Marius

IF SPACE HAS MASS, HOW DOES IT EXCEED THE SPEED OF LIGHT ?

Now that makes perfect sense.

If space has mass then Ether exists. If Ether exists then Einstein is an idiot, because he removed the ether from space.

And then ether would explain why light would loose energy - because light travels through a medium of etherium. Not because space itself expands.

But that formula does not apply to Dark Energy, Einstein. Because no one knows what a dark energy is. That's why its called Dark.

In physics, acceleration is the rate of change of the velocity of an object with mass with respect to time. 

In physical reality, since F=ma, only objects with mass can accelerate, and objects without mass can't, because there is no mass to accelerate.

In cosmology, however, SPACE ITSELF has ACCELERATION (attributed to the expansion rate of space itself). If space is not an actual object with mass (but a mere geometrical concept, which expands for no explainable reason), then WHAT exactly in this 'expanding space' is accelerated, and by what ?

Let me guess, it's dark, it's mysterious, and it's everywhere in space. And it's having a really bad day at physics. Space accelerates to in excess of light speed because something dark and mysterious, allegedly called the DARK ENERGY (because the DARK FORCE was already taken by STAR WARS copyright) is possesing space and makes it accelerate faster and faster and faster. Are we sure this is science and not pseudo-science,  and an extremelly bad one at that ?

I've heard dark age theories which make more sense. Like rats being spontaneously created by satan to spread the plague. Ok, not entirely scientific, but it didnt even pretend to be a scientific theory, and otherwise the theory made perfect sense given what we know about satan. He is dark, he is evil, and doesnt like humans very much. So that was to be expected from a dark medieval era. But this dark science, this is not expected from this Enlightened era and it is simply ridiculous, and atrocius at the same time, that the scientific community is not only coming up with such theories, but it is actually claiming that this utter non-sense is actually 'proven by observations'. Because they simply observe a redshift of light, i.e. a loss of energy of light proportional to distance. So that means space expands with incredible acceleration in excess of the speed of light, because they can't explain it otherwise. But they can't explain why space itself expands with such incredible acceleration either. So why not just leave it at 'we don't know what is causing the galactic redshift', and leave others who are not fucking retarded to explain it ? Because Vatican, who actually invented this big-bang abortion of a theory, as 'scientific evidence' for the creation myth, and money, that's why.  

On 1/2/2022 at 2:26 PM, swansont said:

!

Moderator Note

To be precise you were asked for a model and evidence for your proposal, which is not the same thing as a mechanism. You did offer a mechanism, and several people pointed out that the mechanism (scattering) does not account for observations. It is therefore falsified. (Newtonian gravity lacks a mechanism, but that is not sufficient to discard it; gravity really does depend on the masses and distance^2, at the level of precision where we use Newtonian gravity)

Lacking a model that matches the evidence means your proposal was unsupported.

What is required, then, is to show that expansion is what matches the evidence.

 

 

 

!

Moderator Note

The thread was closed because you were asked for a model and evidence to support it, and not only failed to do so, you attempted to distract from your failure.

In short, the thread was closed because you didn’t follow the rules. Reading more into it is an issue of your motivations, not mine.

Others will point out the role of dark energy, and evidence of expansion, but it’s telling that you are not familiar with all of this already

 

And I gave you the model, which is the photon equation E=hf, which directly links energy to frequency, and loss of energy to drop in frequency. Galactic redshift is nothing more but a direct consequence of the photon model, IF we agree that photons can loose energy over vast distances, due to interactions with other particles or some unknown process, without being blurred.

You say that this model is not possible because you know for a fact how light interacts with ALL POSSIBLE PARTICLES (which include unknown particles) on its course of millions or billions light-years, in which light has to travel through plasma clouds, gas clouds, free electrons, neutrinos, and so on, and that all these processes are well known and lead to a scattering of light which would cause light to appear blurred. But we know for a fact that light does indeed travel through those mediums, not just in a pure vacuum, and that it reaches us without being noticebly blurred. For example, each galaxy has an immense halo of electrically charged gas (or plasma), which spreads for millions of light years, and yet we see the galaxies very clearly !  It is extremely unlikely that light somehow manages to travel through these mediums for millions of light years without interacting with other particles and loosing energy in this process. This means that it is extremely likely that light does indeed loose energy, which implies that it is shifted to red, without being blurred, even if you pretend to know for a fact that this is not possible.

So here is your model. 

Now what is your model for space expansion, I mean what do you think that happens in a space that stretches space with this immense acceleration, as though space would be an actual physical object that can somehow change its shape and expand/curve and so on ? Also how do you measure the expansion of a space, if say there are no galaxies in said expanding space, and no galactic redshift to interpret as space expansion ? And finally, what is the experimental evidence for expanding space ? What human made experiment proves without a shadow of a doubt that space does indeed expand ?

If you cant answer this questions is becase your expanding space is a total bs with no logical consistency or actual proof, other than galactic redshift, which is a circular argument because you conclude space expands because you presume redshift is caused by space expansion. Your presumption is also the conclusion, circular logical fallacy. 

Quote

You made numerous references to a class of models collectively called

tired light, as an alternative to explain cosmological redshift.[/quote][/quote]

 

I simply used the formula for light energy (E=hf) and saw that if Energy of the photon drops you automatically get a redshift, as frequency also drops. So the physics is this: Photon travels over millions of light years=>Photon energy drops (for some reason)=>frequency drops=>REDSHIFT.

I am asked to give the EXACT mechanism as to why photon energy drops over vast distances. They, on the other hand, do not give any mechanism for why space expands, which is the premise of their cosmological redshift. They just tell me a story, which involves a mysterious dark energy. Why is their story better than my story ? Tired light is based entirely on the physics/energy of the photon, while their story is based entirely on the physics/energy of the 'space expansion', which is a totally unknown physics.

 

 

For example, Zwicky’s original scattering model is immediately falsified by the fact that we...well...don’t observe any scattering (which would visually blur distant images). Others are falsified because they are wavelength-dependent, and thus can’t account for cosmological redshift. I don’t know of a single tired light model that is actually consistent with available data.

Because they didnt invent Dark Something to make it consistent with data, like they do in other cases with Dark Energy, or Dark Matter. But I invented it, and trust me, it solves the whole problem ! 

 

This is why this line of thinking has been pretty much abandoned by the scientific community.

This is why the scientific community is in a perpetual CRISYS. And will never get out of it because it refuses to see the (tired) LIGHT.

Quote

It

 has already been explained to you that other aspects of cosmology like universal expansion over large scales, gravity, etc are all overwhelmingly supported scientific theories.

Supported by what ?! By mere assumptions such as redshift is caused by space expansion, and by self-contradicting theories which predict contracting, then static, then expanding universes as time goes by ?

Quote

Yet we do not understand the mechanism that drives them.

I dont understand the mechanism that drives tired light either. But I have to explain in front of you, while you dont have to explain anything. 

Quote

Are you denying gravity exists because we are unable to ascribe a mechanism?

No, Einstein ! I am simply asking you to respect your own standards which you impose to others. You asked me to give a mechanism for the tired light (or energy loss of light over vast distance) and closed the thread because I couldn't ! Now I ask you to give a mechanism for space expansion/big bang ! What is it so hard to understand ??

Quote

Or are you ladened down with so much baggage and

 agenda, that you are sticking your fingers in your ears.

You really get it do you ? 

Quote

Evidence for the BB:

(1)The observed expansion. (2) The relic left over heat known as the CMBR (3) The abundence of the lighter elements (4) Galactic distribution.[/quote]

1) Here we go again. What is observed is REDSHIFT, which you say it's from space expansion. I say its from light exhaustion, or tired light. I dont have a mechanism for this, but neither do you ! So why is your assumption better than mine ?

2) The CMBR is also explained by tired light in a static universe (by energy loss and frequency drop of light below the visible spectrum). As does the whole cosmic background radiation (radio, infrared), from which you cherry pick the micro-wave part that suits your mainstream big-bang agenda.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Quote

A

 mechanism can only be proposed once you have a theory. At least in physics and chemistry. I've told you in another thread, but you didn't answer.

I agree. But that doesnt adress my point. You ask me to give a mechanism for the tired light theory, but on the other hand you don't give any mechanism for your space expansion/big-bang theory. Or you simply say its caused by a mysterious dark energy and that's it.

Quote

 

 

 

In the case of cosmology, the big bang is an inevitable consequence of Einstein's equations

No it is not ! Because Einstein's equations innitially predicted a contracting universe. Only after Hubble saw the redlight he changed the prediction. Which was a postdiction. And again this doesnt adress my point !

 

 

 

plus reasonable --and observationally sound-- cosmological hypotheses (cosmological principle, Hubble's law...).

Those are all based on ASSUMPTIONS. Hubbles law is based on the assumption that space expands. This is not proven by anything, it is taken for granted, and after more than 100 years there is still no mechanism to explain how exactly this space expansion works.   

 

 

When extrapolated backwards in time, an expanding universe leads to a time in the remote past when everything was much, much closer together. There's your bang.

Thats your ideea of a bang. Based on the assumption that space expands. Which is based on Einsteins relativity, which predicted the universe should contract. Contraction is not expansion, it is the exact opposite.

And I didnt ask how did you arrive at the IDEEA of your big bang, but what is the mechanism for the big-bang. What caused the bang ?

 

 

Seems to make sense, doesn't it?

No. It doesnt many any sense. Because Einstein's equations don't make any sense. Even for him. At first when he solved his equations he came to the result that the universe should contract because of gravity. Then he added a cosmological constant to make it static. And then, after Hubble saw the redlight, he removed the constant and somehow the universe was expanding ! That is serious pseudo-science and post-diction.

 

And that is not what I asked on this and the other thread. I asked to give a mechanism for the Big Bang and the space expansion.

If you dont have a mechanism for space expansion, but take this space expansion for granted, then why do you require me to have a mechanism for tired light ? Why can't I just take this tired light for granted, like you take space expansion for granted, without having to explain it ? Or say that a dark something is causing the light to loose energy and drop in frequency, like you say that a dark energy causes space itself to expand ?

Since I understand that there is a very high standard on this forum which requires a mechanism for every theory, and not just an ideea, then I think you too are required to respect your own standards and give a mechanism for the theories that you support. So what is the mechanism that you propose for the Big-Bang ? 

Its called Dark Light.

Dark Light in a mysterious light which chases bright light until it tires and looses energy, causing it to drop it's cadence (or frequency) and shift to red.

This is sooo going Mainstream.

No, it's not a joke.
It's SCIENCE.

Recently I started a topic here in the attempt to explain the galactic redshift without the notion of 'space expansion', which was immediately moved to Speculation by a moderator and closed on the basis that I could not explain the MECHANISM which makes light to loose energy over vast distances, and therefore my whole theory (which is actually based on Fritz Zwicky's tired light) was unsupported and not worthy of consideration because of this.

Actually I tried to explain it by saying that the mechanism is Dark Something, a mysterious phenomenon which science has not yet discovered, as I understand from Mainstream Science this a very good and entirely plausible explanation for Space Expansion, which relies on a yet to be discovered DARK ENERGY to explain the mechanism for this space expansion, which in the current BIG BANG Cosmological Model has no scientific explanation what so ever. And for a yet to be discovered DARK MATTER to explain the inconsistency between Einsteins relativity theory and the way galaxies form and spin at huge velocities, which neither Newton's law or Einstein's general relativity explains. This is what caused the moderator to get angry and close the thread. But I only used the same ridiculous explanation that Mainstream uses to explain the mechanism of space expansion, and galaxy formation. If the moderator would be impartial and correct, he should move ALL threads involving space expansion which are based on unexplained mechanisms and unproven entities such as DARK ENERGY and DARK MATTER to SPECULATION, and close them.

1 hour ago, MigL said:

The above members have explained things to you in the clearest possible manner, yet you are either unable, or unwilling, to comprehend.

The model we have of gravity tells us that gravity's behaviour is exactly the same as if space-time, the co-ordinate system, was curved.
It is not a 'description' of reality, but rather, a predictive model.
And your incredulity ( or incomprehension ) notwithstanding, it does an excellent job at those predictions.

The first two explained Einsteins theory of gravity using Newton's law of universal attraction. Why didnt they use Einsteins theory ? Because they comprehend it, or because they dont comprehend it ? And only comprehend Newton instead ? 

And you comprehend it ? If so, then can you make a calculation of the orbit of planets Jupiter and Saturn around the sun using Einsteins General Relativity gravity equations, and prove that they orbit in the same plane ? Not Newton, Einstein !!!

And for the Matrix guy: Einsteins theory literally says that space is curved by mass and that this curvature of space is causing matter to move in an circular/eliptical path and light to bend as it passes through that space. This actual curvature of space is what in his and the mainstream opinion causes the light of stars to be bend near the sun (gravitational lensing), and the planets to orbit around the sun.

On 12/4/2021 at 6:48 PM, swansont said:

The plane is a description from Newtonian physics, which is adequate to explain the vast majority of the behavior of the orbits.

Much in the same way as we use classical physics to explain things and not invoke negligible quantum effects.

Its not, they are actually observed to be in the same plane. This contradicts the aberration that gravity is caused by a curvature of space-time and planets orbit on the curved space. As does the flat geometry of the universe in general. There is nothing curved or bent. 

On 12/4/2021 at 9:26 PM, beecee said:

Einstein's theory certainly is correct within its known bounds of applicability, but the non existent problem you present is actually explained by good old Newtonian mechanics. 

The Sun and planets formed from a rotating accretion disk 5 billion years ago, the angular momentum of that disk, saw it flattened so enabling the Sun/planets to form in nearly all the same plane. Much the same reason applies to why the Earth is an oblate spheroid.

You are not getting the point, Einstein. This is exactly where Einsteins theory is applicable in our solar system, and it is exactly where it fails to explain the orbits off all the planets, which are all in the same flat plane- which makes no sense if SPACE IS CURVED. 

So now you explain Einstein's gravity with Newton's law, are you fucking joking ? Einstein contradicts Newton, he says gravity is not a force but a curvature of space-time, while Newton says gravity is a force in a flat space ! There is no problem between Newtons theory and the planets orbiting in a flat plane, like you mention it is perfectly explainable using Newton's law, but there is a huge problem in the case of Einsteins theory, which cannot explain why the planets orbit in the same flat plane if the space in which they orbit is curved.   

On 12/4/2021 at 11:08 PM, Janus said:

The second image is an analogy which visualizes space as being 2 dimensional and bent through a third dimension.  It is not representative of reality.  

In it all of space is the surface shown as a grid. And while the diagram shows the Sun and planets as solid objects sitting on that grid, they would better be represented as circles on the surface.  Like already stated in order to make it simpler to present, 2 of the spatial dimensions are removed.

Here's am animation that gives an idea of what this same analogy would look is you included the other two dimensions

  The other thing to keep in mind is that the "Curvature" of space-time is not an actual bending of anything.  It is a term used to convey the idea that space-time deviates from  the rules that govern Euclidean geometry in the presence of mass.  It is called curvature because it gives results like those you would get if you try to do plane geometry on a surface that is not flat.

If its not an actual bending of anything then why do mainstream scientists keep pretending that it is ('matter tells space how to curve, and space tells matter how to move'), and keep giving the same fabric sheet example over and over ?

And how is the aberration in the video an accurate description of reality ? Do you seriously think that it has anything to do with  reality ? Where do you think you are, the Matrix ? 

1 hour ago, MigL said:

You still don't get it.
No one is questioning the fact that E=hf ( for massless particles ).
We are questioning your mechanism for 'losing energy'.
It simply cannot happen as you describe

And I am questioning your mechanism for 'expanding space'. Which you don't even bother to describe. At least I gave a couple examples of what may cause light to loose energy. Maybe there are other causes, like dark...something. Here you go, I explained it ! Happy now ?

1 hour ago, MigL said:

And we are saying light loses energy because the 'wave' is elongated as the space being traversed expands.
Simply because the interactions you are considering are well understood, and cannot explain the 'red'shift.

But why is your assertion that space expands, because of something that you dont know, more reasonable than my assertion that light looses energy over vast distances, because of something that I don't know ? Even if I cant say exactly what is the mechanism, I can easily imagine that it does. While I cant imagine how space itself expands, or what can be possibly expanding in an empty space, because its pushed by some mysterious dark energy which no one explains. 

1 hour ago, swansont said:

!

Moderator Note

You do not explain how scattering leads to the observed redshift. You are merely asserting that it will.

 

You do not explain how space itself expands either. You are merely asserting that it does.  

Did I mention scattering in the OP ? I said light looses energy as it travels vast distances of space, due to interactions with other particles, such as free electrons, plasma, gas clouds. I dont know what scattering will occur after trillions and trillions of such interactions and neither do you. It is absurd to pretend that I should somehow know or calculate this scattering, while you dont have to explain how space expands and just assert it as a fact that is somehow not needing any explanation.

1 hour ago, beecee said:

Now that makes much more sense then the unsupported rhetoric in the OP!

And what exactly is unsupported ? That a light wave looses energy over vast distances, or that a loss in energy translates to a lower frequency and hence a redshift ? If E=hf then that is exactly what would happen. I do not understand what is your objection, you just say my OP is unsupported, when in fact it is supported by the equation of the light wave, but your post is supported by what ?!

You can't measure the energy of light from its own rest frame, because, as yu correctly state it doesn't have a valid rest frame.
As measured from any other frame, the measurement will be frame dependent.

Of course it doesnt have a valid rest frame, thats why Genady's analogy with the car at rest is extremely counter intuitive and doesnt explain anything at all for how light's energy is frame dependent. Can you give me a better example, so I can understand what frames of reference are you talking about, and what is the math which you are applying to calculate the Energy of light for each frame ?

4 hours ago, MigL said:

The explanation you've given for 'light losing energy' has been shown to be incorrect.
It cannot happen as you describe.

Why ? Because he says 'that's incorrect', when I make a perfectly correct statement, and 'almost correct', when I make another perfectly correct statement ? Which he contradicts by making a weak/incorrect analogy with a car, ignoring the fact that a photon has no mass and its speed is independent of the inertial frame of reference, while the car has mass and its speed IS dependent on the frame of reference ? 

Quote

And, as Genady explained, energy is frame dependent.

But a car is not a photon, and his 'explanation' is disregarding basic physics.

Quote

Instead of starting from the assumption that the universe is static, and then incorrectly applying physics to support that assumption, why not apply known/accepted physics to the actual observations, and see where that leads ?

It leads to galaxies traveling much faster than light speed, because space itself expands at warp speeds faster than Jean Luke Piccard's Enterprise, which makes him unable to boldly go where no man has gone before, because space flies faster than his ship. But I guess that is much more reasonable to believe than that the universe is static and light looses energy as it travels billions of light years. It also leads to Cosmological Crysis after Cosmological Crysis, but I guess that is also a much better alternative- so stick with it. 

3 hours ago, MigL said:

Absolutely not !
You can't measure the energy of light from its own rest frame, because, as yu correctly state it doesn't have a valid rest frame.
As measured from any other frame, the measurement will be frame dependent.

So the speed of light is frame dependent too ? Or just its energy ? Enlighten me, please. Because in the car analogy the speed of the car was frame dependent, and the kinetic energy difference was based on this very fact.

Quote

This is

 almost correct. Photon never looses energy in any locality.

Except it does, according to the formula E=hf. A drop in frequency (associated with redshift) means a drop in energy too. 

Quote

It's because the space itself expands, it has different energies in different localities, i.e. in different local frames of reference.

And why would I assume such non-sense that 'space itself expands' ? When I can explain the galactic redshift in static space with a simple formula that relates energy to frequency ?  

 And as far as I know light doesnt care about 'local frames of reference', according to modern physics it is not affected by the frame of reference at all.

Quote

Consider for example you driving in a

 car. In your frame of reference the car is not moving and thus has zero kinetic energy. However for a pedestrian on the street, the car is moving with some speed v and has a kinetic energy m(v^2)/2.

This is a very weak anology because a photon doesnt have mass like a car, and its speed is independent of the inertial frame of reference. The energy of light will be the same regardless of what frame of reference you are in. 

Quote

This is almost correct. Photon never looses energy in any locality. It's because the space itself expands, it has different energies in different localities, i.e. in different local frames of reference. 

 I don't agree that space expands. That is the conclusion of my OP, that space doesnt expand and there is no need for such illogical and unproven assumptions in order to explain the cosmological redshift. My explanation for cosmological redshift implies that the universe is static, and you can't use Hubble's assumptions based on space expansion to convince me that a light wave cannot loose energy, because the physics formula for a light wave implies that it will loose energy when its frequency decreases, and vice-versa. And that formula does not apply in an expanding space, but in a static space, because we dont live in an expanding space and no one has actually made an experiment in an expanding space to know how light behaves there. These are just opinions and speculations, mostly science-fiction like worm-wholes, dark energy and other non-proven non-sense. 

1 hour ago, Genady said:

Nope, photons don't do that. They don't loose energy. They are created and annihilated in interactions with other particles.

If a photon particle/light wave cant loose energy, then it means it cant change its frequency either. It is forever fixed and therefore no redshift is possible.

Because E=hf is energy of one photon. Light consists of many photons, let's say N. The energy of light is E=Nhf. This E decreases because N decreases, not f.

Because of the particle-wave duality, one photon IS one light wave, and the frequency of this light wave will shift to red as it looses energy.  A single photon particle-light wave will still loose energy as it hits other particles such as free electrons, as some of its cinetic energy is transfered to those particles. So the frequency of one photon particle-light wave will still drop with energy loss and shift to red.

1 hour ago, Genady said:

This is incorrect.

Why ? If E=h* frequency, and E decreases, while h remains constant, then frequency must decrease too. Its basic maths.