The Red Shift without Expansion

@layman,

layman wrote:

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.

Yes when you sit in a vehicle it can appear as though everything else is whizzing by you but you are stationary.

Have you ever sat in a parked car and your eye catches a car next to yours backing out and you quickly assume your car is moving forward? But then you realize that's not possible.

Reference points are what cause that wrong assumption.

To make the math more simplistic we usually assume one reference point doing the measuring from is stationary even though in reality it's probably not. This is why people get confused.

0 Replies

@Krumple,

Well, Krumps, I don't know if you have been following this thread, but I'm saying that SR, although mathematically consistent, simply inapplicable to physical reality.

Assume for example, that "the distance" between A and B is increasing, and they both see and acknowledge that fact. How will SR treat this?

1. A will say that he is motionless and that B is moving away from him.
2. B will say that he is motionless and that A is moving away from him.

As a matter of logic, at least one of them must be wrong. They could both be wrong, but they CANNOT BOTH BE RIGHT. If both are motionless, then the distance between them couldn't be increasing--forget the bullshit about "expanding space"--it plays no part in SR explanations.

But SR says that both are right. They MUST, in SR, ALWAYS take contradictory positions and must then insist that they, and only they, are right.

This inherent conflict is what generates "paradoxes." There would be no "paradox" whatsoever if one of them (say the travelling twin in the twin paradox) would just admit that he is the one moving.

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

Well, Krumps, I don't know if you have been following this thread, but I'm saying that SR, although mathematically consistent, simply inapplicable to physical reality.

Assume for example, that "the distance" between A and B is increasing, and they both see and acknowledge that fact. How will SR treat this?

1. A will say that he is motionless and that B is moving away from him.
2. B will say that he is motionless and that A is moving away from him.

As a matter of logic, at least one of them must be wrong. They could both be wrong, but they CANNOT BOTH BE RIGHT. If both are motionless, then the distance between them couldn't be increasing--forget the bullshit about "expanding space"--it plays no part in SR explanations.

But SR says that both are right. They MUST, in SR, ALWAYS take contradictory positions and must then insist that they, and only they, are right.

This inherent conflict is what generates "paradoxes." There would be no "paradox" whatsoever if one of them (say the travelling twin in the twin paradox) would just admit that he is the one moving.

I didn't down vote you. Someone else did.

Anyways.

You have just described the common error to understanding SR by tossing in a third reference point without even realizing it!

You said both can't be stationary. True but how did you come to that conclusion? What are they stationary relative to? This third point you just created, you!

Relative to each other if they are moving away from each other the only possible conclusions are.

a is stationary, b is moving.
a is moving, b is stationary.
a is moving, b is moving.

They both can not be stationary unless the space holding them is expanding carrying them apart.

Imagine we are standing on a huge rubber band next to each other standing in place not walking. The massive rubber band gets stretched carrying us apart. It would appear to each other the other person is moving a way while we stay stationary but from a third reference point a person watching this take place would see us both equally moving apart.

Each reference point has a different perspective on whom is moving. But which ever point you decide to measure from appears to be the only one stationary even if you measured from yourself in the expanding rubber band to the third reference point. You would think they were moving away from you!

You can test this by taking an uninflated balloon and put dots on it then inflate the balloon and notice the dots moving further away from each other. If you were on any randomly chosen dot you would think they all were moving away from you while you were stationary.

Its perspective error.

3 Replies

@Krumple,

Well, Krumps, I done said:

Quote:

forget the bullshit about "expanding space"--it plays no part in SR explanations.

But you didn't "forget it." You pretend that it would be a valid "explanation" (which it aint, anyway) within the context of SR.

But the whole theory of SR presupposes flat, euclidean space which does not "stretch."

Furthermore, this is just wrong:

Quote:

You have just described the common error to understanding SR by tossing in a third reference point without even realizing it!

No, I am not "tossing in" anything. I am merely employing elementary logic. If you really think otherwise, then identify precisely what the "third reference point" that you claim I have "tossed in" is.

0 Replies

@Krumple,

Quote:

They both can not be stationary unless the space holding them is expanding carrying them apart.

As I already said, the "space expanding" bit does not apply to SR period, but that's not the only flaw in this claim.

If I am moving through space by virtue of standing on a conveyor ("carried," in your words), I am still moving. I am not "stationary."

I can be driving down the road at 100 mph without "moving" my hands or any other part of my body. I am still moving in relation to the road.

I am moving if I'm on a merry-go-round or a rollercoaster, even though I never leave my seat. If the "space" that I am "riding on" is moving, then I'm moving too. I am not "stationary," as you suggest.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Quote:

I didn't down vote you. Someone else did.

The masked Thumbs Downer strikes again.

I'm trying to imagine the size of the mind that does this but all my hypothetical models fail. It must fall below Planck length.

Another PRT, sorry

0 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

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.

No! That's the part that is freaking me out.

Even the on-board instruments in the car will show the massive difference when going from 20 to 40 compared to 0 to 20.

This is easily shown experimentally when monitoring fuel flow & time via OBD2 port. Done it many times at many different speeds. Looks even worse than the formula at higher speeds due to aero losses.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

Quote:
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.

No! That's the part that is freaking me out.

Even the on-board instruments in the car will show the massive difference when going from 20 to 40 compared to 0 to 20.

This is easily shown experimentally when monitoring fuel flow & time via OBD2 port. Done it many times at many different speeds. Looks even worse than the formula at higher speeds due to aero losses.

Well, Leddy, I think you might be missing my point, which is this:

From a MATHEMATICAL standpoint, it will not take 3 times as much, IF, when making your calculations, you do it from the frame of a car already travelling 20 mph.

As I go on to say, this is NOT what will happen in fact.

On the other hand, if you calculate from the initial frame, asking "how much energy do I need to go from 0 to 40 mph," you will get the answer that matches the actual facts.

This doesn't answer your question (which is "why"), but it may shed some light on issues I have been addressing regarding SR.

There is only one frame of reference here that will give you the correct answer. In that sense it is a preferred frame--it gives you the physically correct answer, other frames don't.

Put another way, math is not physical reality. Making caculations from a different perspective will not alter physical reality. It will not magically reduce the ACTUAL amount of energy required if you choose a different frame of reference.

1 Reply

@layman,

OK, think I see what yer say'n.

Quote:

There is only one frame of reference here that will give you the correct answer. In that sense it is a preferred frame--it gives you the physically correct answer, other frames don't.

Back to pondering what frame of reference makes sense of everything

0 Replies

A similar type of question (but different) is why don't objects fall at a uniform rate?

After one second of falling, an object will have traveled 32 feet.

At a uniform rate of falling, it would fall 128 feet after 4 seconds. But that's not what happens.

After 4 seconds it has fallen 320 feet, not 128.

If you deem gravity to be a "force" and one that is continuously applied, then this makes some sense, I guess. But GR says it is not a force.

So why don't thing fall at a uniform rate over time?

The longer a thing falls, the more kinetic energy it acquires. With a car, the more it accelerates, the more kinetic energy it acquires, BUT the energy that is required to keep accelerating it does not increase at a uniform rate. Again, why?

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

If I am moving through space by virtue of standing on a conveyor ("carried," in your words), I am still moving. I am not "stationary."

Relative to the belt you are stationary. Relative to the floor you are moving. Both are true.

layman wrote:

I can be driving down the road at 100 mph without "moving" my hands or any other part of my body. I am still moving in relation to the road.

Yes, keyword here is "relative" to the road. You are stationary to the car. But moving according to the road.

layman wrote:

I am moving if I'm on a merry-go-round or a rollercoaster, even though I never leave my seat. If the "space" that I am "riding on" is moving, then I'm moving too. I am not "stationary," as you suggest.

Once again its relative frame perspective. Relative to the ride's seat you are stationary. But relative to the rest of the world you are moving.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

You did everything but address the issue, eh, Krumps?

The issue was about earth and a distant galaxy, let's talk about them, eh?

RELATIVE TO each other, is either one moving? You had claimed that both were "stationary," right?

Quote:

If the "space" that I am "riding on" is moving, then I'm moving too. I am not "stationary," as you suggest.

Do you agree with that statement?

2 Replies

@layman,

layman wrote:

A similar type of question (but different) is why don't objects fall at a uniform rate?

After one second of falling, an object will have traveled 32 feet.

At a uniform rate of falling, it would fall 128 feet after 4 seconds. But that's not what happens.

After 4 seconds it has fallen 320 feet, not 128.

If you deem gravity to be a "force" and one that is continuously applied, then this makes some sense, I guess. But GR says it is not a force.

So why don't thing fall at a uniform rate over time?

The longer a thing falls, the more kinetic energy it acquires. With a car, the more it accelerates, the more kinetic energy it acquires, BUT the energy that is required to keep accelerating it does not increase at a uniform rate. Again, why?

Its not linear. Its exponential. The "force" of gravity increases as you move closer to the center of mass. Or becomes Wesker over the square of the distance from the center of mass.

To put this in perspective if gravity were a hill it would become steeper as you near the bottom and less steep near the top. Like a convex shape.

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

You did everything but address the issue, eh, Krumps?

The issue was about earth and a distant galaxy, let's talk about them, eh?

RELATIVE TO each other, is either one moving? You had claimed that both were "stationary," right?

Quote:
If the "space" that I am "riding on" is moving, then I'm moving too. I am not "stationary," as you suggest.

Do you agree with that statement?

Its because you are not looking at space correctly.

Imagine space is a three dimensional grid. Each point on the grid has a coordinate. If you expand the space between the grid points they stay the same, they don't change or move. The only thing that changes is the amount of space between them because space is being stretched.

If you take a rubber band and mark a dot in the middle of the band then stretch it, the dot does not move. Same for space.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Krumple wrote:

Its not linear. Its exponential. The "force" of gravity increases as you move closer to the center of mass. Or becomes Wesker over the square of the distance from the center of mass.

1. The whole post presumed it was not linear, so I don't know why you feel that it's necessary to point that out. But I wouldn't call it "exponential," either. The ratio doesn't progress as 4, 9, 16, 25, etc.

2. Yes, if I am 10,000 miles from the center of the earth, and fall 16 feet, I am now a little closer the center. But that alone certainly doesn't explain the non-linear rate of increased speed.

0 Replies

@Krumple,

Quote:

If you take a rubber band and mark a dot in the middle of the band then stretch it, the dot does not move. Same for space.

What does that have to do with the question I asked--about objects A and B? I wasn't talking about one point, I was talking about TWO objects.

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

You did everything but address the issue, eh, Krumps?

The issue was about earth and a distant galaxy, let's talk about them, eh?

The milkyway is moving (I don't mean spinning, I mean moving) through space at over four hundred thousand kilometers per second. Incredibly fast.

Can you even imagine moving 400,000 kilometers in one second?

How is this even figured out?

You can use the example of riding in a car to figure out how fast you are moving without looking at the speedometer.

As you move toward objects, closer objects will appear to be moving faster than further objects. Same as the objects behind you.

If you know their distance from you and take two recorded positions you can use geometry to determine how far you have moved in that same amount of time.

You can test this on hundreds of objects outside the milkyway. They reveal we are moving over 400k kilometers a second.

Most people don't even know this.

The question becomes is the galaxy actually moving it is the space expanding dragging the milkyway at that velocity?

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Krumps, I'm afraid you display a strong tendency to ignore all questions and instead just propound a lot of "information" that is irrelevant and non-responsive.

Does A move relative to B? Yes or no?

Are both stationary? Yes or no?

With respect to this question:

Quote:

How is this even figured out?

This has already been discussed in this thread. We know the milky way is moving, we know how fast it is moving, and we know the direction it is moving by way of doppler shift data relative to the CMB

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

Quote:
If you take a rubber band and mark a dot in the middle of the band then stretch it, the dot does not move. Same for space.

What does that have to do with the question I asked--about objects A and B? I wasn't talking about one point, I was talking about TWO objects.

Uhg. Hate to say it but physics is just not your cup of tea. Take up knitting or something.

Yes two objects but as I have stated multiple times when you move reference points it appears as if ONLY the other object is moving.

Relative frames are important. But you seem to want to lump them all into one standard observation. Its just not the case.

The reason reference frames are important is that when you talk about the speed of light these reference points reveal how reality behaves. We know it's true.

For example satellites that orbit the earth need to run on a modified clock. Their high velocity in orbit actually is different than clocks on the ground. Not by much but over time they can be minutes behind. This isn't good if you need precision based off proper timing.

It was SR that hypothsises this potential consequence with fast moving objects, called frame dragging. If we did knot know this all our satellites would be completely out of sync with the ground monitoring stations. GPS would not work.

The faster an object moves relative to a stationary or slower moving object, time slows down relative to the slower object's observation. Its been proven, its not a hypothesis, its a theory.

How else can you explain this discrepancy if SR is flawed?

3 Replies

@layman,

layman wrote:

Does A move relative to B? Yes or no?

Yes.

layman wrote:

Are both stationary? Yes or no?

Yes.

With respect to this question:

Quote:

How is this even figured out?

This has already been discussed in this thread. We know the milky way is moving, we know how fast it is moving, and we know the direction it is moving by way of doppler shift data relative to the CMB
[/quote]

1 Reply

The Red Shift without Expansion

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know