The Red Shift without Expansion

Quote:

The principle of relativity was first stated by Newton, in one of his corollaries to the laws of motion: “The motions of bodies included in a given space are the same among themselves, whether that space is at rest or moves uniformly forward in a straight line.”

This means, for example, that if a space ship is drifting along at a uniform speed, all experiments performed in the space ship and all the phenomena in the space ship will appear the same as if the ship were not moving, provided, of course, that one does not look outside.

That is the meaning of the principle of relativity. This is a simple enough idea, and the only question is whether it is true that in all experiments performed inside a moving system the laws of physics will appear the same as they would if the system were standing still. Let us first investigate whether Newton’s laws appear the same in the moving system.

http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_15.html

You are doing the Google thing again... picking quotes out of context to support your philosophical prejudices. Here you are ironically using Feynman's words about "cargo cult science" (which is not mathematical, but you still are missing the point) to attack anyone who accepts Special Relativity as mathematically consistant and confirmed by experiment.

Here is Feynman's lecture on Special Relativity. I provide a link so that anyone can read it in its entirety. Feynman taught Special Relativity as scientific fact, in fact he has some impressive work in linking Special Relativity with Quantum Mechanics.

Feynman's points are the same ones that you are attacking as "illogical" because you don't understand them.

Tell me if you think Feynman's explanation is illogical. Just because you don't understand something, doesn't mean it isn't correct.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Another quote from Feynman:

Quote:

What is mathematics doing in a physics lecture?" We have several possible excuses: first, of course, mathematics is an important tool, but that would only excuse us for giving the formula in two minutes. On the other hand, in theoretical physics we discover that all our laws can be written in mathematical form; and that this has a certain simplicity and beauty about it.

He also says that a man using math need not know a single thing about the underlying subject, and that "physics is NOT mathematics."

In that video he says, among many other things:

Quote:

The mathematical rigor of great precision is NOT very useful in physics.

2 Replies

@layman,

The point is this Layman.

Every Physicist (including Feynman and Einstein) goes to a University. The first two semesters are spent learning calculus and classical Physics. During this time you will certainly master Galilean Relativity (that we were arguing about a few pages about). Before you have done this initial work, you don't have the tools to learn Special Relativity. Sorry, but this is the case.

In your third semester, you are ready to tackle Special Relativity. The schools don't force it down your throat. You have already developed the mathematical tools you need. The classes give you the mathematical reasoning that brings you to Special Relativity as well as the experiment that were don.

In addition there are problem sets. Each student works out the mathematics for themselves. This is an important part of the training of a Physicist.

However, there are right answers in Physics. There is mathematical theories that have been confirmed by experiment. If you don't do the math correctly, you will get the wrong answer.

It is true that everyone who comes out of College with a Physics degree comes out with an understanding of Special Relativity. You seem to be arguing that this is because science is fucked, rather than because students learn the argument and come to the correct mathematical understanding.

But if Science is so messed up, then how to you explain the incredible advancement that science has undergone since Newton. We have had Einstein, and Bohr, and Feyman and Hawking. These weren't people on the scientfic fringe. They were accepted by the Scientific community and heralded for their ability to innovate in ways that were testable.

The people you are reading on the fringes of the Internet are nutcases. True geniuses (like Einstein and Feynman) are accepted and heralded by the scientific community.

The people at the fringes of science are there for a reason. They aren't the people making the scientific advances.

You can't do physics without doing the hard work. Don't feel bad, I am unable to run a marathon for the same reason.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Max, you repeatedly impute to me beliefs, statements, attitudes, and (lack of) knowledge that I don't hold.

I don't bother trying to refute the uninformed, speculative, and inaccurate claims that you have somehow telepathically divined about me.

But I will take a second to briefly respond now: You're full of ****.

1 Reply

@layman,

You stated your beliefs pretty clearly. You seem to have been arguing that Special Relativity is illogical. I think you refered to people who accept Special Relativity as "fools". Am I wrong about that?

Feynman accepted (and taught and wrote about and worked on) the theory of Special Relativity because it is mathematically correct and is the theory that is confirmed by experiment. Feynman agreed with the scientific establishment that he was a part of.

Do you now feel that this is a logical position for Feynman to have taken?

Maybe you are making progress after all.

0 Replies

Louis Essen, the inventor of the atomic clock, who had some very insightful criticisms of special relativity, had this to say about "university training" and SR:

Quote:

Students are told that the theory must be accepted although they cannot expect to understand it. They are encouraged right at the beginning of their careers to forsake science in favour of dogma. The general public are misled into believing that science is a mysterious subject which can be understood by only a few exceptionally gifted mathematicians.

Since the time of Einstein and of one of his most ardent supporters, Eddington, there has been a great increase in anti-rational thought and mysticism. The theory is so rigidly held that young scientists who have any regard for their careers dare not openly express their doubts.

The mistakes have been exposed in published criticisms of the theory but the criticisms have been almost completely ignored; and the continued acceptance and teaching of relativity hinders the development of a rational extension of electromagnetic theory.

Elsewhere he has said that, when a student, neither he nor any of his classmates thought SR made sense, but they nonetheless dutifully "solved" the mathematical problems required of them to pass the course.

1 Reply

@layman,

You are doing Physics by Google again to find the fringe people who agree with your philosophy.

So you reject the work of Einstein and Feynman and Hawking, people who had brilliant careers advancing science. And you reject the 99% of the scientific community.

And you have googled for the 1% of the fringe. You haven't done the math yourself, so you are unable to really make the judgment for yourself.

Why are you choosing the fringe over the scientific establishment (i.e. Feynman and Einstein)?

The great minds of Physics (like Feynman and Einstein) don't slavishly accept what they are given. They take the accumulated knowledge of Physics, digest it, and then advance it in away that is accepted and celebrated by the Physics community.

There is a reason that the fringe of science is on the fringe. Physics is a meritocracy, the ideas that are confirmed by experiement are celebrated. The ideas that don't meet the test are discarded.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Preach on, Max.

As I said before, more and more modern physicists are openly challenging and rejecting SR. One day it will be dispensed with by "mainstream science," and relegated to the trash heap of scientific history.

I wonder what you will say then.

2 Replies

@layman,

layman wrote:

Preach on, Max.

As I said before, more and more modern physicists are openly challenging and rejecting SR. One day it will be dispensed with by "mainstream science," and relegated to the trash heap of scientific history.

I wonder what you will say then.

On the contrary, I believe that future science will further prove that SR is correct by filling in some of the admitted holes. For example, when the Higgs boson is reliably found in high energy collisions as predicted by the standard model of particle physics which is only consistent with special relativity, that will further cement that SR truly is the HTIC.

0 Replies

From Stanford University:

Quote:

Q: If astronomers can use the cosmic background radiation as a reference frame doesn't that invalidate special relativity?

A: Yes, because the expansion of the universe is not covered by special relativity, and is a property of the general relativistic treatment of motion which has features not present in special relativity, just as special relativity has features in it that are not compatible with newtonian physics. The cosmic background radiation will represent a fixed frame of reference for any object that is 'at rest' with respect to the expansion of the universe.

https://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/a10854.html

2 Replies

@layman,

1. I don't think that many modern physicists are openly challenging and rejecting SR. You can find them on the internet... but then again you can find people openly challenging the moon landing on the internet, and people openly saying there are ruins of ancient cities on Mars. You are Googling for what you want to find and finding it.

2. Of course, if new experiments show that SR is not applicable, or if new mathematical models are shown to be better, then the scientific establishment will embrace new theories. This has happened before (i.e. with Einstein and Bohr).

Of course it is the scientific establishment that is in the best position to judge when this has happened. The people who have the most expertise on Physics are the people who best understand. This judgement will be made by experts, not by random people on the internet.

3. The scientific establishment has been very successful at rejecting theories that don't pass the grade, and embracing new theories (such as Relativity and Quantum Mechanics) that are better than existing models.

4. When there is a dramatic new change to the understanding in Physics (as embraced by the scientific establishment), it generally advances... rather than overturns... existing theories. Einstein showed that Special Relativity was an expansion of Newton's laws. This isn't always the case, but generally it is.

Physics students still learn about Carnot and Newton because Carnot and Newton are still valid at the limits where we live. Part of what Physics students learn to do is to show at what limits modern physics is equivalent to classic.

Classical physics was embraced because it did a very good job explaining measurements that were possible in previous centuries.

I expect if, and when, there is a new theory that replaces Relativity, it will likewise be an extension to Relativity rather than a completely new direction. There is a reason that Relativity does such a good job at explaining our current observations.

5. If Science advances, I will be happy to advance right along with it. But science has never advanced at the fringe.

Scientific advances, even dramatic ones, have always been done by the scientific establishment. There is a reason for this.

1 Reply

@layman,

You are googling again, Layman, without understanding what you reading.

Do you think this says that the Scientific Establishment (which includes Standford) misunderstands Relativity? Or is it more likely that you misunderstand?

Special relativity is a special case of General Relativity. If you want to understand this truly, you are going to have to learn about Minkowski space.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

But science has never advanced at the fringe.

I'm sure that, in your dogmatic mind, Stanford University deals in "fringe" physics, eh, Max?

For many decades now, astronomers have routinely used the (forbidden by SR) preferred frame of the CMB to make their cosmic measurments--a case of applied LR. Go figure, eh?

Try to keep up, Max.

2 Replies

@layman,

Physics by Google is not a valid way to do Physics.

Are you claiming that Stanford University has repudiated Special Relativity? Or, have you considered the possibility is that you your lack of understanding. I think it is the latter.

I have tried to patiently explain to you what you are misunderstanding. You keep rejecting it. Standford is not repudiating Relativity, neither are the astronomers who you are talking about.

You don't gain any reasonable understanding of Physics through Googling, which is all you are doing.

0 Replies

@layman,

Think about how laughable this is Layman.

You are saying that you, armed only with Google and some self-made philosophical ideas, have disproven what Feynman, and Einstein and Stanford and modern Astronomy all understand. You have some contradiction (based on reading web-pages you found on Google) that they have all missed.

You can take blurbs from google searches out of context about anything to prove anything.

This is not how science is done.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Preach on, Max.

It's rather fascinating to watch.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

you are going to have to learn about Minkowski space.

If you knew much of anything, Max, you would know that "Minkowski space" is strictly Euclidean, "flat" space.

2 Replies

@layman,

Can you please explain what that means Layman? Minkowski space is a mathematical term. This is college mathematics, not something you learn by Googling.

For someone who was running away from mathematics earlier, this is a little funny.

1 Reply

@layman,

The point I was going to make is that you are misunderstanding the relationship between Special Relativity and General Relativity, and that you are misunderstanding the process of science in general. These are mathematical models that describe how Nature works and make predictions. As Feynman notes... there doesn't seem to be any explanation for this that isn't mathematical.

I think you are claiming to be finding (through Google searches) "contradictions" between Stanford, and Einstein and Feynman and astronomers that are actual "contradictions" (rather than something that you just don't understand).

Is this the claim you are making?

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Minkowskian "space" (which is distinct from space-time) is strictly 3 dimensional, just like Newtonian space.

Throwing in time, and mathematically calling it a "4th dimension," does nothing to alter this simple fact.

Treating time as a "fourth dimension" is not a necessary exercise.

By definition, speed is the distance travelled divided by the time elapsed, and is a ratio of space (distance) and time. You can never know the speed until you first know both the time and the distances involved.

To FIRST arbitrarily posit a supposedly "necessary" speed, and then re-define both time and distance to comply with your back-asswards postulation is nonsensical, really. Viable theories of relative motion such as LR do not treat "time" as some imaginary "dimension" and such theories accurately predict a lot more phenomena than does SR.

1 Reply

The Red Shift without Expansion

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know