Distinguishing Cosmological Expansion frame from SR frame.

[expletives deleted]

Distinguishing Cosmological Expansion frame from SR frame.

In a recent discussion there were assertions regarding what if any effective difference there was between said frames when a detector measures redshift of a photon from a cosmologically distant source and no actual separation of SR and Cosmological Expansion causation components is even attempted let alone considered pertinent to better understanding of space-time expansion theory and its real implications on the photon itself and the frames involved at emission, in-transit and at absorption. This thread is an attempt to discuss how it may be possible to, at least in theory if not in practice, to ascertain whether or not there are any differences between the Cosmological Expansion frame and the Special Relativity frame, which two frames are at present effectively lumped in together in theory and in analysis methods and measurements. To start this discussion, I have composed a thought experiment to highlight both theoretical and logical possible differences between the Cosmological and SR frames, and the effective implications for the photon at emission, in-transit and absorption.


Thought Experiment in Two Parts

Part One: Non-expanding space-time context:

Two transceivers, co-moving in free space far from significant GE effects from any massive feature, and identical in all respects as to their set frequency of emission and absorption. They send a photon between them and it arrives traveling at light speed at moment of impact (beginning of absorption process). The detectors being co-moving in Non-expanding space-time have no SR Doppler attenuation effect on photon wavelength/frequency, so photons at reception are identical as to wavelength/frequency as at emission.

Now apply transient identical but oppositely directed rocket acceleration to both transceivers such that they now separate with a constant proper motion in SR-Doppler terms. The photons will be equally redshifted; that total redshift being composed of motion related shift during the emission process and then the motion related shift during the absorption process.

NB In this Non-expanding space-time scenario, all increasing space-time distance between the two transceivers is solely due to the proper motions of the transceivers; with no cosmological expansion component whatsoever. This is important to note; because the next part of the experiment involves Expanding Space-time context which will involve space-time distance increase due to OTHER THAN PROPER motion separation in space-time as in this first part

Part Two: Expanding space-time context:

Same two transceivers as above, initially co-moving such that no distance increase is discernible between them. Unlike in the first scenario, no rocket accelerations are imparted to change in any way their initial proper co-moving motional states. We now allow cosmological expansion to increase the space-time distance between them according to the theory; which theory states that no proper motion relativity arises between the two initially co-moving transceivers; only that the space-time distance between them is now increasing in some unidentified manner such that they are separating along with the space-time locations they started in.

NB In this Expanding space-time scenario, the two transceivers did not experience any acceleration through space via rocket impulse, hence there is no proper motion related separation speed to give rise to SR-Doppler effect as in part one scenario. So, if any redshift to photons is detected during absorption process at either end, then that shift cannot logically or effectively be attributed to proper motional relativity SR-Doppler mechanism, since there is no actual proper motional change related increase in space-time distance over time between the two transceivers in this second scenario, as only the cosmological expansion related increase in space-time distance is active as per this thought experiment's design to distinguish between expansion and and non-expansion scenarios.

NB A further observation: When the photons are being emitted and absorbed, both the photons and their respective transceivers are effectively in the same frame irrespective of the scenario being expanding space-time or non-expanding. This is because at instant of photon's departure and instant of photon's approach, the photon and transceiver are BOTH in the same frame state! Be it the SR-Doppler frame state determined by solely by the transceivers proper-motion-ONLY relativity (in part one: non-expanding context); OR be it the Cosmological Expansion frame state determined solely by the increasing 'space-time distance over time' according to theory (which theory does NOT depend on any actual proper motion component as part of the cosmological expansion phenomena and interpretations as such).


That is the thought experiment, thankyou.


If any member wishes to participate in discussing this OP and its implications according to the Thought Experiment as set up and described, I only ask that they first read and understand thoroughly what has been posed by way of illustrative example of how we can, at least logically if not practically, have a perspective on the TWO frames which are indicated to exist in fact even if not currently discerned in theory and practice. Only if we can do that can we then tackle the question of the Mechanism for either frame effects on the photon and transceiver wavelength/frequency in space-time terms and somehow find a way to analytically separate the proper motion SR and Cosmological Expansion contribution to the total redshift which currently lumps the two components together in equations treating them via the mathematically convenient "SR-Doppler" perspective, thus conflating both the respective components, the respective mechanisms and the respective frames. I feel this is what has led to all the confusion which persists; and will persist as long as no effort is made to actually separate and understand effectively the two very different frames, components and mechanisms which must be at play in whatever space-time terms one wishes to couch them in.

Thank you for your patient and kind indulgence. The floor is open to all, laypersons and learned members, with the reasonable expectation that anyone wishing to participate in the discussion will have made every effort to properly and thoroughly understand the above as intended (and hopefully not as expediently interpreted in order to just say anything for its own sake and without due regard to what was described and intended for the purposes of the OP).

I will leave this OP to stand without any further comment from me until there has been sufficient interest and comment from members for me to make pertinent interactive clarifications or etc as necessary. Thank you, fellow members.

 

[paddoboy]

Distinguishing Cosmological Expansion frame from SR frame.

In a recent discussion there were assertions regarding what if any effective difference there was between said frames when a detector measures redshift of a photon from a cosmologically distant source and no actual separation of SR and Cosmological Expansion causation components is even attempted let alone considered pertinent to better understanding of space-time expansion theory and its real implications on the photon itself and the frames involved at emission, in-transit and at absorption. This thread is an attempt to discuss how it may be possible to, at least in theory if not in practice, to ascertain whether or not there are any differences between the Cosmological Expansion frame and the Special Relativity frame, which two frames are at present effectively lumped in together in theory and in analysis methods and measurements. To start this discussion, I have composed a thought experiment to highlight both theoretical and logical possible differences between the Cosmological and SR frames, and the effective implications for the photon at emission, in-transit and absorption.


Thought Experiment in Two Parts

Part One: Non-expanding space-time context:

Two transceivers, co-moving in free space far from significant GE effects from any massive feature, and identical in all respects as to their set frequency of emission and absorption. They send a photon between them and it arrives traveling at light speed at moment of impact (beginning of absorption process). The detectors being co-moving in Non-expanding space-time have no SR Doppler attenuation effect on photon wavelength/frequency, so photons at reception are identical as to wavelength/frequency as at emission.

Now apply transient identical but oppositely directed rocket acceleration to both transceivers such that they now separate with a constant proper motion in SR-Doppler terms. The photons will be equally redshifted; that total redshift being composed of motion related shift during the emission process and then the motion related shift during the absorption process.

NB In this Non-expanding space-time scenario, all increasing space-time distance between the two transceivers is solely due to the proper motions of the transceivers; with no cosmological expansion component whatsoever. This is important to note; because the next part of the experiment involves Expanding Space-time context which will involve space-time distance increase due to OTHER THAN PROPER motion separation in space-time as in this first part

Part Two: Expanding space-time context:

Same two transceivers as above, initially co-moving such that no distance increase is discernible between them. Unlike in the first scenario, no rocket accelerations are imparted to change in any way their initial proper co-moving motional states. We now allow cosmological expansion to increase the space-time distance between them according to the theory; which theory states that no proper motion relativity arises between the two initially co-moving transceivers; only that the space-time distance between them is now increasing in some unidentified manner such that they are separating along with the space-time locations they started in.

NB In this Expanding space-time scenario, the two transceivers did not experience any acceleration through space via rocket impulse, hence there is no proper motion related separation speed to give rise to SR-Doppler effect as in part one scenario. So, if any redshift to photons is detected during absorption process at either end, then that shift cannot logically or effectively be attributed to proper motional relativity SR-Doppler mechanism, since there is no actual proper motional change related increase in space-time distance over time between the two transceivers in this second scenario, as only the cosmological expansion related increase in space-time distance is active as per this thought experiment's design to distinguish between expansion and and non-expansion scenarios.

NB A further observation: When the photons are being emitted and absorbed, both the photons and their respective transceivers are effectively in the same frame irrespective of the scenario being expanding space-time or non-expanding. This is because at instant of photon's departure and instant of photon's approach, the photon and transceiver are BOTH in the same frame state! Be it the SR-Doppler frame state determined by solely by the transceivers proper-motion-ONLY relativity (in part one: non-expanding context); OR be it the Cosmological Expansion frame state determined solely by the increasing 'space-time distance over time' according to theory (which theory does NOT depend on any actual proper motion component as part of the cosmological expansion phenomena and interpretations as such).


That is the thought experiment, thankyou.
.

the god posted a new thread on similar at
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/what-is-mainstream-views-on.156052/
at 0523hrs yesterday:
And you post similar at 0531hrs yesterday.
In both your posts I see the questions all answered in
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/cosmological-red-shift.155893/
in various degrees of levels of application.
Your thought experiment is rather confusing at least to me and I can't really comment on it, other then to say that one of the postulates of SR is that all frames of references are as valid as each other.
For some reason you seem not to want to accept this...am I reading you correctly? I mean why, if that is the case? Have you another explanation for the recessional velocity of galaxies as evidenced by the cosmological redshift? It's an actual fact brought on by the finite speed of light: Are you doubting this?

(and hopefully not as expediently interpreted in order to just say anything for its own sake and without due regard to what was described and intended for the purposes of the OP).

And what do you mean by "expediently interpreted"?
Could not you be also accused of that, considering you seem to have a bee in your bonnet on most every aspect of cosmology since you have started on this forum.

I feel this is what has led to all the confusion which persists; and will persist as long as no effort is made to actually separate and understand effectively the two very different frames, components and mechanisms which must be at play in whatever space-time terms one wishes to couch them in.

While in the first instant I was somewhat taken aback when the Schneibs interpretation was first raised, after thinking, it quickly became quite clear and the confusion vanished. Again simply a matter of frames of references.
I will personally always though describe it as I always have...cosmological redshift, caused by the expansion of spacetime. That's my preference.
So I'm really at a loss as to what your problem is.
And far more importantly, I'm sure no confusion exists among the professional mainstream experts out there.
The mechanism issue has also been done and "the god of the gaps" fallacy was raised with regards to that aspect of things.

This is because at instant of photon's departure and instant of photon's approach, the photon and transceiver are BOTH in the same frame state!

In the photon's FoR there is no time and no space: A photon could traverse the whole observable universe in an instant in its own FoR.
I'm not even sure if its applicable to talk of a photons FoR!

Others here obviously are more mathematically able to explain why your confusion exists: Other than what I have said and linked to many times, I can't elaborate anymore than what I already have.
Perhaps you have a permanent mind set on some issue that is blocking your understanding?

 

[paddoboy]

Distinguishing Cosmological Expansion frame from SR frame.

Just one more comment expletive deleted:
SR/GR, the BB, universal expansion, explains how the Universe is, but not why it is.
Very Important!

 

[danshawen]

You have described inertialess thrust (thrust added that does not result from Newton's third law, and derives of additional inertia imparted to the two spacecraft initially in the same rest frame by virtue of some undefined expansion of inertialess space between them). Inertialess space cannot impart inertia of any kind to matter. That's what Special Relativity's lesson about the aether and the null Michaelson Moreley result is all about.

Previously (like in the 20th century) this idea would be regarded as the equivalent of an admittedly very large perpetual motion machine. In cosmological time, you get all the energy of motion you want from this expansion. All you need is a very long tether that turns a generator as the universe expands without limit.

Now replay the experiment a little differently. Don't accelerate or move anything. Just leave the two spacecraft side by side in proximity to each other for the same amount of proper time. Wait for as long as you like. Seeing any amount of energy (other than E=mc^2) yet? Didn't think so.

How about we just wait until more science and astrophysical observations about dark energy acceleration becomes available, as opposed to extrapolating things and jumping to unfounded conclusions off the deep end of the graph? The launch of the Webb mission is not that far off.

 

[Schneibster]

First, expletives deleted, I did not intent to indicate I was putting you on ignore, and I realize how you could have gotten that impression. But you'd have to be a lot nastier before that. You are making some errors, and you appear to have been led to them by exposure to sources that make those same errors. That's OK; it's only a knowledge gap, but part of that gap is in a place I didn't expect: you don't know about these logic traps, and some of them are difficult to spot without study. I don't think you're "dumb" or some other epithet, I think you lack knowledge and that lack is easily corrected. But be aware that when you use these sorts of logical fallacies you risk being identified with groups that commonly use them too. You've been overexposed to these without understanding why they are poisonous to real understanding.

I congratulate you on posting this thread. You are seeking knowledge and I hope you get it here. I will do all I can to help. So much for the personal stuff.

Distinguishing Cosmological Expansion frame from SR frame.

In a recent discussion there were assertions regarding what if any effective difference there was between said frames when a detector measures redshift of a photon from a cosmologically distant source and no actual separation of SR and Cosmological Expansion causation components is even attempted let alone considered pertinent to better understanding of space-time expansion theory and its real implications on the photon itself and the frames involved at emission, in-transit and at absorption.

I'm going to point something out here that I will be more explicit about later in this post. It is very important that you understand that when changing from one frame to another, only one transform is needed. You choose one frame and you calculate all the action (and action has a very specific meaning in physics, and I encourage you to find that meaning out) in that frame, and in that frame only unless you apply a transform; in which case you might as well simply keep it in that frame, because if your transform works then you'll get the same results either way and if it doesn't you're using incorrect physics or you've misapplied something.

This thread is an attempt to discuss how it may be possible to, at least in theory if not in practice, to ascertain whether or not there are any differences between the Cosmological Expansion frame and the Special Relativity frame, which two frames are at present effectively lumped in together in theory and in analysis methods and measurements.

The reason this is so is because when we measure gravity we only measure one element of the EFE: the stress-energy tensor. We can't directly measure the separate contributions of the Ricci term, the scalar term, and the cosmological term. If we want to know how much is cosmological, we have to look to the overall geometry of the universe, not to local effects. Local effects cannot differentiate the elements of the EFE from one another.

To start this discussion, I have composed a thought experiment to highlight both theoretical and logical possible differences between the Cosmological and SR frames, and the effective implications for the photon at emission, in-transit and absorption.


Thought Experiment in Two Parts

Part One: Non-expanding space-time context:

Two transceivers, co-moving in free space far from significant GE effects from any massive feature, and identical in all respects as to their set frequency of emission and absorption. They send a photon between them and it arrives traveling at light speed at moment of impact (beginning of absorption process). The detectors being co-moving in Non-expanding space-time have no SR Doppler attenuation effect on photon wavelength/frequency, so photons at reception are identical as to wavelength/frequency as at emission.

Now apply transient identical but oppositely directed rocket acceleration to both transceivers such that they now separate with a constant proper motion in SR-Doppler terms. The photons will be equally redshifted; that total redshift being composed of motion related shift during the emission process and then the motion related shift during the absorption process.

This is why I talked about only applying a transform once. You're applying two transforms here, and it's incorrect. In any one frame, you need only apply a transform once to convert data from any other frame.

Part Two: Expanding space-time context:

Same two transceivers as above, initially co-moving such that no distance increase is discernible between them. Unlike in the first scenario, no rocket accelerations are imparted to change in any way their initial proper co-moving motional states. We now allow cosmological expansion to increase the space-time distance between them according to the theory; which theory states that no proper motion relativity arises between the two initially co-moving transceivers; only that the space-time distance between them is now increasing in some unidentified manner such that they are separating along with the space-time locations they started in.

NB In this Expanding space-time scenario, the two transceivers did not experience any acceleration through space via rocket impulse, hence there is no proper motion related separation speed to give rise to SR-Doppler effect as in part one scenario. So, if any redshift to photons is detected during absorption process at either end, then that shift cannot logically or effectively be attributed to proper motional relativity SR-Doppler mechanism, since there is no actual proper motional change related increase in space-time distance over time between the two transceivers in this second scenario, as only the cosmological expansion related increase in space-time distance is active as per this thought experiment's design to distinguish between expansion and and non-expansion scenarios.

Yet redshift will still occur, because the distance between them is changing. You can't distinguish between whether the reason is the second or third term of the EFE, because both yield the same stress-energy tensor and the stress-energy tensor is all you can measure. That's why there is only one term on the right side of the EFE: that's what we can directly measure.

NB A further observation: When the photons are being emitted and absorbed, both the photons and their respective transceivers are effectively in the same frame irrespective of the scenario being expanding space-time or non-expanding.

It's really important here what you think you mean by talking about the same frame. If you mean, either you can calculate this in the frame of the emitter, or in the frame of the observer, or some arbitrary third frame, you are correct. But I suspect because of your error above where you tried to apply the transform twice that you don't quite mean by "the same frame" what physicists mean.

This is because at instant of photon's departure and instant of photon's approach, the photon and transceiver are BOTH in the same frame state! Be it the SR-Doppler frame state determined by solely by the transceivers proper-motion-ONLY relativity (in part one: non-expanding context); OR be it the Cosmological Expansion frame state determined solely by the increasing 'space-time distance over time' according to theory (which theory does NOT depend on any actual proper motion component as part of the cosmological expansion phenomena and interpretations as such).

The real question here is whether you can measure a difference between these components, and the answer is "no." Redshift is redshift. There is only one stress-energy tensor. All the curvatures the EFE describe add up to a single resulting curvature, and trying to separate them is like trying to figure out which part of five is the "three part" and which is the "two part."

Hope that helps.

 

[Schneibster]

You have described inertialess thrust (thrust added that does not result from Newton's third law, and derives of additional inertia imparted to the two spacecraft initially in the same rest frame by virtue of some undefined expansion of inertialess space between them). Inertialess space cannot impart inertia of any kind to matter. That's what Special Relativity's lesson about the aether and the null Michaelson Moreley result is all about.

No, cosmological constant is not a "thrust." There is no acceleration inherent in increasing distance due to cosmological constant. Therefore, there is no cause of inertial effects. I think you have confused increasing distance with acceleration here.

Previously (like in the 20th century)

Incorrect. GRT was proposed in 1915 and confirmed in 1919. You mean "Previously (like in the 19th century)."

this idea would be regarded as the equivalent of an admittedly very large perpetual motion machine. In cosmological time, you get all the energy of motion you want from this expansion. All you need is a very long tether that turns a generator as the universe expands without limit.

What are you going to hook your tether to? A galaxy? If you slow it down (inevitable if you want to extract power) you will increase its motion WRT not only the CMB but the surrounding intergalactic hydrogen, which (if it's a long way away) will shred it. You will see effects from both.

You have to remember that when they talk about expansion, they are indicating that distant galaxies are moving very slowly in their local context, which includes other galaxies and their gravity fields, dark matter and its gravity fields, the CMB, and the intergalactic neutral hydrogen. It's all receding from us the same. Compared to the redshift from expansion, over very long distances, the redshift from local motion is minuscule.

Now replay the experiment a little differently. Don't accelerate or move anything. Just leave the two spacecraft side by side in proximity to each other for the same amount of proper time. Wait for as long as you like. Seeing any amount of energy (other than E=mc^2) yet? Didn't think so.

That's the same "room argument" talked about in the paper linked elsewhere; "If the universe is expanding, why isn't my bedroom expanding?" and the answer is because your room is bound together by molecular bonds, and if you transfer it to your galaxy, the bonds are gravitic. And even that small gravity is far stronger than cosmological constant, thus galactic clusters stay together but don't stick to other clusters.

How about we just wait until more science and astrophysical observations about dark energy acceleration becomes available, as opposed to extrapolating things and jumping to unfounded conclusions off the deep end of the graph? The launch of the Webb mission is not that far off.

You have confused acceleration in the expansion (increase in CC) with simple expansion; the two are not the same. The second causes redshift; the first causes the Hubble constant to change over distance.

 

[danshawen]

Receding from each other "locally, very slowly" is not the same thing as "accelerating FTL". The speed of light is a strong invariant for the propagation of matter or energy, anywhere in this universe. Only quantum entanglement is faster.

Until the particle or process in question is actually observed, both inflation and the inflaton as well as speculations about cosmological expansion that is FTL remain highly speculative, untested theories, and the assertion that it occurred FTL conflicts with a much older, exhaustively tested quintessential scientific theory that has withstood onslaughts like this for over a century.

It isn't me who is confused. Any theory that posits a fundamental change in the natures of space and / or time without a fundamental understanding the basics of either is a fraud. There is only light travel time and a rotational infinitude of directions in which to propagate. The rotational propagation component is the fundamental element of time for matter, and its natural state is at rest (relativistic vector sum of +/- c). The fundamental element of what we refer to as space for the propagation of bound or unbound energy is linear light travel time and its natural state is traveling in a straight line (whatever that means) at the invariant speed c. The space between atoms and within atomic structure is relative and the structure itself would cease to exist if it wasn't, or more to the point, if time did not dilate there. Except in solids composed of matter at rest, space has no fixed length. It is all relative to the state of motion of the observer, exactly the way energy (bound or unbound) is. Put away your Lorentz transforms, coordinate systems, and their rubbish absolute space and absolute time precepts. Leave them to collect dust like the rest of the former Greek empire unless your plan is to use their geometry to build a colleseum or something. It's all too easy to whip out Pythagorus the way Minkowski did, or to pretend that higher dimensions of static Euclidean space will be better behaved than the dynamic relativistic one that confuses you like his student Hilbert did. Or to say that spacetime stretches at cosmological distances very far from Ancient Greece. Don't be that kind of idiot. The universe was never static.

 

[Schneibster]

Receding from each other "locally, very slowly" is not the same thing as "accelerating FTL".

Of course it's not. It's also not the same thing as receding due to cosmological constant and distance. Nor, as I discussed, need there necessarily be any acceleration involved, though increasing the space between objects inherently increases the cosmological constant and therefore increases the rate of recession (if the cosmological constant is positive).

The speed of light is a strong invariant for the propagation of matter or energy, anywhere in this universe. Only quantum entanglement is faster.

This is only locally true, because of the existence of cosmological constant. Another way to understand this is to say that this is only true in the case where the curvature of spacetime is zero, which is the SRT case of GRT.

Until the particle or process in question is actually observed, both inflation and the inflaton as well as speculations about cosmological expansion that is FTL remain highly speculative, untested theories, and the assertion that it occurred FTL conflicts with a much older, exhaustively tested quintessential scientific theory that has withstood onslaughts like this for over a century.

But it does not conflict with GRT which is also a century old, and has also withstood onslaughts (and been exhaustively tested) for over a century; just over, in fact, since it was proposed in 1915. And I'd contend that most of those "exhaustive tests" were tests of GRT, not SRT.

Also, we're not talking about inflation. We're talking about simple recession, only, other than a few digressions into inflation theory.

It isn't me who is confused.

I didn't say you are confused; I said you had confused two concepts, an entirely different thing. Please try not to take things so personally; I will not insult you. Though I may disagree with you and try to figure out why.

Any theory that posits a fundamental change in the natures of space and / or time without a fundamental understanding the basics of either is a fraud.

I'm not sure what you see as a "fundamental change." If you think curvature is a fundamental change, then by definition you think gravity is a fundamental change. I would disagree. I will also point out that light that grazes the Sun was proven in 1919 to curve by Eddington. This was taken by just about the entire scientific community as very strong confirmation of GRT, which you seem to be claiming is false in some way in this sentence. Please confirm or deny whether you believe GRT is false.

Except in solids composed of matter at rest, space has no fixed length. It is all relative to the state of motion of the observer, exactly the way energy (bound or unbound) is. Put away your Lorentz transforms, coordinate systems, and their rubbish absolute space and absolute time precepts.

I don't understand how you can even believe in SRT, much less GRT, if you don't believe in Lorentz transforms or coordinate systems.

 

[paddoboy]

It isn't me who is confused. Any theory that posits a fundamental change in the natures of space and / or time without a fundamental understanding the basics of either is a fraud.

Scientific theories such as SR/GR, the BB, universal expansion, explains how the Universe is, but not why it is.
Very Important!

 

[Schneibster]

I made a statement that is open to misinterpretation. I said:

...increasing the space between objects inherently increases the cosmological constant and therefore increases the rate of recession...

I should have said:

"...increasing the space between objects inherently increases the amount of cosmological constant since it is an inherent property of spacetime, and therefore increases the rate of recession..."

 

[The God]

The photons will be equally redshifted; that total redshift being composed of motion related shift during the emission process and then the motion related shift during the absorption process.

can you explain what is this redshift during absorption process ?

 

[paddoboy]

can you explain what is this redshift during absorption process ?

I hope the following helps:
http://www.tapir.caltech.edu/~sperhake/Research/Quasars/qso_scien.html

1. The basic concepts

This section is intended to provide an accessible introduction to the basic ideas underlying quasar absorption line astrophysics. You may wish to skip it if you are familiar with the subject.
Four steps are necessary for this introduction. First of all something has to be said about absorption lines. In the second step, we have to deal with cosmological redshift and finally the question "What is a quasar?" is adressed briefly.

1. Absorption lines: Atoms (for convenience the term "Atom" is always meant to include also "Molecules" and "Ions") have the property to absorb electromagnetic radiation. But they cannot absorb electromagnetic radiation of arbitrary wavelength (i.e. arbitrary colour). Instead the specific types (colours) of light that is absorbed by a specific Atom uniquely characterizes this atom. Each atom thus has a unique fingerprint. For example neutral hydrogene (abbrev. H I) absorbs light at the wavelengths 1215.67 Å, 1025.72 Å and many more. No other atom absorbs at precisely these wavelengths. If we receive light with precisely these wavelengths (colours) missing then we can deduce, that somewhere on the sightline to the source there must be neutral hydrogen. It is very important to note, that not only the wavelengths of these hydrogen absorption lines are unique, but also their ratio. Thus no other atom has absorption lines with a wavelength ratio of 1215.67/1025.72 = 1.185.

2. Cosmological Redshift: When astronomers started to analyse the light from other galaxies they discovered, that in almost all cases this light was shifted to the red. That means that, for instance, the characteristic neutral hydrogen lines were detected, but at different wavelengths. Namely both wavelengths were multiplied by a constant that we will denote (1+z). Thus, of course, the ratio of the wavelengths retained the chracteristic value 1.185 making possible the identification as neutral hydrogen. Quantitative analysis of distant galaxies revealed, that the redshift increases linearly with the distance of the galaxy (the famous Hubble relation). A shift of wavelength was known to result from the source moving away from the observer or towards the observer (the Doppler Effect). It is, therefore, a convenient (though not correct) way to visualize the cosmologic redshift as the galaxies moving away from us, the more quickly the further they are away from us. It is worth mentioning, that this point of view does not distinguish our position in the universe from any other position. Any observer, wherever in the universe, would see all galaxies moving away from him according to the same Hubble relation.

3. Quasars: Quasars are the most distant objects observed by astrophysicists. According to our understanding they are galaxies with extremely active nuclei. In fact all we see is the nucleus. The rest of the galaxy is too faint to be seen at such large distances (billions of lightyears). In contrast to galaxies, quasars are pointlike sources, which gave them their name: QUAsi StellAr Radiosource.

4. Quasar absorption lines Now we regard the quasar simply as a very distant source of light which emits energy in a wide spectrum of electromagnetic radiation. In a simple picture, this light contains all possible "colours". On the sightline from the earth to the quasar, there are numerous gasclouds containing different sorts of atoms and ions. These absorb at certain chracteristic wavelengths (colours) determined by the type of ion and the position on the sightline (redshift). The redshift labels the cloud and the wavelength divided by the redshift the ion. examining the different lines of all ions, we are able to derive the chemical structure of the intervening clouds.
more at link...............


or
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=o-YrZM9kNtUC&pg=PA113&lpg=PA113&dq=cosmological redshift during absorption process&source=bl&ots=4uXogctjVj&sig=Sf7qXdGLxZk4kHTDS7rU6dK4sQk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj49viwqprMAhVD1mMKHQpUBBUQ6AEITjAJ#v=onepage&q=cosmological redshift during absorption process&f=false

and................
http://www.astron.nl/gerfeest/presentations/chengalur.pdf

 

[The God]

........................related shift during the emission process and then the motion related shift during the absorption process.

I still do not understand what is motion related shift during the absorption process, the link and the paste you have provided talks of absorption process. What is 'motion related redshift during absorption process' ? Motion between whom at the time of absorption ? The motion or relative speed bewteen source and observer (absorber) is irrelevant at the time of absorption.

 

[paddoboy]

.
I still do not understand .

:shrug:
As it appears others that maybe able to explain it better than I, have you on ignore. That's a shame, so not much more can be achieved until you broach the subject with some expert learning institute of some renown.
Perhaps like expletive deleted you may have some sort of mental bloc.
The main point is from where I sit, is that mainstream and the vast majority of professionals out there , do not, and have not, recognised what ever it is you are trying to claim as a problem.
Why is that?

 

[The God]

:shrug:
As it appears others that maybe able to explain it better than I, have you on ignore. That's a shame, so not much more can be achieved until you broach the subject with some expert learning institute of some renown.
Perhaps like expletive deleted you may have some sort of mental bloc.
The main point is from where I sit, is that mainstream and the vast majority of professionals out there , do not, and have not, recognised what ever it is you are trying to claim as a problem.
Why is that?

Have you understood my post # 13.....

 

[paddoboy]

Have you understood my post # 13.....

Probably not as I suggested: But probably also because you do not have a valid objection/post.

 

[expletives deleted]

IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER: Thanks to all responders for your interest. For those responders, and future ones, I have to point out that the OP is only a neutral illustrative scenario for the purpose of analyzing and discussing the various aspects regarding frames and possible implications of the conventional theory in each of the aspects mentioned. The frames and the implications are not my claims, but rather the implications if the conventional theory applies as claimed by proponents of that theory. I have made no claims. Nor do I accept or reject cosmological expansion theory, but only examine its consequences given the OP scenarios. I am neutral and pose a neutral OP for examining that theory in terms of the frames involved and the implications and possibilities for perhaps separating redshift (or not) based on said frames being differentiable (or not). I merely posed the illustrative scenarios and sat back to watch the logical implications that arise according to theory being discussed by anyone interested and learned enough to do so without telling me I am right or wrong. I have just posed the OP and the implications are what they are. I have no say in it whatsoever as to which is right or wrong. I just point them out and ask for anyone to point out how they can be consistently explained so as to avoid the confusions which already muddies the waters in this cosmological expansion theory understandings and explanations. So I would appreciate very much all responders proceeding on that basis; and not on the basis of what you 'think' I wrote or claimed (but which I haven't in fact done so). I will address the above responses separately and in turn. Thanks.

 

[expletives deleted]

paddoboy:

the god posted a new thread on similar at
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/what-is-mainstream-views-on.156052/
at 0523hrs yesterday:
And you post similar at 0531hrs yesterday.
In both your posts I see the questions all answered in
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/cosmological-red-shift.155893/
in various degrees of levels of application.
Your thought experiment is rather confusing at least to me and I can't really comment on it, other then to say that one of the postulates of SR is that all frames of references are as valid as each other.
For some reason you seem not to want to accept this...am I reading you correctly? I mean why, if that is the case? Have you another explanation for the recessional velocity of galaxies as evidenced by the cosmological redshift? It's an actual fact brought on by the finite speed of light: Are you doubting this?


And what do you mean by "expediently interpreted"?
Could not you be also accused of that, considering you seem to have a bee in your bonnet on most every aspect of cosmology since you have started on this forum.


While in the first instant I was somewhat taken aback when the Schneibs interpretation was first raised, after thinking, it quickly became quite clear and the confusion vanished. Again simply a matter of frames of references.
I will personally always though describe it as I always have...cosmological redshift, caused by the expansion of spacetime. That's my preference.
So I'm really at a loss as to what your problem is.
And far more importantly, I'm sure no confusion exists among the professional mainstream experts out there.
The mechanism issue has also been done and "the god of the gaps" fallacy was raised with regards to that aspect of things.

In the photon's FoR there is no time and no space: A photon could traverse the whole observable universe in an instant in its own FoR.
I'm not even sure if its applicable to talk of a photons FoR!

Others here obviously are more mathematically able to explain why your confusion exists: Other than what I have said and linked to many times, I can't elaborate anymore than what I already have.
Perhaps you have a permanent mind set on some issue that is blocking your understanding?

This is the sort of thing I tried to avoid. Apparently, no amount of proactive guidance gets through your automatic agenda blabber. If you are confused by simple illustrative examples, then please avoid adding to your and others confusion. Stay silent and learn instead of making the usual empty post clutter and unwarranted associations and distractions based on your own personal vendettas against your 'enemies' (whoever they may be).

I want no part of your vendettas or your clutter, paddoboy. If you have no more to say other than things to the effect "I agree with what [insert link or name of your 'liked' authority or member here] said", then just do that and be done with it. Don't keep filling the thread with repetitive garbage which you effectively admitted is not valid input to this discussion because you are confused and don't understand what is being discussed.

Your certainty that "no confusion exists among the professional mainstream experts out there" is hardly worth posting, since you admit you don't understand any of it to any real depth or consistency; but only accept the popscience analogies which do not actually explain anything, but only add to the confusion that my OP is designed to examine and (hope against hope) discuss with learned posters without being cluttered and derailed again by your usual empty posts which contribute only your pet vendettas and personal 'likes' of mainstream irrespective of your non-understanding of it all.

So the "problem" is yours, paddoby. I posted an OP illustrative example for discussion. If you don't understand or cannot contribute constructively to the deeper discussion anything more than your usual "agree" noddisms and "like" effussions, then please try to resist posting in this thread. The moderators let you ruin every other interesting thread. Surely you can leave this itty bitty one alone for for a change? Please? Thanks.

 

[paddoboy]

I have made no claims. Nor do I accept or reject cosmological expansion theory, but only examine its consequences given the OP scenarios.

I do make claims:
I claim that we have professionals that have worked their butts off since the discovery of the expansion of the universe and GR, and have any state of the art instruments and probes available both earth bound and in orbit that have
gathered all this mounting data to give us all a picture of a dynamic universe, that is most certainly expanding and that had a beginning, as we know it, at the BB.
Aspects such as gravitational lensing, cosmological redshift, gravitational waves, curved/warped spacetime, SR, GR, DE, BH's, validity of frames of references, and the BB, are all overwhelmingly supported and evidenced as has been verified by these same professional cosmologists.

 

[paddoboy]

If you are confused by simple illustrative examples, then please avoid adding to your and others confusion. Stay silent and learn instead of making the usual empty post clutter and unwarranted associations and distractions based on your own personal vendettas against your 'enemies' (whoever they may be).
.

I'm not the only one who has been confused by your posts. I did suggest to you to at least use paragraphs: My contributions will continue of course when I see that they may help, or when other parties that have a wrong notion about some aspect of the subject in discussion.
Cosmology is a very interesting subject expletive deleted and as lay people, we should not be afraid to discuss the aspects of it, but by the same token to write off what is generally accepted by learned professionals is just plain crazy.
I hope we can continue to discuss these overwhelmingly supported concepts [as I have mentioned] along with less certain, more hypothetical aspects such as wormholes and time travel.