Physics Help Forum Looking at doppler a different way.

 Theoretical Physics Theoretical Physics Help Forum

 Sep 24th 2013, 07:44 AM #1 Senior Member     Join Date: Aug 2013 Location: Under a bridge, Tampa, Florida USA Posts: 157 Looking at doppler a different way. What if time/space was changing at an accelerating rate? We could define time as a constant and space expanding or vice-verse. Now when we measure light from a distant source, we would be measuring light that originated at a past point in space/time and its wave length would retain the space/time aspects of the past, we would perceive this as a change in wavelength rather than a change in space/time. The layman's way of looking at this is that light reflected from objects is not expanding... our eyes are! When we look at an object we are seeing it as it was in the past... it was smaller then. __________________ Deception is a complex concept which the human mind is unable to resolve... Last edited by Troll; Sep 24th 2013 at 07:52 AM.
Sep 24th 2013, 08:46 AM   #2

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On the dance floor, baby!
Posts: 2,558
This is getting to be annoying. You are asking good questions. The problem is that you seem to be pushing your own agenda. Comments like
 We could define time as a constant and space expanding or vice-verse.
simply do not make any sense at any level. I'm getting the feeling that you aren't really interested in the help, you just want the argument.

Rather like the troll that you claim not to be.

-Dan
__________________
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

See the forum rules here.

 Sep 25th 2013, 10:17 AM #3 Forum Admin     Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: On the dance floor, baby! Posts: 2,558 Okay. A member has asked me to open this back up. So here we are. [moderator comments] Ground rules: 1. Define your terms. For starters "We could define time as a constant and space expanding or vice-verse." How can time be defined as a constant. Or turning it around, how can space be defined as a constant? 2. If you want to discuss something you need to do it one or more of the following three levels: theoretical, experimental, or philosophical. All three need to have some logical coherency. All I've seen you do so far is make statements that appear to have no backing on any previous thought structure. It's okay to "think outside of the box" but some kind of contact with established theory or experimental facts at some point. I'm not seeing that. These terms apply to all of your threads. [/moderator comments] Okay, Moderator business done. What do you mean by defining time as a constant? -Dan __________________ Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup. See the forum rules here.
 Sep 26th 2013, 04:58 AM #4 Senior Member     Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Bedford, England Posts: 668 Rubber Ruler All measurement is made in terms of something else, which is assumed to be accurate and constant. This is a fundamental issue for all measurements (take the problems with the reference kilogram for example). Distance and time are linked, both by the space/time of relativity and by the definitions of the reference measurements. Length is defined as the distance travelled by light in a given time. Thus the measurement of the expansion of the universe must be inextricably linked with our definitions of both length and time. The standard description of the observed expansion of the universe involves changes in the length measurements, but could not changes in the time dimension equally match the observations? Last edited by MBW; Sep 26th 2013 at 05:03 AM. Reason: minor re-wording
Oct 7th 2013, 07:19 AM   #5
Senior Member

Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Under a bridge, Tampa, Florida USA
Posts: 157
 Originally Posted by MBW All measurement is made in terms of something else, which is assumed to be accurate and constant. This is a fundamental issue for all measurements (take the problems with the reference kilogram for example). Distance and time are linked, both by the space/time of relativity and by the definitions of the reference measurements. Length is defined as the distance travelled by light in a given time. Thus the measurement of the expansion of the universe must be inextricably linked with our definitions of both length and time. The standard description of the observed expansion of the universe involves changes in the length measurements, but could not changes in the time dimension equally match the observations?
What I am saying is that we could view time as a straight line and space expanding at an accelerating rate... or we could view space as flat and time compressing at an accelerating rate. They are relative. We as observers, are trapped in time/space but I believe our minds are capable of viewing this from a place outside of space time! We are then able to make comparisons between the "Static" (observable) universe and the "Super dynamic" (infinite) universe that we are an infinitesimal constituent of... We cannot conceive of infinity, however, we can work with it!
__________________
Deception is a complex concept which the human mind is unable to resolve...

Last edited by Troll; Oct 7th 2013 at 12:55 PM.

 Oct 7th 2013, 09:53 AM #6 Senior Member     Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Bedford, England Posts: 668 Does it matter? Would there be observable (experimentally measureable) consequences of time being the variable dimension rather than distance? If not, the point is moot...
 Oct 7th 2013, 12:02 PM #7 Senior Member     Join Date: Aug 2013 Location: Under a bridge, Tampa, Florida USA Posts: 157 No difference to an observer trapped in space/time... however if you want to do some mind experiments that let you escape the "box" you will need to consider the relationship. __________________ Deception is a complex concept which the human mind is unable to resolve...
Oct 7th 2013, 03:56 PM   #8

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On the dance floor, baby!
Posts: 2,558
 Originally Posted by Troll What I am saying is that we could view time as a straight line and space expanding at an accelerating rate... or we could view space as flat and time compressing at an accelerating rate. They are relative.
For the most part empty space is flat. Space-time is not.

 Originally Posted by Troll We as observers, are trapped in time/space but I believe our minds are capable of viewing this from a place outside of space time!
Any models we create mean we can "see" outside of space-time. I'm not seeing how this implies any "trapping" beyond the sense that our experiments have to be done "inside" the Universe. But theory can go anywhere.

For example, no matter what stories you might have heard about a person falling into a black hole...to an observer outside the Schwarzchild radius the falling person never passes into the hole. It takes an infinite amount of time to fall into a black hole.

-Dan
__________________
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

See the forum rules here.

 Oct 7th 2013, 03:59 PM #9 Senior Member     Join Date: Aug 2013 Location: Under a bridge, Tampa, Florida USA Posts: 157 Physics breaks down in a black hole... or rather our physics break down, but we can still consider it. __________________ Deception is a complex concept which the human mind is unable to resolve...
Oct 7th 2013, 04:09 PM   #10

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On the dance floor, baby!
Posts: 2,558
 Originally Posted by Troll Physics breaks down in a black hole... or rather our physics break down, but we can still consider it.
But that is my very point. We can't get into the hole, but we can still talk about it. Where is the concept of "trapped" here?

-Dan
__________________
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

See the forum rules here.

 Tags doppler

 Thread Tools Display Modes Linear Mode

 Similar Physics Forum Discussions Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post CorneliusXI Special and General Relativity 1 Jun 22nd 2016 01:07 AM Gobess Kinematics and Dynamics 1 Dec 24th 2009 12:07 AM songoku Waves and Sound 4 Jul 24th 2009 12:21 AM jonbrutal Kinematics and Dynamics 3 Jun 9th 2009 05:32 AM conqueror Waves and Sound 2 Oct 11th 2008 03:16 PM