The Red Shift without Expansion

I'm afraid that nothing you said in that post answers the question.

Let me recap the issue.

It involved the relative motion between only two "objects" one of which WAS the earth.

You claimed that each of them is moving away from each other in such a way as to give the "illusion" that one was moving faster than light.

What you are presuming, without apparently knowing it or stating it, is that there is a frame of reference from which this can be determined. You are presuming some point that is "at rest" from which such determinations can be made.

For example, that might be some point lying BETWEEN the two, from which point you would detect a red shift from BOTH the earth and the galaxy.

Right?

Yes. But I don't like the way you worded the conclusion.

Krumple wrote:

Yes. But I don't like the way you worded the conclusion.

Well, OK, feel free to restate it in any way you like.

I did, that's what started this whole thing.

Quote:

I did, that's what started this whole thing.

Heh.

OK, lets take this slow, eh?

We are now dealing with three frames of reference E (earth), G (galaxy), and M (midpoint between E and G, let's say).

So now, we want to determine how each of these is moving, if at all, and if so, in what direction, and at what speed.

You with me so far?

OK.

Let's first assume that you are located on M. From M you determine that both E and G are moving away from you, in opposite directions, at .9c. You therefore conclude that both E and G will perceive each other to be receding from each other at a rate of speed of 1.8c. However, from that frame of reference (M) neither is actually exceeding the speed of light.

That's kinda what you are saying, right?

Any corrections you'd like to make?

One thing I would add.

M "determines" the speed and direction of E and G by using a "red shift" analysis, not "by geometry."

OK, good.

Just in case you didn't see it yet, I added a post regarding how speed and direction is determined from M.

Now let's look at things from E's frame of reference for a minute.

E will assume that it is stationary, and will therefore conclude that:

1. M is moving away from it a .9c and
2. G is moving away from it at 1.8c.

You agree?

OK, great. So let's summarize:

1. Although it wasn't explicitly stated, M assumed it was stationary.
2. As was explicitly stated, E also assumed that it was stationary.

Question:

Which one is "really" stationary.

Which frame of reference, E or M, is "correct," if either?

Both! Haha. I know it's crazy but both assume they are.

If you are on M you assume you are stationary.
If you are on E you assume you are stationary.

You can't be on both M and E at the same time so quit looking at ME as if you can. (Sorry, I couldn't resist.)

layman wrote:

OK, great. So let's summarize:

1. Although it wasn't explicitly stated, M assumed it was stationary.
2. As was explicitly stated, E also assumed that it was stationary.

Question:

Which one is "really" stationary.

Which frame of reference, E or M, is "correct," if either?

Both! Haha. I know it's crazy but both assume they are.

If you are on M you assume you are stationary.
If you are on E you assume you are stationary.

You can't be on both M and E at the same time so quit looking at ME as if you can. (Sorry, I couldn't resist.)

You are looking at both wondering how both can be stationary. When logic is screaming at you saying both are wrong because I'm seeing them both move. But guess who's not moving now? You on another reference frame looking at M and E.

Which one is "really" stationary.

Which frame of reference, E or M, is "correct," if either?

Here, I'll put it in an easy, multiple choice format, how's that:

1. M is correct
2. E is correct
3. Neither is correct
4. Both are correct
5. Not enough information to answer the question
6. None of the above (explain your answer)