Isn't time a measurement of motion?

[Michael]

All it takes is relative motion, whatever the cause. Just consider the basic physics of receding wave emitters.

You're still relying upon a logical fallacy and intentionally ignoring the fact that they are two entirely different cause/effect claims. While Doppler shift relates to moving objects, 'cosmological redshift" does not. Whereas moving objects have been empirically demonstrated to cause photon redshift, space expansion has not. You're still engaging in a false equivalence fallacy.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You're still relying upon a logical fallacy and intentionally ignoring the fact that they are two entirely different cause/effect claims. While Doppler shift relates to moving objects, 'cosmological redshift" does not. Whereas moving objects have been empirically demonstrated to cause photon redshift, space expansion has not. You're still engaging in a false equivalency fallacy.

I’ve tried to explain to him that the velocity term does not lead to a real velocity, which leads to confusion as people see velocity and interpret it as a real velocity. Even went so far as to give him their own statement that the velocity is not an actual real velocity, but is a changing scale of space.

Which as you noted has no empirical backing.

I am now awaiting for his avoidance of the fact that the velocity term is not an actual real velocity so he can keep his false beliefs that he has been baited and switched into believing....

It’s not his fault, he just parrots what he’s been taught, not realizing the bait and switch routine pulled over his eyes. I am just hoping he will wake up and realize he has been taught a falsehood.

It comes from that faith that the experts are always correct, even when they constantly declare their surprise every single time they look into the telescope.....

 

[Michael]

I’ve tried to explain to him that the velocity term does not lead to a real velocity, which leads to confusion as people see velocity and interpret it as a real velocity. Even went so far as to give him their own statement that the velocity is not an actual real velocity, but is a changing scale of space.

Which as you noted has no empirical backing.

That's the problem. They don't want you to realize or recognize that it's a completely separate and completely unsupported cause/effect claim. They therefore intentionally confuse the issue with that false equivalence fallacy and then turn right around and blame the average person who's trying to understand their model for the confusion it causes.

The bottom line is that there is *zero* empirical cause/effect support for their core claim that space expands, or that it has any effect on a photon. It's simply an affirming the consequent fallacy:

"Redshift, therefore 'fill in the blank did it' and Doppler shift somehow proves it." They might as well claim that magic expansion did it, and Doppler shift proves it. It's one of the least ethical arguments of big bang theory IMO.

They should simply and openly admit that their core claim about the cause of redshift is not demonstrated in the lab and can never be demonstrated in a lab, and therefore it must always remain a pure an act of faith on the part of the believer. If they did that, they'd have to admit that their core claim is based on faith and metaphysical dogma, not science or empirical physics. It's an unfalsifiable and unverifiable claim as to the cause of redshift to begin with.

I am now awaiting for his avoidance of the fact that the velocity term is not an actual real velocity so he can keep his false beliefs that he has been baited and switched into believing....

Good luck with that.

I think it's pretty obvious now why Hubble himself didn't believe in a big bang model and why he preferred a static universe and tired light explanation for redshift. There are far too many logical and rational inconsistencies associated with an expansion oriented explanation for redshift. That's also why the expansion interpretation of redshift has failed two important tests in the last two decades. It's an untenable explanation, which is why they need to defy the conservation laws of physics and magic energy to make it work.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

That's the problem. They don't want you to realize or recognize that it's a completely separate and completely unsupported cause/effect claim. They therefore intentionally confuse the issue with that false equivalence fallacy and then turn right around and blame the average person who's trying to understand their model for the confusion it causes.

The bottom line is that there is *zero* empirical cause/effect support for their core claim that space expands, or that it has any effect on a photon. It's simply an affirming the consequent fallacy:

"Redshift, therefore 'fill in the blank did it' and Doppler shift somehow proves it." They might as well claim that magic expansion did it, and Doppler shift proves it. It's one of the least ethical arguments of big bang theory IMO.

They should simply and openly admit that their core claim about the cause of redshift is not demonstrated in the lab and can never be demonstrated in a lab, and therefore it must always remain a pure an act of faith on the part of the believer. If they did that, they'd have to admit that their core claim is based on faith and metaphysical dogma, not science or empirical physics. It's an unfalsifiable and unverifiable claim as to the cause of redshift to begin with.



Good luck with that.

I think it's pretty obvious now why Hubble himself didn't believe in a big bang model and why he preferred a static universe and tired light explanation for redshift. There are far too many logical and rational inconsistencies associated with an expansion oriented explanation for redshift. That's also why the expansion interpretation of redshift has failed two important tests in the last two decades. It's an untenable explanation, which is why they need to defy the conservation laws of physics and magic energy to make it work.

Well I am still holding out hope , since it is their very own direct statement (not mine) that the velocity is not a real velocity and brings confusion when people think of it as a real velocity.

Of course they created this very confusion by continuing to use the velocity term in order to attempt to hang onto Doppler as a backup to their unfalsifiable and untestable claims.

Deliberate? You bet, since you are continuing to use a velocity term while telling people not to be confused into thinking if it as an actual velocity.

Hubble simply didn’t want to rock the boat, understanding what happens to those that buck the system, so left the final determination up to others. Even if he never agreed with their determination of the cause.

This is why in every article he was careful to always use the word “apparent” with velocity. Understanding that velocity did not give an accurate description of the curvature of spacetime or of distances.

But, without their magical expansion affecting photons, they have no way to actually determine distances to far galaxies. This is why they will leave the confusion in place, and will never abandon their magical expansion of nothing. They want people to accept that Doppler can be used, even if no real velocity exists, because Doppler has been verified in the lab. This fake bait and switch gives their pseudoscience a semblance of respectability, otherwise totally lacking...

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Sure, but you should already know it....

Hubble's law - Wikipedia

Understand:

“The "redshift velocity" vrs is not so simply related to real velocity at larger velocities, however, and this terminology leads to confusion if interpreted as a real velocity.”

So even if they use the terms velocity, they are not talking about a real velocity.... hence your confusion, it has led you into thinking it is a real velocity they are discussing, when in fact they are discussing scale changes....

Also understand:

“According to this approach, the relation cz = vr is an approximation valid at low redshifts, to be replaced by a relation at large redshifts that is model-dependent......

.....Strictly speaking, neither v nor D in the formula are directly observable, because they are properties nowof a galaxy, whereas our observations refer to the galaxy in the past, at the time that the light we currently see left it........

.......For distant galaxies, v (or D) cannot be calculated from z without specifying a detailed model for how H changes with time. The redshift is not even directly related to the recession velocity at the time the light set out, but it does have a simple interpretation: (1+z)is the factor by which the universe has expanded while the photon was travelling towards the observer.”

It is not the recessional velocity the redshift is related to, but the changing scale of space based upon the model used.

And just like our argument about time, the Hubble constant has a changing value in the past. It is no more constant than time is, they just refuse to adjust for time dilation because it would upset their age calculations.

“The parameter

is commonly called the “Hubble constant”, but that is a misnomer since it is constant in space only at a fixed time; it varies with time in nearly all cosmological models, and all observations of far distant objects are also observations into the distant past, when the “constant” had a different value.”

And any value you calculate into the past will be incorrect, because time was varying with the acceleration of the universe as well, but is not accounted for..... and why? Because that would require actually changing every model in existence to match the reality of time dilation.....

OK - thanks for the reference. It confirms your quote that the expansion of space causes velocities requiring a relativistic Doppler shift calculation (i.e. an adjustment for the frequency reduction at source due to relativistic time dilation relative to the observer), so indirectly confirming that the Doppler shift is used at cosmological scales and has a large contribution from the expansion of space.

With regard to velocity (change in distance over time), metric scale changes (such as the expansion of space) result in a change in distance between unbound objects over time - this is what a change in the scale of the metric means. Therefore, by definition, those objects are in relative motion and have a velocity relative to each other. To say "the redshift velocity is not so simply related to real velocity at larger velocities" is not to say that it is unrelated, but that the relation is not as simple as the relatively linear relation at low velocities - for a given cosmological model, the redshift velocity can be approximated to the true recession velocity via the relevant Hubble constant/parameter via a Taylor series.

You'll see from the section headed "Recessional Velocity", that, paraphrasing, all measured proper distances between co-moving points (which are not moving relative to each other except as a result of the expansion of space) increase proportionally to the scale factor of the universe, which increases as the universe expands. Light from a galaxy is redshifted due to the expansion of space, and its distance will increase with time - this is called the "recession velocity".

Can you follow from that section, or my paraphrasing above, that the "recession velocity" they describe is the increase in distance between points solely as a result of the expansion of space, and that there is an associated redshift?

Your final paragraph still fails to grasp that local to a selected frame, the rate of time is constant and time calculations can be uniformly applied to all events local to that frame, whatever its movements. Time dilation only has meaning in regard to observations from some other frame with which you wish to compare.

 

[Michael]

But, without their magical expansion affecting photons, they have no way to actually determine distances to far galaxies. This is why they will leave the confusion in place, and will never abandon their magical expansion of nothing. They want people to accept that Doppler can be used, even if no real velocity exists, because Doppler has been verified in the lab. This fake bait and switch gives their pseudoscience a semblance of respectability, otherwise totally lacking...

Indeed.

The LCDM model of cosmology fails another important test

I don't know if you caught that recent paper on quasar studies that was published recently, but it's definitely not good news for expansion proponents. Their expansion interpretation of redshift fails at higher redshifts. That's now the second time in as many decades that the expansion interpretation of redshift has failed to correctly predict the outcome of observations at larger distances.

When the SN1A data didn't jive with their predictions of a *decelerating* universe, they loaded up their expansion model with a hypothetical new form of energy that defies the conservation laws of physics. It was bad enough that dark energy needed to remain at a constant density throughout the expansion process to explain the SN1A data, but to explain the new quasar observations, dark energy would actually have to *increase* in density per unit volume throughout multiple exponential increases in volume.

It can't even be associated with a "constant" in a GR formula anymore, it would have to be an *increasing variable* now. Dark energy is the ultimate free energy machine. Imagine if I told you that the more dark energy that I used to fill up a piston to produce power, the more dark energy I had leftover after filling it up? Would you believe me? Science routinely rejects free energy machines for violating conservation of energy laws, but somehow dark energy gets a free pass. It's getting even more unbelievable by the decade.

On top of all that, the dark matter claim struck out three more times in three different and unique DM experiments just this week alone:

Three strikes for dark matter theory this week, and it's only Tuesday.

Between the quasar study and the DM experiments, the LCDM model is literally falling apart of the seams now, and they simply do not wish to discuss it.

I really don't think that the LCDM cosmology model will survive the JWST telescope era. Assuming it keeps finding 'mature' galaxies at even higher redshifts like Hubble, there just won't be anywhere left to hide anymore. The lack of useful predictions and the incorrect predictions are killing the LCDM model as it is. I certainly don't see it getting any better once the JWST comes online. JWST will probably see mature galaxies for as far as it can see too.

The "bait and switch'/equivocation fallacy routine related to Doppler shift isn't the only slight of hand being used to promote the LCDM model. Edwin Hubble personally preferred a static universe and tired light solution to explain redshift in space later in his life, yet astronomers, astronomy papers, and astronomy shows on TV routinely (falsely) claim that "Hubble proved that the universe is expanding", a claim that Hubble himself didn't even believe to be true. They also assert that GR theory predicts singularity type black holes when in fact Einstein rejected that idea. Hannes Alfven referred to magnetic reconnection theory as "pseudoscience' too, but you'd never know that by listening to the mainstream or reading their papers. There seems to be quite a few ethically 'questionable' statements which are used by the mainstream when promoting the LCDM model, and the Doppler shift equivocation fallacy is just one of them.

That really shouldn't be the case. LCDM proponents should be able to sell their model based on real empirical physics, but unfortunately they don't have a lot of real empirical physics to offer.

IMO the worst part of the whole redshift problem relates to the way that the mainstream handles the 'tired light' alternative explanation of redshift which Hubble preferred. They actually have no published papers to offer (well one by Fritz Zwicky when he was promoting his own tired light model 50+ years ago) on the topic of tired light alternative explanations of photon redshift. Instead, they constantly cite an unpublished website by one guy (Ned Wright) who in turn only references one actual published paper on the topic, that one and only one tired light model paper by Fritz Zwicky from more than 50 years ago. When promoting his own tired light model, Fritz Zwicky pointed out that one type of inelastic scattering, specifically Compton scattering, probably wouldn't fully explain cosmological redshift without "blurring" the images at higher redshifts. Never once did Zwicky mention any other known mechanisms of redshift, just Compton scattering, and Zwicky only did that much so that he could try to justify and promote his *own tired light explanation* for redshift. The astronomy industry has *never* done an exhaustive study of all the known types of inelastic scattering to find out if they would or could explain cosmological redshift. They simply handwave away tired light alternatives, and cite unpublished references to try to support their handwavy arguments. Keep in mind that tired light explanations of redshift do *not* violate conservation of energy laws like dark energy. Any loss of momentum by the photon is simply transferred to the plasma medium and all energy is conserved just as we would expect. If you read that quasar thread, I cited Chen's empirical lab work with plasma where he showed an empirical correlation between the number of free electrons present in the plasma and the amount of plasma redshift that he observed. There is a simple empirical explanation for photon redshift which A) works in the lab unlike the "space expansion" claim as to cause, and B) violates no laws of physics like the expansion explanation does.

The amount of mental gymnastics required to support the LCDM model of cosmology is simply off scale. Not only does the LCDM model violate conservation of energy laws, it fails large redshift observations galore. and it's failed every laboratory test of the exotic matter claim to date.

I think that's why we end up with equivocation fallacies being misused to support the model. It just doesn't have any empirical support to offer.

 

[Michael]

OK - thanks for the reference. It confirms your quote that the expansion of space causes velocities requiring a relativistic Doppler shift calculation (i.e. an adjustment for the frequency reduction at source due to relativistic time dilation relative to the observer), so indirectly confirming that the Doppler shift is used at cosmological scales and has a large contribution from the expansion of space.

It indirectly confirms that the whole concept of space expansion is based on a blatant equivocation fallacy! There's no empirical support for that claim at all!

You keep trying to gloss over the fact that your claim as to cause (space expansion) is based entirely upon an equivocation fallacy and you have no empirical evidence at all to support your model! It's a complete non-sequitur argument. You might as well be claiming 'God did it' and citing Doppler shift to support the claim that God causes redshift.

Oy Vey. The whole LCDM model is just ridiculous IMO. It's based on equivocation fallacies, non-sequiturs, and it violates the known laws of physics to boot. It requires four unsupported leaps of faith in metaphysical constructs, all of which defy empirical laboratory cause/effect justification, and none of which are necessary or warranted in the first place.

Why do you suppose that Edwin Hubble didn't personally prefer the expansion interpretation of redshift later in his life?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

OK - thanks for the reference. It confirms your quote that the expansion of space causes velocities requiring a relativistic Doppler shift calculation (i.e. an adjustment for the frequency reduction at source due to relativistic time dilation relative to the observer), so indirectly confirming that the Doppler shift is used at cosmological scales and has a large contribution from the expansion of space.

With regard to velocity (change in distance over time), metric scale changes (such as the expansion of space) result in a change in distance between unbound objects over time - this is what a change in the scale of the metric means. Therefore, by definition, those objects are in relative motion and have a velocity relative to each other. To say "the redshift velocity is not so simply related to real velocity at larger velocities" is not to say that it is unrelated, but that the relation is not as simple as the relatively linear relation at low velocities - for a given cosmological model, the redshift velocity can be approximated to the true recession velocity via the relevant Hubble constant/parameter via a Taylor series.

You'll see from the section headed "Recessional Velocity", that, paraphrasing, all measured proper distances between co-moving points (which are not moving relative to each other except as a result of the expansion of space) increase proportionally to the scale factor of the universe, which increases as the universe expands. Light from a galaxy is redshifted due to the expansion of space, and its distance will increase with time - this is called the "recession velocity".

Can you follow from that section, or my paraphrasing above, that the "recession velocity" they describe is the increase in distance between points solely as a result of the expansion of space, and that there is an associated redshift?

Your final paragraph still fails to grasp that local to a selected frame, the rate of time is constant and time calculations can be uniformly applied to all events local to that frame, whatever its movements. Time dilation only has meaning in regard to observations from some other frame with which you wish to compare.

Michael was correct, you would completely ignore them telling you the velocity was not to be confused with an actual velocity.....

And here you are, still trying to insist the velocity which isn’t a real velocity is a velocity.....

Sigh, one too far gone down the rabbit hole....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

It indirectly confirms that the whole concept of space expansion is based on a blatant equivocation fallacy! There's no empirical support for that claim at all!

You keep trying to gloss over the fact that your claim as to cause (space expansion) is based entirely upon an equivocation fallacy and you have no empirical evidence at all to support your model! It's a complete non-sequitur argument. You might as well be claiming 'God did it' and citing Doppler shift to support the claim that God causes redshift.

Oy Vey. The whole LCDM model is just ridiculous IMO. It's based on equivocation fallacies, non-sequiturs, and it violates the known laws of physics to boot. It requires four unsupported leaps of faith in metaphysical constructs, all of which defy empirical laboratory cause/effect justification, and none of which are necessary or warranted in the first place.

Why do you suppose that Edwin Hubble didn't personally prefer the expansion interpretation of redshift later in his life?

So much for my hope. As you said he would simply ignore that the velocity factor which isn’t to be confused with a real velocity, is still a velocity.

And such is what we have to deal with....

 

[Michael]

So much for my hope. As you said he would simply ignore that the velocity factor which isn’t to be confused with a real velocity, is still a velocity.

And such is what we have to deal with....

Just trust them because they all have Phd's.

They *have* to ignore and/or gloss over that very important and critical issue because otherwise they have to come to terms with the fact that they have absolutely *zero* empirical cause/effect support for their model and no scientific justification whatsoever. The whole LCDM model is one gigantic non-sequitur/equivocation fallacy which violates known laws of physics. That is a fact.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Just trust them because they all have Phd's.

They *have* to ignore and/or gloss over that very important and critical issue because otherwise they have to come to terms with the fact that they have absolutely *zero* empirical cause/effect support for their model and no scientific justification whatsoever. The whole LCDM model is one gigantic non-sequitur/equivocation fallacy which violates known laws of physics. That is a fact.

Yes, they have thoroughly convinced their worshipers that everything is fine in wonderland to the point that they can see their statement that the velocity component is not to be confused with a real velocity, and they go right ahead and do just that.... and then try to justify it by claiming it just means relativistic corrections for velocity must be made instead. Totally ignoring the fact that it isn’t a velocity at all, relativistic or non-relativistic....

It’s a lost cause, they are too deep in the rabbit hole to emerge unscathed.

 

[BNR32FAN]

If time simply measures motion, like Earth's orbit and rotation, then wouldn't that make time a concept of imagination. By this I mean, wouldn't time be a human concept? It wouldn't exist at all!

What do you think of this?

Actually time is a measurement between events.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Actually time is a measurement between events.

But the measurement between events is measured by motion or distance????

One of the most logical arguments about what time is I have seen.

A revaluation of time and velocity by Miles Williams Mathis

 

[Michael]

FYI, the entire concept of "space expansion" is self conflicted from the very start of the expansion process too.

The excuse that they tyically use as to why they cannot demonstrate their space expansion cause/effect claim in a lab on Earth today is because according to them, the presence of a large amount of mass/energy per volume area inside our solar system, inside our galaxy and in our local galaxy cluster and supercluster prevents "space expansion" from occurring in these areas. Too much mass/energy in too small of a volume area prevents space expansion from occurring. According to them, space expansion can only occur when the mass energy per volume area drops to nearly zero, presumably somewhere between superclusters. That's when the magic happens.

On the other hand, they also try to tell us that if you stuff all the mass/energy of the *entire physical universe* into a volume that is smaller than a breadbox, space expansion happens. So essentially they make rationalizations for the laboratory impotence of space expansion based on a mass/energy concentration argument, but then try to throw that same rationalization right out the window in the early stages of expansion. They want to have their space expansion cake and eat it too.

The whole space expansion argument is self conflicted within the first few seconds of their expansion model!

So.....

The space expansion model is self conflicted. It's a gross violation of the conservation of energy laws. It requires four metaphysical constructs to make it work, and it *still* doesn't work right to explain large redshift observations like that recent quasar study and it's failed every dark matter experiment to date. Other than that, it's a dandy cosmology theory.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You're still relying upon a logical fallacy and intentionally ignoring the fact that they are two entirely different cause/effect claims. While Doppler shift relates to moving objects, 'cosmological redshift" does not. Whereas moving objects have been empirically demonstrated to cause photon redshift, space expansion has not. You're still engaging in a false equivalence fallacy.

I had to chuckle when Justatruthseeker quoted at me from the Hubble's law - Wikipedia article that bases its calculations of recession velocity and the Doppler effect on co-moving points that are not moving relative to each other except as a result of the expansion of space.

 

[Michael]

It’s a lost cause, they are too deep in the rabbit hole to emerge unscathed.

You're right about that part. They're complete committed to the LCDM model, both professionally and financially and there's no way to let it go without it being a painful process on every level. It's pretty much an all or nothing proposition. The mental gymnastics that is required to keep that belief system alive is simply exhausting.

 

[Michael]

I had to chuckle when Justatruthseeker quoted at me from the Hubble's law - Wikipedia article that bases its calculations of recession velocity and the Doppler effect on co-moving points that are not moving relative to each other except as a result of the expansion of space.

Is space really expanding? A counterexample

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Is space really expanding? A counterexample

OK, that's interesting.

Btw their abstract says, "... we show that the cosmological redshift is there simply a relativistic Doppler shift."
Didn't you say "Doppler shift is specifically and *only* related to *moving objects* in the lab"?
Are you now extending 'the lab' to encompass entire observable universe?

 

[Michael]

OK, that's interesting.

Btw their abstract says, "... we show that the cosmological redshift is there simply a relativistic Doppler shift."
Didn't you say "Doppler shift is specifically and *only* related to *moving objects* in the lab"?
Are you now extending 'the lab' to encompass entire observable universe?

The type of redshift that he's proposing in that paper *is* ordinary relativistic Doppler shift. The model is based on ordinary spacetime expansion, moving objects and time dilation, not "space expansion".

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The type of redshift that he's proposing in that paper *is* ordinary relativistic Doppler shift. The model is based on ordinary spacetime expansion, moving objects and time dilation, not "space expansion".

You didn't answer the question about the 'lab'? how big is it?