Why Parallax doesn't work

[dad]

That's what the Bible says NOW,...

Yes it is. That is what Jesus confirmed was true Scripture also. Do all prognosticators of so called science really have such a reality deficit problem??

 

[Loudmouth]

Light can enter our spacetime.

How? At what speed? How is that light produced?

Now I can't agree with science because they invoke time, and assume it is the same everywhere because it is like that here.

No such assumption is made. We OBSERVE that the same laws are present throughout the universe. That's what you keep ignoring.

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!

Changes in the laws of physics would change the spectrum of the starlight.

The Science of Light : Stellar Spectra

We know the laws of physics are the same out in the universe because the spectra of stars are the same as our Sun, and same as the elements here on Earth. The wavelength of light produced by different elements is based on the fundamental laws of physics. Any change to those laws, including the speed of light, would produce different spectra.

The temperature and characteristics of stars are also based on their size and mass. Change the size of a star and you change its characteristics. What we see are stars behaving just like our Sun, and just like the physics observed in our labs.

The visible stars could be quite different than the stars in the far reaches of the universe for all we know.

They aren't different. We know BECAUSE WE CAN SEE THEM.

 

[Strathos]

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.

Sorry, but my point was this and many other tests were conducted using distant starlight and returned results consistent with the predictions of relativity.

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

Then how can you argue that there is no time where stars are?

Since that measurement is all within the fishbowl of our time and space, we can use the distance aspects.

All of the evidence demonstrates that distant stars and galaxies are also in our fishbowl.

If time were not the same where the star was, then the calculations would not be valid.

If time and physics were not the same where the stars are, then the spectra would be different, light intensity would be different, and type Ia supernovae would brighten and fade at different rates. Instead, we observe the same laws of physics in distant stars as we observe here on Earth. That means that the distant stars and galaxies are in the fishbowl with us.

 

[[serious]]

Yes it is. That is what Jesus confirmed was true Scripture also. Do all prognosticators of so called science really have such a reality deficit problem??

Jesus confirmed it in the PAST, which, as you have argued, can't be used to determine what is true NOW.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

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.

Because those clocks were in a frame and were similarly situated to that frame. I.e. traveling through space in the same general motion as the sun and planets. What do you think I just said in my last post?

But the data does indeed show that when frames of reference undergoing acceleration do not share the same central point of axis of the frame under consideration, that it fails those same tests utterly.

NASA Baffled by Unexplained Force Acting on Space Probes

Those affects apply to any frame under acceleration not sharing the central axis frame of movement.

You can't just pick and choose what you want. Those spacecraft are in actuality the defining experiment that Relativity fails to describe any frame accurately that is not similarly situated around a central axis point. As those airplanes are the defining experiment that shows Relativity does describe accurately any motion shared by the central axis of the frame under consideration. So we may include the earth/moon system, the sun/planetary system, the galactic/local group system, and none other. And any object not sharing any of those frames central axis obeys different physical laws, as proven by those spacecraft, just as the ones sharing the axis support Relativity in that frame, as do the airplanes. But when they don't....

Shall we even bother to mention that includes about 99% of the universe? probably not, as like most religious fanatics you'll dismiss whatever does not fit your pre-concieved system of beliefs.

 

[Loudmouth]

Because those clocks were in a frame and were similarly situated to that frame. I.e. traveling through space in the same general motion as the sun and planets. What do you think I just said in my last post?

But the data does indeed show that when frames of reference undergoing acceleration do not share the same central point of axis of the frame under consideration, that it fails those same tests utterly.

What in the world are you talking about? There is no "central point of axis" in a frame of reference. You are making stuff up.

The results of the Hafele-Keating experiment exactly match what we should see if the theory of relativity is accurate. Sorry if you can't handle that fact.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

What in the world are you talking about? There is no "central point of axis" in a frame of reference. You are making stuff up.

The results of the Hafele-Keating experiment exactly match what we should see if the theory of relativity is accurate. Sorry if you can't handle that fact.

Accurate within the frame under consideration only.

Special relativity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"It has replaced the conventional notion of an absolute universal time with the notion of a time that is dependent on reference frame and spatial position."

So now you just show you plain don't understand Relativity at all. Have no concept of what a frame is.

"Relativity theory depends on "reference frames". The term reference frame as used here is an observational perspective in space which is not undergoing any change in motion (acceleration), from which a position can be measured along 3 spatial axes. In addition, a reference frame has the ability to determine measurements of the time of events using a 'clock' (any reference device with uniform periodicity)."

Don't ignore your own science to preach Fairie Dust. Those spacecraft are no different than your airplane experiment. Those that share a common reference frame - can all be deduced accurately, whether spacecraft motion or airplane motion. Those that do not share that central reference frame, experience anomolies, because the laws of physics vary dependent of acceleration with respect to the frame of reference.

You know, that central axis from which the earth's frame is based. You know, that central axis from which the sun's frame is based. You know, that central axis from which the galaxies frame is based.

That central axis, so stop with the strawmen and Fairie Dust already. You know, that earth centered frame ECF pseudo-scientists always go on about, that suddenly you want to pretend isn't a central frame based upon the earth's axis when it works against you, You know, that frame..

 

[dad]

How? At what speed? How is that light produced?

The speed of light is known. Have you any reason to think light should not move and behave as it does here?? After all we can't see time can we? Therefore if time is different far away how would you perceive it? It would not be wise or prudent to predict how light behaves in another space and time.

Think about it, if a star were actually small, and a different distance than you thought, does it matter so much how the light from it behaved until it got here?

No such assumption is made. We OBSERVE that the same laws are present throughout the universe. That's what you keep ignoring.

You say you observe, but I haven't see it posted. I think you need to give your head a shake.

Changes in the laws of physics would change the spectrum of the starlight.

The Science of Light : Stellar Spectra

False! Changes IN OUR TIMESPACE physics here, would do that. Since it doesn't change here, that is moot. Any changes would be at the point of entry, not in our fishbowl.

We know the laws of physics are the same out in the universe because the spectra of stars are the same as our Sun, and same as the elements here on Earth. The wavelength of light produced by different elements is based on the fundamental laws of physics. Any change to those laws, including the speed of light, would produce different spectra.

The laws that determine how light behaves and looks, if isolated in our timespace area, would still affect all you see!

The fundamental laws of physics don't include time do they? If you claim they do, then define time.

The temperature and characteristics of stars are also based on their size and mass. Change the size of a star and you change its characteristics. What we see are stars behaving just like our Sun, and just like the physics observed in our labs.

The things you think are temperature may not be. What represents temperature here in our laws and time and space may not be what is happening at the star. The light info is filtered through our timespace area. In what way would a small small star's light have a different characteristic than what we see!!?

They aren't different. We know BECAUSE WE CAN SEE THEM.

The stars you see beyond the stars that God made for man to see, may not be stars. You see light, and the size and distance is paramount to interpreting what that means.

 

[dad]

Sorry, but my point was this and many other tests were conducted using distant starlight and returned results consistent with the predictions of relativity.

Well, we could look at one of those here. Bring it.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The speed of light is known.

No it's not. The "two-way" speed of light is known within the frame of reference, be sure to clarify that assumption.

One-way speed of light - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Sorry, but my point was this and many other tests were conducted using distant starlight and returned results consistent with the predictions of relativity.

Like Stellar Aberration which only takes into account the velocity of the earth around the sun and not relative to the motion between source and detector?

Stellar Aberration and Einstein's Relativity

"Stellar aberration is a correction, which is absolutely needed, in order to get a logical system of coordinates for stars and galaxies, which is valid at any time all year round and even at any epoch. Without stellar aberration, it is impossible to establish a coherent system of coordinates in the universe. Stellar aberration takes into account the velocity of the observer due to the Earth rotation and also its translation around the Sun.
There are now extremely accurate tables of coordinates of astronomical objects, reporting the accurate observations of very large telescopes on Earth and even in space. A higher accuracy is even obtained using interferometric methods. It seems there is almost no limit in the accuracy that can be achieved.
However, all these “highly accurate” coordinates have been calculated without involving any correcting factor due to the proper motion of the observed object (star or galaxy). This procedure is clearly at fault with Einstein principle of relativity who claims that it is only due to the relative velocity. These tables are calculated without taking into account the relative velocity between the Earth and the galactic object. Only the Earth velocity of rotation and translation around the Sun is taken into account. In the case of orbiting telescopes, the stellar aberration due to the velocity of the satellite is also taken into account...."


"...Fortunately, it is obvious that all scientists “forget” to apply Einstein’s relativity principle here. The generally accepted procedure is not compatible with the Einstein’s principle of relativity. Consequently, we are forced to conclude that Einstein’s principle of relativity is in error. That accepted system of coordinates (which actually, is with respect to the Sun) is “in fact” considered, as an ABSOLUTE system of coordinate."

 

[Queller]

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

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

Actually it shoes the linear progression of a supernova at exactly the rate we would expect if time moved the same at Supernova 1987a as it does here on earth.

Great. So define time then.

Time:

Wikipedia:Time is a measure in which events can be ordered from the past through the present into the future, and also the measure of durations of events and the intervals between them. Time is often referred to as the fourth dimension, the first three dimensions being the spatial dimensions.

Merriam-Webster:1a : the measured or measurable period during which an action, process, or condition exists or continues : duration
b : a nonspatial continuum that is measured in terms of events which succeed one another from past through present to future

Oxford Dictionary: 1: The indefinite continued progress of existence and events in the past, present, and future regarded as a whole

Anything else I can do for you?

Time may not exist, or may be different, or exist in a way that is different.

There is absoluttely no evidence of any of these being true.

Let's not he hasty to make big claims.

The only big claim being made here is the one about time not moving at the same rate everywhere. So when are you going to stop making this big claim?

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

I'm not the one making an idiotic claim so I have nothing to prove. And "zip it"? Really? What are you, 12?

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.

Why not?

 

[Loudmouth]

The speed of light is known. Have you any reason to think light should not move and behave as it does here?? After all we can't see time can we? Therefore if time is different far away how would you perceive it? It would not be wise or prudent to predict how light behaves in another space and time.

Why wouldn't it be wise or prudent? You are just making stuff up.

If time moved slower elsewhere in the universe, it would show up in the type Ia supernova data. They would not brighten and fade at the same rate.

Think about it, if a star were actually small, and a different distance than you thought, does it matter so much how the light from it behaved until it got here?

If the star were smaller, it wouldn't fuse hydrogen and produce light. If it was a different distance, then it would show up in the parallax measurements.

You say you observe, but I haven't see it posted. I think you need to give your head a shake.

Here is a whole freaking database of star spectra.

The POLLUX Database of Stellar Spectra ? Portal

False! Changes IN OUR TIMESPACE physics here, would do that.

Changes in the laws of physics would change star spectra in ALL FRAMES OF REFERENCE, including the star's frame of reference. It is the laws of physics that determine the wavelengths that elements emit and absorb. If the laws of physics are different where the stars are, then their spectra will be different.

The laws that determine how light behaves and looks, if isolated in our timespace area, would still affect all you see!

No, it wouldn't. The fishbowl isn't emitting or absorbing the wavelengths. That is happening in the star.

The fundamental laws of physics don't include time do they? If you claim they do, then define time.

One Planck time is the time it would take a photon traveling at the speed of light in a vacuum to cross a distance equal to one Planck length. Theoretically, this is the smallest time measurement that will ever be possible,[3] roughly 10−43 seconds. Within the framework of the laws of physics as we understand them today, for times less than one Planck time apart, we can neither measure nor detect any change. As of May 2010, the smallest time interval uncertainty in direct measurements is on the order of 12 attoseconds (1.2 × 10−17 seconds), about 3.7 × 1026 Planck times.[4]

The Planck time comes from a field of mathematical physics known as dimensional analysis, which studies units of measurement and physical constants. The Planck time is the unique combination of the gravitational constant G, the relativity constant c, and the quantum constant h, to produce a constant with units of time.
Planck time - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
​

Guess what governs the production of photons, fusion energies, etc.? Time and gravity.

The things you think are temperature may not be. What represents temperature here in our laws and time and space may not be what is happening at the star. The light info is filtered through our timespace area. In what way would a small small star's light have a different characteristic than what we see!!?

Again, you are making stuff up. The physics we observe out in the universe is exactly the physics we observe here on Earth.

The stars you see beyond the stars that God made for man to see, may not be stars. You see light, and the size and distance is paramount to interpreting what that means.

That's like saying that God plants fingerprints at crime scenes, so we should just throw out all forensic evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

No it's not. The "two-way" speed of light is known within the frame of reference, be sure to clarify that assumption.

One-way speed of light - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

E=mc^2

If the speed of light were different, then distant stars would either blow up at masses inconsistent with a constant c, or fail to even produce light. What we observe in distant stars is exactly the physics we see on earth with exactly the same speed of light.

 

[dad]

No it's not. The "two-way" speed of light is known within the frame of reference, be sure to clarify that assumption.

One-way speed of light - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The speed of light is known pretty well here near earth. What would you say the difference in mph is between one way and 2 way speeds? Don't try to bog down simplicity for the sake of cloudy banter.

 

[dad]

Actually it shoes the linear progression of a supernova at exactly the rate we would expect if time moved the same at Supernova 1987a as it does here on earth.

No. It shows that time here progresses a certain way in things we see far away! How would it be possible for a different time far away, when seen here, to be still different? It exists here a certain way!

Time:

Wikipedia:Time is a measure in which events can be ordered from the past through the present into the future, and also the measure of durations of events and the intervals between them. Time is often referred to as the fourth dimension, the first three dimensions being the spatial dimensions.

Merriam-Webster:1a : the measured or measurable period during which an action, process, or condition exists or continues : duration
b : a nonspatial continuum that is measured in terms of events which succeed one another from past through present to future

Oxford Dictionary: 1: The indefinite continued progress of existence and events in the past, present, and future regarded as a whole

Anything else I can do for you?

Indefinite continued progress?? How would you know that? You are not indefinite!

The only big claim being made here is the one about time not moving at the same rate everywhere. So when are you going to stop making this big claim?

?? Moving? You think time moves??

I'm not the one making an idiotic claim so I have nothing to prove. And "zip it"? Really? What are you, 12?

OK, cork it.

Why not?

You cannot take timespace here, and apply it to where time and space are not like here. If there were no time in another timespacezone for example, then a year here would not be a year there. Even if time were just different and it still existed, a year here would not be a year in time there!

 

[dad]

' It would not be wise or prudent to predict how light behaves in another space and time.'
Why wouldn't it be wise or prudent? You are just making stuff up.

It would not be prudent to make things up when you do not know what the time is like there. That should be obvious.

If time moved slower elsewhere in the universe, it would show up in the type Ia supernova data. They would not brighten and fade at the same rate.

Absurd. What we see is HERE in our TIME and space. Time MUST unfold here a certain way. It appears as say, a year here...but that could not translate into a year there unless time were the same! Simply experiencing time as we do here does not mean that time has to exist this way elsewhere.

If the star were smaller, it wouldn't fuse hydrogen and produce light. If it was a different distance, then it would show up in the parallax measurements.

Well, I do not believe that is what a star does! That is your theory, based on earth rules and time ans space. Stellar evolution is pure bunk.

Here is a whole freaking database of star spectra.

The POLLUX Database of Stellar Spectra ? Portal

Your link was not open to the public. Of course light divides a certain way here and this has a certain effect and means something in OUR time..and space. In what way could that apply to the star? Especially if you don't know how big or far away it was!!?

Changes in the laws of physics would change star spectra in ALL FRAMES OF REFERENCE, including the star's frame of reference.

How would you know!? If the frame or reference was not the same as the frame of reference you designed all your little theories in, how would you know? If the physics HERE changed, yes, that would be true. How else could we see time but the way time exists HERE?

It is the laws of physics that determine the wavelengths that elements emit and absorb.

No. Waves lengths need time! The time and sppace and resultant laws HERE determine how things behave HERE. If a wave moves in X amount of time here, that means nothing to how much time the waves took where time was not the same/or existing.

No, it wouldn't. The fishbowl isn't emitting or absorbing the wavelengths. That is happening in the star.

Says you, but you see the star HERE. Whatever it does and however much time was involved would not be the same here unless time and space were the same. That you only assume.

One Planck time is the time it would take a photon traveling at the speed of light in a vacuum to cross a distance equal to one Planck length. Theoretically, this is the smallest time measurement that will ever be possible,[3] roughly 10−43 seconds. Within the framework of the laws of physics as we understand them today, for times less than one Planck time apart, we can neither measure nor detect any change. As of May 2010, the smallest time interval uncertainty in direct measurements is on the order of 12 attoseconds (1.2 × 10−17 seconds), about 3.7 × 1026 Planck times.[4]​

Planck times = our earth spacetime times! Simple.

The Planck time comes from a field of mathematical physics known as dimensional analysis, which studies units of measurement and physical constants. The Planck time is the unique combination of the gravitational constant G, the relativity constant c, and the quantum constant h, to produce a constant with units of time.
Planck time - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That is circular nonsense. The gravitational constant business depends on knowing the mass or size of a body. That means distance. That means time!​

Guess what governs the production of photons, fusion energies, etc.? Time and gravity.

Excellent! Time and gravity here governs the light and gravity we know! That has to mean (and thanks for that) that a different time would mean light and gravity would be different!!!


The evidence mounts.

Again, you are making stuff up. The physics we observe out in the universe is exactly the physics we observe here on Earth.

Exactly is a good way to put it! Things in out space and time must be exactly the way they are.

That's like saying that God plants fingerprints at crime scenes, so we should just throw out all forensic evidence.

No. God never said stars were huge and in the same space and time as earth! In fact He said spirits are out there, so we should clue in that something is different. In the verse that says He created the stars, there are SEVERAL time references (days, years etc) so we should have also clued in that He set the stars to set time for earth!

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Actually it shoes the linear progression of a supernova at exactly the rate we would expect if time moved the same at Supernova 1987a as it does here on earth.

Please, spare us the nonsense. It shows no linear progression whatsoever.

http://imgsrc.hubblesite.org/hu/db/videos/hs-2007-10-a-high_quicktime.mov

Simply shows the effects of current switching from the star to the ring, which is of larger surface area, and so is now the path of least resistance. Get your story straight first before you attempt to explain what you see.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

There is absoluttely no evidence of any of these being true.

Then we can ignore Relativity?

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

And not pretend that even though you claim the entire universe is undergoing an increasing acceleration, that the laws of physics are the same anyways in those non-inertial frames????

Are you sure you are discussing Relativity and not some idiotic modern concept of pseudo-science?

"It has replaced the conventional notion of an absolute universal time with the notion of a time that is dependent on reference frame and spatial position."


For someone claiming there is no evidence of time altering by reference frame, acceleration and spatial position, and knowing that has been confirmed scientifically, you sure seem to ignore that part when it comes to Fairie Dust beliefs.