Why Parallax doesn't work

[Justatruthseeker]

This is the entire premise behind Relativity. The theory that most of you profess but refuse to follow. Not only is there no such thing as absolute motion, but neither of absolute distance or time. All is "Relative" to the frame under consideration. There is no "universal" or absolute anything. It is all dependent on your, and your perspective alone. Only the frame that you choose to call the rest frame is relevant. And with each choice of frames undergoing acceleration, everything changes proportionally, so that again, it is relevant only in that frame in which the lengths, times and speeds are determined.

And with every change of speed, rulers shrink, clocks slow, dependent on that added energy, and what was once a light year is now shorter - even though you still call it a light-year, and to you nothing has changed, because you also changed with the clock and ruler.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

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?

Heh heh. Words are cheap with this one! But light brings us information and your desire to disregard that information will be ignored.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Heh heh. Words are cheap with this one! But light brings us information and your desire to disregard that information will be ignored.

What information? That rulers shrink under acceleration, but the distance between A and B magically remains one light year in both a stationary and accelerating frame, despite being told the rulers just shrunk that we measure this distance with? Someone is definitely giving us bogus information and ignoring part of it, we all certainly agree to that.

In other words you cant answer without ignoring that you also insist the rulers measuring this distance have shrunk, leaving no choice but to accept the distance in the accelerating frame is now larger than in the stationary frame according to your rulers.

I understand, I really do. It's ok that you find it necessary to ignore your own science. I'd ignore it too if I was in your shoes trying to perpetuate that Fairie Dust. I'd ignore it too if I just told everyone the rulers shrunk, but still magically measure the same distance as they did before they shrunk. What other option do you really have, but to ignore it, since you refuse to accept your own science?

 

[Loudmouth]

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 determines the energy of the atomic system for a given element?

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.

It has to do with density? Really? Can you back that up with anything?

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

Stars within our little corner of the galaxy, those whose distance can be measured by parallax, are not having their wavelengths changed by expanding space. They could be affected by doppler shifts due to different galactic orbital speeds, but that is a different question altogether.

Galactic redshift is not on topic for discussing our closest neighbors.

 

[Loudmouth]

What information? That rulers shrink under acceleration, but the distance between A and B magically remains one light year in both a stationary and accelerating frame, despite being told the rulers just shrunk that we measure this distance with? Someone is definitely giving us bogus information and ignoring part of it, we all certainly agree to that.

You reject Relativity? You disagree that the speed of light is the same in all frames of reference?

Need we remind you of the Hafele-Keating experiment?

Hafele?Keating experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I understand, I really do. It's ok that you find it necessary to ignore your own science. I'd ignore it too if I was in your shoes trying to perpetuate that Fairie Dust. I'd ignore it too if I just told everyone the rulers shrunk, but still magically measure the same distance as they did before they shrunk. What other option do you really have, but to ignore it, since you refuse to accept your own science?

Relativity is Fairie Dust?

 

[time]

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.

Do they not allow then a time difference by their own reckoning, even if it is small?

 

[time]

But light brings us information ...

True. And that info train travels on a track that starts beyond anywhere we know, have been, or can really talk about.

Can you start by showing how we can be sure the light we see originated at the star (where the word star is used to mean any point in deepest space)? In other words the absorbing we see in the spectra. Show an example of a star or galaxy that has it's light absorbed by nearby gas for example.

 

[Loudmouth]

Do they not allow then a time difference by their own reckoning, even if it is small?

If time were ticking at a different rate in nearby stars, then we would see a measureable shift in the spectra of those nearby stars. Given the fact that dad wants to shove 13 billion years of photon travel into 2,000 years, it would be a very noticeable shift.

As justa mentions, distance and time are all tied together and they change with each other. This means that if you change time, you also change distance. For light, this change in distance will increase or decrease the distance between the peaks and troughs of the photon's wavelength. If there is a change in timespace, then we will see a shift in wavelength. Instead, we see the same spectra of wavelengths coming from distant stars that we see from elements here on Earth. This tells us that there is no difference in distance and time between us and those stars.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Do they not allow then a time difference by their own reckoning, even if it is small?

None at all, since they still claim rulers that have shrunk still measure the same exact distance they did before they shrunk.

And I for one, do not agree that an expansion that occurred that was faster than c itself, and is continuing to this day, and increasing, is small.

But then I'm not the one proposing a "continued, increasing expansion" that was faster than c to begin with.

I am proposing a reasonable explanation in line with observations.

A New Non-Doppler Redshift

I am proposing as well that the newly discovered deceleration of the solar wind, is the cause as well of that radiation (CMBR) they misinterpret to mean is from the beginning.

I propose nothing not observed. I propose that the Dark Matter is only still "dark", because they ignore what it really is.

NASA's Chandra Shows Milky Way is Surrounded by Halo of Hot Gas | NASA

That likewise with dark energy. It also remains "dark" because they continue to ignore those electromagnetic effects in plasma.

There is nothing small about it, since we have measured those clocks slowing and rulers shrinking, right here in "this" frame, let alone in a frame accelerating away from us faster than c to begin with.

 

[Loudmouth]

True. And that info train travels on a track that starts beyond anywhere we know, have been, or can really talk about.

We are directly observing it. That seems like very direct knowledge of a place. How is observing a star across the galaxy any different than observing a clock across the room?

Can you start by showing how we can be sure the light we see originated at the star (where the word star is used to mean any point in
deepest space)?

The same way that you can determine that light originates from a clock across the room. We can directly see it.

In other words the absorbing we see in the spectra. Show an example of a star or galaxy that has it's light absorbed by nearby gas for example.

That would be like seeing the light from the bright sun on a clear day and the diffuse light on a cloudy day. The nearby gas of Earth's clouds absorb and scatter the light, producing a difssue light source. The fact that we see pin-pricks of light very far away is proof that the light is coming from a distant source and not being scattered by a nearby source.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

True. And that info train travels on a track that starts beyond anywhere we know, have been, or can really talk about.

Can you start by showing how we can be sure the light we see originated at the star (where the word star is used to mean any point in deepest space)? In other words the absorbing we see in the spectra. Show an example of a star or galaxy that has it's light absorbed by nearby gas for example.

Yet mainstream insists it knows all, and rejects any other theory but what they have already decided is true, even if it is now so murky we can't really talk about it. Yet 10 posts ago where positive about it. Not blaming him, he just repeated what he was brainwashed with from an early age.

 

[Loudmouth]

None at all, since they still claim rulers that have shrunk still measure the same exact distance they did before they shrunk.

And I for one, do not agree that an expansion that occurred that was faster than c itself, and is continuing to this day, and increasing, is small.

There is no expansion between us and the stars that are being measured with parallax. That isn't even on topic.

Also, changes in distance and time due to acceleration and gravity are measured here on Earth.

Hafele?Keating experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We could also discuss the different clock rates in GPS satellites caused by Earth's gravity well.

GPS and Relativity

Perhaps a simple question for you. If you are driving 100 mph and turn on your headlights, are the photons coming out of your headlights going c+100mph?

 

[time]

If time were ticking at a different rate in nearby stars, then we would see a measureable shift in the spectra of those nearby stars. Given the fact that dad wants to shove 13 billion years of photon travel into 2,000 years, it would be a very noticeable shift.

In what way can you claim 'time' should affect the spectra in any way, measurable or not exactly? "Ticking at a different rate"? If time was, as this thread seems to suggest, possibly non existent, or different in it's very nature, I doubt we would look for time to merely tick faster or slower as we know it.

As justa mentions, distance and time are all tied together and they change with each other.

At least in theory.

This means that if you change time, you also change distance.

Did not this thread also suggest space (distance) would likely also be different?

For light, this change in distance will increase or decrease the distance between the peaks and troughs of the photon's wavelength.

If space is not the same, the meaning of those waves loses any meaningful connection to the meanings we think of in this bubble of time and space. If time is not there, or not as we know it, any 'time' it takes waves to move or do anything loses meaning to us.

If there is a change in timespace, then we will see a shift in wavelength.

Is not redshift a shift?

Instead, we see the same spectra of wavelengths coming from distant stars that we see from elements here on Earth.

That wouldn't matter if the wavelengths of light came into a bubble of different time. The scattering of light here would have to be as it is.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

We are directly observing it. That seems like very direct knowledge of a place. How is observing a star across the galaxy any different than observing a clock across the room?

That clock across the room, is traveling at the same relative velocity as you - the observer - contains the same amount of energy relative to you. That clock on the pole and the one on the equator, do not even remotely tick the same rate. One across the universe and moving at velocities we can't even conceive of?

The same way that you can determine that light originates from a clock across the room. We can directly see it.

You see no star - you see a point source in even the best of telescopes. The light from the sun is 8 minutes old, you see it as it "was" 8 minutes ago and in the place it is not. Yet you calculate the suns position based only upon it's "present" position, but not so with distant galaxies. You calculate them on their past position, while using that explanation to describe the present as you now see it. But you do not see it as it is "now" except across the room, which is still milliseconds into the past. You use the past positions of galaxies - as they are now seen - and insist it is what is happening now.

That would be like seeing the light from the bright sun on a clear day and the diffuse light on a cloudy day. The nearby gas of Earth's clouds absorb and scatter the light, producing a difssue light source. The fact that we see pin-pricks of light very far away is proof that the light is coming from a distant source and not being scattered by a nearby source.

Only if we continue to ignore that it is "plasma" it is transmitting through, not "gas". IF we ignore that charged state of matter that comprises 99% of the universe.

Bremsstrahlung - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"An analysis of the doubly differential cross section above shows that electrons whose kinetic energy is larger than the rest energy (511 keV) emit photons in forward direction while electrons with a small energy emit photons isotropically."

 

[Loudmouth]

That clock across the room, is traveling at the same relative velocity as you - the observer - contains the same amount of energy relative to you.

How do you know that?

You see no star - you see a point source in even the best of telescopes. The light from the sun is 8 minutes old, you see it as it "was" 8 minutes ago and in the place it is not. Yet you calculate the suns position based only upon it's "present" position, but not so with distant galaxies. You calculate them on their past position, while using that explanation to describe the present as you now see it. But you do not see it as it is "now" except across the room, which is still milliseconds into the past. You use the past positions of galaxies - as they are now seen - and insist it is what is happening now.

You are only highlighting the arbitrary nature of your argument. You have invented a distance that you will accept and one you won't for no apparent reason.

Only if we continue to ignore that it is "plasma" it is transmitting through, not "gas". IF we ignore that charged state of matter that comprises 99% of the universe.

Plasma would scatter the light and we would not see a point source. This is basic physics.

 

[time]

We are directly observing it.

You think you are apparently. You are seeing light from inside our bubble, and the info it contains would NOT be direct. Therefore, it seems that your belief that it is direct may indeed be just that, a belief.

How is observing a star across the galaxy any different than observing a clock across the room?

How is observing light in a fishbowl different than observing light at a movie theater? How is surfing the net on a restricted site different than surfing it on a site with far less restrictions...we see more. So of course if time and space were different light would reflect that. But the way it would reflect that inside our bubble is not by behaving weird here. (weird by our laws).

The same way that you can determine that light originates from a clock across the room. We can directly see it.

You know what is all the way from one point to the other here. Not there. here, you are making all determinations from the one point of reference.

The nearby gas of Earth's clouds absorb and scatter the light, producing a difssue light source.

That is fine.

Light within the bubble itself can be affected in many ways, such as clouds.

The fact that we see pin-pricks of light very far away is proof that the light is coming from a distant source and not being scattered by a nearby source.

No really. Seeing little pinpricks of light inside a huge bubble bigger than the solar system doesn't mean that we are seeing the light exactly as it was at source.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

There is no expansion between us and the stars that are being measured with parallax. That isn't even on topic.

So you are now claiming the laws of physics are not the same everywhere - while not 2 posts ago where claiming they were? It's quite on topic.

Also, changes in distance and time due to acceleration and gravity are measured here on Earth.

But will ignore them in galaxies that began to expand faster than c 13.7 billion years ago?

Hafele?Keating experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We could also discuss the different clock rates in GPS satellites caused by Earth's gravity well.

GPS and Relativity

Perhaps a simple question for you. If you are driving 100 mph and turn on your headlights, are the photons coming out of your headlights going c+100mph?

Yes we could discuss them both. Why not Michelson and Morley too? or the Brillet and Hall experiment as well?

The GPS and the Constant Velocity of Light

The Overlooked Phenomena in the Michelson-Morley Experiment

Design error in the Brillet and Hall's Experiment

We could discuss stellar aberration as well.

Stellar Aberration and Einstein's Relativity

Or even the advance of the perihelion of Mercury.

A Detailed Classical Description of the Advance of the Perihelion of Mercury

And in none of them do I need to assume ad-hoc assumptions. Just what is observed.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Perhaps a simple question for you. If you are driving 100 mph and turn on your headlights, are the photons coming out of your headlights going c+100mph?

Yes it is, because you have measured nothing but the two-way velocity of light. You measure c+v one way and c-v the other.

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

And this is why it appears as a constant regardless of how fast you may actually be traveling in space. because do not forget, your clocks slow and your rulers shrink proportionally as energy is added.

 

[Loudmouth]

In what way can you claim 'time' should affect the spectra in any way, measurable or not exactly?

Time and space are one in the same. Change one, and you change the other. Change time, and you change the distance between the peaks and troughs of the photon wavelength.

"Ticking at a different rate"? If time was, as this thread seems to suggest, possibly non existent, or different in it's very nature, I doubt we would look for time to merely tick faster or slower as we know it.

If time were completely different, why do we make the exact same spacetime observations of distant stars that we do here on Earth? Why can we find the same exactly oxygen absorption lines in distant stars that we observe in our own Sun, and in Earth based labs for that matter?

At least in theory.

Relativity has been confirmed by experimentation, such as the Hafele-Keating experiment, GPS satellites, and the fact that protons gain mass in particle accelerators.

If space is not the same, the meaning of those waves loses any meaningful connection to the meanings we think of in this bubble of time and space. If time is not there, or not as we know it, any 'time' it takes waves to move or do anything loses meaning to us.

Then why do they have meaning? Why do the emission and absorption lines from distant stars match our own Sun and experiments on Earth? If that light is being produced in a completely different manner, then why does it exactly match our space and time?

Is not redshift a shift?

Stars in our own galaxy, those that are measured by parallax, are not redshifted by space expansion. The amount of shift needed in dad's fantasies would be very extreme, even for stars in our galaxy.

That wouldn't matter if the wavelengths of light came into a bubble of different time. The scattering of light here would have to be as it is.

The light isn't scattered in our bubble. If it were, we would not be able to see distant specks. We would see a cloud of hazy dust around our Solar System and no stars, according to dad's fantasies.