More evidence that redshift is not related to expansion

Plasma and electricity in space. Failure of gravity-only cosmology. Exposing the myths of dark matter, dark energy, black holes, neutron stars, and other mathematical constructs. The electric model of stars. Predictions and confirmations of the electric comet.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

More evidence that redshift is not related to expansion

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Tue Jan 29, 2019 9:43 am

http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space ... _expansion

If you needed more evidence to demonstrate that photon redshift in space is not actually related to expansion, read this article. Apparently when you try to apply the expansion/acceleration model to objects that are further away at higher redshifts, surprise, surprise, it doesn't work right. :)

The supposed "fix" for this serious problem is to change the metaphysical properties of "dark energy" yet again so that not only does dark energy defy the laws of physics by remaining constant over multiple exponential increases in volume, as it if that wasn't bad enough, now it actually has to get *stronger* (more dense) over time and exponential volume increases.

The lack of predictive usefulness of the LCDM model is simply staggering. On top of the fact that the LCDM model has zero predictive usefulness in the lab, every new observation from space blows huge holes in their model and the only way to "solve" the problem is to defy the laws of physics yet again, and add liberal amounts of additional metaphysical nonsense. That's how we ended up with dark energy in the first place. Now dark energy has do even more absurd magic tricks to save the expansion interpretation of the photon redshift phenomenon. Even worse, photons are still forbidden to work in space the way that they actaually work in the lab and transfer some of their momentum to the plasma medium which they traverse.

This new observation clearly demonstrates that there is simply nothing predicatively useful about the LCDM model of cosmology. Astronomers are constantly surprised by every new study and every new observation. Not only wasn't the universe slowing down over time as originally "predicted" by the expansion interpretation of photon redshift, and not only does it now have to accelerate over time, the acceleration process has to accelerate over time too! Holy Cow. There's been no significant new observation that the LCMD model actually predicts *correctly* the first time. It has to be modified with each and every new observation. Metaphysical nonsense is simply not a valid scientific alternative to good old fashion empirical physics.

Photons in the lab have been documented to transfer some of their momentum to the plasma medium. That is the real *empirical cause* of photon redshift over distance. It's been documented to work that way in the lab.

'Space expansion" is a metaphysical myth. No photon has ever been shown to be redshifted by space expansion. That is just one of four metaphysical myths which are required to hold the LCDM model together. If every new observation requires major modifications of your theory, your theory is probably wrong.

It's irrational to believe that photons in the plasma of spacetime behave completely differently than they behave in the lab. There's a very simple and well documented empirical explanation for the photon/distance relationship, namely the transfer of photon momentum to the plasma medium. That empirical redshift process has been verified and documented in the lab, yet LCDM proponents avoid that simple empirical explanation for redshift and they evoke three different forms of metaphysical nonsense to explain the very same phenomenon.

The worst part IMO is that the whole LCMD model hinges entirely upon the *assumption* that the cosmic microwave background is *not* related to stellar emissions and ordinary scattering like all the other wavelengths of light in space, but rather it's related to some mythical snow globe 'surface of last scattering" event. What a crock.

Eddington used empirical physics and the ordinary scattering of starlight to correctly predict the average temperature of the dust of spacetime on his very first attempt. The LCDM model was off by more than a full order of magnitude on it's first try. That should have been their first clue that microwaves in space have nothing whatsoever to do with expansion. Here we are, decades later, and the LCDM model fails yet another observational "test", yet rather than embracing empirical physical alternatives, they simply add liberal amounts of new metaphysical nonsense to an already irrational explanation.

Oy Vey.

Make no mistake, the LCDM model of cosmology is simply absurd. It's unworkable, it's unreliable and it's untenable. It's irrational metaphysical creation mythology that consistently fails to "predict" new observations correctly. It fails lab test after observational test after test. It's time to let the LCDM model die a natural scientific death already, and stop trying to save it with more metaphysical mumbo-jumbo. Enough already.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1679
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: More evidence that redshift is not related to expansion

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Tue Jan 29, 2019 12:48 pm

I really have to wonder how long this pitiful big bang charade can continue at the rate it's going. Every new observation at higher redshifts seems to bring with it a whole host of new '"surprises" which are simply not congruent with the LCDM model. Here are a few examples of the other various "shocks" and "surprises" over the past decade that simply aren't predicted by the LCDM model, or not explained by it, or which outright defy it:

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/new ... ies-space/
https://www.apnews.com/cdb63ee0a26046a6bb8356d77bab6dc8
https://www.space.com/35297-green-glow- ... tists.html
https://cosmosmagazine.com/space/very-e ... -turbulent
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badas ... -be-there/
http://thescienceexplorer.com/universe/ ... nachronism
https://phys.org/news/2010-04-discovery ... ifies.html
https://holographicgalaxy.wordpress.com ... rs-across/
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/ast ... ig-so-fast

We're observing "mature" and "dusty" galaxies at distances that simply don't jive with an evolutionary process/concepts related to a "big bang" model. We're observing galaxies in H-Alpha lines during a timeline/distance that is supposed to be opaque to h-alpha lines. We're finding galaxies that simply don't seem to contain any exotic matter at all, and we're observing things like massive quasars that are simply not congruent with an expansion interpretation of photon redshift. The further back we look, the less the LCDM model seems to correctly predict what we actually observe.

I simply can't imagine how the LCDM model is going to survive the James Webb telescope. If they're already surprised by the maturity of distant galaxies and quasars, they're about to have their socks blown off completely. There really is no solid evidence to support the conclusion that our universe is only 13-14 billion years old. It could be trillions of years old, or infinitely old for that matter. IMO the Webb Telescope will show us "mature" galaxies and massive quasars for as far as it can see, just like Hubble, none of which should even exit in the LCDM model.

Every new distant observation seems to be a complete enigma to astronomers because the data simply doesn't jive with their expansion model. If however one interprets redshift as a function of momentum loss over distance (tired light), then we would expect to see "mature" galaxies, and "dusty" galaxies and we would 'predict' the existence of mature galaxies and massive quasars at the highest redshifts that we can observe. We wouldn't expect the universe to necessarily be "opaque" to h-alpha lines beyond a specific distance in all directions. We'd expect it to vary in different directions based on the amount of 'dust" and scattering that occurs in space. We'd expect to find massive quasars as far as we can see in both Hubble and Webb images too. Every single observation which seems to be a 'surprise' to LCDM proponents makes perfect sense in a static universe that experiences "tired light' processes.

In the lab, photons transfer some of their momentum to the plasma medium as they traverse that medium. It should therefore be no surprise at all that photons lose momentum as they traverse the plasma of spacetime as well. In fact the LCMD model doesn't account for an important *known and demonstrated* feature of light traveling through plasma, which is why they are so messed up and why they need three different metaphysical processes/entities to attempt to explain redshift, and that is why they're always surprised by distant redshift observations related to mature galaxies and quasars.

There's no need for inflation, space expansion or dark energy to explain a known and demonstrated phenomenon of light. Light loses momentum over distance in space, just as it loses momentum to plasma in the lab. That's why the universe is full of mature galaxies and massive quasars at high redshifts The universe is static and infinite and probably eternal for all we know. Nothing that we are observing at larger redshifts seems to be compatible with a big bang, but everything we observe is fully compatible with a static universe.

Big bang theory is simply wrong. It's based on bizarre and irrational assumptions about how light travels through plasma, and the irrational introduction of metaphysics galore to try to cover up the basic problem in the model. Light simply loses momentum to the plasma medium of spacetime over distance. Light experiences exactly the same thing in space that it experiences in in the lab and it's redshifted by the plasma in space just as it's redshifted by plasma in the lab.

The real reason that distant quasars don't jive with the expansion interpretation of photon redshift is because that's not the real cause of redshift in the first place. Period.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1679
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: More evidence that redshift is not related to expansion

Unread postby Sithri » Tue Jan 29, 2019 2:09 pm

Thank you for this information and the tired light theory of light interacting with plasma. This theory is probably in fact the reason why einstein's 'bending' of light around the sun is considered proof of general relativity. If they didn't use light that went through a large area of plasma, we might see a null result with the bending of light around a gravitational source if the light's path of travel located farther away from the surface of the sun.

Also, does the tired light theory work with Halton Arp's observation of quasars with higher redshifts than their parent galaxies? He chalks this up to a mass difference but could it be explained by plasma differences which affect tired light?
Sithri
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2019 2:24 pm

Re: More evidence that redshift is not related to expansion

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Wed Jan 30, 2019 12:18 am

Sithri wrote:Thank you for this information and the tired light theory of light interacting with plasma.


Ashmore, Brynjolffson and Marmet all have some interesting ideas on how redshift in space might actually work. Holushko has also written some interesting papers on this topic.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1105.0010v1.pdf
https://www.plasma-universe.com/Plasma_redshift
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1801.07582
http://vixra.org/pdf/1203.0062v5.pdf

Holushko's model actually passes some very important and complicated observational tests:

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1 ... /2/96/meta

A static universe model also passes the Tolman surface brightness test at larger redshifts, something the LCDM model has a tough time with:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.0275

Chen (see Ashmore's paper for a reference) actually demonstrated in the lab that the number of free electrons in a plasma has a direct effect on the amount of redshift which occurs in the plasma. You might also google the term "inelastic scattering". The fact that photons transfer momentum to the medium is well documented now.

The actual and specific mechanism(s) which have the most effect on photons in space are still pretty debatable but the fact that photons lose momentum to the medium is well demonstrated in the lab. The fact that this known and documented energy transfer process between the light and the medium is not accounted for in the LCDM model is precisely why that particular model now requires three different types of metaphysics to deal with photon redshift, and it *still* cannot explain those recent quasar observations at higher redshifts.

By the way, EU/PC theory can even support an expansion oriented interpretation of photon redshift without evoking metaphysical processes like "space expansion". Time dilation related to GR theory would suffice actually:

https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0601171

This theory is probably in fact the reason why einstein's 'bending' of light around the sun is considered proof of general relativity. If they didn't use light that went through a large area of plasma, we might see a null result with the bending of light around a gravitational source if the light's path of travel located farther away from the surface of the sun.


It is certainly possible that the bending of light has something to do with the plasma medium as well, but GR theory is fully compatible with EU/PC theory and I personally support GR theory without all the metaphysical nonsense associated with the LCDM model.

Mercury's orbit is also better explained by GR theory compared to Newtonian definitions of gravity, and GR enjoys quite a bit of successful testing, not just the bending of light around the sun. There's certainly no need to reject GR theory to embrace EU/PC theory, or a static universe model. In fact, Einstein himself went out of his way to add a non zero constant to GR in an effort to explain a static universe. Note that his non zero constant could easily relate to ordinary EM fields, not necessarily "dark energy", or space expansion or any such metaphysical nonsense.

Also, does the tired light theory work with Halton Arp's observation of quasars with higher redshifts than their parent galaxies? He chalks this up to a mass difference but could it be explained by plasma differences which affect tired light?


That probably depends on the specific tired light model one selects. Fritz Zwicky was actually the first astronomer to propose a tired light theory to explain photon redshift. Somewhere I found a paper that outlines something like 50 different tired light proposals that actually predate the four authors that I mentioned earlier. I'll see if I can't find it tomorrow. It's an interesting read actually.

Contrary to popular LCMD mythology, Edwin Hubble absolutely, positively did *not* demonstrate that the universe is expanding. What he actually demonstrated is that there is a redshift/distance relationship which *could* be related to either a tired light scenario or an expansion process. The problem with an expansion explanation for redshift is that expansion would have to occur at faster than light speeds in LCDM theory to explain what we observe, hence the first metaphysical kludge in LCDM and it's inclusion of "space expansion". It's possible to stuff just about anything or any additional math into a GR formula, including magic energy, but that doesn't mean that magic energy actually exists. or that it's validated based on it's inclusion in a modified GR formula :)

Suffice to say that the LCDM model is falling apart at the seams as we peer further and further out into space. There is no reliable evidence to support the expansion concept at higher redshifts, and a lot of observations which are simply not congruent with the LCDM expansion model, including the observations I listed earlier in this thread.

It should also be noted that after careful consideration, Edwin Hubble actually preferred a tired light explanation of photon redshift, not an expansion explanation:

https://www.science20.com/eternal_blogs ... ress-85962

Hubble was quoted by the Associated Press as saying the following:

https://www.newspapers.com/clip/5684523 ... chronicle/

“The universe probably is not exploding but is a quiet, peaceful place and possibly just about infinite in size.''''
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1679
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: More evidence that redshift is not related to expansion

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Wed Jan 30, 2019 7:54 am

Great stuff.

Here is a new article:
Dark Energy Gets Weirder: Mysterious Force May Vary Over Time
https://www.space.com/43166-dark-energy ... asars.html

What do you call someone who does not learn from his mistakes?
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 989
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

Re: More evidence that redshift is not related to expansion

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Wed Jan 30, 2019 9:30 am

Zyxzevn wrote:Great stuff.

Here is a new article:
Dark Energy Gets Weirder: Mysterious Force May Vary Over Time
https://www.space.com/43166-dark-energy ... asars.html

What do you call someone who does not learn from his mistakes?


That's the part that kills me. Their bizarre interpretation of the redshift phenomenon and their assumed metaphysical causes of photon redshift have *never* produced reliable testable predictions. The logical thing to do would be to reevaluate their original assumption about the actual cause of redshift.

Instead, the first time their expansion predictions failed a very important test, they supposedly 'fixed' their problem by adding 70 percent more metaphysical mumbo-jumbo to their theory as though two metaphysical claims weren't bad enough. Now that it has failed a second major test at higher redshifts, they still refuse to reevaluate their original assumption about the true empirical cause of redshift. Here they go again.....

It should be damn obvious by now that they've simply left out a very critical component, and a lab demonstrated empirical process that is observed in the lab when passing light through a plasma medium. Light transfers some of it's momentum to a plasma medium in the lab. Chen even demonstrated that the amount of redshift is related to the number of free electrons in the plasma. It's therefore irrational to assume that light does not transfer any of it's momentum whatsoever to the plasma medium of spacetime as it traverses billions of light years of plasma.

Anyone with any common sense at all would simply rip up their redshift model, embrace empirical physics and start over. Instead we see them doing another metaphysical Mexican hat dance around the obvious empirical solution to their problem, and pretending that modifying their dark supernatural nonsense will save them yet again. This type of hard core denial is absolutely pathetic.

Had Edwin Hubble himself not already told them that the universe is likely to be static and 'peaceful", I might have a tiny bit of sympathy for their plight. As it stands however they continue to misrepresent his statements, his beliefs and his life's work. Unlike Hubble himself, they ignore the obvious empirical solution to redshift in favor of massive amounts of metaphysical nonsense.

They're on a roll too as it relates to intentionally misrepresenting the actual beliefs of the scientists who's work they use and they pretend to admire. They erroneously claim that GR theory supports infinitely dense point like objects when in fact Einstein himself flatly rejected that concept. They pretend that magnetic reconnection is a valid explanation for high energy plasma events, when in fact Alfven called the whole concept of magnetic reconnection "pseudoscience" and he published his double layer paper which made the whole concept irrelevant and obsolete *decades* ago. They falsely and unethically claim that Edwin Hubble "proved" that the universe is expanding, when in fact he personally preferred a static universe and a tired light explanation for the redshift phenomenon.

Astronomers should be *ashamed* of themselves. They should be ashamed for not only misrepresenting the life's work of so many important scientists, but also for refusing to allow their theories to die a natural scientific death when their model fails so many important observational and experimental "tests". They don't even actually "test" their model in the final analysis because no matter how many tests it fails, they simply add more metaphysical nonsense to their claim and away they go again down another metaphysical rabbit hole.

Make no mistake about it. The real *empirical* causes of photon redshift have already been demonstrated in the lab. Redshift has nothing to do with "space expansion", nothing to do with inflation, and absolutely nothing to do with dark energy. The fact that even with the inclusion of three metaphysical fudge factors, their model doesn't work correctly should be enough to simply abandon their useless model and to start over again based on the known physical properties of light and plasma. They refuse to do so because it would destroy their prestige and threaten their funding.

What a ripoff. Astronomy today is just pathetic. i think that cosmologists of the future will look back at these "dark" times and simply shake their head in disbelief and disgust at how irrationally astronomers acted and how entrenched they were in the realm of supernatural metaphysics. They'll look at astronomers of today the way we look at ptolemaic astronomers of the past who irrationally added ever more complex epicycles to their failed models rather than embrace reality.

I honestly cannot even think of a single important actual 'prediction' of the LCDM model that actually correctly "predicted' something important and worked right the first time. Most of their so called "successful predictions" are actually "postdictions" that were based on adding more metaphysical nonsense to their model after it *failed* an important test. That should be your first clue that their model is simply wrong. They have to modify the damn thing after nearly every new observation.

Redshift is caused by inelastic scattering as we already know from the lab, not the three metaphysical amigos of "inflation", "space expansion" and "dark energy".

Consider for a moment the law of conservation of energy as it relates to cause of photon redshift over distance. If photons simply transfer some of their momentum into the plasma as they traverse the plasma of spacetime, then all energy is always conserved and the laws of conservation of energy are obeyed exactly as we would expect. If however space does magic expansion tricks in special locations, and "dark energy" does magical density increasing acts over multiple exponential increases in volume, energy is *not* conserved and the laws of physics are being blatantly violated. That issue *alone* should cause the mainstream to abandon their metaphysical nonsense.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1679
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: More evidence that redshift is not related to expansion

Unread postby neilwilkes » Wed Jan 30, 2019 11:12 am

Sithri wrote:Also, does the tired light theory work with Halton Arp's observation of quasars with higher redshifts than their parent galaxies? He chalks this up to a mass difference but could it be explained by plasma differences which affect tired light?


AFAIK, Arp said that the redshift differences between the Quasars (that he considered to have been ejected from the parent glaxies) and their Parent Galaxies was down to age, not mass difference. I'll go re-read "Seeing Red" to be sure
You will never get a man to understand something his salary depends on him not understanding.
User avatar
neilwilkes
 
Posts: 346
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 4:30 am
Location: London, England

Re: More evidence that redshift is not related to expansion

Unread postby neilwilkes » Wed Jan 30, 2019 11:20 am

Zyxzevn wrote:Great stuff.

Here is a new article:
Dark Energy Gets Weirder: Mysterious Force May Vary Over Time
https://www.space.com/43166-dark-energy ... asars.html

What do you call someone who does not learn from his mistakes?


From the article above we read the following statement:
Quasars are fast-growing supermassive black holes at the hearts of galaxies.

Say WHAT?
Another one:
Risaliti and Lusso found many of the quasars to be incredibly distant

I wager they didn't - bet anything they just assumed this (as no cosmologist in the mainstream would even consider Quasars to be at anything other than cosmological distances so they refuse to see anything to the contrary - see Arp, "Seeing Red" & "Quasars, Redshifts & Controversies" for absolute proof of this mindset) yet still feel the need to reiterate that this is what they "found" - I wonder why?
You will never get a man to understand something his salary depends on him not understanding.
User avatar
neilwilkes
 
Posts: 346
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 4:30 am
Location: London, England

Re: More evidence that redshift is not related to expansion

Unread postby Sithri » Wed Jan 30, 2019 11:28 am

Michael Mozina wrote:
Sithri wrote:Thank you for this information and the tired light theory of light interacting with plasma.


Ashmore, Brynjolffson and Marmet all have some interesting ideas on how redshift in space might actually work. Holushko has also written some interesting papers on this topic.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1105.0010v1.pdf
https://www.plasma-universe.com/Plasma_redshift
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1801.07582
http://vixra.org/pdf/1203.0062v5.pdf

Holushko's model actually passes some very important and complicated observational tests:

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1 ... /2/96/meta

A static universe model also passes the Tolman surface brightness test at larger redshifts, something the LCDM model has a tough time with:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.0275

Chen (see Ashmore's paper for a reference) actually demonstrated in the lab that the number of free electrons in a plasma has a direct effect on the amount of redshift which occurs in the plasma. You might also google the term "inelastic scattering". The fact that photons transfer momentum to the medium is well documented now.

The actual and specific mechanism(s) which have the most effect on photons in space are still pretty debatable but the fact that photons lose momentum to the medium is well demonstrated in the lab. The fact that this known and documented energy transfer process between the light and the medium is not accounted for in the LCDM model is precisely why that particular model now requires three different types of metaphysics to deal with photon redshift, and it *still* cannot explain those recent quasar observations at higher redshifts.

By the way, EU/PC theory can even support an expansion oriented interpretation of photon redshift without evoking metaphysical processes like "space expansion". Time dilation related to GR theory would suffice actually:

https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0601171

This theory is probably in fact the reason why einstein's 'bending' of light around the sun is considered proof of general relativity. If they didn't use light that went through a large area of plasma, we might see a null result with the bending of light around a gravitational source if the light's path of travel located farther away from the surface of the sun.


It is certainly possible that the bending of light has something to do with the plasma medium as well, but GR theory is fully compatible with EU/PC theory and I personally support GR theory without all the metaphysical nonsense associated with the LCDM model.

Mercury's orbit is also better explained by GR theory compared to Newtonian definitions of gravity, and GR enjoys quite a bit of successful testing, not just the bending of light around the sun. There's certainly no need to reject GR theory to embrace EU/PC theory, or a static universe model. In fact, Einstein himself went out of his way to add a non zero constant to GR in an effort to explain a static universe. Note that his non zero constant could easily relate to ordinary EM fields, not necessarily "dark energy", or space expansion or any such metaphysical nonsense.

Also, does the tired light theory work with Halton Arp's observation of quasars with higher redshifts than their parent galaxies? He chalks this up to a mass difference but could it be explained by plasma differences which affect tired light?


That probably depends on the specific tired light model one selects. Fritz Zwicky was actually the first astronomer to propose a tired light theory to explain photon redshift. Somewhere I found a paper that outlines something like 50 different tired light proposals that actually predate the four authors that I mentioned earlier. I'll see if I can't find it tomorrow. It's an interesting read actually.

Contrary to popular LCMD mythology, Edwin Hubble absolutely, positively did *not* demonstrate that the universe is expanding. What he actually demonstrated is that there is a redshift/distance relationship which *could* be related to either a tired light scenario or an expansion process. The problem with an expansion explanation for redshift is that expansion would have to occur at faster than light speeds in LCDM theory to explain what we observe, hence the first metaphysical kludge in LCDM and it's inclusion of "space expansion". It's possible to stuff just about anything or any additional math into a GR formula, including magic energy, but that doesn't mean that magic energy actually exists. or that it's validated based on it's inclusion in a modified GR formula :)

Suffice to say that the LCDM model is falling apart at the seams as we peer further and further out into space. There is no reliable evidence to support the expansion concept at higher redshifts, and a lot of observations which are simply not congruent with the LCDM expansion model, including the observations I listed earlier in this thread.

It should also be noted that after careful consideration, Edwin Hubble actually preferred a tired light explanation of photon redshift, not an expansion explanation:

https://www.science20.com/eternal_blogs ... ress-85962

Hubble was quoted by the Associated Press as saying the following:

https://www.newspapers.com/clip/5684523 ... chronicle/

“The universe probably is not exploding but is a quiet, peaceful place and possibly just about infinite in size.''''


With reply to the boldfaced: General relativity is also a metaphysical explanation of gravity whenever newton's laws work well enough without needing a metaphysical medium of time-space to work with. The precession of mercury can be explained by Newtonian mechanics with Lagrangians:

http://members.triton.net/daveb/ORBITAL ... _FINAL.pdf
Sithri
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2019 2:24 pm

Re: More evidence that redshift is not related to expansion

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Wed Jan 30, 2019 12:27 pm

Sithri wrote:With reply to the boldfaced: General relativity is also a metaphysical explanation of gravity whenever newton's laws work well enough without needing a metaphysical medium of time-space to work with. The precession of mercury can be explained by Newtonian mechanics with Lagrangians:

http://members.triton.net/daveb/ORBITAL ... _FINAL.pdf


I suppose that I'm unclear about how you're personally defining the term "metaphysical". To me the term "metaphysical" implies a cause/effect claim that either hasn't been verified by controlled experimentation or more specifically a cause/effect claim that *cannot* be verified by direct physical experimentation like the claim that "space expansion" has some tangible effect on a photon. It's impossible for instance to experimentally verify that "space expansion" even occurs at all, let alone demonstrate that it has some empirical effect on a real photon in a real experiment with real control mechanisms. Such unverifiable claims fall squarely into the realm of metaphysics IMO.

Cause/effect claims which *have* been verified by active experimentation or could be verified with real control mechanisms aren't metaphysical claims in my book. Time dilation for instance is a unique "prediction" of GR/SR which can and has been verified by direct experimentation.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... -verified/

I'll grant you that it's easy enough to bugger up a GR formula with space expansion and/or dark energy and create a metaphysical brand of a butchered GR formula, but GR itself as Einstein taught it to his students isn't a metaphysical explanation of gravity IMO, it's fully experimentally testable if not fully tested in every respect.

I'm not sure its entirely accurate to describe spacetime as a "medium" in GR so much as spacetime is a geometric feature of gravity and mass in GR. Time is "relative" to speed and mass in GR, but it's not actually a medium per se.

I'd grant you that Netwonian mechanics works well to explain observations in non-relativistic scenarios, like puttering around our own solar system, but GR does offer some advantages when it comes to explaining observations of objects and particles approaching the speed of light. It even explains why light travels at the same speed regardless of the movement characteristics of the observer. I'd even grant you that Newtonian mechanics might adequately explain the movement patterns of Mercury but your paper seems to be evoking aspects of special relativity to do it.

Suffice to say I don't believe that GR theory as Einstein taught it to his students is necessarily metaphysical in nature. It's a bit "weird" perhaps, but it does seem to explain specific high speed observations which Netwonian descriptions of gravity tend to struggle with.

I think a lot of EU/PC proponents tend to confuse LCDM *modifications* to GR theory with GR theory itself. For instance "space expansion" is an optional add-on to GR theory. GR is not dependent upon the validity of 'space expansion" even if the LCMD model is entirely dependent upon that claim. While Einstein added a non-zero constant to GR to explain a static universe, he didn't add "dark energy" to it. In fact he never even tried to characterize his additional non zero constant. It could be related to ordinary things like EM fields for instance.

GR theory is entirely compatible and fully consistent with EU/PC theory, so I have no basic "beef" with GR as Einstein taught it, even though I fully reject the metaphysical Frankenstein known as the LCDM model.

I do believe it may be possible to come up with a QM oriented "theory of everything' which is based on EM fields that ties all the known forces of nature together based on EM feilds, including gravity, but to date I haven't seen one that I'm fully comfortable with.

I"d also concede that Newtonian descriptions of gravity also work very well in many cases and they seem to be entirely compatible with QM oriented descriptions of gravity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ge_ukRbuOw
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1679
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: More evidence that redshift is not related to expansion

Unread postby Sithri » Wed Jan 30, 2019 5:41 pm

Michael Mozina wrote:I suppose that I'm unclear about how you're personally defining the term "metaphysical". To me the term "metaphysical" implies a cause/effect claim that either hasn't been verified by controlled experimentation or more specifically a cause/effect claim that *cannot* be verified by direct physical experimentation like the claim that "space expansion" has some tangible effect on a photon. It's impossible for instance to experimentally verify that "space expansion" even occurs at all, let alone demonstrate that it has some empirical effect on a real photon in a real experiment with real control mechanisms. Such unverifiable claims fall squarely into the realm of metaphysics IMO.

Cause/effect claims which *have* been verified by active experimentation or could be verified with real control mechanisms aren't metaphysical claims in my book. Time dilation for instance is a unique "prediction" of GR/SR which can and has been verified by direct experimentation.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... -verified/

I'll grant you that it's easy enough to bugger up a GR formula with space expansion and/or dark energy and create a metaphysical brand of a butchered GR formula, but GR itself as Einstein taught it to his students isn't a metaphysical explanation of gravity IMO, it's fully experimentally testable if not fully tested in every respect.

I'm not sure its entirely accurate to describe spacetime as a "medium" in GR so much as spacetime is a geometric feature of gravity and mass in GR. Time is "relative" to speed and mass in GR, but it's not actually a medium per se.

I'd grant you that Netwonian mechanics works well to explain observations in non-relativistic scenarios, like puttering around our own solar system, but GR does offer some advantages when it comes to explaining observations of objects and particles approaching the speed of light. It even explains why light travels at the same speed regardless of the movement characteristics of the observer. I'd even grant you that Newtonian mechanics might adequately explain the movement patterns of Mercury but your paper seems to be evoking aspects of special relativity to do it.

Suffice to say I don't believe that GR theory as Einstein taught it to his students is necessarily metaphysical in nature. It's a bit "weird" perhaps, but it does seem to explain specific high speed observations which Netwonian descriptions of gravity tend to struggle with.

I think a lot of EU/PC proponents tend to confuse LCDM *modifications* to GR theory with GR theory itself. For instance "space expansion" is an optional add-on to GR theory. GR is not dependent upon the validity of 'space expansion" even if the LCMD model is entirely dependent upon that claim. While Einstein added a non-zero constant to GR to explain a static universe, he didn't add "dark energy" to it. In fact he never even tried to characterize his additional non zero constant. It could be related to ordinary things like EM fields for instance.

GR theory is entirely compatible and fully consistent with EU/PC theory, so I have no basic "beef" with GR as Einstein taught it, even though I fully reject the metaphysical Frankenstein known as the LCDM model.

I do believe it may be possible to come up with a QM oriented "theory of everything' which is based on EM fields that ties all the known forces of nature together based on EM feilds, including gravity, but to date I haven't seen one that I'm fully comfortable with.

I"d also concede that Newtonian descriptions of gravity also work very well in many cases and they seem to be entirely compatible with QM oriented descriptions of gravity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ge_ukRbuOw


Your definition of metaphysical as that which cannot be explained through cause-and-effect is pertinent to the space-time continuum that is used to anchor the 'geometry' that GRT requires. There is no way of proving or disproving the metaphysical space-time-continuum that GRT requires, and there is not a single shred of evidence that SRT has been proven with time-dilation or length-contraction.


And if you read my writing called "Philosophical Problems with Einstein's SRT and GRT" in the section of this forum called "The Future of Science" you will see reasons for discounting the two theories. I'd enjoy discussion on that subject and to see if I'm right in my understanding of SRT and GRT.
Sithri
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2019 2:24 pm

Re: More evidence that redshift is not related to expansion

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Wed Jan 30, 2019 7:57 pm


The article mixes time-differences (time dilation) due to speed and due to gravity,
which are 2 different things.

For testing there is also the problem that time-differences can be caused by differences in processes.
For example, nuclear decay can vary due to heat and possibly other influences.

The timing of electron-jumps in Lithium (as described in the article) may be changed
due to magnetic influences. Influence that likely changes with speed.
Something that needs testing.

Does gravity bend light at all?
While I think that gravity influences the speed of most physical processes, I have not
seen good evidence that gravity actually bends light.
All evidence for that seems flawed, and sometimes experiments give null-results.
This seems a flaw in general relativity that states that there is no difference between
the acceleration of light and of matter.
It would be interesting to test that specifically.
Like by dropping an instrument with 2 mirrors and a laser vertically to earth.

Now back to time.
Einstein's definition of a clock is related to the speed of light and the distance between 2 mirrors.
And everything is derived from that. He assumes that this clock also defines the time for all
physical processes.

I can also simplify this by stating that all physical processes are related to force-fields.
And force-fields need correction with the speed. This is even necessary to get energy-conservation.

Einstein changes the speed of time (=clock speed) to each individual object. And that even goes to
each atomic sub-particle, which may not even exist as particle in quantum mechanics.
This is why special relativity already does not work with Schroedinger's quantum equation.
And in QFT we get infinite particles and infinite possibilities as extra complexity.

By moving the speed-of-time to the fields of the physical process instead, we get a simple space/time
that is consistent with what we see. But now we get relative fields, where each field is dependent
on time and speed of force-origin. This is far more compatible with quantum mechanics.
As an example: the electric field is already a relative field, as movement changes the
behaviour of the field and gives us magnetism.
Note: this is the most simple version, and I suspect that variations need to be tested.
And unlike special relativity, variations are now possible.

Gravity and time:
I am still wondering about gravity and its connection with time, but there seems to be a solution.
With the QM oriented descriptions of gravity (using Heisenberg), we might also get time differences.
That is because the Heisenberg relationship has a variant with:
Delta(Time)*Delta(Energy) >= h/2
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 989
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

Re: More evidence that redshift is not related to expansion

Unread postby Aardwolf » Thu Jan 31, 2019 9:26 am

Michael Mozina wrote:Cause/effect claims which *have* been verified by active experimentation or could be verified with real control mechanisms aren't metaphysical claims in my book. Time dilation for instance is a unique "prediction" of GR/SR which can and has been verified by direct experimentation.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... -verified/
Time dilation with respect to acceleration is garbage that doesn't stand up to any logical criticism. Take the twins experiment. We're told the reason there is no paradox is because the travelleing twin experiences excessive time dilation due to acceleration. This twin has accelerated away from Earth and then accelerated back. These are both time dilating activities so when he arrives back at Earth not only should he be younger, he should continue to age slower even though he has returned to Earth. Where is the mechanism that speeds his time back up again?

Regarding the redshift issue, if this is caused by expansion of space lengthening the frequency of the light, then I believe the absorption bands should correspondingly widen as they shift to longer frequencies. I haven't seen any discussion about this. Is anyone aware of it mentioned in any papers?
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1300
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: More evidence that redshift is not related to expansion

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Thu Jan 31, 2019 9:36 am

Sithri wrote:Your definition of metaphysical as that which cannot be explained through cause-and-effect is pertinent to the space-time continuum that is used to anchor the 'geometry' that GRT requires. There is no way of proving or disproving the metaphysical space-time-continuum that GRT requires, and there is not a single shred of evidence that SRT has been proven with time-dilation or length-contraction.


I suppose it depends on how one defines the term "evidence" and the specific aspect of GR that we're discussing. The bending of light around massive objects enjoys some amount of evidence and support since Eddington first "tested" that concept during an eclipse. If plasma is bending the light, why would it always bend it inward around an object rather than bending things in a more random pattern due to local conditions in the plasma?

In terms of time dilation, many spacecraft experiments seem to confirm the idea:

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/p ... -the-test/


And if you read my writing called "Philosophical Problems with Einstein's SRT and GRT" in the section of this forum called "The Future of Science" you will see reasons for discounting the two theories. I'd enjoy discussion on that subject and to see if I'm right in my understanding of SRT and GRT.


I'll have to take a look at it when I get time. Thanks for the suggestion. Once I've read it maybe I'll have a better handle on your objections to GR.

Note however that the recent failure of the LCDM model to correctly anticipate the redsift of more distant objects is entirely based on the LCDM model and the LCDM interpretation of photon redshift. LCDM failed that test, but not necessarily due to a failure in GR itself, rather it failed because of their interpretation of redshift as an effect of space expansion. I would classify the concept of "Space expansion" as a metaphysical optional "add on" to a GR formula, but GR is not dependent upon space expansion, just the LCDM model.

My original point is that GR is not incompatible with the EU/PC model of cosmology, even if the LCDM cosmology model *is* incompatible with EU/PC theory. The problem with LCDM isn't so much the inclusion of GR, it's the *misuse* of GR.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1679
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: More evidence that redshift is not related to expansion

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Thu Jan 31, 2019 1:22 pm

Zyxzevn wrote:The article mixes time-differences (time dilation) due to speed and due to gravity,
which are 2 different things.

For testing there is also the problem that time-differences can be caused by differences in processes.
For example, nuclear decay can vary due to heat and possibly other influences.

The timing of electron-jumps in Lithium (as described in the article) may be changed
due to magnetic influences. Influence that likely changes with speed.
Something that needs testing.


I agree with you on those points.

You know that I love you Z, but I'd really rather that this thread not deevolve into a debate about GR theory. Suffice to say that GR theory itself, without all the metaphysical nonsense that is associated with the LCMD model is perfectly congruent and entirely compatible with EU/PC theory.

I personally believe that we will eventually end up with a QM oriented 'theory of everything' that explains all of the four known forces of nature under the umbrella of EM fields, including gravity. Obviously our community is working in that direction already. I simply haven't seen a TOE model yet that I'm as comfortable with as I am with GR. I'm perfectly fine for the time being with including GR theory in an EU/PC cosmology model, so long as we all recognize that gravity isn't the only important force of nature in the universe. I don't think our community has any illusions about that fact anyway.

IMO it would behoove us as a community to at least tolerate GR theory even if it's not one's preferred mathematical model of gravity. Tolerance toward GR theory would make it a whole lot easier for mainstream astronomers to embrace EU/PC theory. LCDM proponents pretty much have to toss out almost everything they think they know about astronomy as it is. it would be nice if their knowledge of GR theory could come with them into the EU/PC paradigm. I don't see any conflict between GR theory as Einstein taught it to his students and EU/PC theory. Even Einstein's introduction of a non-zero constant into GR allows for the merging of EM fields with GR, and it allows for a static universe, so I really see no serious conflict between GR and EU/PC theory.

I will take the time (eventually) to read through Sithri's threads as I get the opportunity to do that. Perhaps then I'll have a better handle on the objections to the GR model of gravity but for now I really don't have a problem with GR without all the metaphysical nonsense related to the LCDM model. I just think we should be very careful not to toss out the GR baby with the LCDM bathwater. :)
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1679
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Next

Return to Electric Universe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: beekeeper and 3 guests