1
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is the universe really expanding?
« on: 17/05/2024 17:24:15 »Yes, exactly. The universe looks like it's expending but it really isn't...
How would you tell the difference?
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Yes, exactly. The universe looks like it's expending but it really isn't...
Right, the current relativity does not have explanation for it.
Having said that, if there is a preferred frame than the force between electron and proton varies based on the hydrogen atom speed in the preferred frame as shown in the thought experiment.
When the hydrogen atom slows down in the preferred frame the force is stronger and the electron is pulled to lower energy state. Suddenly 'spontaneous' emission has a cause.
The 'relativity' anchored in the preferred frame can explain the emissions.
The 21cm hydrogen line observed from space.
How does relativity explains it?
What is the cause of the emission according to relativity?
Is there any 'Einstein' out there to defend it?
If c is constant, wouldn't the edge of observable universe be invisible?
If a mistake was made here then a theory built on it will fall.
Even if you choose another light wave.
How does the light inertial frame calculate time with the Lorentz transformation?
How did you answer your own question from the other thread?
This is not about motionless light waves but about Einstein's flawed assumption.
The carriage cannot move at v=c.
That frame does not exist, it is undefined according to the Lorentz transformation, right?
My conclusions are correct, there is no real physical inertial frame with mass that moves at c.
Is there any experiment with mass moving at c?
An experiment that disproves my conclusion?
Expect an experiment of a mass moving at v=c.
That's what Einstein was thinking according to Susskind.
Susskind specifically talks about railroad carriage moving with the speed of light in Einstein's thought experiment.
The conclusion in your thread is that frame is undefined under the Lorentz transformation.
Special relativity has been supported with large amounts of experimental evidence.
Apparently Einstein was troubled with similar thoughts.
If we believe the book then Einstein screwed up his conclusion compared to what is proposed here, right?
Fully populated 1s shell.Do you think that electrons shared by H2 don't fully populated 1s shell?
Perhaps it's because the speed of light is defined to be a constant, and spacetime is defined so that its expansion doesn't change the speed of light.
The required characteristics of a standard is consistency from time to time. Its value in the past should be the same as its value in the future.
H2O. The reaction only needs a small spark.
Even H2 can change into something else quite easily.
The best way to overturn an established theory is to come up with a better theory. Either by being more generally applicable, or by being simpler by using less assumptions.