« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

Movey light theory

  • 51 Replies
  • 15447 Views
*

minorwork

  • 46
  • Destroyer of Worlds
Re: Movey light theory
« Reply #30 on: April 18, 2010, 02:07:02 PM »
Quote from: Mizzle on April 18, 2010, 01:47:53 PM
Quote from: minorwork on April 18, 2010, 01:43:43 PM
Quote from: Mizzle on April 18, 2010, 01:36:29 PM
Quote from: minorwork on April 18, 2010, 01:34:29 PM
Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 18, 2010, 12:13:05 PM
How do we know that they are billions of miles away?
Trigonometry.  Parallax.
Unless we're moving through time at a different speed than the light sources.  Then your measurements go to crap.
But we are not.  We are, each of us, moving at the speed of light thru time.  As is every observer.
That statement is untrue.  How can we measure time with speed?  Speed is the quotient of distance/time.
That's like defining a word with itself.
Example:  What is a chicken?  A chicken-like animal.
Great, so we figured out that it's an animal, but that's it.
No. Speed is the movement of one thing compared to the movement of another.  Time is a measurement of distance.  A clock measures movement.  Speed is distance Y/distance Z.  Velocity is the change in position of one thing compared to the change in position of another. 
Logged
“In the absence of willpower the most complete collection of virtues and talents is wholly worthless. “ ~ Aleister Crowley
?

Mizzle

  • 623
Re: Movey light theory
« Reply #31 on: April 18, 2010, 02:15:04 PM »
Quote from: minorwork on April 18, 2010, 02:07:02 PM
Quote from: Mizzle on April 18, 2010, 01:47:53 PM
Quote from: minorwork on April 18, 2010, 01:43:43 PM
Quote from: Mizzle on April 18, 2010, 01:36:29 PM
Quote from: minorwork on April 18, 2010, 01:34:29 PM
Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 18, 2010, 12:13:05 PM
How do we know that they are billions of miles away?
Trigonometry.  Parallax.
Unless we're moving through time at a different speed than the light sources.  Then your measurements go to crap.
But we are not.  We are, each of us, moving at the speed of light thru time.  As is every observer.
That statement is untrue.  How can we measure time with speed?  Speed is the quotient of distance/time.
That's like defining a word with itself.
Example:  What is a chicken?  A chicken-like animal.
Great, so we figured out that it's an animal, but that's it.
No. Speed is the movement of one thing compared to the movement of another.  Time is a measurement of distance.  A clock measures movement.  Speed is distance Y/distance Z.  Velocity is the change in position of one thing compared to the change in position of another. 
You made every bit of that up.  Zero truth to that.  However, I'll give you the chance to link to some source information that (even if very remotely) attempts to make such statements.
Logged
Books don't lie...the people that write them do.
*

minorwork

  • 46
  • Destroyer of Worlds
Re: Movey light theory
« Reply #32 on: April 18, 2010, 03:54:00 PM »
Quote from: Mizzle on April 18, 2010, 02:15:04 PM
You made every bit of that up.  Zero truth to that.  However, I'll give you the chance to link to some source information that (even if very remotely) attempts to make such statements.
Nah, I didn't make it up.  I read it in the tea leaves. 

Gee.  Take a bucket and put a hole in it.  Fill it with water.  When it's empty fill it again.  Make a mark in the dirt for each bucket that drains and see how many you got from sunup to sunup.  Buddy you've just made a clock.  You've measured the motion of water leaving a bucket and compared it to the motion of the sun.  If there were 24 buckets between the time the sun came up then instead of saying there are 24 hours in a day, you could say there are 24 buckets between sunups.

No change, no time. 

Or take a cesium atom .... 

Logged
“In the absence of willpower the most complete collection of virtues and talents is wholly worthless. “ ~ Aleister Crowley
*

minorwork

  • 46
  • Destroyer of Worlds
Re: Movey light theory
« Reply #33 on: April 18, 2010, 04:05:58 PM »
Logged
“In the absence of willpower the most complete collection of virtues and talents is wholly worthless. “ ~ Aleister Crowley
?

Mizzle

  • 623
Re: Movey light theory
« Reply #34 on: April 18, 2010, 06:04:16 PM »
Logged
Books don't lie...the people that write them do.
*

minorwork

  • 46
  • Destroyer of Worlds
Re: Movey light theory
« Reply #35 on: April 18, 2010, 08:03:38 PM »

 A Revaluation of Time. I apologize for putting up Forbes as an authority. 










Logged
“In the absence of willpower the most complete collection of virtues and talents is wholly worthless. “ ~ Aleister Crowley
?

Mizzle

  • 623
Re: Movey light theory
« Reply #36 on: April 18, 2010, 08:40:05 PM »
Quote from: minorwork on April 18, 2010, 08:03:38 PM

 A Revaluation of Time. I apologize for putting up Forbes as an authority. 


While I quoted a university on the topic of relativity, you quoted some douche-bag's home page.
You can't measure 'time.'  You can record the amount/frequency of events during a set period of time, but you cannot measure time itself.

So, if the 'flow' of time is not constant througout the universe, then it's impossible to say how far away something is by measuring it's apparent distance utilizing the speed of light.










Logged
Books don't lie...the people that write them do.
*

minorwork

  • 46
  • Destroyer of Worlds
Re: Movey light theory
« Reply #37 on: April 18, 2010, 10:17:02 PM »
Quote from: Mizzle on April 18, 2010, 08:40:05 PM
While I quoted a university on the topic of relativity, you quoted some douche-bag's home page.
Wow.  You won't even look at Mathis's points long enough to discover they are your own.  Cheap ad hominems instead.  Impressive.   
Quote
You can't measure 'time.'
Careful.  You're sounding a lot like some douche bag.  He says the same. 
Quote
You can record the amount/frequency of events during a set period of time, ...
Now who's calling a chicken a chicken? 
Quote
...amount/frequency of events during a period of time.
That's like defining a word with itself. 
Quote
...but you cannot measure time itself.
Spot on.  I agree with you.  So does Mathis the douche bag.

Quote
So, if the 'flow' of time is not constant throughout the universe, then it's impossible to say how far away something is by measuring it's apparent distance utilizing the speed of light.
Far out. So all measurements of distance by figuring parallax are scams?  Optical range finders.
The police use LIDAR.  Give tickets because of it.  They must be misinformed according to you? 

So how do YOU measure distance?

And what the hell is this 'flow' all about?
Logged
“In the absence of willpower the most complete collection of virtues and talents is wholly worthless. “ ~ Aleister Crowley
?

Mizzle

  • 623
Re: Movey light theory
« Reply #38 on: April 18, 2010, 10:20:30 PM »
Investigate relativity, it becomes quite clear.
Logged
Books don't lie...the people that write them do.
*

minorwork

  • 46
  • Destroyer of Worlds
Re: Movey light theory
« Reply #39 on: April 18, 2010, 11:37:30 PM »
Quote from: Mizzle on April 18, 2010, 10:20:30 PM
Investigate relativity, it becomes quite clear.
I don't know why my statement that parallax and trigonometry could determine the distance of a star in excess of a billion miles away caused you to say it used the speed of light in its calculations.  Hold your finger in front of your right eye at arms length with left eye shut.  Hold your finger still and then close your right eye and open the left and not that your finger moves relative to the background.  The arc length of the angle is used to determine distance with trig.  In fact that is what the term "parsec" is derived from; parallax and arcseconds.  Parallax.  The apparent change in position of an object when seen from two different points of view.

The Hipparcos's mission is to measure the parallax of stars and map their distances and plot their motions by using parallax measurements. When Tom Bishop asked how we know stars are billions of miles away I answered:  "...with parallax and trig."  A billion miles is 1 X 10^10 miles.  Hipparcos can resolve out to  9.4055997 × 10^15 miles.  Lot more than billions of miles.  About 1600 light-years.  Any farther and I'll have to consider the merits and problems of doppler shift and such in discussions.  I'm pretty sure Hipparcos is too old to be using a laser comb.  That should increase the range. 
Logged
“In the absence of willpower the most complete collection of virtues and talents is wholly worthless. “ ~ Aleister Crowley
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17933
Re: Movey light theory
« Reply #40 on: April 19, 2010, 12:37:31 AM »
Show us the parallax calculations which calculates a star out to "billions of light years away".
Logged
*

minorwork

  • 46
  • Destroyer of Worlds
Re: Movey light theory
« Reply #41 on: April 19, 2010, 01:17:21 AM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 19, 2010, 12:37:31 AM
Show us the parallax calculations which calculates a star out to "billions of light years away".
Gee whiz.  You'd asked for how to do it for "billions of miles".  Are you acknowledging that parallax calculations measures distances to stars billions of miles away, even trillions?

d=1/p    d in parsecs and p in arcseconds.  So simple a caveman can do it.  But of course at one time parallax could not be detected beyond the orbit of Saturn I think it was.  And so was put up as a reason for not believing in the heliocentric theory of the planets revolving around the sun.  The inability to refine parallax detection is not proof that there is none achievable.  New boundaries will be exceeded.
Logged
“In the absence of willpower the most complete collection of virtues and talents is wholly worthless. “ ~ Aleister Crowley
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17933
Re: Movey light theory
« Reply #42 on: April 19, 2010, 02:29:17 AM »
Show me a parallax calculation which calculates a star to be billions or millions of light years away.

It doesn't exist.

Astronomers use the color of the stars (doppler shift), not parallax, for their hypothesis of stars being "billions" or "millions" of light years away. It's a very loose guess based on the unconfirmed and speculative doppler shift of light hypothesis.
« Last Edit: April 19, 2010, 02:38:03 AM by Tom Bishop »
Logged
?

frozen_berries

  • 633
  • Posts: 78231234
Re: Movey light theory
« Reply #43 on: April 19, 2010, 03:02:18 AM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 19, 2010, 02:29:17 AM
Show me a parallax calculation which calculates a star to be billions or millions of light years away.

It doesn't exist.

Astronomers use the color of the stars (doppler shift), not parallax, for their hypothesis of stars being "billions" or "millions" of light years away. It's a very loose guess based on the unconfirmed and speculative doppler shift of light hypothesis.

Show me a calculation that shows stars not to be billions or millions of light years away.
Logged
*

Lord Xenu

  • 1029
  • ALL HAIL XENU!
Re: Movey light theory
« Reply #44 on: April 19, 2010, 03:17:27 AM »
Quote from: frozen_berries on April 19, 2010, 03:02:18 AM
Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 19, 2010, 02:29:17 AM
Show me a parallax calculation which calculates a star to be billions or millions of light years away.

It doesn't exist.

Astronomers use the color of the stars (doppler shift), not parallax, for their hypothesis of stars being "billions" or "millions" of light years away. It's a very loose guess based on the unconfirmed and speculative doppler shift of light hypothesis.

Show me a calculation that shows stars not to be billions or millions of light years away.

Look out of your window. See any stars? Thought not.
Logged
?

frozen_berries

  • 633
  • Posts: 78231234
Re: Movey light theory
« Reply #45 on: April 19, 2010, 03:53:01 AM »
Quote from: Lord Xenu on April 19, 2010, 03:17:27 AM
Quote from: frozen_berries on April 19, 2010, 03:02:18 AM
Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 19, 2010, 02:29:17 AM
Show me a parallax calculation which calculates a star to be billions or millions of light years away.

It doesn't exist.

Astronomers use the color of the stars (doppler shift), not parallax, for their hypothesis of stars being "billions" or "millions" of light years away. It's a very loose guess based on the unconfirmed and speculative doppler shift of light hypothesis.

Show me a calculation that shows stars not to be billions or millions of light years away.

Look out of your window. See any stars? Thought not.

What does that prove? Are you saying stars do not exist because I cannot see them?
Logged
?

2fst4u

  • 2498
  • High and Tighty
Re: Movey light theory
« Reply #46 on: April 19, 2010, 04:10:22 AM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 19, 2010, 02:29:17 AM
Show me a parallax calculation which calculates a star to be billions or millions of light years away.

It doesn't exist.

Astronomers use the color of the stars (doppler shift), not parallax, for their hypothesis of stars being "billions" or "millions" of light years away. It's a very loose guess based on the unconfirmed and speculative doppler shift of light hypothesis.
All the colour tells you is how fast it is moving away. The colour of a star doesn't tell you the distance.
Logged
*

Its a Sphere

  • 1495
Re: Movey light theory
« Reply #47 on: April 19, 2010, 04:59:41 AM »
I hear that there is at least one scientist that was working on a way to correlate spectral shift with distance to a galaxy.

Tom's point is that there is no direct experimental evidence confirming that stellar distances are as they have been reported as "*illions" of years away.  This is in contrast to the mountain of direct experimental evidence produced by people such as Samuel Birley Rowbotham that proves that the moon is self luminous.
Logged
Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 19, 2010, 06:34:31 AM
"We know that the sun is 93 million miles away and takes up 5 degrees of the sky.
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17933
Re: Movey light theory
« Reply #48 on: April 19, 2010, 06:34:31 AM »
Quote from: 2fst4u on April 19, 2010, 04:10:22 AM
All the colour tells you is how fast it is moving away. The colour of a star doesn't tell you the distance.

They use the star's color, its intensity, in addition to its size in the sky to guess how far away it is.

Basically they're operating under the assumption that a majority of stars in the universe are "average stars" with very similar properties. Hence if one is bigger than another, one is more intense than another, one is colored slightly differently than another, it can give the astronomer a loose guess where it is.

How Doppler Shift plays into it has mostly to do with the current "expanding universe" hypothesis, where we exist in an expanding balloon, the stars shifted blue being moving away from the observer and the stars shifted red moving towards the observer. The smallest blue stars being hypothesized to be the furthest stars and the bigger red ones being hypothesized to be the closest stars.

Star distances are generally one hypothesis built upon the next.

IE. "We know that the sun is 93 million miles away and takes up 5 degrees of the sky. We also think that it's an average sized star. Therefore these little dots in the night sky with an arc-minute size of 0.000...1 degrees must be xxxx million miles away."
« Last Edit: April 19, 2010, 06:44:53 AM by Tom Bishop »
Logged
*

minorwork

  • 46
  • Destroyer of Worlds
Re: Movey light theory
« Reply #49 on: April 19, 2010, 08:19:51 AM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 19, 2010, 02:29:17 AM
Show me a parallax calculation which calculates a star to be billions or millions of light years away.

It doesn't exist.
The calculation is hindered, at those distances, by the inability of our instruments to resolve a signal out of the noise "p" in the equation d=1/p. It does work.  Beyond even the limits you specified originally as well as within them.  I could be wrong.  But where?
Quote
Astronomers use the color of the stars (Doppler shift), not parallax, for their hypothesis of stars being "billions" or "millions" of light years away. It's a very loose guess based on the unconfirmed and speculative Doppler shift of light hypothesis.
Certain apparent positions of quasars in front of less distant galaxies have certainly caused astrophysicists some headaches, but not enough to downgrade the Doppler Effect to that of a hypothesis. 

Why do you say the Doppler Effect is speculative?  The effect of movement, relative to the observer, on the frequency of observed light is understood.  Conclusions drawn from apparent observed instances of the Doppler shift of light can certainly be speculative.  I see no reason to ascribe motion as the sole generator of apparent shifts in the frequency of light simply because I've not heard of such yet.  But it is the only one I've heard about.  OK, not anymore.  There's the expansion of the universe and that of light escaping from a deep gravity well which means the effect is still there but not observed in shallow gravity wells..  Bet that's the one they'll assign to quasars.  What will that one do for distance calculations.  Hmm.  Quasars are NOT the most distant object?  Who'd a thunk it.
Logged
“In the absence of willpower the most complete collection of virtues and talents is wholly worthless. “ ~ Aleister Crowley
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17933
Re: Movey light theory
« Reply #50 on: April 19, 2010, 04:14:38 PM »
Quote
Why do you say the Doppler Effect is speculative?  The effect of movement, relative to the observer, on the frequency of observed light is understood.

The Doppler Effect of sound is not speculative because it can be easily reproduced. For example, when one hears a train pass by the pitch changes as it approaches and passes you.

The Doppler Effect of light, in contrast, is entirely speculative because it has not been reproduced. No one has seen blue or red tinted trains, for example. The Doppler Effect of light exists only as an untested hypothesis.

Therefore the meaning of looking up at a blue tinted star does not automatically lead one to conclude that it must be moving toward the earth. It could be blue for a variety of reasons. Perhaps the star is just blue.
« Last Edit: April 19, 2010, 06:38:20 PM by Tom Bishop »
Logged
*

parsec

  • 6196
  • 206,265
Re: Movey light theory
« Reply #51 on: April 19, 2010, 08:04:23 PM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 19, 2010, 04:14:38 PM
Quote
Why do you say the Doppler Effect is speculative?  The effect of movement, relative to the observer, on the frequency of observed light is understood.

The Doppler Effect of sound is not speculative because it can be easily reproduced. For example, when one hears a train pass by the pitch changes as it approaches and passes you.

The Doppler Effect of light, in contrast, is entirely speculative because it has not been reproduced. No one has seen blue or red tinted trains, for example. The Doppler Effect of light exists only as an untested hypothesis.

Therefore the meaning of looking up at a blue tinted star does not automatically lead one to conclude that it must be moving toward the earth. It could be blue for a variety of reasons. Perhaps the star is just blue.
See Mossbauer effect.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up
« previous next »