Is the Hubble Shift a relativistic illusion?

[captcass]

This is because no one has developed the math for it. I am thinking GR can be used, but can't see it clearly yet. The systems aren't the same. A particle moving across a flattened disk is still evolved downward, as in GR, and is still accelerated, as in GR, but is evolved forward at the same rate throughout the disk. I can almost see how to get it into terms of GR, but just can't see it......yet..

 

And, yes, different masses in the same orbit would have different velocities.

[Strange]

3 minutes ago, captcass said:

And, yes, different masses in the same orbit would have different velocities.

And yet reality seems to disagree.

3 minutes ago, captcass said:

This is because no one has developed the math for it.

So you have a non-existent model purely based on wishful thinking. 

[captcass]

How does reality disagree? Although we use Kepler for orbital velocities in the stellar systems, it is only because the masses of the planets are so small when compared to the stars, or the ISS to the Earth.. When we consider both masses, when they are both large enough to matter, the story is different. Kepler doesn't work anymore. What I have is a model based on logic. Proving it is, I agree, another matter, as far as DM is concerned. I consider the Hubble shift aspect to be self-evident with no new math required.

[Strange]

Just now, captcass said:

How does reality disagree? Although we use Kepler for orbital velocities in the stellar systems, it is only because the masses of the planets are so small when compared to the stars, or the ISS to the Earth.. When we consider both masses, when they are both large enough to matter, the story is different. Kepler doesn't work anymore.

Do you need help moving those goalposts?

You specifically said that two different objects similar to the Earth with different masses would have different orbital speeds. This is an example where the  mass of the orbiting body is insignificant compared to the mass of the central body. The same is true for moons of planets, artificial satellites and dust. 

This is an intellectually dishonest and offensive response.

Quote

What I have is a model based on logic.

You are, I assume, using "logic" in the informal sense of "it makes perfect sense to me". If you were really using logic, you would have some sort of formal support for your argument (a mathematical model) not just wishful thinking based on your beliefs.

Quote

I consider the Hubble shift aspect to be self-evident with no new math required.

Sorry. Science doesn't work that way.

[beecee]

7 hours ago, Strange said:

That's odd. I'm pretty sure I just hit the quote button. Unfortunately, it is too late for me to edit it now. Sorry about that.

No probs.

[captcass]

It is not intellectually dishonest, it is a true statement. The effect is there, even if it is so small we can ignore it under certain circumstances.

The Hubble shift is self evident. Whether you can accept that or not is another matter.

[beecee]

4 hours ago, captcass said:

Putting sensitivities aside, the spiritual aspect is not necessary to understand the other concepts and can be ignored, (though you guys are really missing out on the true beauty of the creation).

I see beauty in the prediction/s of scientific theory, and the fact that we are reasonably able to give a description of how the universe/spacetime evolved, how stars are simply factories in the art of nucleosynethesis, planets and damn well everything we see, rather than any spiritual/paranormal/supernatural nonsense. Perhaps if you stop continually referring to this mythical creation event on a science forum?

[Strange]

10 minutes ago, captcass said:

It is not intellectually dishonest, it is a true statement. The effect is there, even if it is so small we can ignore it under certain circumstances.

It may be true, but that is not the same as what you said before. You have changed your argument when it is demonstrated that reality proves you are wrong. And you won't even admit that is the case. That is dishonest.

12 minutes ago, captcass said:

The Hubble shift is self evident. Whether you can accept that or not is another matter.

Nothing in science is self evident. Everything needs to be tested. You are not willing to do that because you are blinded by your religious dogma. You are not interested in science unless you can distort it to make it fit with your beliefs. You the worst sort of Creationist.

[captcass]

8 minutes ago, beecee said:

I see beauty in the prediction/s of scientific theory, and the fact that we are reasonably able to give a description of how the universe/spacetime evolved, how stars are simply factories in the art of nucleosynethesis, planets and damn well everything we see, rather than any spiritual/paranormal/supernatural nonsense. Perhaps if you stop continually referring to this mythical creation event on a science forum?

I thought we stopped talking about this. It so happens that what I see spiritually concurs with quantum phenomena. I apply that point of view to everything and I could not propose a theory without it. I understand how you feel. I was that way from age 17-24. None of that crap makes sense. You are totally correct in that. I was extremely surprised when I did find it, because there is no way I could have predicted what I found. It is not an external "super power". It is not "some place else". Einstein was an agnostic, but tended to pantheism. He thought the universe could just be alive in some way we can never understand. Like most scientists, the fact that he was a part of the universe figuring out how the universe works did not let him see that it was working for him.The fact that everything is evolving forward in a sensible fashion for everyone, even though we can move around within the continuum is taken for granted. 

When I move my arm, my hand ends up where i want it to because the continuum evolves forward for me. The place where my hand used to be is no longer there. If it was, my arm would be there. The continuum evolved forward to a state where my arm is not there.

None of you are looking at a quantum field. You are looking at a solid reality with actual depth. The evolving quantum field has no depth. It is only an evolving field.

This requires a shift of perspective outside your normal parameters.

gotta go back to work....

[Strange]

Oh god. It's a bargain-basement Deepak Chopra.   Or maybe a quantum-woo chatbot. 

[captcass]

43 minutes ago, Strange said:

It may be true, but that is not the same as what you said before. You have changed your argument when it is demonstrated that reality proves you are wrong. And you won't even admit that is the case. That is dishonest.

Nothing in science is self evident. Everything needs to be tested. You are not willing to do that because you are blinded by your religious dogma. You are not interested in science unless you can distort it to make it fit with your beliefs. You the worst sort of Creationist.

I don't think I changed my argument.....??? I don't see how reality proves me wrong just because we don't see the effects. They are still there. The Hubble dhift is self evident. It is there. How that is explained is the subject of debate and it has nothing to do with spirituality. Let's please get that clear. I am talking about concepts that I think you should be able to relate to relativity. It has nothing to do with spirituality. I can just relate to it that way. You can't. So that is that. Let's just drop the spiritual aspect and focus on the time dilation aspect. 

Deepak isn't quite there yet.....

 

[Mordred]

Now that is a good suggestion, lets get back to the physics. Which quite frankly does not rely on beliefs.

Edited September 23, 2017 by Mordred

[captcass]

Thank you....

[captcass]

So, do you think, regardless of whether there was a creation event or not, that, if all events are constantly accelerated in spacetime, that older frames could appear to have slower rates of time, creating a time dilation gradient? If not, why?

[Strange]

10 hours ago, captcass said:

I don't think I changed my argument.....???

OK. Let's try again.

1. You said: orbital speed will depend on the mass of the orbiting object. No mention of the central mass.

2. I pointed out that we use the same Newtonian dynamics to explain to orbits of things from the sizeof planets to grains of dust with no problems.

3. You then say: but it depends on the central mass. THIS IS NOT WHAT YOU SAID BEFORE (See 1). 

However, as we want to to stick to the physics, you need to drop this point as you have no no way of calculating the difference you claim exists and therefore there is no science here. 

7 hours ago, captcass said:

So, do you think, regardless of whether there was a creation event or not, that, if all events are constantly accelerated in spacetime, that older frames could appear to have slower rates of time, creating a time dilation gradient? If not, why?

Objects are not accelerated in space-time (assuming you are referring to the apparent recessional velocities of galaxies).

However, you can do a coordinate transformation where there is no expansion and the time coordinate changes instead. This doesn't change anything else. You still have a singularity 13.8 billion years ago. You still need to explain the recent acceleration ("dark energy"). It is the same model described in a different way.

Edited September 24, 2017 by Strange

[Mordred]

14 hours ago, captcass said:

So, do you think, regardless of whether there was a creation event or not, that, if all events are constantly accelerated in spacetime, that older frames could appear to have slower rates of time, creating a time dilation gradient? If not, why?

any form of redshift is a type of time dilation on signals recieved by an observer. You are effectively seeing an observational influence on the waveforms that affects the frequency rates.

 The difference between the three main types of redshift is the "cause of the shift"

In cosmological redshift the cause being a volume change, with gravitational it is due to changes in potential, with doppler it is velocity changes.

This is one area where you have struggled, science already considers all potential observer influences thanks to relativity. The trick is seperating what causes the redshift and by how much.

It is incorrect to think of it as a slower past however. An observer placed in the same past moment will not see any time dilation due to the field distribution.

Time dilation arises because of differences in potential and differences in position to a field. So take any particular moment of time, at that particular moment. Ie right now,

The global field metric, *spacetime is on average uniformly distributed, so you have no gradient, so no time dilation at time now of a field metric.

Every second of our universe expansion the homogenous and isotropic distribution is preserved.  So it is not the higher density of the past giving rise to redshift ( there is no gravitational gradient for gravitational redshift to occur) Rather it is a higher density change of a field giving rise to cosmogical redshift due to changes of the global metric.

One must keep these seperate. It is the cause of the redshift that is critically important.

The above isn't very clear, so lets look specifically at the difference.

Gravitstional redshift.

redshift due to potential difference due to gradients within the distribution of a field ( gravitational gradients) ie planets, BH ext. The time of the observer depends on the position of the observer to the position of the emitter at two coordinates on this static field. (if no gradient exists between the two no dilation) they both enjoy the same moment of proper time. ( key note proper time and coordinate time is set different between SR and GR treatment for this reason.) 

Cosmology redshift use GR not SR. The reason is that SR works for a static field where the FRW metric the field itself is changing, it is no longer static. So one cannot use the static Schwartzchild metric that SR enjoys. Hence the commoving coordinates and the scale factor. ( the field still remains homogeneous and isotropic but the coordinates of the volume is changing, whereas under SR the coordinates are fixed ( static).

Never think of one point on a field gradiant as being slower in time than another point on a gradiant. An observer at the same point sees time running normally.

It is the differences in position upon the field gradient ( or due to field changes) from emitter to observer that gives rise to dilation. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 24, 2017 by Mordred

[captcass]

Leaving the DM issue for later......

As Guth's inflationary model involves such extremely small increments of time, consider this:

Assuming a creation event 13.8 Gyr ago, which I have no problem with, the singularity could not be sized. It only represents the perceived volume of the universe to an external observer. From within the singularity it would still be perceived as all that exists.

So instead of inflation, since Guth's increments are so small to begin with, why not just say the energy field just appeared everywhere at once? It certainly would have appeared that way.

Maintaining the homogeneous, isotropic nature of spacetime, all events would then proceed to evolve forward at 1 s/s, the rate of time in all inertial frames,  throughout the universe. However, as all events are accelerated in space and time, and as it takes light time to travel to us, more distant objects would still appear to have been manifested in a slower rate of time. This would replace the cosmological constant contribution to Z. 

[Mordred]

Your still ignoring the differences between SR and GR.

As long as you keep doing so you will never understand why your article has so many errors.

Guths model uses the thermodynamic equations of state correlating a  potential scalar field with anistropic conditions arising from that scalar field fluctuations. The field baseline of that is a false vacuum state that undergoes quantum tunnelling to a lower vacuum state. 

(Your not ready to understand quantum tunnelling, no insult but many university students has difficulty understanding tunnelling.)

The 1 s/s is meaningless, use proper terminology.

proper time/coordinate time they both use seconds so the statment s/s does not identify which s is proper and which s is coordinate time,

Ajb and I both mentioned this to you in your previous attempts.

You must identify which is which. (correctly as per SR then under GR) as the two terms change in their definitions under the SR to GR metric.

Edited September 24, 2017 by Mordred

[captcass]

Sorry for the confusion.

Thanks, I understand tunneling. I don't want to get us off track again by debating inflation.....

When I speak of a rate of 1 s/s, I am referring to the proper time rate we all experience as we evolve in our inertial frame: the proper time of SR, where my clock ticks at 1 s/s and my meter is a meter so C is maintained. All slower times are coordinate times and a percentage of the proper time.

I am assuming time is completely relative. It is possible to accelerate or decelerate time relative to other coordinates without actually increasing rapidity. This I am associating with the constant acceleration of orbiting bodies that does not increase velocity.

I find SR to be instructional but GR to be the "full" story. Einstein uses a special case of SR to develop GR.

As an aside, I would like to ask you a question. I ran across an article that said SR was being called into question because although we see a GPS satellite as being slower in time, the reverse is not true. They have to adjust the satellite's clock for our perception of its rate of time, but not for what should be its "perception" of the surface rate of time. Have you seen this? If so, do you have an opinion on it? 

[Mordred]

The problem is proper time under GR is the time a clock has following the worldline, coordinate time is the Inertial frames.

Under SR this is not true, proper time is observers in the same at rest inertial frames.

So when you use 1 s/s we get zero distictions of which is which and under SR or GR. You must keep these straight otherwise confusions occur.

Not recognizing this distinction is also preventing you from understanding the differences involved in

Conformal time/ Cosmological time

so unless you learn to keep these different metric time values straight you will continue to run into problems when comparing metrics and redshift.

The problem with SR on the satellite is that SR uses (at rest observers as propertime) but under GR it is coordinate time not proper

Edited September 24, 2017 by Mordred

[Strange]

51 minutes ago, captcass said:

I ran across an article that said SR was being called into question because although we see a GPS satellite as being slower in time, the reverse is not true. They have to adjust the satellite's clock for our perception of its rate of time, but not for what should be its "perception" of the surface rate of time. Have you seen this? If so, do you have an opinion on it? 

Do you have a link? 

It sounds like it is by someone who doesn't understand GPS or relativity. GPS receivers have to correct for both the relative velocity of each satellite and their difference in gravitational potential. You could handle both with a full GR treatment. Or you can approximate it by using SR for the velocity and a simplified equation for the gravitational effect. 

So the time dilation between satellite and receiver is not symmetrical and this does not cast any doubt on SR.

[Mordred]

lets address time on your watch, under SR the assumption is that you are in the same reference frame as your watch.

However we know this is not true, you as the observer is in a different (though extremely close) frame of reference to your watch.

Under GR we recognize that it is literally impossible to be in precisely the same rest frame...

So in GR all frames are inertial, there is no "rest frame" there is no preferred frame. 

The only invariant values is along the worldline itself, 

You do not read proper time when you look at your watch, You read the coordinate time.

[captcass]

Sorry, been through my history for 3 months on 2 computers and cannot find a link to the GPS time thing. It was in a magazine and some scientist said he was working on a new theory. I guess I didn't book mark it as it seemed untenable to me.

I am not getting into using times that are part of the expanding model. The worldline time is the proper time for any observer: a 1 second rate of evolution every second, which I am taking as your invariant time. This would make external frames coordinate times. Even though we see Mercury as experiencing a different rate of time at its orbital level, on Mercury time is apparently passing at the normal rate and a meter equals a meter in that worldline. We see the rate of time approaching zero near the event horizon of a black hole, but an observer at the event horizon would see time passing normally.

I think this puts us on the same page

 

[Mordred]

As long as you treat proper time along the Worldline as per GR then were on the same page via definitions under GR.

The FLRW metric worldline is influenced by thermodynamic adiabatic and isentropic expansion.

You already recognize this from our previous conversations.

There is numerous bodies of evidence supporting expansion than simply redshift and worldlines.

This is not to say using the SR definition is wrong under SR, its definitions are wrong when discussing the FRW metric which follows the GR proper time definition.

Conformal or cosmological time are simply fundamental observers under coordinate time with a specified relation to the field potential 

Edited September 25, 2017 by Mordred

[captcass]

But does anyone really know what time it is?

What other evidence are you thinking of?