Why Parallax doesn't work

[Euler]

Actually, they don't -- they depend on simple geometry.

So you're wrong right out of the gate.

I've had this argument with him before. It's fruitless. For his part, it comes down to "what I believe is correct", without presenting a shred of evidence to support it.

It's the "la la la" explanation.

 

[dad]

SO once again you are resorting to your old trick of "You can't prove me wrong, so I'm probably right!"

Learn a new song, dad, this one's getting old...

Better than the godless swan song of science!

 

[dad]

I've had this argument with him before. It's fruitless. For his part, it comes down to "what I believe is correct", without presenting a shred of evidence to support it.

It's the "la la la" explanation.

This thread sidesteps your attempt at ignoring time in the equation, and, for the sake of argument allows the mileage to the star to be correct. I could debate that, and win, but better to keep it simple here. Parallax is only good out to, they say, some 326 light years if I recall, correct? So, put that in miles and we can allow it for the thread. The thing I brought to light here is that unless time existed at the star, the light year could not represent the time light takes to get from the star, rather only (for the sake or this thread) the miles that we determine from parallax.


Now if the base line for the trig measurement is IN our solar system and OUR space time, then it has built into it OUR time!!! Even the distances could be skewed, but since that doesn't matter, let's avoid getting bogged down on that bit.

 

[dad]

You really don't have a clue, do you? Nothing you said addresses my comment. Neither a star nor any other energy source can exist without time. Energy is produced by the transformation of matter over time.

Time as viewed HERE. The stars were created. Forget that business of great time.

Nor can motion exist without time.

Irrelevant! Motion in our space time does not = motion in another space time.

If you remove time then you can't move.

Remove time? What are you rambling about now!?

This stuff about stars being room-sized is just idiotic.

Not really. We could use any size as an example. The point is that without distances, you CANNOT know size, period. To know distance one must know time. You be well and truly hooped.

If that were the case then all the stars we see would have to be withing a few thousand miles of earth.

No, not if we accept trigonometry. besides we have been out further than that, get a grip.

 

[dad]

We can observe from the spectra of the star itself that time exists, as well as the same physical laws that are here on Earth.

Wow, you are really spinning that hamster wheel here! Hilarious.

You kidding?? You really can't see it?

OK, here is the thing, we observed IN our time and space! How would that tell us anything about time at the star??

Simply dividing light doesn't really tell us much about time!

The emission and absorbance lines in starlight are determined by the very same laws found here on Earth.

Got that right! It is determined here, conceived here, observed here too! The thread is not about different laws really, but different time or no time. For the purposes of this thread it doesn't much matter if it is our laws, since the light we see may not have taken much time to get here!

 

[dad]

Not to mention they can make accurate predictions with all of these techniques, which would be impossible if they were just nonsense.

Name 2 accurate prediction that involve stars and time.

 

[dad]

It's just a distance. That's all.

Do you reject measuring anything in metres? After all, a metre is defined as the distance light travels in a vacuum in one 299,792,458th of a second.

Great. So who cares about distances up to 326 light years?? For this thread we can accept them. The darn thing is, that let's say we were out 300 light years in distance. The light from that star, rather than take 300 years, maybe would only take 200 years to reach us. So a light year would not be a light year, save in miles. Not time.

 

[dad]

bolding mine.

Distance is a measurement of "how far" one point is from another.

False!! A light year means how far light would travel in a year. When science looks out at a star, they say that the light took so many billions or millions or thousands of YEARS etc to get here. The claim is we are looking at the far past. Let's be honest.

Parallax measurements don't need the time of light travel in order to measure the distance of the top of a tower from an observer on the ground. In the same way parallax measurements of star distances don't need the time of light travel either.

The claim of a star being so many light years away includes time. They claim that time is how long the light took to get here...hence the nam. Obviously if we were JUST talking distance, we would use another measure.

 

[dad]

Actually, they don't -- they depend on simple geometry.

So you're wrong right out of the gate.

No. They claim light takes light years to reach us from parallax measures. It is not just a distance thing. Example sn1987a, they are always harping on how it was measured by parallax, and also how long the light takes to get here!

If we observe ANYTHING from our solar system, or earth, that involves time, because we exist in time/space here. Time is a part of that. A big part obviously. What parallax does is incorporate that time into so called distance lines out to space!

 

[TLK Valentine]

This thread sidesteps your attempt at ignoring time in the equation,

Time isn't in the equation.

look at your own illustration in the OP -- is it moving?

 

[TLK Valentine]

No. They claim light takes light years to reach us from parallax measures.

No -- they claim that a given star is X miles away (X in this case being an incredibly high number) from parallax measures. Nothing more.

They claim light takes years to reach us based on its speed and its distance.

It is not just a distance thing. Example sn1987a, they are always harping on how it was measured by parallax, and also how long the light takes to get here!

BLUE = measurement of distance

RED = measurement of speed


Two separate claims -- one of which has nothing to do with parallax.

Even you admit that these are two separate claims -- you can't even keep your own blather consistent.

 

[[serious]]

How do they depend on time?

Seems to me they depend on straight lines...

You can't prove same state lines

 

[[serious]]

False. A light year is a measure of how far light would travel in a year. That means time. Totally. If time didn't exist as it does here a few light years away, then one could not claim light would take a year to get here...regardless of how many miles away it is!

What if we do all the math in meters? Lines still work in meters.

 

[dad]

No -- they claim that a given star is X miles away (X in this case being an incredibly high number) from parallax measures. Nothing more.

They claim light takes years to reach us based on its speed and its distance.

Based on speed in our time and space only. They then extend this out to the universe. In parallax, it is often light years and often the years are highlighted. The very nature of a light year means time. Time light takes here and near here to move through our space!

BLUE = measurement of distance

RED = measurement of speed


Two separate claims -- one of which has nothing to do with parallax.

Even you admit that these are two separate claims -- you can't even keep your own blather consistent.

For the purposes of this thread I said we could use the distances, and no they are not usually separate. When talking of sn1987a, for example, the distances and time is quite interchangeable.
'We got the distance from trig, which means it happened so many years ago...blah blah'!


Let's be honest.

 

[dad]

What if we do all the math in meters? Lines still work in meters.

Science uses the distance to wed it to many other things, as you know. It is a package deal, and that is why it is usually given in time unites that are also distance units...light years.

 

[dad]

You can't prove same state lines

I agree. the line to the starts likely is not a same state line. It may involve time change.

 

[dad]

Time isn't in the equation.

Yes it is. When a light year is used, that incorporates time, that can and is used along with the distance as desired.

look at your own illustration in the OP -- is it moving?

Movement may not be required for time to exist.

Yet movement could cause light shifting if time were different perhaps. After all a wave takes time.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Based on speed in our time and space only.

Which has nothing to do with distance -- you're blathering.

They then extend this out to the universe. In parallax, it is often light years and often the years are highlighted. The very nature of a light year means time. Time light takes here and near here to move through our space!

As has been explained to you countless times, 1 light year = 5.88 trillion miles. It is a unit of distance, nothing more.

You're blathering.

For the purposes of this thread I said we could use the distances, and no they are not usually separate. When talking of sn1987a, for example, the distances and time is quite interchangeable.

No, they're not. You're wrong -- and still blathering.

'We got the distance from trig, which means it happened so many years ago...blah blah'!

You're not even bothering to blather in actual words anymore.

Let's be honest.

You first -- it would be refreshing.

 

[dad]

Which has nothing to do with distance -- you're blathering.

A light year definition


"
1. the distance traversed by light in one mean solar year, about 5.88 trillion mi. (9.46 trillion km): used as a unit in measuring stellar distances."


light-year - definition of light-year by The Free Dictionary


If time is not existing then a year is not a year. We can put a light year into distance, but then we best use other terms. be honest.



In addition to this, time is part of our spacetime. That means that using a baseline for parallax in this solar system involves time!!

 

[TLK Valentine]

A light year definition

about 5.88 trillion mi. (9.46 trillion km): used as a unit in measuring stellar distances.

If time is not existing then a year is not a year. We can put a light year into distance, but then we best use other terms. be honest.

5.88 trillion miles -- call it by whatever name you want, but the geometry doesn't lie.

In addition to this, time is part of our spacetime. That means that using a baseline for parallax in this solar system involves time!!

Is your picture moving?

No?

You're blathering.