Why Parallax doesn't work

[Justatruthseeker]

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.

No they wouldn't. If the speed of c was c+v one way and c-v the other, it would appear in the two way measurement as c. Don't try that Fairie Dust with me, don't try illogical statements and try to claim them as logic. The physics on earth requires the two-way measurement of light, just as it does from any place in the universe. You don't measure the speed of c from the star to you. You measure it after it passes one clock (in this frame) and reflects off of a mirror (in this frame) and back to the clock (which is still in "this" frame). It's two-way measurement. (c+ or -v) as it approaches the moving mirror and (c- or +v) as it leaves the mirror. The mirror nor clocks are NOT stationary, no matter how much you want it to be so in your pseudo-science of inertial frames in a universe undergoing increasing acceleration at all points in spacetime.

Spare me your claims, when you won't even accept the postulates of relativity that you claim to follow (give lip service to) when applied to an accelerating universe.

 

[Strathos]

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

Einstein predicted redshift before it was discovered, there's also the Hughes-Drever experiment, gravitational lensing of quasars, precession of binary pulsars, expansion of the universe (which was predicted by Lemaitre before it was confirmed), etc.

All of these things match up to what we would expect to find if the theories we have are a reasonable accurate description of how the universe works.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Einstein predicted redshift before it was discovered, there's also the Hughes-Drever experiment, gravitational lensing of quasars, precession of binary pulsars, expansion of the universe (which was predicted by Lemaitre before it was confirmed), etc.

All of these things match up to what we would expect to find if the theories we have are a reasonable accurate description of how the universe works.

Seems like the only theory which doesn't match up to anything is dad's.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Einstein predicted redshift before it was discovered,

False, he predicted "Doppler Shift", which we do indeed experience in frames casually related to us, such as the local galactic frame, where we observe both redshift and blueshift, as his static universe theory in which he predicted them from, would apply.

there's also the Hughes-Drever experiment, gravitational lensing of quasars, precession of binary pulsars, expansion of the universe (which was predicted by Lemaitre before it was confirmed), etc.

All of these things match up to what we would expect to find if the theories we have are a reasonable accurate description of how the universe works.

None of these things match up.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7861778-7/#post66949356

Which is it? is it cosmological expansion of frames not casually related to us, in which we may not apply the same laws of physics - or is it Doppler Shift, from frames casually related to us, in which we may apply the same laws of physics? Either one precludes the other.

 

[dad]

Einstein predicted redshift before it was discovered, there's also the Hughes-Drever experiment, gravitational lensing of quasars, precession of binary pulsars, expansion of the universe (which was predicted by Lemaitre before it was confirmed), etc.

The question arise, how much gravity would be required to bend light, and what else (like time or something) could also do it? No one is taking away from Al's ideas as far as this solar system goes, here, the reason light is bent would be the reasons we know. Don't exceed your knowledge pay grade.

 

[dad]

Seems like the only theory which doesn't match up to anything is dad's.

The effects a lack of time or different time and space could have are out of your range of knowledge. Face it. The only question remaining then, is what ideas best match God's word? Mine do. Hands down.

 

[TLK Valentine]

The effects a lack of time or different time and space could have are out of your range of knowledge.

Wrong as usual dad. Go back to your original diagram and ask yourself. If the speed of light was faster, where would that star appear in the sky?Where would it appear if light were slower?

And remember: just because the answer us out of your range of knowledge doesn't mean it's out if anyone else's.

 

[Queller]

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!

Are you seriously claiming, without any evidence whatsoever, that time not only passes differently in (or not at all) in other parts of the universe, but the "time bubble" (i don't know what else to call it) we live in here on earth automatically adjusts incoming photons from other places to give the impression that time passes the same way there as it does here?

Is this seriously what you are claiming?

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

Are you so stupid that you don't even know what "indefinite" means? If you don't know when something ends, it is, by definition, "indefinite".

?? Moving? You think time moves??

Fine time "passing". Is that better? If not, what descriptor would you use to describe the phenomenon?

OK, cork it.

Go cork yourself.

You cannot take timespace here, and apply it to where time and space are not like here.

You have absolutely no evidence that there is a place 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!

Great, then show us evidence that such a place exists. I won't hold my breath.

 

[Queller]

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

Thank you for providing wonderful evidence of the linear progression I was referring to.

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.

LO. Thanks, I needed that. I'm not the one that needs to get their story straight.

 

[Queller]

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????

Please provide evidence that I have ever made this claim.

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.

I'm not aware of anything related to Special Relativity that claims 13.8 billion years in the rest of the universe would appear as 6,000 years here on earth. Do you have a link?

 

[dad]

Wrong as usual dad. Go back to your original diagram and ask yourself. If the speed of light was faster, where would that star appear in the sky?Where would it appear if light were slower?

Gong. Try to get it this time will you, your incessant miscomprehension on the most basic level tries the patience of posters.

Now if there were no time, how would light have a speed? Or, if there were a different time and therefore timespace, how would you translate the speed we know here to a zone where it simply doesn't take time as we know it to move!? That is the beauty of involving time itself, it defeats science face on. If the stars are actually tiny, and closer, and it does not take anything like a year of our time for light to move 186,000,000 miles, then all your conceptions are rendered total foolishness. For the record, that is exactly what I know cosmology to be.

And remember: just because the answer us out of your range of knowledge doesn't mean it's out if anyone else's.

Pretend you know what time is in the far universe if you like. You won't fool me. I have had it with being a deceived nincompoop for science.

 

[dad]

Are you seriously claiming, without any evidence whatsoever, that time not only passes differently in (or not at all) in other parts of the universe, but the "time bubble" (i don't know what else to call it) we live in here on earth automatically adjusts incoming photons from other places to give the impression that time passes the same way there as it does here?

Yes. Anything in our earth area and timespace must obey the rules here! Not bad, you caught that much.

Are you so stupid that you don't even know what "indefinite" means? If you don't know when something ends, it is, by definition, "indefinite".

This timespace and universe is temporary. Would that qualify as indefinite enough for you?

Fine time "passing". Is that better? If not, what descriptor would you use to describe the phenomenon?

I'd have to give that a think.

You have absolutely no evidence that there is a place where time and space are not like here.

That has a nice ring to it.. .."a place where time and space are not like here." It makes Twilight Zone and X files seem like Anne of Green Gables!

Almost like a song..


Somewhere over the rainbow, where love fills the air, in a place where time and space are not like here.

Somewhere, tomorrow, forever will replace the years, time will be no more, and stars will all be near.

 

[[serious]]

Gong. Try to get it this time will you, your incessant miscomprehension on the most basic level tries the patience of posters.

Now if there were no time, how would light have a speed? Or, if there were a different time and therefore timespace, how would you translate the speed we know here to a zone where it simply doesn't take time as we know it to move!? That is the beauty of involving time itself, it defeats science face on. If the stars are actually tiny, and closer, and it does not take anything like a year of our time for light to move 186,000,000 miles, then all your conceptions are rendered total foolishness. For the record, that is exactly what I know cosmology to be.


Pretend you know what time is in the far universe if you like. You won't fool me. I have had it with being a deceived nincompoop for science.

Sorry, but your post was written in the past. There is no way of knowing what you really said without assuming same state posts.

 

[dad]

Sorry, but your post was written in the past. There is no way of knowing what you really said without assuming same state posts.

So you are incapable of separating the far past from last week. OK. Not very appealing.

 

[jacknife]

So you are incapable of separating the far past from last week. OK. Not very appealing.

out of curiosity when exactly does something become "the far past"?

 

[dad]

out of curiosity when exactly does something become "the far past"?

About 2 centuries after the flood, or maybe less. The flood is usually put at about 4500 years ago.

Now that correlates with this, strangely enough.

"the late Australian astronomer George F. Dodwell (1879–1963) determined that ancient measurements of the earth’s tilt were at variance with that understanding. Fitting a curve to his data, Dodwell (Dodwell 1) concluded that the earth underwent a catastrophic change in its tilt in the year 2345 BC, and that the tilt had only recently recovered to the relatively stable situation now governed by the conventional theory."


https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/earth/an-analysis-of-the-dodwell-hypothesis/

 

[Euler]

About 2 centuries after the flood, or maybe less. The flood is usually put at about 4500 years ago.

Now that correlates with this, strangely enough.

"the late Australian astronomer George F. Dodwell (1879–1963) determined that ancient measurements of the earth’s tilt were at variance with that understanding. Fitting a curve to his data, Dodwell (Dodwell 1) concluded that the earth underwent a catastrophic change in its tilt in the year 2345 BC, and that the tilt had only recently recovered to the relatively stable situation now governed by the conventional theory."


https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/earth/an-analysis-of-the-dodwell-hypothesis/

Oh dear.

At the foot of that piece -

The most reliable ancient data do not demand the sort of catastrophic change in the earth’s tilt with a gradual recovery that Dodwell maintained, so there is great doubt that this alleged event happened. If such an event actually happened, we cannot fix the date of that event with any certainty. Creationists are discouraged from embracing the Dodwell hypothesis.

Oops!

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

About 2 centuries after the flood, or maybe less. The flood is usually put at about 4500 years ago.

Now that correlates with this, strangely enough.

"the late Australian astronomer George F. Dodwell (1879–1963) determined that ancient measurements of the earth’s tilt were at variance with that understanding. Fitting a curve to his data, Dodwell (Dodwell 1) concluded that the earth underwent a catastrophic change in its tilt in the year 2345 BC, and that the tilt had only recently recovered to the relatively stable situation now governed by the conventional theory."


https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/earth/an-analysis-of-the-dodwell-hypothesis/

You can't use that stuff as evidence, you have no way to demonstrate that the world wasn't subject to a different state such that only the appearances of evidence are left to assess such things. You yourself have maintained logic such as that is impeccable.

 

[dad]

Originally Posted by dad

About 2 centuries after the flood, or maybe less. The flood is usually put at about 4500 years ago.

Now that correlates with this, strangely enough.

"the late Australian astronomer George F. Dodwell (1879–1963) determined that ancient measurements of the earth’s tilt were at variance with that understanding. Fitting a curve to his data, Dodwell (Dodwell 1) concluded that the earth underwent a catastrophic change in its tilt in the year 2345 BC, and that the tilt had only recently recovered to the relatively stable situation now governed by the conventional theory."


https://answersingenesis.org/astrono...ll-hypothesis/
​

Oh dear.

At the foot of that piece -

The most reliable ancient data do not demand the sort of catastrophic change in the earth’s tilt with a gradual recovery that Dodwell maintained, so there is great doubt that this alleged event happened. If such an event actually happened, we cannot fix the date of that event with any certainty. Creationists are discouraged from embracing the Dodwell hypothesis.

Oops!

Not the ones who have a clue! I think what scared the clueless yecs was how the hills that were uplifted in Egypt near an ancient site, have led some to conclude that since the view of the summer solstice was impeded by the hills, it golly gee must have been a winter solstice that was being reverenced.

I happen to know that the time of that uplift was post split ot at the split. So Dodwell is back in vogue for those in the know.

 

[dad]

You can't use that stuff as evidence,

Yes. I can. I do. Deal with it.

you have no way to demonstrate that the world wasn't subject to a different state such that only the appearances of evidence are left to assess such things.

It was in a different state, that is why Dodwell is admissible. Rent a clue.