The Red Shift without Expansion

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

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.

Many brilliant physicists, with much wider knowledge, understanding, and mathematical prowess than the average university professor, take the same view, eh, Max?

Your slavish devotion to what you deem to be orthodox science should embarrass you. No matter what the theory, there are scientifically sound alternative theories, and such things are always debated by, among others, university professors.

For you, the only conceivably "correct" interpretation of catholic doctrine is the Pope, no doubt.

1 Reply

Max, have you ever read Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" (something like that)?

If not, and if you're actually interested in theoretical (as opposed to experimental or "practical") science, you should read it (or others like it, but this one is widely read and particularly well known).

0 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

Your slavish devotion to what you deem to be orthodox science should embarrass you

Science is not religion Layman. There no "orthodox" science. There is only science.

Modern science has been very effective not only in explaining how our universe works, it is also at the core of our modern technology. You wouldn't want to step onto an airplane that is designed by philosophy.

The science that is taught in Universities and is being harnessed to build products, design new technology and expand knowledge is what I am talking about. This science includes Special Relativity (which you are specifically denying). I want people reading this thread to be clear.

There is a scientific community and a scientific process which tests each theory to decide which is valid. The scientific community has rejected the "alternative theories" you are talking about for good reason.

There is no pope in science.

There is mathematics, evidence and experiment. If you reject these, then you are rejecting science.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

This science includes Special Relativity (which you are specifically denying). There is a scientific community and a scientific process which tests each theory to decide which is valid. The scientific community has rejected the "alternative theories" you are talking about for good reason.

Name the "good reason," Max. If you know anything, then you know it is a "philosophical" reason, NOT an empirical one.

But you don't know that, unfortunately.

Quote:

Today LET is often treated as some sort of "Lorentzian" or "neo-Lorentzian" interpretation of special relativity. The introduction of length contraction and time dilation for all phenomena in a "preferred" frame of reference, which plays the role of Lorentz's immobile aether, leads to the complete Lorentz transformation (see the Robertson–Mansouri–Sexl test theory as an example). Because the same mathematical formalism occurs in both, it is not possible to distinguish between LET and SR by experiment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

There is no pope in science.

Other than you, ya mean, right?

1 Reply

@layman,

No Layman, science is not philosophy and the conclusions of science are not "philosophical". The difference between philosophy and science is that the conclusions of science are testable.

You just made up the ideas that you believe based on what sounds right to you. You may have backed them up by Google searches, but you have never claimed to have any type of scientific or mathematical education.

That is the real problem here. You are claiming to refute the accepted science of the scientific community without the ability to understand the basic mathematics that relativity is based on.

I could try to explain to you the error in your understanding of red shift. You need to understand that red shift is a mathematical concept, and that your idea that lower frequency light goes slower is very easy to refute experimentally (in fact, I have done similar experiements myself).

You are not even trying to learn from people who have actually studied science and done the experiments. You are just holding on to the ideas that feel right to you. That isn't how science is done.

0 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

Other than you, ya mean, right?

I was a student of science. My knowledge of science comes from reading the work of Einstein and Feynman and others, learning the math, working through the problems, and doing some of the experiments.

I know what I know, and what I know comes from hard work at a University... not just from making up with feels right and then Googling sources to back up my misconceptions.

1 Reply

Dr. George Smoot, a physics professor at Berkeley and the winner of a nobel prize for his work regarding the cosmic microwave background, says that the CMB serves as a "cosmic rest frame."

Einstein attempted to dispense with the notion of a "preferred rest frame."

Smoot says his findings do not conflict with Einstein, per se, because Al never said that there was no such rest frame, only that he didn't think one could be detected.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

The great thing about science (unlike philosphy or religion) is that it is transparent. Einstein and Feyman don't just tell you what to believe, they work it out mathematically in the open. And when their work is confirmed by experiment, the process, the theoretical framework, the equipment and the results are all published.

If you know mathematics, you can check their work. That is why you should have far more confidence in the scientific community then you have in philosophers.

Of course, if you don't know the mathematics then this isn't accessible to you. But, that is why we have Universities.

1 Reply

@layman,

You are googling again.

I agree with Smoot. He accepts General Relativity as science (I just checked). And, I actually understand what he is talking about.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Einstein and Feyman don't just tell you what to believe, they work it out mathematically in the open.

News Flash, Max: ANY viable scientific "belief" can be mathematically "worked out in the open." That's nothing that's the least bit unique to Al or Dick.

1 Reply

@layman,

Sure, and the ones that are mathematically correct tested and confirmed by experiment are accepted by the scientific community and taught to McGentrix's son in his Physics program. We are now going around in circles.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

You are googling again.

I agree with Smoot. He accepts General Relativity as science (I just checked). And, I actually understand what he is talking about.

No, you clearly don't. You have no clue about the different fundamental assumptions, and therefore the differing necessary logical implications, of LR vs SR. You have repeatedly demonstrated that lack of comprehension in the past.

1 Reply

@layman,

Come on! George Smoot not only believes in General Relativity, as a Physics professor he teaches courses about it and writes papers about it.

http://aether.lbl.gov/www/classes/p139/welcome.html

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

He accepts General Relativity as science (I just checked).

Yeah, so? What's that have to do with SR? GR abandons SR, and Einstein developed GR primarily because he was quite dissatisfied with SR as a theory of relative motion. The speed of light is NOT constant in all frames of reference in the context of GR.

1 Reply

@layman,

These are both mathematical theories. You don't know what you are talking about.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Sure, and the ones that are mathematically correct tested and confirmed by experiment are accepted by the scientific community and taught to McGentrix's son in his Physics program. We are now going around in circles.

Even though you at times concede otherwise, Max, what you also always immediately forget is that EVERY SINGLE experiment which confirms SR ALSO "confirms" LR.

0 Replies

I said earlier that I wasn't going to discuss this topic, one about which you are obstinately and willfully ignorant, with you again, Max.

I went astray. I will retreat to that position.

I guess your incessant assertion of your own infallibility concerning topics about which you have no real knowledge sometimes tempts me to respond too much.

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

I guess your incessant assertion of your own infallibility concerning topics about which you have no real knowledge sometimes tempts me to respond too much.

Actually, let's clear. It is not me that you are arguing against. You are arguing against the entire scientific community. I am just pointing out that given the education, mathematical knowledge, scientific process and experimental confirmation that inform the scientific community... it is likely that you are the one who is ignorant.

(I have already answered your question about Lorentizian Relativity. If there is no possible experimental difference between two theoretical frameworks, than they are equivalent theories. There is no difference between the two. In this case, Lorentz makes the same predictions about time dilation that Einstein makes and they are both correct. But if you can't do the math... neither Lorentz nor Einstein is of any use.

If by LR you are talking about aether drag, then you are experimentally wrong. If you are are talking about LR as contractions of space and time along an aether wind that can't be detected, then you are just talking about another way to state Special Relativity).

1 Reply

In this discussion, I am going to support Max. Special Relativity is the HTIC.

1 Reply

The Red Shift without Expansion

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know