Dear Marcel Luttgens:

"Marcel Luttgens" wrote in message
om...
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" N: dlzc1 D:cox wrote in
message news:psyGc.10766$nc.2760@fed1read03...
Dear Marcel Luttgens:

"Marcel Luttgens" wrote in message
om...
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" N: dlzc1 D:cox wrote
in
message news:21gGc.10202$nc.5420@fed1read03...
Dear Marcel Luttgens:

"Marcel Luttgens" wrote in message
om...
SR time dilation on remote objects ?

Question:

Can time be "SR dilated" on remote galaxies or supernovae,
because
of space expansion?

"Can" it be, based on a single data set? Yes.

"Can" it be, based on this particular sky-full of data? No.

The velocity illusion, to which SR would apply, will only work if
all
the
matter is moving away from some geometrical center, and only then
if
the
velocity is proportional to particular' body's distance from that
center.
Our motion is away from an area of space that shows no evidence of
having
had a center. And we haven't travelled very far in 13 Gy, so we
should
be
able to resolve it. Even a trillion years wouldn't hide it
completely.


Of course there is no center, or better, every point of the universe
can be considered as a center.
Otoh, using GR doesn't change the fact that what you call the
velocity
illusion is the same for any observer. The observer on Earth and the
one
on some remote galaxy will naively conclude that expansion causes
some GR red shift, ignoring that both red shifts cancel each other.

I agree with Bjoern here. To which "both" red shifts do you refer?
The
"kinetic" velocities of other objects in spacetime appear to be very
similar to our own. Therefore, there is no way the red shift due to
expansion will be cancelled. Only to have small offsets.

You could look to my responses to Bjoern.

Which one of so many? Date at least... please.

The only evidence of the Big Bang is written at the observational
the
limits of the Universe, namely the CMBR.

Even this is no evidence.

It is evidence that the Universe had a center, and where/when that
center
was to be expected to be located.

This is another problem for the BB proponents. In the beginning, there
was a center, and now, the original center is everywhere. A stable
eternal universe
doesn't suffer from such logical inconsistencies.

To say that the center is everywhere is really not true. What is true is
that all points in the Universe *now* are exactly the same distance from
the center. Does this correct at least one inconsistency?

David A. Smith