The Red Shift without Expansion

@maxdancona,

Let's go back to Al's "cosmological constant" for a minute, eh?

A POSITED that the universe was static. He found that, in order to consistently maintain this postulate in mathematical form, he had to add in some arbitrary math (the "constant"). THEN it was perfectly consistent, mathematically.

When he later abandoned this postulate, he just changed the math. After adjusting the math to fit his NEW hypothesis, it was once again "consistent."

Think about it. Does this give you any pause to reflect on the relationship between math and physical reality (not to mention theoretical physics) at all?

You often talk as though the mathematical formulations create the theory, and that theory and physical reality MUST conform to the math.

But the opposite is true. The theory simply creates and dictates the form of the math you must adopt.

Even those who acknowledge this sometimes make the mistake of thinking that the facts dictate the form of the theory. They don't.

And then they compound their mistake by failing to recognize that they force the so-called "facts" to conform to their pet theories. Facts really get lost in the process.

1 Reply

@layman,

I don't know what you mean by the term "physical reality". Sciens deals in what is testable and confirmed by experiment or observation. Your use of "physical reality" seems to add something that goes beyond science.

Yes, theories in physics are adapted an expanded to match new experimental results. This is not a weakness. This is one of the strengths of physics.

If you listened to or read the rather insightful Feynman talk on Mathematics and Physics, there are a great number of Physics laws for which we have found no explanation other than the mathematics (Feynman uses the Gravitation inverse squared law as an example).

So, I don't know what difference you are making between theory and math. The theory of Relativity is expressed in Mathematics (at least now in 2017 we have no other way to express these theories.) When you talk about red shift, and expansion into 4 space, and velocity transformations you are talking about mathematics. If you are going to reject this... then this talk of "red shift" is non-sense. Talk about the philosophical "facts" using philosophical ideas rather than mathematical ones.

But you are wrong about facts. These mathematic theories are objectively testable. You can use them to make predictions that you can then confirm with careful measurement. Of course, when these predictions fail (as they sometimes do) the Physics community works to revise and improve the theories.

But time and time again, Relativity has passed the test. It has make some pretty impressive (and counter-intuitive predictions) from cosmic rays, to gravity waves.

That is why it is accepted by the Scientific Community... in spite of the fact it upsets some philosophers who are looking for something more than testable mathematics. But what the philosophers are looking for isn't mathematically testable and therefor it isn't science.

And the "facts" you are looking for aren't science either (as long as they contradict the mathematical model that has been tested, confirmed and accepted by the scientific community).

1 Reply

If I take 3 sticks, one 3' long, one 4' long, and one 5' long, and make a triangle out of them, one of the angles formed will be 90 degrees.

This will be true even if I never happen to notice the curious co-incidence that 3 squared (9), plus 4 squared (16), happens to equal 5 squared (25).

I don't need to know a single thing about abstract, theoretical math or geometry in order to exploit my practical knowledge of that relationship for "engineering" purposes.

Your idea of "science" appears to be practical engineering and technological achievements, Max. Your mindset is that of an "experimental" scientist, who need not concern himself with how or why the theory was formed in the first place.

They leave all of that to the "theoretical scientists." Sometimes to the point where they forget that it even matters.

1 Reply

@layman,

The work of theoretical scientists, such as Feynman and Einstein, isn't accepted until they are tested.

When Gravity Waves were detected last year as predicted by General Relativity it was another pretty amazing confirmation of the theoretical Physics. The mathematical prediction based on work done by Einstein 100 years ago worked out.

Of course, there is plenty of other really impressive (and counter-intuitive) predictions of relativity that have also been confirmed over the past 100 years.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

The work of theoretical scientists, such as Feynman and Einstein, isn't accepted until they are tested.

When Gravity Waves were detected last year as predicted by General Relativity it was another pretty amazing confirmation of the theoretical Physics. The mathematical prediction based on work done by Einstein 100 years ago worked out.

Hmmm, that so? Tell me, then, Max, did you refuse to accept the theoretical predictions about gravitational waves UNTIL they were detected?

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Of course, there is plenty of other really impressive (and counter-intuitive) predictions of relativity that have also been confirmed over the past 100 years.

Yeah, and of course, there are some seemingly irreconcilable conflicts that GR has created (as is the case with quantum physics) too, eh? You didn't mention those. Nor do you mention the instances where the theory seems to "fall apart," such as the presumably observed accelerating expansion of the universe. Scientists like to say that one experiment, just one newly discovered "fact," can disprove a theory.

Wrong. And it almost never does. It just generates the invention of some ad hoc fiction (such as dark matter). That's the kind of thing I meant when I said you need only adjust the so-called "facts" to conform to your theory. Never a need to "abandon" it as "disproven."

When it was noticed that some galaxies are receding at superliminal speeds, did anyone say that Einstein's postulate had been disproven? Very few.

What they did was create another non-sensical "explanation." The two objects in question were, in fact, not moving AT ALL. They remained entirely motionless. It was just that the space between them was expanding.

Who knew that when I think I am moving toward my refrigerator to get a beer I am not really moving at all? Nor is the refrigerator. It's just that the space between us shrinks as I approach the fridge, then it "expands" when I walk out the back door, eh?

2 Replies

@layman,

No. As I pointed out, there was enough compelling evidence to be pretty confident of the result. Relativity is accepted by the scientific community because there have been quite a few different impressive experiments that confirm it.

Of course it was a very good idea to do the experiment. And most importantly, had there been an unexpected result... physicists would have gone back to figure out new physics (this would have been really cool actually.... Physics like it when their theories are upturned by experiment, it means that human knowledge is about to advance.).

That is how science works. When so many experiments all confirm a theory, the theory is accepted until there is some legitimate experiment that is reproduceable and whose results don't fit into the currently theory.

Then science advances. But generally the new theories don't contradict the old theories... they expand them. And, of course, the new theory must still explain why the old theory worked in all the experiments up to the point when they found an experiment that didn't fit.

Newton's laws are a special case of Relativity. Eintstein showed that in his very first paper on the subject.

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

Wrong. And it almost never does.

You and the scientific community disagree on that. You don't seem to accept that the scientific community knows more than you do.

Your knowledge of Physics comes from your own intuition and Google. Sorry, but that isn't a very good way to master Physics.

0 Replies

@layman,

When it was noticed that some galaxies are receding at superliminal speeds, did anyone say that Einstein's postulate had been disproven? Very few.

What they did was create another non-sensical "explanation." The two objects in question were, in fact, not moving AT ALL, let alone faster than the speed of light. They remained entirely motionless. It was just that the space between them was expanding.

Who knew that when I think I am moving toward my refrigerator to get a beer I am not really moving at all? Nor is the refrigerator. It's just that the space between us shrinks as I approach the fridge, then it "expands" when I walk out the back door, eh?

I added that to a prior post. I should have made a new post out of it, which I am doing now.

By the way, LR does not, by means of a priori postulation, prohibit speeds faster than light.

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

What they did was create another non-sensical "explanation."

It is only non-sensical because you don't understand it.

They made a measurement that seemed odd. They explored it. They did the mathematics that showed that the result was consistent with current theories. This isn't my area of expertise, but it seems like there is a little area for question here... but the sicentific community does not see this as conflicting with Relativity.

Sometimes the mathematics works to explain the new measurement (as in this case). Sometimes it doesn't work (as in Michelson-Morely) in which case a new theory is needed.

That is how science works. Just because it is "non-sensical" to you, doesn't mean it isn't scientifically correct.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

They made a measurement that seemed odd. They explored it. They did the mathematics....

You obviously did NOT read, let alone reflect on, the post I made a short while back about the cosmological constant, eh?

0 Replies

The cosmological constant seems to come and go, just depending on whats required to "save the theory." It's now back again, under the rubric of "dark energy," in order to avoid the disgraceful connotations of the term "cosmological constant."

By that kinda creativity can easily go both ways, ya know? For example:

One (of very few) reasons that GR was considered to be superior to Newtonian gravity was that it gave a more mathematically accurate account of the aberrant motions of the planet Mercury.

For decades it had been known that an as yet unseen planet (dubbed "Vulcan") could be a possible explanation of precession of the perihelion of Mercury's orbit . So the search was ON. But they never found Vulcan.

Does that prove that Vulcan doesn't exist? Hell, no!!

Vulcan just consists of undetectable "dark matter," that's all. Think about it...how could 75% (or whatever) of the matter in the universe be "dark matter" without some being in our own solar system, I ask ya?

So I've just proven Al wrong, and Newton right, can't ya see?

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

The cosmological constant seems to come and go, just depending on whats required to "save the theory." It's now back again, under the rubric of "dark energy," in order to avoid the disgraceful connotations of the term "cosmological constant."

By that kinda creativity can easily go both ways, ya know? For example:

One (of very few) reasons that GR was considered to be superior to Newtonian gravity was that it gave a more mathematically accurate account of the aberrant motions of the planet Mercury.

For decades it had been known that an as yet unseen planet (dubbed "Vulcan") could be a possible explanation of precession of the perihelion of Mercury's orbit . So the search was ON. But they never found Vulcan.

Does that prove that Vulcan doesn't exist? Hell, no!!

Vulcan just consists of undetectable "dark matter," that's all. Think about it...how could 75% (or whatever) of the matter in the universe be "dark matter" without some being in our own solar system, I ask ya?

So I've just proven Al wrong, and Newton right, can't ya see?

Dark matter is gravitational lag.

The entire galaxy is moving on a tangent at four hundred kilometers a second. Gravity is limited to the speed of light. This means as our super massive black hole moves along this tangent its gravity field of influence lags behind as the field moves with it slightly behind.

Its compounded too. The gravity field is proportional to the square of the distance from the center of the field.

So what does this mean? It means when our solar system moves into or closer to this tangent line the gravitational field strength increases pulling our entire solar system slightly closer to the black hole. Then as we move off the tangent the solar system moves into a double reduced field strength causing our system to zigzag around the central black hole and NOT a perfect circular orbit.

This means it throws off Mercury's orbit every few hundred thousand years as calculated.

There are five pockets created by the central black hole called Lagrange points. As our system moves closer and away from these points the planets are slightly impacted in their orbits.

There is NO planet X. Its what I have explained above that causes a change in orbits every few hundred thousand years. Climate on Earth is also impacted by this process and has been recorded. It also messes with asteroids in our system throwing them out of their usual orbital planes causing them to change their orbits.

Which is one explanation for mass extinction events on Earth every few hundred thousand years.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Well, Krumps, one criticism I would have of your post is that you present it as undisputed "fact," kinda like Max does.

You don't say "according to one viewpoint," or "many scientists believe" or anything like that.

You say, for example:

Quote:

Gravity is limited to the speed of light.

This is an assumption shared by most scientists. But it is also a disputed claim that has been challenged by reputable scientists. And that's just one sentence in your long post.

I really didn't follow it all, but even if I did and thought is was a good theory, I would still just say that it's "one possible explanation."

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

Well, Krumps, one criticism I would have of your post is that you present it as undisputed "fact," kinda like Max does.

You don't say "according to one viewpoint," or "many scientists believe" or anything like that.

You say, for example:

Quote:
Gravity is limited to the speed of light.
This is an assumption shared by most scientists. But it is also a disputed claim that has been challenged by reputable scientists. And that's just one sentence in your long post.

I really didn't follow it all, but even if I did and thought is was a good theory, I would still just say that it's "one possible explanation."

Einstein even hypothesised that gravity is limited to speed of light with his disappearing sun thought experiment. You can Google it. I'll quickly explain.

The light from the sun takes eight minutes to reach Earth. If we deleted the sun we wouldn't know it was gone for eight minutes after it had already disappeared. Einstein theorized that the Earth would behave as though the sun was still there for eight minutes. The Earth would still be under gravitation field of the sun even though it was gone because gravity is limited to the speed of light.

If this is wrong then our estimate of the shape of the universe and its age would have to be wrong as well because we use this hypothesis that gravity is limited to C to determine both. This is called gravitational lag.

It also explains why spiral galaxies have spiral arms. The same effect causes the arms to have the shape that they have. Its easier to explain using diagrams but I don't have any apps on my phone to make them easy enough to explain how the process works.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Krumple wrote:

Einstein even hypothesised that gravity is limited to speed of light with his disappearing sun thought experiment.

The light from the sun takes eight minutes to reach Earth. If we deleted the sun we wouldn't know it was gone for eight minutes after it had already disappeared. Einstein theorized that the Earth would behave as though the sun was still there for eight minutes. The Earth would still be under gravitation field of the sun even though it was gone because gravity is limited to the speed of light.

Exactly. And that's exactly what's been disputed. It's been a long time (maybe 20 years now) but I've read an article addressing this very topic that was authored (or co-authored) by an eminent physicist who was on the board of editors for several highly respected physics Journals. I've forgotten his name, but, as a youth he was a top assistant to Einstein himself.

This paper argued, at length, using facts and figures, that, given Al's "field" interpretation of GR, any gravitational lag would be impossible as a practical matter. It would necessarily de-stabilize all planetary orbits and they would be reeling off into space if there was lag. This paper concluded that the "speed of gravity" had to be many times that of light--perhaps, but not necessrily, infinite.

1 Reply

This was written by a contemporary physicist, Steve Carlip:

Quote:

Does Gravity Travel at the Speed of Light?

To begin with, the speed of gravity has not been measured directly in the laboratory—the gravitational interaction is too weak, and such an experiment is beyond present technological capabilities. The "speed of gravity" must therefore be deduced from astronomical observations, and the answer depends on what model of gravity one uses to describe those observation.

In the simple newtonian model, gravity propagates instantaneously: the force exerted by a massive object points directly toward that object's present position. For example, even though the Sun is 500 light seconds from the Earth, newtonian gravity describes a force on Earth directed towards the Sun's position "now," not its position 500 seconds ago. Putting a "light travel delay" (technically called "retardation") into newtonian gravity would make orbits unstable, leading to predictions that clearly contradict Solar System observations....

Strictly speaking, gravity is not a "force" in general relativity, and a description in terms of speed and direction can be tricky. For weak fields, though, one can describe the theory in a sort of newtonian language. In that case, one finds that the "force" in GR is not quite central—it does not point directly towards the source of the gravitational field—and that it depends on velocity as well as position. The net result is that the effect of propagation delay is almost exactly cancelled, and general relativity very nearly reproduces the newtonian result....

Are there future prospects for a direct measurement of the speed of gravity? One possibility would involve detection of gravitational waves from a supernova. The detection of gravitational radiation in the same time frame as a neutrino burst, followed by a later visual identification of a supernova, would be considered strong experimental evidence for the speed of gravity being equal to the speed of light. However, unless a very nearby supernova occurs soon, it will be some time before gravitational wave detectors are expected to be sensitive enough to perform such a test.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/grav_speed.html

As I recall, the paper I was talking about criticized this claim:

Quote:

In that case, one finds that the "force" in GR is not quite central—it does not point directly towards the source of the gravitational field—and that it depends on velocity as well as position.

As I recall, the argument was that the "math" used by GR to justify this claim was essentially the product of a deliberate "fudge factor" just like the cosmological constant was. That paper claimed that there were a number of "free parameters" in GR to accomplish this, as desired, IF desired, but that the concept had no persuasive underpinning--just another ad hoc mathematical device used to "solve" difficulties in the theory.

0 Replies

@layman,

layman wrote:

Krumple wrote:

Einstein even hypothesised that gravity is limited to speed of light with his disappearing sun thought experiment.

The light from the sun takes eight minutes to reach Earth. If we deleted the sun we wouldn't know it was gone for eight minutes after it had already disappeared. Einstein theorized that the Earth would behave as though the sun was still there for eight minutes. The Earth would still be under gravitation field of the sun even though it was gone because gravity is limited to the speed of light.

Exactly. And that's exactly what's been disputed. It's been a long time (maybe 20 years now) but I've read an article addressing this very topic that was authored (or co-authored) by an eminent physicist who was on the board of editors for several highly respected physics Journals. I've forgotten his name, but, as a youth he was a top assistant to Einstein himself.

This paper argued, at length, using facts and figures, that, given Al's "field" interpretation of GR, any gravitational lag would be impossible as a practical matter. It would necessarily de-stabilize all planetary orbits and they would be reeling off into space if there was lag. This paper concluded that the "speed of gravity" had to be many times that of light--perhaps, but not necessrily, infinite.

There is currently two satellites in development to test these hypothesises. There is also two experiments we can do on the ground as well to test for gravitational lag. But these ground experiments require a very sensitive measuring instrument to detect the variation which are also in the works.

If it's wrong our calculations of the size and shape of the universe need to be re-examined. We use the theory that gravity is limited to C to determine the shape and size. Without this theory being true we cant use the old method anymore.

As it currently sits its more favored that there is gravitational lag than not. Two current models using gravitational lag have predicted spiral arm placement and their shape. The other explains why the milkyway has satellite galaxies and why they are where they are.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Quote:

If it's wrong our calculations of the size and shape of the universe need to be re-examined.

Yes, that's true, and of course it is one reason that there is tremendous resistance in the scientific community to looking at viable alternative theories, including lorentzian relativity in place of special relativity.

But what else is new? The advent of modern relativity, whether Einsteinien or Lorentzian, required extensive re-thinking of, and modification of, classical Newtonian mechanics and other classical concepts. It was a complete "shock" to existing theory which greatly unsettled the scientists of the day.

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

Quote:
If it's wrong our calculations of the size and shape of the universe need to be re-examined.

Yes, that's true, and of course it is one reason that there is tremendous resistance in the scientific community to looking at viable alternative theories, including lorentzian relativity in place of special relativity.

But what else is new? The advent of modern relativity, whether Einsteinien or Lorentzian, required extensive re-thinking of, and modification of, classical Newtonian mechanics and other classical concepts. It was a complete "shock" to existing theory which greatly unsettled the scientists of the day.

There is a group of MIT grads who are working on the reason the electron and proton have the mass that they have. Why is this even important?

The hypothesis is that the total number of protons and electrons can be used to determine the sum total of energy in the universe. When you know the sum total of energy you can use it to calculate the age and the size of the universe proportionally.

Everything relates to each other. You can't have more of object in a volume that is smaller without an effect of energy displacement.

To put this another way you can only cram a maximum number of atoms into a given volume, there is a maximum threshold before you start pushing them so close together they overlap and start giving off photons and radiation. This tells you significant things about the age of the universe and its size. Because atoms do not naturally want to be pressed together, it requires gravity to make it happen.

This means the sum total of energy at the moment of the big bang will dictate the maximum number of atoms that can form. You can't get more atoms. So we reverse the process, determine the number of atoms and it will tell you the maximum sum total energy.

Sum total energy is then directly proportional to age and size. The mass of the electron is known so it tells you the maximum threshold of space that is required. You can't have more or less space or else the mass would have to be different.

1 Reply

The Red Shift without Expansion

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know