Why Parallax doesn't work

[Loudmouth]

There seems to be a flaw in your logic. If time were not the same and maybe space also, we could not possibly have the months be equal in both places.

And yet they were the same in both places. We can use simple trigonometry to show it. If time were different at the supernova, then we would not see the correct time lag between the supernova explosion and the supernova illuminating the ring of debris:

We have a direct observation of the passage of time in space.

That assumes time is the same. You only see time here and how it unfolds and exists.

You are ignoring the facts.

 

[time]

And yet they were the same in both places. We can use simple trigonometry to show it.

And yet our observation is 100% at this one point only. Whatever we see from anywhere else or other points has to filter in our bubble here and exist in a way that things must exist in this time. Time here will not change simply to show us what time is like elsewhere! Why is that hard to get?

If time were different at the supernova, then we would not see the correct time lag between the supernova explosion and the supernova illuminating the ring of debris:

Totally absurd. We must see all things here in OUR TIME!!

We have a direct observation of the passage of time in space.

You have a severely limited perspective from one point only, actually. The rest is belief only. You do not 'prove' time or space are the same far away in space by looking only at how they are here.


We must consider the possibility that time is something other than what science of our bubble has conceived and tried to define. Unless that is known, then all sizes of stars and distances are right out the window. The house of card universe models built on this premise are of no value whatsoever unless the premise was shown to be true.

You seem to be trying to appeal to belief here. Sort of pleading __time exists a certain way here, where we observe it, so this must be how it exists everywhere__

 

[time]

I already gave you that comparison. Supernova 1987a lit up a ring of material around the supernova, demonstrating that the light is coming from the supernova and the star before it.

In what way would the simple fact that light came from somewhere demonstrate that the time involved was earth bubble time? I am sure this makes sense inside your own head and faith.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

And yet our observation is 100% at this one point only. Whatever we see from anywhere else or other points has to filter in our bubble here and exist in a way that things must exist in this time. Time here will not change simply to show us what time is like elsewhere! Why is that hard to get?
Totally absurd. We must see all things here in OUR TIME!!
You have a severely limited perspective from one point only, actually. The rest is belief only. You do not 'prove' time or space are the same far away in space by looking only at how they are here.


We must consider the possibility that time is something other than what science of our bubble has conceived and tried to define. Unless that is known, then all sizes of stars and distances are right out the window. The house of card universe models built on this premise are of no value whatsoever unless the premise was shown to be true.

You seem to be trying to appeal to belief here. Sort of pleading __time exists a certain way here, where we observe it, so this must be how it exists everywhere__

I can postulate that time exists else and space exists elsewhere, and go by that assumption. I can make an estimate as to how confident I am that my postulate is accurate.

My own estimate that the values of time and space are similar to those on earth are accurate as far out and as far back in time as the hubble telescope can see, I set as having a 99 percent chance of being true.

Do you have any evidence based reasons for me to adjust the 99 percent estimate I made?

If you only wish to point out what you consider to be a lack of evidence, I feel free to ignore that.

 

[time]

I can postulate that time exists else and space exists elsewhere, and go by that assumption.

You can 'postulate' that aliens live in your neighbor's house if you like. We are concerned here with what is fact, not wild postulations.

I can make an estimate as to how confident I am that my postulate is accurate.

My own estimate that the values of time and space are similar to those on earth are accurate as far out and as far back in time as the hubble telescope can see, I set as having a 99 percent chance of being true.

You look at the universe through the Hubble looking glass, and it seems a certain way to you, who insist on believing that the things we see in that looking glass represent time being the same.

Do you have any evidence based reasons for me to adjust the 99 percent estimate I made?

It was not an estimate based on any thing but implied correlations of time and space. The issue is not just what things look like to you through the looking glass.

If you only wish to point out what you consider to be a lack of evidence, I feel free to ignore that.

I would like to point to some evidence that you post actually. make that possible.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

...
In fact, the stars were created to help us mark time, ...

Dang.

It sure would have been a lot simpler to just give everyone a watch and a calendar.

 

[time]

Dang.

It sure would have been a lot simpler to just give everyone a watch and a calendar.

The amazing thing is that it could have been for more reasons than just marking time, that the stars were put there. It could be that He put them there to set time for us. In other words, possibly He could use the stars to control the way time exists on and near earth.

That would include therefore, how our laws exist since they involve time (spacetime)

 

[Queller]

You can 'postulate' that aliens live in your neighbor's house if you like. We are concerned here with what is fact, not wild postulations.

Good. That means we can do away with the wild postulation that time operates differently everywhere else (or even anywhere else) in the universe.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

You can 'postulate' that aliens live in your neighbor's house if you like. We are concerned here with what is fact, not wild postulations.



You look at the universe through the Hubble looking glass, and it seems a certain way to you, who insist on believing that the things we see in that looking glass represent time being the same.
It was not an estimate based on any thing but implied correlations of time and space. The issue is not just what things look like to you through the looking glass.

I would like to point to some evidence that you post actually. make that possible.

Haven't we already mentioned telescopic observations of events around the universe, including transitions between electron orbits in atoms that are the same as transtions between electron orbits in atoms here on earth?

That's evidence you may now explain why you ignore it.

 

[time]

Good. That means we can do away with the wild postulation that time operates differently everywhere else (or even anywhere else) in the universe.

Not until you can postulate worth a hill of beans.

 

[time]

Haven't we already mentioned telescopic observations of events around the universe, including transitions between electron orbits in atoms that are the same as transtions between electron orbits in atoms here on earth?

That is ALL on OUR side of the looking glass, need I mention the obvious again? We are not amused.

That's evidence you may now explain why you ignore it.

First clear sign of defeat, when they obsess over some non existent so called evidence that simply never existed. What you mentioned is not evidence by the very wildest stretch of imagination.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

That is ALL on OUR side of the looking glass, need I mention the obvious again? We are not amused.


First clear sign of defeat, when they obsess over some non existent so called evidence that simply never existed. What you mentioned is not evidence by the very wildest stretch of imagination.

Oh, we are all familiar by now with your regular dismissal of evidence.

We should stop believing our lying eyes and trust you, instead, because . . .

Hmmm. . . . I'm sorry, I don't recall any evidence from YOU. Please refresh our memories.

 

[time]

Oh, we are all familiar by now with your regular dismissal of evidence.

We disagree with your assessment.

Hmmm. . . . I'm sorry, I don't recall any evidence from YOU. Please refresh our memories.

Since I am being honest here, and not claiming man knows, I need nothing in the way of experience and knowledge of an unknown time and space far far away.

Now you be honest too, and simply admit you actually had none all along. Your appeal to have us focus only on this end of the looking glass and accept that this equals the other end is noted. Not swallowing your red pill.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

We disagree with your assessment.



Since I am being honest here, and not claiming man knows, I need nothing in the way of experience and knowledge of an unknown time and space far far away.

Now you be honest too, and simply admit you actually had none all along. Your appeal to have us focus only on this end of the looking glass and accept that this equals the other end is noted. Not swallowing your red pill.

Honesty requires I admit we have lots of evidence for galaxies and a universe and fundamental forces operating, as they do around here, in distant places.

Photograph after photograph, in visible light and in infrared and in ultraviolet and in xrays and radio transmissions provide excellent evidence of a whole great universe out there.

To bad you think the scriptures were telling a lie when the Bible told us "The firmament shows His handiwork".

You think it shows us nothing!

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Honesty requires I admit we have lots of evidence for galaxies and a universe and fundamental forces operating, as they do around here, in distant places.

Photograph after photograph, in visible light and in infrared and in ultraviolet and in xrays and radio transmissions provide excellent evidence of a whole great universe out there.

To bad you think the scriptures were telling a lie when the Bible told us "The firmament shows His handiwork".

You think it shows us nothing!

Except if all those other frames are under an increasing acceleration, then kinetic energy is constantly increasing, changing the very physics in those frames they claim is the same - against their very own science. They are not following their science when they claim a moving frame follows the same laws of physics. We all know in reality clocks slow, rulers shrink, distances and time are not the same, nor is anything measured from the other frame.

All that light (EM radiation) is only measured when it strikes a mirror in "this" frame, bounces off another in "this" frame, and then reaches the detector, also in "this" frame.

Nothing beyond the local galactic group which is traveling in relative translational motion to us can ever be measured with any type of accuracy. Hence we observe both redshift and blueshift. Beyond the range of parallax, it is still the great unknown, whether we like that assessment or not.

 

[Queller]

Not until you can postulate worth a hill of beans.

Hello? I'm not the one wildly postulating that time operates differently everywhere else in the universe.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Hello? I'm not the one wildly postulating that time operates differently everywhere else in the universe.

The science claims that very same thing, they just refuse to follow it and merely give lip service to it to add legitimacy to their pseudo-science is all. They know this, they just refuse to admit anything when called out on it is all.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Except if all those other frames are under an increasing acceleration, then kinetic energy is constantly increasing, changing the very physics in those frames they claim is the same - against their very own science. They are not following their science when they claim a moving frame follows the same laws of physics. We all know in reality clocks slow, rulers shrink, distances and time are not the same, nor is anything measured from the other frame.

Sorry, I won't bother to believe that, it works just fine for me to accept that the other galaxies out there experience the laws of time and space as we do.

All that light (EM radiation) is only measured when it strikes a mirror in "this" frame, bounces off another in "this" frame, and then reaches the detector, also in "this" frame.

Which allows us to pinpoint which direction the light came from and what frequencies are present among those photons, and what polarity the photons possess. And there isn't anything else a photon can ever tell us anyway, so your point is kind of pointless.

Nothing beyond the local galactic group which is traveling in relative translational motion to us can ever be measured with any type of accuracy. Hence we observe both redshift and blueshift. Beyond the range of parallax, it is still the great unknown, whether we like that assessment or not.

I reject your rejection of the findings of science.

And science has evidence. You only have rejection of evidence. Might I suggest this is a fruitless way to seek truth?

 

[Queller]

The science claims that very same thing,

Where does science claim that time operates differently everywhere else in the universe? Post some examples.

they just refuse to follow it and merely give lip service to it to add legitimacy to their pseudo-science is all. They know this, they just refuse to admit anything when called out on it is all.

Word salad.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Sorry, I won't bother to believe that, it works just fine for me to accept that the other galaxies out there experience the laws of time and space as we do.

In other words you refuse to accept your own science?

We have shown that clocks and rulers change when accelerated on trains - and you think acceleration in your expanding universe means nothing?????

Time dilation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Length contraction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So now you will ignore what your own theory says, because you don't like the outcome????

Which allows us to pinpoint which direction the light came from and what frequencies are present among those photons, and what polarity the photons possess. And there isn't anything else a photon can ever tell us anyway, so your point is kind of pointless.

Except as soon as a photon is absorbed by an electron before being re-emitted - it is now in this frame, and takes on the energy content of the atom in the mirror.

Ahh I see, photons magically are absorbed and re-emitted bringing to our eyes down to great detail the object they encounter, but are not affected themselves? You sure you wish to hold to that line of argument?

I reject your rejection of the findings of science.

And science has evidence. You only have rejection of evidence. Might I suggest this is a fruitless way to seek truth?

You reject your own science in favor of Fairie Dust, this I already knew. Why repeat it? I have your entire theory that backs me up, but then you know nothing of what Relativity really says happens to frames under acceleration. You merely give lip service to it, to give legitimacy to your pseudo-science.

Either the entire universe is expanding at an increasing acceleration, changing the length of rulers and slowing clocks,or it isn't expanding at all. Make up your mind which belief you wish to believe.

You see, I don't share your problem, because I know your expansion theory is mere Fairie Dust.

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/hubble/index.html