The Red Shift without Expansion

@Leadfoot,

Comparative relative motion.
The wavelength does not change but your relative perception of it from your moving pov does.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

You have no idea what good Philosophy is. You confuse it with common sense or even scientific status quo. Well quite the contrary philosophy is set not only to Rationally question common sense but to adequately and with proper data question and confront scientific miss interpretations of data when their internal rational consistency if fraked up.

...as for Farma complain I hold a grudge against him nothing could be further from the truth. I read him and agree with him often. I just happen to realise he does not have a clue what philosophy really is and for that matter you also don't have the vaguest clue.

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Its obvious to me that youve not been gaining experience in the science racket.
Im just curious as to what you'd propose to do to bring the tools of philosophy to a proposed area of science. Im not trying to be snotty , MAybe weve been doing something(or not doing something) that you claim is out of your "toolkit" but just calling it something else.
Fair enough?

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

if our instruments record a redshift or some other doppler effect based on unique transitional spectra of individual elements, you do not consider that a real spectral wavelength change??
So, Hubbles LAw is just our imagination?

I frequently use known spectral wavelngths different elements spectra. (I alway thought that was "settled science" We vary Hubbles constant , based upon observations into deeper space, (but it aint by much, its in the low decimals.

1 Reply

@layman,

At least we don't yet know.

0 Replies

If the big, big universe has been in a little point in the beginning of the universe in the state of singularity, so the the red shift can be also explained by singularity in the static universe. The accelerating movement of the galaxies is a singularity. This thing is explained in as a good way as the beginning of the universe in BB- theory. It is singularity, question closed.

Singularity is the answer to my question : )

S. Hawking says that in the cosmology the calculations often lead to infinite and impossible conclusions and then the premises must be chanced. But he does not do this in the main conclusion of the BB (and GR) theories. So does the whole scientific community.

Why? Because the evidence points to the expanding universe and BB. But any good enough theory can explain the evidence. Some theory can fit even better, much more easily.

Why? Because the math is the god of physicists. But in the math the main point is what we put to the equations, not the equations themselves.

Why? Because they think that the expansion is an empirical fact. But only the red shift is the fact.

Why? Because GR is their God. But it is only a good theory. In the future it will be replaced with a better theory as always in the history of science. (History of the science is also a part of philosophy)

It is not new in the history of the science that the community has had bad ideas. In the beginning of the last decade the doctors didn't wash their hands. And this is only one example.

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

Is there something in those formulatic numbers that says "the guy on the train is moving," or that "the guy on the ground is moving?"

I tried to go there once with Max. Can't remember the exact issue we were discussing at the time but I posited a moving universe. He just flamed me as usual for useless analogies. - And then he bitches about me & others not being able to grasp 'frames of reference'. The dude can't step out of his own head at times.

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

Comparative relative motion.
The wavelength does not change but your relative perception of it from your moving pov does.

Well what other perspective would you have an observer measure it from?

Otherwise, we'd be back to 'slow light'.

0 Replies

@layman,

layman wrote:

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.

I believe they used a lorentzian frame, but used general relativity to get a repeatable answer. I could be worng on that though, I should go look and see.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

Warning: This thread is not real science. Modern Physics has developed over more than 500 years of learning and study. There is a scientific process and a functioning scientific community based on education and study. Physics has always been heavily dependent on mathematics and has been successful at providing a mathematical model that can explain phenomina and make testable predictions. It is also a the core of modern technology.

The discussion on this thread has almost nothing to do with real Physics. What is happening on this thread involves people who instead of studying science in a University have developed their own ideas which they support by using Google.

Google can provide quotes, random facts and certainly entertainment. Google can not provide any meaningful education in Science, nor any in-depth understanding of scientific concepts.

If you are here for a random discussion of Google-based science which will entertain you, please indulge. If you stumble upon this thread while you are looking for any insight in actual scientific concepts, I suggest you look elsewhere.

As long as no one mistakes this thread for actual science, I have no problem allowing it to proceed unimpeded by real scientific reasoning.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

You all can read the actual Hafele-Keating experiment here.

http://staff.ustc.edu.cn/~yanwen/downloads/Hafele-Keating-Science-1972b.pdf

Dispite the fact that some fringe "physicists" on the internet make their conspiracy theories about this, and the moon landing, and lost ancient cities on Mars, this has not only been widely accepted by the scientific community, it has also been replicated with more modern equipment and used to make the GPS devices.

Of course, if you have Google you can find quotes to support any crazy idea whether it is supported by facts or not.

But anyone reading this should understand that this isn't science.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

No ! Not what I said or meant at all.. I said the red shift effect is due to the relative motion of bodies one in relation to another. Their relative speed cause the red shift perception, But we also know none of those speeds except for light is absolute. So say one galaxy which is going away in relation to another is perceived with a red shift doppler effect but for instance Andromeda and Via Lactea are merging and those should be perceived with a blue shift, yet say Andromeda is getting away along with Via Lactea from a third galaxy then said galaxy will perceive Andromeda with a red shift. Clear now or did I miss something ???

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

I think this is correct-- except that we are the observers... so what matters is the relative motion of "bodies" to us. We don't get to observe from any other galaxies.

There are galaxies that are moving towards us. And those galaxies do exhibit a blue shift. The Andromeda Galaxy is an example of this.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

As long as no one mistakes this thread for actual science, I have no problem allowing it to proceed

Oh Thank You your highness!

0 Replies

@McGentrix,

McGentrix wrote:

I believe they used a lorentzian frame, but used general relativity to get a repeatable answer. I could be worng on that though, I should go look and see.

Yeah, you have to use GR to calculate the gravitational effects on clocks, too, Gent, but that's an entirely different matter which has no direct relationship to the effect caused by motion.

Since clocks on planes in the air run faster than ones on the ground, due to the fact that they are farther away from the center of the dominant gravitational mass (basically, the center of the earth), you must calculate BOTH influences on clocks to arrive at the correct prediction.

But, again, since that's an issue which is totally separate from the time dilation caused by higher speed, I simplified my account of the experiment in that post.

1 Reply

@layman,

This is a real problem you have Layman.

You are criticizing the paper without having read the paper. I posted the link, it is right there publically available. The paper accounts for the effect of gravity.

You are criticizing things you don't understand even when the information is readily available. Please read the article. There were also follow up experiments with better equipment that further confirmed the effect... but if you just read the article on this experiment you will understand a little more about what you are blindly lashing out against.

Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it isn't correct.

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

By the way, other presumptions of SR are also disproven by the GPS and similar experiments.

According to SR, if A and B are moving relative to each other, then:

1. A will say he is at rest, he will say B is the one moving, and that, therefore, it is B's clock that has slowed down.

At the same time:

2. B will say he is at rest, he will say A is the one moving, and that, therefore, it is A's clock that has slowed down.

It is logically impossible for both to be correct (and is one flaw in SR), so there is no real need to do any experiments to "confirm" it. Both cannot be at rest and while they both acknowledge that there is relative motion between them and, obviously, each clock cannot run slower than the other.

But, if there was any doubt remaining among those who ignore logic, it has been conclusively established as an empirical matter that, as between two clocks, only one slowed down due to maintaining a higher speed than the other. It is indeed the "moving clock" which slows down, not both.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

This is a real problem you have LaymaYou are criticizing the paper without having read the paper.

I posted the link, it is right there publically available. The paper accounts for the effect of gravity.

Of course it accounts for the effect of gravity, as I just acknowledged. It has to. Learn to read, Max.

If you were 1/10th as smart as you think you are, you would make Einstein look like he should be riding the short bus.

If you were twice as smart as you act sometimes, you would still be riding the short bus.

You have repeatedly proven, beyond doubt, that you don't even have the most elementary knowledge about topics you purport to be an expert in.

Your self-proclaimed omniscience wears a little thin, ya know?

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Maybe it is quantum mechanics where time is not part of the equations?

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

You have no idea what good Philosophy is. You confuse it with common sense or even scientific status quo. Well quite the contrary philosophy is set not only to Rationally question common sense but to adequately and with proper data question and confront scientific miss interpretations of data when their internal rational consistency if fraked up.

...as for Farma complain I hold a grudge against him nothing could be further from the truth. I read him and agree with him often. I just happen to realise he does not have a clue what philosophy really is and for that matter you also don't have the vaguest clue.

Fil, I agree, Max always seems to be slightly off on topics and too overly anal if you drop in some creative problem analysis as if there is zero room for creative thinking. Its all by the book or nothing. I find that boring and stagnant thinking.

We need flexibility in science after all even science itself holds open the door to adjusting to new information that contradicts a previously held theory.

My problem with modern science is its become too splintered into very specific focus. Similar to doctors who specialize in one field and are completely clueless about any other field.

You go to a foot doctor and ask about a knee issue and he/she shrugs as if they have no idea what a knee is.

I was having a conversation a few days ago with a physics major that had no idea that photons were affected by gravity. How the hell do you get a degree and not know that?

1 Reply

The Red Shift without Expansion

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know