12

The Red Shift without Expansion

McGentrix

1
Mon 13 Feb, 2017 02:20 pm
@layman,
layman wrote:

Quote:
I don't get why you don't grasp things and I believe it to be an act

I don't think you're following the convo at all, Gent. The picture you posted talks about gravity as a "force" and is describing Newtonian notions of gravity. But nobody was talking about that.

We were discussing how GR, with it's "spacetime curavture," and where gravity is NOT a force, could explain the phenomena.

I am following along just fine. You are trying to get around to some obscure point that you are trying to guide the conversation towards. It would be easier if you just said what you have to say.

Gravity is a curvature in space-time that exerts a force. I am not sure where your issue is.
0 Replies

Krumple

1
Mon 13 Feb, 2017 02:22 pm
@layman,
layman wrote:

Krumple wrote:

layman wrote:

As I said, the total amount of "curvature" over the course of the earth's 25,000 circumference is less than an inch. You say that an object "follows this curve." What curve?

The curve caused by the Earth extends out past the moon. The sun's space curve extends out past the Kuiper belt. The galactic curve extends over 50k light-years.

There ya go again, Krumps, making statements with no argument being offered to support them. The question wasn't even "how far" to begin with. It was a question about how "much" space curvature, not how "far."

But it really wasn't even that to begin with. GR itself says it aint the "space" element, but rather the "time" element of spacetime which causes gravity on earth. Your "explanation" of that ignored the question and started talking about space curvature.

How does "time" cause gravity?

Man I have answered this question probably three times over the course of this thread.

If space is curved a straight line is no longer straight so the distance of travel becomes longer, you know the word longer here is an element of time.

I'm not using time in place of gravity, I'm saying space us curved out past the moon for earth which is why the moon orbits Earth.

I honestly think you need to hang up your armchair physics hobby.
layman

-1
Mon 13 Feb, 2017 03:14 pm
@Krumple,
Krumple wrote:

Man I have answered this question probably three times over the course of this thread.

If space is curved a straight line is no longer straight so the distance of travel becomes longer, you know the word longer here is an element of time.

I'm not using time in place of gravity, I'm saying space us curved out past the moon for earth which is why the moon orbits Earth.

I honestly think you need to hang up your armchair physics hobby.

Heh, say it a thousand times. Then say it a hundred thousand times. Then a million. Are you, at any point, going to cite any reliable authority which supports your claims? Are you ever going to make any attempt to demonstrate that your claims are supported by the facts? Are you ever going to explain the mechanics of how and why this works?

Or are just going to keep making vague proclamations and pretending that, because you are satisfied with "non-answers," everyone else should be too?
layman

0
Mon 13 Feb, 2017 03:19 pm
@layman,
We have gone to the moon without ever, once, having to resort to a GR explanation or GR calculations.

In case you didn't know, Newtonian gravity does NOT rely on, or require, time or space distortions.
layman

-1
Mon 13 Feb, 2017 03:32 pm
@Krumple,
Quote:
If space is curved a straight line is no longer straight so the distance of travel becomes longer, you know the word longer here is an element of time.

1. Distance, in itself, does not involve any notion of time.
2. The circumference of a circle is necessarily longer than its diameter. So what?

SO THAT EXPLAINS GRAVITY, THAT'S WHAT!!!!!

There, I just explained it all. Don't say I didn't. If you forget I will say it again, though, how's that?
McGentrix

1
Mon 13 Feb, 2017 03:39 pm
@layman,
layman wrote:

We have gone to the moon without ever, once, having to resort to a GR explanation or GR calculations.

In case you didn't know, Newtonian gravity does NOT rely on, or require, time or space distortions.

layman

-1
Mon 13 Feb, 2017 03:52 pm
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:

You don't see the point? That's strange.

Newtonian theorists (who may be wrong) explain gravity in terms of a mutual attraction between material objects. This attraction, according to the chart you posted, is called the "force" of gravity.

It explains all there is to explain in terms of local gravitation (within the solar system, let's say).

There is NO "curvature of spacetime" involved. Now you two (I guess you're included, I'm not sure) want to say it's all caused by something that is in no way needed to explain it. You just don't say how.

According to GR itself, as I understand it, curvature of space is NOT what causes the effects of gravity on earth.
layman

-1
Mon 13 Feb, 2017 04:13 pm
@layman,
Quote:
Q: Why does “curved space-time” cause gravity?: A better answer.
Posted on December 11, 2010 by The Physicist
Physicist: The original post is here.

The curvature of space alone has almost no effect on the movement of objects until they are moving really fast. With the exception of only the most extreme cases (black holes), space is very, very close to flat. For example, the total stretching of space due to the Earth amounts to less than 1cm.

One centimeter is less than 1/2 an inch, right? How does that make things "fall?"

According to this guy, it doesn't because it has "almost no effect on the movement of objects."
0 Replies

layman

0
Mon 13 Feb, 2017 05:38 pm
@McGentrix,
I can plot any motion on a piece of graph paper, I suppose, but what does that tell me about motion, as motion?

I can plot ANY two variables that way, so what?

Let's say, for example, that I put water in a pan, and then put the pan on a hot stove burner. The temperature will rise. I can plot the rise on paper. Say, for example, that the temperature of the water after 1 minute has gone from room temperature to 130 degrees. I can put that on a graph.

As time goes by (the longer I leave the pan on the burner) the temperature will just keep rising. I can plot it all out.

But what sense would it make to say the the graph explains the physical cause?

What sense would it make to say, for example, that the water is getting hotter because it is "moving forward in time?"

That is no explanation from any kind of physical (as opposed to mathematical) viewpoint.

The water is getting hotter BECAUSE it's on a hot burner. Not because time exists. Not because of "temperature line" is "warped," or any mystical conception like that.

This is just another example of a case where the geometry/math does nothing to explain the PHYSICS of the phenomenon. It's just a graph on an ordinary piece of paper, for god's sake. It doesn't "cause" the phenomenon. The phenomenon causes the graph to be what it is, not vice versa.
0 Replies

layman

-1
Mon 13 Feb, 2017 05:49 pm
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:

layman wrote:

How does "time" cause gravity?

Seriously? Like 5 posts ago. https://able2know.org/topic/363445-33#post-6363874

Yes, SERIOUSLY.

As soon as you posted that video, Gent, I immediately asked you if you considered it to be an "explanation."

As is frequently the case with respect to your participation in this thread, you didn't really answer the question.

You did, however, point back to it again as if it answered all questions when it really answers none.

Now, I suppose, you will just point back to it again, as though it's all somehow self-explanatory. You can fool yourself into thinking that, if you insist, but include me out of the self-deception, OK?

See the post I just made before this one for the reason I'm saying that. It's what I asked from the beginning, to wit: HOW does time cause gravity?

Pointing to a contrived piece of graph paper does NOTHING, in itself, to answer that question from a PHYSICAL standpoint, but I now doubt that you could possibly understand that.
0 Replies

McGentrix

1
Mon 13 Feb, 2017 07:01 pm
@layman,
layman wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

You don't see the point? That's strange.

Newtonian theorists (who may be wrong) explain gravity in terms of a mutual attraction between material objects. This attraction, according to the chart you posted, is called the "force" of gravity.

It explains all there is to explain in terms of local gravitation (within the solar system, let's say).

There is NO "curvature of spacetime" involved. Now you two (I guess you're included, I'm not sure) want to say it's all caused by something that is in no way needed to explain it. You just don't say how.

According to GR itself, as I understand it, curvature of space is NOT what causes the effects of gravity on earth.

Christ, if you could learn to actually ask a single ******* question you wouldn't get the answers you get. Instead you ask convoluted questions about what ever point you have hidden 10 yards away then quote back to things that have nothing at all involved with what the hell you are saying.

You had no point. You had no question. All you had is a bunch of junk science wanting desperately to be taken as real science.

Then you come back with four different posts that are all just plain dumb. It's llike you are a jr high school kid.

If you want to discuss Newtonian mechanics, then say so. If you don't want the actual definition of gravity, then say so. If you want to question Special Relativity or General Relativity then just ******* say so.

layman wrote:

Quote:
Q: Why does “curved space-time” cause gravity?: A better answer.
Posted on December 11, 2010 by The Physicist
Physicist: The original post is here.

The curvature of space alone has almost no effect on the movement of objects until they are moving really fast. With the exception of only the most extreme cases (black holes), space is very, very close to flat. For example, the total stretching of space due to the Earth amounts to less than 1cm.

One centimeter is less than 1/2 an inch, right? How does that make things "fall?"

According to this guy, it doesn't because it has "almost no effect on the movement of objects."

According to what guy?

This guy who in the very next paragraph said this:
Quote:
In almost all cases the vast majority of an object’s movement is tied up in its forward movement through time. The curvature of spacetime (not just space) is responsible for gravity. Literally, near heavy objects, the “future direction” points slightly down

layman wrote:

I can plot any motion on a piece of graph paper, I suppose, but what does that tell me about motion, as motion?

I can plot ANY two variables that way, so what?

Let's say, for example, that I put water in a pan, and then put the pan on a hot stove burner. The temperature will rise. I can plot the rise on paper. Say, for example, that the temperature of the water after 1 minute has gone from room temperature to 130 degrees. I can put that on a graph.

As time goes by (the longer I leave the pan on the burner) the temperature will just keep rising. I can plot it all out.

But what sense would it make to say the the graph explains the physical cause?

What sense would it make to say, for example, that the water is getting hotter because it is "moving forward in time?"

That is no explanation from any kind of physical (as opposed to mathematical) viewpoint.

The water is getting hotter BECAUSE it's on a hot burner. Not because time exists. Not because of "temperature line" is "warped," or any mystical conception like that.

This is just another example of a case where the geometry/math does nothing to explain the PHYSICS of the phenomenon. It's just a graph on an ordinary piece of paper, for god's sake. It doesn't "cause" the phenomenon. The phenomenon causes the graph to be what it is, not vice versa.

This has nothing to do with anything what so ever. It's stupid.

layman wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

layman wrote:

How does "time" cause gravity?

Seriously? Like 5 posts ago. https://able2know.org/topic/363445-33#post-6363874

Yes, SERIOUSLY.

As soon as you posted that video, Gent, I immediately asked you if you considered it to be an "explanation."

As is frequently the case with respect to your participation in this thread, you didn't really answer the question.

You did, however, point back to it again as if it answered all questions when it really answers none.

Now, I suppose, you will just point back to it again, as though it's all somehow self-explanatory. You can fool yourself into thinking that, if you insist, but include me out of the self-deception, OK?

See the post I just made before this one for the reason I'm saying that. It's what I asked from the beginning, to wit: HOW does time cause gravity?

Pointing to a contrived piece of graph paper does NOTHING, in itself, to answer that question from a PHYSICAL standpoint, but I now doubt that you could possibly understand that.

TIME DOESN'T CAUSE GRAVITY! For fucks sake. You can't possibly be this big of a dumb ass. Stop asking how Time causes gravity. It doesn't. You got that? Say it with me out loud... "TIME DOESN'T CAUSE GRAVITY!"

You understand that now, yes? You won't need to ask that ever again, right?

Gravity is caused by a bend in SPACETIME That is a different word, words mean things and you should know that now. SPACETIME DOES NOT EQUAL TIME. That video perfectly explains and answers your question. Go watch it another dozen times, then get a friend to help you understand it. Is it an explantion? YES, It's AN explanation. Do not cmae back at me saying that there are exceptions and I claimed that video didn't answer every question or solve every problem. It's not meant to. It's not THE explanation, it's AN explanation.

Now, one last time, repeat after me, "TIME DOESN'T CAUSE GRAVITY!"

You got that, right?
Krumple

1
Mon 13 Feb, 2017 07:25 pm
@layman,
layman wrote:

Quote:
If space is curved a straight line is no longer straight so the distance of travel becomes longer, you know the word longer here is an element of time.

1. Distance, in itself, does not involve any notion of time.
2. The circumference of a circle is necessarily longer than its diameter. So what?

SO THAT EXPLAINS GRAVITY, THAT'S WHAT!!!!!

There, I just explained it all. Don't say I didn't. If you forget I will say it again, though, how's that?

There are obvious consequences to what I have been pointing out. If an object has a constant velocity in space completely free of any field of mass, it will travel in a straight line. Also when it enters a field of mass it continues to follow a "straight" line which is bent due to the curving of that space around the mass.

So the moon is actually traveling in a straight line which is bent by the curvature of space around the Earth. So it just appears to be elliptical but it's really straight.
0 Replies

layman

-1
Mon 13 Feb, 2017 07:34 pm
@McGentrix,
Well, I have talked about what spacetime is before, Gent, but either you didn't read it, or else you just didn't understand it.

At this point I don't know if you're that STUPID, or if it just makes you feel right to call someone else stupid. You can't seem to grasp the simplest points, and you never even know what the question is.

https://able2know.org/topic/363445-33#post-6360778
https://able2know.org/topic/363445-33#post-6360798
https://able2know.org/topic/363445-33#post-636096

I ask a simple question, and someone else acts like they're "responding" by changing the topic. And, yes, it gets quite convoluted after that. Why do you people REFUSE to answer direct questions, and instead just keep changing the topic.

Quote:
In almost all cases the vast majority of an object’s movement is tied up in its forward movement through time. The curvature of spacetime (not just space) is responsible for gravity. Literally, near heavy objects, the “future direction” points slightly down.

Are you going to act like that's a PHYSICALLY meaningful sentence? If so, explain to me how any of it explains the motion of a ball dropped off of a 10 story building. Merely parroting an agglomeration of abstract words doesn't explain anything.

Quote:
This has nothing to do with anything what so ever. It's stupid.

No, its not stupid, and you must be stupid for thinking it is.

Why does the temperature of the water in the pan rise?

a. Because the motion of the temperature is tied up in its forward movement through time. BUZZ, wrong.
b. Because the "future direction" of the temperature points up. BUZZ, wrong.
c. Because I have turned a dial on my demonstration kit, and have twisted the temperature line on the graph. BUZZ, wrong.
d. Because heat from a burner is constantly being transferred to it. BINGO, correct.

Quote:
Gravity is caused by a bend in SPACETIME That is a different word, words mean things and you should know that now. SPACETIME DOES NOT EQUAL TIME.
I'm quite aware of that and said so a long time ago, as you would know if you actually read any of my posts.

Quote:
That video perfectly explains and answers your question. Go watch it another dozen times, then get a friend to help you understand it.

HAHAHAHA.

Quote:
Now, one last time, repeat after me, "TIME DOESN'T CAUSE GRAVITY!"

Good to know. We know it's not the "space" aspect of spacetime that causes gravity, and now we know it's not the "time" aspect of spacetime either.

So explain to me what DOES cause gravity? I said "explain," not repeat some magical incantation consisting of some esoteric word concoction, OK?

But, please, don't try to tell me that lines on a piece of graph paper explain it, OK?
Krumple

1
Mon 13 Feb, 2017 07:37 pm
@McGentrix,
I spent two pages going over light speed consequences with him.

What's going on here is that he doesn't like or accept SR and thinks SR states gravity isn't a force, and time takes the place of gravity. But the problem is he us neglecting the affect mass has on space. This impact affects time.

The greater the mass the slower time for its reference frame.

The closer you are to the center of mass the slower time "ticks" for that reference frame.

The greater velocity an object has the slower time "ticks" for that objects reference frame.

All these above have been explained to him in depth but he jumps around or attacks it from a nonexistent argument point. He will reference time when it's irrelevant and when distance is important he will leave it out.

He asked how an object can increase velocity as it gets closer to the center if mass if another object with more mass. I explained it at length several times with no acknowledgement.

Hes simply not cut out for understanding physics even at the high-school level.

I bet he would have to look up what 9.8m/sec^2 is in reference to.
layman

-1
Mon 13 Feb, 2017 07:51 pm
@Krumple,
Krumple wrote:

I spent two pages going over light speed consequences with him.

What's going on here is that he doesn't like or accept SR and thinks SR states gravity isn't a force, and time takes the place of gravity. But the problem is he us neglecting the affect mass has on space. This impact affects time.

You, as you prove yet again, don't know the difference between SR and GR. You, as you prove once again, can't understand a word I say. SR doesn't have a ******* thing to do with gravity. Do you actually think otherwise?

The greater the mass the slower time for its reference frame.

There is a direct correlation, yes, but mass has no direct connection to time dilation.

The closer you are to the center of mass the slower time "ticks" for that reference frame.

OK, this is per GR--which has nothing to do with SR

The greater velocity an object has the slower time "ticks" for that objects reference frame.

OK, this is SR--which has nothing to do with GR

All these above have been explained to him in depth but he jumps around or attacks it from a nonexistent argument point. He will reference time when it's irrelevant and when distance is important he will leave it out.

He asked how an object can increase velocity as it gets closer to the center if mass if another object with more mass. I explained it at length several times with no acknowledgement.

Hes simply not cut out for understanding physics even at the high-school level.

Heh, you are a pompous fool who likes to pretend to understand things which you have no real clue about. Anyone with real understanding would know the difference.

Quote:
"Education, n.: That which discloses to the wise and disguises from the foolish their lack of understanding."

0 Replies

layman

-1
Mon 13 Feb, 2017 08:04 pm
@layman,
Quote:
So explain to me what DOES cause gravity?

Because they fall, son, that's why.
OK, thanks Dad. You're a genius!
0 Replies

layman

-1
Mon 13 Feb, 2017 09:36 pm
@layman,
Quote:
Good to know. We know it's not the "space" aspect of spacetime that causes gravity, and now we know it's not the "time" aspect of spacetime either.

For the record, I didn't really mean this, as it relates to "time," as was made clear by my first post on this topic, some pages back.

What is the difference between

1. Newton's two distinct notions of (A) space--consisting of three dimensions and (B) the separate (for him) notion of time, and
2. The Minkowskian notion of space-time--consisting of the fictional 4th dimension of time being mashed together with the three of space?

I've already addressed that in prior posts, but a clear understanding of the difference is crucial to understanding what this physicist is saying.

What is he saying? Well, first this: "The curvature of space alone has almost no effect on the movement of objects..." OK, so it's not 'space alone." So, what is it?

He says: "The curvature of spacetime (not just space) is responsible for gravity." So, again, he says it not "just space." So what else?

He says; "Well, there is some effect caused by spacial movement and the spacial part of the curvature, but these effects are almost completely overwhelmed by the effects from the time component of the velocity (much, much bigger)."

Read this carefully; He is saying that some (very slight) proportion of the "spacetime curvature" is the "spacial part.'

So then, what's the other part, that is not the "spacial part?"

He says: ...these effects are almost completely overwhelmed by the effects from the time component of the velocity (much, much bigger).

So, you have:

1. a "space component" with very little effect and
2. a "time component" with a "much, much bigger" effect.

That's it. Just the time and space componnents which together form "spacetime." There are no other "components" encompassed by the "spacetime" concept.

This is exactly what I said when I first posed the question. What response do I get? Krumps comes straight back and tells me it's all due to the curvature of space, which it aint. The "curvature of space" is virtually non-existent on and around earth.

Quote:
...space is very, very close to flat. For example, the total stretching of space due to the Earth amounts to less than 1cm.
0 Replies

Fil Albuquerque

2
Sun 16 Sep, 2018 12:02 pm
Red Shift 101 for noobs:

0 Replies

Jewels Vern

0
Mon 24 Dec, 2018 03:08 pm
@Olli S,
Yes, there are other possible causes of red shift.

If you want to discuss science, you need to learn some science. Swapping uninformed opinions is not good enough.
0 Replies

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King