the light was emitted. You directly look back in time every time you look at anything.
There is no inference, you do not see the light as it is now, you see the star as it was then.
I hope I'm making this easy enough for you to follow so you don`t have to resort to shouting about how other people blindly refuse to accept your theories without direct evidence. Seeing a thing is about as direct as it gets.
CrakrJak claimed that cosmic rays have been around since forever.
We have direct observable evidence that they are here, now. And they are moving in directions and speeds that indicate that they originated from distant points in the distant past.
However, our knowledge of their past comes from our observation of their present state, NOT their past state: we can't view that for obvious reasons. By this I mean that it is "indirect" evidence.
The reason I pointed all that out is because CrakrJak pooh-poohs exactly that kind of evidence when it comes to evolution, yet accepts that kind of evidence (as do the rest of us) when it comes to other things.
Get it through your head: I AM NOT SAYING THAT COSMIC RAYS DO NOT EXIST.
You clearly haven`t been in these kinds of discussions on IAB long, because if you were you`d be well aware of my stance on things.
Friday, March 8, 2013 7:18:57 AM
Also, when I made the first comment I was going to add that physics, contrary to popular belief is not set in stone. Any physics lecturer worth his salt will readily admit that everything he is teaching you is probably wrong. Physicists are trained to look for mistakes, inconsistencies and failures in physics so that it can be improved.
Sticking dogmatically to a theory and refuting any argument with "You're a crazy" sounds more like something a church would do than science.