12
   

The Red Shift without Expansion

 
 
layman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Jan, 2017 04:27 pm
@Krumple,
Krumple wrote:

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.


As a wise man (forget who) once said (perhaps paraphrasing):

Quote:
"A specialist is a man who comes to know more and more about less and less until he knows absolutely everything about nothing."


Yeah, poor Max seems every bit as zealously and fanatically dogmatic as any holy-rollin, bible-thumpin fundy you could ever run across, eh?

He has great faith. He just has a different Bible (which he hasn't even read).
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Jan, 2017 04:39 pm
@layman,
Science has a couple of advantages over Philosophy that make Science far better suited for answering a class of questions. The biggest is that Science depends on models that can be exactly defined and tested by experiment or observation.

This is why the scientific community has accomplished so much. People who have earned science degrees and are part of the scientific community have sent robots to Mars, designed the technology behind cell phones and GPS and discovered new planets.

No one who doesn't accept the process of scientific discovery and acceptance has accomplished any of this. You don't see philosophers duccessfully designing rockets.

This is not to be said that science doesn't advance. Of course it does; Newton advanced Science. So did Einstein. So did Bohr and Hawkings. Science advances when someone comes up with new ideas that are testable. The testability, and the ability to confirm new ideas through experiment is what gives science its power.

Layman has basic misunderstanding of Physics... far more basic than Special Relativity. I have tried, very patiently, to show him the basic flaw in his thinking (i.e. that two people can calculate different answers based on different reference points and both be correct as testable by experiment).

Philosophers like to muddle about with ideas about Truth. But different philsophers end up bickering about axioms. Philsophers don't have to accomplish anything. They just need to convince some follower.

Physicists need to get the math right. Physicists design rockets. No one who doesn't accept conventional Physics will be able to do that successfully.

There is a right way to do Physics. And the Physicists (who have earned PhDs. and have spent years studying math and learning Special Relativity) are landing robots on Mars. That should tell you something.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Jan, 2017 04:45 pm
@maxdancona,
The thing that is frustrating here is that Philosophers are trying to do Physics as if it some branch of Philosophy. And yet they don't take the time to learn the most basic principles of Physics.

I realize that I haven't spent much time studying Philosophy. And I admit that I don't have very much expertise in Philosopy (other than 2 or 3 college courses and some reading). And one could even say that the comments I am making about Philosophy aren't very valid because I don't know what the hell I am talking about... and there wouldn't be very much I could say. My education and part of my career was Physics. This is what I spent years of my life learning and doing, and this is what I know.

That being said; I feel that Philosophy should contain the principle that you should try to understand something before you reject it, and even more so before you attack it. At least if I were inventing Philosophy, I would make this principle. Attacking something out of ignorance is not a very reasonable thing to do.

The idea that someone who doesn't understand the math from even a high school level is attacking the core ideas of modern Physics is ridiculous.

Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it isn't true.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Jan, 2017 04:53 pm
@layman,
layman wrote:

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.


Even Einstein admitted that there may be flaws in special relativity. That's why it's special (jk). However, science and math have proven some of the unknowns in SR since Einstein's passing and that is one of the reasons for the LHC. To help prove, repeatedly, some of the math in SR.

If your efforts here are only to show that SR may not fit everything, I think that has been shown. However, it could also be because the math hasn't been completed yet.

The thing with your question here is that you won't give a point of reference. You want to use 2 points of reference and because what you are measuring is relative to each point, you can't show that relative to one or the other is moving.

Now, in the real world, the guy on the train would say that he is moving faster than the wino because he is on a train. He knows he is on a train and therefore he knows that he is moving faster.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Jan, 2017 04:58 pm
@McGentrix,
Quote:
The thing with your question here is that you won't give a point of reference. You want to use 2 points of reference and because what you are measuring is relative to each point, you can't show that relative to one or the other is moving.

Now, in the real world, the guy on the train would say that he is moving faster than the wino because he is on a train. He knows he is on a train and therefore he knows that he is moving faster.


This is stuff your son learned in high school (you can ask him). I can't believe that we are arguing this.


0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Jan, 2017 04:59 pm
@layman,
layman wrote:

Krumple wrote:

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.


As a wise man (forget who) once said (perhaps paraphrasing):

Quote:
"A specialist is a man who comes to know more and more about less and less until he knows absolutely everything about nothing."


Yeah, poor Max seems every bit as zealously and fanatically dogmatic as any holy-rollin, bible-thumpin fundy you could ever run across, eh?

He has great faith. He just has a different Bible (which he hasn't even read).


It appears to me that you are being more argumentative in this than needed. It's an interesting topic and I have enjoyed some of the information I have gleaned from it. Physics IS grounded in mathematics. No math, no physics. It's fun to have a philosophical discussion about physics, especially some of the quantum stuff, but ultimately, math wins every single time in physics. Max is extraordinarily correct in this.

Having said that, we can also have a discussion without referring only to the math.
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Jan, 2017 05:32 pm
Science vs Philosophy? - They're not mutually exclusive guys/girls.

Philosophy cannot send a rocket to Mars or build a computer.

Science cannot help you understand your own mind or give you inner peace.

Personally, I want it all
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Jan, 2017 05:40 pm
@Leadfoot,
Yes, there are plenty of questions that Science can not answer (as I said before). Science has nothing to say about morality, meaning or inner peace. These are the realm of the philosopher. I wouldn't think of applying science to philosophical concepts, I can't imagine a testable mathematical model for inner peace.

But red shift is a mathematical concept that is fully in the realm of the scientist.

And that is my point.

0 Replies
 
layman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Jan, 2017 08:04 pm
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:

Now, in the real world, the guy on the train would say that he is moving faster than the wino because he is on a train. He knows he is on a train and therefore he knows that he is moving faster.


With respect to you comments about math, Gent, I really don't think anyone needs to know much more about the math of SR as a "discipline" (theory). But other theories of relative motion use the same math anyway, so any advantages/drawbacks the math may have is not unique to it in any event.

Einstein himself admitted, and pointed out valid physical reasons for believing, that the guy on the train was the one moving. After all, Einstein asked, is the fireman supposed to believe that when he shovels coal into the oven which heats the water into steam, he is making all of creation move, but not the train?

So, why would he base an entire theory on a contrary supposition? Several reasons, but a big one is that, at that age, he was a devout disciple of Ernst Mach--a staunch philosophical positivist. He later utterly rejected Mach's philosophy, as the did scientific world in general after being dominated by it for several decades. But, contrary to what Max thinks, philosophy played a huge part in Einstein postulating what he did.
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Jan, 2017 08:28 pm
@layman,
Yes. I have stated that there is room in Physics for philosophy, but this is the physics behind what you are talking about.

Quote:

Hafele and Keating Experiment

"During October, 1971, four cesium atomic beam clocks were flown on regularly scheduled commercial jet flights around the world twice, once eastward and once westward, to test Einstein's theory of relativity with macroscopic clocks. From the actual flight paths of each trip, the theory predicted that the flying clocks, compared with reference clocks at the U.S. Naval Observatory, should have lost 40+/-23 nanoseconds during the eastward trip and should have gained 275+/-21 nanoseconds during the westward trip ... Relative to the atomic time scale of the U.S. Naval Observatory, the flying clocks lost 59+/-10 nanoseconds during the eastward trip and gained 273+/-7 nanosecond during the westward trip, where the errors are the corresponding standard deviations. These results provide an unambiguous empirical resolution of the famous clock "paradox" with macroscopic clocks."

J.C. Hafele and R. E. Keating, Science 177, 166 (1972)

Around the World

In 1971, experimenters from the U.S. Naval Observatory undertook an experiment to test time dilation . They made airline flights around the world in both directions, each circuit taking about three days. They carried with them four cesium beam atomic clocks. When they returned and compared their clocks with the clock of the Observatory in Washington, D.C., they had gained about 0.15 microseconds compared to the ground based clock.

Eastward Journey Westward Journey
Predicted -40 +/- 23 ns + 275 +/- 21 ns
Measured -59 +/- 10 ns + 273 +/- 7 ns

Around-the-World Atomic Clocks

In October 1971, Hafele and Keating flew cesium beam atomic clocks around the world twice on regularly scheduled commercial airline flights, once to the East and once to the West. In this experiment, both gravitational time dilation and kinematic time dilation are significant - and are in fact of comparable magnitude. Their predicted and measured time dilation effects were as follows:
Predicted: Time difference in ns
Eastward Westward
Gravitational 144 +/- 14 179 +/- 18
Kinematic -184 +/- 18 96 +/- 10
Net effect -40 +/- 23 275 +/- 21
Observed: -59 +/- 10 273 +/- 21
Gravitational calculation Kinematic calculation

Gravitational Time Shifts

For small changes in gravitational field associated with changes in altitude above the earth, the approximate time dilation expression is

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/imgrel/hk1.gif

if a comparison is made between a clock on the Earth's surface (TE) and one at height h above the surface (T). Hafele and Keating predicted a time difference of 144 ns on an eastward flight around the world for which the flight time was 41.2 hours. This corresponds to an average height of 8900 m, a reasonable flight altitude for a commercial airline. The time shift is positive (aging faster) for both eastward and westward flights. The predicted value of 179 ns for the westward flight of 48.6 hours duration corresponds to an average altitude of about 9400 meters.

Kinematic Time Shift Calculation

If the kinematic time dilation expression

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/imgrel/hake1.gif

is expanded in a binomial expansion, then for small velocities it becomes

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/imgrel/hake2.gif

This expression can be used to compute the time dilation in the Hafele-Keating experiment in which an atomic clock was taken aboard an aircraft and compared to a ground-based closk. The problem encountered with measuring the difference between a surface clock and one on an aircraft is that neither location is really an inertial frame. If we take the center of the earth as an approximation to an inertial frame, then we can compute the difference between a surface clock and the aircraft clock. Taking a "proper time" at the earth's center as if the master clock were there, the time measured by a clock on the surface would be larger

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/imgrel/hake3.gif

and that for the airborne clock would be approximately

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/imgrel/hake4.gif

since to the level of the approximations used, the height of the aircraft does not significantly change the radius R. The difference in the times compared to our hypothetical master clock would then be

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/imgrel/hake5.gif

Now this relationship is just the reverse of the actual experiment, since we have assumed that the clock is at the center of the earth, whereas the actual clocks are in the frames which are moving with respect to the center. The time difference expression should be valid, but in comparing the aircraft clock to the surface clock, we should find that it has fallen behind, so we can model that time difference by

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/imgrel/hake6.gif

Note that the "earth center" time has been replaced by the surface time in this expression. This is a valid approximation in this case since the time difference is many orders of magnitude smaller than the time itself, and this allows us to model the difference between two measurable times.

Aircraft Time Dilation

For an aircraft flying over the equator, its clocks will show a time shift relative to a fixed surface clock which can be approximately modeled by the expression

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/imgrel/hake6.gif

where the subscripts A and S refer to the aircraft and surface clocks. For travel eastward, v has a positive sign and the shift will be negative (aging more slowly). But for a westward flight the time shift is positive (aging faster) for the aircraft speeds involved. Hafele and Keating predicted time shifts of -184 ns for an eastward flight around the world and a shift of +96 for a westward flight.

If you plug in numbers for a 48 hour round trip flight at constant speed at the equator, you get -260 ns and 156 ns for the eastbound and westbound flights respectively. The predicted values obtained by Hafele and Keating presumably were based upon detailed measurements of the speeds, etc.

Hafele and Keating are credited with an experimental measurement which confirms time dilation and matches predictions with an accuracy of about 10%. It gives an experimental answer to the twin paradox.



There is just no getting around the math...
layman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Jan, 2017 08:35 pm
@McGentrix,
Quote:
There is just no getting around the math...


Well, Gent, I think you have adopted Max's gross mischaracterization of my position on this topic, and that you, like him, may have a mistaken understanding of the relationship between math and science (physical science, or "physics," in this particular case, but any empirical science in general).
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Jan, 2017 08:38 pm
@layman,
Nope. But, I've yet to see you agree that math is the foundation of physics. We can talk philosophy of physics at a 100 mile altitude all day. But, that math has to be recognized as the ground above which your talking about.
layman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Jan, 2017 08:39 pm
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:

Nope. But, I've yet to see you agree that math is the foundation of physics. We can talk philosophy of physics at a 100 mile altitude all day. But, that math has to be recognized as the ground above which your talking about.


Well, I think this is an example of what I am calling a mistaken understanding of the relationship between math and empirical sciences.
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Jan, 2017 08:42 pm
@layman,
layman wrote:

Well, I think this is an example of what I am calling a mistaken understanding of the relationship between math and empirical sciences.


How so?

Quote:
Kurt Gödel viewed mathematics as analogous to empirical science in many ways. Gödel explicitly wrote of the mathematics-physics analogy in some of his more philosophical writings. A basic feature of his analogy is that, just as physical objects are accessible by physical senses, mathematical objects are accessible by mathematical intuition. According to Gödel, we explore and discover the world of mathematics much like how we explore and discover the world of physics. Granted, for most people mathematical objects may not seem so clear and distinct as physical objects. But, just as someone who has very poor eyesight might not see physical objects very well, people have not exercised their mathematical intuition will not see mathematical objects very well.

layman
 
  2  
Reply Fri 27 Jan, 2017 08:55 pm
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:

Kurt Gödel viewed mathematics as analogous to empirical science in many ways. Gödel explicitly wrote of the mathematics-physics analogy in some of his more philosophical writings. A basic feature of his analogy is that, just as physical objects are accessible by physical senses, mathematical objects are accessible by mathematical intuition. According to Gödel, we explore and discover the world of mathematics much like how we explore and discover the world of physics. Granted, for most people mathematical objects may not seem so clear and distinct as physical objects. But, just as someone who has very poor eyesight might not see physical objects very well, people have not exercised their mathematical intuition will not see mathematical objects very well.


Gent, this excerpt from Godel is essentially his contribution the to age/old (certainly going back at least as far as Plato and Aristotle) philosophical debate about realism in mathematical (and other mental) constructs.

A huge number of essays, articles, and indeed lengthy books have been written about the nature of math, and itd relationship to, just for example, physics (generally, the real world, or "objective reality"), by people much more articulate and much more knowledgeable than me (Bertrand Russel, the world famous British mathematician/philosopher, to name just one).

You could learn a lot more about the topic from those sources than what I could offer.

That said, as even most prominent physicists (including, but certainly not limited to, Einstein and Feynman) agree that math is essentially a tool for science. It is not science itself. Math does not give "scientific" answers. Math does not create scientific theories.

It is an indispensable tool, but only a tool nonetheless. Hammers and nails do not "create" buildings. Architects, carpenters, and, yes, even an unschooled pioneer in Kentucky in 1800, "create" buildings, and math (or hammers) does not do it for them.
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Jan, 2017 09:08 pm
@layman,
layman wrote:

That said, as even most prominent physicists (including, but certainly not limited to, Einstein and Feynman) agree that math is essentially a tool for science. It is not science itself. Math does not give "scientific" answers. Math does not create scientific theories.

It is an indispensable tool, but only a tool nonetheless. Hammers and nails do not "create" buildings. Architects, carpenters, and, yes, even an unschooled pioneer in Kentucky in 1800" create" buildings, and math (or hammers) does not do it for them.



Yes, I completely agree that math is to science as a hammer is to building a house. Without the inquisitive philosophy of "why" we wouldn't be anywhere. The humans would have been a footnote in the cephalopod history books.
layman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Jan, 2017 09:09 pm
Long before Pythagoras put the "pythagorean theorem" into a mathematical form, deduced from premises, it had been used to create right angles by the Egyptians. The practical results are the same, with or without a "formula" to articulate them.
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Jan, 2017 09:31 pm
@McGentrix,
Physicists already understand this full well, and Richard Feynman expresses it as well as anyone. If you have an hour, would recommend the entire lecture; Feynman is always both brilliant and engaging.

Quote:
There is no model of the theory of gravitation today, other than the mathematical form.

It this were the only law of this character it would be interesting and rather annoying. But what turns out to be true is that the more we investigate, the more laws we find, and the deeper we penetrate nature, the more this disease persists. Every one of our laws is a purely mathematical statement in rather complex and abstruse mathematics.

Newton's statement of the law of gravitation is relatively simple mathematics. It gets more and more abstruse and more and more difficult as we go on. Why? I have not the slightest idea.

It is only my purpose here to tell you about this fact. The burden of the lecture is just to emphasize the fact that it is impossible to explain honestly the beauties of the laws of nature in a way that people can feel, without their having some deep understanding of mathematics. I am sorry, but this seems to be the case.

You might say, "All right, then if there is no explanation of the law, at least tell me what the law is. Why not tell me in words instead of symbols? Mathematics is just a language, and I want to be able to translate the language."

In fact I can, with patience, and I think I partly did. I could go a little further and explain in more detail that the equation means that if the distance is twice as far the force is one fourth as much, and so on. I could convert all the symbols into words.

In other words I could be kind to the layman as they all sit hopefully waiting for me to explain something. Different people get different reputations for their skill at explaining to the layman in layman's language these difficult and abstruse subjects. The layman then searches for book after book in the hope that he will avoid the complexities which eventually set in, even with the best expositor of this type. He finds as he reads a generally increasing confusion, one complicated statement after another, one difficult-to-understand thing after another, all apparently disconnected from one another. It becomes obscure, and he hopes that maybe in some other book there is some explanation... The author almost made it- maybe another fellow will make it right.


(Yes the fact that Feynman talks about translating Physics into "Layman's language" made me chuckle)



For the record, Feynman was a brilliant Physicist who earned a PhD, and had a brilliant career advancing science with great innovation and creativity. He was embraced by the scientific community and he worked with, taught and advanced the field of Special Relativity.
layman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Jan, 2017 09:43 pm
@maxdancona,
For what it's worth, Max, I have seen that video and it is, as is par for Feynman, excellent. Not what I would call his best, but still great.

Feynman has also written, brilliantly, on "cargo cult science," which I would argue is especially applicable to you. Read it sometime, if you haven't.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Jan, 2017 09:46 pm
@layman,
Ironically Layman, you are accusing Feynman of Cargo Cult Science. Feynman worked in the Scientific Community. He accepted Special Relativity as fact. You are arguing that Feynmans belief in scientific laws and trust in mathematics is bogus. It is odd that you would then call him "brilliant".

You don't see Feynman supporting the fringe theories you are pushing.



 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.52 seconds on 11/14/2024 at 09:37:02