Why Parallax doesn't work

[Loudmouth]

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

Do you have anything to add to that, or is it just posturing?

Says who? How in the world would you possibly know all that goes on in deep space?

We directly observe what goes on in deep space. That is how we know.

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.

Maybe? What evidence do you have to back up your claims? Also, here are the standard equations used to define time dilation:

What if time is real?

No one is saying that it isn't real.

That seems blazingly simple. We see it all right here where time exists as it does here.

We see what it does in outer space. We directly observe it.

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

The photons are coming from the star, so yes.

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.

If it was produced in a different manner then it wouldn't have the same absorption lines as our Sun and elements on Earth.

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

I have given that reason many, many times. Time and space are one in the same. Change time and you change distance. Change distance, and you change wavelength.

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?

Prisms don't produce absorption lines.

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

Why won't you address it?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

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.

Ah, I see there are two kinds of readers of this post: Those who are utterly unable to reply to it, and those who understand the answer immediately and patiently waited for the others to weigh in.

Well, its time to defuse the paradox. When the travellers from the first planet to the second, 10 light years distant, are assumed to be motionless and the planets, instead, moving (the one away, the other oncoming) at 87 percent of the speed of light, they don't perceive their own time slowing, instead, the time of the planets slows. But they do perceive the distance between the planets to contract, it contracts in half (to 5 light years) and so they also expect to age only half of the time they would have otherwise aged along their journey. Those on the planets ascribe this to the time slowing on the starship, those on the starship ascribe this to the contracting distance, but we both expect, and observe, the same events.

Corrections for the time dilation of moving objects have to be made in the atomic clocks on board the GPS sattelites, in order for our GPS systems to work. Working GPS systems are another proof that we know relativity is accurate and scientists understand it.

 

[J0hnSm1th]

Corrections for the time dilation of moving objects have to be made in the atomic clocks on board the GPS sattelites, in order for our GPS systems to work. Working GPS systems are another proof that we know relativity is accurate and scientists understand it.

In addition, the GPS system must make allowances for multiple relativistic effects. The speed of the satellite compared to Earth makes time on the satellite slower by 1 part in 10 billion. But the relativistic effect of Earths gravity speeds up time on the satellite by 5 parts in 10 billion.
Error analysis for the Global Positioning System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

In addition, the GPS system must make allowances for multiple relativistic effects. The speed of the satellite compared to Earth makes time on the satellite slower by 1 part in 10 billion. But the relativistic effect of Earths gravity speeds up time on the satellite by 5 parts in 10 billion.
Error analysis for the Global Positioning System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes. Thanks.

 

[time]

what inertial frame of reference do you thing IS privileged?

Define privileged. Earth is special, if that is what you are trying to get at.

When science looks at our sun for example, and sees it is a single 'star', and they look at the nearest star system, they see it is a triple. Why would I find all this coincidence?

 

[time]

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

Well, obviously you don't know. SAo, as I said, why claim there is no privileges? That is akin to making an empty boast that there is no creator.

 

[time]

Do you have anything to add to that, or is it just posturing?

What would I need to add to your claim that all time and space is the same to make it hollow? You need more than words tossed out to make it so.

We directly observe what goes on in deep space. That is how we know.

How do you know it is direct? You only observe here.

Maybe? What evidence do you have to back up your claims? Also, here are the standard equations used to define time dilation:

Of course local time changes in our time bubble. That is not the issue at all. For time to change, time must exist! It exists here, and exists in a certain way. We can't say the same for deep space.

No one is saying that it isn't real.

Well, what are you saying? You think there is something real called time? You think it has a 'life' beyond the movements we see? How can anyone know what secret ideas about time you have, we can only read what is posted.

We see what it does in outer space. We directly observe it.

We see it here, but you need to prove that 'directly' claim.

The photons are coming from the star, so yes.

A funny thing happened on the way to the forum.

Maybe something we would call funny happened to light, when it got into a space where time existed?

If it was produced in a different manner then it wouldn't have the same absorption lines as our Sun and elements on Earth.

Flesh that out.

Name a star that gets these lines from local gas, so we can see that you are correct, and move on.

I have given that reason many, many times. Time and space are one in the same. Change time and you change distance. Change distance, and you change wavelength.

That is all assuming time is the same and space, and that you are changing IT. Not what this thread or I seem to be thinking.

Prisms don't produce absorption lines.

No, so?

Why won't you address it?

I am trying to get you to be clear, and put something on the table to dissect.

 

[time]

When the travellers from the first planet to the second, 10 light years distant, are assumed to be motionless and the planets, instead, moving (the one away, the other oncoming) at 87 percent of the speed of light, they don't perceive their own time slowing, instead, the time of the planets slows. But they do perceive the distance between the planets to contract, it contracts in half (to 5 light years) and so they also expect to age only half of the time they would have otherwise aged along their journey. Those on the planets ascribe this to the time slowing on the starship, those on the starship ascribe this to the contracting distance, but we both expect, and observe, the same events.

Too bad that is all theory, because no one has either traveled close to even one light year, nor at the speed of light.

You are saying no more than 'IF our time and space continued on, then we would see a resulting exhibition of our forces and laws acting upon light and all things...'

 

[Loudmouth]

What would I need to add to your claim that all time and space is the same to make it hollow? You need more than words tossed out to make it so.

I have shown you the spectra from stars which you reject for made up reasons.

How do you know it is direct? You only observe here.

We observe there. We are looking right at it. Those photons come from those stars.

Your rejection of DIRECT observations of distant stars is rather hollow.

Of course local time changes in our time bubble. That is not the issue at all. For time to change, time must exist! It exists here, and exists in a certain way. We can't say the same for deep space.

We can directly observe that it exists at the star. Otherwise, how could the photons get to us? How could we see supernovae brighten and then fade? How could we see planets moving about their star? How could we measure the rotation of pulsars? All of those observations require time AT THE STAR.

We see it here,

No. We see it there. The photons are coming from that star, not from here.

Maybe something we would call funny happened to light, when it got into a space where time existed?

Maybe? That's all you have? Maybe?

Flesh that out.

The wavelength that elements absorb at is a function of their atomic structure and the electromagnetic force which is one of the 4 fundamental atomic forces. If the electromagnetic force were different at the star, then it would produce absorbance lines at different wavelengths than those seen for elements on Earth and those in our Sun. What we see is that the absorption lines are at the same places as is produced by elements on Earth and in our Sun. That means that the star is experiencing the same time and forces that we are.

The electromagnetic force is also governed by the speed of light. Change the speed of light and you change the force. Again, this would produce different absorption lines at different wavelengths.

Name a star that gets these lines from local gas, so we can see that you are correct, and move on.

Go out on a cloudy day. The diffuse light that see is being absorbed by local gases from the closest star to Earth. A foggy day will do the same. If distant starlight is being absorbed by local gases then we will see a diffuse light and not a sharp pin prick of light.

That is all assuming time is the same and space, and that you are changing IT. Not what this thread or I seem to be thinking.

All of the observations support it. If you think I am wrong, then show me a single observation where this is not the case.

No, so?

You tried to claim that the prism was producing the absorption lines. They aren't.

I am trying to get you to be clear, and put something on the table to dissect.

You ignore it every time I do put it on the table.

Spectral Lines in Stars - Absorbtion and Emission

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Too bad that is all theory, because no one has either traveled close to even one light year, nor at the speed of light.

You are saying no more than 'IF our time and space continued on, then we would see a resulting exhibition of our forces and laws acting upon light and all things...'

Perhaps you are at least admitting that our understanding of space, time, relativity, motion, acceleration are not inconsistent. That's a step more than what some have said around here.

Some folks around here are even trying to deny that time exists on the other side of our galaxy! One can only shake one's head in wonder at such obstinate willful ignorance.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Define privileged. Earth is special, if that is what you are trying to get at.

When science looks at our sun for example, and sees it is a single 'star', and they look at the nearest star system, they see it is a triple. Why would I find all this coincidence?

Why not?

 

[J0hnSm1th]

Too bad that is all theory, because no one has either traveled close to even one light year, nor at the speed of light.

It has been tested to a degree. Sure we cannot accelerate people to light speed. Or even instruments. But we can accelerate particles that fast. If you choose an isotope with a very accurately measured decay rate and isotope ratio, accelerating it to high speed, slowing it down, and remeasuring can give you data.

 

[time]

It has been tested to a degree. Sure we cannot accelerate people to light speed. Or even instruments. But we can accelerate particles that fast. If you choose an isotope with a very accurately measured decay rate and isotope ratio, accelerating it to high speed, slowing it down, and remeasuring can give you data.

Racing a particle around a lab is not any kind of proof that it can race the same way across the universe.

 

[time]

Why not?

Because why should I?

 

[time]

I have shown you the spectra from stars which you reject for made up reasons.

You have shown spectra? What posting a pic of some sample? The question is, what made it that way and where...not whether we see it that way here.

We observe there. We are looking right at it. Those photons come from those stars.

Says you...who know not.

Your rejection of DIRECT observations of distant stars is rather hollow.

Direct is your claim. Prove it.

We can directly observe that it exists at the star. Otherwise, how could the photons get to us?

You can see a star on a screen saver...doesn't mean it is direct!

How could we see supernovae brighten and then fade?

What sort of two bit trick is that? So what. I can make a flashlight do the same. The thing about this thread I find interesting is that we do need time for distances, and sizes. Merely having some little light brighten is of limited meaning!

How could we see planets moving about their star?

I doubt we do. The size required to make it a planet all is based on that time and space being the same thingie.

How could we measure the rotation of pulsars? All of those observations require time AT THE STAR.

No. What we see takes place in our time bubble, and may not reflect time where the pulsar and star are for all we know. Whatever enters our bubble must play out in time as we know it here.

No. We see it there. The photons are coming from that star, not from here.

Photons themselves may be a way light exists here for all we know. That could mean that the light comes from the star....enters our time and space....and starts to exist as photons as we know them...that is what we know and see. Whatever came from the star would now be those photons we see here. There may be parts of light or info of some sort we don't see here also. You may be basing a whole universe on tiny bits of info that is grossly misread!

Maybe? That's all you have? Maybe?

You need to reach way way way up, and see if you can attain maybe. When you can do that, rather than claiming to know when you do not, then you will be going in the right direction.

The wavelength that elements absorb at is a function of their atomic structure and the electromagnetic force which is one of the 4 fundamental atomic forces.

In other words, OUR time bubble forces. Atoms may only work this way here.

If the electromagnetic force were different at the star, then it would produce absorbance lines at different wavelengths than those seen for elements on Earth and those in our Sun.

Not true if whatever enters our bubble starts to exist as an electromagnetic force. We may only see light and atoms as they are here. That need not mean they are that way beyond the bubble we are in.

What we see is that the absorption lines are at the same places as is produced by elements on Earth and in our Sun.

Earth and sun are in the bubble, naturally they also look a certain way.

That means that the star is experiencing the same time and forces that we are.

No. That means you obsess on the light here, and refuse to imagine that it could be different if time itself did not exist as we know it, and therefore space itself also. In our timespace, things take up so much space...and time. In another time...and space, why they may not take up space. Or time in the way we think.

The electromagnetic force is also governed by the speed of light.

In other words, the forces in the bubble work a certain way.

Change the speed of light and you change the force.

No need to change the speed of light in the bubble. Remember, speed involves time. Speed involves space. Speed of light here also involves the forces in place here.

Go out on a cloudy day. The diffuse light that see is being absorbed by local gases from the closest star to Earth. A foggy day will do the same. If distant starlight is being absorbed by local gases then we will see a diffuse light and not a sharp pin prick of light.

That is vague and cloudy. Many things can 'diffuse' light!

All of the observations support it. If you think I am wrong, then show me a single observation where this is not the case.

Have you provided a single observation we can show wrong or right yet? We wait.

You tried to claim that the prism was producing the absorption lines. They aren't.

I pointed out that the prism here scatters the light so we can see those lines actually. That tells us little, except that light in the time bubble we are in, when scattered, is seen a certain way.

Spectral Lines in Stars - Absorbtion and Emission

What in this link would you like to offer us exactly? I think we know light has those lines....so?

 

[[serious]]

Because why should I?

To be honest, I'm not even seeing how it's a coincidence. Some stars are single, some are multiple. Ours is one of the two options available. Not so much coincidence as just incidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

Racing a particle around a lab is not any kind of proof that it can race the same way across the universe.

The lab is the universe.

 

[Loudmouth]

You have shown spectra? What posting a pic of some sample? The question is, what made it that way and where...not whether we see it that way here.

I have shown you what made it and where. The stars made it, and they made it out there.

Says you...who know not.

Please address the evidence.

Direct is your claim. Prove it.

Already have, multiple times.

What sort of two bit trick is that? So what. I can make a flashlight do the same.

You can make a flashlight go supernova? I doubt it.

The thing about this thread I find interesting is that we do need time for distances, and sizes. Merely having some little light brighten is of limited meaning!

"Brighten" means an increase in luminosity OVER TIME, does it not? When stars OUT THERE brighten and dim they are changing OVER TIME OUT THERE.

No. What we see takes place in our time bubble,

You have just proven me right. Since we can see stars, that means the stars are in our time bubble.

QED

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Racing a particle around a lab is not any kind of proof that it can race the same way across the universe.

But it is consistent with showing it can race the same way across the universe.

And what we see across the universe is consistent with what we see racing a particle around a lab.

Do you or any of your fellow skeptics have any evidence . . any evidence at all . . that laws of physics are any different billions of light years distant and/or billions of years in the past?

I thought not. Meanwhile, we have evidence they were the same, so that evidence trumps your lack of evidence.

 

[time]

The lab is the universe.

Very funny.