Redshift, simply explained (No Big Bang!)

Philosophy Forums Science, Technology, and Math
1

  1. We all know that objects appear smaller, the further back in the past that the line of sight recedes.

  2. This is the same as saying that the space-dimensional context of the universe is smaller at more distant points along the line of sight.

  3. And since (following Minkowski/Einstein) space and time are simply different ways of referring to spacetime, we can just as easily say that the time-dimensional context of the universe is smaller at more distant points. (It is larger at closer points.)

  4. At their source, therefore, electromagnetic waves will appear to exist within a more compressed time-dimensional context than when they have arrived at the observer.

  5. The observer will witness this as an expanded frequency (i.e. redshifted).

  6. The redshift phenomenon has been satisfactorily explained (the “Big Bang” is hooey).

Q.E.D.

2

tortoise, this is intuitive. Experiments just do not apply. Just as it is intuitive that the spatial context of the past is smaller than the present, so it should be that the temporal context is smaller.

You aren’t quite getting it. I’m talking about the fact that our very dimensional context is playing a trick on us. The waves, themselves, are not at issue… only their measurements!

3

Experimentation does not at all apply to what I am talking about. It is apples and oranges.

Let me try to give an extraordinarily easy example of what I’m talking about… The more complicated that you make this, the easier it is to get lost!

Say there is a soccer ball (A) 10 feet away from you and another one (B) 100 feet away.

Ball A will appear to exist within a larger spatial context than ball B (for whatever reason).

Now, if someone kicks ball B so that it comes even with ball A, ball B’s spatial context will appear to grow smoothly larger until it equals the size of ball A’s spatial context.

At this point, it is vital to realize that spatial dimensionality and temporal dimensionality are simply different ways of referring to the same thing: spacetime.

This means that we can also say that, in the beginning, ball A’s temporal context is larger than ball B’s temporal context. (This just means that time appears to be moving more slowly at ball A than at ball B.)

Then, as ball B is moving, its temporal context increases until it “cathces up” with ball A.

Now, let us replace our balls with light waves.

A distant light wave will appear as if its temporal context is constantly increasing as it approaches an observer. This is identical with saying that its frequency is constantly decreasing, and that it is constantly becoming more “redshifted”.

All of this is meant to show that if “dimensional perspective” holds with regard to spatial dimensionality (which is obviously does, being that distant objects appear smaller than the same objects that are closer), then it must necessarily apply to temporal dimensionality, causing approaching energy waves to appear to lose their frequency.

In order to truly appreciate what I am trying to say, you are all going to have to forget all of that crap that has built up in your mind over the years concerning the “Big Bang”. All of it is perfectly absurd. I am asking you to put on your philosopher’s cap, which will allow you to make well grounded judgements. I know that many of you “science types” out there are not used to this, but trust me… in the long run, you will really thank me!

4

A couple of years ago, I wrote my magnum opus, called First Metaphysics. It is an attempt to thoroughly ground all possible sciences, by way of discovering the “ontological wherefrom” of dimensionality-as-such. To summarize, it basically says that the “existential self” is the absolute foundation of the “measuring self”. In other words, all possible ways of measuring (dimensionalizing) are contingent upon the very moods that determine the way in which we understand ourselves and the world around us.

My metaphysics is nothing other than a “philosophy of dimensionality”, and it has nothing to do with the bookstore notion of metaphysics (which is just occultism/esotericism). The bottom line is just that dimensionality is simply a invented construct that we layer atop the phenomenal universe, in order to attempt to fully dominate it.

Those who think that the dimensions are “ontologically real”, in my opinion, are identical with those who aspire to full dominion over the whole ball of wax. This seems to me to be a profoundly pitiful form of existence.

It has taken me many a year to realize that it is only by surrendering myself to the arbitrarity of the universe that I am able to live as a truly free being. I am happier than I have ever been in my life, due in no small part to the fact that I have been able to apply my philosophical discoveries directly to the world of immediate observation.

I know that the logical positivism of the scientific establishment is a drug unlike any other, in terms of being able to view the world as an absolutely precise mathematical formula. However, there cannot ever be such a thing as absolute precision. Our observations always hit the “brick wall of uncertainty”, whether you are talking about investigating the quantum world or the cosmos.

We simply cannot get around the fact that we are each limited by our perspectives. The further into the infinite (whether the infinitely small or the infinitely large) that we try to peer, the less is our ability to discern. It is obvious how this problem applies to the crude world of spatial dimensionality and everyday objects, but it is far from obvious how it applies to temporal dimensionality and light waves.

Our universe is truly one-dimensional, and scientists call this dimension “spacetime”. Whether we cast this notion in terms of volume or duration is arbitrary. The point is that the dimensions are the result of our subjective experience of the singular mass of energy that is the universe (they are the “forms of the intuition”, as Kant put it). That is, ultimately, our notions of dimensional measurability cannot possibly apply to the universe as a whole, because in that case, the observer has been removed from the equation.

To put it simply, the universe, as it is, will necessarily remain a mystery.

5

I fail to see how redshift is purported to delegitimise the Big Bang.

Scientists have already calculated with accuracy the heat increase/dissipation and particle acceleration that is responsible for the still observable expansion of the Universe.

Perception of spatial relativity does not change the Big Bang theory.

6

…but it’s still only a theory, and that: by any definition: is up for scrutiny - even the top proponenets of the theory are under no illusion that it is just that.

7

While that is correct Magjs, every crackpot with a new take on old ideas of observable phenomena doesn’t remove the legitimacy of the current theory … which is the most correct possible.

It will remain a theory, simply due to the fact we cannot conquer time, and return to observe the initial instance.

But it has nothing to do with redshift by any account, any more than it does the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

8

Redshift is redshift. That is all it is. I am just trying to explain why it exists. The attempt to tie this phenomenon to such an absurd notion as “spatial expansion” has nothing to do with the phenomenon, as it is.

Once you realize that our dimensional context is an absolute, you are able to understand that no relativistic determination (scientific experiment) can possibly comment on it. Unless you can fully grasp this, then there is nothing for us to talk about.

9

Careful with throwing around the c-word, dude. Trust me, you don’t want me thinking that you’re throwing it in my direction!

10

Ok 1. is due to the light from the object being focased at a point. Things appear smaller when they are further away because of the light being focused at a point to make the image. This has nothing to do with the wavelength of the light.

Also a smaller time context leads to a larger frequency(frequency=1/time) not a smaller one. Ooops!

All in all a pretty shit attempt at discrediting the big bang.

Pseudo-science BS!

11

Sure!

From what I know/am aware of: redshift observation offers evidence of what is occuring within the known universe: which is applied to various phenomena in-order to explain them in more scientific terms: which beats just theoretical terms hands down…

12

The title of your thread includes “No Big Bang!” … as if to discredit that theory. What difference does it make that our dimensional context is an absolute? Who has posited otherwise? For what reason?

We can comment on dimensional context as scientific experimentation has led to us understanding that our particular context is not absolute beyond our fixed, (corporeal), existence. There are other dimensional perspectives, and off this planet they are relevant. That’s why we use instrumentation to add to dimensional perspective, because we know our limited context is not all there is, or can be.

13

As previously stated, the particle acceleration, microwave radiation, and heat dissipation/increase calculations for the Big Bang have already been done, from particle observation and data collection.

Theory does not stand alone, it requires data/observation. Perhaps you are confusing the difference between hypothesis, theory and law in the scientific/empirical definitions.

Giving that, you might want to take a look at some up to date information, as the Big Bang, being a theory, might be disproven by the “Big Bounce”, which obviates the issue of point of singularity having zero volume and infinite mass/density.

That’s the beauty of actual science, answers are always coming, based upon facts, and even when those facts invalidate a standing theory, it is a positive step. Aude sapere.

14

In order to be inspired to understand what I will be trying to explain, you should be unsatisfied that such a thing as “universal spatial expansion” can possibly be detected. In other words, if our dimensions are the absolute context in which we exist, then it follows that no measurable relativity can possibly comment on it.

It is vital to realize how vastly different are the concepts of “absolute spatial dimensionality” and “relative spatial distance”. The former is a foundational principle that allows for the very possibility of all subjective experience and the latter is a specific determination within a particular instantiation of this principle. The question of “universal expansion” undoubtedly falls under the purview of the principle of spatial dimensionality. Those who cannot understand this fact are susceptible to falling into the trap of confusing this objective principle for a subjective determination, and thus come under the illusion that the question of “universal expansion” is a sensible one. From this state of confusion, philosophically ungrounded interpretations of various phenomena are bound to follow.

The crucial problem with explaining the galactic redshift phenomenon is the fact that light waves are purely a function of temporal dimensionality. That is, their behaviour cannot possibly be described in typical visual terms that will allow us to paint a “physical picture”, for the sake of pedagogical purposes.

While it is all too obvious that dimensional perspectivity is immediately intuitive (at least to those of us blessed with the sensation of sight) in terms of the world of every day visual experience, it is far from obvious how it relates to the very medium (electromagnetic radiation) that makes these experiences at all possible.

In order to make the leap from the crude world of spatial dimensionality to the subtle world of temporal dimensionality, it is crucial to understand that “space” and “time” are simply different ways of referring to the singular notion of spacetime. In other words, it is just as appropriate to speak of an apparent increase in temporal context whenever one witnesses an apparent increase in spatial context. This simply means that, because the scale of spatial context changes in inverse proportion to the distance to the observer, it necessarily follows that temporal context behaves in precisely the same way.

The result of this allows us to understand that, just as objects appear to spatially expand as they approach an observer, so too do light waves appear to temporally expand. We will then necessarily find that energy frequencies appear to be continuously increasing [edit], the closer that one is to the source of radiation.

This phenomenon is “built in” to the nature of subjective dimensional experience, and is an addition to the already well understood phenomenon known as the Doppler effect, whereby relative velocities alter the measurements of received wavelengths. This effect applies only to a variable relationship, and for this reason, it does not result in any kind of predictable relationship (such as the strict linear relationship observed by Hubble).

We now have at our disposal all of the conceptual tools needed to understand why such a phenomenon as the predictable lengthening of inter-galactic light waves is manifest.

15

dkane,

This is a Natural Sciences section, and the fact that you are talking metaphysical fluff, means any “theory” you propose, is summarily rejected as imagined non-sense of a non-empirical mind.

You’re right, we have nothing to talk about.

Science has already disproven your position, that you fail to understand that, says everything that needs to be said.

16

I thought that you all might like to take a gander at this quote from a Scientific American article entitled, “Misconceptions about the Big Bang”. (Source link.)

While I am in no way ultimately agreeing with the author of this article, you must admit that it complicates the simple picture that the majority of Big Bang theorists are attempting to portray. While this guy says that cosmological redshift is not a normal Doppler shift, I am saying that it is not any kind of Doppler shift. It is simply the temporal manifestation of the observer’s dimensional perspectivity.

I still uphold that he is guilty of the sin of “objectivizing” the very context that allows there to be any sort of objective measurement.

17

This metaphysical “fluff” to which you refer is nothing other than the “philosophy of dimensionality”. You’ve never heard anything like it because I’ve invented it (it has nothing to do with the “bookstore metaphysics” that so clearly draws your ire). If you don’t like my invention, then turn your attention elsewhere.

You see, mine is the only discipline that directly relates to both philosophy and science. The philosophy section will always accuse me of being too “science oriented” (talking about galactic redshift and such) and the science section will always accuse me just as you have. I take it as a compliment, because I am indeed in the process of connecting two heretofore entirely disconnected realms.

I revel in the fact that we have nothing to talk about. O:)

18

I don’t think I am confusing the definitions: yes, there is scientific data that is collected to uphold a scientific theory, but data is up for misinterpretation, or being wrongly applied to the theory in question, and so theories get replaced by more valid ones - I remember this happening during the duration of my GCSE Science course: over those years, one theory being replaced with another that proved more valid than the last.

…at that point, I realised that Science (out of all the other sciences) was more hypothesis/theory based than a perfect artform in itself - I was disappointed at this summation…

I have heard about the ‘big bounce’ theory, and have yet to look into it fully - thanks for the link…

19

Hope!

…that the questions I had could be answered, and reality would cease being vague - it’s always those really mind-numbing questions that can never be answered :-k

20

How can I put this lightly…

youtube.com/watch?v=WrjwaqZfjIY