MPMin

It probably wasn’t wide spread, apparently the lead poisoning was associated with the ruling class as the syrup, I think was called ‘sapa’ was reserved for the aristocracy.

I read it in a chemistry text book a long time ago. If I remember it correctly, the Romans would reduce old wine in lead vats which created a sweet syrup, this syrup was apparently a highly desirable condiment. It was proposed in the text, that this syrup contained significant amounts of lead acetate which apparently tastes sweet.

I read that lead poisoning may have been a contributing factor to the fall of the Roman Empire.

To determine which way the galaxies were spinning with reference to our galaxy, they’d all have to be on the same plane as our galaxy, im pretty sure that’s not the case. If the galaxy was infinite and the mass was distributed more or less homogeneously, then I think my hypothesis wouldn’t work as net effect of the universe’s gravity would be zero at any given point, but that’s only on the assumption that the gravity of the collective universe is acting directly on the photons. And if the universe was a spherical then for all distant objects to be roughly redshifted equally in all directions from earth then that would suggest we’re at the Center of the universe, but if that were the case then I would have thought that all distant objects would be blue shifted as the photons would pulled to towards the Center of the universe. Perhaps it’s the collective gravity of the distant universe that’s stretching empty space between the masses, as you described I think, that’s causing the redshift?

Perhaps I’m not understanding your analogy properly, but if you had a finite tank of water, and produced ripples in that tank, I dont think there is any extra water that fills in any gaps, because the water in the tank remains the same. I presume that the ripples would create a greater surface area, not by stretching the surface, but rather just exposing water molecules that were previously beneath the surface before the ripples began. Im of the understanding that the CMBR was produced when the electrons discharged their surplus energy as radiation when they stabilised around atoms as the universe was expanding.

Shaking down risen bread (deflation) is usually only a problem when the bread has been over proofed or over hydrated. To anyone who wants to get serious about making bread at home I highly recommend investing in a decent heat sink, which will also double as an excellent pizza stone (steel).

If stars or galaxies are blue shifted because they are moving towards us in an expanding universe are not exceptions, then what are they? My hypothesis doesn't prevent the universe from being fluid, if the universe is not expanding then its more likely you'll see blue shifting of closer objects in a fluid galaxy. Gravitational red shifting would still apply to more distant objects.

If that falsifies my hypothesis then doesn’t that also contradict the bbt as well? Or, if there are exceptions to the bbt, then perhaps the same exceptions could apply in all cases.

Perhaps we are talking at crossed purposes, or I’m simply not understanding the connection, or the difference between the information that we receive as electromagnetic radiation from distant stars, and the electromagnetic radiation that we receive from the CMBR? We receive information about both stars and CMBR in the same form. Perhaps the CMBR is not evenly dispersed through out the universe because matter is not evenly dispersed through out the universe, or perhaps its the uneven distribution of matter that causes the uneven distribution of the CMBR. The confusion from my perspective is why does my hypothesis need to explain anything about the CMBR when my hypothesis only describes that the redshift in all electromagnetic radiation might only be caused by the collective mass of the universe red-shifting all electromagnetic radiation from our perspective on earth?

Perhaps for the same reason that the dispersion of matter throughout the universe is not completely smooth and uniform either.

If you are talking about starting bread in a cold oven then consider two things, one is that the proofing and rising temperatures will be similar to the cold oven, the other is how long the oven takes to reach baking temperature, the longer it take to heat up the greater the adverse effects will be. if you take bread that’s ready to be baked but place it in a cold oven, as the oven begins to heat up, the yeast will continue making gas until the yeast reaches about 30C, as the heat transfer will take longer to reach the centre due to the low initial temperature, you’ll have yeast still making gas on the inside while the outside is beginning to set, this will most likely result in the loaf splitting open. The extended time in the oven will most likely result in a much thicker and dryer crust and a dryer bread over all. Baking bread normally but ending the baking 5 mins earlier will most likely result in a doughy under cooked centre. As for cakes, unlike breads, cakes lack the gluten structure of breads and can not hold bubbles of gas as well as bread does, also, gas production in cakes starts the moment an acid is introduced to the bicarbonate, that means gas production begins to decrease from the commencement of production, hence starting a cake in a cold oven will most likely result in a mud cake like texture as most of the gas would most likely escape before the cake has had a chance to rise and set.

My proposed hypothesis describes the effect on electromagnetic radiation, therefore, my hypothesis would have the same effect on all electromagnetic radiation including the CMBR.

I don’t understand why my hypothesis must include an explanation for the CMBR, considering that it has already been established in this thread, that the cmbr may have alternative explanations, that do not rely on the bbt.

As the CMBR can have other explanations other than the BBT, why then, does my hypothesis need an ad hoc extra explanation of the CMBR? Okhams razor states that the simplest explanation is usually the best one, I’ve kept my hypothesis simple as per Okhams razor.

Are you saying that my hypothesis doesn’t work because my hypothesis didn’t account for the CMBR, even though the CMBR could have alternative explanations?

Apologies for the crude drawing. Assuming the black squiggly lines represent the mass of the universe, the mass of the universe is evenly dispersed, the blue dot is the earth, the red arrow is light from a distant star, we’re looking top down with respect to the direction of the light. I’d argue that when the light arrives at earth, it’s slightly closer to the mass of the universe, from the direction it came from, than it is from the rest of the mass of universe that would be attracting it. The Big Bang might account for the CMBR, but does that exclude any other possible explanation for the CMBR?

I didn’t account for CMBR. Can the CMBR only be explained by the Big Bang event? I suspect there’s no way of testing such a hypothesis?

Hello Everyone, I would like to propose that the universe might not actually be expanding but only appear to be expanding. Let’s set aside the redshift information for moment and let’s assume that the universe is relatively static and roughly uniform in composition throughout. And let’s also assume that the universe much much bigger than we currently believe it to be. If the universe was as described above, wouldn’t the collective gravity of outer universe cause light to redshift from our perspective on earth thus creating the illusion that the universe is expanding? Perhaps the more distant the light source is, the more of the universe’s mass acts on the light giving the illusion that the outer inverse is expanding faster the further away it is. If the collective gravity of the outer universe couldn’t be causing the redshift, then perhaps light just redshifts due to the distance it must travel and as such redshifts more in proportion to the distance it must travel. Just thought I’d ask. I’m curious to hear why the above scenarios couldn’t be a possibility. Thanks everyone.

To be fair to everyone, I’m very confused by many aspects of this thought experiment. The original thought experiment by Einstein, or should i say the most common version of his thought experiment that I’ve seen only discusses Einstein on a train moving away from a clock towers and what Einstein sees the clock do as he recedes away from the clock. That left too many unknowns for me and i wanted to know to what if there was another clock tower in the opposite direction, left me wondering what Einstein would see the approaching clock do as well as, and, what if Einstein also had a clock with him the whole time what would Einstein’s clock be seen to be doing. To help my self understand the unknowns Ive elaborated on the thought experiment in attempt to understand all the other possible aspects of the thought experiment. As I’m getting confused with all the relativistic points of view I thought it might help to use times as shown on a clock with reference to some kind of synchronisation to help me understand it more practical terms. One aspect of the thought experiment is the synchronisation of all the clocks. The thought experiment is intended to be what each observer should see from their own frame of reference when clock C moves from clock A to clock B, where clock B is positioned one light minute away from clock A. With regards to synchronising all the clocks, the only way I can think to synchronise the clocks was to have them all together and synchronising them all from the same frame of reference before moving clock B 1 light minute away before the experiment starts. Perhaps another way to synchronise all the clocks is to firstly position clock B 1 light minute away then observer B sets their own clock being clock B in their own frame of reference to 10:01:00 when observer B sees that clock A strikes 10:00:00 from observers B frame of reference. I suspect that the synchronisation of the clocks would need to be resolved before considering the times shown on the clocks. To keep things less confusing I would prefer to consider the clocks and their respective observers to be the one and the same entity, so that clock A is also observer A and so on for all clocks, so as to remove any confusion about where the observers are in relation to their own clocks and therefore would consider that what each clock/observer always sees what they see from their own frame of reference. I’m going to assume that clock B has been positioned 1 light minute away from clock A. Clock C is positioned at clock A. Clock B synchronises its own clock with clock A by setting his own to 10:01:00 when B sees clock A to display 10:00:00, clock C is synchronised with clock A as clock A and C are right next to each other. From the A’s frame of reference, clock C leaves clock A at 10:00:00 according to clock A, and clock C instantaneously starts travelling towards clock B at 50% speed of light. If my description makes sense thus far, from B’s perspective, B sees clock B to display 10:01:00 and sees clock A and C both to display 10:00:00 and sees clock C just leave clock A. From A’s perspective, A sees clock A and C to display 10:00:00 while seeing clock B to display 10:01:00. At that moment clock C leaves at 50% speed of light towards B At the half way point from A’s frame of reference, A sees clock A to display 10:00:30 while seeing clock C to display 10:00:15 and sees clock B to display 10:01:30 At the half way point from C’s frame of reference, C sees clock A to display 10:00:15 and clock C to display 10:00:07.5 and sees clock B to display 10:00:45 At the half way point from B’s frame of reference, B sees clock A and C to display 10:00:00 and C just leave A and sees his own clock B to display 10:01:00 When C arrives at B from A’s frame of reference, A sees clock A to display 10:01:00, A sees clock C to display 10:00:30 and clock B to display 10:02:00 When C arrives at B from C’s frame of reference, C sees clock A to display 10:00:30, C sees his own clock to display 10:00:15 and clock B to display 10:01:00 When C arrives at B from B’s frame of reference, B sees clock A to display 10:01:00, B sees clock C to display 10:00:15 and his own clock C to display 10:00:30 This all seems wrong but some help would be greatly appreciated please. from here I just can’t resolve what all the other observers should see. I know Janus provided a detailed description but I’m personally unable to equate his description into the practical times each clock would display at each stage being beginning, middle and end from each observers frame of reference.

Thanks Janus for your detailed reply. It’s just occurred to me that defining the synchronisation of the clocks it’s self is a conundrum to me. I can imagine that if all clocks were in the same proximity that they could all be synchronised together. Let’s assume we synchronise all clocks while they are together and then before the experiment starts, we move clock B and observer B 1 light minute away while leaving Clock A and Clock C begins with their respective observers. Would clock B still be synchronised with clocks A and C after it reaches its position 1 light minute away and does it matter how long it took for clock B to reach its position as to how much the synchronisation changed if at all. Let’s assume that clock and observer C are due to depart clock A at 10:00:00am in A’s frame of reference. I’m going to take another stab in the dark and assume that if the clocks were all synchronised (without taking into account the effect of moving clock B into position had on the original synchronisation) as observer B is 1 light minute away from clock A, when observer B sees clock A strike 10:00:00, clock B will be seen as displaying 10:01:00 by observer B in his own frame of reference. If clock A and C show the same time when Clock C departs at 10:00:00am in A and C’s frame of reference, When C is half a light minute away, does that mean that from A’s frame of reference that C is half way through its trip to B? Does it mean that from C’s frame of reference, it has already arrived at B? If getting any of this, that should mean that when C arrives at B that, observers C and B will see clock C as being 10:00:30 while Clock B will be 10:01:30 and observers C and B will see that clock A is 10:00:30 from C and B’s frame of reference. Observer A from A’s frame of reference will see that clock C as showing 10:00:15 while seeing clock B to be showing 10:00:30? Suspect I’ve got it all wrong though.

Thanks again for your reply. I’m just going to reiterate what you are saying in my layman’s terms to confirm my understanding. If I’m getting it wrong please correct me. Using the previous scenario where all clocks are synchronised before C departs from A, lets assume C departs from A at 50% speed of light and lets assume acceleration happens instantaneously (just to skip the effects of the acceleration phase and to only consider the constant speed phase). Let’s assume that from A’s frame of reference, C takes 1 min to travel from A to B travelling at 50% speed of light. Let’s also assume all clocks are always within their respective observers frame of reference and to be clear the scenario only describes what each observer sees as per the light that enters the eye. As soon as C departs A at 50% speed of light, from A’s frame of reference, A sees clock C ticking 50% slower than his own clock at A and observer C from his own frame of reference sees clock A ticking 50% slower than his own clock at C. Observer C from his own frame of reference never notices any change to the rate of ticking of his own clock. From the moment that C departs A, observer C from his own frame of reference sees clock B ticking 50% faster because C is encountering more light pulses from B as C moves towards B I’m going to use my intuition to make these next assumptions but i would imagine that, as soon as C left A at 50% speed of light, B would see that C was still stationary at A until C had reached the half way point in terms of distance between A and B. As C passes the half way point, observer A would see that 30 seconds had elapsed on his own clock at A but only 15 seconds had elapsed on clock C. I’m still assuming that, At the half way point observer C sees that only 15 seconds has elapsed on his own clock and only 7.5 seconds has elapsed on clock A from C’s frame of reference. As C passes the half way point, observer B sees C just leaving A, even though C left A 30 seconds ago from A’s frame of reference and 15 seconds ago from C’s frame of reference. Observer C has also seen clock B ticking faster for the past 15 seconds from his own frame of reference. When C arrives at B 60 seconds would have elapsed for observer A from their own frame of reference, 30 seconds would have elapsed for observer C from their own from of reference and 30 seconds would have elapsed for observer B at their own frame of reference. When i start thinking about what each observer would have seen the times to have been at each stage I can’t resolve the time differences.

Thank you all for your contributions. I think I’m still not understanding the relationship between C and B where C is approaching B with reference to A. It’s been noted that observer C sees clock B to be running slower than clock C while travelling towards B with reference to A. However, when both observer C and clock C arrive at clock B, All observers agree that clock C is behind clock B even though observer C saw clock B behind clock C until they arrived at B. It would seem that observer C sees clock B running behind clock C, but as soon as they arrive at B, Clock B must suddenly show the time being ahead of C. Is this correct, or am I missing something?

Thank you for your in-depth reply. I think I am understanding the relativistic relationships between A and C in that they are both effectively moving away from each other and it doesn’t matter that C is moving from A to B, as far as C is concerned, A is effectively moving away from C just as C is moving away from A therefore the effect is the same to both A and C observers. The same relativistic relationship thus exists between B and C except they are moving towards each other. If all three clocks were synchronised before C departed from A, would they all still be synchronised when C arrives at B? I think I can safely assume that A and B would have remained synchronised. In the situation that B is observing C coming towards B, both C and B observe each other’s respective clocks ticking slower than their own respective clocks. However, if there is a discrepancy in the synchronisation between C and B when C arrives at B, how does this discrepancy occur when the moving clocks appear to tick slower to each observer than each of the observer’s respective clocks? To exaggerate the question, imagine that all clocks are synched before C departs from A, and imagine that from B’s perspective, it takes C 1 minute move from A to B, and C happens to move at 50% of the speed of light for the whole trip. Would that mean that when C arrives at B that clock B would be 30 seconds ahead of clock C? And if so, how is it that clock B ticked 30 seconds more than clock C when observer C had been observing clock B to be ticking slower than his own clock at C?

Id like to clarify some of the detail in thought experiment I stated. The intended meaning of ‘perceived’ is ‘as it is seen by the observer’ I have also deliberately omitted the acceleration phase of the train and skipped straight to the constant velocity phase to ignore the effects caused by acceleration at this stage of my understanding. I am also here to learn, please help me understand the following concepts. With reference to the thought experiment: While the train maintains it’s constant velocity towards B and away from A, does observer C experience a slower passage of time compared to both observers at A and B? If time is passing slower for observer C, in that clock C is ticking slower than both Clocks A and B, why doesn’t observer C see clocks A and B ticking faster than clock C?

Does observer C on the train encounter more photons from clock tower B than it does from clock tower A as its heading towards B and away from A?