The Red Shift without Expansion

Forums: Philosophy, Astronomy, Cosmology
Email this Topic • Print this Page

What is the best way to explain the red shift without the expansion of the universe?

I think that if we suppose a space of the universe that has no outside, everything belongs to it, an infinite universe in this sense, a limitless universe, which can have a physically longest possible distance anyway, is finite in this sense, and

this space has no time, only the particles in it have time, and the universe as a whole, the space with particles, is eternal, the red shift is explained as a natural movement in this kind of universe.

So in that kind of the space of the universe the galaxies can move as they like.

And we see the galaxies only as they have been billions of years ago. We don't see where they are now and how they move now. And their movements can be circulating too, carousell- like, when they move faster in far away.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 12 • Views: 28,878 • Replies: 678

Have you got some math to explain what you mean? Otherwise it's just hand waving.

1 Reply

@centrox,

It is only tentative. Can you answer the question, is there some good explanation for the red shift without the expansion of the universe?

It is normal sound logic to think the universe as eternal and infinite (limitless). That is why the question is accurate.

3 Replies

@Olli S,

Olli S wrote:

It is normal sound logic to think the universe as eternal and infinite (limitless). That is why the question is accurate.

Your logic, maybe, not otherwise. Provide the math.

1 Reply

@centrox,

In cosmology we can not make experiments. So we must make a model and look if it fits with the evidence, rational and empiric.

Rational evidence is that the universe as a whole, including the "other universes" is eternal and infinite (in the sense of limitlessness, no border, no edge, but finite in the sense that there is no outside place or matter or energy).

The prevailing theory denies this, so we have a good reason to look if some other theory, model can accept it.

In cosmology we must make models, presumptions and look which one fits best. The red shift is the only one thing that points to the expanding universe, so if we find a model which can explain it, it is not an obstacle for eternal and infinite universe.

In my opinion all the facts fit my model, and I don't have to make any more. There is the math. The math is that it fits. The evidence does not lead to the prevailing model either, it has been invented to fit the red shift, the time- space of the whole universe, and some other findings but it is not the best way anymore to understand the cosmology. It is too complicated and not rationally sound.

And here I ask for a better model if somebody has it in his mind. I don't think that my model is the best model. My model is maybe not good, but this is a fact with every model because the cosmology is so big and complex thing that the mankind and best science does not yet, if ever, wholly understand it. Every theory is still only a hypothesis.

0 Replies

@Olli S,

Olli S wrote:

It is only tentative. Can you answer the question, is there some good explanation for the red shift without the expansion of the universe?

It is normal sound logic to think the universe as eternal and infinite (limitless). That is why the question is accurate.

Sure. There are lots of explanations.

If you believe in God, then God could have created the galaxies in such a way that farther galaxies emit light shifted to the red part of the spectrum. If you believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, then He could have shifted the light with his noodly appendage.

If, however, you believe in science... you are going to have to provide some math. I don't know of any realistic scientific explanation for the evidence we have on cosmology other than the expansion of the universe. And, I understand a fair amount of the mathematics (or at least I did when I finished my Physics degree).

But if you believe in God, why bother with scientific explanations and mathematics?

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

For our OP friend , Im having a big problem with the question

DIMENSIONALLY WE HAVE:
L/t X t =L
(rate) X (time) = (distance traveled)

In order to dismiss rate (evidence via red shift) we are left with time equivalent to distance . Whaaaa

Ill go with the Linguini Monster

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

I made clear my thoughts of the matsh. I gave answer maybe only of the fitting of the model to the evidence. You mean the mathematics?

Yes, abandon the time- space for the whole universe and put the galaxies move in the timeless, infinite (limitless) space. That is the mathematics, in this kind of universe the galaxies move as they move, their movements have no effect to the space, and the space is not expanding.

The red shift is explained by the properties of the space of the universe. You don't know any other explanation but the expanding. Here you have one. I try here to find if there is others.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Sorry, I don't understand this. Can you make it more explicit?

0 Replies

@Olli S,

Have you ever learned how to solve a partial differential equation? The math behind expansion and red shift is built on calculus. If you haven't taken several years of calculus, this discussion is futile.

What you have said so far has nothing to do with either math or science.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

In mathematics the main thing is not the calculus but what you put to numbers. Expansion and red shift are things of the reality and the relation between them has its foundations in a theory of reality. The point is not if you make right calculations but if you have the right theory.

You don't need to understand the higher mathematics to see that from the thought of the 4-dimensional time- space for the whole universe there follows the beginning time and place and the expansion of the universe with the red shift.

In that moment they, the big cosmologists of the history, should have understood that there was something wrong in their premisses.

3 Replies

@Olli S,

Quote:

You don't need to understand the higher mathematics to see that from the thought of the 4-dimensional time- space for the whole universe there follows the beginning time and place and the expansion of the universe with the red shift.

Yes you do need to understand the mathematics. It seems pretty clear that you haven't spent much time studying real mathematics, or you wouldn't say such a thing.

The scientific explanation of the expansion of the universe is based on a mathematical model that has been confirmed by experiment and by measurements. The very word "expansion" is defined mathematically when it is used in a scientific context.

If you want a religious understanding, then you don't need to understand mathematics at all. But a religious understanding is nothing like a scientific understanding.

I don't understand why religious people, who have the benefit of faith, would bother talking about science.

1 Reply

@Olli S,

Let me say it this way. In the science of physics the calculations are the core of the process. Theories expressed as mathematics, and theories are tested using mathematics.

The way one scientific theory becomes accepted and others are discarded is that mathematical models are made based on the theories and then measurements are taken, either through experiment or through observation. If the measurements for a theory don't match the measurements they are discarded. And when all other theories are discarded, the one that remains is accepted.

Mathematics is the core of the process. And, if you don't understand the mathematics you will never really understand the theory, the models or the data. That is why mathematics is the language of science.

Of course faith is different. Faith is being confident in what is not seen. You don't question faith, and you don't support it with observation or evidence.

If you have faith, you can simply say that some galaxies are redder because God made them that way.

I don't understand why people of faith are so obsessed with what science says, when it really doesn't matter.

But my only point is that if you are going to talk about science, then you are going to need to accept the scientific method which relies on mathematics at its core.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Quote:
You don't need to understand the higher mathematics to see that from the thought of the 4-dimensional time- space for the whole universe there follows the beginning time and place and the expansion of the universe with the red shift.

Yes you do need to understand the mathematics. It seems pretty clear that you haven't spent much time studying real mathematics, or you wouldn't say such a thing.

The scientific explanation of the expansion of the universe is based on a mathematical model that has been confirmed by experiment and by measurements. The very word "expansion" is defined mathematically when it is used in a scientific context.

If you want a religious understanding, then you don't need to understand mathematics at all. But a religious understanding is nothing like a scientific understanding.

I don't understand why religious people, who have the benefit of faith, would bother talking about science.

Here is the thing, and I'm not religious.

The expansion hypothesis is built upon light. Thats it, we can't determine directly that space is expanding. We use the light frequency to determine it. However; if there is another cause for light to be red shifted over distance then the conclusion that space is expanding has no basis any longer. It still could be but if there is another explanation for red shift then we can't prove space is expanding.

The thing is we have other hypothesis as the why light is shifted towards the red. We know light is impacted by gravity fields. Its well known fact. We also know that time is effected by gravity. Red shift can be caused by interaction of the photon moving in and out of these gravity fields which shift its frequency.

It means no expansion is necessary for red shift to occur. These are not hypothsises they are known.

Gravitational lensing.
Red shift of light through gravity field.

You can Google both of those. Any time light changes trajectory its frequency is effected.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

You are missing the main point Krumple.

If we are talking about Physics, we are talking about mathematics. The people at the cutting edge of Physics are working in advanced mathematics. The results are in mathematical terms.

You can't understand what "curvature of space" means, or even what "expansion" means without at least having mastered partial differential equations. As I point out, the accepted Physics theories were expreseed mathematically and tested by using mathematical models to make predictions which were then confirmed.

It is ridiculous to deny the theories of the Physicists who are actually making and testing the mathematical because your intuition, or your religion, don't agree... especially for people who haven't even finished undergraduate calculus.

It is very easy to explain everything as "God did it", or "The Universe works that way". Then you don't have to build mathematical models or test them... and you don't even need to understand differential calculus.

But this isn't science.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

You are missing the main point Krumple.

If we are talking about Physics, we are talking about mathematics. The people at the cutting edge of Physics are working in advanced mathematics. The results are in mathematical terms.

You can't understand what "curvature of space" means, or even what "expansion" means without at least having mastered partial differential equations. As I point out, the accepted Physics theories were expreseed mathematically and tested by using mathematical models to make predictions which were then confirmed.

It is ridiculous to deny the theories of the Physicists who are actually making and testing the mathematical because your intuition, or your religion, don't agree... especially for people who haven't even finished undergraduate calculus.

It is very easy to explain everything as "God did it", or "The Universe works that way". Then you don't have to build mathematical models or test them... and you don't even need to understand differential calculus.

But this isn't science.

Do you even know how they determine the shape of the universe?

They use the data from the microwave background radiation. The size of the "pockets" of hot and cold spots can only be so large. Because "information" is limited to C. The universe wants to be homeostatic but it's limited to C.

The shape of the universe will impact the size of these "pockets". We are using light to determine it.

I am well aware of cosmology. I have listened to hundreds of hours of physics and cosmology lectures. Plus I do have mathematical background in differential equations and linear algebra.

I don't just pull ideas out of my ass. They are based on looking at where the expansion hypothesis fail. The weak points in the data. If the data points are flawed then the conclusion is also flawed.

0 Replies

Two or more points. As you see here in this discussion there is possibilities for the universe without expansion. Thanks for fine comments. I must study these things.

I don't have higher mathematical education. But the problem is not in me. The problem is that BB- thinkers have not made any good popularization of their theories. Normal mathematical education and higher philosophical education should be enough. You can not go in the shelter of your calculations. As I said, the problem in cosmology is what you put as variables in the calculations and in which way. You must be able to say it in normal scientific language, otherwise the discussion is impossible.

And this discussion has nothing to do with religion. I don't believe that the universe is eternal and infinite, I take it as a rationally sound axiom for a better model for cosmology. This is philosophical discussion for my part. Philosophy is science but not only that, in the cosmology philosophy can take artistic, religious, metaphysical and other thinkings in account than scientific only. But I have not taken here.

You can say something like this: "It is not really expanding, it is difficult to understand the 4- dimensional space."

From the axiom that the universe has a 4- dimensional time- space follows the beginning of the universe and with the red shift the expanding, whatever it means. So the expanding is already in the premises in the axioms of the theory. This is logic and mathematics. You said it is not true, but it is.

So it is better to operate with a space without the time. Only the particles in the space have time. There the time- space works, and any expansion and beginning for the whole universe is not needed.

The logical point here is that from the red shift does not follow the expansion. It follows from the interpretation of the red shift and the meaning of that interpretation in the context of GR and BB. The evidence is the red shift but the expansion is not an evidence. Some scientists say that the expansion itself is an empirical fact and beyond intelligent doubt, but this is not the case.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

I'm speaking of philosophy. The cosmology. If you can not express your view in normal language we can not discuss. In science and philosophy the equations of the mathematics are not the only thing, main point is what you put as variables and numbers and in which way. This must be stated in verbal scientific language. Only after that comes mathematical language.

0 Replies

@Olli S,

Olli S wrote:

In mathematics the main thing is not the calculus but what you put to numbers.

Don't never, NEVER, I say, try tellin Max that, eh?

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

Olli S wrote:

In mathematics the main thing is not the calculus but what you put to numbers.

Don't never, NEVER, I say, try tellin Max that, eh?

I agree with that statement completely. Mathematics is a language for expressing an idea, and a powerful tool for confirming it. I have never said that creativity isn't important, or that the ideas behind the mathematics in Physics aren't the core of science.

I am saying that the ideas are expressed in mathematics... and without understanding the mathmatics you will never have a true understanding of the ideas or the tools to test the ideas yourself.

Sure, there are mathematicians who don't understand physics, but there are no physicists who don't understand mathematics. This has been true since at least the time of Galileo (and Physics has advanced quite a bit since then).

You need the ideas and the mathematics. If you are missing either one of them, then you are not going to understand Physics.

There are no shortcuts. That's all I am saying. If you want to undertsand Physics, you have to learn the mathematics.

1 Reply

The Red Shift without Expansion

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know