The Red Shift without Expansion

@maxdancona,

hmmm. he said he was once a rod-man on a survey crew, with gps and circumferential turn points he should get it.

0 Replies

@layman,

layman wrote:

maxdancona wrote:

My answer is that every velociy must be measured compared to a reference point. Otherwise the question has no meaning.

OK, first things first. What tells you that?

1. The equation?
2. Philosophy?
3. Scientific theory?
4. Something else?

I will note that your "answer" does not even begin to address the question I asked, so I'm asking again.

Science tells me this. Sure it is built into the equations, but it a key principle of physics.

What we are arguing now is far more basic than Special Relativity. The principle that velocity must be measured from a reference point known by Galileo. It has been understood by everyone who has studied the branch of Physics called mechanics for at least 500 years.

This is also at the core of Newton's laws of motion. When Newton says "V = dx/dt" the need for a reference point is already implicit in the functions.

This is really basic Layman. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it isn't true.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

What we are arguing now is really basic.

I just asked a simple question. Then you bring up an entirely different subject and say "we" are arguing about it. I aint arguin nuthin about that.

Is it ever possible for you to stay on the topic, or is your response invariably to bring up some non sequitur?

1 Reply

@layman,

You asked a simple nonsense question that has no absolute answer. I asked a simple nonsense question that has no absolute answer.

I can't answer your question (because it is a nonsense question). You can't answer my question for the same reason.

They are nonsense questions with no absolute answer. Even a philsopher should be able to understand this.

If you tell me how far away is Chicago (in an absolute sense)?, then I will have to answer your question too.

But you can't (because these are nonsense questions).

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

You asked a simple nonsense question that has no absolute answer. I asked a simple nonsense question that has no absolute answer.

I can't answer your question (because it is a nonsense question). You can't answer my question for the same reason.

They are nonsense questions with no absolute answer. Even a philsopher should be able to understand this.

No, you misunderstood the question. I didn't even ask WHO was moving. I just asked if "the equation" gave you an answer to that.

1 Reply

@layman,

The equation can't answer this nonsense question with no absolute answer either. And there is no equation that can tell you how far away is Chicago either (without specifying a reference point).

What Galileo realized is that the equations work (i.e. make predictions that can be confirmed by observation) no matter what reference point you choose. Of course the answer will also be measured based on the same reference point. But the laws of Phyiscs work any way. That is why the reference point you choose doesn't matter.

This is basic physics. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it isn't correct.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

The equation can't answer this nonsense question with no absolute answer either.

OK, thanks for that.
Can it give a "relative" (not absolute) answer to the question?

1 Reply

@layman,

Of course.

If you ask the question "How far away is Chicago from Boston?" then you have supplied a reference point. The question is no longer a nonsense question because there is a point from which you are measuring. In this case I will give the answer 850 miles. Farmerman will give the same answer. It is the correct answer.

Likewise if you specify a reference point for the laws of motion, the equation will give an answer.

Are you actually learning something here?

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Of course.

If you ask the question "How far away is Chicago from Boston?" then you have supplied a reference point. The question is no longer a nonsense question because there is a point from which you are measuring. In this case I will give the answer 850 miles. Farmerman will give the same answer. It is the correct answer.

Likewise if you specify a reference point for the laws of motion, the equation will give an answer.

Are you actually learning something here?

No, I'm not learning anything. I already knew that you can't understand the difference between math and science.

Which numeral, which square root symbol, or which anything contained IN THE FORMULA tells you what is, and is not, moving?

1 Reply

@layman,

The "v".

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

The "v".

OK, does the "v" stand for the wino by the tracks, or the passenger? I'm not clear about that part.

1 Reply

@layman,

I am not sure what equation you are talking about now. I don't think you specified an equation. But the value for "v" (velocity) that you put into the equation (any equation from Galileo, to Newton, to Einstein) is measured according to the reference point you have chosen.

The equation will give you a answer that will be accurate when you confirm it by experiment according to the reference point you have chosen.

So the equations of Physics will accurately predict how nature works no matter what reference point you have picked.

This is a basic point that was understood by Galileo and Newton. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean that it isn't correct.

I am sorry that you are not learning anything. I am dong my best.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

I'm sorry you can't understand a question. I'm doing my best.

Can you understand that "velocity" is NOT a moving object?

1 Reply

@layman,

Velocity has a very specific mathematical definition.

It is defined by the function.

V = dP/dt (I looked for a gif, it should be noted that both V and P are vectors.)

where P is the displacement, and t is the elapsed time.

Do you agree with this? This is the definition used by Newton, and every Physicist since.

(Of course it is the displacement that is measured from the reference point in question).

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Velocity has a very specific mathematical definition.

It is defined by the function.

V = dP/dt (I looked for a gif, it should be noted that both V and P are vectors.)

where P is the displacement, and t is the elapsed time.

Do you agree with this?

Time dilation depends only on speed, not velocity, but the whole thing is a red herring, at this point.

The ultimate question I asked was whose watch slows down, BUT

The initial question was "does the equation tell you that?"

It doesn't. It can't. That's not it's function. It only addresses questions of quantity, not quality. Something ELSE has to tell you who's moving, not "the equation."

Per the formula, if you (not it) KNOWS who's moving, then it will tell you that's the one whose clock has slowed down.

But you must inform the equation about that. It can't inform you.

Do you agree with that?

1 Reply

IF I posit that clocks on moving objects slow down AND
IF I conclude that object A is moving faster than object B, THEN
I will tell you that the clock on object A is running slower than the one on object B.

I don't need a bit of math to tell you that.

But if you then ask me "By how much does it slow down?" THEN I will have to say, hold on, let me use the formula to find the answer to THAT question.

That's what the formula tells me. Nothing more.

0 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

The initial question was "does the equation tell you that?"

It doesn't. It can't. That's not it's function. It only addresses questions of quantity, not quality. Something ELSE has to tell you who's moving, not "the equation."

Per the formula, if you (not it) KNOWS who's moving, then it will tell you that's the one whose clock has slowed down.

Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it is wrong.

I will say Chicago is 850 miles away from me (I live in Boston). If someone asks me how far Boston is from me. I will say it is "0 miles". This is because I live in Boston and Boston is my reference point.

Someone who lives in Chicago will say that Chicago is 0 miles away, and Boston is 850 miles away. That is because Chicago is their reference point.

There are two different answers. How do we know who is right?

This is where you are getting into trouble. You are assuming that there is a right answer to the question "How far away is Chicago?" This is a nonsense question that can't be answered unless you specify a reference point. Different reference points will yield to different answers.

The question of who is moving likewise can't be answered unless you specify a reference point. Different reference points will yield to different answers. This is a fact that was understood by Galileo.

Do you understand and accept both of these points (before we go further)?

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

The question of who is moving likewise can't be answered unless you specify a reference point. Different reference points will yield to different answers. This is a fact that was understood by Galileo.

I am ignoring all of your Boston/Chicago **** for now because it's totally inapplicable to the issue I'm addressing.

I do agree that you must specify a reference point.

I don't really agree that different reference points will give you a different "correct" answer though.

Many experiments (such as Hafele-Keating, just for example) have empirically compared relatively moving clocks.

The clocks do not keep time at the same rate, that's known.

But the elapsed time they end up showing does NOT "depend" on the reference frame. They simply record the amount of time that they record, irrespective of what anyone wants them to say, what anyone"predicts" they will say, or where the person doing the predicting is standing. Their ticking rate in no way depends on such things.

1 Reply

@layman,

I will elaborate slightly. In the H-K experiment 3 different clocks were compared.

1. One remained stationary, relative to the earth's surface, at a Naval Observatory Station in Maryland.

2. One flew east at the relative rate of of 500 miles per hour, completely around the world, until it landed back in Maryland.

3. The third clock did the same as 2, except it flew west.

When all three clocks were back in Maryland, they all showed a different amount of elapsed time.

If you had tried to predict their readings, using the base as a reference point, your predictions would have been wrong.

If you had tried to predict their readings, using the east-bound plane as a reference point, your predictions would have been wrong.

If you had tried to predict their readings, using the west-bound plane as a reference point, your predictions would have been wrong.

When I say "predict" I mean if you used SR as your theoretical basis for making the predictions.

1 Reply

@layman,

I will also add this. The different readings of all three clocks could be CORRECTLY predicted.

But not by reference to how each was moving relative to the other.

And not by using SR.

You could predict the amount of elapsed time on each clock only if you determined how they were moving relative to the ECI (non-rotating earth-centered inertial rest frame). How they moved relative to each other was not the determining factor.

The underlying theory used to correctly predict their readings was not special relativity. It was lorentzian relativity, using the ECI as the preferred rest frame.

1 Reply

The Red Shift without Expansion

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know