The Red Shift without Expansion

Physics is done by people who have earned Physics degrees. The most interesting work is being done by people with PhD's who are advancing human knowledge. This makes perfect sense. If you want to advance human knowledge in science you need to put the work into mastering the current knowledge. There are no short cuts in science.

In the past 15 years physicists have changed the society by designing the technology to put mobile communications devices in our hands. Physicists have discovered new planets. They have demonstrated quantum entanglement. They have landed rovers on Mars. All of these accomplishments were headed by people with PhDs in Physics or related sciences.

I never finished a PhD. But, I was in a Physics program and I know what is taught. In seven years, I had maybe two courses in philosophy (a philosophy 101, a course on scientific ethics) compared to probably 14 courses in pure mathematics in addition to many mathematically focussed science courses. The philosophy courses were interesting, but no Physics student considers them a necessary part of mastering (or doing) science.

The education that today's physicists are receiving is heavily centered on mathematics, and the scientific ideas that are expressed in mathematics. The ideas being hinted at on this thread are simply not that important, nor are the philosophical implications.

I know that this pisses off philosophers. It is true that scientific advancement often encroaches on ideas that they used to think were their area of expertise. Galileo ran afoul of the philosophical idea of the importance of the Earth. Darwin ran afoul of philosophical ideas on the creation of man... and so on.

But the fact is that Physicists can be educated, have successful careers advancing human knowledge, and land robots on Mars without having much interest in philosophical musings.

That's just too bad for the Philosophers. They aren't nearly as important as they think they are. There is a place for philosophy, especially in areas like ethics and comparative religion. But think of it this way, would you step onto an airplane that was designed by a philosopher?

....you had to quote his school lol how lame.
I quote my own self advancement on the subject...
And yes the tic tac of Being is like a Rubik's cube. It revolves around itself.

Excellent response Max. I think that weve gotten on Alb's bad side (As well as Leadfoot who often misses the diffs between engineering and pure science )
Alb needs to understand that science isnt in the market of just wandering around without ethical compasses that only philosophy sensitive folks can provide.
I often default to the line that"WHENEVER I GET CONFRONTED WITH PHILOSOPHICAL ISSUES, I always say
"That is many pay grades above my level". Im just the barrista in a lab coat, BUT I am in charge. The higher pay grades can always tell me to get lost but not how to do the science

The Dakota pipe line is an issue that wrankled me (as a resource scientist). It should be built , just mot as planned (It should go around the SAND HILLS AQUIFER and the OGALALLA) However, its ethical grounds were paraded until it became a stand-pat political issue by Pres Obama. He, for some reason didnt seek to solve the problem he just became a brick in road to further energy independence. (A geo-philosopher coulda helped here).
Trump, in an effort to stimulate something hes renewed the pipeline BUT-like a petulant kid, hes NOT going to go around the SAND HILLS. NOBODY WINS

Sad, bad decision. Pipeline should be built, BUT it should be movd over about 75 miles.

Jeez, you & Max just keep pounding away on that fallacy ( Max added in the philosophy charge BS).

All I asked for was an understandable illustration of how red shift and constant 'C' fit together. I did not in any way call into question Special Relativity. Not sure if he realized it but Layman provided the illustration in very few words that made that clear to me. (do you or Max wish to challenge the 'stretched light' concept I mentioned?)

I once asked Max for a similar explanation for the reason why the 'electron through the slots' illustration in the books did not match up with the real world example of the color TV CRT. He refused to do anything but lecture me about my ignorance and 'lack of formal education'. Another poster gave me the actual answer which was very simple after which I understood the apparent contradiction perfectly.

The problem here is not anyone's refusal to accept science, it's the high horse you & Max are riding.

Are you saying that the pipeline builders are lying about it following the same path as an existing smaller pipeline? That seems like a pretty good reason for locating it where it is.

Getting the rights and purchasing them along with a new approval for the route you suggest would add a huge cost and delay I'd think.

I've not talked with my son regarding this yet, but my friend and I had a good discussion about this thread.

Like infrablue had explained, light does have many of the same (these are my words recalling our discussion) patterns that sound has. In that, I mean light travels as waves and does something similar to the doppler effect that sound does. As light approaches, the waves are condensed and as they pass, the wave has a different wavelength after passing an observer than when it approaches an observer, thus the red shift which is based on the well known spectrum of Hydrogen. So, like a motorcycle approaching you on a road, it will have a higher sound approaching you and a lower sound after it passes. Same with light.

So far as math goes, Max is all over that. One of his favorite subjects is quantum mechanics and he fondly recalled a class, get this, an entire class, on how E=mC2 was derived and all the math that was behind that simple formula. Einstein had some problems with some of his stuff that has later been proven. It's too bad that he isn't around to see the search for the Higgs Boson and the advances science has made.

So, in long run... Math is very necessary if you are to understand a lot of Physics. He was troubled by Olli being a Cosmologist and not knowing this. He also agreed that there is room in Physics for there to be a God as there is no way to disprove that a God exists. Also, when you get really, really, REALY small, there are some times where you just believe something because you just can't get the math to work, but observations prove something.

TL;DR Physicist 2 backs Max and what he has stated in this thread.

I think your understanding is fundamentally wrong here. Why would it change wavelength just because it passed an observer?

It's the movement of the source relative to the observer that changes the wavelength. Your wording implies that a second observer past the first one would see a different wavelength than the first. (this assumes the second observer is not moving relative to the first)

Your son is named Max? That threw me a bit.

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?

Yes, a very apt comparison. Because it also explains the frequency shift AND the constant speed of light. The speed of sound does not change either just because the source is moving. Same with light now that I have the proper mental picture of things.

Helps to picture the vacuum as not really empty but being a medium through which the wave is traveling. Which I guess is actually the case.

The problem with this is that A and B are not using the same device to measure. If I give A 10 apples and call them apples and I give B 10 oranges and call them apples, while both have 10, I would be comparing apples to oranges... tada!

That's why a physicist will use a specific device to measure something and have that thing comparable to the thing being measured. You wouldn't use a 1 foot ruler to measure the diameter of the Earth and you wouldn't use the speed of light to measure electrons. Then you'd throw some math at it...

Well, yeah, Gent, but how would you answer the question I posed?

Is the distance "really" 200 yards when B measures it, or did he just mismeasure it?

Does the distance between the goalposts shrink when A measures it?

. Nobody said anything about qnyone "lying". Putting a biggr pipeline pushing lots more volatiles (used to keep the stuff flowing) is a STUPID way to transport a fluid over top of a set of clearly vital qnd sensitive aquifers.Parts of it are already declared "Sole Source" aquifers (High Plains members include 3). The Sqfe Drinking water act of 1976 states tht a SOLE SOURCE aquifer shouldnt include any NEW possible sources of contamination. SO, "locating a pipeline next to an existing pipeline" may be convenient for engineering but its really dumass for resource protection.
Pipelines leak quite often (we see the process of "orange peeling" develop leaks in pressure reg in petro pipelines. Also, this particular pipeline will be pumping thicker grades of petroleum to which are added "diluents" (mostly **** like alkanes ). The diluents can separate from the fluid mass and be trnsported FASTER in ground watr than can the petroleum. It becomes a nightmare to clean up.
The revised plans had the pipeline moved away from the Edwards and the Sand Hills aquifers (These two are in "phreatic" communication with the surface water qnd would be contaminated in a few days should a pipeline leak occur)

Water Resources scientists and engineers (their professional organizations) unanimously recommended that the pipeline not become a POTENTIAL TIME BOMB.

Seems that Obama didnt want it any place.

Id been involved in the cases for Ground water cases in California and NJ and Ohio where the costs for cleanup were in the 1/4 Billion dollars. Talk about huge costs a contamination cleanup estimate in the Sand Hills was done by U Tex at Austin qnd they cme up ith severl Billion bucks for heavy cleanup, with an ongoing monitoring nd bqckup systems and rehb of nother Billion every 10 years.

Antimatter may have negative gravity properties, which therefore would fill the intergalactic voids (trying to be as far away from any other particle as possible) which may result in an illusion of dark energy. Antimatter repels everything, even antimatter. This causes continuous "expansion" as antimatter increases the space between itself and creates larger and larger volumes of empty space by repulsion. This may be detectable if we can find gravitational repulsion effects of antimatter particles. This can solve the dark matter problem and matter/ antimatter asymmetry also if true. this repulsive force everywhere in space can potentially help bind matter more tightly in galaxy pockets which can act as a sense/illusion of increased gravity for the galaxies by "pushing" them tighter, which may also solve dark matter.
Antiparticles are distributed throughout the void and repel every type of matter surrounding it.
The universe may not be accelerating, the light from far away galaxies may collide with the antimatter particles in the void every so often, which absorb their energy, giving an illusion of red shifting. The farther away galaxies are the more collisions and therefore more "red shifting".

Thank you, for my part. I have learned much. Very much of this discussion is about how much of the cosmology is pure mathematics of the physics and can we talk of the cosmology without higher physical mathematics.

If we cannot, the cosmology is only for the physicists. But the cosmology i s also philosophy and we must discuss of it with normal, though scientific, language. The physics must be popularized for the philosophers with lesser mathematical understanding. Otherwise the discussion just is impossible.

My question is still without answer. Is it possible to have an explanation for the redshift without the expansion of the universe? I have suggested that it is possible even when the interpretation of it is the going away of the galaxies in the way as Hubble thought, and when the speed of light is constant. It only needs a model of the universe where the space is separated from matter of it, and is infinite (limitless) and with no time.

The question if the evidence can proof or not proof a model is a question of philosophy too. Evidence only fits the model or not. And the model is not good if there always must be more complicated explanations to make it to fit. Better is to form a new model. In cosmology: expansion of the space, singularity, inflation, dark matter, beginning, and so on. Of cause something non-conformist there must be, because the universe is a big riddle, needs infinite thinking which we don't yet master, but not the expanding. The big things need a different understanding and logic, as the little things too, but not the expanding. Only some metric or else expanding that is not really physical, material expanding but follows from the included mathematics.

And the logical fact is that expansion is not an empirical fact. Only the red shift is an empirical fact. The expansion is an interpretation in the context of the prevailing theories.

I agree. I am often amazed to see the number of people who don't agree with this simple observation. They think that any conclusion they may deduce from a set of facts (together with premises they adopt) MUST itself be a "fact."

If we look at the light coming from the most distant galaxies, then course we are seeing things as they were 13 billion years ago, not as they are here and now, on earth.

I can't say I really understand why, but I've read reputable sources who say that the redshift could be adequately explained (without contradicting other known facts) without expansion if atoms were slightly bigger back then.

A lot of changes in our universe can, and have, occur(red) in 13 billion years, so you never really know, eh?

I'm no cosmologist, but I believe we have fairly conclusive evidence of the Big Bang in the detectable background rediation from that event. That suggests that some considerable expansion of the universe has indeed occurred. It is interesting to note that Hubble, the discoveror of the red shift, died believeing the universe was static and that his earlier deduction of an expansion was in error. Since that time accepted views on this question have changed several times. My impression ( I hesitate to say undertstanding) is that most contemporary specualtion centers on various new interpretations & formulations of general relativity. It's fairly easy to postulate so far undetectable masses, forces or energy that may imply this or that favored model, but very hard to put the pieces together in a coherent, self-consistent theory.

I'd never heard that before, George, and it is interesting. I'll have to learn more about his later views sometime.