The Red Shift without Expansion

@Krumple,

Krumple wrote:

Can we change 6. To "all of the above are correct"?

I'm being honest here, no joke but.

1,2,3,4 and 5 are all correct! You think I'm nuts now hunh? But it's true!

Heh.

Well, Krumps, at this point I won't say you're "nuts," but I will disagree with your claim about what is "true."

But let's take your answer and look at it for a minute.

If 2 (E, that is) is a "correct" frame of reference, then it is correct to say that the earth "really is" stationary, and that, therefore, G "really is" receding at a speed faster than light.

Right?

2 Replies

@layman,

layman wrote:

Krumple wrote:

Can we change 6. To "all of the above are correct"?

I'm being honest here, no joke but.

1,2,3,4 and 5 are all correct! You think I'm nuts now hunh? But it's true!

Heh.

Well, Krumps, at this point I won't say you're "nuts," but I will that I disagree with your claim about what is "true."

But let's take your answer and look at it for a minute.

If 2 (E, that is) is a "correct" frame of reference, then it is correct to say that the earth "really is" stationary, and that, therefore, G "really is" receding at a speed faster than light.

Right?

Yes. However; (really not trying to be annoying) G is not really actually moving faster than light. It just appears that way from the reference point of E.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

There is, of course, one handy little advantage to taking the position that any and every thing you say is "true."

That way, no matter what you say, you are ALWAYS right!

Problem is, so is everybody who disagrees with you.

When everything is right, then NOTHING is right.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Quote:

Yes. However; (really not trying to be annoying) G is not really actually moving faster than light. It just appears that way from the reference point of E.

So, then, now you're back to saying it's not correct, but instead is an 'illusion," eh?

So is M the frame that is a little "more correct" than all the others, that it?

0 Replies

@layman,

layman wrote:

Krumple wrote:

Can we change 6. To "all of the above are correct"?

I'm being honest here, no joke but.

1,2,3,4 and 5 are all correct! You think I'm nuts now hunh? But it's true!

Heh.

Well, Krumps, at this point I won't say you're "nuts," but I will disagree with your claim about what is "true."

But let's take your answer and look at it for a minute.

If 2 (E, that is) is a "correct" frame of reference, then it is correct to say that the earth "really is" stationary, and that, therefore, G "really is" receding at a speed faster than light.

Right?

I know it annoys you when I do this but you are not joining me on reference points, you are unknowingly creating a new reference point in your mind which is why we both say different conclusions.

Its correct E is stationary.

But then you say "therefore" G is really receeding faster than light.

I say ONLY if you are on E. (haha drug joke, sorry)

Yes only if you are on reference point E is G receeding faster than light. However it's not really traveling faster than light.

0 Replies

@layman,

layman wrote:

There is, of course, one handy little advantage to taking the position that any and every thing you say is "true."

That way, no matter what you say, you are ALWAYS right!

Problem is, so is everybody who disagrees with you.

When everything is right, then NOTHING is right.

No. I'm saying they are all right with respect from within their own frame of reference and they are not correct from another frame of reference.

That's why all of the above is correct. The reference frame determines how you measure the result. So if the data says 1.9C its not really traveling faster than light, it just appears that way from the reference point you did the measurement from.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Quote:

The reference frame determines how you measure the result. So if the data says 1.9C its not really traveling faster than light, it just appears that way from the reference point you did the measurement from..

I guess you're saying that all "believe" they are right.

But then you on to say what is "really" the case.

So, let's put subjective, mutually exclusive "beliefs" aside for a minute, OK?

Let's talk about objective reality instead of "illusions" contained only in people's heads, OK?

As a matter of objective, physical reality, which frame of reference is "correct?"

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

Quote:
The reference frame determines how you measure the result. So if the data says 1.9C its not really traveling faster than light, it just appears that way from the reference point you did the measurement from..

I guess you're saying that all "believe" they are right.

But then you on to say what is "really" the case.

So, let's put subjective, mutually exclusive "beliefs" aside for a minute, OK?

Let's talk about objective reality instead of "illusions" contained only in people's heads, OK?

As a matter of objective, physical reality, which frame of reference is "correct?"

I don't know how to enter an objective reference frame to say which is correct. Because if you say there is a reference point outside the universe then all I could do was assume this reference point doesn't move and then when I look at M, E and G, I would see all three moving. So I would conclude that M, E and G are all wrong.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Quote:

I don't know how to enter an objective reference frame to say which is correct

OK, fair enough. You don't know.

But, just to be clear, you are now saying that all those times you INSTRUCTED me, "reminded" me, "explained" to me, told me I was confused about "frames of reference," and ****, all in a highly authoritative manner, you were just kidding, right.

You don't know, but you just acted like you had an indisputable answer that any idiot should be able to understand. right?

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

Quote:
I don't know how to enter an objective reference frame to say which is correct

OK, fair enough. You don't know.

But, just to be clear, you are now saying that all those times you INSTRUCTED me, "reminded" me, "explained" to me, told me I was confused about "frames of reference," and ****, all in a highly authoritative manner, you were just kidding, right.

You don't know, but you just acted like you had an indisputable answer that any idiot should be able you understand. right?

No. Uhg.

What observer sees in reference point E is NOT the same thing observer in reference point M sees. When they both look at G.

They experience two different things when they look at G. Because their reference frames are different.

I'm saying I don't know how to become an observer of an objective reference frame to determine which is correct.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Quote:

I'm saying I don't know how to become an observer of an objective reference frame to determine which is correct.

Yeah, that's exactly what I thought you said.

Now you're saying it again.

YOU DON'T KNOW.

Since you admit that you don't know, you could still have reasonably said something like "it's possible that E's frame of reference is just an optical illusion, all stemming from a mistaken assumption it has about it's own motion."

If you had said that, I would have immediately agreed with you, and we could have saved 5-6 pages of unproductive posts about it.

But you didn't say that. Instead you acted cocksure and belittled anyone who questioned you, all while evading the questions.

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

Quote:
I'm saying I don't know how to become an observer of an objective reference frame to determine which is correct.

Yeah, that's exactly what I thought you said.

Now you're saying it again.

YOU DON'T KNOW.

Since you admit that you don't know, you could still have reasonably said something like "it's possible that E's frame of reference is just an optical illusion, all stemming from a mistaken notion it has about it's own motion."

If you had said that, I would have immediately agreed with you, and we could have saved 5-6 pages of unproductive posts about it.

But you didn't say that, you acted cocksure and belittled anyone who questioned you, all while evading the questions.

Why are you cutting off my sentence?

I don't know how to enter an objective reference frame.

You are cutting out the context and only reading,

"I don't know."

Why are you doing that?

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Krumple wrote:

Why are you cutting off my sentence?

I don't know how to enter an objective reference frame.

You are cutting out the context and only reading,

"I don't know."

Why are you doing that?

What!? I fully quoted your sentence at the very outset.

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

Krumple wrote:

Why are you cutting off my sentence?

I don't know how to enter an objective reference frame.

You are cutting out the context and only reading,

"I don't know."

Why are you doing that?

What!? I fully quoted your sentence at the very outset.

Yes you fully quoted but then said,

"You don't know."

rfE. Stationary, only G and M are moving.
rfM. Stationary, only E and G are moving.
rfG. Stationary, only M and E are moving.

all are true within their respective reference frames.

How do you enter an objective reference frame?

2 Replies

Quote:

“There are few people who are more often in the wrong than those who cannot bear to be so.” (La Rochefoucauld)

0 Replies

@Krumple,

Quote:

How do you enter an objective reference frame?

You tell me.

You're the one who insisted, page after page, that, in effect, you KNEW that frame of reference M in my hypothetical would be the correct one, or at least one similar to it.

You KNEW that neither E nor G were traveling faster than light.

2 Replies

@layman,

layman wrote:

Quote:
How do you enter an objective reference frame?

You tell me.

You're the one who insisted, page after page, that, in effect, you KNEW that frame of reference M in my hypothetical would be the correct one, or at least one similar to it.

You KNEW that neither E nor G were traveling faster than light.

You must be a visual learner because words fail you.

I could create an animation of two spheres, a&b one rolling the other stationary and you wouldn't be able to tell which one was moving and which one is stationary.

If I focussed the camera on sphere a you would say sphere b is moving but..

If I focussed the camera on sphere b you would say sphere a is moving.

Why?

Because you are using their respective reference points to make the measurement. Then you would complain and say both are moving and the only way you determine that is by creating a new reference frame and look at both spheres saying both are moving!

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

Quote:
How do you enter an objective reference frame?

You tell me.

You're the one who insisted, page after page, that, in effect, you KNEW that frame of reference M in my hypothetical would be the correct one, or at least one similar to it.

You KNEW that neither E nor G were traveling faster than light.

And, if you told the truth, I suspect that you STILL think you know it. You are just unable to say how or why you know it. You just "know it," somehow. On the basis of faith, maybe.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Quote:

Because you are using their respective reference points to make the measurement. Then you would complain and say both are moving and the only way you determine that is by creating a new reference frame and look at both spheres saying both are moving!

You're really one presumptive sumbitch, ya know that? You always want to tell me what I think.

You are not seeking any kind of dialogue. You just want a monologue where you speak for everybody. No questions. Just an audience that is fully cognizant of your omniscience.

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

layman wrote:

Quote:
How do you enter an objective reference frame?

You tell me.

You're the one who insisted, page after page, that, in effect, you KNEW that frame of reference M in my hypothetical would be the correct one, or at least one similar to it.

You KNEW that neither E nor G were traveling faster than light.

And, if you told the truth, I suspect that you STILL think you know it. You are just unable to say how or why you know it. You just "know it," somehow. On the basis of faith, maybe.

Now you are deflecting.

The funny thing in all this is that I believe the universe is NOT expanding. I have another explanation for red shift.

But I understand SR and have taken several college physics courses.

One way the data can be flawed is that we are using objects that emit light to determine how space behaves. If there is another reason light gets shifted to the red that has been missed then concluding space is expanding is in error.

We know light is affected by interactions with mass. (Gravity)

We know light frequency can shift if you change a photons trajectory. If a photon turns its frequency shifts towards the red.

This means we can not trust light coming from other galaxies if those photons have been interacting with gravity fields and changing trajectory before they reach us.

Experiment;

Wait for a solar eclipse. Find a star in the path where the sun will be during the eclipse. Measure that stars light frequency. Then measure that same stars light frequency as the eclipse happens.

Hypothesis; the gravity of our sun will shift that stars light frequency to the red.

Currently there is a team working on a ground based piece of equipment that can record star light frequency. They plan to use it in this experiment laid out above to prove light red shift from galaxies can not be trusted if that light has been traveling in and out of intense gravity fields, ie dark matter pockets.

0 Replies

The Red Shift without Expansion

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know