Is the Hubble Shift a relativistic illusion?

[Mordred]

the problem is SR doesn't show the geodesic worldline paths. You need GR for that. The formulas in your paper is SR limit.

 

The other problem is Hubbles law "the greater the distance the greater the recessive velocity."

 

[latex]v_{recessive}=H_oD [/latex] isn't a true velocity.

Edited July 16, 2016 by Mordred

[captcass]

The gradient is measured in s^2/m, the dRt between frames over so many meters. This is what I equate with the Newtonian force to derive the GEC.

 

The GEC is most accurate when using multiples of the Schwarzschild radius for the subject body.

[Mordred]

man talk about denial go ahead believe whatever illusions you want.

 

However if you want serious consideration of your paper. Then you will need the Scwartzchild metric and GR. Not SR

Edited July 16, 2016 by Mordred

[captcass]

Again, I am not trying to describe worldline paths. I am only trying to show the effects in time that create a gravitational drag.

[ajb]

From our inertial frame of reference, however, all upward frames are perceived to have a faster rate of time.

You are thinking of a 'gravity well' so the Schwartzchild metric? You can make sense of what you said by looking at the standard formula for time dilation for this metric.

 

I will just warn you that this kind of thinking works only for metrics that have time translation symmetry. That is you can think of observers 'hovering' at a fixed radius from the gravitational body. In doing so you can set things up so that the only coordinate that is changing is coordinate time. You can then think of two observers at different radii and look at what happens to light signals passed between them. From the Doppler shift you get time dilation - you have constructed a meaningful way to compare the proper time of the observers.

 

But like I said, this does not work so easily in more general space-times.

..

Edited July 16, 2016 by ajb

[Mordred]

lol most of the paradoxes in Relativity comes from SR limit. To stress Ajbs comment

[captcass]

I am not talking about the relativistic effects of SR and GR when motion is involved and light travels in such a way as to produce the effects.

I m only talking about the effects manifested by different rates of time in adjacent frames.

[Mordred]

Again, I am not trying to describe worldline paths. I am only trying to show the effects in time that create a gravitational drag.

of course you are. where do you think length contraction occurs?

I am not talking about the relativistic effects of SR and GR when motion is involved and light travels in such a way as to produce the effects.

I m only talking about the effects manifested by different rates of time in adjacent frames.

yeah so am I. which has nothing to do with cosmological redshift

[captcass]

Resident Expert, you said this above:

"see my last example. You keep working with the mistaken assumption that Cosmological redshift means time dilation.
my last example on cross edit will show this error"

 

When our posts got out of sink I lost the meaning of this. Can you please repeat the "last example" and what you mean bu "cross edit"

 

Thanks,

Off to work.

[ajb]

I m only talking about the effects manifested by different rates of time in adjacent frames.

I am not really sure what that means...

 

A frame is no more that a choice of coordinates on some neighborhood of a point in space-time; you can always do this such that we have a local inertial frame. You then want to compare clocks at different points on space-time or just space?

 

Like I said, this is not really meaningful - it only makes any kind of sense for certian set-ups like observers hovering above a massive spherically symmetric object.

 

In general, you can compare the proper time of different paths. I guess for this to have any real meaning the start points and the end points of both paths must be the same - viz the usual 'twin paradox' (poor name as there is no paradox). There is no general notion of time dilation.

[Mordred]

no problem thats a reasonable request.

 

take two systems of equal mass. Label them system a and system b.

 

light redshifts as it climbs out of a gravity well then blue shifts as it falls into gravity well b.

 

In a static non expanding universe this means both system a and b are in the same reference frame. (equal mass systems).

 

no time dilation is involved no resulting redshift total. change in blueshift=change in redshift.

 

now add expansion measured from those same systems. the wordline is stretched because the actual distance between a and b changes. Though neither a or b gain inertia. Recessive velocity isn't inertia.

 

As the gravitational potential of neither a nor b has changed we should measure no gravitational redshift.

 

Yet we measure cosmological redshift

[captcass]

OK, thanks.

Yes, I understand this. However, , I believe this is due to a lack of understanding regarding perception outside our own inertial frames. No matter that what you say above is true, redshift = blueshift, the perception is based upon our own inertial frame and its corresponding gradient.and is therefore deceptive. What we see is not what is going on. An external observer far distant, and let's say midway, between in an Equilateral triangle setup, would see that the redshift = blueshift for both bodies relative to each other, but he would see both of them redshfted in his own inertial frame due to his own gravity well.

 

This is why I don't think we really understand what we are seeing in our scientific results that result in expansion, dark energy and dark matter. That my derivation for the Hubble shift works might just be a fluke. Then again, we don't really know because we don't really know, are only theorizing, about what our evidence indicates. As it indicates illogical results in dark energy and dark matter, I believe we have to be wrong. And you are correct, this is based upon my intuitive impulse to reject the illogical.

 

Sorry, I realize how stubborn I seem to be. But I don't think you are fully grasping the extent that perception is based on the observer in his own inertial frame. The relativistic effects cloud what we see.

 

I know this is not covered by GR or SR, it is a new concept. But it could be correct which would be why the derivation works.

 

Can we believe our own eyes? In a traffic accident different witnesses will say it was a blue car, a red car, a green car, a yellow car. What color was the car? Is it in superposition?

 

We can't always trust what we see in a relativistic. illusional, universe.

 

We can't see time, but we can see the effects of time distortion in Einstein's field equations. LIGO can detect space/time distortion and the effects of accelerated time on space. I believe this supports the GEC and the Andromeda DM derivation, which really, really comes out beautifully. Is that also a fluke?

 

I thank you again for engaging in this conversation and for being a great foil to test myself against your arguments and ask for patience regarding my stubborness.

 

I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on the GEC derivation.

[Mordred]

the reasons above is precisely why scientists don't rely strictly upon redshift.

 

Take a galaxy moving toward us. With an unknown mass.

 

which portion of the redshift is gravitational, Doppler or Cosmological?

 

without further data you can't isolate the individual influences.

 

the problem with your paper is your trying to describe all 3 at once. Which isn't correct.

 

key example Andromeda. Its moving towards us. It has no cosmological redshift as its gravitationally bound into the same large scale system as the Milky way.

 

yet inside Earths gravity well we measure a blueshift. Not a redshift.

 

Believe me Ive done this one in a lab with the right equipment. The university I went to has a telescope and the necessary equipment attachments.

 

What makes it worse is Amdromeda isn't headed straight for us. So you need the transverse doppler. Filtering out the dipole anistrophy for the Milky way and Earths movement is also an incredibly painful process.

Edited July 16, 2016 by Mordred

[captcass]

Consider this:

Time and space are inter-related. If the rate of time increases, space must contract. If it decreases, space must expand.

 

We are seeing time distortion as due to space distortion in the way of mass.

 

If time dilation is due to mass, (I;m not talking about motion induced TD here, just gravitational), we have an unproven causation for the time distortion. We say the mass causes it, but don't say how.

 

If we look at it from the time perspective, that time distortion creates space distortion that results in mass, we have causation for the mass.

 

If time progressed at a steady rate, there would be no space distortion, so space distortion depends on time rate fluctuations. There would only be flat space with no events occurring within it. An eternal moment in flat space.

 

The Heisenberg uncertainty principle states that the initial, massless, space/time continuum can have fluctuations. Though fluctuations have to involve time because fluctuations occur over time. This also gives us causation for time.

 

Instead of looking at it as events in space, look at it as events in time. Sorry if you get a headache. I did.

.

[ajb]

Consider this:

Time and space are inter-related. If the rate of time increases, space must contract. If it decreases, space must expand.

That coordinate time or proper time?

[Mordred]

Consider this:

Time and space are inter-related. If the rate of time increases, space must contract. If it decreases, space must expand.

 

We are seeing time distortion as due to space distortion in the way of mass.

 

If time dilation is due to mass, (I;m not talking about motion induced TD here, just gravitational), we have an unproven causation for the time distortion. We say the mass causes it, but don't say how.

 

If we look at it from the time perspective, that time distortion creates space distortion that results in mass, we have causation for the mass.

 

If time progressed at a steady rate, there would be no space distortion, so space distortion depends on time rate fluctuations. There would only be flat space with no events occurring within it. An eternal moment in flat space.

 

The Heisenberg uncertainty principle states that the initial, massless, space/time continuum can have fluctuations. Though fluctuations have to involve time because fluctuations occur over time. This also gives us causation for time.

 

Instead of looking at it as events in space, look at it as events in time. Sorry if you get a headache. I did.

.

repeating these assertions isnt going to help. Were all aware how spacetime works.

 

The problem is your trying to equate all forms of redshift with an illusion of expansion.

 

I gave you specific examples where this is not the case.

 

Go ahead mathematically take two galaxies of equal mass seperated at a distance greater than 4400 Mpc. Where recessive velocity is greater than c.

 

Try and use the Lorentz time dilation formula to show a recessive velocity in excess of c.

 

Gn-z11 for example. Ill provide its recessive velocity for you. Works out using redshift 11.04 to be approximately 2.11 c.

 

How do you explain that (math required) under your static model?

Edited July 16, 2016 by Mordred

[captcass]

Sorry, but I'm not combining all 3. I note at Frame 1 the result is less than expected and that could be due to the peculiar motion of Gn-z11 or the approximate values used for the mass of the Milky Way and the actual distance to Gn-z11.

 

I ignore the cosmological redshift as it is used in the expanding universe model.

 

Inside the Hubble horizon the compound percentage increase remains relatively small and the Doppler effect due to peculiar motion has a larger relative influence including blue shifts . If you look at my derivation, the increases don't begin to get very large until the end. At the beginning they are actually extremely small. This is why we see such a large acceleration at far distances.

[Mordred]

no your trying to replace Cosmological redshift with gravitational redshift illusion.

 

YOUR TRYING TO MODEL A STATIC UNIVERSE.

 

So show recessive velocity greater than c without having expansion

Edited July 16, 2016 by Mordred

[captcass]

In an earlier post you asked whether it was coordinate or proper time. These effects are only apparent in external reference frames where the rate can appears different, slower or faster, than yours.. In our own frame, the rate is always the same except when we move.

 

You are right. I am describing a fairly stable, non-expanding universe and it could be considered I am replacing the cosmological redshift with a relativistic time dilation redshift..If the universe isn't expanding, this would be an alternative.

 

I know that a meter is a meter and a second is a second in any inertial frame. I understand why it looks shorter at a distance when motion is involved.

 

But in external reference frames up gradient, without motion, it also has to appear shorter just because we perceive the rate of time there to be faster than our own, which means space has to appear contracted.

[Mordred]

you still cant show recessive velocity which is an occurance of Hubbles law in excess of c. Not without expansion which correlates to conformal time.

 

Yet we see objects beyond Hubble horizon which c*age of the universe.

 

This is what you need to show. How does your model account for greater than c recessive velocity measurements.

 

Ok lets put into perpective. Your an observer sitting on Earth.

 

You measure the recessive velocity of galaxies in the following relation. (You dont care what mass those galaxies are.)

 

[latex]v=Hd [/latex]. regardless of mass of each galaxy this same relation holds.

 

Yet your gravitational potential on Earth is unchanged.

 

So how do you get recessive velocity greater than c using SR and without expansion?

 

thats your challenge to show

Edited July 16, 2016 by Mordred

[captcass]

The recessive velocity measurements are based on Hubble's law for an expanding universe. Redshifts greater than about 3 are considered to be in excess of C. Gn-z11 is the farthest know galaxy with the highest known red shift, 11.1, which is why I chose it.

 

Hubble's law does not apply here as I am considering a fairly stable universe, not an expanding one. In my theory the redshifts just get really, really big the farther the distance due to the compound percent increase in space.

 

It will be very interesting to see what redshifts we see when we get the new telscopes up in a few years.

[Mordred]

you need to prove Hubbles law and recessive velocity in excess of c is invalid. Not just ignore it like you did the thermodynamic data.

 

You gave 13.4 Gly in your paper. Not 32 Gly which science states.

 

Unless I'm mistaken the title of this thread is. "Is the Hubble shift an illusion"

 

I would state my question applies.

 

(rather convenient to ignore counter arguments and data then claim you have a valid solution)

 

lets see. You ignored thermodynamic. You didn't account for curvature. You werent aware that both observer a and b measure a slowing of each others clocks.

 

Your now ignoring Hubbles law and recessive velocity greater than c.

 

What are you going to ignore next?

Edited July 16, 2016 by Mordred

[captcass]

I'm very well aware that a and b each see a slowing of each others clocks under relativity. That is not the same situation here. Bob and Alic at Everest do not see a slowing of each others clocks They both see the higher one running faster in that situation. You are again referencing effects for observers in motion.

32 Gly is teh estimated distance based upon an expanding universe, which this theory is not about.

 

Curvature doesn't apply as I am not talking about bodies in motion.

 

I am not ignoring the thermodynamics, I simply do not know how they apply under this theory. I don't think, but might be wrong, that they are involved or affect the results of this theory in any way. I'll grant you that. The fact that they indicate and expanding universe, like Hubble's law, might mean they need reconsideration.

Why do I show up as "Quark" and a senior member?

[captcass]

I should also note that it is only Guth's theory of inflation, which is just that, a theory, that allows the thermodynamics to work in an expanding universe. Without Guth's theory, the thermodynamics do not agree with a BB and there is no proof of Guth's theory.

I read the book when it first came out and found it to be an interesting idea, but really it is just another "placeholder" as no one has been able to move it past the theory stage.

Please tell me this;

 

Speaking of probabilities,

Is it just a fluke that my derivation of the Hubble shift works out for a primarily stable universe AND,

that the Gravitational Equivalency Constant I derive using the Earth's dilation gradient works perfectly to derive the mass/energy of the Dark Matter of the Andromeda galaxy?

 

What are the odds of that?

Isn't it time this thread be moved out of the trash?

[ajb]

These effects are only apparent in external reference frames where the rate can appears different, slower or faster, than yours..

So you are comparing proper time of more than one observer ... good.

 

 

In our own frame, the rate is always the same except when we move.

I do not understand this... when we move with respect to what?

 

But in external reference frames up gradient, without motion, it also has to appear shorter just because we perceive the rate of time there to be faster than our own, which means space has to appear contracted.

There is no meaningful notion of gravitational length contraction... sorry.

 

You need to compare rulers to have length contraction. You need to describe a set-up for which one can do that in a meaningful way.

 

 

Curvature doesn't apply as I am not talking about bodies in motion.

I don't understand this statement. We model space-time as being curved irrespective of test bodies in motion. (But then you do have soem test bodies - your observers)

 

 

Why do I show up as "Quark" and a senior member?

It does not mean much - it is related to the number of posts and sienor member, I if recall correctly is a 'left over' from when one needed to make enough posts to post in some sections here.

 

 

I should also note that it is only Guth's theory of inflation, which is just that, a theory...

However, the general notion of inflation is supported by observations of the CMBR. It is true however, that we are not at the stage of throwing particular models out.

 

Isn't it time this thread be moved out of the trash?

This thread is not in the trash - though it may get locked at some point.

 

This thread is in speculations - which seems okay as you are working outside of standard cosmology, have shown little understanding of general relativity and the work is not exactly 'mainstream'.