There is a doppler (red) shift as stars and galaxies appear to move outwards in an expanding universe. ( I could go to Setterfield and the decreasing speed of light, but I have to get back to work.)
http://www.academia.edu/3189940/On_the_Geocentric_Nature_of_Hubbles_Law
This is only one of endless secular articles you can find on a google search about this doppler red shift and how it appears to show a geocentric universe with a earth at the center of the big bang theory. I am not kidding, the sites are apparently endless, like the universe. However, they know that can't possibly be true, so they try to rescue Hubble without falling into geocentricity, and the twists and turns and hypotheses get more convoluted all the time. I can't copy and paste from this download, skim it yourself. The obvious answer to this doppler red shift is geocentricity.
That is not what I am referring to, please read my quotes. I am referring to the light measured from one star as we move towards it and away from it six months apart. The velocities of the light do not add and subtract. Stop saying I am making this up. This is not the doppler red shift of stars expanding. The lack of velocity "c" change, proving the earth at rest, became the impetus for relativity. Einstein's theory would not have been needed if early experiments measuring the light speed from a fixed star, with earth's rotational and annual revolution velocity, showed an increased and decreased speed.
I beg you again- go to my link and read the quotes from Einstein and his buddies. Every measurement you refer to proves geocentricity as much as heliocentricity......unless one accepts a firmament and classic Newtonian physics, in which case only geocentricity can be proved.
Are you aware that with radar and sound we add and subtract the velocity of a moving object to the speed of the wave? With light in a vacume of space according to Einstein, we do not. It appears the same to all observers everywhere- the one on the earth moving towards the star today and the one in six months moving away from the star. This is relativity, sort of. Its gotten tweaked and sub tweaked and altered in various ways when it didn't fit classic electricity or magnetism or time or mass. But it is a simple explanation.
Here, this is all about relativity, you will like it. It is your choice to accept time constants, mass constants, and constant wave behavior, or go with this. I choose Newton and a firmament/ether. My model works perfectly. Yours needs all sorts of counterinutitive and illogical assumptions, as well as rejection of the firmament. Suit yourself, but stop saying I make false claims. You do not know what you are talking about.
Special Relativity
Another assumption on the laws of physics made by the SI definition of the metre is that the theory of relativity is correct. It is a basic postulate of the theory of relativity that the speed of light is the same in all inertial frames. This can be broken down into two parts:
The speed of light is independent of the motion of the observer.
The speed of light does not vary with time or place.
To state that the speed of light is independent of the velocity of the observer is very counterintuitive. Some people even refuse to accept this as a logically consistent possibility, but in 1905 Einstein was able to show that it is perfectly consistent if you are prepared to give up assumptions about the absolute nature of space and time.
In 1879 it was thought that light must propagate through a medium in space, the ether, just as sound propagates through the air and other substances. The two scientists Michelson and Morley set up an experiment to attempt to detect the ether, by observing relative changes in the speed of light as Earth changed its direction of travel relative to the sun during the year. To their surprise, they failed to detect any change in the speed of light.
Fitzgerald then suggested that this might be because the experimental apparatus contracted as it passed through the ether, in such a way as to countermand the attempt to detect the change in velocity. Lorentz extended this idea to changes in the rates of clocks to ensure complete undetectability of the ether. Einstein then argued that those transformations should be understood as changes of space and time rather than of physical objects, and that the absoluteness of space and time introduced by Newton should be discarded. Just after that, the mathematician Minkowski showed that Einstein's theory of relativity could be understood in terms of a four dimensional non-euclidean geometry that considered space and time as one entity, ever after called spacetime.
The theory is not only mathematically consistent, it agrees with many direct experiments. The Michelson-Morley experiment was repeated with greater accuracy in the years that followed. In 1925 Dayton Miller announced that he had detected a change in the speed of light and was even awarded prizes for the discovery, but a 1950s appraisal of his work indicated that the most likely origin of his results lay with diurnal and seasonal variations in the temperature of his equipment.
Modern instruments could easily detect any ether drift if it existed. Earth moves around the Sun at a speed of about 30 km/s, so if velocities added vectorially as newtonian mechanics requires, the last 5 digits in the value of the speed of light now used in the SI definition of the metre would be meaningless. Today, high energy physicists at CERN in Geneva and Fermilab in Chicago routinely accelerate particles to within a whisker of the speed of light. Any dependence of the speed of light on inertial reference frames would have shown up long ago, unless it is very slight indeed. Their measurements are actually made in a non-inertial frame because gravity is present. But in the context of the measurements, this non-inertial frame is almost identical to a "uniformly accelerated frame" (this is actually the content of Einstein's Principle of Equivalence). And it turns out that a measurement of light's speed made in a uniformly accelerated frame directly by someone who is very close to the light will return the inertial value of c—although that observer must be close to the light to measure this value.
But what if we pursued the original theory of Fitzgerald and Lorentz, who proposed that the ether is there, but is undetectable because of physical changes in the lengths of material objects and the rates of clocks, rather than changes in space and time? For such a theory to be consistent with observation, the ether would need to be completely undetectable using clocks and rulers. Everything, including the observer, would have to contract and slow down by just the right amount. Such a theory could make exactly the same prediction in all experiments as the theory of relativity; but it would reduce the ether to essentially no more than a metaphysical construct unless there was some other way of detecting it—which no one has found. In the view of Einstein, such a construct would be an unnecessary complication, to be best eliminated from the theory.
************
When we wave goodbye to an astronaut who is about to make a high-speed return journey to the nearest star, it would be wrong to maintain that the slowing of his clock is nothing more than an artifact of a coordinate choice. It isn't: when the astronaut returns, he will have aged less than we have, and there's nothing illusory about that. (lynnie edit. You are a Christian. Do you believe this about time? This is where we get philosophical and Rev Winzer starts throwing in bible verses. This concept is necessary for relativity. Isn't it far more sensible to hold to a firmament and fixed time? Your opinion is up to you).
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html
http://www.academia.edu/3189940/On_the_Geocentric_Nature_of_Hubbles_Law
This is only one of endless secular articles you can find on a google search about this doppler red shift and how it appears to show a geocentric universe with a earth at the center of the big bang theory. I am not kidding, the sites are apparently endless, like the universe. However, they know that can't possibly be true, so they try to rescue Hubble without falling into geocentricity, and the twists and turns and hypotheses get more convoluted all the time. I can't copy and paste from this download, skim it yourself. The obvious answer to this doppler red shift is geocentricity.
That is not what I am referring to, please read my quotes. I am referring to the light measured from one star as we move towards it and away from it six months apart. The velocities of the light do not add and subtract. Stop saying I am making this up. This is not the doppler red shift of stars expanding. The lack of velocity "c" change, proving the earth at rest, became the impetus for relativity. Einstein's theory would not have been needed if early experiments measuring the light speed from a fixed star, with earth's rotational and annual revolution velocity, showed an increased and decreased speed.
I beg you again- go to my link and read the quotes from Einstein and his buddies. Every measurement you refer to proves geocentricity as much as heliocentricity......unless one accepts a firmament and classic Newtonian physics, in which case only geocentricity can be proved.
Are you aware that with radar and sound we add and subtract the velocity of a moving object to the speed of the wave? With light in a vacume of space according to Einstein, we do not. It appears the same to all observers everywhere- the one on the earth moving towards the star today and the one in six months moving away from the star. This is relativity, sort of. Its gotten tweaked and sub tweaked and altered in various ways when it didn't fit classic electricity or magnetism or time or mass. But it is a simple explanation.
Here, this is all about relativity, you will like it. It is your choice to accept time constants, mass constants, and constant wave behavior, or go with this. I choose Newton and a firmament/ether. My model works perfectly. Yours needs all sorts of counterinutitive and illogical assumptions, as well as rejection of the firmament. Suit yourself, but stop saying I make false claims. You do not know what you are talking about.
Special Relativity
Another assumption on the laws of physics made by the SI definition of the metre is that the theory of relativity is correct. It is a basic postulate of the theory of relativity that the speed of light is the same in all inertial frames. This can be broken down into two parts:
The speed of light is independent of the motion of the observer.
The speed of light does not vary with time or place.
To state that the speed of light is independent of the velocity of the observer is very counterintuitive. Some people even refuse to accept this as a logically consistent possibility, but in 1905 Einstein was able to show that it is perfectly consistent if you are prepared to give up assumptions about the absolute nature of space and time.
In 1879 it was thought that light must propagate through a medium in space, the ether, just as sound propagates through the air and other substances. The two scientists Michelson and Morley set up an experiment to attempt to detect the ether, by observing relative changes in the speed of light as Earth changed its direction of travel relative to the sun during the year. To their surprise, they failed to detect any change in the speed of light.
Fitzgerald then suggested that this might be because the experimental apparatus contracted as it passed through the ether, in such a way as to countermand the attempt to detect the change in velocity. Lorentz extended this idea to changes in the rates of clocks to ensure complete undetectability of the ether. Einstein then argued that those transformations should be understood as changes of space and time rather than of physical objects, and that the absoluteness of space and time introduced by Newton should be discarded. Just after that, the mathematician Minkowski showed that Einstein's theory of relativity could be understood in terms of a four dimensional non-euclidean geometry that considered space and time as one entity, ever after called spacetime.
The theory is not only mathematically consistent, it agrees with many direct experiments. The Michelson-Morley experiment was repeated with greater accuracy in the years that followed. In 1925 Dayton Miller announced that he had detected a change in the speed of light and was even awarded prizes for the discovery, but a 1950s appraisal of his work indicated that the most likely origin of his results lay with diurnal and seasonal variations in the temperature of his equipment.
Modern instruments could easily detect any ether drift if it existed. Earth moves around the Sun at a speed of about 30 km/s, so if velocities added vectorially as newtonian mechanics requires, the last 5 digits in the value of the speed of light now used in the SI definition of the metre would be meaningless. Today, high energy physicists at CERN in Geneva and Fermilab in Chicago routinely accelerate particles to within a whisker of the speed of light. Any dependence of the speed of light on inertial reference frames would have shown up long ago, unless it is very slight indeed. Their measurements are actually made in a non-inertial frame because gravity is present. But in the context of the measurements, this non-inertial frame is almost identical to a "uniformly accelerated frame" (this is actually the content of Einstein's Principle of Equivalence). And it turns out that a measurement of light's speed made in a uniformly accelerated frame directly by someone who is very close to the light will return the inertial value of c—although that observer must be close to the light to measure this value.
But what if we pursued the original theory of Fitzgerald and Lorentz, who proposed that the ether is there, but is undetectable because of physical changes in the lengths of material objects and the rates of clocks, rather than changes in space and time? For such a theory to be consistent with observation, the ether would need to be completely undetectable using clocks and rulers. Everything, including the observer, would have to contract and slow down by just the right amount. Such a theory could make exactly the same prediction in all experiments as the theory of relativity; but it would reduce the ether to essentially no more than a metaphysical construct unless there was some other way of detecting it—which no one has found. In the view of Einstein, such a construct would be an unnecessary complication, to be best eliminated from the theory.
************
When we wave goodbye to an astronaut who is about to make a high-speed return journey to the nearest star, it would be wrong to maintain that the slowing of his clock is nothing more than an artifact of a coordinate choice. It isn't: when the astronaut returns, he will have aged less than we have, and there's nothing illusory about that. (lynnie edit. You are a Christian. Do you believe this about time? This is where we get philosophical and Rev Winzer starts throwing in bible verses. This concept is necessary for relativity. Isn't it far more sensible to hold to a firmament and fixed time? Your opinion is up to you).
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html
