The Red Shift without Expansion

@layman,

I can't say I paid much attention to you guys bickering.

Link?

@McGentrix,

McGentrix wrote:

I can't say I paid much attention to you guys bickering.

Link?

There is no one link. The ongoing discussion (if you want to call it that) went on over a course of many pages.

I guess I was kinda under the impression that you had read it, and were participating with prior posts in mind. To you it was all just meaningless "bickering," I guess. I think that if you actually read my posts you might see otherwise. In any event, I really don't want to have to repeat it all, just for you.

If you're actually interested in this topic, why don't you read the thread first. Very early I asked Max a very simple question, which he never would answer. I will insert a link to THAT post in a minute.

Well, ****, I can't even find that post now. I thought maybe you could give your answer to the question I asked (pertaining to scientific measurements and "reality').

The whole "special relativity" argument goes back at least this far, which is a long way:

https://able2know.org/topic/363445-6#post-6350916

1 Reply

@layman,

I said I don't want to quibble with you, Gent, and I really don't. But I was starting to give a response to something else you quoted, and noticed this:

Quote:

Since the Earth must be moving through the ether, the speed of light must be different in different directions. In 1887, 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.

It occurred to me that if you read your own blogger's summary of the M-M insofar as how it relates to the earth's motion, then you might understand what I was getting at easier than reading the way I put it. I'm not sure if that issue is still some impediment to your understanding or not, so I draw attention to this excerpt, just in case. Just substitute the word "space" where "ether" is used in the first sentence.

But, that said, I started out to comment on this portion:

Quote:

Then in 1905 Albert Einstein published a solution to the problem, known as special relativity. He demonstrated that if the speed of light is absolute, then time must be relative,...

I agree completely with this statement. I cite it mainy to bring attention to the hypothetical nature of the claim. Basically it's saying that IF x, THEN y.

Notice that it DOESN'T say: "He demonstrated that the speed of light is absolute..." Which is appropriate, of course, because neither Einstein nor anyone else has ever made such a demonstration. This assumption is merely postulated, without proof.

There's nothing wrong with doing that, at all. Some postulates are needed in any and every scientific theory.

But I couldn't even begin to tell you the number of times that I've heard someone claim that Einstein PROVED that the speed of light is constant.

Everyone agrees that we will always MEASURE it to be constant. The M-M experiment demonstrated that. But that is a different question than whether it IS constant. You could say that the first proposition (measured to be constant) has effectively been "proven," but the same can't be said of the second proposition (is constant).

0 Replies

Jolly good show gentle and lay men.

Nothing to add, but while following it I had this PRT (pesky random thought) I could not help speculating about the source of the missing dark mass and energy in the universe. (it's said that they are 96 % of it and the remaining 4% is all that we can observe.)

Could it be that there is a frame of reference that from which we are traveling at great speed, fast enough to produce the effects we see that make us believe in the dark mass and energy? I wonder if the implications of mass increasing with speed, even sub relativistic speeds, explains them?

E=MV^2 is true at 'human speeds'. Which seems totally weird to me. Why does it take WAY less energy to accelerate a car from 0 to 20 mph than it does from 20 to 40 mph? The car had obviously gained a huge amount of mass at the ridiculously low speed of 20 mph! But we see that mass only indirectly by the amount of energy it took, and that mass can only be 'felt' by the guy in the car. He is the only one who feels how much harder it is to accelerate or slow down when he's going faster.

There's something weird going on there but I can't quite put my finger on it. And why do those two equations - E=MC^2 and E=MV^2 look so similar but are not related at all. But they must be in some way.

End of PRT, carry on

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

Could it be that there is a frame of reference that from which we are traveling at great speed, fast enough to produce the effects we see that make us believe in the dark mass and energy? I wonder if the implications of mass increasing with speed, even sub relativistic speeds, explains them?

You have raised two very interesting questions here, Leddy--one's which I never given the least bit of thought to. I just am addressing the one above in this post.

I don't know **** about these things, really. But, here again, it's possible that the (perhaps mistaken) postulate about light speed interferes with our understanding--it will limit the types of question that we will even ask, maybe. I'll try to explain what I'm getting at below:

1.In a prior post I noted that, by certain measures, anyway, distant galaxies are receding from us at a speed faster than light.

2. But, per Al, at least, this would be impossible because an object's mass would become infinite when the speed of light is reached, and any further acceleration would theoretically be impossible. I would note here that LR, as a theory of relative motion, does NOT forbid faster-than-light speed in principle.

3. The chosen "fix" seems to be to re-define motion, and hence speed. They resort to the (highly dubious to me) claim that the matter in question is not moving at all. The material objects in question supposedly remain (at least relatively) motionless while the space between them supposedly "expands." I have ridiculed this notion in an earlier post. It seems to me that it is an illogical contrivance which is postulated for one, and only one, reason: that is to preserve the theoretical claim that nothing can travel faster than light.

But lets suppose for a minute that material objects can travel faster than light. What would their "mass" be then? It is possible that they would have to "shed" mass (in the form of dark matter, let's say) in order to keep accelerating?

2 Replies

@layman,

Still thinking about the question you posed, Leddy.

We know that kinetic energy can be converted to other forms of energy, including "potential energy." I won't go into it now, but the whole notion of "potential energy" kinda strikes me as an oxymoron.

Moving on, mass equals energy. In the last post, I mentioned the possibility of "shedding" mass. Now, here again, the concept of mass strikes me as mainly a "book-balancing" concept (like "potential energy"). All "mass" really means, when you boil it down, is "resistance to acceleration."

So, here's my thinking. An object travelling at light speed has tremendous kinetic energy. Energy is mass. Convert the kinetic energy to mass (dark matter) and now you have less mass and can accelerate more. Measurements of kinetic energy are themselves relative (strictly frame-dependent). An object travelling at light speed would have zero kinetic energy in it's frame of reference. This pertains to your second question too, although I am not addressing it at this point.

Not sure how that could make a difference, but maybe it does.

But, to summarize my (extremely vague) suggestion: maybe these galaxies are converting kinetic energy to mass and then just trucking on through the "speed limit" barrier.

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

It is possible that they would have to "shed" mass (in the form of dark matter, let's say) in order to keep accelerating?

Yes, kind of the inverse of what I was getting at. Is the increase in energy required to accelerate from 20 to 40 (compared to 0 to 20) because of the increase in the amount of 'dark mass' it acquired? We know it isn't 'ordinary mass' it gained because it would not register on a scale we put under it as it accelerated.

But we know something weird is happening because it took fully 3 times the energy when going from 20 to 40 than 0 to 20. I have never heard an adequate explanation of this. Even physics majors are at a loss and some of them think it has to be aerodynamic losses even though the results are the same in a vacuum.

Worshipers of the math are forced to agree that the formula and math is correct (E=1/2MV^2 - I forgot the 1/2 before) but still no logical reason why such a drastic change at such sub-relativistic speeds.

I suppose we could calculate the theoretical speed relative to this unknown reference point given the ratio of 4% ordinary mass and energy and 96% dark mass & energy but I don't dare do it at the risk of another 'NOT SCIENCE!" warning : )

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

But, to summarize my (extremely vague) suggestion: maybe these galaxies are converting kinetic energy to mass and then just trucking on through the "speed limit" barrier.

Did I miss something? No galaxy's are of themselves traveling faster than the "speed limit" barrier. (I assume here you are talking about C)

This is purely relative.

Let's say you have a flat bed truck that is very long. On the flat bed is a car. If the truck is moving at sixty miles an hour and the car is moving at ten. There are three frames of reference here.

A. The flat bed truck
B. The car
C. Outside observer

Imagine now that an outside observer ie. a cop was parked and used its radar gun on the car. It would measure the car going 70mph. So should the cop give the car driver a ticket if the speed limit is 60mph?

With light speed you can't do this except for one caveat. If space is expanding then measure the rate two objects are moving away from each other can be greater than the speed of light. However you could never measure it because the light between them never catches up.

You must keep in mind, an object increases in mass as it gets closer to C. To shed mass would be meaningless. It would violate conservation of energy to shed mass and gain more as it's velocity increased towards C. It would be inventing mass out of nowhere.

3 Replies

@Krumple,

Krumple wrote:

It would violate conservation of energy to shed mass and gain more as it's velocity increased towards C. It would be inventing mass out of nowhere.

Well, I don't know. From what I've been told energy has been converted to mass in the lab:

Quote:

When a physicist wants to use particles with low mass to produce particles with greater mass, all she has to do is put the low-mass particles into an accelerator, give them a lot of kinetic energy (speed), and then collide them together. During this collision, the particle's kinetic energy is converted into the formation of new massive particles. It is through this process that we can create massive unstable particles and study their properties.

It is as if you stage a head-on collision between two strawberries and get several new strawberries, lots of tiny acorns, a banana, a few pears, an apple, a walnut, and a plum.

http://www.particleadventure.org/collision.html

It's not a closed system, and it's not from "out of nowhere." It's from the kinetic energy the matter has.

E=MC2, so it has always been "theoretically" possible to convert energy to mass. But it's only recently that they developed the technology to do it in the lab, as I understand it.

0 Replies

@Krumple,

But another way to look at it comes from what I've already said. Once you posit that c is the maximum possible speed, then you are FORCED to deduce that mass is infinite at C.

But suppose you don't posit that? As I said, LR, which is a perfectly viable theory of relative motion, does NOT posit c as the maximum possible speed.

The theoretical conclusions you reach depend on your premises.

0 Replies

@Krumple,

Krumple wrote:

No galaxy's are of themselves traveling faster than the "speed limit" barrier. (I assume here you are talking about C)

Well, again, I don't claim to be any expert, but it says here, for example:

Quote:

The expansion of the universe causes distant galaxies to recede from us faster than the speed of light, if proper distance and cosmological time are used to calculate the speeds of these galaxies....There are many galaxies visible in telescopes with red shift numbers of 1.4 or higher. All of these are currently traveling away from us at speeds greater than the speed of light.

Rules that apply to relative velocities in special relativity, such as the rule that relative velocities cannot increase past the speed of light, do not apply to relative velocities in comoving coordinates, which are often described in terms of the "expansion of space" between galaxies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light#Universal_expansion

See that? "All of these are currently traveling away from us at speeds greater than the speed of light."

Now we can't have THAT, can we? That would disprove SR. Now what?

I got it! Let's just say that, to some extent at least, they're not moving at all, but that the space between them is expanding, eh? Yeah, that's the ticket!

When I go down to the corner to get some beer, I don't move at all. Neither does the liquor store. The space between us just shrinks, see? Then it expands again as I walk out the door.

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

Quote:
It is possible that they would have to "shed" mass (in the form of dark matter, let's say) in order to keep accelerating?

But we know something weird is happening because it took fully 3 times the energy when going from 20 to 40 than 0 to 20. I have never heard an adequate explanation of this. Even physics majors are at a loss and some of them think it has to be aerodynamic losses even though the results are the same in a vacuum.

Worshipers of the math are forced to agree that the formula and math is correct (E=1/2MV^2 - I forgot the 1/2 before) but still no logical reason why such a drastic change at such sub-relativistic speeds.

I haven't been able to think of a plausible answer to your question, Leddy, but I will make some observations which also indirectly relate to the SR vs LR question I've been raising.

Once you've reached 20 mph, then, from that frame of reference, it doesn't take any more energy to increase your speed by 20 mph (to 40) than it did to go from 0 to 20.

But, as you have noted, if it took you a quart of gas to go from 0 to 20, then it take a whole gallon to get you from 0 to 40, as calculated in your initial frame of reference.

But it seems clear that you couldn't just put a pint in your tank, accelerate to 20, and then, once that speed is reached, add another pint and take her on up to 40.

Switching frames of reference doesn't make "magic" happen. It doesn't change anything in the "real world," it just changes your "perspective," which is a subjective, accidental thing.

This is a consideration that SR adherents overlook, I think. It's one reason I asked Max the question about the football field, way back, which he refused to answer.

Don't get me wrong, I do believe that if you accelerate an object to relativistic speeds, then significant physical changes, which are "real," can will occur in THAT frame of reference. But does it change anything at all back in the frame you came from? SR says it does. LR says it doesn't. Imma go with LR there.

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

The expansion of the universe causes distant galaxies to recede from us faster than the speed of light, if proper distance and cosmological time are used to calculate the speeds of these galaxies....There are many galaxies visible in telescopes with red shift numbers of 1.4 or higher. All of these are currently traveling away from us at speeds greater than the speed of light.

I have already explained how this is possible.

Let me explain it another way.

You have a long, flat, straight road. Two cars are traveling in opposite directions both are driving 60mph.

Now frame reference is important. If you were in one of the cars with a radar gun pointed at the other car, the radar gun would claim the other car is moving at 120mph.

Its because the radar gun acts as if it's stationary but it's not, its moving at 60mph in the opposite direction than the target car.

So let's move this to galaxies.

If space is expanding its actually carrying the galaxy but the galaxy itself is NOT moving at C or even close to it.

The expansion theory states space is uniformly expanding. This means no matter which direction you look its carrying objects a way from you but you are also part of this movement. However we assume we are stationary but we are not.

∆a<----- ------>∆b

If two galaxies are moving a way from each other drug along by expanding space.

If you were on galaxy a looking at b you would assume it was moving away from you at

∆a+∆b

If ∆a is 3/4C
If ∆b is 3/4C

Both are possible.

3/4+3/4=1.5C

This means they are moving a way from each other faster than light however their own velocity is LESS than C.

Its a relative observation error and also one of terrible word usage in writing an article that confuses the less than average physics junkie.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Well that's interesting, Krumps, and I think I understand your explanation. But some of your statements raise the very same questions that I have about SR as a theory.

1. In SR, you always "assume" (another way of saying that the mathematical protocols which are enforced require) that you are not moving. It makes you assume that, whether you are actually moving or not. Is your assumption true in the "real world." No, probably not. But, as you've shown, false premises give false conclusions, so why would you then rely on the false premises SR FORCES you to adopt?

2. You say: "The expansion theory states space is uniformly expanding." OK, that's the theory, fair enough. But no theory can ever be "proven" as a logical matter, so maybe the expansion theory is wrong in one or more aspects, ya know?

3. If you say A is moving away from B (the reverse of your radar gun example) and that B is also moving away from A, then what reference point do you use to determine that? The "midpoint" between them in "space?" I take you to be saying that the earth is moving "away from" the galaxies and that, at the same time, the galaxies are moving away from the earth. How do you determine that?

4. You say: "Its a relative observation error and also one of terrible word usage in writing an article." OK, that could be true. But does that mean the explanation you just gave (as I understood it) is what THEY meant to say? They choose the words they did for *some* reasons, and, offhand, I don't see a good way to turn the words they used into something resembling the words you uses.

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

When I go down to the corner to get some beer, I don't move at all. Neither does the liquor store. The space between us just shrinks, see? Then it expands again as I walk out the door.

I know you think this is silly but it's EXACTLY what the math implies. I know it's counter intuitive and seems to contradict experience. How can that space shrink?

The logic actually says the "space" between you and the store shrinks. Its a true statement although words confuse the issue.

What if I reworded the statement to;

The distance between you and the store shrinks?

Now you won't object unless you want to be anal about semantics.

I say all this yet I am not a proponent of the expansion theory. However I do understand their explanation and its consequences.

I think a piece of data is being assumed incorrectly causing the conclusion to also be incorrect.

That data being red shift.
The conclusion being the cause of that red shift.

1 Reply

Edit: In an earlier post I said:

"But it seems clear that you couldn't just put a pint in your tank, accelerate to 20, and then, once that speed is reached, add another pint and take her on up to 40."

I meant quart, instead of "pint." That error is probably obvious from the context, but maybe not, so.....

0 Replies

@Krumple,

Krumple wrote:

layman wrote:

When I go down to the corner to get some beer, I don't move at all. Neither does the liquor store. The space between us just shrinks, see? Then it expands again as I walk out the door.

I know you think this is silly but it's EXACTLY what the math implies. I know it's counter intuitive and seems to contradict experience. How can that space shrink?

The logic actually says the "space" between you and the store shrinks. Its a true statement although words confuse the issue.

What if I reworded the statement to;

The distance between you and the store shrinks?

Now you won't object unless you want to be anal about semantics.

Well Krumps, you're making my point(s) for me, thanks.

1. You say: "I know you think this is silly but it's EXACTLY what the math implies." That's a point I have repeatedly, but unsuccessfully, tried to convey to Max in this thread, the point being that math is not physical reality and the fact that some math implies some thing about objective reality is, in itself, irrelevant.

2. I don't want to be anal about semantics. Objective reality has nothing to do with semantics (but just try telling that to certain people who fancy themselves to be scientists--they think the words dictate reality, when the reality should dictate the words chosen).

The point is, when I get up off my ass and walk to the liquor store, then, by any reasonable definition, I am MOVING. You can't change that objective reality by saying, "no, you're not moving, the distance between you and the object you are moving toward is just shrinking, that's all." THAT'S semantics. The kind of "semantics" which completely butchers the underlying concepts.

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

1. In SR, you always "assume" (another way of saying that the mathematical protocols which are enforced require) that you are not moving. It makes you assume that, whether you are actually moving or not. Is your assumption true in the "real world." No, probably not. But, as you've shown, false premises give false conclusions, so why would you then rely on the false premises SR FORCES you to adopt?

Any time velocity is discussed you have to keep two pieces of data in mind. They are two reference points or in other words relative points.

Like when we say a car is moving 60mph we are assuming the car is one point and the ground is the second reference point.

It is very important to make clear which reference point you are taking the measurement because all reference points are not equal.

You know the above statement is the definition of SR.

This is why physics can be confusing because relative points give different results based on which point you do the measuring from.

So when you read the article and it says two galaxies speed away from each other faster than light in your brain you actually become a third point trying to visualize it. You visualize standing in a point between them and assume both are moving away from you faster than light! But that's the wrong explanation.

Its that relative to EACH other they are receeding faster than light. Because both are moving a way from each other so you add both of their own velocities together. Which (according to expansion theory) has nothing to do with galaxies but instead all points in space!

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Quote:

It is very important to make clear which reference point you are taking the measurement because all reference points are not equal.

You know the above statement is the definition of SR.

No, I don't know that. SR says that all reference points ARE equal (equally valid).

My point was that any "frame of reference" is SR in presumed to by motionless--at least if it's the one YOU'RE in.

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

The point is, when I get up off my ass and walk to the liquor store, then, by any reasonable definition, I am MOVING. You can't change that objective reality by saying, "no, you're not moving, the distance between you and the object you are moving toward is just shrinking, that's all." THAT'S semantics. The kind of "semantics" which completely butchers the underlying concepts.

Technically your frame of reference DOES NOT move!

I know, it sounds crazy but it's true. According to your frame of reference the ground is actually moving bringing you closer to the liquor store! You don't move at all!

Same if you jump in the air! You actually push the Earth away from you!

(Okay I'll stop with the ! now)

Reference points are important but you never leave your frame of reference. Everything else enters or reseeds from your frame of reference.

1 Reply

The Red Shift without Expansion

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know