Why Parallax doesn't work

[Justatruthseeker]

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.

Sure you did, you already gave your answer - an eleven year journey. Remember? Why would you claim it took them eleven years, if that is not the time it took for them to make the trip?

So, why don't you do us the favor - and show by the moving frames rulers, how it made a journey longer than 10 light years at .87 the speed of c in 11 years?

Remember. The distance in the moving frame is not 10 light years, because it's second is of longer duration.

I'll give you a hint - the solution is found in the very GPS equations you claim to understand. It has to do in that case with what you call gravitational potential energy and kinetic energy.

http://www.worldsci.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_1843.pdf

So tell me, if a second is longer in the moving frame - how is the ruler shorter, since the meter is based upon the distance light travels in that 1/299,792,458 of a second which is now greater than 1/299,792,458 of a second according to the accelerating clock?


Think on it for awhile, contemplate the mire you have dug yourself into.

Your only solution is the one E already spelled out to you, the one you refuse to accept. "that the laws of physics are invariant (i.e., identical) in all inertial systems (non-accelerating frames of reference)"

"Special principle of relativity: If a system of coordinates K is chosen so that, in relation to it, physical laws hold good in their simplest form, the same laws hold good in relation to any other system of coordinates K' moving in uniform translation relatively to K."

Motion (physics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"As there is no absolute frame of reference, absolute motion cannot be determined.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_(physics)#cite_note-2 Thus, everything in the universe can be considered to be moving"

Continue to think on it for a bit. I'll be back in awhile to see if you've figured it out yet. An answer not worked for is an answer not appreciated.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Sure you did, you already gave your answer - an eleven year journey. Remember? Why would you claim it took them eleven years, if that is not the time it took for them to make the trip?
....

No, I did not already give the answer. I did mention the trip takes approximately 11 and a half years, but I did NOT say how many annual new year celebrations they would intercept from their destination planet on the way there.

Are you saying your answer is eleven? Please be definite about that. Don't tell me how long the trip takes back at me, tell me how many annual new years celebrations they will intercept on the way to the second planet, 10 light years distant.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

No, I did not already give the answer. I did mention the trip takes approximately 11 and a half years, but I did NOT say how many annual new year celebrations they would intercept from their destination planet on the way there.

Are you saying your answer is eleven? Please be definite about that. Don't tell me how long the trip takes back at me, tell me how many annual new years celebrations they will intercept on the way to the second planet, 10 light years distant.

What does how many they would receive from the destination planet have to do with anything relevant to the moving frame under consideration? Why not how many they receive from the beginning planet? or even how many they would participate in themselves?

But without doing the math, I'd say on average about 6 perhaps 7. Since it takes approximately half the journey to receive the first one, being it is traveling at c towards the moving ship.

What, was I supposed to not understand or something and answer 11 or 12?

It might even be as high as 8, but without doing the math, I couldn't say for sure. And I certanly see no need for that since we are ignoring how many it would receive from the starting planet, or how many it would participate in itself.

Since we seem to be concerned with only the flow of time as distinguished from the destination planet.

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

There is no priveleged frame of reference. All frames of reference are equal. A 3 m ruler will measure 3 m in all frames of reference. A lightyear is a lightyear in all frames of reference. There is not one single frame of reference that all distances must be compared to.

The Earth is rotating and moving about the Sun at a strong clip. The solar system itself is moving about the center of the Milky Way, and the Milky Way is moving about the center of gravity of the Virgo Supercluster. And yet, a meter is a meter on the Earth.

 

[Loudmouth]

What does how many they would receive from the destination planet have to do with anything relevant to the moving frame under consideration? Why not how many they receive from the beginning planet? or even how many they would participate in themselves?

But without doing the math, I'd say on average about 6. Since it takes approximately half the journey to receive the first one, being it is traveling at c towards the moving ship.

I thought you said they were travelling for over 10 years? Shouldn't they have celebrated at least 10 New Year's celebrations?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I thought you said they were travelling for over 10 years? Shouldn't they have celebrated at least 10 New Year's celebrations?

He didn't ask that, he asked how many they would receive from the destination planet, not how many they would participate in themselves.


" but I did NOT say how many annual new year celebrations they would intercept from their destination planet on the way there."

Keep to the subject at hand please.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

There is no priveleged frame of reference. All frames of reference are equal. A 3 m ruler will measure 3 m in all frames of reference. A lightyear is a lightyear in all frames of reference. There is not one single frame of reference that all distances must be compared to.

The Earth is rotating and moving about the Sun at a strong clip. The solar system itself is moving about the center of the Milky Way, and the Milky Way is moving about the center of gravity of the Virgo Supercluster. And yet, a meter is a meter on the Earth.

A 3 mm ruler will read 3 mm in all frames of reference because the meter is defined according to the rate at which a clock ticks.

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."

Yet you and I both know for a fact, in an accelerating frame the second is not the same duration as a second in a stationary frame.

This has been experimentally proven, or shall we now discard time dilation so that we may continue with your incorrect assumptions?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation

"An accurate clock at rest with respect to one observer may be measured to tick at a different rate when compared to a second observer's own equally accurate clocks."

Since a meter is defined by the rate of those ticking clocks, it changes as does the rate of those clocks ticks.

We have been over this once already.

A meter is a meter on earth, because it has been defined as a meter by the rate at which a clock ticks - here on earth, in "this" frame.

 

[Loudmouth]

A 3 mm ruler will read 3 mm in all frames of reference because the meter is defined according to the rate at which a clock ticks.

It can also be defined by non-time based measurements. For example, a cubic centimeter of liquid water at 20C will have a mass of 1 g.

A meter is a meter in all frames of reference. There is no preferred frame of reference.

Yet you and I both know for a fact, in an accelerating frame the second is not the same duration as a second in a stationary frame.

There is no preferred frame of reference. There is no universal "stationary" frame.

This has been experimentally proven, or shall we now discard time dilation so that we may continue with your incorrect assumptions?

You mean experimentally proven on the MOVING Earth?

A meter is a meter on earth, because it has been defined as a meter by the rate at which a clock ticks - here on earth.

That same meter stick still measures a meter on Mars, or in outer space.

 

[Loudmouth]

He didn't ask that, he asked how many they would receive from the destination planet, not how many they would participate in themselves.

Since it has been over ten years, shouldn't they have received at least 10?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Since it has been over ten years, shouldn't they have received at least 10?

Are you asking how many "they" participated in? If you wish to change the subject, state so. He asked how many they would "receive" from the "destination planet." The two questions are not even similar.

To answer "your" question 11, and approximately 3/4's to 7/8's of another year passing.

After 10 years of flight in "their time," they will still have over 1 and 1/2 light years to go, as measured by the stationary frame. Almost 1 7/8's as measured by the moving frame.

As I said, these are approximations.

 

[Loudmouth]

Are you asking how many "they" participated in? If you wish to change the subject, state so. He asked how many they would "receive" from the "destination planet." The two questions are not even similar.

You already spelled out the question.

"He didn't ask that, he asked how many they would receive from the destination planet, not how many they would participate in themselves."

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

What does how many they would receive from the destination planet have to do with anything relevant to the moving frame under consideration? Why not how many they receive from the beginning planet? or even how many they would participate in themselves?

But without doing the math, I'd say on average about 6 perhaps 7. Since it takes approximately half the journey to receive the first one, being it is traveling at c towards the moving ship.

What, was I supposed to not understand or something and answer 11 or 12?

It might even be as high as 8, but without doing the math, I couldn't say for sure. And I certanly see no need for that since we are ignoring how many it would receive from the starting planet, or how many it would participate in itself.

Since we seem to be concerned with only the flow of time as distinguished from the destination planet.

What moving frame under consideration? Its a puzzle, the thing under consideration is the correct answer, and you clearly have no clue how to figure it out. Which, to my mind, means all you verbage about differing lengths and such that make things somehow mixed up and therefore science is wrong is simply due to your lack of understanding. Scientists aren't confused about relativity, you are, and that doesn't make science wrong.

Anyway, the correct answer is 21.

You see, the planets are 10 light years apart. That means that at any one time, there are 10 new year celebration descriptions out in space traveling towards one planet from the other. They are already in space on their way, but not yet received. However, the traveling space ship will plow through them on its way towards the second planet. In addition, 11 years will pass, and those will also be received on the way.

Bear in mind that while there is a 10 year delay to receive the signals while still at the first planet, when the ship arrives at the second planet, there will be no such delay, they will participate in the celebration of new year as it happens.

But none of that involves relativity. That answer would be true whether assuming a Newtonian universe, an Einstein relativity universe, or some variant involving more complicated one way speed of light assumptions.

Anyway, clearly you aren't qualified to question modern science.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

What moving frame under consideration? Its a puzzle, the thing under consideration is the correct answer, and you clearly have no clue how to figure it out. Which, to my mind, means all you verbage about differing lengths and such that make things somehow mixed up and therefore science is wrong is simply due to your lack of understanding. Scientists aren't confused about relativity, you are, and that doesn't make science wrong.

Anyway, the correct answer is 21.

You see, the planets are 10 light years apart. That means that at any one time, there are 10 new year celebration descriptions out in space traveling towards one planet from the other. They are already in space on their way, but not yet received. However, the traveling space ship will plow through them on its way towards the second planet. In addition, 11 years will pass, and those will also be received on the way.

Bear in mind that while there is a 10 year delay to receive the signals while still at the first planet, when the ship arrives at the second planet, there will be no such delay, they will participate in the celebration of new year as it happens.

But none of that involves relativity. That answer would be true whether assuming a Newtonian universe, an Einstein relativity universe, or some variant involving more complicated one way speed of light assumptions.

Anyway, clearly you aren't qualified to question modern science.

So now, lets start thinking about relativity aspects.

To begin with, given that the expression for calculating relativistic changes in things like lengths, time dilation, and mass increase is sqr(1-v^2) where v is expressed as a decimal factor of the speed of light, what value of v would give us a factor of .5, resulting in lenghts reduced by a half, time slowed by a half? A little algebra gives us the answer: .866, to three significant figures, or about 87 percent of the speed of light.

Hey, haven't I seen that number before around here somewhere?

OK so the people on the starship traveling at 86.6 percent of the speed of light will experience time slowed down by 1/2. This means they will only age 5 and a quarter years on the 11 and a half long trip. Presumably, the inhabitants of both planets will eventually have this confirmed by radio messages.

Now here's a relativity question for folks. Relativity asserts that the moving starship should perceive the time dilation as happening to the planets, instead of themselves.

So if there is no time dilation from there point of view . . . will they, from their own point of view, actually age 11 and half years? Then when they arrive, there would be a contradiction in their expectations, they expect to age 11 and ha half years, we expect them to age 5 and a quarter years, their on board clock has to read SOMETHING . . .

How do we resolve this apparent contradiction?

I'm open to comments from all folks, but if you know the answer in a snap, give others a bit of time to think about it for a half a day at least.

 

[time]

There is no priveleged frame of reference. All frames of reference are equal. ..

So you say. Nothing makes that true though, so why say it?

 

[time]

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.

Since this change is all in a far away space where we have not been, why limit the changes? Just because we observe time a certain way here?

 

[time]

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

Like he would know!?

 

[time]

Then you admit that time and space both change.

You know not what you say...I think you are limiting any and all possible changes to what we see from experiments on earth and nearby.

 

[time]

Time and space are one in the same.

Well well well, now we are getting to it. Amazing claim. Boy did you step in it.

Change one, and you change the other. Change time, and you change the distance between the peaks and troughs of the photon wavelength.

Says who? How in the world would you possibly know all that goes on in deep space? Change time? I doubt you can even define it in a meaningful way. Maybe time transcends the usual little concepts and mental constructs of man.

What if time is real?

If time were completely different, why do we make the exact same spacetime observations of distant stars that we do here on Earth?

That seems blazingly simple. We see it all right here where time exists as it does here. We would not see time any other way here. One cannot measure time far far far away, by what it is like here, unless time is the same everywhere, and you sure don't know that. So why claim and assume? Should not one have a reason for doing such hard believing?

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?

Of course, but guess where we find it? Here. Let's see you attempt to show us that the absorbing had to be done at source, where the star is, by the gas there for example? That might be a good start.

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

Right. All of that is on earth and near it. In what way does this forbid a different time way way way beyond this space and time?

Then why do they have meaning? Why do the emission and absorption lines from distant stars match our own Sun and experiments on Earth?

Who knows? What causes the absorption lines? Can we show that this cause has to be where the star is?

If that light is being produced in a completely different manner, then why does it exactly match our space and time?

It may not be a matter of light produced in a different manner so much as light being here in the manner it must be when here.

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.

Why would a different time cause 'extreme' shift in light? There must be a reason to claim this.

The light isn't scattered in our bubble.

Now you admit we have some sort of bubble?!

If it were, we would not be able to see distant specks.

I thought we scattered the light in a prism, or some such thing here, and used this to discern things about the light from far away?

We would see a cloud of hazy dust around our Solar System and no stars, according to dad's fantasies.

I don't recall this claim from any other poster but you? Why is that?

 

[[serious]]

So you say. Nothing makes that true though, so why say it?

what inertial frame of reference do you thing IS privileged?

 

[Loudmouth]

So you say. Nothing makes that true though, so why say it?

Then what is the privileged frame of reference? What point in space is everything else compared to?