Why Parallax doesn't work

[time]

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.

Not in the area of time...or space...which really determine how things work, such as the light IN that time and space. Here, we know a lot about that. However, the issue you need to address is how we would know that how light and atoms conduct themselves HERE is the same as THERE? One can't just observe here and assume that is is the same everywhere, just because it seems that way here.

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

. The great is right. The size and what is really happening to creation out there is another story.

Science wants us to sing --how great thou art...to it.

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

That seems to be your little chorus. I find is startling that some people seem to think that what God meant in the bible about His handiwork being great really means that man's ideas are greater than God's word. Never the twain shall meet.

You think it shows us nothing!

I think it shows us that Jesus is a wonderful creator, and that a lot goes on that man is in the dark about. I also think that the dark forces of hell take advantage of that rejection of His word and ignorance, to fan the flames of doubt and delusion.

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

I already gave you that evidence. That evidence is the spectra of the stars.

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

I notice that you didn't answer my previous question. Perhaps you missed it?

How do you know that 99% of the matter in the universe is plasma?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

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?????

How come you use the word "accelerated" instead of "moving"? Because clocks and rulers are viewed as having been altered merely by moving. Acceleration is a whole 'nother phenomenon.

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

False charge.

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.

Except that energy is only the very same energy it accepted from the photon anyway.

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 don't think that it makes any difference to the photon how far it came before it enters our detection devices and therefore the results from things seen far or near are equally reliable.

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.

A New Non-Doppler Redshift

We disagree as to what theory is mere fairie dust, I see. Ah well, such is life.

 

[time]

I already gave you that evidence. That evidence is the spectra of the stars.

OK, so you weigh in with an opinion that the way time and space affect atoms and light here has to represent how time exists in the far universe. What can I say? You apparently feel that all effecting had to be at source, and we see it as it was there. Funny, I do not see a mere observation of how time unfolds here as any evidence that time exists somewhere else. If time were different, then one simply could not draw a line through space that represented sameness of time and space.

 

[Loudmouth]

OK, so you weigh in with an opinion that the way time and space affect atoms and light here has to represent how time exists in the far universe. What can I say? You apparently feel that all effecting had to be at source, and we see it as it was there. Funny, I do not see a mere observation of how time unfolds here as any evidence that time exists somewhere else. If time were different, then one simply could not draw a line through space that represented sameness of time and space.

If time were different, then the spectra of stars would be different. I have shown you this over and over and over.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

OK, so you weigh in with an opinion that the way time and space affect atoms and light here has to represent how time exists in the far universe. What can I say? You apparently feel that all effecting had to be at source, and we see it as it was there. Funny, I do not see a mere observation of how time unfolds here as any evidence that time exists somewhere else. If time were different, then one simply could not draw a line through space that represented sameness of time and space.

Observation of how time unfolds over there is, however, consistent with the idea that time exists there.

On the other hand, the idea that we can have no valid ideas about what happens over there about time or anything else can, by definition, simply provide no evidence to back it up. Indeed, one must assert that the consistency of observations I just mentioned are some kind of misleading hiccup in the way light comes along.

Its like claiming the gun the sherriff is holding on you so steadily is actually because he's got a nervous twitch and can't control where he points the gun.

 

[time]

If time were different, then the spectra of stars would be different. I have shown you this over and over and over.

No. You did nothing of the sort.

Seems simple to me, we look from this end of the telescope, or we might say, the looking glass. Only here do we see the spectra. We basically take a prism and split the light from this end of the looking glass.

 

[time]

Observation of how time unfolds over there is, however, consistent with the idea that time exists there.

I disagree, the only consistency is circular. Since you believe the far away universe is the same as here, it looks the same to you.

On the other hand, the idea that we can have no valid ideas about what happens over there about time or anything else can, by definition, simply provide no evidence to back it up.

Either you can or you can't. Forget some 'idea' whether you can or not. I see no way for you to start telling us what time is like there.

Indeed, one must assert that the consistency of observations I just mentioned are some kind of misleading hiccup in the way light comes along.

In what way? How would looking at light this side of the looking glass mislead me?

 

[Loudmouth]

I disagree, the only consistency is circular. Since you believe the far away universe is the same as here, it looks the same to you.

The same where?

How do you know that the clock across the room is experiencing the same time you are? All you are really seeing is the photons hitting your retina. Is everything outside of your retina in a different universe with different time?

 

[Loudmouth]

No. You did nothing of the sort.

Why not?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I disagree, the only consistency is circular. Since you believe the far away universe is the same as here, it looks the same to you.

But it doesn't look the same. For example, we see a red shift which we interpret as an expanding universe. And galaxies that we think are more distant show up as smaller in our images. And light that comes from distant quasars and distant galaxies show absorption lines from gas clouds along the line from them to us, each with its own distinct red shift, depending on its own peculiar motion with respect to us. So many lines in some images they call this the "Lyman Forest" . . . likening the spectral lyman absorption line to a forest, it being represented at so many different red shifts.

Of course, these differences are all explained by the expansion of the universe.

Your objections to the plain, ordinary interpretation of these images is ignored, on the grounds that you don't have any better interpretation.

 

[time]

Why not?

I assume because you can't.

 

[time]

The same where?

How do you know that the clock across the room is experiencing the same time you are?

Clocks change with very little difference in elevation. You'll need to do better.

All you are really seeing is the photons hitting your retina. Is everything outside of your retina in a different universe with different time?

No. But a retina is not something that sees time is it? How then can you claim to see time through the looking glasses?

 

[time]

But it doesn't look the same. For example, we see a red shift which we interpret as an expanding universe.

And we see redshift that we interpret as possibly a time caused effect. How hard is it to play the interpret game?

And galaxies that we think are more distant show up as smaller in our images.

So what? A star looks smaller than a light on a ski hill.

And light that comes from distant quasars and distant galaxies show absorption lines from gas clouds along the line from them to us, each with its own distinct red shift, depending on its own peculiar motion with respect to us.

The light is here in our time zone regardless of where it came from. The distinctions we see are on this end.

So many lines in some images they call this the "Lyman Forest" . . . likening the spectral lyman absorption line to a forest, it being represented at so many different red shifts.

blah blah. You can liken it to whatever you like. The issue is your frame of reference.

Of course, these differences are all explained by the expansion of the universe.

Or any number of other things we may chose to try to explain it with. Bottom line, then is that whatever one uses TO explain it, merely tells us about the person trying to explain...and what he advocates.

Your objections to the plain, ordinary interpretation of these images is ignored,

The plain interpretation is not plain but all a matter of belief. That is your problem.


You do not stand on the rock.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

And we see redshift that we interpret as possibly a time caused effect. How hard is it to play the interpret game?
So what? A star looks smaller than a light on a ski hill.





The light is here in our time zone regardless of where it came from. The distinctions we see are on this end.


blah blah. You can liken it to whatever you like. The issue is your frame of reference.
Or any number of other things we may chose to try to explain it with. Bottom line, then is that whatever one uses TO explain it, merely tells us about the person trying to explain...and what he advocates.


The plain interpretation is not plain but all a matter of belief. That is your problem.


You do not stand on the rock.

Well, your belief that the heavens are not declaring the works of God, and what we see there is simply uninterpretable, is contrary to scripture and contrary to common sense and contrary to science and will continue to be ignored.

 

[Loudmouth]

Clocks change with very little difference in elevation. You'll need to do better.

You don't know that since the clocks are over there in the same way that stars are over there.

No. But a retina is not something that sees time is it? How then can you claim to see time through the looking glasses?

You tell me. You are the one who claims that reality only appears when photons hit your retina. According to you, we can't even know how light is bent through glass because it happens in a different space and time.

 

[dad]

You don't know that since the clocks are over there in the same way that stars are over there.

No clock is anywhere but here, where time is. You just want to believe the clocks are in sync. You have no way of knowing. And don't give us that tired little looped tape reply where you say the word spectra, and think it helps you.

 

[dad]

Well, your belief that the heavens are not declaring the works of God,

Believers do not think that at all. Don't put false words in poster's mouths. The way we see glory is not the way people who see the universe as uncreated see it.

and what we see there is simply uninterpretable, is contrary to scripture

It is above man's wisdom, and that is scripture in action. Belief is scripture in action.

Rather than dance around in the fog, let's look at the actual issues. The main issue is whether we believe Jesus created the stars and world and sun and life. When we do that, THEN, do we see the glory in creation.

and contrary to common sense and contrary to science and will continue to be ignored.[/quote]

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Believers do not think that at all. Don't put false words in poster's mouths. The way we see glory is not the way people who see the universe as uncreated see it. . . . .

Oh, yes, you believe the heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament shows His handiwork, only it lies about what that handiwork was.

Well, I don't accept your idea that it lies. And I still say, your idea that it lies to us is contrary to scripture.