Yes, when it is wed with time as light years are, it lies through the teeth.5.88 trillion miles -- call it by whatever name you want, but the geometry doesn't lie.
Planets and the sun do move, why?Is your picture moving?
Upvote
0
Yes, when it is wed with time as light years are, it lies through the teeth.5.88 trillion miles -- call it by whatever name you want, but the geometry doesn't lie.
Planets and the sun do move, why?Is your picture moving?
5.88 trillion miles -- call it by whatever name you want, but the geometry doesn't lie.
Is your picture moving?
No?
You're blathering.
Yes, when it is wed with time as light years are, it lies through the teeth.
Planets and the sun do move, why?
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.
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.
I have said that if time is different, then a light year is nothing but mileage. If you are fine with that, OK.It's not -- you're blathering to hide your numerous mistakes.
So do a lot of thing, care to make some point?Oh, so you do admit that the planets move -- that's a refreshing start.
How far have you seen it move?Is that star in the distance moving?
I know the feeling. Not only does their time challenged monkey business revert the whole universe into a tiny little hot speck that appeared for no reason and produced the universe for no reason and with no God in imaginary time--but they are proud of their delusions.Well, I'm done. In the face of such an enormous larder of muli-varied stupid, one can only walk away wondering how such a person can dress and feed himself.
There is absolutely no evidence for another space time in this universe. None.Time as viewed HERE. The stars were created. Forget that business of great time.
Irrelevant! Motion in our space time does not = motion in another space time.
That's what this theory of yours requires, that we remove time from other locations in the universe so they are static.Remove time? What are you rambling about now!?
And since we know time, we can know distance.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.
Umm, hello? The distance to stars up to 500 light years away is determined using trigonometric parallax. You're acting as if they are two different things.No, not if we accept trigonometry. besides we have been out further than that, get a grip.
If one claims time and space are a fabric and together, as science does, then time is part of timespace. If one travels inside time and space that is near earth, one inadvertently will have to admit time is here. You have a problem with such simple things?measuring LENGTH has a time component in it....
There is absolutely no evidence for an earth zone space time in this universe. None. Is there?There is absolutely no evidence for another space time in this universe. None.
That's what this theory of yours requires, that we remove time from other locations in the universe so they are static.
You do not know time, or even what time is.And since we know time, we can know distance.
Umm, hello? The distance to stars up to 500 light years away is determined using trigonometric parallax. You're acting as if they are two different things.
Time as viewed HERE. The stars were created. Forget that business of great time.
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.
What test can be used to determine if time passes at the same rate at a distant star? If you can't show us how your claims are testable or falsifiable, then they are meaningless.
They're meaningless anyway because time has nothing to do with the angles used to measure distance. Dad can't explain otherwise without working himself into a blather.
Name 2 accurate prediction that involve stars and time.
We have already discussed in other posts, the futility of trying to pretend that differently situated accelerating frames share the same laws of physics.
Sorry, you are flat out wrong here (well, actually I'm not sorry about it)There is absolutely no evidence for an earth zone space time in this universe. None. Is there?
That means then, unless you contest that simple fact with evidence, that time far away is an unknown factor.
I never said it was. I said movement is a function of time. Reading is fundamental, you should try it.??How silly. Time is not just a function of movement.
Hello? You orignial comment implied that time didn't exist at those other stars:You though having different time would mean being motionless?? You do not know time, or even what time is.
That implies that for your claims to work, time would not exist.Right. But regardless of where we move in relation to the star or visa verso, unless time existed where the star was, it would not matter for distances determined in time...like light years!
Of course time is built into it, we have absolutely no evidence to presume otherwise. Can I also presume that you do not accept trigonometry, as you appear to have stated here?A light year in distance. Not time, as in how many earth years it takes to get here! Also, the trig totally uses a baseline IN earth timespace, which means time is built into it, admit it.
No, not if we accept trigonometry.
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.
False. That would only be true if time and space were the same!That is false. The brightness of stars is governed by the release of photons by the star over a specific time period in the star's frame of reference. If time were different in our frame of reference compared to the star's frame of reference then we would see either a blue or red shift of the star spectra. On top of that, we would also see a change in the brightning and fading of type Ia supernovae.