Is a length contraction just a visual thing?

[absolute-space]

Almost everything you have written directly disputes that claim.

Well said.

You can say well said to something with a question mark, but report a post with question marks, clearly contradictory again, you seem very contradictory, are you pretending to be some sort of authority on science?

 

[origin]

You can say well said to something with a question mark, but report a post with question marks, clearly contradictory again, you seem very contradictory, are you pretending to be some sort of authority on science?

I got work to do that actually involves scientific principals, so I have to go. Besides, I can only take so much pseudoscience and misinformation at one time.

 

[krash661]

Yes indeed, which he claimed Psuedo, which he has reported me for when it is his facts that are off. I think he owes me an apology.

azo--- show your pictorial--

 

[krash661]

clearly contradictory again, you seem very contradictory, are you pretending to be some sort of authority on science?

azo--whose words are you using here-- they are very familiar too me--why is that?

 

[absolute-space]

I got work to do that actually involves scientific principals, so I have to go. Besides, I can only take so much pseudoscience and misinformation at one time.

azo--whose words are you using here-- they are very familiar too me--why is that?

You are another seemingly strange individual, do you have anything to say of the topic?

The words do not belong to anybody, they are what we learn at school if you did not know.

 

[krash661]

You are another seemingly strange individual, do you have anything to say of the topic?

The words do not belong to anybody, they are what we learn at school if you did not know.

i have said many corrections too you--as you well know of-- regarding your pathetic nonsense, for years now.
your pretending is massively obvious too me. i am 99.2% sure it is you azo

 

[absolute-space]

i have said many corrections too you--as you well know of-- regarding your pathetic nonsense, for years now.
your pretending is massively obvious too me. i am 99.2% sure it is you azo

Then you would be 100% wrong, I have already told you once I am not this person and now you are insulting me and calling me a lier, You have not corrected me on anything, and what credentials do you claim to be able to correct anyone?

What do you mean by correction? do you actual mean you tell them WIKI says it this way and nobody is allowed to question it? Sceince is not a beleif system my friend, I suggest you look up the defintion of what a fact is.

Do you claim stars are flat and beyond the stars is no distance?

You are clearly being contentious.

 

[krash661]

Then you would be 100% wrong, I have already told you once I am not this person and now you are insulting me and calling me a lier, You have not corrected me on anything, and what credentials do you claim to be able to correct anyone?

What do you mean by correction? do you actual mean you tell them WIKI says it this way and nobody is allowed to question it? Sceince is not a beleif system my friend, I suggest you look up the defintion of what a fact is.

Do you claim stars are flat and beyond the stars is no distance?

You are clearly being contentious.

if i had access too https://www.physforum.com/ i would simply show your word-for word--words.
it is that simple.

and what credentials do you claim to be able to correct anyone?

more than most--as you already know of since i have mentioned them before in the past.

now i am 99.98%sure it is you azo.

 

[QuarkHead]

Your logic is completely flawed here. Let me help you sort it out.

The following doesn't seem much better

1. You need a receiver and an emitter.

And how do you know that the wavelength as it originates from from the emitter is different from that as received at the detector? i.e. how do you determine the wavelength at a distant source without being an equally distant receiver?

2. The distance between the receiver and the emitter increases due to an expansion of space.

Assuming the conclusion your "logic" seeks to establish!

3. No relative motion through space is required.

Again, assuming the conclusion!

4. Due to the expansion of space the light wave is stretched which results in a redshift a seen by the receiver.

Compounding the above two logically invalid assumptions

5. The farther away a galaxy is the more expanding space the light wave travels through so the larger the red shift.

Not a result that follows from any of the above.

 

[origin]

The following doesn't seem much better

Sorry it seems that way. I was doing my best to explain to someone who has no idea about expansion or what it means in the most rudementary terms.

And how do you know that the wavelength as it originates from from the emitter is different from that as received at the detector? i.e. how do you determine the wavelength at a distant source without being an equally distant receiver?

I did not include that the light we are looking at is the spectrum of the galaxy so that it is a simple exercise to determine the original wavelengths of the light.

Assuming the conclusion your "logic" seeks to establish!
Again, assuming the conclusion!

Correct the conlusion was assumed. As I said I was trying to explain how the red shift of light could be from the expansion of space. I could have gone into the other pieces of evidence that support the expansion of space, but I was trying to minimize the confusion that the absolute-space was showing.

Compounding the above two logically invalid assumptions
Not a result that follows from any of the above.

I disagree, but it does not matter.

If you can do a better job of explaining to Absolute-space that the cosmic red shift does not lead to the conclusion that space reflects light, be my guest.

 

[origin]

You are quite cleary deranged, do you not understand that when something ends with a question mark it is asking a question?

Gibberish ending with a question mark is still just gibberish.

You owe me an apoolgy for your laziness in reading, and it was you that claimed space is expanding and it is a fact.

It is not laziness, your posts are rambling, incoherent and devoid of any actual physics. Your posts are nonsense.

I mean WTF is this sentence suppose to mean?

Back on subject, yes the stars are not flat extending our universe of what we know?

It sounds like the sentence was composed by someone with a tramatic brain injury that had been drinking heavily. I haven't the slightest idea what the thought was that you were trying to convey

 

[absolute-space]

Gibberish ending with a question mark is still just gibberish.

It is not laziness, your posts are rambling, incoherent and devoid of any actual physics. Your posts are nonsense.

I mean WTF is this sentence suppose to mean?

Back on subject, yes the stars are not flat extending our universe of what we know?

It sounds like the sentence was composed by someone with a tramatic brain injury that had been drinking heavily. I haven't the slightest idea what the thought was that you were trying to convey

''If you can do a better job of explaining to Absolute-space that the cosmic red shift does not lead to the conclusion that space reflects light, be my guest.''

Complete gibberish, it is you who thinks space reflects light and now you are trying to twist your way out of your obvious mistake.

''It sounds like the sentence was composed by someone with a tramatic brain injury that had been drinking heavily. I haven't the slightest idea what the thought was that you were trying to convey''

Its traumatic, if you are going to try to be insultive at least learn to spell so we can understand your insult. Clearly a distraction and reply in embarrasment of your earlier blunder to try and gain some credibility.

 

[absolute-space]

The contradiction is you said space is expanding, you said the redshift shows space is exapnding, then you replied contradictory several times now,'' 1 emiter and 1 receiver is all that is needed'' admiting that ''expansion'' is an extension of light length between two sources and not of space expanding, you do not observe a redshift of the space where there is no reciever.
Your logic is completely flawed here. Let me help you sort it out.
1. You need a reciever and an emitter.
2. The distance between the receiver and the emitter increases due to an expansion of space.
3. No realtive motion through space is required.
4. Due to the expansion of space the light wave is stretched which results in a redshift a seen by the receiver.
5. The farther away a galaxy is the more expanding space the light wave travels through so the larger the red shift.

Let me help clear your obvious confusion and contradiction. The light wave is stretched because the object reflectng light is moving away from you into more space, the space is not expanding, the space is not observed exapnding, you clearly have not got a clue have you?

''Due to the expansion of space the light wave is stretched''

Due to the object moving the light is stretched.

Distant objects are not ''flat'' they have an opposite ''side'' to your view, that side also emits light that travels away from you, can you not understand space is not a flat world, there is no edge to fall off?

 

[paddoboy]

of light....It occurs because of the finite speed of light, of light was saying the same thing in brief , do you not understand things in breif?

? I certainly do understand things in brief, I have a habit of putting it briefly myself: Breif, though certainly not.
And again time dilation occurs because of the finite speed of light as I said.

No, you are clearly wrong and do not understand, redshift is caused by the length between a point source and light source, extending .

Are you trying to be funny?
Redshift/blueshift, cosmological redshift/blueshift that is, occurs because of intervening spacetime expanding.
Now read both statements slowly and let the meanings sink in, uninhibited by whatever agenda you are afflicted with.

No, the light is the space-time you refer to, curving, contracting and stretching. There is no redshift of space, space reflects no light. Space is not expanding.

Sorry, that's bullshit. Spacetime is expanding, and expanding at an ever increasing rate.........No one said space is red shifted, obviously you are confused......Space does not reflect light as such: Light follows geodesic paths in curved spacetime:
Near everything you are suggesting is pseudoscience according to the evidence and data available.
This thread should be shifted, as your intended question is fraudulent and just a guise to push this pseudo crap.

ps: Also please be aware that as I listed earlier and which has seemingly confused you even more, there are three kinds of red/blue shift: Doppler, Gravitational, and Cosmological.

 

[paddoboy]

Let me help clear your obvious confusion and contradiction. The light wave is stretched because the object reflectng light is moving away from you into more space, the space is not expanding, the space is not observed exapnding, you clearly have not got a clue have you?

Again there are three types of red/blue shift....as I listed before.

 

[absolute-space]

? I certainly do understand things in brief, I have a habit of putting it briefly myself: Breif, though certainly not.
And again time dilation occurs because of the finite speed of light as I said.

Are you trying to be funny?
Redshift/blueshift, cosmological redshift/blueshift that is, occurs because of intervening spacetime expanding.
Now read both statements slowly and let the meanings sink in, uninhibited by whatever agenda you are afflicted with.

Sorry, that's bullshit. Spacetime is expanding, and expanding at an ever increasing rate.........No one said space is red shifted, obviously you are confused......Space does not reflect light as such: Light follows geodesic paths in curved spacetime:
Near everything you are suggesting is pseudoscience according to the evidence and data available.
This thread should be shifted, as your intended question is fraudulent and just a guise to push this pseudo crap.

ps: Also please be aware that as I listed earlier and which has seemingly confused you even more, there are three kinds of red/blue shift: Doppler, Gravitational, and Cosmological.

Not another one who does not know what he is talking about. Paddy, do you think space reflects light? Do you think there is any possible way to observe light redshifting without observing a refelctive body? of course you don't.

''Spacetime is expanding, and expanding at an ever increasing rate''

No, objects are moving away from our observation. we do not observe space moving or expanding or redshifting, we observe objects moving,

You are making the same mistake as origin and contradict yourself.

.''No one said space is red shifted, obviously you are confused..''

You have just said you observe space redshifting and expanding ,

 

[krash661]

It sounds like the sentence was composed by someone with a tramatic brain

as azo has claimed in the past of having--odd that you would say that.

azo--admit that this is for sure you, azo. you are showing your usual persona--it is tough too say that you are not azo.

 

[paddoboy]

Not another one who does not know what he is talking about. Paddy, do you think space reflects light? Do you think there is any possible way to observe light redshifting without observing a refelctive body? of course you don't.

''Spacetime is expanding, and expanding at an ever increasing rate''

No, objects are moving away from our observation. we do not observe space moving or expanding or redshifting, we observe objects moving,

You are making the same mistake as origin and contradict yourself.

.''No one said space is red shifted, obviously you are confused..''

You have just said you observe space redshifting and expanding ,

I'm not going to argue with you anymore. The evidence is in and shows you are wrong:
Your thread has been reported as pseudoscience and in the wrong section as the other one was, since it is obvious the OP put as a question was just a disguise to push your nonsense.

 

[origin]

Distant objects are not ''flat'' they have an opposite ''side'' to your view, that side also emits light that travels away from you, can you not understand space is not a flat world, there is no edge to fall off?

Why do you keep saying that? Who in hell thinks distant objects are flat???

Well, I certainly have tired of beating my head against the wall.

 

[PhysBang]

No, objects are moving away from our observation. we do not observe space moving or expanding or redshifting, we observe objects moving,

Nonetheless, the evidence is that we need to speak of the expansion of space rather than of motion to explain cosmological redshift.