Time Dilation and the Speed of Light

Radrook · Jun 15, 2017

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
OK, this is how I see it: a galaxy would only have proper motion through space relative to other galaxies if some force was, or is, acting on it. The only significant force that is effective over galactic and supra-galactic scales is gravity, which is attractive - it's why galaxies congregate into (super)clusters in the first place.

So the galaxies, overall, will tend to be moving through space towards large centres of mass by the mutual attraction of gravity (and yes, there will be galaxies moving away from each other due to 'overshoot' or because they're attracted to different centres of mass). But there will be no preferred direction of movement overall; galaxies will be gravitationally attracted towards superclusters from all directions. So we should expect a roughly equal number of red-shifted and blue-shifted galaxies - and all shades in-between - overall due to this motion; although if we are in a supercluster, we might expect a few more blue-shifted galaxies close to our supercluster (as they will be more likely to be moving toward us).

The expansion of space is analogous to a repulsive force, tending to increase the separation between galaxies or reduce their relative closing speeds. So it will tend to counter the proper motion due to gravitational attraction rather than reinforce it.

Since the overall proper motion of galaxies through space has no preferred direction (being the result of gravitational attraction), and has no relation to the distance from any observer over cosmological scales, it will not be relevant to calculations of the Hubble red-shift if a reasonably sized sample is taken.
Cool

Yes, I know that gravity is what causes movement within galactic clusters super clusters, and between or among galaxies comprising such clusters. One example within our local cluster involves our Milky Way and Andromeda Galaxy which are approaching each other and are predicted to temporarily bypass each other and then pull themselves together via gravitational attraction. Other galaxies within our local group are satellite galaxies such as the Magellanic Clouds which orbit the Milky way and the Sagittarius dwarf Galaxy which is presently merging with ours.

These motions are proper motions either away from or towards each other and very often part of orbits. It is these motions that I am referring to in relation to the expansion of Space that supposedly takes place within the voids.

Now here is the hypothetical scenario, if we were to take a position within that void and measured the red shift of a super cluster that includes all these proper motions, how exactly would we be able to tell the difference between the two redshifts-the one caused by proper motion and the one being caused by space expansion. That is my question.

Justatruthseeker · Jun 16, 2017

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
What I said in the first of those quotes contradicts your previous assertion, and is the basis for my later comment:

What you said: "you claimed you didn't believe those galaxies were receding from us with increasing speeed".

What I actually said: "Galaxies are in relative motion due to the expansion of spacetime."

No what you said is exactly what I quoted.

"Since the accelerating expansion of the universe is spacetime itself expanding, the galaxies are not undergoing relativistic acceleration" my bold.

No statements of belief or lack of belief, just a statement of the current consensus in cosmology - which also says that the expansion is accelerating. But although the separation between them is accelerating, the galaxies themselves are not undergoing acceleration because it is the expansion of spacetime itself that is accelerating (which, as previously discussed, is not the same as a boat being carried along by an accelerating river).

Who care what the consensus thinks? Newton wasn't concerned, Einstein wasn't concerned.....
Then if you don't accept they are accelerating then you can't calculate the distance to those galaxies because Hubble's Law demands you correlate redshift to their recessional velocity, and since the redshift is increasing their recessional velocity is increasing. You can't have it both ways.

Not sure what you think acceleration has to do with it - Hubble's Law refers to recessional velocity. I already said that "galaxies are in relative motion" and that "their separation velocity can exceed light speed...". If you weren't aware, 'recessional velocity' is separation velocity.

Which is increasing at an accelerating rate....... now you may choose to believe galaxies are separating at an accelerating rate yet their velocity is not increasing and accept illogical pseudoscience if you like....

Exactly; and - as before - if you weren't aware, 'recessional velocity' is separation velocity.

Which is increasing at an accelerating rate...... if you weren't aware.

You're welcome to disagree with the current consensus, that's not unusual, but you were trying to contradict a misinterpretation or misunderstanding of what I said. I've explained that, and I'm going to leave it there.

Yah, I'd run away too if I asked someone to believe in pseudoscience because many do.

Justatruthseeker · Jun 16, 2017

Radrook said:
But it isn't either one or the other. I mean some galaxies are indeed accelerating away from one another as they simultaneously are being separated by the expansion of space itself. So both are contribute the spatial separation. Which brings up the question of how they differentiate between the twain effects if both produce a red shift. I assume that there is a qualitative difference which makes differentiation possible-correct?

They can't differentiate, because the only laboratory correlation we have is the actual velocity of objects. No magical expanding space has ever been observed.

You have to understand the history. Hubble's Law relates it to their recessional velocity. As technology increased and we could see further, the velocities became too great to support this idea any longer. Instead of letting the theory die and look for a new cause, they proposed magical expanding space instead. Because redshift and recessional velocity was the only correlation they had to distance so they refused to abandon their falsified theory.

Hubble himself believed their was no expansion, but they use his name anyways as it lends support to their pseudoscience.

Only beyond 600 mega parsecs are all objects systematically shifted towards the red end of the spectrum. This is because the medium in space begins to become too dense, before this objects posses both red and blue shifts due to their proper motions.

Cosmological redshift has nothing to do with expansion or acceleration. It is the effect of light interacting with plasma.

A New Non-Doppler Redshift

Justatruthseeker · Jun 16, 2017

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
OK, this is how I see it: a galaxy would only have proper motion through space relative to other galaxies if some force was, or is, acting on it. The only significant force that is effective over galactic and supra-galactic scales is gravity, which is attractive - it's why galaxies congregate into (super)clusters in the first place.

This isn't true.
The electromagnetic forces are 10^39 powers stronger than the gravitational forces. Since we are discussing a universe 99.9% plasma the dominating force acting is electromagnetism. The reason galaxies form in the first place is because of Marklund Convection in plasma.

Marklund convection - The Plasma Universe theory (Wikipedia-like Encyclopedia)

Once the plasma finally looses enough charge and cools planetary systems form (neutral matter).

So the galaxies, overall, will tend to be moving through space towards large centres of mass by the mutual attraction of gravity (and yes, there will be galaxies moving away from each other due to 'overshoot' or because they're attracted to different centres of mass). But there will be no preferred direction of movement overall; galaxies will be gravitationally attracted towards superclusters from all directions. So we should expect a roughly equal number of red-shifted and blue-shifted galaxies - and all shades in-between - overall due to this motion; although if we are in a supercluster, we might expect a few more blue-shifted galaxies close to our supercluster (as they will be more likely to be moving toward us).

Except gravity doesn't explain why they form along filimentary strings. Plasma physics on the other hand does, and since 99.9% of the universe is plasma.....

The expansion of space is analogous to a repulsive force, tending to increase the separation between galaxies or reduce their relative closing speeds. So it will tend to counter the proper motion due to gravitational attraction rather than reinforce it.

Or we could just use electromagnetic principles in a plasma medium which both attracts and repels....

Since the overall proper motion of galaxies through space has no preferred direction (being the result of gravitational attraction), and has no relation to the distance from any observer over cosmological scales, it will not be relevant to calculations of the Hubble red-shift if a reasonably sized sample is taken.
Cool

What about the great attractor?

It's not relevant to redshift because the universe is not expanding. That isn't what causes redshift.

A New Non-Doppler Redshift

Justatruthseeker · Jun 16, 2017

Radrook said:
Yes, I know that gravity is what causes movement within galactic clusters super clusters, and between or among galaxies comprising such clusters. One example within our local cluster involves our Milky Way and Andromeda Galaxy which are approaching each other and are predicted to temporarily bypass each other and then pull themselves together via gravitational attraction. Other galaxies within our local group are satellite galaxies such as the Magellanic Clouds which orbit the Milky way and the Sagittarius dwarf Galaxy which is presently merging with ours.

These motions are proper motions either away from or towards each other and very often part of orbits. It is these motions that I am referring to in relation to the expansion of Space that supposedly takes place within the voids.

Now here is the hypothetical scenario, if we were to take a position within that void and measured the red shift of a super cluster that includes all these proper motions, how exactly would we be able to tell the difference between the two redshifts-the one caused by proper motion and the one being caused by space expansion. That is my question.

But we are talking about a universe 99.9% plasma, ionized matter, not clumps of matter. Even moondust behaves differently once it becomes ionized and existing formulas fail to describe its behavior and charge.

Moondust in the Wind | Science Mission Directorate

"We've had some surprising results," says Abbas "We're finding that individual dust grains do not act the same as larger amounts of moon dust put together. Existing theories based on calculations of the charge of a large amount of moondust don't apply to the moondust at the single particle level."

But they want you to treat a universe 99.9% ionized single particles like clumps of neutral particles. Then when their calculations don't get the correct observable results, add 96% Fairie Dust to force the calculations to fit and ask you accept it.

This to a theory that is 99% accurate describing planetary motion (non ionized matter), yet the second they try to apply that 99% correct theory to the other 99.9% they require those 96% ad hoc theories to make what was tested to a 99% accuracy without that Fairie Dust halfway fit.

FrumiousBandersnatch · Jun 16, 2017

Justatruthseeker said:
No what you said is exactly what I quoted.

"Since the accelerating expansion of the universe is spacetime itself expanding, the galaxies are not undergoing relativistic acceleration" my bold.

Yes, I said that too. What I meant by this is that the galaxies aren't accelerating, because they're not changing inertial frames, because although the velocity of separation between them is increasing, it's because spacetime is expanding, not because they are in proper motion through it.

Think about it - a 3D space dotted with galaxies. When that space expands (and when the expansion accelerates), every galaxy moves away from every other galaxy; from the point of view of each galaxy, they are static and the others move away from them in every direction they look. The accelerating separation between them is not due to each galaxy accelerating in any direction. Even if you assume some enterprising advanced civilization fitted their galaxy with a motor they could point in any direction, there's no way they could accelerate so that they got further away from every galaxy surrounding them in all directions. It's not rocket science... oh, wait...

Who care what the consensus thinks?

Most people who take an active interest.

Newton wasn't concerned, Einstein wasn't concerned.....

On the other hand, you're no Newton or Einstein...

Then if you don't accept they are accelerating then you can't calculate the distance to those galaxies because Hubble's Law demands you correlate redshift to their recessional velocity, and since the redshift is increasing their recessional velocity is increasing. You can't have it both ways.

Actually, you can. The distance between galaxies can increase and that increase can accelerate without the galaxies themselves accelerating (as explained above). Hubble's Law applies because the red-shift is a Doppler effect, a measure of the instantaneous recession velocity, and in an expanding universe, is proportional to the distance from the observer.

Which is increasing at an accelerating rate....... now you may choose to believe galaxies are separating at an accelerating rate yet their velocity is not increasing and accept illogical pseudoscience if you like....

Their recession velocity is increasing, but their velocity through space isn't. Nobody said you had to like it

Which is increasing at an accelerating rate...... if you weren't aware.

Indeed, although the galaxies themselves are not accelerating (in this particular respect; they will tend accelerate towards centres of mass like clusters and superclusters).

FrumiousBandersnatch · Jun 16, 2017

Justatruthseeker said:
FrumiousBandersnatch said:

OK, this is how I see it: ...

Click to expand...

This isn't true.

I assure you that is how I see it.

...Except gravity doesn't explain why they form along filimentary strings.

Oh it does, they've done computer simulations and everything. It works out fine

I know you disagree with how I see it because you favour a fringe theory over the mainstream view. That's OK; good luck with that.

Justatruthseeker · Jun 16, 2017

And so far everybody but Radrook has avoided the fact that if the universe were continuing to expand then the CMB would not remain constant but would be required to shift as well. Unless it too has been misinterpreted for what it really is.

I would really like to hear why the background radiation remains unaffected by magical expanding space, but all other radiation is systematically affected beyond 600 mega parsecs?

I don't think anyone has a valid explanation except to finally admit their is no expansion and the CMB is much, much closer in origin.

Justatruthseeker · Jun 16, 2017

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
Yes, I said that too. What I meant by this is that the galaxies aren't accelerating, because they're not changing inertial frames, because although the velocity of separation between them is increasing, it's because spacetime is expanding, not because they are in proper motion through it.

Think about it - a 3D space dotted with galaxies. When that space expands (and when the expansion accelerates), every galaxy moves away from every other galaxy; from the point of view of each galaxy, they are static and the others move away from them in every direction they look. The accelerating separation between them is not due to each galaxy accelerating in any direction. Even if you assume some enterprising advanced civilization fitted their galaxy with a motor they could point in any direction, there's no way they could accelerate so that they got further away from every galaxy surrounding them in all directions. It's not rocket science... oh, wait...

Most people who take an active interest.

On the other hand, you're no Newton or Einstein...

Actually, you can. The distance between galaxies can increase and that increase can accelerate without the galaxies themselves accelerating (as explained above). Hubble's Law applies because the red-shift is a Doppler effect, a measure of the instantaneous recession velocity, and in an expanding universe, is proportional to the distance from the observer.

Their recession velocity is increasing, but their velocity through space isn't. Nobody said you had to like it

Indeed, although the galaxies themselves are not accelerating (in this particular respect; they will tend accelerate towards centres of mass like clusters and superclusters).

Yes, oh wait, let's blow up that balloon and let's measure the increase in velocity of each of those dots on its surface.

Your own example just falsified everything you just said as the second you begin blowing up that balloon, those dots begin moving away from one another with an increasing velocity. They are accelerating as the surface of the balloon both expands and stretches.

To believe otherwise is pure indoctrination away from the facts and physics of science. It's pseudoscience.

Justatruthseeker · Jun 16, 2017

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
I assure you that is how I see it.

Oh it does, they've done computer simulations and everything. It works out fine

I know you disagree with how I see it because you favour a fringe theory over the mainstream view. That's OK; good luck with that.

Hmm, computer simulations, mine actually work.

Galaxy formation - The Plasma Universe theory (Wikipedia-like Encyclopedia)

Where is your source?

Plus I have actual laboratory experiments in space.

Where are yours?

I would say the tides are turning, you just haven't accepted the facts of experimentation, shown by the fact you refuse to accept the results of over 12 null results when it comes to dark matter. Despite falsification after falsification you refuse to accept the results and still believe.

Radrook · Jun 16, 2017

Justatruthseeker said:
They can't differentiate, because the only laboratory correlation we have is the actual velocity of objects. No magical expanding space has ever been observed.

You have to understand the history. Hubble's Law relates it to their recessional velocity. As technology increased and we could see further, the velocities became too great to support this idea any longer. Instead of letting the theory die and look for a new cause, they proposed magical expanding space instead. Because redshift and recessional velocity was the only correlation they had to distance so they refused to abandon their falsified theory.

Hubble himself believed their was no expansion, but they use his name anyways as it lends support to their pseudoscience.

Only beyond 600 mega parsecs are all objects systematically shifted towards the red end of the spectrum. This is because the medium in space begins to become too dense, before this objects posses both red and blue shifts due to their proper motions.

Cosmological redshift has nothing to do with expansion or acceleration. It is the effect of light interacting with plasma.

A New Non-Doppler Redshift

Here is what I understand you are saying:

When velocities threatened to go beyond the speed of light barrier as distances increased, they panicked and introduced the expansion of space concept to avoid having to abandon the Hubble constant or Einstein's speed limit.

If the red shift observation as correlated with universal expansion had arisen prior to Einstein's speed of light limit, then they would have accepted those velocities as proper motion while retaining the Hubble Constant as applicable.

FrumiousBandersnatch · Jun 17, 2017

Justatruthseeker said:
... the second you begin blowing up that balloon, those dots begin moving away from one another with an increasing velocity. They are accelerating as the surface of the balloon both expands and stretches.

But they're not moving or accelerating across the surface of the balloon; they remain static on the surface while the distances between them increase - that's the point; when it's space itself that's expanding, that accelerating separation is not due to acceleration of the galaxies - their inertial frames don't change, just as the points on the balloon remain static on its surface. Simples.

FrumiousBandersnatch · Jun 17, 2017

Justatruthseeker said:
And so far everybody but Radrook has avoided the fact that if the universe were continuing to expand then the CMB would not remain constant but would be required to shift as well. Unless it too has been misinterpreted for what it really is.

I would really like to hear why the background radiation remains unaffected by magical expanding space, but all other radiation is systematically affected beyond 600 mega parsecs?

But the CMB is affected by the expansion of the universe - that's why its observed temperature has been red-shifted from around 3,000 K to around 2.726 K. The BB expanding universe model predicts this result (and the CMB variations).

FrumiousBandersnatch · Jun 17, 2017

Justatruthseeker said:
Hmm, computer simulations, mine actually work.

Galaxy formation - The Plasma Universe theory (Wikipedia-like Encyclopedia)

Where is your source?

Here's a good one published in Nature, that uses gravity with refined baryonic hydrodynamics. You'll also notice the very first sentence of the abstract:

"Previous simulations of the growth of cosmic structures have broadly reproduced the ‘cosmic web’ of galaxies that we see in the Universe..."

The reason that gravity dominates structure formation at the largest scales is because there is no negative mass to produce negative gravity - it's all attractive, whereas the electromagnetic force is charge based, positive and negative, attractive and repulsive. Each, in isolation, follows the inverse square relation of reduction with distance, but mixed EM charges tend to cancel - the force of electric dipoles follows an inverse cube relation (1/r^3), and electric quadrupoles an inverse fourth power (1/r^4), and so-on. The net result is that large plasma aggregations, such as the sun, have a relatively tiny net charge (due to more electrons than protons being lost in the solar wind).

Justatruthseeker · Jun 17, 2017

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
Yes, I said that too. What I meant by this is that the galaxies aren't accelerating, because they're not changing inertial frames, because although the velocity of separation between them is increasing, it's because spacetime is expanding, not because they are in proper motion through it.

That pseudoscience of frame switching was falsified the second we performed tests with clocks in airplanes calculated from the earth centered frame. Now I understand they proposed frame switching before actual laboratory results were available, but that is no reason to continue with the pseudoscience now that we have those actual verifiable tests.... perhaps you should study those experiments so you can abandon the pseudoscience.

FrumiousBandersnatch · Jun 17, 2017

Justatruthseeker said:
That pseudoscience of frame switching was falsified the second we performed tests with clocks in airplanes calculated from the earth centered frame. Now I understand they proposed frame switching before actual laboratory results were available, but that is no reason to continue with the pseudoscience now that we have those actual verifiable tests.... perhaps you should study those experiments so you can abandon the pseudoscience.

If you think Einsteinian relativity is pseudoscience, you're in a very small minority. Good luck with that.

Justatruthseeker · Jun 17, 2017

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
Here's a good one published in Nature, that uses gravity with refined baryonic hydrodynamics. You'll also notice the very first sentence of the abstract:

"Previous simulations of the growth of cosmic structures have broadly reproduced the ‘cosmic web’ of galaxies that we see in the Universe..."

The reason that gravity dominates structure formation at the largest scales is because there is no negative mass to produce negative gravity - it's all attractive, whereas the electromagnetic force is charge based, positive and negative, attractive and repulsive. Each, in isolation, follows the inverse square relation of reduction with distance, but mixed EM charges tend to cancel - the force of electric dipoles follows an inverse cube relation (1/r^3), and electric quadrupoles an inverse fourth power (1/r^4), and so-on. The net result is that large plasma aggregations, such as the sun, have a relatively tiny net charge (due to more electrons than protons being lost in the solar wind).

Riiiight, that's why every single spacecraft charges to 10,000 volts or more, because of that tiny net charge...... if you say so, if you say so.

But once again the facts dispel your proclamations.

https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full/2001/24/aah2649/aah2649.html

It's only been known since the nineteen twenties that the sun possesses a significant net charge, but astrophysicists tend to ignore things they don't understand, as do their followers.

[serious] · Jun 17, 2017

Radrook said:
Revealing that they landed on a planet of apes would' be a spoiler for either version since the title tells us that's where they are going anyway. That would be like saying that revealing that there is an alien in the film Alien is a spoiler.

Neither does the film being 50 years old avoid someone from spoiling it by revealing the ending since there are films in that age range which millions of people haven't seen and giving away the ending would indeed spoil it for them.

In fact, I once commented on the western Comanche, gave away too much and was told that I had spoiled it for the person who had wanted to see it. That film is older than Planet of the Apes. I was also recently accused of spoiling the film Burnt Offerings by provide too much detail. That one is approx. 35 years old.

The issue would be that you identified that planet as earth.

FrumiousBandersnatch · Jun 17, 2017

Justatruthseeker said:
Riiiight, that's why every single spacecraft charges to 10,000 volts or more, because of that tiny net charge...... if you say so, if you say so.

The accumulation of charge on a spacecraft is quite different from the net charge of a body of plasma.

But once again the facts dispel your proclamations.

Astronomy & Astrophysics

Hmm, let's have a look at the abstract: "This field is a consequence of the tendency of light electrons to segregate from heavier protons in the solar gravitational field"

And now what I said: "large plasma aggregations, such as the sun, have a relatively tiny net charge (due to more electrons than protons being lost in the solar wind).

I said the net charge is 'relatively tiny' in the context of its attractive effects compared to the sun's gravity.

I notice you have a tendency to ignore context when trying to find statements to counter or criticize. It's a bad habit - taking quotes out of context is a form of Straw Man fallacy. Just sayin'.

Justatruthseeker · Jun 17, 2017

Radrook said:
Here is what I understand you are saying:

When velocities threatened to go beyond the speed of light barrier as distances increased, they panicked and introduced the expansion of space concept to avoid having to abandon the Hubble constant or Einstein's speed limit.

If the red shift observation as correlated with universal expansion had arisen prior to Einstein's speed of light limit, then they would have accepted those velocities as proper motion while retaining the Hubble Constant as applicable.

Yes, but had they simply looked for another explanation as Hubble himself insisted must be the case, they wouldn't have needed to apply ad hoc Fairie Dust to the equation. Panicked so much so they didnt even really think it through, because if redshift is not an actual correlation of their recessional velocity, which is increasing, then the distance to galaxies can not be determined anyways. They want it to be recessional velocity, but at the same time you see they are arguing against recessional velocity. And yet they cant see their own self contradictions so good is the indoctrination.

Time Dilation and the Speed of Light

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Newbie

'As we treat the least of our brothers...' RIP GA

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Similar threads