The Red Shift without Expansion

@farmerman,

Yeah I know. That's why I called it the 'far end' in semi quotes. The question just means a far away star that is going away from us in the expanding universe.

Quit'cher nit picking.

0 Replies

@layman,

I have no idea what you just went on about so I turned to some porn.
I think I handled the "we are therefore applied philosophers" way back.

0 Replies

@layman,

layman wrote:

Well, Leddy, ya know, I can drive at a speed of 100 mph all day long and it will still take me longer to go 200 miles than 100 miles.

That said, one alternate theory is that distant galaxies are not moving away from us and that the redshift is explained by the fact that light "gets tired" and loses energy over distance, because it has to plow through particle-invested "space" which slows it down.

Your hypothetical presupposed that it was moving away:

Quote:

I'll give a scenario: Someone on a star at the 'far end' of the universe (speeding away from us) sends a 5 second burst of light of a known spectra.

In that scenario the light is not slowing down. The 5 seconds bursts are just being emitted from increasingly remote distances, and, for that reason, do not reach us every 5 seconds.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

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.

1 Reply

@layman,

Not sure I followed. I was postulating a single 5 second (or any other fixed duration) burst for the sake of simplicity.

When it gets here, is it still 5 seconds long in your model?

1 Reply

Oh ****, the pope is back on his throne again.

Well I guess that tells me he doesn't know the answer so I'll have to look elsewhere for someone who does.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

Not sure I followed. I was postulating a single 5 second (or any other fixed duration) burst for the sake of simplicity.

When it gets here, is it still 5 seconds long in your model?

No, because even during the 5 seconds it was being emitted, it's distance was increasing--it was farther away after 1 second than it was initially, and so on.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

The gifted physicist R. Feynman once said that if you can't explain something in layman's terms then you don't really understand it yourself.

It is funny that you quote Feynman and Einstein in an attempt to make your argument against mathematics, education and the scientific establishment (in your google searches taken out of context).

Both Einstein and Feynman worked in Mathematics, earned PhD's an0d were accepted by the scientific establishment because their work produced testable results.

I have read Feynman's lectures on Physics (which are a masterpiece). I have also read Einstein's scientific papers, and I have worked through the mathematics of Einstein field equations and Feynman diagrams. Both of these men accept General Relativity and the scientific process you are disparaging.

I agree with Feynman about mathematics when he says "it is difficult to get accross a real feeling as to the beauty, the deepest beauty, of nature" to someone does not know mathematics.

Richard Feynman wrote:

To summarize, I would use the words of Jeans, who said that "the Great Architect seems to be a mathematician". To those who do not know mathematics it is difficult to get across a real feeling as to the beauty, the deepest beauty, of nature. C.P. Snow talked about two cultures. I really think that those two cultures separate people who have and people who have not had this experience of understanding mathematics well enough to appreciate nature once.

It is too bad that it has to be mathematics, and that mathematics is hard for some people. It is reputed - I do not know if it is true - that when one of the kings was trying to learn geometry from Euclid he complained that it was difficult. And Euclid said, "There is no royal road to geometry". And there is no royal road. Physicists cannot make a conversion to any other language.

If you want to learn about nature, to appreciate nature, it is necessary to understand the language that she speaks in. She offers her information only in one form; we are not so unhumble as to demand that she change before we pay any attention.

All the intellectual arguments that you can make will not communicate to deaf ears what the experience of music really is. In the same way all the intellectual arguments in the world will not convey an understanding of nature to those of "the other culture". Philosophers may try to teach you by telling you qualitatively about nature. I am trying to describe her. But it is not getting across because it is impossible. Perhaps it is because their horizons are limited in the way that some people are able to imagine that the center of the universe is man...

2 Replies

@layman,

OK, that would make it 'stretched light' instead of 'slow light'.

I guess that would satisfy Hubble, Einstein, et al.

0 Replies

@layman,

To understand what redshift is, you need to understand what a Fourier Transform is. When you understand what a Fourier Transform is, then you will see how ridiculous your musings about "tired light" are.

Redshift is a mathematical concept, and one you clearly don't understand.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

It is funny that you quote Feynman and Einstein in an attempt to make your argument against mathematics, education and the scientific establishment (in your google searches taken out of context).

Jeeze man, you can't even tell that I'm asking a question and trying to understand something rather than refuting mathematics.

And I still noticed you made no attempt to answer the question.

And you have no idea what I do and do not know about math so get off your ******* throne.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Feynman also said this (and similar things) about math, eh, Max:

Quote:

Some things that satisfy the rules of algebra can be interesting to mathematicians even though they don't always represent a real situation.

"Satisfying the rules of algebra" does not, as Einstein noted, necessarily tell you a damn thing about the "real situation."

Quote:

Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality. (Nikola Tesla)

This (lack of) relationship has been known from time immemorial; it's nothing new.

Quote:

Mathematics has the completely false reputation of yielding infallible conclusions. Its infallibility is nothing but identity. Two times two is not four, but it is just two times two, and that is what we call four for short. But four is nothing new at all. And thus it goes on and on in its conclusions, except that in the higher formulas the identity fades out of sight. (Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe)

Goethe is basically enunciating the same distinction that Kant later made between analytic (tautological) "truth" (e.g. math) and synthetic truth (e.g. physical facts).

1 Reply

@layman,

You are taking single sentences out of context. Feynman is famous for his work in Physics which was heavily based on mathematics.

You are starting with a feeling and then you are googling for quotes that support what you already feel you know. With today's internet, you can find quotes of famous people saying pretty much anything (especially if you take them out of context).

But it doesn't mean anything. And this certainly isn't how science works.

1 Reply

Oh God, here we go again, another lecture on 'What is Science'...

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

Oh God, here we go again, another lecture on 'What is Science'...

Are you sure your moniker shouldn't be 'Leadhead'?

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

Oh God, here we go again, another lecture on 'What is Science'...

Like I done told Max:

Quote:

...know it or not, you make every pretense to being an expert in the philosophy of science--a field where you obviously have no training whatsoever.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

You are taking single sentences out of context. Feynman is famous for his work in Physics which was heavily based on mathematics.

You are starting with a feeling and then you are googling for quotes that support what you already feel you know.

This isn't how science works.

Just a suggestion here, but if you took the time to read what they are saying and not what you think they are writing you could add more to the conversation. You just can't wave your hands and yell "Math!".

My best friend is a physicist and my son is majoring in Physics now. I had to take Algebra 3 times in high school to graduate and my head doesn't do math very well. That hasn't stopped my desire to learn though and I understand the theories of many different principles in Physics and I can hold my own in conversations with both.

I can't help with the homework, but I can with the guiding principles and the ideas behind what is being discussed and learned. It is quite possible to be able to understand a lot about theoretical physics without knowing the math behind it.

I'm not saying that it's watching a TV without knowing how the electronics work, but it's kind of like that. The idea's of physics CAN be discussed without the math ever being mentioned.

2 Replies

@McGentrix,

First of all I like the new avatar.

I am reading what they are saying. That is why I am objecting so strongly.

The people on this thread are challenging the precepts of Modern Physics. These precepts are accepted by the scientific community and are doubtless being taught to your son, yet Leadfoot and Layman are challenging them. Yet, neither Leadfoot or Layman accept Special Relativity (they can correct me if I am wrong) even though Relativity is at the core of modern Physics.

That is the problem here. They have started with philosophical beliefs and then working backwards to challenge science that they have made no effort to understand. They are relying on Google to pick out quotes and fringe ideas that support their pre-existing beliefs.

Ask your son about how important the principle of Relativity is in his program. The reason that I am objecting so strongly is that in spite of rejecting the basic ideas of Special Relativity, neither Leadfoot or Layman have any understanding of the mathematics that are at the foundation of modern Physics.

Ask your son what his opinion is (after however much time he has spent studying Physics). I would be curious about what his opinion is. But make no mistake, on this thread they are claiming that what he is studying is nonsense. And, if you son has had more than a semester or two in college... he already knows enough to know what I am saying is correct.

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

McGentrix wrote:

It is quite possible to be able to understand a lot about theoretical physics without knowing the math behind it.

By that same token, some people understand a lot about the tautological, mechanical manipulation of mathematical symbols, and yet know virtually nothing about the fundamental theoretical principles of the subject they are applying math to, eh, Gent?

You don't need to know one damn thing about physics, for example, in order to haul out your calculator and solve an equation taken from physics.

1 Reply

@layman,

I agree with this Layman. That is why we have Universities.

The way you learn both the theoretical principles and the mathematics is to study in a University. That way you get experience doing the math, reading and writing papers, doing experiments, getting feedback from professors and peers and solving problems.

You haven't done any of that, yet here you are saying that the scientific community is wrong because they don't match up with some philosophical point you made up.

There are no shortcuts. You learn Physics by studying Physics. Studying physics does not mean finding things on Google that support your misconceptions. McGentrix's son is learning Physics.

McGentrix I am curious. I would honestly like to hear your son's opinion on this.

2 Replies

The Red Shift without Expansion

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know