Do We See A Train Arrive That Arrived 8 Minutes Earlier?

[A-wal]

Time dilation and length contraction are they only possible way two observers moving at different speed can measure the same thing (light) moving at the same speed. It's like two cars on the motorway, one moving at 50mph, the other moving at 100mph and then a third car moves past one at 50mph then later moves past the other at 50mph without changing it's speed. This is exactly what happens with light. The only way that can happen is if the first two cars measure different lengths of time and space, proving that time dilation and length contraction are real objective effects and that measurement of length in time and space are subjective.

 

Gravitational time dilation has nothing to do with it. That's general relativity. You've once again shown that you have zero understanding of the models you're trying to refute and have no basis for a valid opinion because you can't even grasp the subject matter.

 

Why do you keep saying it's somebody elses thinking? What does that have to do anything? Like I'm not allowed to believe in proven scientific facts because I didn't come up with them.

 

I wholeheartedly stand by my previous comment that got me a warning.

Edited August 18, 2016 by A-wal

[xyz]

Time dilation and length contraction are they only possible way two observers moving at different speed can measure the same thing (light) moving at the same speed. It's like two cars on the motorway, one moving at 50mph, the other moving at 100mph and then a third car moves past one at 50mph then later moves past the other at 50mph without changing it's speed. This is exactly what happens with light. The only way that can happen is if the first two cars measure different lengths of time and space, proving that time dilation and length contraction are real objective effects and that measurement of length in time and space are subjective.

 

Gravitational time dilation has nothing to do with it. That's general relativity. You've once again shown that you have zero understanding of the models you're trying to refute and have no basis for a valid opinion because you can't even grasp the subject matter.

 

Why do you keep saying it's somebody elses thinking? What does that have to do anything? Like I'm not allowed to believe in proven scientific facts because I didn't come up with them.

 

I wholeheartedly stand by my previous comment that got me a warning.

Your arrogance and avoidance is astonishing. 

 

Proven scientific facts? hmm I suggest you have no idea of the difference between fact and theory.

 

P.s I have no idea why you think you have the capability to upset me with comments, I am a ''brick''. 

 

P.s I would love to see a car travelling at 50mph take over a car moving at 100mph, that is impossible .

 

 

this - http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=68030.msg495832#new

 

 

Proves you are wrong and I am correct.

 

added- one last attempt to get you to understand why the present information is wrong.

 

A length of free space=X

 

x= 299 792 458 m 

 

A Photon travels back and forth along X, 

 

 

 

This ''clock'' is constant . 

 

 

 

OK?

 

 

+v_x=c=1_s

 

-v_x=c=1_s

 

 

ok?

 

 

difference_t=0

 

 

ok?

 

Unlike the Caesium, my ''clock'' is constant and does not dilate

 

see?

 

Only if you were to poorly interpret time itself to be the Caesium atom would you get such false inaccuracies about time such  as time dilation. 

Edited August 19, 2016 by xyz

[A-wal]

Your arrogance and avoidance is astonishing. 

 

Proven scientific facts? hmm I suggest you have no idea of the difference between fact and theory.

I’m not avoiding anything.

 

You need to learn what the term ‘theory’ means in a scientific context. It’s as good and proven as it gets.

 

P.s I have no idea why you think you have the capability to upset me with comments, I am a ''brick''.

A very annoying, utterly clueless and completely deluded brick, yes.

 

P.s I would love to see a car travelling at 50mph take over a car moving at 100mph, that is impossible .

No. Car number 1 is moving at 50 mph relative to the road. Car number two is moving at 100 mph relative to the road. Car number 3 overtakes car number 1 and moves past it at 50 mph and then overtakes car number 2, also moving past it at 50 mph but car number 3 didn’t accelerate. What speed was car number moving at relative to the road? The only possible solution if the overtaking car didn’t accelerate is if the other two cars measure different distances for time and space.

 

This is exactly what light does, that’s what’s meant by a constant speed of light. It always moves past inertial objects at the same speed even if those objects are in motion relative to each other, and again the only way that can happen is if they measure different lengths for time and space. This proves that time dilation and length contraction are very real and everything you’re saying is meaningless drivel that completely ignores the facts and makes no sense whatsoever. Until you learn to accept that you don’t understand it you’ll never learn how it actually works.

 

this - http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=68030.msg495832#new

 

 

Proves you are wrong and I am correct.

It does no such thing. Don’t be so silly.

 

added- one last attempt to get you to understand why the present information is wrong.

 

A length of free space=X

 

x= 299 792 458 m 

 

A Photon travels back and forth along X, 

 

 

 

This ''clock'' is constant . 

 

 

 

OK?

 

 

+v_x=c=1_s

 

-v_x=c=1_s

 

 

ok?

 

 

difference_t=0

 

 

ok?

 

Unlike the Caesium, my ''clock'' is constant and does not dilate

 

see?

 

Only if you were to poorly interpret time itself to be the Caesium atom would you get such false inaccuracies about time such  as time dilation. 

You can’t start with the assumption that the clock is constant and then move backwards from there. :) The consistency of the speed of light proves that time and space aren’t constant because if something has a constant velocity (distance in space over time) then measurements of length in time and space can’t possibly be constant. They have to vary depending on the frame of reference of the observer.

[xyz]

I’m not avoiding anything.

 

You need to learn what the term ‘theory’ means in a scientific context. It’s as good and proven as it gets.

 

A very annoying, utterly clueless and completely deluded brick, yes.

 

No. Car number 1 is moving at 50 mph relative to the road. Car number two is moving at 100 mph relative to the road. Car number 3 overtakes car number 1 and moves past it at 50 mph and then overtakes car number 2, also moving past it at 50 mph but car number 3 didn’t accelerate. What speed was car number moving at relative to the road? The only possible solution if the overtaking car didn’t accelerate is if the other two cars measure different distances for time and space.

 

This is exactly what light does, that’s what’s meant by a constant speed of light. It always moves past inertial objects at the same speed even if those objects are in motion relative to each other, and again the only way that can happen is if they measure different lengths for time and space. This proves that time dilation and length contraction are very real and everything you’re saying is meaningless drivel that completely ignores the facts and makes no sense whatsoever. Until you learn to accept that you don’t understand it you’ll never learn how it actually works.

 

It does no such thing. Don’t be so silly.

 

You can’t start with the assumption that the clock is constant and then move backwards from there. :) The consistency of the speed of light proves that time and space aren’t constant because if something has a constant velocity (distance in space over time) then measurements of length in time and space can’t possibly be constant. They have to vary depending on the frame of reference of the observer.

You are really quite strange, you ignore the entire content then recite back Wiki repeated multiple times like some form of bot. 

 

You clearly are not a scientist (well I hope not). 

 

Do you even understand the vector maths?

 

do you know what +ve means?

 

 

I think you are badly confused.

[superpsycho]

We do not see a stream of photons either, free space is  clear of spectral content, we only see spectral content, 

 

 

what am I trying to argue?

 

Most of the science theories you can not ''see''

 

i.e things that are invisible. 

 

Einstein wrong

 

Newtons third Law wrong

 

How sight works , wrong

 

There is probably a whole lot more

 

 

Would you like to begin at the beginning which I suppose is the Big bang?  which is wrong. 

 

Let me start with the theory , before the big bang there was nothing, 

 

Nothing is ambiguous and has two meanings of interpretation.

 

 

1.  No dimensions

 

2. ''Empty'' free space

 

You will reply , but if we have space, we do not  have nothing , we have space. 

 

However any zero ''point'' of space has no dimension and is nothing, in another words free space is a ''box'' of nothings. 

 

In your mind I want you to imagine number 1, 0 dimension, now I know the picture you are imagining is a blank dark image that has no dimension , I want you to change the imagine in your mind from the dark to light, I want you to now see a white picture, you will still observe no dimension , in reality you would still see it to  be dark because in the picture there is no bodies reflected light.   

 

Now add a body to either picture of the dark or the white, can you see now?

 

p.s close your eyes to see what nothing looks like, however the nothing you see could be without boundary in size.

 

If you do not know now why the BB is wrong from this, then I will go into physical evidence, the very fact that for any event to happen including a big bang, needs free space to happen in. All motion needs free space, all expansion needs free space, evidently. Free space is ''immortal'' and absolute without uncertainty.

 

Before the big bang there was 1 dimension, that is what you and I and everyone visualises when visualising nothing. 

Let's start by discussing one thing at a time instead of rambling off what you imagine

 

It's one thing to say the Big Bang or expanding universe is wrong, it is another to demonstrate it in some logical or mathematical manner. The theory is based on the observation that distance and redshift have a significant level of correlation.

 

The observed Redshift of light related to an expanding universe is actually the sum of three redshift sources in the current model. One is a random redshift that occurs as a light stream encounters gravitational sources. Next is the Doppler shift from objects moving away from an observer. Third, there is the cosmological redshift that occurs from an expanding universe that stretches the light streams as they travel.

 

The most telling of these redshift sources, is the Doppler shift since it's the only type that affects all cycles, including orbital and burst periods. If the cycle periods of variable stars and the light curves of supernova increase in time relative to their distance than it's pretty hard to come up with any other explanation except that they are moving away from us.

Edited August 19, 2016 by superpsycho

[xyz]

Let's start by discussing one thing at a time instead of rambling off what you imagine

 

It's one thing to say the Big Bang or expanding universe is wrong, it is another to demonstrate it in some logical or mathematical manner. The theory is based on the observation that distance and redshift have a significant level of correlation.

 

The observed Redshift of light related to an expanding universe is actually the sum of three redshift sources in the current model. One is a random redshift that occurs as a light stream encounters gravitational sources. Next is the Doppler shift from objects moving away from an observer. Third, there is the cosmological redshift that occurs from an expanding universe that stretches the light streams as they travel.

 

The most telling of these redshift sources, is the Doppler shift since it's the only type that affects all cycles, including orbital and burst periods. If the cycle periods of variable stars and the light curves of supernova increase in time relative to their distance than it's pretty hard to come up with any other explanation except that they are moving away from us.

Thank you for wanting to discuss. 

 

Red-shift can not possibly mean expansion, red-shift is a longer wavelength than a '''blue'' wavelength. For something to stretch is has to be contracted to begin with i.e blue.  White light (the gin clear of free space) is a longer wavelength than ''red''  , red must mean contraction and not expansion surely putting a doubt on things. 

[A-wal]

You are really quite strange, you ignore the entire content then recite back Wiki repeated multiple times like some form of bot.

There you go again. I agree with what special relativity describes so of course what Wiki says will be the same kind of thing. What's your point? I never copy+paste anything, I always describe it myself!!! And I haven't ignored anything!

 

You are really quite strange, you ignore the entire content then recite back Wiki repeated multiple times like some form of bot. 

 

You clearly are not a scientist (well I hope not). 

 

Do you even understand the vector maths?

 

do you know what +ve means?

Oh my. You can't just do it without including time dilation and length contraction and then turn round and claim that proves that they don't exit. :)

 

Especially after I showed you exactly wht they HAVE TO EXIST!

Car number 1 is moving at 50 mph relative to the road. Car number two is moving at 100 mph relative to the road. Car number 3 overtakes car number 1 and moves past it at 50 mph and then overtakes car number 2, also moving past it at 50 mph but car number 3 didn’t accelerate. What speed was car number moving at relative to the road? The only possible solution if the overtaking car didn’t accelerate is if the other two cars measure different distances for time and space.

 

This is exactly what light does, that’s what’s meant by a constant speed of light. It always moves past inertial objects at the same speed even if those objects are in motion relative to each other, and again the only way that can happen is if they measure different lengths for time and space. This proves that time dilation and length contraction are very real and everything you’re saying is meaningless drivel that completely ignores the facts and makes no sense whatsoever. Until you learn to accept that you don’t understand it you’ll never learn how it actually works.

 

I think you are badly confused.

:rofl: Good one.

[xyz]

There you go again. I agree with what special relativity describes so of course what Wiki says will be the same kind of thing. What's your point? 

The point is a discussion suppose to discuss the content been spoken about, I have been trying to tell you why I think it is wrong, but you ignore this completely and reply with ''wiki''.  I appreciate you have good knowledge but you are not a good listener. 

[xyz]

Start with this - 

 

 

 

'Red shift' is a key concept for astronomers. The term can be understood literally - the wavelength of the light is stretched, so the light is seen as 'shifted' towards thered part of the spectrum. Something similar happens to sound waves when a source of sound moves relative to an observer.

 

 

If the wavelength of light is stretched then surely that means it must be contracted to begin with, meaning  there is a contradiction  ?

Edited August 19, 2016 by xyz

[A-wal]

I'm not replying with Wiki! :mad: I speak and reason for myself.

 

I'm using the car example to make seem more accessible but it's exactly the same thing. If car passes the 50mph car and then later passes the 100mph car at the same speed (overtakes them at the same speed so it's moving 50mph faster than both of them) without accelerating in between then how do you think this can be possible without dime dilation and length contraction?

 

This is exactly what light does, it passes all inertial objects at the same rate regardless of their relative notions. How?

[superpsycho]

Thank you for wanting to discuss. 

 

Red-shift can not possibly mean expansion, red-shift is a longer wavelength than a '''blue'' wavelength. For something to stretch is has to be contracted to begin with i.e blue.  White light (the gin clear of free space) is a longer wavelength than ''red''  , red must mean contraction and not expansion surely putting a doubt on things. 

Doppler shift is not a change in wavelength in route, It is a change in distance between cycles, either photon releases, start of a burst or rotation. If an object releases a photon in one location then moves farther away from an observer when it releases the next photon, the distance between photons will increase or appear to shift towards the red to an observer. Just like sound moving away from you. Shifting toward longer wavelengths and lower frequencies is considered shifting towards the read. That is the universal standard.

[xyz]

Doppler shift is not a change in wavelength in route, It is a change in distance between cycles, either photon releases, start of a burst or rotation. If an object releases a photon in one location then moves farther away from an observer when it releases the next photon, the distance between photons will increase or appear to shift towards the red to an observer. Just like sound moving away from you. Shifting toward longer wavelengths and lower frequencies is considered shifting towards the read. That is the universal standard.

I have no idea of what you just said? sorry, the doppler red-shift is the stretching of light ? 

 

added - sorry are you saying that the doppler effect is not the light outbound but the light being emitted from a distant star?

Edited August 19, 2016 by xyz

[superpsycho]

Thank you for wanting to discuss. 

 

Red-shift can not possibly mean expansion, red-shift is a longer wavelength than a '''blue'' wavelength. For something to stretch is has to be contracted to begin with i.e blue.  White light (the gin clear of free space) is a longer wavelength than ''red''  , red must mean contraction and not expansion surely putting a doubt on things. 

You keep making assertions without justification. Nothing has been stretched. There is either a change in distance between particles or a change in release rate. You're letting the implications of the term wave confuse you. Just think in terms of individual photons and photon streams. A hydrogen atom has a specific emissions spectrum. That spectrum can appear to change based on the context in which it was emitted, or transmitted, relative to its normal state.

Edited August 19, 2016 by superpsycho

[superpsycho]

I have no idea of what you just said? sorry, the doppler red-shift is the stretching of light ? 

 

added - sorry are you saying that the doppler effect is not the light outbound but the light being emitted from a distant star?

Yes, there is a difference between the stream being affected while in route and the emission rate from the source. Don't think in terms of sound. This is not a Doppler affect caused by the receiver moving towards or away from the waves. This is the emission source moving away so that each release is farther apart.

[xyz]

Yes, there is a difference between the stream being affected while in route and the emission rate from the source. Don't think in terms of sound. This is not a Doppler affect caused by the receiver moving towards or away from the waves. This is the emission source moving away so that each release is farther apart.

So why does most of the internet say it is the wavelength getting longer being stretched?

 

Suggesting it is contracted to begin with.

 

 

And also how do you know the shift is not our end? 

[superpsycho]

So why does most of the internet say it is the wavelength getting longer being stretched?

 

Suggesting it is contracted to begin with.

 

 

And also how do you know the shift is not our end? 

Light is referred to as having both wave and particle properties. For some people it's just easier for them to understand it as a wave. However, you'll find it better to think of light as particles if you want to get into the nuts and bolts of the subject. Even water and air waves are made up of individual particles, but it's easier for most people to deal with all those particles in aggregate rather then millions of individual units.

 

The motion is unlikely to be on our end since there has to be a center. Even though they say space is expanding in all directions equally, the center of the universe would be relatively stable motion wise. If you increased the distance between objects by 1 cm. The first object would have to move that 1 cm. The second object would have to move not only the 1 cm required to realign itself with the first object but then an additional 1 cm to adjust to the new spacing. By the time you get to the outer edge of the universe, those 1 cm's add up to where objects are having to move tens of thousands of kilometers to get in their new positions. It doesn't matter if the motion is generated from one point or all points equally.

 

Since we appear to be able to see an equal distance in every direction, it's assumed we're near the center. That doesn't mean the theory is correct in every aspect, only that it's what appears to be happening as far as we can tell. At this point what you do is work out the logic of what's being observed so that we know all the ramifications of the theory, as it stands now, to make sure we're not missing anything.

 

Each of the possible redshift potentials have characteristics associated with them. The question is, as we better understand what those characteristics are in relation to everything else, does it match up with what's observed. Like the characteristics of a Doppler shift affecting all forms of cycles, including orbital times and supernova burst periods. Does what logically should happen, match observations. Long cycles like IA supernova wave forms provide a better measurement of any expansion rate since no other condition, other than Doppler shift, can generate such an affect.

Edited August 20, 2016 by superpsycho

[xyz]

Light is referred to as having both wave and particle properties. For some people it's just easier for them to understand it as a wave. However, you'll find it better to think of light as particles if you want to get into the nuts and bolts of the subject. Even water and air waves are made up of individual particles, but it's easier for most people to deal with all those particles in aggregate rather then millions of individual units.

 

The motion is unlikely to be on our end since there has to be a center. Even though they say space is expanding in all directions equally, the center of the universe would be relatively stable motion wise. If you increased the distance between objects by 1 cm. The first object would have to move that 1 cm. The second object would have to move not only the 1 cm required to realign itself with the first object but then an additional 1 cm to adjust to the new spacing. By the time you get to the outer edge of the universe, those 1 cm's add up to where objects are having to move tens of thousands of kilometers to get in their new positions. It doesn't matter if the motion is generated from one point or all points equally.

 

Since we appear to be able to see an equal distance in every direction, it's assumed we're near the center. That doesn't mean the theory is correct in every aspect, only that it's what appears to be happening as far as we can tell. At this point what you do is work out the logic of what's being observed so that we know all the ramifications of the theory, as it stands now, to make sure we're not missing anything.

 

Each of the possible redshift potentials have characteristics associated with them. The question is, as we better understand what those characteristics are in relation to everything else, does it match up with what's observed. Like the characteristics of a Doppler shift affecting all forms of cycles, including orbital times and supernova burst periods. Does what logically should happen, match observations. Long cycles like IA supernova wave forms provide a better measurement of any expansion rate since no other condition, other than Doppler shift, can generate such an affect.

I have no problems visualising particles, connected particles or even a Quanta whole. I am now  uncertain on the red-shift thought but I am certain that space is not expanding. Free space is made of ''nothing'' although it contains ''things'',  We see light between distant bodies however it is perceived to be darkness which is actual invisible free space. 

Space has no solidity, only things with mass can expand their mass.