You are talking about the baseline for parallax measurements from two extremes of earth's orbit perpendicular to the object being measured.
I was about to apologize for misunderstanding, and then I read the clarifying post. He really was talking about the two extremes of the earth's orbit. By the way, there is no need for that baseline to be perpendicular. Generally speaking that is not the case.
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson
Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith
Some of us are worried about just how much damage he will do in his last couple of weeks as president, to make it easier for the NY Times and Washington post to try to destroy Trump's presidency. -- marc9000
Under Special Relativity their are only four possible velocities in spacetime: (Average velocity means average over all four directions) ("bias" means it requires effort to have velocity in the other dimension)
(a) Average velocity of 1, with a bias toward time (normal matter) (b) Average velocity of 1, with a bias toward space ("faster-than-light" matter, i.e. tachyons) (c) Average velocity of 0, equal spread among time and space (light and other massless particles) (d) Average velocity of 0, all velocities actually zero (these were never given a name)
Special Relativity allows all of these, but when you add in quantum mechanics (b) and (d) are impossible for quantum particles (but not for classical particles).
This leaves only (a) and (c) as possibilities. It's one of the strongest reasons we doubt FTL travel, there are literally no possible particles with this property and you can't be made of non-existent stuff.
Note, although Relativity says everybody experiences time differently, i.e. the time/space splitting of spacetime is different for different observers, everybody always agrees on the class a given particle belongs to, i.e. a photon is equally split between time and space for all observers.
from its perspective
These leads on to the second point, the perspective of particles in classes (a) and (c).
Basically it turns out (c) don't have a perspective, although they do move forward in time (equal split of velocities), they don't experience any, i.e. their own state cannot change.
Going a little further, just out of interest, QM also says (a) and (c) can't have any properties except their velocity class, their mass (must be zero for class (c)), their spin (which must be in multiples of 1/2) and any charges they have. Where charges are the properties that determine how strongly you interact with a force* (e.g. electric charge). Also for all forces, except the Electromagnetic force, that charge must be a specific value.
*Also all forces must be carried by particles in class (c).
Ah, so you really are scared about debating the issues in this forum?
Understandable, but it won't change the facts.
If I take the time for a demolition derby, I do not want biased mods around.
If you do, please be sure to properly cite and reference it with a proper live link to the thread here, and please ensure that it is one that I am able to post on freely.
Note that I will then copy your replies to a new thread here and shred your arguments here. You will of course have the opportunity to reply, but you won't have the privilege of being the only one that you would have on the The Great Debate forum. If you want I can start a new thread in that forum to post your comments and my replies so that you do have that privilege.
Ha you like to make little rules eh? Good luck with that.
This could be an interesting experiment in cross forum debate, and it could introduce many more people to my arguments. Might even bring some new people here.
Flatter yourself all you like. I find your arguments second rate. Passe.
ps -- I have set up the new thread at The Age of the Earth Great Debate, RAZD and time (only) in Proposed New Topics but it needs to be promoted to The Great Debate before you can comment. Just tell Percy that you want to participate and he can promote it.
Ha. I see you really think you have a chance. Kind of a little sad. But I guess you need to learn.
You are on trail here not me. You all show that you cannot evidence your claims about time existing in the far universe.
I accept time here on earth. I live it. I experience it. I accept time from the space station, we know there is time involved and how much in communications and such. I accept time in the solar system because we know how long it tales for light or communication to get around here. I do not accept it anywhere else until we get evidence. We see light from stars but not time.
There is no way to cross check what time in inherent in light from stars that arrives here. There are ways to check info from probes generally.
That was a long post. Let me at least address the issue of where time is in parallax. The mods are already threatening me here with suspensions. You think anyone could debate here in any honest way??!! Ha.
Anyhow time is part of spacetime. You with me so far? If then time is part of space...spacetime...the when we take a slice of space for a base line, that has to include time.