Why Parallax doesn't work

[Euler]

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.

Hahahahaha!

You proudly display your 'gotcha' evidence, but fail to read all of it! Fail to see that it actually advises the OPPOSITE of what you'd like it to say!

Failed.

Again!

 

[Euler]

"But, but, but, but....." in 5...4...3...

 

[[serious]]

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

Ah, so now we just can't know if it's a same state FAR past. How far back is far past?

 

[[serious]]

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


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

But dodwell is making a claim about a different state past As if it's a same state past.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

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.

The same exact place it does right now, since the stars are at such great distances they remain "fixed" in the sky, merely making a motion due to the "earth's" motion around the sun. You wouldn't notice anything at all, that line of thought is pure bunkem. And you are correct about one thing, the answer is not out of the range of everyone.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Please provide evidence that I have ever made this claim.

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?

Doesn't matter if you personallt made that claim. Mainstream does, and you accept mainstreams claims of the universe age, distance, etc, so you accept their claims as well.


Are you know claiming you don't believe the universe is increasing in expansion? Or are you just not claiming anything at all which makes your post worthless?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

What, is this avoidance because none of you Einstein's have an answer?

Which is it?????

http://www.christianforums.com/t7861526-11/#post66949839

 

[Justatruthseeker]

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

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

Except everything expanded nowhere, stayed in the exact same spot during the entire sequence. No outward motion whatsoever. Apparently you don't understand what your own claim was.

 

[dad]

But dodwell is making a claim about a different state past As if it's a same state past.

Actually, the first data point would be in this state, since the big event he cites happened that year!

That would place the split somewhere later in Peleg's life. Depending on which dates we use. I think if we went by Usher's dates, it may put Peleg somewhere just under 200 years ols when the division or split happened (nature/state change). That would mean that NO ONE lived longer than a few hundred years after this.

 

[dad]

Hahahahaha!

You proudly display your 'gotcha' evidence, but fail to read all of it! Fail to see that it actually advises the OPPOSITE of what you'd like it to say!

Failed.

Again!

False. I realize that AIG is pegged to the same state past. That is why basically that they are a weak and fading light. To be fair, I googled dodwell, to remember the exact year he claimed, and that came up. It was not offered because it was on an AIG site.

 

[TLK Valentine]

False. I realize that AIG is pegged to the same state past. That is why basically that they are a weak and fading light.

So why did you use them?

 

[Strathos]

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.

Any amount of gravity can deflect light. You just need more to make the deflection great enough to be noticeable.

 

[Euler]

False. I realize that AIG is pegged to the same state past. That is why basically that they are a weak and fading light.

So, what this tells us is that, in your desperation to find something, anything, that even vaguely resembles your argument, you will clutch onto it like that drowning man! Had you taken the time, as some of us have, to actually READ the paper and the position it promotes, you would see that it throws your view point into the toilet.

You see, this is what REAL seekers of understanding do. Instead of throwing any self-constructed garbage against a wall and hoping some of it sticks, they actually do the hard and tedious work of researching the evidence!

Failed.

Again.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Actually, the first data point would be in this state, since the big event he cites happened that year!

That would place the split somewhere later in Peleg's life. Depending on which dates we use. I think if we went by Usher's dates, it may put Peleg somewhere just under 200 years ols when the division or split happened (nature/state change). That would mean that NO ONE lived longer than a few hundred years after this.

Ooooo . . . . named after being around 200 years. Such a long time to wait to receive a name! But, hey, lest we forget . . . . it was a different state, that explains it.

 

[Aureus]

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.

Hmm interesting, an article from 2008 being posted in 2015? I wonder if maybe.. oh look. You're just posting old stuff and pretending its still a major mystery that has earth shattering implications for physics... when it has been solved and accounted for already.

"By 2012 several papers by different groups, all reanalyzing the thermal radiation pressure forces inherent in the spacecraft, showed that a careful accounting of this could explain the entire anomaly, and thus the cause was mundane and did not point to any new phenomena or need for a different physical paradigm.[2][3] The most detailed analysis to date, by some of the original investigators, explicitly looks at two methods of estimating thermal forces, then states "We find no statistically significant difference between the two estimates and conclude that once the thermal recoil force is properly accounted for, no anomalous acceleration remains."[4]"

Pioneer anomaly - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pioneer Anomaly Solved By 1970s Computer Graphics Technique | MIT Technology Review

 

[dad]

So why did you use them?

They were among the first on the googled list. I never even read their opinion about it. Couldn't care less. One cannot win the creation debate trying to use present day physics for the future and past. Someone tell them that.

 

[dad]

Any amount of gravity can deflect light. You just need more to make the deflection great enough to be noticeable.

So what are you saying? A pumpkin sized star could deflect light?

 

[dad]

So, what this tells us is that, in your desperation to find something, anything, that even vaguely resembles your argument, you will clutch onto it like that drowning man! Had you taken the time, as some of us have, to actually READ the paper and the position it promotes, you would see that it throws your view point into the toilet.

Get a grip. I read the Dodwell stuff, actually I emails Barry asking for it long before it was released.

You see, this is what REAL seekers of understanding do. Instead of throwing any self-constructed garbage against a wall and hoping some of it sticks, they actually do the hard and tedious work of researching the evidence!

Who are these real seekers?? No idea what you are talking about.

 

[dad]

Ooooo . . . . named after being around 200 years. Such a long time to wait to receive a name!...

Peleg was no named when he was 200. What nonsense is this?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

So, what this tells us is that, in your desperation to find something, anything, that even vaguely resembles your argument, you will clutch onto it like that drowning man! Had you taken the time, as some of us have, to actually READ the paper and the position it promotes, you would see that it throws your view point into the toilet.

You see, this is what REAL seekers of understanding do. Instead of throwing any self-constructed garbage against a wall and hoping some of it sticks, they actually do the hard and tedious work of researching the evidence!

Failed.

Again.

Right, that's why astronomers are constantly surprised by that electrical activity in space, because they look into things not in their little box. Uhh huh, if you say so. You mean the data doesn't fit their pre-concieved ideas, and so is ignored after it surprises them.