The Red Shift without Expansion

Now we are in the exact point of the whole discussion. Here we need the higher mathematics that Maxdancona loves so much. Which things in the equations of SR or GR lead to the conclusions that the universe has a beginning and is expanding? Is it possible to leave only exactly these details? Especially when we take away the time- dimension of the space of the whole universe.

The space is something that we can not measure in any scientific way. It just is and we must make hypothesis of its nature in our models.

Keep in mind that we know much more of the movements, ages, quantity, distances, development and so on of the galaxies than in the Einsteins time when he abandoned his cosmological constant.

0 Replies

@layman,

layman wrote:

Do you believe there is any such thing as objective reality, or are you just a total solipsist?

Care to answer this question, Krumps?

It's not the kind of question that I would normally ask anyone--the answer would be too obvious in advance.

But in your case, the way you throw around the word "true" has to make me wonder.

For most people, 1 and 2 (below) do NOT imply 3. How about with you?

1. I believe x to be true.
2. It is true that I believe x.
3. x is true because I believe it.

1 Reply

@layman,

It has been said that there are only 3 basic axioms upon which logic is based, to wit:

1. The law of identity (A = A)
2. The law of non-contradiction (not both A and not-A)
3. The law of excluded middle (Either A or not-A)

It is virtually impossible to have a rational conversation with anyone who rejects one or more of these fundamental premises.

That's another reason I ask, Krumps. It would just be a waste of both of our times to try to communicate if we're on different pages about what "makes sense" (is "logical").

You could substitute the word "true" for the letter A, above. But you can't use two different meanings of the word "true" and still say that true = true. That would be the fallacy of equivocation.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Since the forces causing the expansion of space/time are purely hypothetical i dont know how we can say that chemical bonds would be stronger, or even relatable. What could be stronger than 'time'?

Hubble expansion may only be the residual motion of the Big Bang. As to what's causing the continued acceleration - that leaves us all standing around with our dick in our hand.

2 Replies

@layman,

layman wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

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...

Puzzle? I asked Max, and you, what I thought was a very simple question. I'll repeat it here:

It is possible for there to be a valid difference in what you measure a thing to be and what it is? Put another way: is it possible to "mis-measure" something?

As I recall, your answer was that that question couldn't possibly be answered.

I can't see why you can't answer it. It's not a "trick" question.

If you recall, as part of your question you used someone using a meter stick calling it a meter and someone using a 2 meter stick and calling it a meter. I said you were comparing apples to oranges as you can't use arbitrary measure devices. If you use the distance that light travels in 1/299 792 458 of a second, and both measures use that, even if A calls it a fish and B calls it a marshmallow then they will get the same measures so long as they are measuring the same thing.

Then, only as long as both use the same reference frame then no, they can't mismeasure things. However, if A were to use an actual fish and B an actual marshmallow then yes, it is quite possible to mis-measure things.

Finally, as long as the thing that you are measuring doesn't change between A's measure and B's measure, using the same unit of measure, in the same reference frame they should be the same measurement.

I will go back and see if I can find your original question as it was not as simple as you make it out to be above.

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

Since the forces causing the expansion of space/time are purely hypothetical... As to what's causing the continued acceleration - that leaves us all standing around with our dick in our hand.

As always, there is evidence going both ways, and this applies to expansion, too.

Quote:

A 2016 report from Oxford University's Department of Physics and the Niels Bohr Institute in Copenhagen working with a much larger data set has cast doubt upon the arguments for accelerated expansion:

"There now exists a much bigger database of supernovae on which to perform rigorous and detailed statistical analyses. We analysed the latest catalogue of 740 Type Ia supernovae – over ten times bigger than the original samples on which the discovery claim was based – and found that the evidence for accelerated expansion is, at most, what physicists call "3 sigma". This is far short of the 5 sigma standard required to claim a discovery of fundamental significance."

0 Replies

@McGentrix,

Here is your original question:

Quote:

@maxdancona,
I know in advance that this is a fool's errand, but I guess I'm kinda bored.

Tell me Max, is there, or can there be, any difference between what a quality is "measured to be" and what it actually is? Let me illustrate the question being asked by an example:

1. Suppose you have a football field with goalposts placed right on each endline (as they used to be).

2. We give each of 2 guys a stick and tell them to use it to measure the distance between the two goal posts, by laying it end to end.

3. The stick we give one guy (call him "A') is 36" long, and he comes back and says the distance is 100 yards.

4. The stick we give one guy (call him "B") is only 18" long, but we tell him that it's "one yard." He comes back and says the distance is 200 yards.

5. So now we have two different reports of the distance: A says 100 yards, and B says it's 200 yards.

Now what? Are they both right? Did the goal posts each suddenly move, and place themselves 200 yards apart, as soon as soon as B starting measuring?

Or did the goalposts remain stationary for each while he measured?

Put another way, was the distance for B "really" 200 yards, or did he just "mismeasure" it due to having a distorted measuring instrument?

By analogy, SR would say it is "really" 200 yards for B. It would say that the distance between the goalposts actually elongated itself for B.

LR would say that the goalposts never moved at all and that the distance between them remained constant.

What would you say, Max?

That is a bit different than

Quote:

It is possible for there to be a valid difference in what you measure a thing to be and what it is? Put another way: is it possible to "mis-measure" something?

Wouldn't you agree?

2 Replies

@McGentrix,

Quote:

I will go back and see if I can find your original question as it was not as simple as you make it out to be above.

Well, if you find it, Gent, I think you'll see that I asked a question, and then gave a hypothetical situation to illustrate the question--not to pose a new question.

That said, after giving the illustration, I did post a second question--for reasons that I kinda stated. It was a prelude to explaining one major difference between LR and SR to Max.

0 Replies

@McGentrix,

Quote:

Wouldn't you agree?

See the prior post which I just made.

There were two things in that post:

1. The question
2. An "illustration" used to add clarification to the question being asked. This did NOT change the original question.

Then there was:

3. A second question, which may be what's causing the confusion here.

0 Replies

@McGentrix,

McGentrix wrote:

Here is your original question:

Quote:
@maxdancona,
Now what? Are they both right? Did the goal posts each suddenly move, and place themselves 200 yards apart, as soon as soon as B starting measuring?

Or did the goalposts remain stationary for each while he measured?

Put another way, was the distance for B "really" 200 yards, or did he just "mismeasure" it due to having a distorted measuring instrument?

This breaks down the original post some, Gent. I think you have answered this question already, too, conditioned upon it being the same frame. Right?

Edit: I misspoke: There are a couple of questions here, and I'm not sure you answered them both. Do you think they are "improper" questions?

1 Reply

@layman,

...and using the same unit of measure and the goalposts don't get moved.

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

McGentrix wrote:

...and using the same unit of measure and the goalposts don't get moved.

OK, but are you saying that if you don't use the same unit, then the goalposts DO get moved?

1 Reply

@layman,

I am saying that if you don't use the same unit of measure that you have a flawed experiment and the results are meaningless.

2 Replies

@McGentrix,

McGentrix wrote:

I am saying that if you don't use the same unit of measure that you have a flawed experiment and the results are meaningless.

First an observation: The phrase "meaningless" comes up constantly when talking to SR advocates. It became popular with Percy Bridgeman's philosophy of science which was wholly positivistic in nature. It held sway for a few decades, but has now been effectively repudiated and has been almost completely abandoned by modern theorists. It is, basically, the "verificationalist theory of meaning" used by the logical positivists.

It's not a response that I generally consider "meaningful" (since we're talking about meaning). I'm not quite sure why a "flawed" experiment would be "meaningless." It's flawed, maybe, but would that, in itself, make it "meaningless?"

That last question is rhertorical--I'm not really asking for an answer. I'll add more in the next post.

0 Replies

@McGentrix,

I'm going to try to put this in a more concrete context. It kinda goes to two different views of the significance of the lorentz transformations (the "LT").

Say objects A and B are moving, relative to each other, at a speed which causes the yardsticks on the moving object to "shrink" by 50% (to 18 inches). For now, let's call B the moving object (while A is "stationary").

So, now, if B uses his yardstick to measure A's football field, he will find it to be 200 yards long.

Do you agree, Gent?

1 Reply

@layman,

no. You say A and B are moving, relative to each other.

How does relative speed change cause a "yardstick" to shrink? Why not use the speed of light, which remains constant, to measure?

This is what I mean by having puzzle's. You continue asking leading questions that will only lead to an answer you want.

2 Replies

@McGentrix,

McGentrix wrote:

no. You say A and B are moving, relative to each other.

How does relative speed change cause a "yardstick" to shrink? Why not use the speed of light, which remains constant, to measure?

Well, Gent, are you familiar with the LT?

0 Replies

@McGentrix,

McGentrix wrote:

How does relative speed change cause a "yardstick" to shrink? Why not use the speed of light, which remains constant, to measure?

I'm still waiting for your answer to my last question (about the LT), Gent, but, in the meantime I will briefly address these two questions.

1. The cause of the phenomenon is not really known. That said, SR (and LR) predicts that increased speed causes increased "length contraction," as well as "time dilation" (slowing of clocks).

2. This would be circular. You can't ever know "speed" until you FIRST know both the distance and the time involved. You can't say, for example, that for the last hour you have been travelling at the rate of 100 mph unless you know that (1) 1 hour has passed, and (2) you have traveled 100 miles in that time. So you can't use "speed" to determine length (distance). Length is a necessary component of any speed calculation. That must be known beforehand, not afterward.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Chemical bonds involve the "Internal nd entire" structure of an element. Other forces are only xtrenal.
That is evidenced and understood.
We understand how atomic and chemical energy levels are measured as electrons move into higher nd higher orbitals nd then collapse with a concomitant release of energy in both ionic an covalent bonding as well as high energy x-ray absorption in the K(alpha) 1 level (again, its measurable and focused to within that element). Braggs Law helps us understand the mechanisms as well as Pauling's Dissection of chemical bonds. ITS TOTALLY DIFFERENT from thecosmological energy of which you and krumple were talking. (xcept where actual nuclear radiation is involved at the atomic level)

Quote:

Hubble expansion may only be the residual motion of the Big Bang.

Well, Badabing!! thts sorta what I said. and it is measurable by reference candle distances and by redshift of the contents WITHIN the Cosmic Background Microwave Radiation (as Discovered and reference calculated by PEnzias nd Wilson).

0 Replies

@layman,

Again, the way you are asking the question is bad. You keep moving the goalpost...literally. In your original question, we were measuring 2 goalposts using different measuring sizes and now we are measuring the distance between 2 moving objects.

What distances are we talking about? 100 yds? 100 miles? 100 lys? What speeds are they moving away from each other? Is the speed constant? If using 'A' as the still object, is it moving relative to it's environment?

There are too many questions you need to answer as your question is not a basic question. Even the 2 trains questions give locations and speeds...

Now, it 'A' and 'B' are actual goalposts planted in the ground on a football pitch that doesn't move or stretch or bend or twist but is just a regular old football pitch then the 2 goalpost do no move relative to each other. They are both held firm in position. The distance between them does not change and what ever device you use, be it yards, meters, banana's or grapes. The distance between them will be the distance between them. The number is immaterial as long as you are consistent with using the same number throughout or have a good conversion table of grapes/yd.

If 'A' and 'B' are moving relative to each other then you will be hard pressed to find a proper distance between them unless you freeze time so they can be measured for a specific time period. That way you have coordinates and time measured.

The problem, as I see it, is you are talking about tremendous speed over great distances and trying to ask about a short distance frozen in time.

Ask a better question.

1 Reply

The Red Shift without Expansion

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know