Notices
Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: 'Special Relativity' Supports that Hubble's law is Wrong.

  1. #1 'Special Relativity' Supports that Hubble's law is Wrong. 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    71
    'Special Relativity' Supports that Hubble's law is Wrong.

    Introduction:

    Cosmologists and astrophysicists agree that the redshift could be infinite. So, as long as the redshift of the galaxies could be infinite, therefore, according to Hubble's law itself, the velocity of the galaxies could be infinite, too. No doubt, such a velocity is so so so so so, etc. extremely greater than the constant speed of light. But, according to Einstein's theory of the 'special relativity', nothing is faster than light.

    Numerated Discussion

    1- According to the theory of the special relativity, the speed of light is constant, and nothing in the universe can travel faster than it.
    2- The redshift of the galaxies seems to have no ultimate finite value. In other words, one can say that the redshift of the galaxies could be infinite such that it indicates a velocity so extremely greater than the speed of the light (say; billions of kilometers/second).
    3- According to the theory of the special relativity, it is impossible to find in the universe any galaxy that is faster than the light.
    4- Accordingly, putting the special relativity in mind, the infinity that the galactic redshift might show, couldn't be attributed to any translational motion, even if we consider that the galaxies are made of pure light. According to the theory of the special relativity, even the utmost velocity in the relative motion of any two supposedly light-made galaxies cannot exceed 600,000 km/sec.
    5- Accordingly, even light or the travel of the galaxies at the speed of light, couldnít account for the real possibility of finding that the redshift might be infinite.
    6- So far, we must search for an agent other than the relative motion such that it could account for the possibility of the infinity of the redshift of the galaxies.
    7- No escape, this agent must intervene in the space between the galaxies and the Earth.
    8- No escape, the sought agent affects the redshift gravitationally.
    9- Nothing other than the 'event horizon'- caused redshift could show the possibility of finding that the very redshift might be infinite. In addition to, the black holes which the 'event horizon' belong to are intervening in between the galaxies and the Earth.



    In short, first, as long as the possibility of the infinity of the redshift of the galaxies is real, and that the special relativity fails to account for such an infinity and ,second, nothing in the universe in the intervening space between the galaxies and the Earth other than the 'event horizons of the black holes can cause infinite redshift, thus, it could be concluded that the galaxies' redshifts attributed to the relative motions is factually extremely insignificant with respect to the 'event horizon'-caused redshift.

    So far, if the view that Hubble's law is wrong is not adopted by the scientific community, necessarily and spontaneously, the theory of the special relativity turns out to be wrong.
    At last, if the 'event horizon'-caused redshift doesn't support that Hubble's law is wrong, otherwise it inevitably gives decisive evidence that the theory of the special relativity is wrong.
    Anyway, the redshift possibility to be infinite stops us in front of one choice only. Concerning Hubble's law and the theory of the special relativity, only one of the two is right. However, as long as this is the only choice, Ockam's razor must be in favor of excluding Hubble's law.
    In aggregate, the theory of the special relativity supports the view that Hubble's law is wrong, otherwise this Einstein's great theory itself turns out to be a mere fallacy.
    Said plainly, unless you agree to accept that Hubble's law is wrong, you will find yourself obliged to refuse Einstein's theory of the special relativity.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    Special relativity does not apply when you are dealing with the universe as a whole.

    See http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310808 for more info.

    We show that we can observe galaxies that have, and always have had, recession velocities greater than the speed of light. We explain why this does not violate special relativity and we link these concepts to observational tests. Attempts to restrict recession velocities to less than the speed of light require a special relativistic interpretation of cosmological redshifts. We analyze apparent magnitudes of supernovae and observationally rule out the special relativistic Doppler interpretation of cosmological redshifts at a confidence level of 23 sigma.
    Special relativity is for applying relativity in special circumstances - when there is no appreciable gravity around - in empty space, so it is of little use in a cosmological model.

    Why are you so obsessed with discrediting the current cosmological model? You have shown in your recent threads that you do not understand the model you are arguing against, so what's the point?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3 Re: 'Special Relativity' Supports that Hubble's law is Wrong 
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Attiyah Zahdeh
    Said plainly, unless you agree to accept that Hubble's law is wrong, you will find yourself obliged to refuse Einstein's theory of the special relativity.
    Wrong. Ridiculously wrong.

    Said plainly you have mis-stated the theoretical model completely.

    You have no idea what in the hell youi are talking about.

    Go read a book. Read several.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4 Re: 'Special Relativity' Supports that Hubble's law is Wrong 
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Attiyah Zahdeh
    1- According to the theory of the special relativity, the speed of light is constant, and nothing in the universe can travel faster than it.
    Correct.
    Quote Originally Posted by Attiyah Zahdeh
    2- The redshift of the galaxies seems to have no ultimate finite value. In other words, one can say that the redshift of the galaxies could be infinite such that it indicates a velocity so extremely greater than the speed of the light (say; billions of kilometers/second).
    Partially correct. However, redshift does not imply a true proper motion of the galaxies, only a movement that is caused by the drag of the expanding universe.
    Quote Originally Posted by Attiyah Zahdeh
    3- According to the theory of the special relativity, it is impossible to find in the universe any galaxy that is faster than the light.
    In fact, there is none.
    Quote Originally Posted by Attiyah Zahdeh
    4- Accordingly, putting the special relativity in mind, the infinity that the galactic redshift might show, couldn't be attributed to any translational motion, even if we consider that the galaxies are made of pure light. According to the theory of the special relativity, even the utmost velocity in the relative motion of any two supposedly light-made galaxies cannot exceed 600,000 km/sec.
    Not even wrong ... this demonstrates that you understand neither the cosmological redshift nor special relativity. The constant speed of light holds for every rest frame. You will never measure a relative speed of that value. 299792458 m/s is the maximum value for all cases and perspectives.
    Quote Originally Posted by Attiyah Zahdeh
    5- Accordingly, even light or the travel of the galaxies at the speed of light, couldnít account for the real possibility of finding that the redshift might be infinite.
    True. But this isn't the cause of the redshift anyway. It is the expansion of space. Since this does not cause a true proper motion of galaxies, the special relativity does not apply.
    Quote Originally Posted by Attiyah Zahdeh
    6- So far, we must search for an agent other than the relative motion such that it could account for the possibility of the infinity of the redshift of the galaxies.
    Cosmic expansion. Full stop.
    Quote Originally Posted by Attiyah Zahdeh
    7- No escape, this agent must intervene in the space between the galaxies and the Earth.
    Indeed ... space is expanding.
    Quote Originally Posted by Attiyah Zahdeh
    8- No escape, the sought agent affects the redshift gravitationally.
    Wrong. As has been commented many times, any photon that enters a gravitational well is blue shifted first, and the red shifted again when leaving it. So, the net effect is zero.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    5
    so I'm actually dealing with this problem right now. if something is 12000 Mly away, hubble's law says it's going to be going something like 2.7E8 m/s. would that be incorrect? it seems like you couldn't have a linear relationship when velocity gets so big
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    Hi Luke,

    What is 12000 Mly ? Mly usually means Megalight-years or millions of light years, so do you mean 12000 million light-years? If so, that's 12 Gly, or 12 Gigalight-years - 12 Billion light-years. Is that the figure you are asking about?

    If so, at a proper distance of 12 Billion light-years, the apparent recession speed would be heading towards the speed of light. The apparent recession speed is the speed of light at a proper distance of 13.7 billion light-years (which is known as the Hubble distance).
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •