Why Parallax doesn't work

[Loudmouth]

Exactly. However what you seem to miss is that the light FROM the star is only seen FROM our time and space! How would it not line up with things on earth??

Why would it line up? You haven't explained that. That light is not interacting with any gasses in our timespace, according to your model. So how could it have absorbance lines consistent with our timespace?

Oh brother. Not that imaginary map again. A worshiper of God in spirit would respect the things He revealed to man in His word. It comes from God, and is alive. Living words. He is in them. That is how He appears to us in this timespace that is temporary and physical! After all, it isn't like He walks into you bedroom each day, smiles, and chats it up sitting on your bed now is it?

Are you done worshipping the Bible yet?

 

[dad]

How would that cause the light to have absorption lines that are the same as gases here on Earth? Explain the mechanism.

Simple..where is the light absorbed!!? Here in our timespace. Naturally earth will have the same lines as light in our timespace. However, that doesn't mean that the hydrogen, for example, that we see, exists in the same time. We just SEE it in our time. Whatever it does, it does in our time. When light enters a new time and therefore time/space, it behaves accordingly and follows the laws. Of course I don't really know all this, any more than you know what you claim. But it fits both the evidence and the bible.

You don't even know what produces a star's spectrum, do you?

I don't think you do. However, regardless of what produced it, what we need to deal with is what it is like here in our time. Light and atoms behave a certain way here now.

 

[Loudmouth]

Simple..where is the light absorbed!!? Here in our timespace.

Where?

It seems that you don't understand star spectra at all.

When light enters a new time and therefore time/space, it behaves accordingly and follows the laws.

Where in the lightpath of that light in our time/space is it being absorbed by matter in our time/space in order to produce those absorption lines?

 

[dad]

Why would it line up? You haven't explained that.

What must line up is whatever is here inside our time and space. In this case that means the starlight we see here. We would only see it as it entered our timespace after all.

That light is not interacting with any gasses in our timespace, according to your model. So how could it have absorbance lines consistent with our timespace?

It is existing here! That'll do it! If light from hydrogen enters our time, it will have the properties that it must have to exist here.

Are you done worshipping the Bible yet?

Jesus said the words He spake were spirit and LIFE. Don't you like life?

 

[Loudmouth]

What must line up is whatever is here inside our time and space.

Starlight is not being absorbed by matter in this time/space, according to your model. So where are those absorption lines coming from?

It is existing here! That'll do it! If light from hydrogen enters our time, it will have the properties that it must have to exist here.

That would require the hydrogen to be in our time/space.

 

[dad]

Where?

Where? Out in flippin space somewhere, where else? Space that is OUR space. Our time.

It seems that you don't understand star spectra at all.

I might suggest the same for you.

Where in the lightpath of that light in our time/space is it being absorbed by matter in our time/space in order to produce those absorption lines?

'Where' is a funny word. It almost denotes 3 dimensional coordinates. 'Wherever' our time begins I guess!

 

[Loudmouth]

Where? Out in flippin space somewhere, where else?

Where in our flippin space?

'Where' is a funny word. It almost denotes 3 dimensional coordinates. 'Wherever' our time begins I guess!

You guess?

 

[dad]

Starlight is not being absorbed by matter in this time/space, according to your model. So where are those absorption lines coming from?

If electrons and whatnots exist in our time, and space, and the light is here too, why not have some absorbing? After all, is that not what atoms and light and etc DO here?

That would require the hydrogen to be in our time/space.

We SEE only hydrogen that is HERE. Hydrogen existing in another space and time need not behave as it would here presumably. Since we ONLY see it here, why, of course it must do what it does here.

 

[dad]

Where in our flippin space?

If we could see time, we might be able to know that now wouldn't we? Who wrote the rule that you are supposed to be able to know everything?

You guess?

Yes, that I do, in an educated way.

 

[Loudmouth]

If electrons and whatnots exist in our time, and space, and the light is here too, why not have some absorbing? After all, is that not what atoms and light and etc DO here?

The gasses in our atmopshere and time/space between us and those stars are not capable of producing those absorption lines. They would scatter the light so that it would not be seen by our telescopes.

We SEE only hydrogen that IS. Hydrogen existing in another space and time need not behave as it would here presumably. Since we ONLY see it here, why, of course it must do what it does here.

Then how could that hydrogen in other stars produce absorption lines that are consistent with hydrogen here on Earth?

 

[Astrophile]

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!

If time didn't exist where the star was, binary stars wouldn't have orbital periods, and variable stars wouldn't have a period-luminosity relationship.

 

[Loudmouth]

If time didn't exist where the star was, binary stars wouldn't have orbital periods, and variable stars wouldn't have a period-luminosity relationship.

The Kepler satellite would not have been able to find any planets. We can add that to the list.

 

[Astrophile]

Parallax measurements depend on time. They depend on time either existing, or existing the same as it exists on and near earth deep out in space. Unless time were the same, a year is not a year out there, therefore a lightyear is not a light year.

The distance between the Earth and the Sun was originally measured using the geocentric parallaxes of the planets or near-Earth asteroids. The Sun's geocentric parallax is 8.794143", which translates into a distance of 499.004784 light-seconds. Modern measurements use radar or laser measurements of the light travel-time to the planets. In either case, your argument would invalidate measurements of the Sun-Earth distance. Also, how large do you think the Sun and the planets are?

 

[dad]

The gasses in our atmopshere and time/space between us and those stars are not capable of producing those absorption lines. They would scatter the light so that it would not be seen by our telescopes.

Strawman. It would not be earth atmosphere that does anything but the time and space in and around the solar system.

Then how could that hydrogen in other stars produce absorption lines that are consistent with hydrogen here on Earth?

The light that says 'hydrogen exists' has to enter our time, our space. We have never seen this light before it did!!

 

[dad]

If time didn't exist where the star was, binary stars wouldn't have orbital periods, and variable stars wouldn't have a period-luminosity relationship.

False. Just because something goes round and round does not mean time exists as we know it. How much time does it take to go round? Remember, that can't be determined from looking at it FROM our time!

 

[dad]

The Kepler satellite would not have been able to find any planets. We can add that to the list.

So called planets may be close to dust mites for all we actually know! Just because they orbit something, doesn't make them a planet. It all depends on how far they REALLY are which depends on the time and space there! You have determined all distances and therefore sizes etc strictly from extending our time and space in your mind.

 

[dad]

The distance between the Earth and the Sun was originally measured using the geocentric parallaxes of the planets or near-Earth asteroids. The Sun's geocentric parallax is 8.794143", which translates into a distance of 499.004784 light-seconds.

Great. I think most of us here know that our time and space in the solar system is fine. Yes we can measure distances here. So?? Now you want to what, --extend this to all the universe and beyond!!??

Sorry, not without proof!

Modern measurements use radar or laser measurements of the light travel-time to the planets. In either case, your argument would invalidate measurements of the Sun-Earth distance.

False. Focus man. The sun is in our territory!

Also, how large do you think the Sun and the planets are?

Real planets in our solar system, or the silly little so called exoplanets they cooked up based on religious nonsense and pawned it off as science?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Simple..where is the light absorbed!!? Here in our timespace. Naturally earth will have the same lines as light in our timespace. However, that doesn't mean that the hydrogen, for example, that we see, exists in the same time. We just SEE it in our time. Whatever it does, it does in our time. When light enters a new time and therefore time/space, it behaves accordingly and follows the laws. Of course I don't really know all this, any more than you know what you claim. But it fits both the evidence and the bible.
I don't think you do. However, regardless of what produced it, what we need to deal with is what it is like here in our time. Light and atoms behave a certain way here now.

Denying that the evidence describes anything real is said to qualify as "fits both the evidence and the bible".

You might as well say white is black.

Clearly you are simply rejecting all evidence you don't like on religious grounds.

 

[dad]

Denying that the evidence describes anything real is said to qualify as "fits both the evidence and the bible".

I deny nothing. Be honest. Why don't you admit that the evidence in the bible says that stars are very connected to time and spirits? Must you deny?


Looking at all evidences with a freah and honest approach might be in order here.

I noticed this today, and couldn't help but notice how they seemed to avoid the obvious, and scrambled for explanations from within the box.



"
It is unclear to researchers what the unusual longevity of this particular wave may mean. They are also uncertain as to how fast the wave is moving or how broad a region it covers.

The second tsunami wave helped researchers determine in 2013 that Voyager 1 had left the heliosphere, the bubble created by the solar wind encompassing the sun and the planets in our solar system. Denser plasma "rings" at a higher frequency, and the medium that Voyager flew through, was 40 times denser than what had been previously measured. This was key to the conclusion that Voyager had entered a frontier where no spacecraft had gone before: interstellar space.

"The density of the plasma is higher the farther Voyager goes," Stone said. "Is that because the interstellar medium is denser as Voyager moves away from the heliosphere, or is it from the shock wave itself? We don't know yet."


Voyager - The Interstellar Mission


Ha.

You might as well say white is black.

You might as well post nothing.

Clearly you are simply rejecting all evidence you don't like on religious grounds.

No, you are! We just have a different religion. I accept evidences we have, including the bible. I know you religious folks get furious when we don't believe the way you like.


Isa 13:10 -For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine.

 

[[serious]]

You might as well post nothing.

He did post nothing in a different state past.

Why do you deny a different state past forum?