Why Parallax doesn't work

[dad]

5.88 trillion miles -- call it by whatever name you want, but the geometry doesn't lie.

Yes, when it is wed with time as light years are, it lies through the teeth.

Is your picture moving?

Planets and the sun do move, why?

 

[Euler]

5.88 trillion miles -- call it by whatever name you want, but the geometry doesn't lie.



Is your picture moving?

No?

You're blathering.

It's a pointless exercise (but yeah, I know, it's a lot of fun ). He'll just keep on repeating the lie that measuring LENGTH has a time component in it. You know it's nonsense, I know it's nonsense and I'm guessing that even HE knows it's nonsense, but he has to keep repeating it, because it's all he has to cling to.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Yes, when it is wed with time as light years are, it lies through the teeth.

It's not -- you're blathering to hide your numerous mistakes.

Planets and the sun do move, why?

Oh, so you do admit that the planets move -- that's a refreshing start.

Is that star in the distance moving?

 

[DerelictJunction]

False!! A light year means how far light would travel in a year. When science looks out at a star, they say that the light took so many billions or millions or thousands of YEARS etc to get here. The claim is we are looking at the far past. Let's be honest.



The claim of a star being so many light years away includes time. They claim that time is how long the light took to get here...hence the nam. Obviously if we were JUST talking distance, we would use another measure.

Well, I'm done. In the face of such an enormous larder of muli-varied stupid, one can only walk away wondering how such a person can dress and feed himself.

 

[dad]

It's not -- you're blathering to hide your numerous mistakes.

I have said that if time is different, then a light year is nothing but mileage. If you are fine with that, OK.

Oh, so you do admit that the planets move -- that's a refreshing start.

So do a lot of thing, care to make some point?

Is that star in the distance moving?

How far have you seen it move?



Parallax is a way to transpose earth timespace into interstellar distances, and is invalid. Invalid in it's trigonometry, because it uses a baseline wholly in earth time and space. One cannot take distance in timespace and separate it from time, and claim it is distance alone.

Also in the units used for the distance, whether parsecs (time) or light YEARS. Those units might better be referred to as something like flotsom (full length of time spent on moving) jetsum (just earth time and space units measured)

 

[dad]

Well, I'm done. In the face of such an enormous larder of muli-varied stupid, one can only walk away wondering how such a person can dress and feed himself.

I know the feeling. Not only does their time challenged monkey business revert the whole universe into a tiny little hot speck that appeared for no reason and produced the universe for no reason and with no God in imaginary time--but they are proud of their delusions.

If they would look at the fundamentals, perhaps they could see where their mountain of errors in delusional deduction occurred. But they would need some interest in truth for that, something many of the poor pagan prognosticators know no better than dark unseen stuff, and claim God's universe is full of it no less.

 

[Queller]

Time as viewed HERE. The stars were created. Forget that business of great time.

Irrelevant! Motion in our space time does not = motion in another space time.

There is absolutely no evidence for another space time in this universe. None.

Remove time? What are you rambling about now!?

That's what this theory of yours requires, that we remove time from other locations in the universe so they are static.

Not really. We could use any size as an example. The point is that without distances, you CANNOT know size, period. To know distance one must know time. You be well and truly hooped.

And since we know time, we can know distance.

No, not if we accept trigonometry. besides we have been out further than that, get a grip.

Umm, hello? The distance to stars up to 500 light years away is determined using trigonometric parallax. You're acting as if they are two different things.

 

[dad]

measuring LENGTH has a time component in it....

If one claims time and space are a fabric and together, as science does, then time is part of timespace. If one travels inside time and space that is near earth, one inadvertently will have to admit time is here. You have a problem with such simple things?

Now, the time woven in to our timespace exists in a certain way. The issue is whether time exists in this way in far space, and how would you know?

 

[dad]

There is absolutely no evidence for another space time in this universe. None.

There is absolutely no evidence for an earth zone space time in this universe. None. Is there?

That means then, unless you contest that simple fact with evidence, that time far away is an unknown factor.

That's what this theory of yours requires, that we remove time from other locations in the universe so they are static.

??How silly. Time is not just a function of movement. You though having different time would mean being motionless??

And since we know time, we can know distance.

You do not know time, or even what time is.

Umm, hello? The distance to stars up to 500 light years away is determined using trigonometric parallax. You're acting as if they are two different things.

A light year in distance. Not time, as in how many earth years it takes to get here! Also, the trig totally uses a baseline IN earth timespace, which means time is built into it, admit it.

 

[Loudmouth]

Time as viewed HERE. The stars were created. Forget that business of great time.

That is false. The brightness of stars is governed by the release of photons by the star over a specific time period in the star's frame of reference. If time were different in our frame of reference compared to the star's frame of reference then we would see either a blue or red shift of the star spectra. On top of that, we would also see a change in the brightning and fading of type Ia supernovae.

 

[Loudmouth]

This thread sidesteps your attempt at ignoring time in the equation, and, for the sake of argument allows the mileage to the star to be correct. I could debate that, and win, but better to keep it simple here. Parallax is only good out to, they say, some 326 light years if I recall, correct? So, put that in miles and we can allow it for the thread. The thing I brought to light here is that unless time existed at the star, the light year could not represent the time light takes to get from the star, rather only (for the sake or this thread) the miles that we determine from parallax.


Now if the base line for the trig measurement is IN our solar system and OUR space time, then it has built into it OUR time!!! Even the distances could be skewed, but since that doesn't matter, let's avoid getting bogged down on that bit.

What test can be used to determine if time passes at the same rate at a distant star? If you can't show us how your claims are testable or falsifiable, then they are meaningless.

 

[TLK Valentine]

What test can be used to determine if time passes at the same rate at a distant star? If you can't show us how your claims are testable or falsifiable, then they are meaningless.

They're meaningless anyway because time has nothing to do with the angles used to measure distance. Dad can't explain otherwise without working himself into a blather.

 

[Loudmouth]

They're meaningless anyway because time has nothing to do with the angles used to measure distance. Dad can't explain otherwise without working himself into a blather.

I agree. His parallax nonsense was DOA. However, his claims about time being absent in other areas of space is of interest, if only to inform people of how time factors into our astronomical observations.

 

[Strathos]

Name 2 accurate prediction that involve stars and time.

Tests of general relativity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Justatruthseeker]

We have already discussed in other posts, the futility of trying to pretend that differently situated accelerating frames share the same laws of physics. The first postulate of Relativity, in the pseudo-scientific cosmology where cosmological expansion exists, violates any claims of accuracy you once could claim.

"(1) that the laws of physics are invariant (i.e., identical) in all inertial systems (non-accelerating frames of reference)."

By contrast, in a non-inertial reference frame the laws of physics vary depending on the acceleration of that frame. If all points in space are increasing in acceleration as is claimed in the pseudo-science of today, then one can no longer claim the laws of physics are the same in all of those accelerating frames - of which we must be one.

Only when the frame is a sufficiently small area of spacetime - can one even hope the same laws of physics would apply. Such as the solar system were all objects share the same central axis frame as they move through space. As the galactic frame and the local group of galaxies, which share the same general motion through space. Beyond that - all frames are differently situated, and Relativity demands that the laws of physics vary.

I won't even get into the futility of applying math for solids, liquids and gasses to plasma.

Hence E's use of a cosmological constant to obtain a static universe - so that the same laws of physics could be applied. Never-mind it is said to be the biggest blunder of his career. And now we find cosmologists wanting to use that cosmological constant to explain expansion and dark energy instead. The irony.

Also why Hubble always insisted that a then undiscovered phenomenon of nature better explained space-time. He too understood the futility of trying to imply the laws of physics were identical in differently situated accelerating frames. Again, also never-mind that it wasn't even Hubble who first proposed expansion.

 

[Loudmouth]

We have already discussed in other posts, the futility of trying to pretend that differently situated accelerating frames share the same laws of physics.

We have already done the experiments using different frames of reference.

Hafele?Keating experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

They put synchronized atomic clocks on two different jets and had them fly in opposite directions, parallel to the equator. Using the equations within the theory of relativity, they were able to predict the differences in the atomic clocks once they landed. The laws of physics remained the same on each plane. What was different was the passage of time due to a difference in acceleration. Relativity works.

 

[Queller]

There is absolutely no evidence for an earth zone space time in this universe. None. Is there?

That means then, unless you contest that simple fact with evidence, that time far away is an unknown factor.

Sorry, you are flat out wrong here (well, actually I'm not sorry about it)

If you want to claim that a fundamental force operates differently elsewhere in the universe, it is incumbent upon you to provide evidence of that. We have evidence that times moves the same elsewhere in the universe. Supernova 1987A gives excellent evidence of that fact.

??How silly. Time is not just a function of movement.

I never said it was. I said movement is a function of time. Reading is fundamental, you should try it.

You though having different time would mean being motionless?? You do not know time, or even what time is.

Hello? You orignial comment implied that time didn't exist at those other stars:

Right. But regardless of where we move in relation to the star or visa verso, unless time existed where the star was, it would not matter for distances determined in time...like light years!

That implies that for your claims to work, time would not exist.

A light year in distance. Not time, as in how many earth years it takes to get here! Also, the trig totally uses a baseline IN earth timespace, which means time is built into it, admit it.

Of course time is built into it, we have absolutely no evidence to presume otherwise. Can I also presume that you do not accept trigonometry, as you appear to have stated here?

No, not if we accept trigonometry.

 

[[serious]]

Science uses the distance to wed it to many other things, as you know. It is a package deal, and that is why it is usually given in time unites that are also distance units...light years.

Well, if meters are defined in terms of the speed of light, and English units like the foot and inch are defined in terms of meters, can we accurately measure how tall you are? Why or why not?

 

[Kylie]

Better than the godless swan song of science!

Then why do you enjoy the benefits of science?

 

[dad]

That is false. The brightness of stars is governed by the release of photons by the star over a specific time period in the star's frame of reference. If time were different in our frame of reference compared to the star's frame of reference then we would see either a blue or red shift of the star spectra. On top of that, we would also see a change in the brightning and fading of type Ia supernovae.

False. That would only be true if time and space were the same!

To see a brightening or fading doesn't tell you when that happened.