Formal Debate: Gravitational Shift and the Least Action Principle

Not correct.

The gravitational redshift and the cosmological redshift are both written as 1+z



*cosmological redshift

\(1 + z = \sqrt{\frac{a_{now}}{a_{then}}}\)

*gravitational redhift

\(1 + z = \sqrt{\frac{g_{tt}(r)}{g_{tt}(s)}}\)


Because we are talking about the Schwarzschild argument, then it satisfies the gravitational redshift clearly.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Why has a moderator suddenly put this in pseudoscience? Do any of you actually know anything about what is being discussed?

I post it in debates, then it is moved to physics and now it is in pseudo? why?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What is being discussed is essentially half thought out pseudo science. The pseudo science is not the begining equations that you (or your 'friend') find in real papers, but the butchered equation that result from you missapplying high school algebra to the original equations.

Read post #34.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Post 34 says the post was removed from formal debates and it was effectively put into physics, so I don't think you actually understand what I am saying. I am saying the post was in physics and moved to pseudo.

I also challenge you to show me you even have a working understanding of what is being discussed. Might help if you show me what parts exactly are pseudoscience. For you to make this statement, you must know something none of us do.

So show up.

 

Just a reminder,

The equation in the cited material is a product of the equivalence principle. The so-called ''butchered'' equation, takes the same arguments as the cited material except it rewrites the metric as a ratio of the wavelengths associated to calculating redshift. There is nothing wrong about the algebra.

The metric as it is given in the cited work is dimensionless anyway. The ratio of two dimensionless metrics is just another fancy way to write out the redshift deviation from the source.

 

The refined work by the author can also be found here

http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=2488277

Just in case you need a reference when you make your wonderful rebuttal.

 

As I’ve already explained and proved, that’s incorrect. Just because you wrote a sentence claiming something different can in no way be considered any sort of counter argument or proof.

At this stage I’m curious about something so please forgive me for asking – What did you hope to accomplish by repeating yourself after I’ve posted proof that you’re wrong? Did you actually believe that I’d through my hands up in the air and say By George, now I’ve seen the error of my ways over all these many years of studying and tutoring the subject. He repeated himself thus proving me wrong!

You’d be wise to follow my advice – If you’re unable to prove your assertion correct then don’t state it. Simply stating that you're right doesn't automatically mean that you're correct. Doing so only makes you look silly.

Gravitational redshift is not defined by a quanity such as z or 1+z or sin(12z) or whatever. Gravitational Redshift is defined as follows:

From Exploring Black Holes by Taylor and Wheeler. See the Glossary of Terms – Author Yours Truly aka pmb.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

That definition, as is the glossary of terms, is limited to the scope of the text.

From Exploring Black Holes – 2nd Ed. by Taylor, Wheeler and Bertschinger, page
http://www.eftaylor.com/exploringblackholes/Cosmos110410v1.pdf

At the moment this author uses the term ‘redshift’ not cosmological redshift. I’m a proof reader and have recommended that he change it in at least one place so that readers will recognize it when they read other textbooks on relativistic cosmology. From page

and it goes on like that. Case closed!

 

OK.

The redshift due to the expansion of space is represented by z.
\(z =\frac{ \lambda_{obser} - \lambda_{emit}}{\lambda_{emit}}\)

It can be written as:

\(1 -z =\frac{ \lambda_{obser}}{\lambda_{emit}}\)

The cosmological redshift can also be written using 'a' (scale factor)

\(1 -z =\frac{ a_{now}}{a_{then}}\)

You identified this as the cosmological redishift:

\(1 -z =\sqrt{\frac{ a_{now}}{a_{then}}}\)

How did you come up with that formula?

 

What James said.
I sent Trapped a pm to explain why the thread was moved, but I should have posted here as well.
It seems to me that this thread's premise was not to discuss science, but to win an argument, regardless of whether that winning argument is actually true.

That approach of wanting to have been right all along, rather than wanting to become right, is a hallmark of pseudoscience.

 

- Everyone's bs detector went off when you posted this bogus claim. Everyone knows that z is redshift, except you of course.

 

True for the most part. However there are important exceptions such as when you know that your position is as solid as a rock yet there's a few trouble makers who are confusing the layman here with bogus claims and you want to pressure them into responding to the direct questions that they otherwise think they can feel free to ignore. The fact that they refuse to respond to the challange proves the point made by the person making the challenge.

 

Against a noisy opposition, a proposal of a formal debate seems like a good way to do a deep dive on a single topic and try to cut through the bloviation, obfuscation and shallow lies.
Against a principled opposition, a proposal of a formal debate on some point of trivia seems like bullying and trying to assert some sort of right to demand an answer to leading questions.

 

You think do you?

 

Disappointing you have been told four times of your error then... and still relentlessly spouting it off.

 

You told me you removed the thread from physics to here because there was no intentions to talk about science.

You are clearly a liar or it was a serious attempt to move the material regardless. I ignored you for the best part. I honestly don't think you are acting like a wise moderator.

 

Then move the content appropriate to where it should be. Not where moderators think it should be because they think no one is willing to talk science.

My original point has been proven time and time again and yet... to what end? No moderator let alone poster outside of tach is even willing to admit that I was right.

 

For all the times I have correctly written this formula (at least three times) in various different discussions, you get the one time I didn't write it correctly. There is no radical.

 

And if you “told” everyone that 2 + 2 = 3.141 it would be just as meaningless.

A statement made without proving evidence to that effect is just that – a statement, nothing more and noting less. Statements must be justified with some sort of evidence or proof. You've done nothing of that nature but simply claim that you recall reading something. Frankly there's every reason not to take anything you claim seriously so we're certainly not going to just assume that you're not lying, have a bad memory or both.

Quite unlike you I never pretend to be flawless, incapable of making an error. In fact that’s why I temporarily hesitated, i.e. to consider what Wiki claims. However after I checked into it I found that there’s nothing there to take seriously on this point.

If you were like me and thus had scientific instinct and some humility you’d have been able to admit your mistake as soon as it was pointed out to you. That you can’t merely makes me pity you as another crank that can’t admit when he’s wrong. Shame on you!!

 

Yet you appear to finally admit your mistake in the physics section.