Isn't time a measurement of motion?

FrumiousBandersnatch said:

There are other measures, and they broadly agree with the Hubble redshift.

As I've said previously, recession velocity is not an alternative to the expansion of space, it's simply the speed of increase in distance of some object away from a point of reference. It can be due to the expansion of space or proper motion, or both. This makes the rest of your diatribe moot - unless you want to reword it using terms that will make sense.

Click to expand...

It makes nothing moot except your avoidance of the fact that Hubble’s law requires it be directly correlated to recessional velocity.

Not the least of which your own expansion theory says it has nothing to do with recessional velocity, but that space itself is expanding causing the redshift. Are you not even aware of what your own theory claims? Apparently not, or you are and are trying to avoid it.....

You haven’t proven any expansion of space to correlate anything to. It’s a meaningless ad-hoc explanation that has no basis in any known reality or laboratory experiment.

There is no test you can devise to prove expansion, so it remains nothing but a hypothesis, not a theory, not a fact.

It is Fairie Dust.....

Justatruthseeker said:

It makes nothing moot except your avoidance of the fact that Hubble’s law requires it be directly correlated to recessional velocity.

Click to expand...

It is, in general.

Not the least of which your own expansion theory says it has nothing to do with recessional velocity, but that space itself is expanding causing the redshift. Are you not even aware of what your own theory claims? Apparently not, or you are and are trying to avoid it.....

Click to expand...

I told you in the very post you're quoting that your understanding of recessional velocity is wrong. The recessional velocity due to the expansion of spacetime even has a name: the Hubble velocity. Here's another source:

You haven’t proven any expansion of space to correlate anything to. It’s a meaningless ad-hoc explanation that has no basis in any known reality or laboratory experiment.

There is no test you can devise to prove expansion, so it remains nothing but a hypothesis, not a theory, not a fact.

It is Fairie Dust.....

Click to expand...

Lol! I don't have to prove anything; it's been the overwhelming expert consensus view for 100 years and there's a mass of evidence to support it. If some bloke on the internet thinks it's wrong, the onus is on him to show how; this is known as the 'burden of proof'.

FrumiousBandersnatch said:

It is, in general.

I told you in the very post you're quoting that your understanding of recessional velocity is wrong. The recessional velocity due to the expansion of spacetime even has a name: the Hubble velocity. Here's another source:

"Recessional velocity is the rate at which an astronomical object is moving away, typically from Earth.
... The recessional velocity of a galaxy (or any cosmological object) at a particular distance is also termed as Hubble velocity...
The recessional velocity of a galaxy is usually calculated from the redshift observed in its emitted electromagnetic radiation. The distance to the galaxy is then estimated using Hubble's Law."
Wikipedia
​

Lol! I don't have to prove anything; it's been the overwhelming expert consensus view for 100 years and there's a mass of evidence to support it. If some bloke on the internet thinks it's wrong, the onus is on him to show how; this is known as the 'burden of proof'.

Click to expand...

No, no....

The part you convienently forgot to quote:

“The redshift z is often described as a redshift velocity, which is the recessional velocity that would produce the same redshift if it were caused by a linear Doppler effect (which, however, is not the case, as the shift is caused in part by a cosmological expansion of space, and because the velocities involved are too large to use a non-relativistic formula for Doppler shift).”

So it is not the case that it is recessional velocities and the velocities are too large to use Hubble’s law......

Your inconsistency is readily apparent, you just can’t see it or refuse to....

Experts? They are surprised every time they look in the telescope..... they couldn’t even get things correct at the suns heliosphere and you want us to believe they got it correct hundreds of thousand of light years distance?

Who you trying to kid, yourself? The first sign of an irrelevant argument, the fallacy of arguing from authority without being able to back anything up with scientific proof.....

Your faith is indeed strong....

Justatruthseeker said:

No, no....

The part you convienently forgot to quote:

“The redshift z is often described as a redshift velocity, which is the recessional velocity that would produce the same redshift if it were caused by a linear Doppler effect (which, however, is not the case, as the shift is caused in part by a cosmological expansion of space, and because the velocities involved are too large to use a non-relativistic formula for Doppler shift).”

Click to expand...

I didn't quote it because it's not in the link I posted. That quote is just saying that a relativistic Dopper shift calculation is used for relativistic velocities so as to give a velocity equivalent to what you'd get if the Doppler effect was linear.

FrumiousBandersnatch said:

I didn't quote it because it's not in the link I posted. That quote is just saying that a relativistic Dopper shift calculation is used for relativistic velocities so as to give a velocity equivalent to what you'd get if the Doppler effect was linear.

Click to expand...

No, it’s telling you that the effect would produce the same result if it were caused by a linear Doppler affect (recessional velocity), but then it goes on to tell you this however is not the case, because it is caused by the expansion of space, not a linear velocity (Hubble’s Law), and the velocities are too great to use a linear calculation.

You are fooling no one but yourself and that is such a sad thing for someone to do to oneself....

But that’s exactly what you use, since no proof exists that a non-linear calculation (expansion of space) exists.

Your logical fallacy in the argument from authority simply shows you have no proof of expansion and that it is mere faith that sustains it.

The fact that your very arguments are self conflicting further proves your lack of evidence. You first claim it is solely a linear velocity cause and equation due solely to recessional velocity, then jump ship when shown your theory doesn’t allow that....

FrumiousBandersnatch said:

I didn't quote it because it's not in the link I posted. That quote is just saying that a relativistic Dopper shift calculation is used for relativistic velocities so as to give a velocity equivalent to what you'd get if the Doppler effect was linear.

Click to expand...

By the way, Doppler shift is specifically and *only* related to *moving objects* in the lab, not 'space expansion'. Equivocating space expansion with Doppler shift is a blatant bait and switch technique.

Michael said:

By the way, Doppler shift is specifically and *only* related to *moving objects* in the lab, not 'space expansion'. Equivocating space expansion with Doppler shift is a blatant bait and switch technique.

Click to expand...

They know this. They also know they have no laboratory validation of any kind to equate Doppler shift to any mythical expansion.

Bait and switch is all they have. Which is why his link talked only of Doppler shift, then when I showed him what they claim is cosmological redshift had nothing to do with actual Doppler shift but expansion, he was left with nothing but abandoning his first argument and link.... and attempt the bait and switch.....

Michael said:

By the way, Doppler shift is specifically and *only* related to *moving objects* in the lab, not 'space expansion'. Equivocating space expansion with Doppler shift is a blatant bait and switch technique.

Click to expand...

Any observer in relative motion with respect to a wave source will observe a Doppler shift of the wavelength. It makes no difference what the cause of the motion is (how could it?).

Space expansion isn't being called Doppler shift, so there's no equivocation.

Space expansion provides relative motion between observer and distant galaxy. Distant galaxy is a wave source, therefore observer observes Doppler shift of the wavelength. Simples.

FrumiousBandersnatch said:

Any observer in relative motion with respect to a wave source will observe a Doppler shift of the wavelength. It makes no difference what the cause of the motion is (how could it?).

Click to expand...

But they don’t claim the redshift is because of the objects motion, but because space expansion is expanding the wave......

Not similar in the least.

You keep confusing Hubble’s law (motion of source or observer) with their claim (expansion of space causing the shift) not its motion.....

It is their claim that space itself is causing it, not the motion the expansion causes.....

That is why he called it a bait and switch....

Which is why they told you a linear calculation could not be used because it had nothing to do with Doppler (a linear calculation).

Justatruthseeker said:

But they don’t claim the redshift is because of the objects motion, but because space expansion is expanding the wave......

Not similar in the least.

You keep confusing Hubble’s law (motion) with their claim (expansion of space causing the shift) not its motion.....

Click to expand...

The expansion of space means the distance between the observer and the galaxy is increasing, i.e. they're in relative motion, therefore the observer observes a Doppler shift in the light from the galaxy which is caused by the expansion of space.

FrumiousBandersnatch said:

The expansion of space means the distance between the observer and the galaxy is increasing, i.e. they're in relative motion, therefore the observer observes a Doppler shift in the light from the galaxy which is caused by the expansion of space.

Click to expand...

False. I repeat again, Doppler shift *only* relates to moving objects in real laboratory experiments, not "space expansion". Space expansion has *zero* effect on any photon in any laboratory experiment.

What the observer presumably observes in space in the LCDM model is "metaphysical space expansion redshift" which supposedly looks just like Doppler shift.

Michael said:

False. I repeat again, Doppler shift *only* relates to moving objects in real laboratory experiments, not "space expansion". Space expansion has *zero* effect on any photon in any laboratory experiment.

What the observer presumably observes in space in the LCDM model is "metaphysical space expansion redshift" which supposedly looks just like Doppler shift.

Click to expand...

Meh. Good luck with your custom definition of Doppler shift.

FrumiousBandersnatch said:

The expansion of space means the distance between the observer and the galaxy is increasing, i.e. they're in relative motion, therefore the observer observes a Doppler shift in the light from the galaxy which is caused by the expansion of space.

Click to expand...

You still don’t understand, do you...

“which is the recessional velocity that would produce the same redshift if it were caused by a linear Doppler effect (which, however, is not the case, as the shift is caused in part by a cosmological expansion of space,”

The redshift is NOT caused by the objects linear motion or ours.

What part of expansion theory do you not understand? The is not the case or would if it was similar which it is not?

It is the changing scale of space causing the shift, not the motion of the object. Only a tiny fraction is claimed to be Doppler, because a linear equation can’t be used..... only the shifts as we see locally is claimed to be Doppler, the other 99% of the shift is claimed to be caused by the changing scale of mythical space expansion..... not by a linear Doppler shift......

FrumiousBandersnatch said:

Meh. Good luck with your custom definition of Doppler shift.

Click to expand...

LOL!

It is *you*, not me who are creating a custom and overly broad definition of the term Doppler shift. I'm using the term in a way that is exactly correct and specifically consistent with all laboratory experiments involving Doppler shift.

Astronomers on the other hand are blatantly misusing the term. Doppler shift is *only* observed in moving object experiments. You are engaging in an equivocation fallacy and a bait and switch routine to try to give your unproven metaphysical space expansion claim a false sense of respectability where none is warranted or due.

Worse yet, the constant misuse of the term "Doppler shift" in association with the LCDM model continually confuses the average person because the average person rightfully associates the term "Doppler shift" with moving objects because only moving objects cause Doppler shift. Astronomers then turn right around and blame the average person for being confused about the meaning of their misuse of the term "Doppler shift".

I repeat again, Doppler shift is *only* and strictly caused by moving objects. It has *nothing whatsoever* to do with "space expansion". You're making a *completely different claim" (space expansion, not moving objects) while trying to ride the coattails of Doppler shift. It's an unethical bait and switch device as it's being misused in astronomy today.

False equivalence - Wikipedia

False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which two completely opposing arguments appear to be logically equivalent when in fact they are not. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency

Click to expand...

Moving objects are the only known cause of "Doppler shift". "Space expansion" is not the same argument or the same cause/effect claim as moving objects. The use of the term "Doppler Shift' in reference to space expansion is by definition a false equivalence fallacy. They are not equal. It is inconsistent to use the term "Doppler shift" which relates strictly to moving objects to describe "space expansion". They are not the same cause/effect claim and they are not equal.

Michael said:

LOL!

It is *you*, not me who are creating a custom and overly broad definition of the term Doppler shift. I'm using the term in a way that is exactly correct and specifically consistent with all laboratory experiments involving Doppler shift.

Astronomers on the other hand are blatantly misusing the term. Doppler shift is *only* observed in moving object experiments. You are engaging in an equivocation fallacy and a bait and switch routine to try to give your unproven metaphysical space expansion claim a false sense of respectability where none is warranted or due.

Worse yet, the constant misuse of the term "Doppler shift" in association with the LCDM model continually confuses the average person because the average person rightfully associates the term "Doppler shift" with moving objects because only moving objects cause Doppler shift. Astronomers then turn right around and blame the average person for being confused about the meaning of their misuse of the term "Doppler shift".

I repeat again, Doppler shift is *only* and strictly caused by moving objects. It has *nothing whatsoever* to do with "space expansion". You're making a *completely different claim" (space expansion, not moving objects) while trying to ride the coattails of Doppler shift. It's an unethical bait and switch device as it's being misused in astronomy today.

Click to expand...

You and I understand this. But most are completely fooled by their use of the term “Doppler”.

The problem is that at one time it was assumed it was a Doppler shift, until technology advanced and the z values became so high that it was no longer supportable. At this point they switched it to expanding space, while retaining the familiar term of Doppler shift, even when they had abandoned it as the cause.

Most who think they understand the theory, simply have no idea of the history. All they hear is the retained term Doppler, but not really understanding that the claim of expanding space has nothing to do with any actual Doppler shift.

The term is simply a relic holdover of familiarity which has nothing to do with their actual claims of the cause of cosmological redshift.

Justatruthseeker said:

You still don’t understand, do you...

“which is the recessional velocity that would produce the same redshift if it were caused by a linear Doppler effect (which, however, is not the case, as the shift is caused in part by a cosmological expansion of space,”

The redshift is NOT caused by the objects linear motion or ours.

What part of expansion theory do you not understand? The is not the case or would if it was similar which it is not?

It is the changing scale of space causing the shift, not the motion of the object. Only a tiny fraction is claimed to be Doppler, because a linear equation can’t be used..... only the shifts as we see locally is claimed to be Doppler, the other 99% of the shift is claimed to be caused by the changing scale of mythical space expansion..... not by a linear Doppler shift......

Click to expand...

The Doppler effect doesn't have to be linear; consider acceleration. Can you post the link to the quoted reference? I'd like to see it in context.

Michael said:

LOL!

It is *you*, not me who are creating a custom and overly broad definition of the term Doppler shift. I'm using the term in a way that is exactly correct and specifically consistent with all laboratory experiments involving Doppler shift.

Astronomers on the other hand are blatantly misusing the term. Doppler shift is *only* observed in moving object experiments. You are engaging in an equivocation fallacy and a bait and switch routine to try to give your unproven metaphysical space expansion claim a false sense of respectability where none is warranted or due.

Worse yet, the constant misuse of the term "Doppler shift" in association with the LCDM model continually confuses the average person because the average person rightfully associates the term "Doppler shift" with moving objects because only moving objects cause Doppler shift. Astronomers then turn right around and blame the average person for being confused about the meaning of their misuse of the term "Doppler shift".

I repeat again, Doppler shift is *only* and strictly caused by moving objects. It has *nothing whatsoever* to do with "space expansion". You're making a *completely different claim" (space expansion, not moving objects) while trying to ride the coattails of Doppler shift. It's an unethical bait and switch device as it's being misused in astronomy today.

Click to expand...

Look up the definition in any reference or dictionary. It's just a change in wave frequency due to relative motion. Whether you want to call it 'Doppler shift' or not, it's physically inevitable.

Michael said:

False equivalence - Wikipedia

Moving objects are the only known cause of "Doppler shift". "Space expansion" is not the same argument or the same cause/effect claim as moving objects. The use of the term "Doppler Shift' in reference to space expansion is by definition a false equivalence fallacy. They are not equal. It is inconsistent to use the term "Doppler shift" which relates strictly to moving objects to describe "space expansion". They are not the same cause/effect claim and they are not equal.

Click to expand...

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

FrumiousBandersnatch said:

The Doppler effect doesn't have to be linear; consider acceleration. Can you post the link to the quoted reference? I'd like to see it in context.

Click to expand...

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.....

And you don’t even want to get into its derivation and exponential adjustment for dark energy which requires using Einstein’s cosmological constant which is claimed to be the biggest mistake of his life.......

I understand their term velocity confuses most into thinking they are talking of a real velocity. But they are not, but the changing scale factor of space. So we are not discussing Doppler shifts which require real velocities, nor can Hubble’s law actually be used, since it requires real velocities as well. They have fooled you with a bait and switch, and you are simply parroting what you were taught. Understandable, but not supportable.

Hence Hubble’s stand: “Hubble believed that his count data gave a more reasonable result concerning spatial curvature if the redshift correction was made assuming no recession. To the very end of his writings he maintained this position, favouring (or at the very least keeping open) the model where no true expansion exists, and therefore that the redshift "represents a hitherto unrecognized principle of nature.”

Even Hubble understood the velocity was not a real velocity, only apparent, and that no “continuing accelerating” expansion existed....

Accept the reality, not the fantasy of accelerating expansion.

A New Non-Doppler Redshift