Strange Posted March 26, 2016 Posted March 26, 2016 I have an explanation for the source of the energy termed "Dark Energy" I am very confused. I thought you said you didn't think the universe was expanding. But now you are talking about dark energy. So which is it? You agree the universe is expanding, but think you have an explanation for dark energy? You do realise that dark energy is not the cause of expansion and Hubble's law, don't you? (This seems to be a common misunderstanding.)
shmengie Posted March 27, 2016 Author Posted March 27, 2016 (edited) By lack of further responses, I can only guess ya'll are producing the sound " hmmmm... " DOH, I typed too soon. Strange did respond. I am very confused. I thought you said you didn't think the universe was expanding. But now you are talking about dark energy. So which is it? You agree the universe is expanding, but think you have an explanation for dark energy? You do realise that dark energy is not the cause of expansion and Hubble's law, don't you? (This seems to be a common misunderstanding.) NONONO. I'm going to do a nono, answer a question with a question. What is the cause of the force termed "dark energy?" But that's okay. If you cannot see the point I'm making, that's okay at the moment, it's not self evidently clear. e=mc2 That's simple. It's implications are clear. Relativity on the other hand is a whole different ball of wax. Frankly, I sincerely doubt I could explain any of the concepts of relativity in great detail and make them all crystal clear with such a simple equation. I'm no Einstein. However, because I'm not a physicist who know's he understands the all the concepts involved, I've been afforded a luxurious point of view of asking questions that don't make sense. Which given relativity, none of it makes outright sense, in my opinion. How professor Einstein ever came up with it? That confounds me, but I'm in good company, in that regard. But there's one feature of relativity. It ties many different perspectives of reality together and makes one aspect of reality appear to have two different causes, even tho they're the same thing, evidently it depends on prospective. Its very hard to catch, because they are used in totally different interpretations of the same thing. Everyone keeps asking: Why does the universe look like it's expanding? WRONG. I think they should be asking a different question. Try this one out for GR sizing: Why does it look like it's stretching? Hint, its the same question. But now, my answer makes has a hint of sense to it. When you view it from the perspective of the GR lens, what I've been yelping about works just right. Its pure and its simple. Just because the universe looks a certain way, doesn't mean that's the way it is. Once you understand GR, you can come to terms with what it all, like it or not, doesn't matter. However, if the universe isn't expanding, then what's going on... I think I understand. I'm working on spelling it out. I could be wrong. But I suspect I'm right. It's all really quite simple, or so it seems. But the implications are huge. Einstein himself didn't make the connection, even tho he spelled it out clearly with GR. I didn't invent anything new, other than claiming gravity is the cause for appears as Dark Energy. Others have done the math, I only supplied the logical conclusion. For some reason I like to compare myself to Einstein... But that's not fair, I have advantages over him. Cosmological observations were few in his lifetime. There's more now than one might wish to fully comprehend. He could only hypothesize black holes. I started out believing in them (so to speak). I know I'm no Einstein, he couldn't escape the fact. I suppose I should ask (now???) if an assumption of mine is correct. I believe it is, but the idea could be *wrong* . Is the shift in light, either gravity or doppler really the same phenomena, merely termed different according to perspective? I believe it is, which is paramount to my thesis. I suppose there's nothing wrong with verifying one little itty bitty fact, before publishing it. Edited March 27, 2016 by shmengie
Mordred Posted March 27, 2016 Posted March 27, 2016 Nothing you've stated thus far has any feasibility. Just a lot of useless conjecture with zero understanding. You don't need dark energy to have expansion. Radiation alone can cause expansion. However you choose to ignore the science simply because it doesn't make sense to you. Without any study you assume you can solve something that thousands of professional physicists have trouble solving. Yet without mathematics your ideas is 100% meaningless.
Phi for All Posted March 27, 2016 Posted March 27, 2016 Without any study you assume you can solve something that thousands of professional physicists have trouble solving. Yet without mathematics your ideas is 100% meaningless. It is a bit fascinating that it goes from "This theory has some difficult concepts that don't make sense to me" to "It MUST be wrong!", completely bypassing the normal "Maybe I misunderstood...."
Mordred Posted March 27, 2016 Posted March 27, 2016 (edited) Funny part about that is I tried solving the Cosmological constant based upon a simple thermodynamic property. Any higher energy/density will naturally try to reduce to a lower energy/density. (Although there is no pressure gradient for a net flow, so you can't state pressure causes expansion) You can mathematically maintain a homogeneous and isotropic universe with the above. However you can't keep the cosmological constant.. as constant as observational data shows. Every attempt I've made I've proved wrong with mathematics. I've never posted that theory or published it as I prove my own theories wrong. I dropped the theory nearly 10 years ago, then started studying particle physics, to seek some process to have a constant scalar field. Closest I know of is the Higgs field. So I really do laugh at the fools that feel they can solve a physics problem without knowing any of the required math. Edited March 27, 2016 by Mordred
shmengie Posted March 27, 2016 Author Posted March 27, 2016 (edited) Nothing you've stated thus far has any feasibility. Just a lot of useless conjecture with zero understanding. You don't need dark energy to have expansion. Radiation alone can cause expansion. However you choose to ignore the science simply because it doesn't make sense to you. Without any study you assume you can solve something that thousands of professional physicists have trouble solving. Yet without mathematics your ideas is 100% meaningless. Well, I had hoped you would at least answer the one question I would like affirmed. I understand its a difficult question to grasp. You have already provided mathematical support I need, ironically you chose it, in effort to prove a flaw in my assertion (I will thank you again for that, consider it a heart felt THANK YOU). The question has been answered. It is somewhat ironic the answer was designed to support Lambda-CDM and with GR quandary I use (or perhaps, exploit). I trust the math was applied correctly and the authors many not have realized a consequence of their proof. I don't fault them for that, after all its been hidden in plain sight for nearly a century now, simply by posing the wrong question. BTW: I never would have attempted your solution. I'd have problems mixing the term vacuum with the concept of applying an external outward pressure. But that's probably just me, trying to apply logic to a science I cannot understand. It is a bit fascinating that it goes from "This theory has some difficult concepts that don't make sense to me" to "It MUST be wrong!", completely bypassing the normal "Maybe I misunderstood...." I lost a lot of sleep over that, as you may recall a blathering excited span of my words in this very thread of discussion. I didn't arrive at this conclusion all at once. I chose to seek an answer for Dark Energy ~5~ years ago. 2 years ago I thought I found it. 1 year ago I posted on this board, my first rendition. It made sense to me but I lacked proof and a more comprehensive understanding. There are many assertions for which I simply cannot answer. I'd like to say its not just me, but quite frankly, when one contemplates the universe one finds numerous assertions that lack a complete explanation. That is not my fault in the slightest (I blame god, but lets not bring theology into this). Lets be clear: There are many questions we can pose that must rely on insubstantial assertion. Its not a choice, its an unavoidable fact of ignorance. A brief, yet pertinent list of example: I don't know SS theory well, but believe its list is short opposed to that of BB, so I'll start there. SS consists of a few obvious assertions: What is space? it was, is and will be Examine a short list of BB's assertions. it never was Something banged suddenly, it suddenly was Blew up to infinity (maybe?, looks like it's still growing... obviously hasn't reached infinity) Absurd? I don't know. It clearly explains where to begin, end and where we are, w/out insubstantial assertion? No. There are many more "assUmed" assertions which remain totally unsubstantiated. I believe the list continues in a detailed fashion. At least SS doesn't overly complicate the list by assuming more and more unsubstantiated assertions are science or dare I say "scientific". Light shift is evidence that a bang happened. -unsubstantiated, but logical conclusion. Ironically it's also used as evidence the bang is not constant or that it has inconsistent qualities. Dark Energy exists and is even tho it has no identifiable cause. The fact that it makes up about 68% of all everything, I find highly incomprehensible. BEST unsubstantiatable assertion of Dark Energy: SPACE IS A PROPERTY OF A PHOTON It's not stated as such anywhere that I'm aware . But if space is expanding and affects a photon, it therefor must be a property of said photon. Science a large body of proof that doesn't depend on unsubstantiated assertions? Perhaps Lambda-CDM is science, tho a flexible definition of science must be applied. The one I call "best" is an implicit implication of assumption. Easy to see a cause for confusion with GR, IMO. GR relates to space-time as if they are one in the same. Einstein used the term space-time to avoid confusion of using a term such as distance-time. Its hard to communicate with such a concept, unless a statement like "the distance between distance-time and distance-time coordinates" sounds more natural to you. Space / distance terminology requires a distinction but does not imply space is a property to use in other fashions. Its a very simple straight forward and natural mistake, IMO. But no matter how you stack it, its a mistake, repeated over and over again. It's common practice. Few if any ppl notice. I seem to be in the minority, don't ask me why, I'm not a scientist. I'm pretty sure none of that makes sense to my learned colleagues, because I'm simply not an educated physicist who could possibly possess a capacity to comprehend complicated concepts. Maybe I misunderstood something, oh yeah, somebody said this is science, my bad, perhaps I should apologize. I see it as a consequence of ignorance and blame god, allah and/or budda for an abundant lack of documentation. (It might be wrong to blame budda, but I don't think he'd mind either way.) Maybe we should protest and employ a new reality. Where's my pipe, I want to stick said photon in it and smoke it. Who knows, maybe it's space-time properties will have a positive effect on me. Edited March 27, 2016 by shmengie
Mordred Posted March 27, 2016 Posted March 27, 2016 (edited) Actually photons count as radiation which during the radiation dominant era, photons and neutrinos were the dominant contributions to expansion. Essentially the Universe has always been expanding but the rates have always varied. During the radiation dominant era the primary contributors to expansion was photons and neutrinos. Then matter started slowing down the rate of expansion until the Universe was roughly 7.3 billion years old. After that the Cosmological constant became dominant leading the an accelerated rate of expansion. This isn't to say dark energy wasn't always present, but it's influence was less in the past compared to radiation. I don't count my efforts to solve the cosmological constant wasted. I learned a ton of real physics during those years. However I didn't waste my time by not learning the math. What makes the effort worthwhile was the study and honest effort to learn how the FLRW metric truly works. Learning statistical mechanics and differential geometry. Today I can build most toy model universes, either single component or multicomponent. Examples being matter only, radiation only, lambda only, or any combination. Your postulates on Space is inaccurate, Einstein never stated space is some fabric like property. Space is simply volume, this pinned thread I wrote provides a decent coverage. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/89395-what-is-space-made-of/#entry870133 Edited March 27, 2016 by Mordred
Strange Posted March 27, 2016 Posted March 27, 2016 Is the shift in light, either gravity or doppler really the same phenomena, merely termed different according to perspective? Are you asking if Doppler red shift and gravitational red-shift are the same thing? The answer is no (as far as I know). However, as you have seen earlier, it is possible to describe cosmological red shift in terms of a series of Doppler shifts. I chose to seek an answer for Dark Energy ~5~ years ago. Again: are you talking about expansion or are you talking about dark energy? (They are not the same thing.) Now lets examine a short list of BB's assertions. Never was something banged suddenly was These are not part of the big bang model. it blew up to infinity (maybe, looks like it's still growing, so it obviously hasn't reached infinity yet) The universe may or may not be infinite, we don;t know. That has nothing to do with expansion. If it is not infinite, it is not going to become infinite. If it is infinite, then it has always been infinite.) this one is so absurd You thinking it absurd is irrelevant.
Mordred Posted March 27, 2016 Posted March 27, 2016 To add to Strange comment. All redshifts have some commonality. They all require a change in wavelength, and require invariant speed of light. The difference lies in what causes the change in wavelength.
Strange Posted March 27, 2016 Posted March 27, 2016 And they all involve a change in energy because of relative differences between the source and receiver.
shmengie Posted March 27, 2016 Author Posted March 27, 2016 (edited) 1. 2. 3. almost there. I've got an uphill battle to wadge now. It's not evidently clear that shift in light be it doppler or gravity are essentially the same effect in relativity they boil down to one principle. Change in energy space-mass. That's seems a foreign way to state it, but the for the sake of progress and simplicity it needs to be stated as such. It may be an unintended consequence of GR. But I don't think that matters if its a side effect of GR or more likely of the way reality works, it all boils done to the concept of relativity and how complex, simplicity really is. lolololool It's tough to conceive one thing professor Einstein and a century's worth of work in Lambda-CDM totally missed it, so maybe I did make a discovery after all... I don't think I'm qualified to make such a statement. Seems evident to me that's the general consensus around here. nananana I'm and oxymoron and you're not.... Seems like every thing I say is rubber and I'm glue..... DOH don't know where I'm going with that. Well, I don't know about you but I feel better now. This one really simple solution Einstein devised, only points out GOD has a sadistic sense of humor. Tho, that implies belief in another area, I have issues with a lot of assertions and no viable evidence other that that which remains self evident. When I first conceived this thesis, I grappled with the right and wrong of it. The fact that it was so simple suggested that someone else already should have conceived it by now. I searched for a similar thesis and found a couple that looked promising, but none actually contained it. Went back to grappling write and wrong... concluded it was right and posted what I thought... Got a lot of bloback from you guys, but not a definitive wrong. You used basically same arguments then, w/out as many specific details, but they all remained the same... I'm not a physicist, I know that but thanks for pointing that out too... But I got an idea ppl missed for a long time. It's not real complex if you get what relativity does, but the concepts that mingle are tough to grasp. I get that. Don't necessarily have to be physicist to do that. I expect you get that too, from a slightly albeit different perspective. Teaching physics to a physicist when your not one is tough, too.... I suppose you might get that too. Tho perspectives differ, it still boils down to one basic concept. It's a fook'n relative bitch. -- no offense intended toward female dogs. In a poor attempt to lighten emotions I've liberally used my lousy sense of humor. I've laughed well on occasion, I can only hope you have too. I like simple. Works for me. I don't know who coined this phrase: "Once a thing is know, it simply cannot be unknown" Figuratively, I dance a jig, when I grapple the consequences of that statement and how it applies to my predicament. There is an overwhelming bit of irony in that a lack in application of math has been used to debunk a thesis utilized the ignorance implied to conceive and apply the principle the discovery set forth. I recognize it as an oxymoron of sorts and have liberally applied the term to myself accordingly. If ya'll don't get the humor in that, its okay, I'll likely incorporate it in my thesis anyway. My ass has always been too smart for my own good. But! If one can't take advantage of ones shortcomings, one must understand others likely will. I'm not getting enough sleep. I'm too excited. Hope I get published and can move on... I'm hoping. Been stuck long enough, I would like to move on. Its funny, I don't want to be proven wrong. I've been searching for such proof for a while now... I've grappled with proving it right and have hit many dead ends, frustration has caused me to give up from time to time. Lack of understanding can often be easily resolved by learning. But when the "accepted" principles don't understand a problem, learning simply cannot be forced. Understanding my issues has been a personal problem, I hope to resolve. My thesis has been confronted with that issue with help from this community, I've tried to stress gratitude. I've been searching for a flaw in my logic for a while. Unfortunately I've discovered something that changes everything and nothing at the same time. That's left me in a state of solitude. I don't like it, but ... is what it is... I think I do have a discovery, tho I find it hard to claim it my own. It relies on many other peoples work... its humbling... But I want it known before I die, and I'd kinda like credit. Maybe I am humble... Certainly one can't be qualified to make ones own assessment, in that regard. I have conceived a new method of viewing relativity... I haven't drawn it yet, its still stuck in my head. It's not really a new perspective but another simplification of methods I've seen employed on pop-sci and other sources. But that's a whole other ball of wax... I don't know if its right or wrong. I'll probably incorporate it in my thesis, because it's helped me conceptualize the problems at hand. If I'm right it will help simplify problems with black holes... I'm keeping my neurons crossed. If you can provide any method of falsifying my thesis, I would appreciate it. Tho I've been working toward that ends, I don't want it to be the ultimate ending. I do have a personal attachment to it. Edited March 27, 2016 by shmengie
Phi for All Posted March 27, 2016 Posted March 27, 2016 Teaching physics to a physicist when your not one is tough, too.... Some might say tough and ludicrous. Like me trying to teach Peyton Manning about being an NFL quarterback: "I know, I know, I didn't even play in high school. But I'm telling you Pey (he let's me call him Pey), I've discovered that if you deflate the football, it's a LOT easier to keep hold of. That's been the problem behind virtually every fumble in the history of the game, and it took ME, an amateur, to point that out to you. Hey, you make sure I get credit for this, OK?" Its funny, I don't want to be proven wrong. I've been searching for such proof for a while now... Dude, this is really not a scientific approach. If your ideas are strong, you should want people to try to show where they're wrong. This emotional attachment not only blinds you, it makes you deaf to all the times people have told you, SCIENCE DOESN'T CONCERN ITSELF WITH "PROOF". A very, very limited analogy (don't stretch it too far). An hypothesis that you're actively pursuing is like sculpting something out of stone. You pare away what you don't need, what is wrong for this piece, what is observably not part of the sculpture. You aren't creating anything new really, you're just removing what doesn't work for that piece, like science falsifies instead of "proves". When you're done, you didn't make what's left, you just removed everything it didn't need. If the piece then satisfies all the artist's requirements, and the requirements of anyone else viewing it, it's deemed a worthy piece.
shmengie Posted March 27, 2016 Author Posted March 27, 2016 I don't know if I've explained the basis of thesis I intend to present to the world. I have anxiety because of it's consequences, most of which aren't quite tangible or applicative to life on Earth. Instead the ramifications seem to only apply in theory(ies). If any of the readers present here have ability to request invitation for publication and think it justified, I'd be grateful... I hope it's warranted.
Strange Posted March 27, 2016 Posted March 27, 2016 I don't know if I've explained the basis of thesis I intend to present to the world. No, you haven't. You keep saying you will, but you never do. (You may think you have, but if so it is lost in the waffle.) I have anxiety because of it's consequences, What consequences?
shmengie Posted March 27, 2016 Author Posted March 27, 2016 Dude, this is really not a scientific approach. If your ideas are strong, you should want people to try to show where they're wrong. This emotional attachment not only blinds you, it makes you deaf to all the times people have told you, SCIENCE DOESN'T CONCERN ITSELF WITH "PROOF". A very, very limited analogy (don't stretch it too far). An hypothesis that you're actively pursuing is like sculpting something out of stone. You pare away what you don't need, what is wrong for this piece, what is observably not part of the sculpture. You aren't creating anything new really, you're just removing what doesn't work for that piece, like science falsifies instead of "proves". When you're done, you didn't make what's left, you just removed everything it didn't need. If the piece then satisfies all the artist's requirements, and the requirements of anyone else viewing it, it's deemed a worthy piece. I don't do football, tho I might be able to grasp the analogy. I've been searching for proof for and against my thesis. Its been a struggle for me because, because I started out blind. For some reason education has failed in focusing the problem, akin to giving a pair of glasses to a blind person. Maybe that's a poor analogy, but it seems to fit. Took me a very long time to figure out how my thesis really relates to GR. I started out asking a very simple question. What is the cause of shift associated cosmological redshift. Already knew the doppler analogy, but I understood there was a problem that implied Dark Energy. I didn't know what Dark Energy was, seems nobody can explain it, maybe pop-sci is wrong in that regard, but seems there's been something of a consensus about it for a while. I set out looking to resolve an issue. Not changing any interpretation of GR. I grappled with many potential causes of it many ideas I concocted were previously concocted by others and debunked, based on my google ability. Then one day I thought about gravity. I don't recall when I started learning about Einstein or Gravity shift. I think I came up with my baseline thesis before, but I can't recall... Stands to reason I learned of Einstein shift first then took that approach. In either event, I reasoned out in my minds eye, how it could be a plausible cause of redshift. Then I set out to prove or disprove it. When you reason, I don't apply a scientific approach, I find somewhat laughable... You simply don't know what I have and haven't done instead of asking why and what I've researched, you use the typical automatic response. "You don't know science and your not a scientist" then assume I don't know what I'm talking about. Pointing out I'm wrong based on assumption is not a scientific approach, if its emotionally derived or not. Its not science, its a typical human thing. I get it. I don't like it, but its one of those things that "is what it is." -- But it is cute...
Strange Posted March 27, 2016 Posted March 27, 2016 I started out asking a very simple question. What is the cause of shift associated cosmological redshift. Already knew the doppler analogy, but I understood there was a problem that implied Dark Energy. I didn't know what Dark Energy was, seems nobody can explain it, maybe pop-sci is wrong in that regard, but seems there's been something of a consensus about it for a while. Can I ask (again): what do you think is the reason for dark energy being hypothesized? Do you think it is because of expansion? This is very important, so please answer this time. When you reason, I don't apply a scientific approach, I find somewhat laughable... You simply don't know what I have and haven't done instead of asking why and what I've researched, you use the typical automatic response. "You don't know science and your not a scientist" then assume I don't know what I'm talking about. We know you haven't used science because you don't have a mathematical model to test.
shmengie Posted March 27, 2016 Author Posted March 27, 2016 (edited) Are you asking if Doppler red shift and gravitational red-shift are the same thing? Yes and no. I assert they are the same. It is the basis of my thesis. I've tried to make that clear. I wouldn't say it's because of relativity. But when you look at the whole of relativity in the abstract and realize how it works, by adjusting two different variables and producing the same effect, in a way it is in fact the same effect. Now I want to blame, Relativity for this strangeness, but the truth relies in nature not it's description. I'm not a physicist, so I must be wrong -- according to the logic ya'll have applied. The answer is no (as far as I know). I would say it depends on perspective. But relativity indicates its all relative and highly dependent on perspective. Hmmmmm.... Can I ask (again): what do you think is the reason for dark energy being hypothesized? Do you think it is because of expansion? This is very important, so please answer this time. I believe both hypothesis are evidenced by cosmological redshift. That's about the sum of my understanding of Lambda-CDM principle(s) in their regard. We know you haven't used science because you don't have a mathematical model to test. Purely scientific observation noted. I started a quest (I thought) in a purely scientific fashion. I'm not an scientist. If I apply logic presented, this is an impossibility. -- for some reason this thought hadn't occurred to me before. I'd like to point out a, there may be a flaw in this logic, but apparently there is no room in science for logic, so my argument is flawed from the onset. Perhaps, it is impossible for a non-scientist to apply scientific principles. I seem to have reached an impasse. It was very foolish of me to question any part of Lambda-CDM, because it's obviously based on entirely pure science. If there is any reason to doubt any piece of evidence therein is not and will not be a subject of debate on this board. The facts are the facts. A non-scientist simply does not possess capacity to apply scientific principles. I missed science in school. My bad. Ya'll logic is impressive. Seems there is no lack no substance whatsoever. Maybe I should bother to think... Might strain a neuron... --- Got a bit of sarcasm off my chest. I didn't want to analyze the sum of arguments proposed against my reasoning, but I've been overwhelmed but an abundance of pure BS that tippled the scales of my understanding of science. Thought I'd try to point out a flaw in a lot of arguments thus far, presented, using sarcasm. I doubt the point will be taken as intended or will help, but I had to get it off my chest. --- If science may be discussed by a person w/out a scientific background, I'd like to believe I might have some capacity in this respect. But the sum of arguments present indicate it might be futile for me to consider such course of action with other participants here. I will perhaps seek another audience for such engagement. Tho I'd rather not start all over, elsewhere. If one were to apply logic, in a logical fashion, the conclusion one must draw seems apparent. Huh, I had assumed "SCIENCE.NET" was intended otherwise. I'll learn not to " ASSuME " sooner or later. Edited March 27, 2016 by shmengie -1
Mordred Posted March 27, 2016 Posted March 27, 2016 (edited) How does redefining Doppler and gravitational redshift help you? I mentioned before that we don't rely on redshift data. Some of the other methods to determine distance change is intergalactic parallax. Angular diameter distance and luminosity to distance. Just to name three others in a long list of methods. Do you honestly believe you can say cosmological redshift is wrong and figure that counters expansion? That isn't good enough. Your also choosing to ignore observational data on an evolving % of elements and metalicity due to expansion and thermodynamic processes. We can easily measure elements with spectrography. Every element gives off unique signatures. Unique enough that you can determine the number of electrons orbitting the nucleus. Redshift data does nothing to confirm BB nucleosynthesis, yet measurements of elements and metalicity % confirms nucleosynthesis. It's amazing how ppl choose to ignore all the other evidence of expansion. They typically always argue redshift and ignore the other pieces of evidence. Then they wonder why they don't get listened to..... Edited March 27, 2016 by Mordred
shmengie Posted March 27, 2016 Author Posted March 27, 2016 --- One more attempt here then I give up. I started with a simple question. I wasn't the first, doubt I'll be the last, it's a very simple question. What is the cause of redshift? 1. einstein shift 2. doppler shift Those two are accepted. Are they the same... Unknown - I can't prove it. I assert they are and that it depends on perspective, based on principles of GR Now, I'm not a scientist, so I probably shouldn't ... err... I fail... I have ascertained no debate of substance in this regard. My thesis depends on this assertion. I don't have a right to assert what I believe is correct because (here, i simply don't have the capacity).
Mordred Posted March 27, 2016 Posted March 27, 2016 (edited) They are both observer influences upon measurements. I've already covered the different causes. Gravitational redshift is related to time dilation. There is no time dilation in Doppler redshift. Or rather no significant time dilation. Edited March 27, 2016 by Mordred
Strange Posted March 27, 2016 Posted March 27, 2016 Yes and no. I assert they are the same. It is the basis of my thesis. I've tried to make that clear. The trouble is, Doppler shift requires relative movement and gravitational red shift happens even with no movement. It is hard to see how they are the same thing. That's about the sum of my understanding of Lambda-CDM principle(s) in their regard. Don't you think it would be wise to learn a little more before trying to say it is wrong? I believe both hypothesis are evidenced by cosmological redshift. Do you understand that the expanding universe does NOT require dark energy? I started a quest (I thought) in a purely scientific fashion. Perhaps now you have a slightly better idea of what "a scientific fashion" means? To summarize, it means having an idea, converting the idea to a (mathematical) model and comparing that model with the observations. You have achieved step 1 but not got any further. but apparently there is no room in science for logic Science is founded on logic. However, I suspect when you say "logic" you mean something like "makes sense". Perhaps, it is impossible for a non-scientist to apply scientific principles. Absolutely wrong. There are plenty of non-scientists who use critical thinking, evidence-based reasoning, and the other tools of science. Sadly, there is no evidence that you have yet done this. You are basing your argument on personal beliefs and nothing else. It was very foolish of me to question any part of Lambda-CDM, because it's obviously based on entirely pure science. The fact that it is a scientific model does NOT mean it can't be questioned. In fact, as it is a scientific theory, it is essential that it is challenged. However, saying that you don't like it is not a challenge to the science. If science may be discussed by a person w/out a scientific background, I'd like to believe I might have some capacity in this respect. But the sum of arguments present indicate it might be futile for me to consider such course of action with other participants here. Of you can and should do that. But first you have to learn and understand the science.
shmengie Posted March 27, 2016 Author Posted March 27, 2016 How does redefining Doppler and gravitational redshift help you? I mentioned before that we don't rely on redshift data. Some of the other methods to determine distance change is intergalactic parallax. Angular diameter distance and luminosity to distance. Just to name three others in a long list of methods. Do you honestly believe you can say cosmological redshift is wrong and figure that counters expansion? That isn't good enough. Your also choosing to ignore observational data on an evolving % of elements and metalicity due to expansion and thermodynamic processes. You are basing arguments on things I have never said. Many I have been accused of state, which I have refuted by stating I have not said them. This has been a reoccurring theme here, which is a root of my frustration, epitome of the arguments against every topic I seek to engage in a scientific fashion. I get it. The title of the thread suggests it. Wasn't the intention, the implications are understandable, from my point of view.
Strange Posted March 27, 2016 Posted March 27, 2016 You are basing arguments on things I have never said. What is not based on things you have said? You want to redefine gravitational and Doppler shift. You want to prove expansion isn't happening. And you are ignoring evidence.
Mordred Posted March 27, 2016 Posted March 27, 2016 Your still not understanding the point. The point is we don't assume our redshift formulas are correct.. We need other methods to test that they are accurate. I mentioned some of those tests. The cosmological redshift formula for example that is commonly posted is only accurate up to the Hubble Horizon. The observable universe is far bigger than the Hubble Horizon.
shmengie Posted March 27, 2016 Author Posted March 27, 2016 They are both observer influences upon measurements. I've already covered the different causes. Gravitational redshift is related to time dilation. There is no time dilation in Doppler redshift. Or rather no significant time dilation. If I said I agree those are two completely different explanations and can be ascertained logically by changing two different variables in GR. One not only concludes they are different in all respects except that their association to GR is different only in the variables w/which they are derived. Now I think I understand that. But it's a little more complicated than straight 1:1 difference, and it isn't. That changes everything and nothing... -- one of my reoccurring statements, not because I like it.
Recommended Posts