Red Shift may be time shift

[dad]

Red shifting has been assumed to mean certain things based on what it means on and near earth. However, if time is different in deep space, it could be that this is what causes a red shift.

How long a wave takes depends on time and how time exists. If time is different than we cannot use earth time to measure the time a wave takes to do anything at all! That means red shifting cannot be taken to mean what science has taken it to mean. Of course frequency also relates to time.

Wow.

 

[jacknife]

Red shifting has been assumed to mean certain things based on what it means on and near earth. However, if time is different in deep space, it could be that this is what causes a red shift.

How long a wave takes depends on time and how time exists. If time is different than we cannot use earth time to measure the time a wave takes to do anything at all! That means red shifting cannot be taken to mean what science has taken it to mean. Of course frequency also relates to time.

Wow.

so your trying to say that earth is in a bubble that meses with space and time itself? and correct me if i am wrong but isn't red shift used to determine if an object is traveling towards or away from us? and that's why we see the changes.

 

[SteveNZ]

Haha ........... I enjoyed the thread.

I have always felt science should not simply assume that what we see/observe/measure in our tiny part of space is the same everywhere..........

As a surveyor we talk about 'the whole to the part'. In other words we measure within a trig scheme (control points set in place) and accept carefully that the corrections and specific gravitational effects are likely to be similar within that.

But the whole idea of measuring items at a small location and assuming that effect extends outwards beyond the area in question is accepted as 'guess work'. Yet in science we do so when discussing galaxies, huge intergalactic distances and time.

 

[dad]

so your trying to say that earth is in a bubble that meses with space and time itself? and correct me if i am wrong but isn't red shift used to determine if an object is traveling towards or away from us? and that's why we see the changes.

Earth and the solar system may be in a bubble. Not that IT messes with universal time and space, but maybe God set up the stars to determine time here...and therefore time/space!


In our time area, naturally if some wave is moving away or closer to us, it will take a certain time to do so....that is meaningless far away unless time was the same there. We don't know that.

 

[dad]

Haha ........... I enjoyed the thread.

I have always felt science should not simply assume that what we see/observe/measure in our tiny part of space is the same everywhere..........

Of course it shouldn't..unless there was real reason it should.

As a surveyor we talk about 'the whole to the part'. In other words we measure within a trig scheme (control points set in place) and accept carefully that the corrections and specific gravitational effects are likely to be similar within that.

Bingo.

But the whole idea of measuring items at a small location and assuming that effect extends outwards beyond the area in question is accepted as 'guess work'. Yet in science we do so when discussing galaxies, huge intergalactic distances and time.

Assumptions and a dollar and a half might get one a coffee. They cannot be used to make God and creation a lie.

 

[jacknife]

uh-huh tell me do you have any evidence of this?

 

[Elendur]

And you've done the math to substantiate this?

 

[Michael]

And you've done the math to substantiate this?

That's actually one of his *least* controversial claims.

[astro-ph/0601171] Is space really expanding? A counterexample
Gravitational time dilation of photons explains Dark Energy | A conversation on TED.com

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Of course time is different for every single frame undergoing acceleration, as is distance.

Inertial frame of reference - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Physical laws take the same form in all inertial frames. By contrast, in a non-inertial reference frame the laws of physics vary depending on the acceleration of that frame with respect to an inertial frame, and the usual physical forces must be supplemented by fictitious forces."

Point A and B are not magically one light year apart to frames undergoing different accelerations. Rulers shrink - distances increase, they do not magically remain the same.

Since most here claim the entire universe is undergoing continued "increasing" accelerated expansion - in what rational world do the laws of physics remain the same between frames undergoing different unknown "increasing" acceleration, when we clearly understand they do not?

 

[Elendur]

That's actually one of his *least* controversial claims.

[astro-ph/0601171] Is space really expanding? A counterexample
Gravitational time dilation of photons explains Dark Energy | A conversation on TED.com

Controversial or not, what matters is the substantiation. He never brings anything to the table (at least when it comes to non-literature analysis).

I asked him because I'm convinced he'll fail to provide yet again, and I think that he needs to be called out when he spouts his claims (even if he won't quit).

Edit: Also, his claim of non-homogenous behaviour of time doesn't seem to be what your links are about.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

So science understands the laws of physics vary depending on the acceleration of that frame, supposedly with respect to an inertial frame. But since everything is increasing in acceleration if we accept the pseudo-science of redshift....[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

And then pretend that any frame is inertial, when all is under "increasing" acceleration. It works within the sun's frame 98% of the time, but fails by 95% in any other frame. But almost all objects within the sun's frame share the same relative velocities with respect to the central axis, or frame of reference. But when they do not share that axis frame of reference, or whichever is taken as the frame of reference - the anomalies become apparent.



NASA Baffled by Unexplained Force Acting on Space Probes


To then claim that distances are known in the macro, when even on the micro scale (solar systems) it becomes apparent they are not, when the central axis of frames under acceleration are not shared, is absurd, IMO. And when the solar system is the macro, even on the micro when one considers GPS satellites when clocks are not synched.

We have no way to determine our true acceleration - or lack thereof - except relative to any others similarly situated. And therefore no way to determine how far light actually travels in one year or at what speed - except for what we "determine" a meter to be in this non-inertial frame of reference, in which rulers and clocks are known to shrink or slow when accelerated, with respect to the acceleration through space we are already undergoing. Because the laws of physics as we know them are not similar to any frame undergoing acceleration different than the observers frame of reference of the central axis. And so mainstream will rationalize and ignore, but never confront or admit to the true situation. That neither distances nor true velocity can be known with any certainty, except "relative" to any that shares your axis frame of acceleration. And that every single object experiences a different but proportional change in the atomic structure depending solely on acceleration or energy content as observed by any specific frame undergoing acceleration from the central axis. And all those not sharing that central axis frame - do not experience the same laws of physics.


We don't need MOND, you just need to stop pretending the laws of physics are the same outside that sufficiently small area of space in which the central axis frame is defined. So you want to ignore plasma physics, then fine, let us discuss relativity and it's limited frame of reference.

 

[dad]

uh-huh tell me do you have any evidence of this?

Science is too limited to know one way or the other. However, Scripture does indicate that the stars are for earth time marking. Scripture also indicates spiritual realities in space, not just beyond it where God lives. Scripture also indicates that Jesus is beyond time, and indeed may indicate that time as we know it will not exist in the future.

Why would we assume that time is the same in deep space?? Have you any real reasons??

 

[dad]

And you've done the math to substantiate this?

If there was math you could show to substantiate time being the same, you could talk. Hoo ha.

 

[dad]

Of course time is different for every single frame undergoing acceleration, as is distance.

Inertial frame of reference - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Physical laws take the same form in all inertial frames. By contrast, in a non-inertial reference frame the laws of physics vary depending on the acceleration of that frame with respect to an inertial frame, and the usual physical forces must be supplemented by fictitious forces."

Point A and B are not magically one light year apart to frames undergoing different accelerations. Rulers shrink - distances increase, they do not magically remain the same.

Since most here claim the entire universe is undergoing continued "increasing" accelerated expansion - in what rational world do the laws of physics remain the same between frames undergoing different unknown "increasing" acceleration, when we clearly understand they do not?

This all assumes that the space between points and everywhere else is as out time and space. Therefore it doesn't even really address the issue, but dances around using only earth area as the basis for redesigning the universe comprehension. No can do.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Red shifting has been assumed to mean certain things based on what it means on and near earth. However, if time is different in deep space, it could be that this is what causes a red shift.

How long a wave takes depends on time and how time exists. If time is different than we cannot use earth time to measure the time a wave takes to do anything at all! That means red shifting cannot be taken to mean what science has taken it to mean. Of course frequency also relates to time.

Wow.

...only if time is different in deep space.

is it?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

This all assumes that the space between points and everywhere else is as out time and space. Therefore it doesn't even really address the issue, but dances around using only earth area as the basis for redesigning the universe comprehension. No can do.

Duh, what do you think I just said? Your so intent on thinking you are the only one correct, you don't have a clue as to what I just really said. You "read" what you wanted to read, and failed to actually comprehend anything you just read.

The only difference is I just have to "pretend" relativity is correct to disprove their own claims about the universe. Simply use their own claimed logic against them. But again, you failed to comprehend a single thing I said.

Claiming to be the only correct one, while at the same time claiming nothing is known, with no basis to claim anything. If you or they understood what relativity really meant, all of you would know the futility of trying to apply one "increasing" accelerating frame to another differently situated "increasing" accelerating frame. But none of you truly understands what they postulate - and how the very thought of cosmological redshift violates everything they claim their theory says is correct. If they truly believed in cosmological redshift, they would actually know their theory of distances and time has no basis in anything but relative to "us". That nothing is absolute and no claims can be made about anything outside the chosen frame of reference in that sufficiently small area of space-time.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I'm not sure any of you understand relativity at all, let alone his first postulate.

"(1) that the laws of physics are invariant (i.e., identical) in all inertial systems (non-accelerating frames of reference)"

And then claim the entire universe is undergoing increasing accelerated expansion - while claiming to be able to apply the same laws of physics from one increasing accelerating frame to another, when the very postulate of relativity forbids it, and tells you it must be the exact opposite.

No, I seriously doubt any of you really understand what relativity actually means when you add the pseudo-science of cosmological redhsift.

Hence Hubble's reluctance to even consider it, but his preference of a then "hereto undiscovered phenomenon of nature as more logically explaining space-time". A logic that did not require violating all of known physics and making claims that accelerating frames of reference share the same laws of physics when only inertial frames do.

 

[Elendur]

If there was math you could show to substantiate time being the same, you could talk. Hoo ha.

You mean aside from not observing any inconsistency?

Your claim is vacuous and you still have nothing.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

...only if time is different in deep space.

is it?

No choice if you accept the incorrect belief in cosmological redshift and continued accelerated expansion.

(1) that the laws of physics are invariant (i.e., identical) in all inertial systems (non-accelerating frames of reference).

Under acceleration rulers shrink, clocks slow - so time can never be the same in any frame undergoing acceleration. Since they claim the entire universe is undergoing this acceleration....

 

[dad]

...only if time is different in deep space.

is it?

Probably. Of course no one has been there so science doesn't know. I mentioned some clues from the bible already, and it comes down heavily on the side of a different space, because it has spirits living there, and the stars were put there for us to mark time.