The Red Shift without Expansion

HTIC, Gent?

I didn't ask a question about LR, but I have already corrected you on this score. They are not "equivalent theories," and there is a very clear difference between the two.

Your never-ending assertions to the contrary merely expose your ignorance. You clearly don't know the difference, because you think there is none. You think there is none, because you have no understanding whatsoever of the fundamental assumptions underlying each. Do some research.

You are making stuff up Layman based not on an education (other than Google), but on what seems right to you.

But I will play along.

What do YOU think is the difference between Lorentzian Relativity and Special Relativity given that there is no experimental way to distinguish between the two?

And why do you insist on saying that you (and a very small fringe you found on Google) understand what the Scientific Community; consisting of the overwhelming majority of students, professors, researchers who have spent years studying don't understand?

Do you believe in aether drag? Or do you believe that spatial and temporal dimensions contract in the direction of an aether wind that always lines up with an experiment so as not to be detectable. I assume you mean the second because the first is easy enough to test experimentally.

I've been meaning to ask you, do you subscribe to the block theory of cosmological time? Meaning, if I understand it, past, present, and future, are all illusions of our consciousness. If it's true, I've never been late for anything.

And then again you keep missing the point. Whatever data you gather that data can only make sense when related to language and concepts. Those Evolve. Science without Philosophy is poor hypothesising and worse at jumping to conclusions, or as Einstein himself said, blind ! Glad you talked about the Dark Matter fantasy because the rotation of galaxies doesn't work as expected. Dark subject indeed...the kind of scientific "philosophy" to we don't know **** about it...

That is outside of the scope of my education Foofie (I did just google it).

I am also not sure if that is a scientific question. Science only deals in things that are testable... but it is likey that a more knowledgable physicist may have more to say on the subject.

We've been through this before, Max, all to no avail. You seem incapable of understanding the difference. All you do is scream about how SR has been proven to be correct (it hasn't) and that other scientists accept it.

Here's a hint. LR does not accept the (absurd) notion of the "relativity of simultaneity" posited by SR. The implications are far-reaching.

Do some research.

As I mentioned before, John Stuart Bell said, decades ago, that the simplest way to resolve the conflict between GR and QM would be to revert to lorentzian relativity. More and more modern physicists contest the validity of SR. One day it will be looked upon kinda like voodoo is today, I figure.

Do you accept this equation as true, Layman?



This equation is easy to prove by experiment.

Fil,

Science is useful for designing airplanes. Humans have learned the laws of nature expressed in mathematics. We have then run the mathematics to design wings, and calculate lift and figure out weight. The design of airplanes are based on the mathematics of science.

And the science is important to get correctly, if you get it wrong the airplane falls.

In philosophy every idea leads to different conclusions and everything can be correct if you define it. There are lots of different philosophies for lots of different cultures. They all work just fine.

Science doesn't work that way. Either the plane flies or it falls. So you had best make sure the mathematics is correct.


This is how science is different than

Einstein stole the lorentz transformations, whole cloth, from Lorentz, who had derived them years before Al came along. The math is the same.

Experiments do not, and can not, "prove math."

Likewise, math does not, and can not, "prove" the validity of a scientific theory.

You didn't answer my question.

Do you accept that equation as being correct?

Your question is inappropriate. Do you accept Euclidean geometry as being "correct?" Sure, it's correct in the sense that it is internally consistent. But that says nothing about whether it's "true" with respect to physical reality and/or that it is always correctly applied to "reality."

Are you aware of the distinction Kant (and many others) made between analytic "truth" and synthetic "truth?" If so, then my response wouldn't be needed.

I see you are not familiar with Philosophy of Mathematics, done by mathematicians, related to, number set theory, Infinity, Zero, and the likes.
Note please that I have the utmost respect for Maths per se but we are far of getting it right. And that my friend is not a problem of Science but one of concepts, Reason, and yes PHILOSOPHY. Its amazing that major figures in Science don't understand just how knee deep they are involved in Philosophy when they do their Science. Again, it shows how specialization in their education short sighted them for basic common sense. Only an UNEDUCATED person would jump at Philosophy or confuse Philosophy itself with poor philosophers. Yes given how hard it is the world is full of junk philosophers. But that is a good sign not a bad one. There is nothing more difficult, more complex, more mind boggling then Philosophy. I am jaw dropping at the amount of ingnoramus flying in this thread and the condescending tone...

...I would bet my head against "God"there is no one around this thread with say, half, frack lets not be shy, a tenth of my understanding when it comes to a complete Cosmogony. I usually don't even bother, because its like talking to turkeys...

...oh well I am out...loosing my time and my patience. Nough !

I agree with your first paragraph, Fil. But knowing your Parmenidean leanings, I certainly don't agree with the second one.

One sentence for you:

There CAN'T be Growth into Nothingness ! ("Parmedian" enough for you?)

Here's two sentences for you, Fil:

1. That which aint, aint.
2. Therefore there is only Being and Becoming is an illusion.

Good luck with that, eh?

HTIC - Head Theory in Charge...

Oh God, another ignoramus spouting ad hominin attacks.

Can't speak for layman but for myself, you're wrong. If you can point out where I said otherwise, please do so. I said myself to the OP that this was science, not religion, so WTF do you mean telling people I'm getting all philosophical?

Do you have an answer to the question of red shift with constant speed of light? That is the ONLY thing I've brought up in this thread.

Layman came up with the only useful illustration of what's going on there so far.

OK, Gent. I agree with that. It is the predominant (so-called "mainstream") view, at this time anyway.

Many physicists have also noted that, at one time at least, to question SR was to commit unforgivable heresy. Watching what happened to others, who were ridiculed by the physics community, dismissed, didn't get promotions, etc., taught other physicists to just keep their mouths shut if they had any reservations about SR. It was hallowed dogma.

Years ago a guy named a very reputable physicist named Dingle got into a well-publicized dispute with his colleagues about the validity of SR. He was denounced as "senile," crazy, etc., and thereafter physicists were obligated to giggle and sneer at the mere mention of his name.

More recently, a Harvard physicist undertook to review the entire controversy as objectively as possible. His conclusion was that, despite the plethora of articles purporting to "refute" Dingle, not a single one of them ever honestly responded to the questions he was raising.