The Red Shift without Expansion

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

The Earth Orbits the Sun (in spite of the arguments of philosophers).

Now ya done went and done it, Max. You just rejected special relativity.

You're right to characterize it as philosophy, though.

Just because it's true doesn't mean you understand it, eh?

3 Replies

@layman,

Told ya we'd get another one.

Who says philosophy has no power to predict

0 Replies

@layman,

maxdancona wrote:

No no no Layman. Science is not religion.

For one thing, Science accomplishes things. We are now curing diseases with science, we are putting robots on Mars, we are sending our ideas around the world on the Internet, we are extending the human lifespan.

The reason that Science is actually useful is that it is testable. Many issues can be resolved to the point where Scientists (i.e. the people who have studied for years to gain understanding) all agree that the evidence is overwhelming. This is nothing like religion or Philsophy where nothing is ever truly resolved to the point where it can actually do anything useful.

Yes, there are things in science that aren't resolved yet... and scientists are honest about that. The system and the scientific process are clear... an issue isn't resolved until there is a mathematical model that has been confirmed by experiments (in this case many experiments. No religion can do this. Yet science does resolve things...

The Earth Orbits the Sun (in spite of the arguments of philosophers). Humans evolved from earlier species (in spite of the arguments of philosophers). Germs are responsible for diseases (in spite of the arguments of philosophers). And time passes at different rates in different frames of reference.

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

layman wrote:

Now ya done went and done it, Max. You just rejected special relativity.

You're right to characterize it as philosophy, though.

Just because it's true doesn't mean you understand it, eh?

Do you really think that the Earth orbiting the Sun "rejects" special relativity?

After all this time, this thread is still amusing.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Aincha heard, Max? Like his philosophical mentor, the proto-positivist Ernst Mach, Al said that the geocentric and heliocentric frames of reference were "equally valid."

There are no preferred frames of reference in SR.

At least Mach conceded that only one of the two views could actually be correct, even if we couldn't discern which one it was.

Al took it a step further and said that BOTH were correct.

1 Reply

@layman,

Sure. And you think that means that the Earth doesn't orbit the Sun?

I have a degree in Physics. I know lots of people who have degrees in Physics. All of us accept the theory of Relativity. Not one of us doubts that the Earth orbits the Sun.

You haven't taken any Physics courses. Have you considered the possibility that you are misunderstanding the theory? Or did you just jump to the conclusion that Einstein, and Feynmen and DeGrasse Tyson and Hawkings all missed this thing that you understand just Google.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

Heh, Max.

1. I have already demonstrated that Feynman didn't agree with SR.

2. Do you have any argument, other than name-dropping and unsubstantiated assertions, to make?

3. Of course, many of the implications of SR have been rejected in the 100+ years since it was propounded. But there are still many who don't abandon the theory itself--for reasons which I have also addressed in this thread.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

So you claim to know SR? Or do you only claim to "accept" it?

Tell me, is there a "preferred frame" in SR which allows you to say which of two objects is moving? Is that your claim?

Do you deny that SR claims that the lorentz transformations are "reciprocal" (as opposed to directional)?

0 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

I have already demonstrated that Feynman didn't agree with SR.

No you haven't. You have made up a fictional Fake Feynman based on snippets you found on Google. Richard Feynman was a actual person. The real Feynman studied, accepted, taught and made advances to Special Relativity.

You don't understand Special Relativity. That is why you think you are finding contradictions in your misunderstanding of it.

Science isn't a religion. And the Googling you are doing has nothing to do with Physics.

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

Since the steady state was rejected we know much much, more of the galaxies. And these thoughts as here are not commonly thought, known or teached in the scientific community.

Everybody sees I'm right : ) when he is looking this way, if he is not indoctrinated : )

Some things are self evident. Everybody sees them when properly stated. There is no real reason to abandon the eternal, infinite, always big, big universe if the red shift can be explained without expansion. It is a (the) rationally sound possibility.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

You don't understand Special Relativity. That is why you think you are finding contradictions in your misunderstanding of it.

Just answer the damn question, Max.

1 Reply

@layman,

What's the point Layman?

You aren't looking to understand Physics. You are looking to disprove Physics without understanding it. The last time I answered your "damn" question we got into a two page argument where you disputed the most basic of high school physics. I pretty patiently tried to show you what you were misunderstanding... and I felt we were almost close... but then when your ideas started to contradict themselves (which is when learning happens) you dropped it and went back to disputing Hafele–Keating.

If you want to know the answer, step away from Google and read a "damn" Physics book. Pretty much any high school book will do. This is Galilean Relativity we are arguing... we haven't even gotten to Special Relativity yet.

Any high school student who has successfully taken a Physics class understands this stuff. So pick up a "damn" high school Physics book.

Don't you think you should at least master high school Physics before you attempt to disprove the work of Einstein and Feynman?

1 Reply

The following are Al's own words:

Quote:

Strictly speaking one cannot say that the Earth moves in an ellipse around the Sun, because that statement presupposes a coordinate system in which the Sun is at rest, while classical mechanics also allows systems relative to which the Sun rectilinearly and uniformly moves.

Nobody will use a coordinate system that is at rest relative to the planet Earth, because that would be impractical. However as a matter of principle such a theory of relativity is equally valid as any other.

https://en.wikisource.org/?curid=84542

Can you read, and understand that, Max? I have my doubts, since you never seem to be able to. Let me restate it, because repetition may possibly (but not likely) help.

Because the calculations would be more complicated one might, for strictly practical reasons, choose to USE a frame of reference where the sun is treated as motionless when calculating, BUT

1. "as a matter of principle (philosophy) such a theory of relativity (i.e., a geocentric postulation) is equally valid as any other."'

2. In SR, one is prohibited from subscribing to a theory (philosophy) which permits a claim that "presupposes a coordinate system in which the Sun is at rest."

Get it?

Are you now just going to say that, like me, Al just doesn't understand SR?

Do you deny Al's claim here?

2 Replies

@layman,

You are doing Science by Google again.... I am trying to be patient here. You are not arguing about Albert Einstein.

You are arguing against the classical Phyiscs that is taught in high school and was understood by Galileo and Newton (long before Einstein and Feynman). There is a basic flaw in your line of reasoning... I tried very patiently to correct it. You can't possibly understand even basic Physics without getting over the flaw.

In science, a mathematical model is correct if it is testable, and is confirmed by experiment and observation. Newton undersood that there were multiple reference frames, and that his laws would work in any of them.

In high school, kids get a feel for this by working within different reference frames. We have them drop balls off of moving carts and doing the math both ways. It works either way.

There is a basic flaw in your reasoning that you can't seem to see, and you can't seem to get over.

But high school students learn frames of reference, and do experiments that show the laws are valid in any frame of reference. And, high school students understand stand this perfectly well.

This was a core part of Physics for centuries before Einstein came along.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

What's the point Layman?

Exactly what I thought. You always avoid the question because YOU don't understand SR and you know that you can't articulate it's premises.

Quote:

This is Galilean Relativity we are arguing... we haven't even gotten to Special Relativity yet.

I have already quoted Feynman where he flatly denies YOUR claim about the significance of Galilean Relativity. I'm sure you couldn't understand what he said, but maybe if you re-read it carefully, 300-400 times, it will penetrate, eh?

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

You are arguing against the classical Phyiscs that is taught in high school and was understood by Galileo and Newton (long before Einstein and Feynman). [code]There is a basic flaw in your line of reasoning... I tried very patiently to correct it. You can't possibly understand even basic Physics without getting over the flaw.I

You misread Galileo and Newton, insofar as their relativity goes.

Explain the "flaw" you are asserting. You have certainly NOT made any such attempt yet.

1 Reply

@layman,

You googled for a randome quote from Feynman that you think supports your point of view even though you don't understand it.

Read a "damn" high school physics book.

0 Replies

@layman,

Go back a few pages where I tried patiently to show you the flaw in your thinking. When you got to the point that you were contradicting yourself, rather than learning from it... you changed the subject to talk about Hafele–Keating. Remember?

1 Reply

@layman,

One more time, Max:

Quote:

Can you read, and understand that, Max?

Are you now just going to say that, like me, Al just doesn't understand SR?

Do you deny Al's claim here?

Just answer the damn question.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Go back a few pages where I tried patiently to show you the flaw in your thinking.

Remind me, eh?

What is "the flaw?"

0 Replies

For context, that last quote from Einstein was made in response to this question (also formulated by Al):

Quote:

Would anyone get it in his head to actually use the possibility offered by the theory of relativity to relate the motions of the celestial bodies of the solar system to a geocentric coordinate system that on top of that is participating in the rotation of the Earth? Would anyone really be allowed to see this coordinate system as "at rest" and as equally valid, relative to which the fixed stars are tearing around with tremendous speed? Doesn't such an approach collide head on with common sense, and with the demand of economy of thought?

The answers here are:

1. No, no one would get such an absurd notion "in their head," not even Max.
2. Yes, it would " collide head on with common sense."
3. But, nonetheless, in SR, you are not only "allowed" but you are in fact required, to "see this coordinate system as equally valid."

Gunna answer the damn questions, Max? You back in hiding again, that it.

Does Al understand SR?
Is he wrong?
What is my "flaw" here?

1 Reply

The Red Shift without Expansion

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know