How old the ice is that you’re sampling is also a GUESS. Almost every “scientific fact” is based on an assumption that was never proven and can never be.
An example is, the distance from earth to the sun. Calculating this depends on knowing the size of the sun, which they can’t, by calculating something based on the size of Venus, which they also can’t prove or know. It’s all built on a house of cards little of which is based on observation.
Just because you're too ignorant or stupid to know how a figure is derived doesn't invalidate that figure, it invalidates your education.
The implication being that you totally understand all of these things and can independently prove the age of the earth, the distance of the sun, the size of Venus, etc.
Idiot.
You could, if you had the math for it, and understood how to operate a few simple navigational tools. You're beyond an idiot, you're a mind cancer. You metastasize stupidity and ignorance wherever you possibly can. It's like your IQ can be measured in negative integers you're so stupid.
Did you know, if just one of the axioms (assumptions) of Einstein's theory of relatively is incorrect, namely the assumption that space in unbounded, then the speed of light constant changes. In particular, the speed of light if the universe is bounded is far faster, meaning ALL of our clauclations based on parallax (distance, trigonometry) would be incorrect.
You, like many, seem to not understand that ALL of science is based on axioms. Axioms are assumptions held to be true. Hence, they are not "proven" they are simply agreed to be true.
Your below comment about using "enough math" and "navigational tools" is incorrect. These tools and the underlying mathematical principles on which they operate, are fundamentally built upon assumptions we hold to be true (like the speed of light constant) because it works well enough to help us "understand" reality.
It's not magic, it's belief.
None of our distance measurements would change because our standard candles wouldn't change. Parallax is not dependent on the speed of light being a constant, it's based on perspective, which is based on the Inverse Square Law. We measure longer distances by using either cepheid variables or type 1 supernovae. Those are what are called "standard candles."
Look, I'd love to spend several years of my time putting you through 40 hours per week of instruction so that you could know all the stuff you currently don't know that makes you think "I don't know how this works therefore it doesn't work" like some arrogant sociopath asshole might. BGut you can;t afford to hire me to do that. So go crack a fucking book, 'tardo.
You believe in god?
An example is, the distance from earth to the sun. Calculating this depends on knowing the size of the sun
Wut?
No it doesn't. It just requires geometry. If two people in different locations observe the location of the Sun at the same time, they can precisely calculate the distance by comparing their observations. Two lines on the same plane that aren't parallel have to intersect eventually. You can even just draw it on paper to scale and measure the distance.
they can precisely calculate the distance by comparing their observations
You realize you didn’t explain the process, at all.
(post is archived)