The Red Shift without Expansion

@layman,

Despite your rhetoric, you do believe in a heliocentric model, right?

@McGentrix,

Absolutely, Gent.

Who doesn't? Other than SR, I mean?

That's been my point here (one of them).

0 Replies

@layman,

1. Albert Einstein does understand Special Relativity.
2. No, Albert Einstein is not wrong.
3. Your flaw is that you have a basic misunderstanding about this quote (and about basic high school physics).

What this quote is saying is that given the fact that you can get correct answers in any frame of reference, it would "collide with" common sense and the "economy of thought" to choose one that would be so difficult to use.

There is no contradiction in what this quote says. There is only a contradiction in your misunderstanding of what the quote says.

Now answer my qestions.

1) Do you believe that there is only one coordinate sysetem that is correct?
2) Which coordinate system is that?
3) How is your football field moving in that coordinate system? (In your earlier example you implied that football fields don't move).
4) Since the laws of Physics work in a way that is predictable and testable in every frame of reference.... why does this silly philosophical argument even matter?

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

1. Albert Einstein does understand Special Relativity.
2. No, Albert Einstein is not wrong.
3. Your flaw is that you have a basic misunderstanding about this quote (and about basic high school physics).

What this quote is saying is that given the fact that you can get correct answers in any frame of reference, it would "collide with" common sense and the "economy of thought" to choose one that would be so difficult to use.

There is no contradiction in what this quote says. There is only a contradiction in your misunderstanding of what the quote says.

Now answer my qestions.

1) Do you believe that there is only one coordinate sysetem that is correct?
2) Which coordinate system is that?
3) How is your football field moving in that coordinate system? (In your earlier example you implied that football fields don't move).
4) Since the laws of Physics work in a way that is predictable and testable in every frame of reference.... why does this silly philosophical argument even matter?

No, I have not misunderstood it. If you think there is a "flaw" tell me what you think it is. Don't just say "there is a flaw." What is the flaw? If you tell me that, then I may better understand where YOU are misunderstanding.

1. Under SR, no. In SR there are an INFINITE number of "correct" frames of reference, if you want to call them all "correct" (which I don't, but...)

2. See above

3. As I already told you, that is in "my" frame of reference. By definition, in SR, "my" frame of rest is ABSOLUTELY motionless with respect to EVERYTHING else in the universe that is moving with respect to me. It serves as the lorentzian "ether." Once again, in SR, the football field is NOT moving.

4. I've answered this question innumerable times for you, in this thread and in several prior ones. You never listen, and I can only conclude at this point that you are absolutely incapable of understanding. Read the scientific article I've already posted here, for a summary of the difference between SR and LR and (one) difference it can make---which is quite significant
http://able2know.org/topic/363445-18#post-6354811

Quote:

What this quote is saying is that given the fact that you can get correct answers in any frame of reference, it would "collide with" common sense and the "economy of thought" to choose one that would be so difficult to use.

It's saying what it's if you can read (which you usually can't). There words are Al's, not mine.

But I'll paraphase it again for you, from memory.

Al is "asking" the question: Wouldn't it be "absurd to think the whole universe revolves around the earth"

His answerto the question he poses is given in the prior quotation I cited.

He is NOT saying what you say he is.

READ IT.

It is saying that your claim is WRONG (within the context of SR).

READ IT. There is NO preferred frame in SR, as you claim says there is.

YOU say the earth revolves around the sun. In SR you CAN"T say that. It's prohibited.

2 Replies

I will quote this excerpt from Al one more time.

He is saying exactly what I said

He is denying what you said:

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.

Can you understand that?

You can read the entire article at your leisure if you choose. I have already given you the citation.

0 Replies

@layman,

Sigh,

Quote:

YOU say the earth revolves around the sun. In SR you CAN"T say that. It's prohibited.

I accept Special Relativity. I state that the Earth rotates around the sun. Albert Einstein wrote Special relativity, and in the quote you keep harping he states the earth rotates around the sun. It is not Albert Einstein who is having a problem here. It is you.

If this doesn't show you the contrdiction in your thinking, I don't know what will.

I tried to explain the flaw in your thinking in the simplest terms possible. You don't seem to even try to understand.

So let me try again. Consider the question How far away is Chicago?

Do you see how two people will correctly give two different answers... and they both will be correct?

The only contradiction here is in your own head.

1 Reply

@layman,

Your words aren't exactly clear... so let me ask very exactly so that we both understand.

This is a yes or no question (after you state your answer as "yes" or "no", you can then go explain if you think it will help).

Are you stating that the CMB frame of reference is the only accurate frame of reference in Physics? (Yes or no please.)

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Your words aren't exactly clear... so let me ask very exactly so that we both understand.

This is a yes or no question (after you state your answer as "yes" or "no", you can then go explain if you think it will help).

Are you stating that the CMB frame of reference is the only accurate frame of reference in Physics?

No, I am not. As the nobel prize winner George Smoot says, the CMB is the "cosmic rest frame." It is the preferred frame IF you are making calculations (measurements of motion, i.e. speed) on a universal scale.

But it is not the preferred frame for all calculations. As Al said, "all physics is local."

If you're working on (and near) earth, the preferred frame would be the ECI.

On the solar scale, it would be the barycenter (not "the sun").

On a galactic scale, it would be the center of mass of the Milky Way.

It is always the center of the DOMINANT gravitational mass of the vicinity you're "working" in.

BUT, none of what I just said is true for SR.

It is true for LR.

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

On the solar scale, it would be the barycenter (not "the sun").

Think about it. With respect to all other objects in the solar system, ONLY the barycenter remains motionless. Even the sun "revolves" around it.

Newton used it when he was the first to very accurately plot the motion of all the planets. He used the frame of the "fixed stars" as a background (which he called a "close approximation" of a non-moving frame).

Astronomers still use it today for calculations within the solar system.

They are NOT using SR when they do so. They are using LR.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Albert Einstein wrote Special relativity, and in the quote you keep harping he states the earth rotates around the sun.

Yeah, right, eh, Max? Try again. Here, for the third time, are Al's exact words:

Quote:

...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.

Can you READ?

This is one big problem you have. You "read" something, but you don't take away the meaning the author clearly stated.

You will invariably read any passage to "say" what you think it should say, what you want it to say, and/or what you expect it to say. It MUST somehow be consistent with what you already "know" to be "true."

You are a prisoner of your own bigotry and indoctrination.

1 Reply

@layman,

Who do you think you are, Kellyanne Conway? You are spinning so fast that you are getting more and more ridiculous.

1) It is ridiculous for you to claim that Newton was using Lorentzian Relativity. Newton died 120 years before Lorentz was born. Lorentz developed "Lorentizan Relativity" to deal with the problems Newton's laws had in explaining Maxwells eqations (particular with Michelson-Morley).

2) It is ridiculous for you to say that Einstein's explanation of Special Relativity contradicts with Special Relativity. Taking Einstein's words out of context... when it is very clear to anyone with a high school Physics education what he means.. is nonsense. The concept that Einstein is getting accross in that passage is really simple. I keep trying to patiently explain it to you. You keep wanting to fight instead of trying to understand.

3) It is ridiculous that you have now specified at least 8 different frames of reference each that you would use in different circumstances and yet you deny that Physics can work in different frames of reference.

Just because you don't understand Einstein, doesn't mean it isn't correct. But the fact you keep spinning even when it should be obvious to you that you are contradicting yourself is laughable.

I suppose that is why I keep responding.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

I didn't say or claim ANY of the 3 things you say I did, Max, once again proving the point about your dogmatism, bigotry, indoctrination, and flat-out inability to READ.

I'm not going to waste time responding to your straw man arguments.

Learn to read.

After you do that, try reading before you endlessly pontificate on a topic which you are unfamiliar with and clearly don't understand.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

This is about the only line of "reasoning" you manifest:

1. I, Max, know all that needs to be known about physics, in general, and special relativity in particular.
2. Einstein is reputed to know such things also.

THEREFORE, Einstein MUST agree with everything I say about such topics.

1 Reply

@layman,

My line of reasoning is more like this.

1. Physics is based on testable ideas that are expressed in mathematics. Its power is its ability to create mathematical laws that are tested and confirmed by experiment and observation.

2. Modern Physics has developed over the past 500 years based on advancement, study and hard work. People who advance physics all get PhDs, which are necessary because of the extent to which the field has grown.

3. There are ideas (including Special Relativity) that are widely accepted by the scientific community because they have been tested and confirmed over and over again. Not all ideas are equal... ideas that pass the test are confirmed, some are discarded.

4. Of course Physics is still advancing. But the current ideas have been tested and confirmed by experiment... so any new ideas, in addition to showing themselves to explain experimental results that can't be explained by the old ideas, must also explain why the old ideas did so well up to that point. Generally new ideas are extensions of the former ideas... not overhauls.

5. People who have studied Physics in college... who have learned the math, done the problem sets read the papers, performed the experiments, understand Physics better than people who haven't.

6. The masters in Physics are people who have not only earned PhDs in Physics, but they have devoted their lives... and have done new and impressive work that is accepted by their peers.

You haven't studied any Physics. What you are saying is just you makeing up stuff that sounds right to you based on snippets you take out of context from Google searches. I am not a PhD, but I have studied enough Physics to understand the theories and to tell you how they work... if you choose to listen.

It seems like you want to fight, rather than learn. Making stuff up based on what you read on the Internet might work for Philsophy or for Religion where any answer can be a right answer. But in Science there are wrong answers.

You are claiming that Einstein is wrong (as well as almost all of the Physics community). That is ridiculous.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

What you are saying is just you makeing up stuff that sounds right to you based on snippets you take out of context from Google searches.

Heh, Max, you have disparagingly referred to google about a hundred times. Would Einstein's writings say something different, or better, if I checked the book out of the library, ya figure?

It's quite obvious to me that I have read a whole lot more about, and thought a whole lot more about, the theoretical underpinnings of special relativity than you have. And I do mean a WHOLE LOT more. If you don't know what "X" is to begin with, then, a fortiori, you don't know what would contradict "X."

But, preach on. Someone might be listening for the 101st time, ya never know.

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

Heh, Max, you have disparagingly referred to google about a hundred times. Would Einstein's writings say something different, or better, if I checked the book out of the library, ya figure?

If you want to understand what Einstein actually said, you would study Physics. This would mean learning the mathematics, working through the problem. It would also learn learning the basics of science and physics, and working your way up as you master each topic.

If you did this, you would realize that you have quite a misunderstanding of what Einstein said. I am trying to explain this to you. It seems you would rather fight than learn.

This is the way you really learn Physics. I am serious. Go pick up a high school Physics book.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

If you did this, you would realize that you have quite a misunderstanding of what Einstein said. I am trying to explain this to you.

Heh, you haven't been spent 1o seconds discussing, let alone actually trying to "explain," anything of substance in this thread since I've been here, Max.

You're just a broken record reciting the same hollow, non-responsive, proclamations over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and.....

0 Replies

To Max specially: The aim of the science is to produce reasonable, scientific knowledge. One principle is open public knowledge. So the results must be understandable for the public. The higher mathematics can not be this language. It is the language that is needed in the discussion between scientists. This is not such discussion only. We must make clear what we mean in to the public understandable language.

It is very clear how people did go round the moon. It can be told to everybody without any need to understand the equations needed to calculate the orbits of the moon, earth and the spacecraft that the astronauts needed. It is the same with the universe, how it works can be stated in normal, scientific language without numbers. You are doing it whole the time when saying it is impossible.

1 Reply

@Olli S,

Olli S wrote:

What is the best way to explain the red shift without the expansion of the universe?

You can't.

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

Seems to be so that the people here mostly thinks like that. Inside the GR it is not possible then. But what is wrong with my suggestions, is the GR a god?

The properties of the limitless space?

The divorce between the space and matter of the universe, when the space has no time, and the movements of the galaxies have no effect to the space?

1 Reply

The Red Shift without Expansion

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know