Why Parallax doesn't work

[Loudmouth]

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

So you are saying that acceleration of the source adds to the speed of light? Really?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

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

Why? "YOU" change as well. It is not just clocks and rulers that are affected, but everything. Everything in existence also changes, depending only on the frame the observer chooses to observe.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

So you are saying that acceleration of the source adds to the speed of light? Really?

Can you show differently? Again, you have only measured the two-way velocity of light. But now and then you get readings that don't jive, but chalk it up to random error. Or perhaps, you did manage to measure that one-way speed by accident.

With an increase in velocity, would we not expect an increase or decrease in wavelength, since energy increases or decreases depending on said?

 

[Loudmouth]

Can you show differently?

Hafele-Keating experiment.

Hafele?Keating experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GPS satellites:

GPS and Relativity

You know, the experiments you keep ignoring.

With an increase in velocity, would we not expect an increase or decrease in wavelength, since energy increases or decreases depending on said?

Then how do you explain the doppler shift of light?

 

[Loudmouth]

Why? "YOU" change as well. It is not just clocks and rulers that are affected, but everything. Everything in existence also changes, depending only on the frame the observer chooses to observe.

Then you admit that time and space both change. This is why the speed of light is measured to be the same by all observers in all frames of reference. Driving at 100 mph does not add 100 mph to the speed of the light coming out of your headlights. The driver will measure the same speed of light as someone sitting stationary on the ground. The observation that will be different for the observers is the wavelength of that light.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Then you admit that time and space both change. This is why the speed of light is measured to be the same by all observers in all frames of reference. Driving at 100 mph does not add 100 mph to the speed of the light coming out of your headlights. The driver will measure the same speed of light as someone sitting stationary on the ground. The observation that will be different for the observers is the wavelength of that light.

Yes I do, but not for the illogical reasoning you assert. All observers read the same speed for c regardless of their velocity, because c is not a universal constant, but is frame dependent. The one sitting on the ground only measures it with his clock and rulers, which read a different time and distance than the moving frame. He measures it's speed, only as it passes him (c+v), is reflected, and reaches back to him (c-v). He measures it only in his frame with his clocks, clocks that run faster and rulers that are longer, so the increased velocity of light from the moving car is still proportional.


Not the "same," but "proportional." You need to note this distinction.

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes I do, but not for the illogical reasoning you assert. All observers read the same speed for c regardless of their velocity, because c is not a universal constant, but is frame dependent.

If it was frame dependent, then observers would measure a different c.

The one sitting on the ground only measures it with his clock and rulers, which read a different time and distance than the moving frame. He measures it's speed, only as it passes him (c+v), is reflected, and reaches back to him (c-v).

We could set up an experiment without reflectors and the results would be the same. All observers would measure the same speed of light.

He measures it only in his frame with his clocks, clocks that run faster and rulers that are longer, so the increased velocity of light from the moving car is still proportional.

All observers will observe the same speed of light. What will differ is the wavelength of light that they observe.

Not the "same," but "proportional." You need to note this distinction.

They would measure the same. Period.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

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?

Your parody of what science says is ridiculous and that is not enough to declare science ridiculous.

Here, lets have a little fun, show me your understanding of such things

Postulate two civilizations, each in a star system stationary with relationship to the other, at a distance of 10 light years from each other, and they are in radio communcation; by a dramatic coincidence their years are identical.

So they celebrate new years together, each hearing the other's new year celebration as 10 years old, at the same time they have their own.

A starship leaves the first, the day after new years day, to go to the second, traveling at 87 percent of the speed of light. It is an 11 and a half year long journey, more or less.

How many annual new year celebrations will the crew of the well-equipped ship receive from the second system, on their journey to that system?

After you manage to successfully answer that one, I'll have some relativity theory questions to ask you about the journey, which I wonder if you will be able to say what relativity theory predicts.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

If it was frame dependent, then observers would measure a different c.

Why? They do not use the same distance or time. If it was the same they would all measure different times and speeds, being their clock and rulers all read different measurements.

We could set up an experiment without reflectors and the results would be the same. All observers would measure the same speed of light.

In their own frame using their own rulers. Which is why GPS clocks do not read c for light in their frame when adjusted to the ECF. They only read c for light in the ECF frame.

All observers will observe the same speed of light. What will differ is the wavelength of light that they observe.

They can't all measure the same speed. none of their clocks or rulers are the same. They read nothing but proportionality depending on their speed.

They would measure the same. Period.

Repeat it often enough and maybe you'll really start to believe it. They can't measure the same speed, all their clocks and rulers read differently. So in reality it is nothing but proportionality they measure, in proportion to their velocity and the energy contained within the system under observation.

 

[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.

And welcome to the discussion. Maybe this might turn interesting

 

[Loudmouth]

Why? They do not use the same distance or time. If it was the same they would all measure different times and speeds, being their clock and rulers all read different measurements.

The clocks and rulers change so that the speed of light is the same for all observers.

In their own frame using their own rulers. Which is why GPS clocks do not read c for light in their frame when adjusted to the ECF. They only read c for light in the ECF frame.

Their clocks read time in their frame. Those clocks tick the same when they are on Earth, but they tick at a different rate once they are in orbit compared to clocks on Earth. That is the observation. Time moves at different rates relative to a gravity well.

They can't all measure the same speed. none of their clocks or rulers are the same. They read nothing but proportionality depending on their speed.

The measure the time it takes light to get from point A to point B. For all observers, the speed is the same.

Repeat it often enough and maybe you'll really start to believe it. They can't measure the same speed, all their clocks and rulers read differently. So in reality it is nothing but proportionality they measure, in proportion to their velocity and the energy contained within the system under observation.

All of their rulers and clocks measure the same speed of light.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The clocks and rulers change so that the speed of light is the same for all observers.

So light isn't constant, else it would be different for every observer since none of their clocks or rulers are the same. Agreed.

Their clocks read time in their frame. Those clocks tick the same when they are on Earth, but they tick at a different rate once they are in orbit compared to clocks on Earth. That is the observation. Time moves at different rates relative to a gravity well.

As does light, since it is measured by those clocks that change.

The measure the time it takes light to get from point A to point B. For all observers, the speed is the same.

No its not. The accelerating observers rulers says light has traveled one light-year before it reaches B, since his rulers are shorter. As a matter of fact, he will insist A & B are further apart than one light year.

All of their rulers and clocks measure the same speed of light.

Agreed, because they all read differently, and therefore light must be different in each frame as well. If light was truly a constant regardless of velocity, then rulers that are shorter would read a different time. The light according to the moving observer - does not reach B after one-light year has passed according to it's rulers.

 

[Loudmouth]

So light isn't constant, else it would be different for every observer since none of their clocks or rulers are the same.

It is constant. All observers measure the same speed of light. The rulers and clocks change so that all observers measure the same speed of light.

If rulers and clocks did NOT change, then different observers would measure DIFFERENT speeds for light. I already gave you a perfect example. If clocks and rulers did not change, then a driver of a car would measure a different speed of light than someone sitting still on the roadside. If rulers and clocks did not change then someone seeing a car drive towards them would measure the speed of light at c + v. That is not what they observe. They observe c. That is because the driver's clock is running at a different rate than the person on the ground.

Agreed, because they all read differently, and therefore light must be different in each frame as well.

The speed of light is the same in all frame's of reference.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

It is constant. All observers measure the same speed of light. The rulers and clocks change so that all observers measure the same speed of light.

If rulers and clocks did NOT change, then different observers would measure DIFFERENT speeds for light. I already gave you a perfect example. If clocks and rulers did not change, then a driver of a car would measure a different speed of light than someone sitting still on the roadside. If rulers and clocks did not change then someone seeing a car drive towards them would measure the speed of light at c + v. That is not what they observe. They observe c. That is because the driver's clock is running at a different rate than the person on the ground.



The speed of light is the same in all frame's of reference.

Again, you confuse "proportionality" amongst changing measuring devices - as being the "same."

Einstein himself told you that absolute motion can not be determined. And that therefore absolute distance and absolute time that rely on the motion of those devices can likewise not be determined. This is the theory of relativity. That all measurements depending on motion are relative only to the frame under observation. You fail to understand the basics of theory you profess. All of mainstream does.

Because even though everything is relative only to the frame under consideration, they wish to also assert that everything is also the same, else they have no continuity. Which they don't.

Two rulers of different lengths will never read the same distance. Two clocks that tick at different rates, will never read the same time. You insist the clocks are slower, the rulers shorter, then tell us the distances read the same. You are so confused, you cannot even see how illogical are your claims.

If A & B are one light year apart to the stationary observer, it MUST be greater than one light year to the moving observer - otherwise they would see light exceed the speed of c by their own clocks and rulers.

You are lost in the realms of Fairie Dust, the glitter so bright you cannot see to make your way out.

Rulers and clocks would only measure different speeds for c - IF that speed was a constant in all frames. GPS has already shown that clocks do not measure c for light in their frame, because their clocks have been adjusted to the earth centered frame. When not adjusted, they read c in their frame, but not in the earth centered frame. The speed of c is relevant only to the clocks and rulers used to measure it with. Clocks and rulers that change relative to the energy content of the system under observation. Clocks and rulers that rely on that motion which is not absolute.

Two clocks reading different times, could never read the same elapsed time for any event if it was constant, unless that event was "proportional" to the clocks rate of change - energy content, in that frame where it is measured. Measured by clocks that have changed the rate at which they tell time. Rulers that no longer read the same distance they did before.

All because no one understands light - not even me. Yes - even me. Sit down, I know.

Modern theory would have it be the silly putty of the universe. Capable upon impact of transferring the detail of any object interacted with to a distant observer with minute detail upon reflection. According to modern theory you are not seeing the object, merely the photon that was reflected off of it's surface transferring it's detail to your measuring device - the eye. You see no clock across the room, merely the photon reflected off it's surface, when it reaches you. Photons that also supposedly interact with billions of molecules along the way - yet transfer no image of them to your eyes as well. Interaction with electrons in air molecules - no different than the electrons in the plastic clock. Yet you "see" the plastic clock, but not the air molecules.

No, I think we got a long, long, ways to go yet to break free of that Fairie Dust.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Your parody of what science says is ridiculous and that is not enough to declare science ridiculous.

Here, lets have a little fun, show me your understanding of such things

Postulate two civilizations, each in a star system stationary with relationship to the other, at a distance of 10 light years from each other, and they are in radio communcation; by a dramatic coincidence their years are identical.

So they celebrate new years together, each hearing the other's new year celebration as 10 years old, at the same time they have their own.

A starship leaves the first, the day after new years day, to go to the second, traveling at 87 percent of the speed of light. It is an 11 and a half year long journey, more or less.

How many annual new year celebrations will the crew of the well-equipped ship receive from the second system, on their journey to that system?

After you manage to successfully answer that one, I'll have some relativity theory questions to ask you about the journey, which I wonder if you will be able to say what relativity theory predicts.

Hey, Justatruthseeker, we are still waiting for you to show us how you understand things regarding space and time and motion. How many celebrations will the starship crew overhear, on their way?

 

[Loudmouth]

Again, you confuse "proportionality" amongst changing measuring devices - as being the "same."

The observed and measured speed of light is the same for all observers. By same, I don't meen proportional. I mean the same. Identical speeds in every sense, no matter who the observer is.

Let's say that you have two identical experimental setups that measure the speed of light. You have both of them on the Earth, and use them to measure the speed of light as it comes from the Sun. Both instruments measure the same speed of light. You take one of the experimental setups and put it on a solar probe. You fly it at the Sun at 0.1c relative to the Earth and Sun. What speed of light will the setup on the probe measure? If you were on the probe and measured the speed of light as you accelerated to 0.1c, what would your observations be?

Einstein himself told you that absolute motion can not be determined.

He said that there is not a Golden Frame of Reference that everything else is compared to. Therefore, all frames of reference are equal.

That all measurements depending on motion are relative only to the frame under observation.

An observer in one frame can make observations within an accelerating object in a different frame of reference.

You fail to understand the basics of theory you profess. All of mainstream does.

Because even though everything is relative only to the frame under consideration, they wish to also assert that everything is also the same, else they have no continuity. Which they don't.

The Lorentz transforms apply equally to all frames of reference.

Two rulers of different lengths will never read the same distance.

Two rulers of the same length will.

Two clocks that tick at different rates, will never read the same time.

The clocks are accurately measuring time in all frames of reference. It is time itself that changes, not the clocks.

You insist the clocks are slower, the rulers shorter, then tell us the distances read the same. You are so confused, you cannot even see how illogical are your claims.

Then how do you explain the Hafele-Keating experiment? Those atomic were synched when they were on the ground. Why weren't they synched after being flown around in airplanes?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Hey, Justatruthseeker, we are still waiting for you to show us how you understand things regarding space and time and motion. How many celebrations will the starship crew overhear, on their way?

Your entire premise is based upon a faulty misconception.

It has well more than an eleven year journey. It's rulers are shorter. The distance between the star systems is no longer 10 light years, but far greater. Or are we to ignore it's rulers and clocks, relying only on the clocks in the two star systems? After traveling a distance of 10 light years by it's rulers, it will still not have reached the other system.

Why do you pretend they magically measure the same distance, when you know it's rulers are shorter?

It is clear someone does not understand. To that we agree.

 

[Loudmouth]

Why do you pretend they magically measure the same distance, when you know it's rulers are shorter?

If the rulers are the same length in the same frame of reference, then they will measure the same length in all frames of reference. The rulers contract with length so that they always measure the same distance. A 3 m ruler will always measure the distance that a photon travels in 1E-8 seconds no matter how fast the observer is moving relative to another frame of reference.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

If the rulers are the same length in the same frame of reference, then they will measure the same length in all frames of reference. The rulers contract with length so that they always measure the same distance. A 3 m ruler will always measure the distance that a photon travels in 1E-8 seconds no matter how fast the observer is moving relative to another frame of reference.

No. Because the distance light travels in 1E-8 seconds, is different in both frames. Something you still fail to grasp. being that that distance itself - is circularly tied to the change of the clock.

Metre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Since 1983, it has been defined as "the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299,792,458 of a second."

So a meter can never be measured as anything but a meter - "proportionally" to the change of rate of the clock. Again, you confuse proportionality with sameness. The second in a moving frame is of experimental fact known to be of a different duration than the claimed stationary frame. The meter is therfore also of different length - proportional to the rate of change of the clock.

Don't try to tell me what distance is, it's already been scientifically defined. So why will you not follow that science? Why do you refuse to accept that a meter changes as the duration of a clocks ticks change?

EDIT: What you call a second - is in every accelerating frame - of different duration. The meter changing in response proportionally.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Your entire premise is based upon a faulty misconception.

It has well more than an eleven year journey. It's rulers are shorter. The distance between the star systems is no longer 10 light years, but far greater. Or are we to ignore it's rulers and clocks, relying only on the clocks in the two star systems? After traveling a distance of 10 light years by it's rulers, it will still not have reached the other system.

Why do you pretend they magically measure the same distance, when you know it's rulers are shorter?

It is clear someone does not understand. To that we agree.

A number, J, a number! Express your confident ability to more accurately describe reality than us mere prosaic science accepting mortals by citing a number of annual new years celebrations the starship would receive on its way from the first system to the second, 10 light years away, at 87 percent of the speed of light. You can tell us how we are amiss in our muddleheaded standard ways of thinking later. Show us your acumen.

Of course, if the variables are beyond you, you could admit it, and ask what the correct answer is.

I'm not sure what you think my misconception is in the proposed puzzle. I haven't shared the answer yet, so how can I have the answer wrong? Your accusation seems to be premature, and another example of poor YEC logic.