The Red Shift without Expansion

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

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.

More non sequiturs, eh? Combined with an insulting condescension that is wholly unwarranted coming from you--you don't seem to know **** about physics yoursef, given the nature of your responses.

Quote:

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

You obviously haven't read this thread. All this has been discussed. Yeah, it is empirically established that a moving clock will slow down. It is also been established that if clock A is stationary and clock B is on a moving object, BOTH will NOT slow down, relative to the other, as SR claims. Only the moving clock slows dowon.

Also, as previously stated, the slowing of moving clocks is not explained by special relativity theory, per se. SR gives the wrong predictions, or else is inapplicable. It is the lorentz transformations (which SR incorporates) not SR itself, which predicts the precise amount by which moving clocks slow down.

Quote:

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.

Yes, you have STATED that, in an extremely authoritative manner, several times. The problem is that, to the extent you attempt to justify your claims at all, your explanations are incomplete and/or incoherent. You raise questions which you refuse to answer.

Actually you haven't said what I just quoted above, though. That too is incoherent. You did say that a radar gun will assume (not "see" an appearance of) that it is motionless.

These two thing are completely different things:

1. I ASSUME I am not moving.
2. It "appears" that I am not moving

OK, now you state that A and B DO move relative to each other, but, at the same time, both are "stationary."

This is logical nonsense, for reasons I've stated. If they are "moving with respect to another" they can't also both be stationary.

1. Your claim completely and utterly destroys all meaning of "motion."
2. It is mere equivocation, like saying I'm motionless with respect to my car, but moving with respect to the road. You're mix two different frames of reference, and treat them as though they were the same
3. If they are both stationary, then there would be no red shift.

You can safely assume one is not moving as long as you account for it in the reference frame

The point is you are jumping reference points to say it's not logical. I've been trying to remind you that this is the error. You can't have consistency if you attempt to make all reference points equal.

You have a zero velocity relative to the car you are in, even when the car is moving 60mph relative to the ground.

RPA. You have zero velocity relative to the car.
RPB. You have 60mph velocity relative to the ground.

Both are true, you have both a zero velocity and a 60mph velocity as well as a 400000kmps velocity relative to space.

Quote:

You can safely assume one is not moving as long as you account for it in the reference frame

What is this supposed to mean? Can a moving radar gun "safely assume" that it is motionless?

If you were in a car behind another car and both cars were driving 60mph and you used a radar gun from inside the car behind the other, the reading would say 0mph.

Krumple wrote:

The point is you are jumping reference points to say it's not logical. I've been trying to remind you that this is the error. You can't have consistency if you attempt to make all reference points equal.

You have a zero velocity relative to the car you are in, even when the car is moving 60mph relative to the ground.

RPA. You have zero velocity relative to the car.
RPB. You have 60mph velocity relative to the ground.

Both are true, you have both a zero velocity and a 60mph velocity as well as a 400000kmps velocity relative to space.

More of the same. You're not responding to any questions. You are not making any attempt to explain your assertions, you just state them as fact as if you were a University professor talking to a 4-year old child.

The **** you "explain" is trivial and known to all--but it's not responsive.

Krumple wrote:

If you were in a car behind another car and both cars were driving 60mph and you used a radar gun from inside the car behind the other, the reading would say 0mph.

Right. So it would tell you that the other car is going 0 miles per hour. Given what it is designed for, is this a "safe assumption?"

The only thing I've been attempting to say is that reference points are important.

Quote:

The only thing I've been attempting to say is that reference points are important.

.

I would have (and in fact did) readily agreed to that in one sentence, many posts back. There was no need for you to just say that, over and over, for 10-20 posts.

What you think that I think about SR is mistaken. We can discuss that, if you want.

Please, you don't have to give me the introductory course lecture explaining simple relativity concepts. I've heard it all a million times before.

Its a statement where they are moving away from each other where the sum velocity is faster than the speed of light.

To start the convo, if you wish to pursue one, I will make this assertion:

1. SR says all reference frames are equally valid, and it PROHIBITS any assumption to the contrary.

2. LR says all reference frames are NOT "equally valid, and it prohibts any assumption to the contrary.

I say that LR is superior theory for a number of reasons. One of those reasons is that it does not lead to logically impossible conclusions insofar as it purports to correspond to objective reality.

3. You see SR as making logic errors because you neglect the importance of frame reference. This is clear by how many posts I had to make to explain their importance.

Quote:

Its a statement where they are moving away from each other where the sum velocity is faster than the speed of light.

Yeah, and way back then I asked you a simple question, but you have evaded it ever since. Let me ask you again:

1. How do you determine that each is moving away from the other?
2. What "frame of reference" do you use to reach that supposedly factual conclusion? Is it the "midpoint" between them, in space, is that it?

Krumple wrote:

3. You see SR as making logic errors because you neglect the importance of frame reference. This is clear by how many posts I had to make to explain their importance.

Listen, for just one second, you pompous-ass know-it-all.

You didn't have to "explain" that to me ever. I knew it decades ago.

I assert, here and now, that REFERENCE FRAMES ARE IMPORTANT.

OK?

Any damn fool knows that, OK?

Now where, EXACTLY, have I neglected the importance of that?

YOU'RE the one neglecting the importance when you can't/won't answer a simple question about the reference frame you are using to support your conclusion that "A and B are each moving away from each other."