The Red Shift without Expansion

@Olli S,

You are still short of any empirical evidence for your infinite universe. This isn't theology where a rational model alone can be considered evidence, this is science.

Quote:

You think that the expanding is empirical fact. It is not. Only the redshift is empirical fact, the expansion is not

I already pointed out the possible problem with the red shift basis. It requires a 'slow light' model which is supposed to not be possible.

I'm disappointed no one here has explained that problem. It is such an obvious problem that I'm sure someone has explained it, I just haven't heard it.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

You are still short of any empirical evidence for your infinite universe. This isn't theology where a rational model alone can be considered evidence, this is science.

Quote:
You think that the expanding is empirical fact. It is not. Only the redshift is empirical fact, the expansion is not

I already pointed out the possible problem with the red shift basis. It requires a 'slow light' model which is supposed to not be possible.

I'm disappointed no one here has explained that problem. It is such an obvious problem that I'm sure someone has explained it, I just haven't heard it.

There's another thread on this red-shift expansion deal that discusses it a little, eh, Leddy?

I think Olli is on the right track. The proferred explanation is not an empirical fact (nor is his proposition).

Quote:

It requires a 'slow light' model which is supposed to not be possible.

"Supposed" is the right word here. The constant speed of light proposition is not an empirical fact either. It is an axiomatic postulate, accepted on faith, which has not been, and cannot be, empirically proven.

For that reason, I can't fully agree with this assertion:

Quote:

This isn't theology where a rational model alone can be considered evidence, this is science.

Faith is required. Fundamental premises must be posited a priori.

1 Reply

Warning: This thread is not real science. Modern Physics has developed over more than 500 years of learning and study. There is a scientific process and a functioning scientific community based on education and study. Physics has always been heavily dependent on mathematics and has been successful at providing a mathematical model that can explain phenomina and make testable predictions. It is also a the core of modern technology.

The discussion on this thread has almost nothing to do with real Physics. What is happening on this thread involves people who instead of studying science in a University have developed their own ideas which they support by using Google.

Google can provide quotes, random facts and certainly entertainment. Google can not provide any meaningful education in Science, nor any in-depth understanding of scientific concepts.

If you are here for a random discussion of Google-based science which will entertain you, please indulge. If you stumble upon this thread while you are looking for any insight in actual scientific concepts, I suggest you look elsewhere.

As long as no one mistakes this thread for actual science, I have no problem allowing it to proceed unimpeded by real scientific reasoning.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

Your last pontification was not directed to any particular post, Max, but I suspect that, among other things, you would deny this claim that I made:

Quote:

"Supposed" is the right word here. The constant speed of light proposition is not an empirical fact either. It is an axiomatic postulate, accepted on faith, which has not been, and cannot be, empirically proven.

Am I right in my assumption, i.e., do you deny the truth of that claim?

1 Reply

@layman,

This is something that you would generally learn in the second year of an undergraduate physics degree. The concept you are referring to has to do with frames of reference. This is a mathematical concept... in our discussions so far you have made no attempt to understand it.

A better way to state the principle under Special Relativity is that "the speed of light in a vaccume is the same in any inertial frame of reference" (General relativity expands on this idea).

Of course, if you don't have a mathematical understanding of frames of reference, you can't truly understand this principle.

However, to answer your question directly; yes your statement is incorrect. The principle is not based on faith. It is based on mathematics and tested experimentally.

The principle in question is part of an mathematical framework which has been tested experimetally, pretty extensively, over the past 100 years. It has been accepted by the scientific community because the experimental evidence supports it.

I am tired of doing Physics by Google with you. I don't want to get dragged into answering more random links you find when what you really need is to take some time to learn the mathematics (something you seem to resist). But I figure I can answer your question directly.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

However, to answer your question directly; yes your statement is incorrect. The principle is not based on faith. It is based on mathematics and tested experimentally.

That's what I thought you'd say.

You are wrong. Dead wrong. Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of theoretical physics, in general, and/or the theory of special relativity, in particular, can and will tell you that.

Don't take my word for it. Do some research.

I know from past experience that it is useless and futile to try to explain things to you, so I won't even try. Ask around, maybe someone can get through to you, but it wouldn't be an easy task.

Your "understanding" of the nature of scientific theories, empirical verification, etc., is so entrenched, yet so deficient, that you are probably beyond hope at this point.

You might try reading what Einstein himself has written with respect to this very question. He makes it very clear--to anyone capable of understanding his words, anyway.

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

You are wrong. Dead wrong. Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of theoretical physics, in general, and/or the theory of special relativity, in particular, can and will tell you that.

Don't take my word for it. Do some research.

I don't know why you think you have a "rudimentary understanding of theoretical Physics", or where (other than Google) you gained such an understanding.

I earned a degree in Physics, a process that involved seven years of attending classes, doing problem sets, reading and writing papers, running experiments in a lab and getting feedback from professors and peers .

There are no shortcuts to learning science. I have nothing against people asking question casually about science without taking time to learn the mathematics, but I do have a problem with people pretending to understand "theoretical physics" when they haven't done the work. Modern physics is complicated stuff that is based on advanced mathematics that not everyone is going to take the time to master.

Science isn't about making stuff up based on things you find on the Internet (not even if it is from Einstein). I have done the work (including reading Einstein's scientific papers and doing the math for myself). And that is my point.

What you are doing here is not science.

1 Reply

Quote:

It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so. (Mark Twain)

1 Reply

@layman,

Your Google skills are impeccable.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Your Google skills are impeccable.

Ya know, Max, among other things, the writings, thoughts, insights, etc., of virtually every acknowledged great thinker throughout history can be found on the internet.

Not clear why you consistently disparage it as a source of reliable information. You could learn something by doing some research on the internet--if you can understand what you read, anyway.

1 Reply

@layman,

That's good. Fundamental premises are necessary, we must be aware of them and they are not believes.

My competence is not enough to treat scientifically these physical details. But I'm of cause happy if there is an explanation of the redshift without the expansion of the universe. This is exactly what I'm being asking here. Philosophically it is clear that we cannot generalize so much from the natural laws in the earth to the universe than modern physics often suppose, also in the case of the speed of light.

0 Replies

@layman,

This thread is not only of the science. It is of the cosmology, and cosmology is philosophy too, and philosophy is not only a science, it is also thinking of the things that the science does not know yet. And scientifically thinking of the underlying axioms of the science.

The science does not yet know all the important things of the universe.

2 Replies

@Olli S,

To maxdancona.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

There are no shortcuts to learning science.

That is such condescending elitist/institutionalized Bullshit.

0 Replies

@Olli S,

and the philosophy is doubly fucked because it hardly understands the science.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Often is the opposite...the monkey scientists dont have a clue on the philosophical implications...

...you still dont get it do ya Farma, just because some philosophers are a pill of bull that doesn't make Philosophy any less important. On the contrary it just shows how hard it is.

This pseudo divorce of Philosophy and Science is utter bulshit!
You can't have one without the other. No Science can be done without a conceptual background. Often implicit and naive. Not understanding that is missing the basics. And thats where we are today. Specialization has turn most scientists either into talking parrots or lab monkeys. It is rare to see one with solid general background.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

This is to saying nothing. Of cause there is good and bad philosophy.

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

Often is the opposite...the monkey scientists dont have a clue on the philosophical implications

OK, Im doing work right now, on the mineral associations of silicate rock v feldspathoids to carry measurable quantities (mineable)
REE's. Do I see a philosopher on my team. What would he do? (or she)

1 Reply

@farmerman,

It depends on what you want to know, either trivial data gathering, or something which has implications on a larger scale. Problem being that you often are good at doing the first and bad at deriving conclusions when it comes to an holistic integration of your work. You need scrutiny. Now if you think that's bullshit it speaks volumes about what you know. Data gathering has to fit a conceptual frame of work !

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

So you consider yourself (as our token philosopher) functionally qualified to distinguish between the two?
There is no "trivial data gathering" until the data is gathered and sieved.

Quote:

you often are good at doing the first and bad at deriving conclusions when it comes to an holistic integration of your work. You need scrutiny.

This statement demonstrates how clueless the philosopher is. If you dont understand what is being "gathered qnd analyzed" how did you put together some sort of hypothesis? Did you know the process that Tiktaalik rosacea ws discover "accidentqlly" by some cluueless field scientits and why they spent 3 wasted years wandering "Aimlessly" round the ARctic?? An what the hell did you think their proposals were bqased upon??

Pretty much most all scientific data is cumulative qnd derivative. Think about how computers owe their evolution to the garment industry and Arnold Toynbees coining the title "Industrial Revolution" , Or the concept of dark energy and dark matter depend upon Cepheid stars , red shift and a Dominican Brother?.
Most discovery is but "back engineering" . Philosophers usually dont like to accept that engineers and scientists respond to conditions better than we dream dreams.

I still picture most philosophers, seeking validation, would have become scientists if they could handle the math

2 Replies

The Red Shift without Expansion

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know