Why Parallax doesn't work

[Loudmouth]

How in the world would you know??! You been somewhere where there was no time as we know it?

The evidence shows that stars are in our timespace.

No. And here is the simple reason why I was talking about -- anything here must be the way we see it. No matter how it was where the star is! All you can see is how it must exist here.

There are no stars on Earth.

Occam's razor slices away your fantasies just fine. There is no need for a magical and unevidenced fishbowl that changes light so that it perfectly matches what we would expect from no fishbowl existing.

You have not been able to point to a single bit of evidence that is inconistent with stars being in our timespace. Not one. There is absolutley no reason that a separate timespace with different laws would produce observations that are identical to a same state past. None.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The evidence shows that stars are in our timespace.



There are no stars on Earth.

Occam's razor slices away your fantasies just fine. There is no need for a magical and unevidenced fishbowl that changes light so that it perfectly matches what we would expect from no fishbowl existing.

You have not been able to point to a single bit of evidence that is inconistent with stars being in our timespace. Not one. There is absolutley no reason that a separate timespace with different laws would produce observations that are identical to a same state past. None.

So you agree that that surface of "last scattering" is Fairie Dust?

So you will ignore that acceleration changes the clock's oscillation rates?

So tell me, how much has our clock changed due to this acceleration from a stationary reference frame? If we are undergoing a "continued" acceleration, our clocks and rulers are continuously increasing in KE and continuing to slow and shrink.

Kinetic energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"In physics, the kinetic energy of an object is the energy that it possesses due to its motion. It is defined as the work needed to accelerate a body of a given mass from rest to its stated velocity. Having gained this energy during its acceleration, the body maintains this kinetic energy unless its speed changes. The same amount of work is done by the body in decelerating from its current speed to a state of rest." emph. mine.



[FONT=&quot]So why are you trying to imply by expansion, that instead, everything is increasing in KE, continuously; since everything is increasing in acceleration, i.e. its speed is changing? If that's the case the laws of physics aren't the same as they were yesterday and your light year gets shorter with each passing tick of time, which is never of the same duration; as your rulers continue to shrink and your clocks continue to slow as KE continuously increases. We are not discussing mere velocity, where the KE can remain constant - per observations, but increasing acceleration, i.e., changes in speed, by which the KE must continuously increase as well.[/FONT]

 

[Loudmouth]

So you agree that that surface of "last scattering" is Fairie Dust?

Just like dad, you don't understand the science.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Just like dad, you don't understand the science.

Oh no, I understand the "science" quite well. That's why we can reject all those ad-hoc Fairie Dust theories not based on any actual science.

But back to the question at hand:

So tell me, how much has our clock changed due to this acceleration from a stationary reference frame? If we are undergoing a "continued" acceleration, our clocks and rulers are continuously increasing in KE and continuing to slow and shrink.

Kinetic energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"In physics, the kinetic energy of an object is the energy that it possesses due to its motion. It is defined as the work needed to accelerate a body of a given mass from rest to its stated velocity. Having gained this energy during its acceleration, the body maintains this kinetic energy unless its speed changes. The same amount of work is done by the body in decelerating from its current speed to a state of rest." emph. mine.



[FONT=&quot]So why are you trying to imply by expansion, that instead, everything is increasing in KE, continuously; since everything is increasing in acceleration, i.e. its speed is changing? If that's the case the laws of physics aren't the same as they were yesterday and your light year gets shorter with each passing tick of time, which is never of the same duration; as your rulers continue to shrink and your clocks continue to slow as KE continuously increases. We are not discussing mere velocity, where the KE can remain constant - per observations, but increasing acceleration, i.e., changes in speed, by which the KE must continuously increase as well.[/FONT]

 

[Loudmouth]

Oh know, I understand the "science" quite well. That's why we can reject all those ad-hoc Fairie Dust theories not based on any actual science.

What does the absorption spectrum of a star have to do with fairie dust?

Again, you demonstrate your own ignorance.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

What does the absorption spectrum of a star have to do with fairie dust?

Again, you demonstrate your own ignorance.

Just what do you think governs absorption and emission spectra, when we are discussing energy states in atoms that give off or interact with light quanta????

Answer the question:

So tell me, how much has our clock changed due to this acceleration from a stationary reference frame? If we are undergoing a "continued" acceleration, our clocks and rulers are continuously increasing in KE and continuing to slow and shrink.

Kinetic energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"In physics, the kinetic energy of an object is the energy that it possesses due to its motion. It is defined as the work needed to accelerate a body of a given mass from rest to its stated velocity. Having gained this energy during its acceleration, the body maintains this kinetic energy unless its speed changes. The same amount of work is done by the body in decelerating from its current speed to a state of rest." emph. mine.



[FONT=&quot]So why are you trying to imply by expansion, that instead, everything is increasing in KE, continuously; since everything is increasing in acceleration, i.e. its speed is changing? If that's the case the laws of physics aren't the same as they were yesterday and your light year gets shorter with each passing tick of time, which is never of the same duration; as your rulers continue to shrink and your clocks continue to slow as KE continuously increases. We are not discussing mere velocity, where the KE can remain constant - per observations, but increasing acceleration, i.e., changes in speed, by which the KE must continuously increase as well.[/FONT]

 

[Loudmouth]

Just what do you think governs absorption and emission spectra, when we are discussing energy states in atoms that give off or interact with light quanta????

Answer the question:

So tell me, how much has our clock changed due to this acceleration from a stationary reference frame? If we are undergoing a "continued" acceleration, our clocks and rulers are continuously increasing in KE and continuing to slow and shrink.

That question has nothing to do with star spectra.

Please explain what produces star spectra. That is what we are discussing.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

That question has nothing to do with star spectra.

Please explain what produces star spectra. That is what we are discussing.

The only thing you know that produces it.

Electromagnetic radiation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Electromagnetic radiation (EM radiation or EMR) is a form of radiant energy released by certain electromagnetic processes....


...Classically, EMR consists of electromagnetic waves, which are synchronized oscillations of electric and magnetic fields that propagate at the speed of light...

...Electromagnetic waves are produced whenever charged particles are accelerated, and these waves can subsequently interact with any charged particles."

I don't know what fantasy world you live in, but in science we are discussing electrical and magnetic phenomenon. Something you know nothing about.

So tell me, how much has our clock changed due to this acceleration from a stationary reference frame? If we are undergoing a "continued" acceleration, our clocks and rulers are continuously increasing in KE and continuing to slow and shrink.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

The only thing you know that produces it.

Electromagnetic radiation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Electromagnetic radiation (EM radiation or EMR) is a form of radiant energy released by certain electromagnetic processes....


...Classically, EMR consists of electromagnetic waves, which are synchronized oscillations of electric and magnetic fields that propagate at the speed of light...

...Electromagnetic waves are produced whenever charged particles are accelerated, and these waves can subsequently interact with any charged particles."

I don't know what fantasy world you live in, but in science we are discussing electrical and magnetic phenomenon. Something you know nothing about.

So tell me, how much has our clock changed due to this acceleration from a stationary reference frame? If we are undergoing a "continued" acceleration, our clocks and rulers are continuously increasing in KE and continuing to slow and shrink.

What has a star shining light that has interesting spectral lines in it got to do with acceleration vs stationary reference time? Of course, stars that are in motion have a Doppler shift . . . . is that all you're talking about?

 

[Loudmouth]

The only thing you know that produces it.

Electromagnetic radiation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Electromagnetic radiation (EM radiation or EMR) is a form of radiant energy released by certain electromagnetic processes....


...Classically, EMR consists of electromagnetic waves, which are synchronized oscillations of electric and magnetic fields that propagate at the speed of light...

...Electromagnetic waves are produced whenever charged particles are accelerated, and these waves can subsequently interact with any charged particles."

I don't know what fantasy world you live in, but in science we are discussing electrical and magnetic phenomenon. Something you know nothing about.

So tell me, how much has our clock changed due to this acceleration from a stationary reference frame? If we are undergoing a "continued" acceleration, our clocks and rulers are continuously increasing in KE and continuing to slow and shrink.

How do you explain the dark areas in the spectrum of a star?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

How do you explain the dark areas in the spectrum of a star?

How do you explain it, since every single atom in existence is made up of the same exact protons, neutrons, and electrons as every other atom, just in different configurations and numbers. It is the energy of the atomic system that governs the frequency of the "electromagnetic" radiation that is emitted, or absorbed. There is nothing magical about it.

What, do you think gold is made up of different protons, electrons and neutrons than make up lead??????? The only thing different between them is energy, increasing or decreasing the Bohr radius allowing smaller or larger orbitals and hence density.

The only thing different is the energy content of the entire atomic structure, being everything in existence is made up of the exact same protons, neutrons and electrons that make up everything else.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

How do you explain it, since every single atom in existence is made up of the same exact protons, neutrons, and electrons as every other atom, just in different configurations and numbers. It is the energy of the atomic system that governs the frequency of the "electromagnetic" radiation that is emitted, or absorbed. There is nothing magical about it.

What, do you think gold is made up of different protons, electrons and neutrons than make up lead??????? The only thing different between them is energy, increasing or decreasing the Bohr radius allowing smaller or larger orbitals and hence density.

The only thing different is the energy content of the entire atomic structure, being everything in existence is made up of the exact same protons, neutrons and electrons that make up everything else.

So, in other words, seeing same spectra across the universe implies that the same state of physics exists across the universe, and therefore across time as well since we see further and further backwards in time as we look into the greater distances.

 

[DerelictJunction]

How do you explain it, since every single atom in existence is made up of the same exact protons, neutrons, and electrons as every other atom, just in different configurations and numbers. It is the energy of the atomic system that governs the frequency of the "electromagnetic" radiation that is emitted, or absorbed. There is nothing magical about it.

What, do you think gold is made up of different protons, electrons and neutrons than make up lead??????? The only thing different between them is energy, increasing or decreasing the Bohr radius allowing smaller or larger orbitals and hence density.

The only thing different is the energy content of the entire atomic structure, being everything in existence is made up of the exact same protons, neutrons and electrons that make up everything else.

Your answer makes it obvious that you have no idea about the mechanism for the spectrum of light emitted by atoms.

I recommend you learn about it before continuing in this line of discussion.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Your answer makes it obvious that you have no idea about the mechanism for the spectrum of light emitted by atoms.

I recommend you learn about it before continuing in this line of discussion.

On the contrary, that was a very good answer.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I do not deny spectra or anything else actually,

he said, emphatically, and then

don't be sore just because I won't swallow your take on the evidence. I don't find your particular manscience belief system to be of God.

before our eyes he denied something., i.e. "your take" on evidence and "your particulary manscience belief system".

Its both amusing and kind of sad, watching the other side contradict itself over and over . . .

 

[time]

How do you explain it, since every single atom in existence is made up of the same exact protons, neutrons, and electrons as every other atom, just in different configurations and numbers. It is the energy of the atomic system that governs the frequency of the "electromagnetic" radiation that is emitted, or absorbed....

The gist of this thread's OP seems to be that it depends on what sector of the universe and time, that these atoms happen to be in when observed.

Loudmouth claims that seeing atoms the way we do means that they must be that way at source also. I am not sure how that could be unless, indeed, it is the same 'timespace' as it seems to be called in this thread.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The gist of this thread's OP seems to be that it depends on what sector of the universe and time, that these atoms happen to be in when observed.

Loudmouth claims that seeing atoms the way we do means that they must be that way at source also. I am not sure how that could be unless, indeed, it is the same 'timespace' as it seems to be called in this thread.

And yet everything is undergoing a "claimed" increasing, accelerating expansion, and by the very math they claim to follow, clocks slow and rulers shrink under acceleration. So clearly any two things separated by distance and acceleration not traveling together in the same general translational motion fail to share the same time or distance measurements.

I am simply asking that they apply the very theory they claim to follow.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Your answer makes it obvious that you have no idea about the mechanism for the spectrum of light emitted by atoms.

I recommend you learn about it before continuing in this line of discussion.

Your answer makes it clear you understand even less, by attempting to imply it is always someone else that does not understand, without presenting anything that supports your contention. Opinions are a dime a dozen and worth less than a penny each.

You haven't even thrown in 2 cents worth yet.

I simply accept science, that both gold and lead are made of the same exact protons, neutrons and electrons that make up any other substance. Unless you believe otherwise?

If so you have 200+ years of laboratory evidence to argue against. if not, then what choice but the energy of the atomic system is different????

I mean, we are discussing electromagnetic emissions, are we not?????

 

[Justatruthseeker]

he said, emphatically, and then



before our eyes he denied something., i.e. "your take" on evidence and "your particulary manscience belief system".

Its both amusing and kind of sad, watching the other side contradict itself over and over . . .

So if you were to argue 1+1 = 3 and I refused to accept that conclusion, that would make me wrong? I would still accept math, still accept 1+1 = 2. Would not be denying the foundation, just someone's interpretation of that foundation. There is a difference.

Not that I think Dad has much of anything right, but he's got you all beat on this subject of time hands down. His only problem is he doesn't see that it is your own theory that defeated you from the start.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

So, in other words, seeing same spectra across the universe implies that the same state of physics exists across the universe, and therefore across time as well since we see further and further backwards in time as we look into the greater distances.

Except you do not see the light until it enters "your frame of reference", measured by "your" clocks and rulers, in "this" frame. If measured in that frame, your own theory tells you the measurements would be different - that the clocks would be slower, the rulers shorter. That any observer in "that" frame would see different results than you see in "this" frame.

Clearly evident in the GPS system right here in "this" frame and "their" frame. So can we all be honest and admit the only time we have ever measured the same thing for anything is within the "same frame of reference"?

Or do we need to discuss twins that age differently in different frames of reference, thereby altering the laws of physics as we understand them in "this" frame?

You confuse "proportionality" based upon energy content as being the same. Therefore even the distances where the emissions lines start and stop are different in each frame under consideration, depending only opon the energy content of each frames clock and rulers - that changes proportionally to that energy content so that they merely "appear" to be the same.

Again, you are not measuring the emission lines starting and stopping points by the emitters frame of reference, but by the receivers frame of reference, in which measurements are in proportion to the energy content in the receivers frame.

A one meter ruler in a stationary and accelerating frame are not in actuality one meter each. It only "appears" to the accelerating frame that it is one meter, because it too is affected by that energy content, proportionally to its acceleration. You may call them both meters, but we all understand they both can not be a meter. They only "appear" to be one meter each in each frame under consideration, by an observer in that frame, who has also changed proportionally to that energy content. What, you think only clocks and rulers are affected, and not you and your senses as well?