Why Parallax doesn't work

[Ygrene Imref]

ok, so when using algebra to calculate the third side of a triangle, the triangle exists in space, and therefore time.

So, if hypothetically, I have a triangle and I know the length of two sides, in relation to objects in space, what is your proposal for why we cannot know length of the third side ?

The triangle exists in space.

Time is not a dimension: it is the action per available free energy. It is literally an evolution of events - a pseudo dimension for our benifit.

Indeed, the SI unit and definition for time, a second, is defined as ~9,000,000,000 hyper fine transitions in the Cesium-133 isotope. In other words, time is an arbitrary measure of evolution of events.

 

[Job 33:6]

We know that time is like and that it exists here. So here where it exists, of course we can get distances.

Ok, so you do believe that we know the distance between where our planet resides with relation to the sun during winter and where it resides with relation to the sun during the summer?

 

[Kylie]

I was keeping it simple. If anyone wants to talk nitty gritty start anytime. In the end we will see it amounts to the same thing. Been there done that.

Okay, let's get down to the nitty gritty.

What mechanism was there in the DSP which resulted in radioactive decay either not occurring or occurring at a rate different than the rate today? Did some subatomic particles have different qualities? If so, what qualities were different, and by how much were they different? Or was there some other cause? In that case, what specifically was that cause, and how was it different to what we see today? Please be as specific as possible, including values for all the things you say were different. (For example, you might say, "The mass of the electron in the DSP was 0.315% heavier than it is today, which meant that...")

 

[dad]

Ok, so you do believe that we know the distance between where our planet resides with relation to the sun during winter and where it resides with relation to the sun during the summer?

Sure. Why not? We have been to the moon, and sent probes to the fringes of the solar system.

 

[dad]

The triangle exists in space.

Time is not a dimension: it is the action per available free energy. It is literally an evolution of events - a pseudo dimension for our benifit.

Or maybe time is real. Maybe the mere act of clocks marking time is not time itself.

Indeed, the SI unit and definition for time, a second, is defined as ~9,000,000,000 hyper fine transitions in the Cesium-133 isotope. In other words, time is an arbitrary measure of evolution of events.

One could try to define time by the movements of a clock I suppose. Ever consider that what moves (any clock) may just be moving as time dictates? Now if time were not the same, then whatever moved would not involve the same time!

 

[dad]

Okay, let's get down to the nitty gritty.

What mechanism was there in the DSP which resulted in radioactive decay either not occurring or occurring at a rate different than the rate today?

Well, what is here today that does that? All you need to do is show it was also here then! Otherwise, admit you don't really know after all.

Did some subatomic particles have different qualities?

What determines the qualities of a particle? Would not the forces and laws of nature do that? So, if other forces were working on a aperticle we might expect different qualities.

If so, what qualities were different, and by how much were they different?

The forces that result in qualities are what matter. Science doesn't know what was in place.

Or was there some other cause? In that case, what specifically was that cause, and how was it different to what we see today?

What causes laws and forces to exist? You don't know what cause the forces today to exist and you think science should/could know what caused them to exists in the far past?

Please be as specific as possible, including values for all the things you say were different. (For example, you might say, "The mass of the electron in the DSP was 0.315% heavier than it is today, which meant that...")

It is not only the mass, but the charge and various forces acting on an electron that determine how it behaves. You seem to be wanting to tweak current laws to get a different result in what we have. If different forces and laws existed, it would not be a matter of merely tweaking present forces and laws.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

Or maybe time is real. Maybe the mere act of clocks marking time is not time itself.

Hmm...

I am of the staunch belief that time as we know it is a man-made "metaphysical" construct.

God put a TIMEX in the sky - a natural clock made from the periodic motion of the celestial bodies we view on our projection screen we call a sky.

Humans redefined time a myriad of times... over time.

But, this is just futility in practice: trying to gain control of events while at the same time ordering them according to their evolution (read: changes in state.)

God defines "time," as it were, as an evolution of events also. A day is an unspecified period of time; the first day was made when God separated (evolution of event/change in state) the light from the dark. And, depending on who you talk to, that first "yom" interval was an aeon. Other times, time according to God is dictated by the seasons, moonrise and sunrise.

These are simply evolutions of events - time is a false dimension, and a false construct humans used to try to make sense of evolutions of events. Humans cannot process infinite "now," so we chop up events in extremely small intervals to distinguish "now" from "now."

We made up the definition, or standard for time. It is arbitrary.

One could try to define time by the movements of a clock I suppose. Ever consider that what moves (any clock) may just be moving as time dictates? Now if time were not the same, then whatever moved would not involve the same time!

In the case of so called atomic clocks, the timepiece is categorically recording a certain number of hyperfine transitions in isotopes. And, that number of transitions is defined by "us" - a (semi)arbitrary figure equated to the SI unit of time. In the same way, the speed of light is defined as the time it takes light to travel one meter - which is why "normal" physical systems take $c=1$ (it allegedly takes light 300 millionths of a second to travel one meter.)

In other words, we make up the definition of time, and apply it to math and science.

And, yes clocks are suspicious in relativity - particularly because we can not necessarily reproduce and test relativistic time frames in the lab. It has been shown in the lab that time dilation exists, especially between atomic clocks and satellites. But the problem is getting enough matter that "matters" (a complete hydrogen atom, for example) to get to relativistic speeds in the first place.

It comes back down to a matter of available energy, and the shifts/perturbations in energy as a reflection of the evolution of events. The mathematical (or physical) action function.

 

[dad]

Hmm...

I am of the staunch belief that time as we know it is a man-made "metaphysical" construct.

That would mean time doesn't exist outside of man. Ask a bird how long it lives. Ask a comet how long an orbit takes. Sorry, it is not all in our head.

God put a TIMEX in the sky - a natural clock made from the periodic motion of the celestial bodies we view on our projection screen we call a sky.

Maybe He put that timex there for US to mark time. Not to be a figment of man's imagination.

Humans redefined time a myriad of times... over time.

Such is the way of the ignorant. They try and try but never really know.

But, this is just futility in practice: trying to gain control of events while at the same time ordering them according to their evolution (read: changes in state.)

OK

God defines "time," as it were, as an evolution of events also. A day is an unspecified period of time; the first day was made when God separated (evolution of event/change in state) the light from the dark. And, depending on who you talk to, that first "yom" interval was an aeon. Other times, time according to God is dictated by the seasons, moonrise and sunrise.

A day actually was specified to be an evening and morning. Speaking of the bible, the first time I see the word time it says this.

Ge 4:3 -And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD.

So it seems time unfolds, or is a process. That sounds like something real. Not just a clock.

These are simply evolutions of events - time is a false dimension, and a false construct humans used to try to make sense of evolutions of events. Humans cannot process infinite "now," so we chop up events in extremely small intervals to distinguish "now" from "now."

How man deals with time or chops it up does not mean he chops time itself up. He lives in time. Things take time.

We made up the definition, or standard for time. It is arbitrary.

Hard to argue you made up the definition I guess.

In the case of so called atomic clocks, the timepiece is categorically recording a certain number of hyperfine transitions in isotopes. And, that number of transitions is defined by "us" - a (semi)arbitrary figure equated to the SI unit of time. In the same way, the speed of light is defined as the time it takes light to travel one meter - which is why "normal" physical systems take $c=1$ (it allegedly takes light 300 millionths of a second to travel one meter.)

We think of and experience time a certain way. That does not mean there is no time. Nor does it mean that what we chop is time itself.

In other words, we make up the definition of time, and apply it to math and science.

regardless of how man tries to wrap his little head around time, or define time, time exists. Here on earth it exists. In our solar system it exists.

And, yes clocks are suspicious in relativity - particularly because we can not necessarily reproduce and test relativistic time frames in the lab. It has been shown in the lab that time dilation exists, especially between atomic clocks and satellites. But the problem is getting enough matter that "matters" (a complete hydrogen atom, for example) to get to relativistic speeds in the first place.

Nothing can get to a speed unless time exists. A speed is just moving in time. Time and space. If there were less time or different time, then whatever moved would not take so much time. Time must exist and be there for anything to do something IN it.

It comes back down to a matter of available energy, and the shifts/perturbations in energy as a reflection of the evolution of events. The mathematical (or physical) action function.

No. It doesn't come to anything moving. The issue is whether time exists in the apace it moves! Math is just a way of measuring that move.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

@dad When you say "time," you mean an evolution of events. Not a second, hour, year or century.

I know this has been ingrained in the academic mind, but time is completely arbitrary. It is much more of a metaphysical concept connecting events than it is a well-defined dimension. It is to keep our minds from wrestling the magnanimous weightiness of "now."

Every infinitesimal interval of events is "NOW." We are in perpetual NOW, which is why man demanded within themselves to come up with a construct to itemize and distinguish NOW from NOW. But, it is futility; everything that will happen has already happened.

If the sun never sets, when does the day end? Ever hear of "time loops?" They aren't "loops" because of time, they are loops because in the "interval" of events, there is no change.

When God gave the celestial TIMEX, He did that because the evolution of celestial activity would give the most raw form of time - measurable periodic change.

The second is by definition arbitrarily defined by humans - the definition of the standard of time is when nine billion hyperfine transitions occur in a Cesium isotope. It isn't based on anything but an evolution of events.

Evolution (not darwinian, simple changes in events) IS the definition of time - if one could define such an abstraction pulled from arbitration.


And, remember God made evenings and mornings WITHOUT a sun, moon, and stars. The Hebrew implies something else going on - specifically in terms of the connotations of the words "yom," "tohu," "bohu," "or," and "choshek." But, even the basal definition of a day (moonrise to moonrise) is still am evolution of events. If the sun rises, and never sets, you are in a type of "timelessness" - which connects to the prophecy of Christ reigning forever, and the sun never setting/7th day lasting forever.

 

[Job 33:6]

Sure. Why not? We have been to the moon, and sent probes to the fringes of the solar system.

cool.

So, lets say hypothetically, we are here on earth looking into space. And we see light from a star. If what we see is in fact light from that star, we can also look at the sun and we can determine the angle we need to turn from looking at the sun to looking at the light of the particular star. Do you agree that the angle we turn from the sun to the light of the star (lets say its 80 degrees, hypothetically). Do you agree that, that 80 degree angle is in fact a true angle or a true measurement of degrees that we must turn to direct our eyes from the sun to the light of the star?

Just as with the moon for example. We can look at the sun, and we can then turn our head a certain number of degrees and can point our eyes to the moon.

In regards to a star in space though, do you think when we turn our heads from the sun to a star, are we in fact turning our head from the sun to the star? Or do you think that it isnt a star, or that the light is coming from somewhere else? etc.

 

[dad]

@dad When you say "time," you mean an evolution of events. Not a second, hour, year or century.

No. Any evolving in time is not time, it is something that happens in time. Same thing with a century and etc...that happens in so much time. None of those thing ARE time, they just mark it.

I know this has been ingrained in the academic mind, but time is completely arbitrary. It is much more of a metaphysical concept connecting events than it is a well-defined dimension. It is to keep our minds from wrestling the magnanimous weightiness of "now."

Says you. You don't know though. Maybe there is time like there is gravity for all we know.

Every infinitesimal interval of events is "NOW." We are in perpetual NOW, which is why man demanded within themselves to come up with a construct to itemize and distinguish NOW from NOW. But, it is futility; everything that will happen has already happened.

Did you post this a while ago or now?

If the sun never sets, when does the day end?

Yes.

Ever hear of "time loops?" They aren't "loops" because of time, they are loops because in the "interval" of events, there is no change.

Ever seen such a loop outside of a movie? I doubt it.

When God gave the celestial TIMEX, He did that because the evolution of celestial activity would give the most raw form of time - measurable periodic change.

Maybe. Or maybe it is deeper than you dared dream. Maybe God uses stars to regulate time itself for us on earth or something. Who knows?

The second is by definition arbitrarily defined by humans - the definition of the standard of time is when nine billion hyperfine transitions occur in a Cesium isotope. It isn't based on anything but an evolution of events.

There are many ways to measure our march through time. None of those clocks is time. They just mark it for us.

Evolution (not darwinian, simple changes in events) IS the definition of time - if one could define such an abstraction pulled from arbitration.

And, remember God made evenings and mornings WITHOUT a sun, moon, and stars. The Hebrew implies something else going on - specifically in terms of the connotations of the words "yom," "tohu," "bohu," "or," and "choshek."

Hence we don't need them for time to exist I guess. They are here for us.

But, even the basal definition of a day (moonrise to moonrise) is still am evolution of events. If the sun rises, and never sets, you are in a type of "timelessness" - which connects to the prophecy of Christ reigning forever, and the sun never setting/7th day lasting forever.

I see no connection there.

 

[dad]

cool.

So, lets say hypothetically, we are here on earth looking into space. And we see light from a star. If what we see is in fact light from that star, we can also look at the sun and we can determine the angle we need to turn from looking at the sun to looking at the light of the particular star. Do you agree that the angle we turn from the sun to the light of the star (lets say its 80 degrees, hypothetically). Do you agree that, that 80 degree angle is in fact a true angle or a true measurement of degrees that we must turn to direct our eyes from the sun to the light of the star?

Angles don't matter where time is involved. If I drew a line through areas where there was time and where there was not, the line would not represent distance.

Just as with the moon for example. We can look at the sun, and we can then turn our head a certain number of degrees and can point our eyes to the moon.

Because time exists in the solar system we can draw lines. Not to the stars though.

In regards to a star in space though, do you think when we turn our heads from the sun to a star, are we in fact turning our head from the sun to the star? Or do you think that it isnt a star, or that the light is coming from somewhere else? etc.

The star is really there and you can draw lines to it if you like from here, where time exists. The lines, once outside of where time exists, though will lose meaning for distance.

Distance means space and time together as we know it basically. There could be no light year without time.

 

[Kylie]

Well, what is here today that does that? All you need to do is show it was also here then! Otherwise, admit you don't really know after all.

So when it comes down to the nitty gritty, you avoid answering questions.

What determines the qualities of a particle? Would not the forces and laws of nature do that? So, if other forces were working on a aperticle we might expect different qualities.

Wow, so specific!

When it comes down to the nitty gritty, you respond with vague soundbites that contain no information of any value.

The forces that result in qualities are what matter. Science doesn't know what was in place.

It seems you don't know either, since you can't tell me anything of value. So much for getting to the nitty gritty!

What causes laws and forces to exist? You don't know what cause the forces today to exist and you think science should/could know what caused them to exists in the far past?

I'm not asking science to explain the laws of the DSP, I'm asking you to! So much for getting to the nitty gritty! When it comes to the nitty gritty, you make excuses for not answering!

It is not only the mass, but the charge and various forces acting on an electron that determine how it behaves. You seem to be wanting to tweak current laws to get a different result in what we have. If different forces and laws existed, it would not be a matter of merely tweaking present forces and laws.

Then what was it? For someone who wanted to get to the nitty gritty, you certainly seem to be doing your best to avoid it!

 

[dad]

So when it comes down to the nitty gritty, you avoid answering questions.

False. My answer is that you don't know, and science doesn't know. Why avoid that? Nor do I know the intricate details of the future nature of heaven, the spiritual, or the far past. The thing that matters is whether the current nature was here or not, If not...all bets and models ore out the window.

I'm not asking science to explain the laws of the DSP, I'm asking you to!

Science doesn't so much know that there was any other nature. How would they explain it? God didn't give us the details or specs on heaven and the spiritual laws, and the nature of the past.
So much for getting to the nitty gritty! When it comes to the nitty gritty, you make excuses for not answering! He did record some distinct differences in nature, such as fast growing plants, and long lives for people though.

 

[Job 33:6]

Angles don't matter where time is involved. If I drew a line through areas where there was time and where there was not, the line would not represent distance.
Because time exists in the solar system we can draw lines. Not to the stars though.
The star is really there and you can draw lines to it if you like from here, where time exists. The lines, once outside of where time exists, though will lose meaning for distance.

Distance means space and time together as we know it basically. There could be no light year without time.

Would you agree that there is in fact an angle, between the earth and a number of distant stars during the winter, and different angles between the earth and those same distant stars during the summer?

 

[Kylie]

False. My answer is that you don't know, and science doesn't know. Why avoid that? Nor do I know the intricate details of the future nature of heaven, the spiritual, or the far past. The thing that matters is whether the current nature was here or not, If not...all bets and models ore out the window.

If you freely admit that you don't know, what was all that talk about getting down to the nitty gritty? You obviously don't know the nitty gritty!

Science doesn't so much know that there was any other nature. How would they explain it? God didn't give us the details or specs on heaven and the spiritual laws, and the nature of the past.

Maybe if you could provide some actual evidence for it, we will know.

But I've long since given up on that.

So much for getting to the nitty gritty! When it comes to the nitty gritty, you make excuses for not answering! He did record some distinct differences in nature, such as fast growing plants, and long lives for people though.

Ah yes, your old stories.

And I should believe them why?[/QUOTE]

 

[dad]

Would you agree that there is in fact an angle, between the earth and a number of distant stars during the winter, and different angles between the earth and those same distant stars during the summer?

Of course. And we can draw lines from that. The lines mean nothing however unless there is time at all points between the solar system and there also.

 

[dad]

If you freely admit that you don't know, what was all that talk about getting down to the nitty gritty? You obviously don't know the nitty gritty!

The nitty gritty is that the bible provides a record of the past with several key distinctions in life and nature on earth in the past. If you want the lowdown on how science doesn't know, we can do that also. Let's make this simple for you. God knows, man (especially science) doesn't. If you are talking about deep space and time, well, do you really think anyone knows in science or anywhere else if time exists the same in all the universe?? I mean really?

Maybe if you could provide some actual evidence for it, we will know.

So you are back to ancient earth nature I see. Let's break that down for you. Science doesn't know either way. History and the Scripture indicate a different nature in the far past. All evidences can be looked at with either belief.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

 

[Kylie]

The nitty gritty is that the bible provides a record of the past with several key distinctions in life and nature on earth in the past.

The nitty gritty is that the Bible gives us no way to check and validate the claims it makes. Remember, the Bible is the CLAIM, not the EVIDENCE.

If you want the lowdown on how science doesn't know, we can do that also. Let's make this simple for you. God knows, man (especially science) doesn't. If you are talking about deep space and time, well, do you really think anyone knows in science or anywhere else if time exists the same in all the universe?? I mean really?

Again, the Bible is the CLAIM, not the EVIDENCE.

So you are back to ancient earth nature I see. Let's break that down for you. Science doesn't know either way. History and the Scripture indicate a different nature in the far past. All evidences can be looked at with either belief.

No, I am once again asking you to provide supporting evidence for your claims. Since you've been incapable of doing it so far.

 

[Job 33:6]

Of course. And we can draw lines from that. The lines mean nothing however unless there is time at all points between the solar system and there also.

There being angles, defines a distance. If the distance were infinite, there would be no angles. If the object were close, the angles would be smaller. If the object were far, they would be greater.

If time were to stop before this light arrived, light would not move to reach us. So there is time between us and the object. If time were faster, the light would reach us sooner. If light were slower, it would reach us later.

But regardless of if time sped up or slowed down, this doesnt change where the light is coming from, nor does it change where the object that depicts the light is. The angles are the same, regardless, which defines the distance.

If there were no time between us and the object, there would be no star to see, as its light would not move in a place without time. So there is time between us and the object.