Why Parallax doesn't work

[dad]

What test can be used to determine if time passes at the same rate at a distant star?

If you don't know that then you are no expert on stars!

If you can't show us how your claims are testable or falsifiable, then they are meaningless.

What is meaningless is the little methodology that has pretended to know about God's stars! Unless they were capable of testing, then they are garbage! The way things look to you in the fishbowl earth, may seem a certain way to you, but you have no basis upon which to know.

 

[dad]

.. time has nothing to do with the angles used to measure distance.

False. If timespace involves time, then the angles do.

 

[dad]

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.

OK, so here is a new idea, fresh off the press.


Firstly, the idea that parallax involves time because it uses light years which are used interchangeably with distance is incontestable.


Now, here is the new idea...if time is different in deep space that may mean space is also! So, if there is 'less' time, then it could be that there is 'less space' too! That would mean, that if something existed in less space it would be what, class?...Smaller!



That means that what you see is not what you thought! That could explain how cosmological claims about star sizes are wrong.

 

[dad]

Tests of general relativity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A word to the wise is sufficient, but for some it takes more. I should have clarified about tests of relativity, that I meant out of earth area...not Mercury or the sun etc.

Also, don't spam links. Use a link for support and make the claim in your own words, or quoted.

 

[dad]

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.

You may not be sorry but you are not right either.

SN1987a does not show time is the same. Try to talk sense.

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

Great. So define time then.

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

Time may not exist, or may be different, or exist in a way that is different. Let's not he hasty to make big claims.

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

That could be. Concentrate on proving it one way or the other...otherwise, zip 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?

I accept things for what they are, and where they apply. (and when) Trigonometry cannot be used to mix apples and oranges. You cannot take time and space here, and try to make it equal with time and space where they are different.

 

[dad]

Then why do you enjoy the benefits of science?

I have never enjoyed any benefit of same state past science, and neither has any other living person!

 

[dad]

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?

If I were as tall as a star is far away you might be onto something.

 

[Kylie]

I have never enjoyed any benefit of same state past science, and neither has any other living person!

You tell yourself that. The "same state past" science has given us methods of learning about our planet's history which you can't even comprehend. Not to mention the knowledge of other stars which has allowed us to better understand our own sun.

Meanwhile, your DSP idea is so ill-defined you can't even explain how things were different without resorting to guesses, supposition and assumptions.

 

[[serious]]

If I were as tall as a star is far away you might be onto something.

Ok, how far away before straight lines stop existing?

 

[[serious]]

I have never enjoyed any benefit of same state past science, and neither has any other living person!

You can't know that for sure because you are just assuming a same state past in your life. Maybe before last Tuesday you experienced things differently.

 

[TLK Valentine]

OK, so here is a new idea, fresh off the press.

No, it's the same old wrong idea you've been touting since forever.

Firstly, the idea that parallax involves time because it uses light years which are used interchangeably with distance is incontestable.

Incontestably wrong. Moving on.

 

[Loudmouth]

OK, so here is a new idea, fresh off the press.


Firstly, the idea that parallax involves time because it uses light years which are used interchangeably with distance is incontestable.

You can use parallax on the golf course to measure distance, and it doesn't involve time.

Measuring distances by parallax method

All you are doing is demonstrating your abject ignorance of simple concepts.

 

[Loudmouth]

You may not be sorry but you are not right either.

SN1987a does not show time is the same. Try to talk sense.
Great. So define time then.

How are we even able to see any stars? Please explain. When we "see" a star, what are our eyes detecting? I will give you a little hint. It starts with a "p".

 

[[serious]]

How are we even able to see any stars? Please explain. When we "see" a star, what are our eyes detecting? I will give you a little hint. It starts with a "p".

The existence of stars implies a same state past. Lights in the sky could be anything. You don't know.

 

[dad]

You tell yourself that. The "same state past" science has given us methods of learning about our planet's history which you can't even comprehend.

False. It has been used to invent and fabricate alternate creation scenarios, and fancy sounding lies.

Not to mention the knowledge of other stars which has allowed us to better understand our own sun.

You do not understand the sun or stars. You just thought you did.

Meanwhile, your DSP idea is so ill-defined you can't even explain how things were different without resorting to guesses, supposition and assumptions.

The explanation that matters is that it was different, and different in key ways that God has outlined for us. You seem to think that we need to be able to explain the differences in minutia, and using only present state concepts and laws, and thinking. That seems bizarre.

 

[dad]

No, it's the same old wrong idea you've been touting since forever.
.

Actually, I did not posit mass getting smaller as a result of time and space. If this were true, that means that math won't work for size and distance. The way they determine size is by distance basically. If what they are seeing was very much smaller how would they know?

 

[dad]

You can use parallax on the golf course to measure distance, and it doesn't involve time.

Measuring distances by parallax method

False.

Matter takes time to exist. Time is also a part of our spacetime, and all golf course are in it also! Time is always involved. Since that measurement is all within the fishbowl of our time and space, we can use the distance aspects.

If we were trying to mark a line on the grass to a star, that is another matter. Obviously. If time were not the same where the star was, then the calculations would not be valid.

All you are doing is demonstrating your abject ignorance of simple concepts.

 

[dad]

How are we even able to see any stars?

Light can enter our spacetime. In fact the stars were put there so it could!

Please explain. When we "see" a star, what are our eyes detecting?

Science says we are looking at the far past, right? So if a star ceased to exist, what they would be seeing is something not actually there any more.

Now I can't agree with science because they invoke time, and assume it is the same everywhere because it is like that here. God created us and our world, so the time that is here is for us.

When we see a star we are seeing what God wanted us to see! However, if space and time are different as I suggested could be a possibility far away, that could mean that the very distant stars were tiny, and really not what science would call a star!
The visible stars could be quite different than the stars in the far reaches of the universe for all we know.

" The Houston-based photographer took pictures of bullet-proof Plexiglas from a police officer training school, after officers fired various bullets into it. At a rough glance, they look like stars, galaxies, and nebulae."


Bullet Holes In Plexiglas Look Like Galaxies | Popular Science

I will give you a little hint. It starts with a "p".

Light in our time and space is photons, yes. So?

 

[dad]

The existence of stars implies a same state past.

Not at all. They are looked at by folks who believe that.

Lights in the sky could be anything. You don't know.

God called them stars. I know. Relax.

 

[[serious]]

Not at all. They are looked at by folks who believe that.
God called them stars. I know. Relax.

That's what the Bible says NOW, but to say that's what it said initially assumes a same state past. You don't know, you just assume.