"Marcel Luttgens" wrote in message om...
(phobos) wrote in message . com...
(Marcel Luttgens) wrote in message . com...

The "Triplets" thought experiment (Adapted from the "Twin paradox")
_________________________________

"Terence sits at home on Earth. Galaxy (yes, it's her name)
flies off in a space ship at a velocity v/2. Simultaneously,
Terra (also a name) flies off in the opposite direction at -v/2.
After a while, Terra, who considers that Galaxy flies away
from her at a velocity v

Only for v c.

Of course, but this a "short" story intending to introduce the matter.

For your information:

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message ...
Marcel Luttgens wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message ...

Marcel Luttgens wrote:

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message ...

Luttgens:
You are claiming that time on SN is dilated wrt time on Earth,

Feuerbacher:
I am claiming that the time on SN *at the time when the light was
emitted* *looks* dilated. Due to the expansion of space which happened
since the emission of the light. Nothing more.

Luttgens:
You should specify that it "looks" dilated by a factor f *to an Earth
observer*.
And you are forgetting that the time on Earth *at the time when the
light was emitted* *looks* dilated by the same factor f *to a supernova
observer*. This is a mere consequence of the Cosmological Principle,
according to which all positions in the universe are essentially
equivalent.

Mathematically, for an Earth observer, to a time interval t(earth)
corresponds a time interval
(1) t(supernova) = t(earth) * f, and symmetrically, for a galactic observer,
t(earth) = t(supernova) * f,
where f is the same time dilation factor. By replacing this
value of t(earth) in relation (1), one gets
t(supernova) = t(supernova) * f^2, which is only possible if f = 1.
Thus relation (1) reduces to t(supernova) = t(earth), meaning
that, contrary to the claim made by contemporary cosmologists, no
"time dilation factor works on supernovae to lessen the delay in
the rest frame".

Hm, that sounds like the "Famous Devastating Marcel Luttgens
Special Relativity Refutation", going like this:
| t' = gamma * t for a clock at rest in the unprimed frame
| and
| t = gamma * t' for a clock at rest in the primed frame
| and therefore
| t' = gamma^2 * t'
| which is only possible if
| gamma = 1
Sounds familiar, Marcel?

Contemporary cosmologists, who base their claim on general
relativity, are simply wrong.

Of course, since the Refuted Luttgens Version of Special Relativity
is a special case of the Luttgens Version of General Relativity, the
latter is automatically refuted as well, right, Marcel?

Well done, Marcel - brilliant come-back, Marcel!

And you see, I can copy-paste as well, remember, Marcel?
However, I changed one little detail - can you find it, Marcel?

Dirk Vdm