I don't think space is expanding.

[Lukraak_Sisser]

No the observation, based upon the theory you claim is invalid by the way, is that clocks that move FAST move slower.
Which is what we see in satellites.
In your universe the clocks on the probes in the far reaches of the solar system would behave differently from the ones close to earth.

Now I can already feel the dodge 'yeah, but we can't measure the difference yet' coming, but given that steering the things depends on those clocks and that even the smallest error would translate into large course mishaps (space is big after all), every probe would have missed it's target if you were right.

Yet again reality does not confirm to your predictions.

 

[hecd2]

Objects would be stationary in space, but the path of a photon through spacetime to a far enough object wouldn't be a straight line.

This is meaningless and you don't realise it's meaningless because you still haven't learned any physics. You haven't defined what you mean by a straight line. A Euclidean straight line? A null geodesic in curved space? A trajectory in spacetime? You don't even realise that the least action principle, or the integral over paths (its generalisation in QM), those principles that I spent so much effort introducing you to, would be violated if your claim were to be true for any massless particle.

 

[hecd2]

If you go further away from Earth, z>0, Earth's clock will run slower than yours.

If you use a telescope to look at a clock at z>0 than from Earth, it will be slower than your clock.

This can't be true looking from different locations. That is not logically possible in a static Universe. So the only way your claim can make logical (if not physical) sense is in an inhomogeneous and geocentric Universe where lightspeed is c here and less elsewhere.

Your idea leads to irreconcilable paradoxes - the sure proof of an internally inconsistent idea. Alice and Bob synchronise their clocks, and then travel a long distance apart. As soon as the distance between them becomes significant (remember the observed rate is a function of distance according to you) Alice observes Bob's clock running slower than hers and Bob observes Alice's clock running slower than his. They stop and wait a period of time at some significant separated distance. The longer they wait, the more the accumulated difference that they observe between their clocks becomes and each thinks the others clock is losing time with respect to theirs. They then bring clocks back together again. Ask Alice what she sees - she'll say "throughout the whole exercise Bob's clock ran slower than mine, accumulating less time. Now we are together again I can see his clock side by side with mine and it has lost x seconds." Bob will say the same about Alice's clock. So according top Alice Bob's clock is slower than hers and vice versa. That's a logical inconsistency.

There's another problem, which is particularly relevant during the static phase of this exercise. Bob and Alice are too far apart to see the faces of one another's clocks with a telescope, but no worries, they agree to send each other a laser pulse every time their hour hand passes 24 o'clock. Over a thousand of her days, Alice sends 1,000 pulses but only receives 500. Bob sends 1000, but only receives 500 of the 1000 Alice sent. What has become of the missing pulses? Remember the distance between them is not changing so where are these missing pulses going? That's an illustration of the fact that in a static situation clocks at the same gravitational potential cannot desynchronise, which we have been telling you for it seems like years.

So, your idea that at all locations clocks are observed to run slower as a function of distance is logically impossible.

 

[Mike Helland]

This can't be true looking from different locations. That is not logically possible in a static Universe. So the only way your claim can make logical (if not physical) sense is in an inhomogeneous and geocentric Universe where lightspeed is c here and less elsewhere.

Your idea leads to irreconcilable paradoxes - the sure proof of an internally inconsistent idea. Alice and Bob synchronise their clocks, and then travel a long distance apart. As soon as the distance between them becomes significant (remember the observed rate is a function of distance according to you) Alice observes Bob's clock running slower than hers and Bob observes Alice's clock running slower than his. They stop and wait a period of time at some significant separated distance. The longer they wait, the more the accumulated difference that they observe between their clocks becomes and each thinks the others clock is losing time with respect to theirs. They then bring clocks back together again. Ask Alice what she sees - she'll say "throughout the whole exercise Bob's clock ran slower than mine, accumulating less time. Now we are together again I can see his clock side by side with mine and it has lost x seconds." Bob will say the same about Alice's clock. So according top Alice Bob's clock is slower than hers and vice versa. That's a logical inconsistency.

When the clocks are together, they should tick at the same speed.

There's another problem, which is particularly relevant during the static phase of this exercise. Bob and Alice are too far apart to see the faces of one another's clocks with a telescope, but no worries, they agree to send each other a laser pulse every time their hour hand passes 24 o'clock. Over a thousand of her days, Alice sends 1,000 pulses but only receives 500. Bob sends 1000, but only receives 500 of the 1000 Alice sent. What has become of the missing pulses? Remember the distance between them is not changing so where are these missing pulses going? That's an illustration of the fact that in a static situation clocks at the same gravitational potential cannot desynchronise, which we have been telling you for it seems like years.

So, your idea that at all locations clocks are observed to run slower as a function of distance is logically impossible.

Good one.

You keep saying static universe.

This isn't a static universe.

Objects are stationary, but it's not static.

 

[hecd2]

When the clocks are together, they should tick at the same speed.

Indeed, but your reading comprehension is as bad as your physics. When they are apart they accumulate differences that result in a logical cock-up when they are brought together again which shows your idea is internally inconsistent.

Good one.

You keep saying static universe.

This isn't a static universe.

Objects are stationary, but it's not static.

How is it not static? You do know what static means? And you still haven’t explained where all the non-arriving laser pulses go.

 

[Mike Helland]

Indeed, but your reading comprehension is as bad as your physics. When they are apart they accumulate differences that result in a logical cock-up when they are brought together again which shows your idea is internally inconsistent.

Any time lost by distant clock would return when the clock comes back.

How is it not static? You do know what static means? And you still haven’t explained where all the non-arriving laser pulses go.

So, the original idea was that as space expands, so does the time it takes to get to things. Increasing distance = increasing duration. IOW, expansion of space = expansion of time.

If time increases but distances stay the same, that's just something slowing down.

The idea of a photon slowing down, as shown, wreaks havoc on the known laws of physics.

But, just as the time delays and redshifts in an expanding universe can happen when a photon slows down, they can also occur if the photon starts out slow and accelerates to c.

So the hypothesis now is the original insight, the expansion of time.

In this universe, space is static, but time is not.

 

[Mike Helland]

How is it not static? You do know what static means? And you still haven’t explained where all the non-arriving laser pulses go.

You said half of them don't arrive.

Why not?

I don't see why that would be the case.

*edit* I think you're halving the events rather than doubling the time. freq = events / time. Time expands, the number events doesn't contract.

 

[hecd2]

Any time lost by distant clock would return when the clock comes back.

Why? How? Your idea as described is simply that clocks further away run slower. As far as that idea goes accumulated differences remain (and in fact continue to grow) as the clocks are brought back together.

So, the original idea was that as space expands, so does the time it takes to get to things. Increasing distance = increasing duration. IOW, expansion of space = expansion of time.

If time increases but distances stay the same, that's just something slowing down.

The idea of a photon slowing down, as shown, wreaks havoc on the known laws of physics.

But, just as the time delays and redshifts in an expanding universe can happen when a photon slows down, they can also occur if the photon starts out slow and accelerates to c.

So the hypothesis now is the original insight, the expansion of time.

In this universe, space is static, but time is not.

Jabber. Where do the pulses that don’t arrive go?

 

[Mike Helland]

Why? How? Your idea as described is simply that clocks further away run slower. As far as that idea goes accumulated differences remain (and in fact continue to grow) as the clocks are brought back together.

Hmmm.

So it's like an extra twist to the twin paradox.

Jabber. Where do the pulses that don’t arrive go?

If I send you 1000 laser pulses from a billion light years away, and then hop in a space ship and fly at 0.5 c to come see you, before I arrive, you will get all 1000 laser pulses.

I'm not following your logic.

 

[hecd2]

Hmmm.

So it's like an extra twist to the twin paradox.

Except that the twin paradox isn’t a paradox at all. At the end of the process all observers agree which clock has accumulated more time. In your case, observers disagree. Yours is a real paradox and demonstrates that your idea is internally inconsistent. Unlike SR.

 

[Mike Helland]

Except that the twin paradox isn’t a paradox at all. At the end of the process all observers agree which clock has accumulated more time. In your case, observers disagree. Yours is a real paradox and demonstrates that your idea is internally inconsistent. Unlike SR.

Think about, where do those laser pulses go?

They aren't lost. They reach the observer

If I was a billion light years away, and sent 1000 pulses, and then hopped in my space ship and went back to Earth, those 1000 pulses would all get there before I did (assuming I wasn't traveling FTL).

 

[hecd2]

If I send you 1000 laser pulses from a billion light years away, and then hop in a space ship and fly at 0.5 c to come see you, before I arrive, you will get all 1000 laser pulses.

I'm not following your logic.

Your claim is that you observe clocks far away running slower than your own. So the arrival rate of laser pulses sent at 1 per day at the source would be only 1 every two days (for example) when detected. Over an indefinitely long period of time you count only half (or whatever the ratio is) of the pulses that have been sent. Where do the rest go?

 

[hecd2]

Think about, where do those laser pulses go?

They aren't lost. They reach the observer

If I was a billion light years away, and sent 1000 pulses, and then hopped in my space ship and went back to Earth, those 1000 pulses would all get there before I did (assuming I wasn't traveling FTL).

this doesn’t address the problem that Alice and Bob will disagree about which clock has accumulated less time.

 

[Mike Helland]

Your claim is that you observe clocks far away running slower than your own. So the arrival rate of laser pulses sent at 1 per day at the source would be only 1 every two days (for example) when detected. Over an indefinitely long period of time you count only half (or whatever the ratio is) of the pulses that have been sent. Where do the rest go?

If I send 20 pulses in second (20 hz) to you, and your clock is moving twice as fast, so that the 20 pulses occur within 2 seconds, the frequency of pulses halves (10 hz), but the number of pulses never changes.

 

[theprestige]

The observed evidence is that clocks at great distances do run slow.

No. The observed evidence is that light from distant sources appears to be redshifted.

Your hypothesis is that this is because distant clocks run slow. However, this hypothesis is internally inconsistent, and inconsistent with other observations.

Further, distant clocks running slow is not predicted by any model that is internally consistent and consistent with observations.

Compare with, say, Snell's Law. It's not only consistent with observations, it's also independently predicted by other (internally and observationally consistent) models like QED.

 

[hecd2]

If I send 20 pulses in second (20 hz) to you, and your clock is moving twice as fast, so that the 20 pulses occur within 2 seconds, the frequency of pulses halves (10 hz), but the number of pulses never changes.

Correct. If the source and the observer are in relative motion it does not lead to a paradox. If they are not, it does.

 

[Mike Helland]

No. The observed evidence is that light from distant sources appears to be redshifted.

Don't forget about supernovae light curve time dilations.

Your hypothesis is that this is because distant clocks run slow. However, this hypothesis is internally inconsistent, and inconsistent with other observations.

This resolves the conflict with the observations.

 

[Mike Helland]

Correct. If the source and the observer are in relative motion it does not lead to a paradox. If they are not, it does.

A genuine paradox. The best kind.

The paradox points us at the assumption that (excluding gravity and motion) time flows consistently everywhere.

 

[hecd2]

Don't forget about supernovae light curve time dilations.

Which are a consequence of expansion.

 

[hecd2]

A genuine paradox. The best kind.

The paradox points us at the assumption that (excluding gravity and motion) time flows consistently everywhere.

A paradox that falsifies your internally inconsistent idea. Where you use the word assumption I would say conclusion. The evidence is that time passes according the Lorentz Transform and other predictions of GR To do with gravitational potential. Your idea is both internally inconsistent but in conflict with these. It cannot be correct.

Don’t forget Alice and Bob which is all that is required to show the internal inconsistency in your idea. Time to give it up (again).