Question Hubble's Law

[Fire-Starter James]

Why is Hubble's Law V(r) = Hr? It contradicts the relativistic addition of velocities. I know this leads to a differential equation, but it seems like folks that can do 10 dimensional vector calculus ought to be able to handle a differential equation.

As of 1981, I think it ought to be V(r) = c × tanh(Hr/c). I'd appreciate it if someone would tell me what's wrong with that, instead of just dismissing me. I can't possibly be the only one who's thought of it.

 

[Fire-Starter James]

The differential equation:
V(a+b) = ( V(a)+V(b) ) / ( 1+ (V(a)*V(b)/C^2) )

 

[billslugg]

I'm no expert, but my understanding is that Hubble expansion does not obey relativity, it sums arithmetically and can go faster than c.

 

[Fire-Starter James]

I'm no expert, but my understanding is that Hubble expansion does not obey relativity, it sums arithmetically and can go faster than c.

That's about as far as I've got. No clue as to why that would be. But the tanh() function predicts something like the Hubble Tension.

 

[billslugg]

That's about as far as I've got. No clue as to why that would be. But the tanh() function predicts something like the Hubble Tension.

As I understand it, the expansion of space is not "traveling through space" thus does not need to obey relativity. Space can create new space as fast as it cares to.

 

[Atlan0001]

As I understand it, the expansion of space is not "traveling through space" thus does not need to obey relativity. Space can create new space as fast as it cares to.

On one level of thinking about it, Bill, it's certainly "creation" as you say. On another level of thinking about it, it is just realization of a possible existence of levels of hyperspace (including subspace). The primal soup of gravity thickens and thins, thickens and thins, through infinite fractal zooms levels of overlapping and inlaying thickening and thinning. And in its universal softness, it can be very well -- creatively -- manipulated and formed!

 

[Atlan0001]

As I understand it, the expansion of space is not "traveling through space" thus does not need to obey relativity. Space can create new space as fast as it cares to.

Thanks to the speed of light, 'c', space is not observable . . . and neither are travelers (outer-space travelers included). Only time (as SPACETIME past (t=+1) is the observable. So what do we actually observe expanding? Time!

 

[Fire-Starter James]

As I understand it, the expansion of space is not "traveling through space" thus does not need to obey relativity. Space can create new space as fast as it cares to.

I understand the distinction being made. I just don't understand why we should assume it makes a difference. Redshift works the same way for both cases, so why not relativity? And the tanh function does seem to resolve the Hubble Tension. Expansion rates should appear to be slower at farther away.

 

[Fire-Starter James]

I understand the distinction being made. I just don't understand why we should assume it makes a difference. Redshift works the same way for both cases, so why not relativity? And the tanh function does seem to resolve the Hubble Tension. Expansion rates should appear to be slower at farther away.

We should also expect higher masses at farther away, appearing to get denser with distance. At some point, it might appear to be a huge neutronium shell surrounding the visible universe. I also don't see why gravity should have any effect at all on the expansion rate, with all points being surrounded by the same amount of mass in every direction.

 

[Classical Motion]

If you don't use expanding space..........then galaxies are moving faster than multiples of c. This is why you MUST have expanding space. Unless you change existing law.......and agree that mass can move much faster than c.

If you agree with the current narrative of light, you only have two choices for what you measure.

Take your pick.

Our science is a science trying to understand an illusion.

 

[billslugg]

I understand the distinction being made. I just don't understand why we should assume it makes a difference. Redshift works the same way for both cases, so why not relativity? And the tanh function does seem to resolve the Hubble Tension. Expansion rates should appear to be slower at farther away.

Relative velocities between objects do not add arithmetically, Einstein provided the equations to add them. Under no circumstances can they sum to greater than c.
The expansion of space is additive arithmetically and does not follow Einstein's equations. Adding the rate of expansion of space over vast distances can exceed c and thus make that space permanently invisible to us.
The expansion of space is faster the farther away we go, not slower.

 

[Atlan0001]

I hate to be facetious, Bill, but you must be the only superman on Earth who can observe an un-observable nonlocal, nonrelative, space and since even then it is hyper-spatial to the infinite and sub-spatial to the infinitesimal, relatively speaking that is, multi-dimensional MULTIVERSE to the max, it is still impossible even for you. SPACE FRONTIERS exist in spontaneous concurrent REALTIME (t=0) and its (SCRT's) nearest relationship to coordinate SPACETIME is the un-observable (except to travelers traveling through it on the spot of SCRT (t=0)) future histories future light cone (t=-1) (I'm not sure yet that anyone understands that is light traveling from any distant SCRT (t=0) point via SPACETIME's future histories future light cone (t=-1) into the past (which at some point a traveler always meets it going the other way, the equal but opposite way, into it) . . . the past histories past light cone (t=+1) . . . always being observable to the rear oncoming to traveler/observers (in the known reversing -- reversible leveling out -- "glitch" always half-way between universe horizons, between light cones, where the observer-traveler always sits / stands) faster than the speed of light.
--------------------------

"Communication across the revolutionary divide is inevitably partial." Physicist Thomas S. Kuhn.
-----------------------------

"There is no such thing as absolute motion . . . there is only relative motion!"

 

[billslugg]

"Bill, but you must be the only superman on Earth who can observe an un-observable nonlocal, nonrelative, space " - Atlan0001

This superhuman ability comes from simple, clean living, close attention to detail and perseverance.

 

[Fire-Starter James]

If you don't use expanding space..........then galaxies are moving faster than multiples of c. This is why you MUST have expanding space. Unless you change existing law.......and agree that mass can move much faster than c.

If you agree with the current narrative of light, you only have two choices for what you measure.

Take your pick.

Our science is a science trying to understand an illusion.

Using the hyperbolic tangent version of Hubble's Law, no recessional velocities ever exceed C, even in an infinite universe. Changing our theory about the existing law is what I was asking about. The tanh function gets rid of the exceeding C paradox. No reason to assume different "kinds" of velocity would add up any differently.

 

[Fire-Starter James]

"There is no such thing as absolute motion . . . there is only relative motion!" ‒ Exactly!

 

[Fire-Starter James]

As I understand it, the expansion of space is not "traveling through space" thus does not need to obey relativity. Space can create new space as fast as it cares to.

There's no such thing as "traveling through space", because space is just the distance between objects. Space has no absolute reference point, nor any substance of its own, so it can't be stationary or moving. The closest we can come to an absolute, is to measure velocity relative to the cosmic background radiation ‒ a standard usable everywhere ‒ which still has no absolutes for location.

 

[billslugg]

Yes, there is no location reference in space, all "travel" must be relative to another object. All "travel" must have had some acceleration at some point.

 

[Classical Motion]

Every emission of EM radiation HAS absolute velocity. Because every emission comes from a stationary point. The instant dynamic establishes that stationary point. A photon has absolute velocity. A photon never needs acceleration. And IF and ONLY IF you are still, or have matching velocity, you will measure c for light.

However, since you are not still, you will never measure c from a outside star. Here on earth, all starlight will measure a different velocity.

But as long as you think emission takes time, you will not understand your measurements.

Saying there is no such thing as absolute motion is like saying there is no such thing as perpetual motion.

We live and exist within absolute motion and perpetual motion. These are pillars of this universe.

 

[billslugg]

"...every emission comes from a stationary point." - CM
Light can be emitted by moving objects. Motion is absolute in the universe, location is not.

"instant dynamic" - undefined term

"Here on earth, all starlight will measure a different velocity." - CM
False. All measurements of c are exactly the same, 299,792,458 m/s.

 

[Classical Motion]

All emission has an absolute location, because the emission is instant. That instant marks a stationary point.

An instant dynamic is an event that takes no time. Emission is just a change of direction. This is because the emitted field has no inertia. It does not need acceleration. It needs NO time to turn. An instant turn.

And I would truly love to see someone measure c. If you could measure c, it would prove my point.

Emission can only occur at one point in space. When a moving emitter emits, it's like the emitter stands still for an instant to emit. It's like a stutter motion.

Emission is discreet blinks, not a stream. Each blink comes from a different point in space when emitter moves.

Emission will continue to confuse our measurements for decades to come.

 

[billslugg]

"All emission has an absolute location, because the emission is instant. That instant marks a stationary point." - I understand your point

"..the emitted field has no inertia." - False. Any EM wave has mass, momentum and inertia. This is why solar sails work.

c has been measured countless times. It is always the same number.

 

[Classical Motion]

It's impossible to measure ANY flux and get the same result. If you do, you are not measuring close enough. Or fast enough.

A flux measurement is always an average result.

No one has ever tried to measure light and got the same result.

It's a property of flux.

 

[Atlan0001]

All emission has an absolute location, because the emission is instant. That instant marks a stationary point.

An instant dynamic is an event that takes no time. Emission is just a change of direction. This is because the emitted field has no inertia. It does not need acceleration. It needs NO time to turn. An instant turn.

And I would truly love to see someone measure c. If you could measure c, it would prove my point.

Emission can only occur at one point in space. When a moving emitter emits, it's like the emitter stands still for an instant to emit. It's like a stutter motion.

Emission is discreet blinks, not a stream. Each blink comes from a different point in space when emitter moves.

Emission will continue to confuse our measurements for decades to come.

You are so right in one point, one respect. The speed of light cannot possibly be measured except via light and the speed of light itself. It can only measure itself, be measured to..., 'c', to its constant of 'c' by itself (or, a reach, c^2?). Nothing else can reach it to measure it. Really a self-measurement literally curving and POINTING to and into itself. "Quantum entanglement" ("spooky action at a distance"). And like Schrodinger's alternate "Cheshire Cat," that is there and isn't there (is both true and false)-- all at once, weird!

 

[Fire-Starter James]

If we set H(0)=72.431... things get interesting ~13.5 BLY. The wavelength ratio is ~e.

​	K/s@1Mpc →​	linear/c​	relative/c​	72.4311326407345​	Δ per Mpc​	λs/λo​	λs/λo​
Mpc ↓​	3.2616 Mly ↓​	0.000241604252234839​	0.000241604252234839​	72.4311326407345​	72.4311326407345​	linear​	relative​
4134​	13483.4544​	0.998791978738826​	0.761086359254225​	228167.950391095​	30.480827​	40.6767747000734​	2.71500012159702​
4135​	13486.7160​	0.999033582991061​	0.761187994963383​	228198.420010164​	30.469619​	45.4807651650767​	2.71565615643119​
4136​	13489.9776​	0.999275187243296​	0.761289593296529​	228228.878424187​	30.458414​	52.5198375219773​	2.71631234978532​
4137​	13493.2392​	0.999516791495531​	0.761391154262422​	228259.325635789​	30.447212​	64.3272881443296​	2.71696870169771​
4138​	13496.5008​	0.999758395747766​	0.761492677869824​	228289.761647597​	30.436012​	90.9780193234324​	2.71762521220668​
4139​	13499.7624​	1​	0.761594164127497​	228320.186462238​	30.424815​	#DIV/0!​	2.71828188135054​
4140​	13503.0240​	1.00024160425224​	0.761695613044207​	228350.60008234​	30.413620​	Err:502​	2.71893870916763​
4141​	13506.2856​	1.00048320850447​	0.761797024628723​	228381.002510531​	30.402428​	Err:502​	2.71959569569629​
4142​	13509.5472​	1.00072481275671​	0.761898398889814​	228411.393749442​	30.391239​	Err:502​	2.72025284097486​
4143​	13512.8088​	1.00096641700894​	0.761999735836253​	228441.773801701​	30.380052​	Err:502​	2.72091014504172​
4144​	13516.0704​	1.00120802126117​	0.762101035476815​	228472.14266994​	30.368868​	Err:502​	2.72156760793522​

 

[billslugg]

Speed of light is measured by vibrations of an atom. The accuracy of the measurement is limited by the accuracy of the beating of the given atom. As far as we know, it has no variation.

Yes, quantum entanglement can happen faster than the speed of light but that does not violate causality since no information can be transmitted. It is a random signal. Of academic interest only.

Yes, Schroedinger's cat is dead and alive at the same time but if we look to see such a strange animal, the superposition goes away. Useful in securing cryptographic messages, though.