DaveC426913 Posted June 28, 2018 Report Share Posted June 28, 2018 (edited) BTW, the method by which they measure their relative speed is irrelevant. It could be Doppler - it could be a guy with really good eyesight and a very accurate protractor measuring the shrinking angular diameter of the receding ship. It doesn't matter. You guys have gone off on a tangent again. I take we all agree on the simple scenario then? Moronium, you acknowledge that 0.75c + (-)0.75c = | 0.96c |? No? Then let's not make it more complicated than it needs to be. Edited June 28, 2018 by DaveC426913 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A-wal Posted June 28, 2018 Report Share Posted June 28, 2018 Yes, SR is compatible with QFT it is called relativistic Quantum field Theory or RQFT,Huh. Redshift of distant galaxies is still caused by stuff moving through a strong gravitational field causing a change in the movement of the object stealing energy from the object making it appear as if moving more slowly or move more slowly if it loses energy from this gravitational field by escaping a strong one.Are you sure? I don't think gravity has anything at all to do with the redshift of distant galaxies in the standard model. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vmedvil2 Posted June 28, 2018 Report Share Posted June 28, 2018 How did A and C determine their relative speed? What method would they use? Gravitational Lensing I would assume is the method of determining the speed and distance but it is a function of the amount of total kinetic energy is contained within object in a direction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted June 28, 2018 Report Share Posted June 28, 2018 (edited) Gravitational Lensing I would assume is the method of determining the speed and distance but it is a function of the amount of total kinetic energy is contained within object in a direction. Hmmm. Well whatever method they use, is their reading reliable? Or is it just some kind of illusion? I still don't understand why you would say there could be no doppler shift, but I'll just leave that alone for now. Edited June 28, 2018 by Moronium Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vmedvil2 Posted June 28, 2018 Report Share Posted June 28, 2018 (edited) Huh. Are you sure? I don't think gravity has anything at all to do with the redshift of distant galaxies in the standard model. Yes, as you escape a gravity well you lose energy, it is part of the standard model in Hubble's law the redshift by gravity, as you escape the gravity well you lose energy thus the particles or objects move to a lower state of excitement being the redshift in photons or slower velocity in objects with mass because of the loss of total Kinetic energy to escape the gravitational pull of the object generating the gravity well, which causes this even on galaxies. Edited June 28, 2018 by VictorMedvil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vmedvil2 Posted June 28, 2018 Report Share Posted June 28, 2018 (edited) Hmmm. Well whatever method they use, is their reading reliable? Or is it just some kind of illusion? I still don't understand why you would say there could be no doppler shift, but I'll just leave that alone for now. There is no gravitational field to steal Kinetic Energy thus also velocity from the objects in motion is why there would be no Doppler shift which is caused form a loss of Energy from the object leaving the gravitation field as previously explained, Moronium. Energy is always conserved in physics, Thermodynamics makes certain of that. Edited June 28, 2018 by VictorMedvil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted June 28, 2018 Report Share Posted June 28, 2018 There is no gravitational field to steal Kinetic Energy thus also velocity from the objects in motion is why there would be no Doppler shift which is caused form a loss of Energy from the object leaving the gravitation field as previously explained, Moronium. Energy is always conserved in physics, Thermodynamics makes certain of that. Nothing needs to "lose" energy in order for motion to affect the way you see things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vmedvil2 Posted June 28, 2018 Report Share Posted June 28, 2018 (edited) Nothing needs to "lose" energy in order for motion to affect the way you see things. It would not change the velocity you see at as but rather the color that you see it as, which makes this another irrelevant subject. Etotal = MC2 (1/(1- (v2/c2)) , Only a change in Energy will cause a difference in velocity you see it as. Edited June 29, 2018 by VictorMedvil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted June 29, 2018 Report Share Posted June 29, 2018 It would not change the velocity you see at as but rather the color that you see it as, which makes this another irrelevant subject. The redshift indicates relative motion. If there were none, then there would be none. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vmedvil2 Posted June 29, 2018 Report Share Posted June 29, 2018 (edited) The redshift indicates relative motion. If there were none, then there would be none. No, redshift indicates gravity not relative motion. Sorry moving faster than the speed of light from the Rest Frame's view point is impossible in physics, Case Closed! Edited June 29, 2018 by VictorMedvil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted June 29, 2018 Report Share Posted June 29, 2018 What kind of "scientist" do you claim to be, Vic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vmedvil2 Posted June 29, 2018 Report Share Posted June 29, 2018 (edited) What kind of "scientist" do you claim to be, Vic? Associates in Biophysics and Bachelor's in Biochemistry, published in 42 papers honorary Science Academician. Inventor with over 300 Inventions in 20 subjects of science. Edited June 29, 2018 by VictorMedvil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted June 29, 2018 Report Share Posted June 29, 2018 Associates in Biophysics and Bachelor's in Biochemistry, published in 42 papers honorary Science Academician. Inventor with over 300 Inventions in 20 subjects of science. So you're a chemsit, eh? Were any of those "subjects" physics? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A-wal Posted June 29, 2018 Report Share Posted June 29, 2018 Yes, as you escape a gravity well you lose energy, it is part of the standard model in Hubble's law the redshift by gravity, as you escape the gravity well you lose energy thus the particles or objects move to a lower state of excitement being the redshift in photons or slower velocity in objects with mass because of the loss of total Kinetic energy to escape the gravitational pull of the object generating the gravity well, which causes this even on galaxies.But redshift is supposed to be an indication of a galaxy's recessional velocity. I know there's gravitational redshift but that's negligible on the large scale of distant galaxies, and...Redshift of distant galaxies is still caused by stuff moving through a strong gravitational field causing a change in the movement of the object stealing energy from the object making it appear as if moving more slowly or move more slowly if it loses energy from this gravitational field by escaping a strong one....makes it seem like you're saying that the redshift of distant galaxies isn't caused by their motion away from us? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vmedvil2 Posted June 29, 2018 Report Share Posted June 29, 2018 So you're a chemsit, eh? Were any of those "subjects" physics? Yep, I have partial credit on a modification of String Theory and the Standard model and several papers and inventions to do with physics, Here is one of them, but mainly Biotechnology and Nanotechnology are my specializations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vmedvil2 Posted June 29, 2018 Report Share Posted June 29, 2018 (edited) But redshift is supposed to be an indication of a galaxy's recessional velocity. I know there's gravitational redshift but that's negligible on the large scale of distant galaxies, and......makes it seem like you're saying that the redshift of distant galaxies isn't caused by their motion away from us? It is caused by Dark Energy, galaxy's redshift which is still a function of the Energy-Stress Tensor meaning gravity, there are two types of redshift Gravitational by gravity's pull and Dark Energy's Redshift. Edited June 29, 2018 by VictorMedvil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted June 29, 2018 Report Share Posted June 29, 2018 (edited) It is causes by Dark Energy, galaxy's redshift which is still a function of the Energy-Stress Tensor meaning gravity, there are two types of redshift Gravitational by gravity's pull and Dark Energy's Redshift. How about the phenomenon of a horn blowing on a truck that is moving toward/away from you changing pitch here on earth? Does dark energy cause that? Gravity? Edited June 29, 2018 by Moronium Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts