The Red Shift without Expansion

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.

The "you" in my statement is anyone who examined this animation, what their brain would be doing, scrambling to determine the "real truth" of which sphere is moving and which is stationary.

Krumple wrote:

The "you" in my statement is anyone who examined this animation, what their brain would be doing, scrambling to determine the "real truth" of which sphere is moving and which is stationary.

Well, Krumps, ya know...Einstein desperately sought a way to conclude that one couldn't tell which one was rotating ("rolling"). He wanted to show that such motion was "relative." But, in the end, he had to admit defeat.

Centrifugal forces would always cause a "bulge" at the equator of such a sphere, which would identify it as the one which was moving.

Relativity sounds like a very strange theory. So why did anyone believe it? At first, many people didn’t. But Einstein pointed out that his theory was better than Newton’s theory of gravity because it solved a problem about the planet Mercury.

Astronomers keep good records about the orbits of planets moving about the sun. Mercury’s orbit puzzled them. Each trip around the sun, Mercury’s closest approach was a little beyond where it had been the orbit before. Why would the orbit change like that?

Some astronomers said that gravity from other planets must be tugging on Mercury and shifting its orbit a bit. But when they did the calculations, they found that gravity from the known planets couldn’t explain all of the shift. So some thought there might be another planet, closer to the sun, that also tugged on Mercury.

Einstein disagreed, arguing there was no other planet. Using his theory of relativity, he calculated how much Mercury’s orbit should shift. And it was exactly what astronomers had measured.

Still, this did not satisfy everyone. So Einstein recommended another way that scientists might test his theory. He pointed out that the sun’s mass should bend the light from a distant star slightly as its beam passed near to the sun. That bending would make the star’s position in the sky look like it was slightly moved from where it would usually be. Of course, the sun is too bright to see stars just beyond its edges (or anywhere when the sun is shining). But during a total eclipse, the sun’s intense light briefly becomes masked. And now stars become visible.

In 1919, astronomers trekked to South America and Africa to view a total eclipse of the sun. To test Einstein’s theory, they measured the locations of some stars. And the shift in the stars’ location was just what Einstein’s theory had predicted.

From then on, Einstein would be known as the man who replaced Newton’s theory of gravity.

Layman wants desperately for there to be an absolute frame of reference. He won't allow for that not to exist and that is why he continues to not "get it"

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.

kump 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."

i have to interject a question here. If space itself is expanding, shouldn't ALL space be expanding, including the empty space in atoms? All the 'stuff' in space should be expanding right along with it so there would be no apparent expansion. The dot on the rubber band gets bigger too ya know.

Of course that would wreak havoc with all the cosmological constants so everything would go to hell. So I'd have to conclude that the fabric of space could not be expanding.

Anything, Gent?

Anything at all?

I'll tell you the same thing I told Max. If you want to claim that the earth "really" orbits the sun (and you've stated that you do), then, ipso facto, you have rejected SR, according to Einstein himself, anyway.

When you say that I "want to claim that the earth "really" orbits the sun". What is your context? Do you mean the simple answer or the hard answer?

Well, Gent, I don't know what the difference is, for you. But that wasn't really the question I started ask. I was asking what you found so convincing that you now consider the theory to be unassailable. But your conclusions about the earth's motion may what convinces you, I don't know.

You've used the work of a cellular biologist who has a keen interest in physics to demonstrate a concept that others, actual physicists and astrophysicists, has shown to be bogus.

Well, there are several things you're saying here that indicate to me that you don't really know what I've said, including what I've said about Kiperous.

Did you read this thread?
Did you read that particular paper?

Did you read any of my replies when you asked the same question the last 2 or 3 times?

Maybe the problem is that you don't know how to pose your questions without having some kind of puzzle attached to it or condition that has to be met just so...