The Red Shift without Expansion

@Olli S,

Olli S wrote:

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?

Because of what red shift is and where we find it demonstrates the expansion theory.

2 Replies

@McGentrix,

McGentrix wrote:

Because of what red shift is and where we find it demonstrates the expansion theory.

What's been "demonstrated" by the red shift is a matter of some debate, eh, Gent?

Did you happen to read this article, which I linked earlier?

https://able2know.org/topic/363445-18#post-6354811

0 Replies

@layman,

layman wrote:

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,...

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

I post this again now because it is relevant to the "absolute simultaneity" issue discussed in the other article I just referred you to, Gent.

1 Reply

@Olli S,

This article says there are over 60 different explanations for observing a red-shift, and it undertakes to examine 59 of them. I haven't read it, but you might find it of interest, Olli. The issue is not nearly as clear-cut as many seem to think.

Quote:

The mechanism behind many red-shift observations remains unclear...many mechanisms and models have been proposed in an attempt to provide an explanation, and even ’new physics’. The present paper lists most of these hypotheses and attempts to provide quantitative comparisons between the many possibilities.

Because of the wide range of conditions under which red-shifts are observed in astronomy, it is likely that more than one mechanism is at play. All red-shift mechanisms listed here may have some contribution to the cosmological redshift. this paper focuses mainly on 59 mechanisms giving a quantitative description of the red-shift–distance relationship. For each mechanism a description is given with its properties, limits of applicability, functional relationships and a discussion.

http://www.marmet.org/cosmology/redshift/mechanisms.pd

1 Reply

@layman,

Thanks very much, I take time.

0 Replies

@McGentrix,

In the context of GR and BB, yes. But in the other contexts no.

0 Replies

@layman,

layman wrote:

Quote:
Stuff that's wrong

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0115550

Basically this guy is saying that applying Lorentzian relativity (what he calls an "AST") instead of special relativity when interpreting cosmological observations would eliminate the conclusion that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate, as I read it.

The central claim of the paper is that our understanding special relativity is wrong. Instead of all motion being relative, which causes time dilation between objects and means that there is no absolute cosmic time frame, the author argues that all motion is measured relative to some absolute time frame. This means that motion can be measured relative to this absolute frame, and things like time dilation only occurs relative to that absolute cosmic frame.

Those familiar with relativity might point out that we’ve long known that the speed of light is a universal constant in all frames of reference, and experiments such as the Michelson-Morley experiment showed that there is no absolute reference frame. Even things like GPS satellites show that relativity works, so how does one argue that there’s an absolute reference frame? As the author points out, to agree with observation, you just have to assume that the absolute frame of the universe is centered on the Earth and rotating with it.

You heard that right. The author argues that in terms of this cosmic reference frame, the Earth doesn’t move.

The author then goes on to argue that because of this the galaxies moving away from us are time dilated relative to our absolute frame, and since more distant galaxies are moving relative to closer galaxies, they are further time dilated. What looks like an exponential expansion of is therefore simply an effect of absolute time dilation relative to the Earth’s at-rest frame. Dark energy is therefore an illusion due to our special place in the universe.

Any physicist worth her salt would flag this work as seriously lacking. The author himself should have caught the glaring flaws in this work. But then the author is actually a cellular biologist with no publishing record in physics. Throwing all relativity out the window in order to create a “just-so” model of cosmology is what he does in his spare time. The editor of the journal should have flagged the work as well, but then his background is also biology. It’s not clear if any qualified physicist actually reviewed this work.

Source

1 Reply

Talk about timely...

BIGGER, STRONGER, FASTER

Quote:

Now there’s a new method for determining the Hubble constant, and its result is very interesting.

Rather than looking at the CMB or measuring galactic distances, the new approach looks at an effect known as gravitational lensing. As light passes near a large mass such as a star or galaxy, it is gravitationally deflected. As a result, light from a distant object such as a quasar can be deflected around a less distant galaxy. Instead of seeing one image of the distant quasar, we see multiple images. But if we look at these lensed images things get very interesting. Each image of the quasar has taken a different path, and those paths can have different lengths. So some images reach us sooner than others. We’ve seen this effect with distant supernovae, for example, allowing us to see multiple “instant replays” of a supernova over the course of a few decades. Quasars can fluctuate in brightness, which allows us to measure the timing between lensed images of a particular quasar.

In this new approach, the team looked at several lensed quasars, and measured the timing differences. These timing differences are affected by the Hubble constant, so by measuring different lensed quasars the team could get a value for the Hubble constant. The key here is that while the results depend strongly on the value of the Hubble constant, they aren’t affected very much by other model parameters such as the amount of regular matter and dark matter. It’s a more direct measurement, and therefore less dependent on model assumptions. The result they got was 71.9±2.7 km/s/Mpc.

This agrees pretty well with the Hubble results, but not with the CMB results. Since the result is less model dependent, it raises questions about our cosmological model. Why are the CMB and BAO results so much lower than the others? It isn’t clear at this point, and while this new result is great, it doesn’t solve the mystery of Hubble’s constant.

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

McGentrix wrote:

https://briankoberlein.com/2014/12/27/pay-play/

This blogger, Brian Koberlein, doesn't understand what he's criticizing, I'm afraid, Gent. Take this claim, for example:

Quote:

Instead of all motion being relative, which causes time dilation between objects and means that there is no absolute cosmic time frame, the author argues that all motion is measured relative to some absolute time frame.

1. Motion "being relative" does not "cause" time dilation, but even assuming it did, the AST which the author describes acknowledges, and accounts for, time dilation every bit as well as, and every bit as thoroughly, as special relativity.

2. "means that there is no absolute cosmic time frame." As I have noted in other posts, Dr. George Smoot, the nobel prize winner for his work in connection with the CMB, says otherwise. He is says the CMB is the "cosmic rest frame." He didn't get the nobel prize because people don't agree with him, or bacause he doesn't know what he's talking about. The quote from the Stanford website I quoted says the same thing.

3. Later on he says the Michelson-Morley experiment proved there is no absolute time frame. That is just flat wrong--as pre-eminent physicists like Smoot clear point out. Of course Einstein himself acknowledged this, and it has been known since his time. The M-M experiment proves no such thing.

Einstein never claimed to, and expressly admitted that he did NOT, prove there was no absolute time frame. He just thought it couldn't be detected if there were, and that his theory made it "superfluous" (not non-existent) in any event. That was before the CMB was discovered, of course.

This guy you're quoting does have much credibility when judging what "any physicist worth his salt" would think, I'm afraid.

1 Reply

@layman,

He knows exactly what he is talking about. I believe that when you say that

Quote:

Motion "being relative" does not "cause" time dilation,

you do not understand relativity.

Smoot is not referenced in your quoted "research paper". If you read up on the Michelson-Morley experiment you'd know:

Quote:

Albert Michelson and Edward Morley performed an experiment to measure this difference in the speed of light. But what they found was the speed of light was always the same. No matter what direction light travelled, no matter how they oriented their experiment, the speed of light never changed. This was not only surprising, it violated the principle of relativity. After all, if you stand on a moving train and toss a ball, the speed of the ball relative to the ground is the speed of the ball plus the speed of the train, not just the speed of the ball. Basically what Michelson and Morley found was that if your “ball” was light, the speed of your ball relative to the train and the speed of the ball relative to the ground is the same.

Because the speed of light was not relative, there could be no absolute reference frame.

Kipreos argues that if the absolute frame of ALT is centered on Earth and co-rotating, then it is indistinguishable from observations of relativity. He then goes on to argue for an Earth centered frame to eliminate dark energy. He is arguing for a geocentric universe, and in support he notes that his geocentric model is indistinguishable from relativity for his particular frame. Within relativity, acceleration is a neat solution, and is neater than a “constant” rate of expansion.

The "blogger" I am quoting is an astrophysicist and Senior Lecturer at Rochester Institute of Technology.

2 Replies

@McGentrix,

I'm looking at the paper your author is "summarizing," Gent. Here is one interesting thing it says:

Quote:

In other words, a wrong model of the main lens mass distribution can perfectly fit the observed morphology the lensing system, and yet result in an inaccurate inference of the time-delay distance.

How can the "wrong model" still "perfectly fit the observed morphology?" Don't get me wrong, it happens all the time, but this is something that guys like Max don't seem to contemplate.

If this happens, then, of course, it is not surprising that the result is "an inaccurate inference."

In its "conclusions" section, the paper gives different "inferences" arising from 7 different sets of assumptions/models. Which one of these, if any, is "right?" This paper makes no attempt to say:

Quote:

We emphasize that despite reporting parameter constraints for a large variety of cosmological models beyond ΛCDM, we choose not to comment on whether a particular model is favored over the others. Such an exercise would require a well motivated choice of priors for these models...

2 Replies

@layman,

layman wrote:

I'm looking at the paper

Which one?

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

McGentrix wrote:

He knows exactly what he is talking about. I believe that when you say that
Quote:
Motion "being relative" does not "cause" time dilation,

you do not understand relativity.

Smoot is not referenced in your quoted "research paper". If you read up on the Michelson-Morley experiment you'd know:

Quote:
Albert Michelson and Edward Morley performed an experiment to measure this difference in the speed of light. But what they found was the speed of light was always the same. No matter what direction light travelled, no matter how they oriented their experiment, the speed of light never changed. This was not only surprising, it violated the principle of relativity. After all, if you stand on a moving train and toss a ball, the speed of the ball relative to the ground is the speed of the ball plus the speed of the train, not just the speed of the ball. Basically what Michelson and Morley found was that if your “ball” was light, the speed of your ball relative to the train and the speed of the ball relative to the ground is the same.
Because the speed of light was not relative, there could be no absolute reference frame.

Kipreos argues that if the absolute frame of ALT is centered on Earth and co-rotating, then it is indistinguishable from observations of relativity. He then goes on to argue for an Earth centered frame to eliminate dark energy. He is arguing for a geocentric universe, and in support he notes that his geocentric model is indistinguishable from relativity for his particular frame. Within relativity, acceleration is a neat solution, and is neater than a “constant” rate of expansion.

The "blogger" I am quoting is an astrophysicist and Senior Lecturer at Rochester Institute of Technology.

Wow, where to even start with this...

For one thing, your author (and you, unless you're quoting him without saying) have not carefully read what the author you are criticizing says in the paper presented. It is being mispresented. A few posts back, Max asked me there was only one true frame. I gave an answer. You could read it if you cared to. I was in line with what the author actually said (or you could read his paper more carefully).

You have, without citing your source, put a passage pertaining to the M-M experiment in quotation marks. This is followed by this sentence, which is apparently yours, since it is outside of the quote box:

Quote:

Because the speed of light was not relative, there could be no absolute reference frame.

Yet your author says the speed of light is "relative."

It is a common misunderstanding and myth, often propagated by university professors (who have themselves been so told by their professors, who were themselves....back to 1920 or so) that Einstein "proved there is no ether."

This is completely false to begin with, but it should be mentioned that, at that time, the ether was deemed to be the "absolute rest frame." An AST does not either require or argue for an universally applicable rest frame such as an "ether."

Your author's education is duly noted. I could cite any number of physicists with more distinguished credentials (starting with Einstein himself) who disavow his claims.

If you want to have a better understanding of the issues involved, I'm afraid you would need to read and understand much more than is presented in that blog entry, Gent.

[

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

Quote:

Kipreos argues that if the absolute frame of ALT is centered on Earth and co-rotating, then it is indistinguishable from observations of relativity. He then goes on to argue for an Earth centered frame to eliminate dark energy. He is arguing for a geocentric universe, and in support he notes that his geocentric model is indistinguishable from relativity for his particular frame

This is totally wrong. Not even close. If you care to read the paper itself, rather than what some blogger tells you it says, then you would understand that.

0 Replies

@McGentrix,

McGentrix wrote:

layman wrote:

I'm looking at the paper

Which one?

The one your blogger cites for his info, found here:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1607.01790v2.pdf

0 Replies

@layman,

layman wrote:

Yet your author says the speed of light is "relative."

No he doesn't. He states that the speed of light is a constant and because of that, no matter your frame of reference, C is C. It is not relative so therefore time must be relative.

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

I'm looking at the paper your author is "summarizing," Gent. Here is one interesting thing it says:

Quote:
In other words, a wrong model of the main lens mass distribution can perfectly fit the observed morphology the lensing system, and yet result in an inaccurate inference of the time-delay distance.

How can the "wrong model" still "perfectly fit the observed morphology?" Don't get me wrong, it happens all the time, but this is something that guys like Max don't seem to contemplate.

If this happens, then, of course, it is not surprising that the result is "an inaccurate inference."

"In modeling the lens mass distribution, special care has to be paid to the mass-sheet degeneracy (MSD), and, more generally, the source-position transformation (SPT). These can be seen as degeneracies in the choice of the gravitational lensing potential that leave all the lensing observables invariant except for the modeled time delay, ∆t. In other words, a wrong model of the main lens mass distribution can perfectly fit the observed morphology the lensing system, and yet result in an inaccurate inference of the time-delay distance. Priors and spectroscopic constraints on the dynamics of the main lens therefore play a critical role in avoiding systematic biases. In addition, perturbations to the lens potential by the distribution of mass along the line-of-sight also create degeneracies in the lens modeling. The latter can be mitigated with a measurement of the mass distribution
along the line-of-sight, for example by using spectroscopic redshift measurements of the galaxies in the lens environment, comparisons between galaxy number counts in the real data and in simulations or using weak-lensing measurements."

They aren't making an omelette. They are saying that they need to be careful about how they do things.

layman wrote:

In its "conclusions" section, the paper gives different "inferences" arising from 7 different sets of assumptions/models. Which one of these, if any, is "right?" This paper makes no attempt to say:

Quote:
We emphasize that despite reporting parameter constraints for a large variety of cosmological models beyond ΛCDM, we choose not to comment on whether a particular model is favored over the others. Such an exercise would require a well motivated choice of priors for these models...

"We emphasize that despite reporting parameter constraints for a large variety of cosmological models beyond
ΛCDM, we choose not to comment on whether a particular model is favored over the others. Such an exercise would require a well motivated choice of priors for these models, which is not within the scope of this work."

When you write out the whole paragraph, it says what they mean. It's science, not darts.

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

McGentrix wrote:

layman wrote:

Yet your author says the speed of light is "relative."

No he doesn't. He states that the speed of light is a constant and because of that, no matter your frame of reference, C is C. It is not relative so therefore time must be relative.

I agree that he says that the speed of light is constant. Yet he is claiming to know that virtue of the special theory of RELATIVITY. The word "relativity" is often used in an ill-defined way, and can mean different things (Galilean/Newtonian relativity, for example, is different than "special" relativity, so this can create confusion.

Quote:

The central claim of the paper is that our understanding special relativity is wrong. Instead of all motion being relative, which causes time dilation between objects and means that there is no absolute cosmic time frame, the author argues that all motion is measured relative to some absolute time frame. This means that motion can be measured relative to this absolute frame, and things like time dilation only occurs relative to that absolute cosmic frame.

Those are your blogger's exact words. Read them carefully. He is saying that HE thinks motion is relative, but that somehow the paper he is addressing doesn't. "Instead of all motion being relative (as your blogger believes it to be]...the author [the one he is attacking] argues....

My point is noting this was to demonstrate that your blogger's comments are not always that clear and comprehensible. I don't want to get into a meaningless semantical dispute with you, Gent.

It is the concepts that are important, not the labels.

In the context of relativity theory:

"relative" basically means "frame dependent." The "answer" you get will vary, depending on which frame of reference is used to determine it.

"absolute" means NOT frame dependent. You will get the same answer no matter what frame you use.

In SR, motion is "relative."

In an AST, motion is "absolute."

2 Replies

@McGentrix,

Quote:

When you write out the whole paragraph, it says what they mean. It's science, not darts.

What? Which whole paragraph? Are you claiming that leaving out the words "which is not within the scope of this work" in any way changes the MEANING of anything I said about the author, or of what the author himself is saying?

1 Reply

@layman,

Yes. You are suggesting that the whole paper is flawed when in reality they acknowledge that there are things beyond the scope of what they were researching.

1 Reply

The Red Shift without Expansion

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know