SR time dilation on remote objects ?

On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 10:02:40 +0200, Bjoern Feuerbacher
wrote:

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
Dear vonroach:

"vonroach" wrote in message
...

[snip]

What ia
all the CRR, remnants of the center?


If you mean CMBR, then it is removed from the center by 270,000 years (or
light years).

Where did you get those 270 000 years from? I never heard it before.
The accepted number today seems to be around 380 000 years. See page 25 of
http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/map/pub_papers/firstyear/parameters/wmap_parameters.pdf

And they estimate the `size' at 13+Gy. Many place this estimate
higher. They also allude to the `mystery' of dark matter and dark
energy. They make no mention of a `center'. They guess at a geometry,
but admit that others have different views. Interesting findings that
will incline many who agree to accept their preliminary results. I'm
still uncertain where `380,000y' comes from.


[snip]

Bye,
Bjoern

vonroach wrote:
On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 10:02:40 +0200, Bjoern Feuerbacher
wrote:


N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:

Dear vonroach:

"vonroach" wrote in message
...

[snip]


What ia
all the CRR, remnants of the center?


If you mean CMBR, then it is removed from the center by 270,000 years (or
light years).

Where did you get those 270 000 years from? I never heard it before.
The accepted number today seems to be around 380 000 years. See page 25 of
http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/map/pub_papers/firstyear/parameters/wmap_parameters.pdf


And they estimate the `size' at 13+Gy.

No, they give an *age* of 13.7 +- 0.2 Gy.


Many place this estimate higher.

Who, for example? AFAIK, their number is accepted by most cosmologists.


They also allude to the `mystery' of dark matter and dark
energy.

They give the results of their measurements on these things, and
constrain some parameters.


They make no mention of a `center'.

Right. This "center" stuff is David's interpretation. I think he
chose an unfortunate wording here.


They guess at a geometry,
but admit that others have different views.

What are you talking about here, specifically? Quote, please.



Interesting findings that
will incline many who agree to accept their preliminary results. I'm
still uncertain where `380,000y' comes from.

Read the paper and try to understand it. As I said above, I took this
figure from page 25.




Bye,
Bjoern

vonroach wrote:
On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 10:02:40 +0200, Bjoern Feuerbacher
wrote:


N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:

Dear vonroach:

"vonroach" wrote in message
...

[snip]


What ia
all the CRR, remnants of the center?


If you mean CMBR, then it is removed from the center by 270,000 years (or
light years).

Where did you get those 270 000 years from? I never heard it before.
The accepted number today seems to be around 380 000 years. See page 25 of
http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/map/pub_papers/firstyear/parameters/wmap_parameters.pdf


And they estimate the `size' at 13+Gy.

No, they give an *age* of 13.7 +- 0.2 Gy.


Many place this estimate higher.

Who, for example? AFAIK, their number is accepted by most cosmologists.


They also allude to the `mystery' of dark matter and dark
energy.

They give the results of their measurements on these things, and
constrain some parameters.


They make no mention of a `center'.

Right. This "center" stuff is David's interpretation. I think he
chose an unfortunate wording here.


They guess at a geometry,
but admit that others have different views.

What are you talking about here, specifically? Quote, please.



Interesting findings that
will incline many who agree to accept their preliminary results. I'm
still uncertain where `380,000y' comes from.

Read the paper and try to understand it. As I said above, I took this
figure from page 25.




Bye,
Bjoern

Dear Bjoern Feuerbacher:

"Bjoern Feuerbacher" wrote in message
...
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
Dear vonroach:

"vonroach" wrote in message
...

[snip]

What ia
all the CRR, remnants of the center?


If you mean CMBR, then it is removed from the center by 270,000 years
(or
light years).

Where did you get those 270 000 years from? I never heard it before.
The accepted number today seems to be around 380 000 years. See page 25
of

http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/.../parameters/wm
ap_parameters.pdf

Thanks for the correction. I guess the average temperature and the
distance from the Big Bang melded in my head, and "38" lost out.

David A. Smith

Dear Bjoern Feuerbacher:

"Bjoern Feuerbacher" wrote in message
...
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
Dear vonroach:

"vonroach" wrote in message
...

[snip]

What ia
all the CRR, remnants of the center?


If you mean CMBR, then it is removed from the center by 270,000 years
(or
light years).

Where did you get those 270 000 years from? I never heard it before.
The accepted number today seems to be around 380 000 years. See page 25
of

http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/.../parameters/wm
ap_parameters.pdf

Thanks for the correction. I guess the average temperature and the
distance from the Big Bang melded in my head, and "38" lost out.

David A. Smith

vonroach wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 19:05:55 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" N:
dlzc1 D:cox wrote:

[snip]


If you mean CMBR, then it is removed from the center by 270,000 years (or
light years).


The `big bang'l occurred 270,000 _or_ 270,000 light years? You give
yourself a rather large allowance for error. The current hypotheses
place the age of the Universe closer to 16,000,000,000 ly in the past.

Wrong. Where did you get this from?


The residual background radiation is of a similar age, would you
agree?

What David said above is that the radiation was emitted 270,000 years
after the BB (please note that this figure seems to be outdated), not
that it was emitted 270,000 years ago.

[snip]


Yes, you pile hypothesis on hypothesis from observations made on a
tiny fraction of the Universe, with implied great certainty. I am
skeptical of it all.

And you have shown again and again and again that you don't know most
of the evidence, and of the reasoning which led to the model we have
today. Basing skepticism on ignorance is a bad idea. Ever heard the
term "argument from incredulity"?


Bye,
Bjoern

vonroach wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 19:05:55 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" N:
dlzc1 D:cox wrote:

[snip]


If you mean CMBR, then it is removed from the center by 270,000 years (or
light years).


The `big bang'l occurred 270,000 _or_ 270,000 light years? You give
yourself a rather large allowance for error. The current hypotheses
place the age of the Universe closer to 16,000,000,000 ly in the past.

Wrong. Where did you get this from?


The residual background radiation is of a similar age, would you
agree?

What David said above is that the radiation was emitted 270,000 years
after the BB (please note that this figure seems to be outdated), not
that it was emitted 270,000 years ago.

[snip]


Yes, you pile hypothesis on hypothesis from observations made on a
tiny fraction of the Universe, with implied great certainty. I am
skeptical of it all.

And you have shown again and again and again that you don't know most
of the evidence, and of the reasoning which led to the model we have
today. Basing skepticism on ignorance is a bad idea. Ever heard the
term "argument from incredulity"?


Bye,
Bjoern

Dear vonroach:

"vonroach" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 17:24:25 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" N:
dlzc1 D:cox wrote:

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?

What is your evidence for that? You arbitrarily designate some point
that you say existed billions of years ago, and then measure `exact'
distances?

As to evidence, it is exactly what we have been discussing. Interpreted in
the model of GR, the evidence is that the Big Bang is equidistant from all
*nows*, wherever located in space. And no, I don't like DM or DE any
better than you do.

As to the `inconsistency', no both imaginary concepts
appear to be consistently incorrect.

And what would these two imaginary concepts be? And on what basis would
you be judging "correctness"?

David A. Smith

Dear vonroach:

"vonroach" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 17:24:25 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" N:
dlzc1 D:cox wrote:

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?

What is your evidence for that? You arbitrarily designate some point
that you say existed billions of years ago, and then measure `exact'
distances?

As to evidence, it is exactly what we have been discussing. Interpreted in
the model of GR, the evidence is that the Big Bang is equidistant from all
*nows*, wherever located in space. And no, I don't like DM or DE any
better than you do.

As to the `inconsistency', no both imaginary concepts
appear to be consistently incorrect.

And what would these two imaginary concepts be? And on what basis would
you be judging "correctness"?

David A. Smith

Dear vonroach:

"vonroach" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 19:05:55 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" N:
dlzc1 D:cox wrote:

Dear vonroach:

"vonroach" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 6 Jul 2004 18:08:15 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" N:
dlzc1 D:cox wrote:

Dear vonroach:

"vonroach" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 6 Jul 2004 07:13:41 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)"
N:
dlzc1 D:cox wrote:

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

Where is this center?

The "where" was any particular "here".

A point?

All points are equidistant from the center... *now*.

But you haven't designated any location for this center (of nothing)

Yes. The Big Bang was the center.

What has` when' got to do with where the center
you postulate was located.

Because any particular *now* is not at the center. Only the Big Bang
is
at
the center. Expansion has removed the center from the "contents" of
the
Universe.

The center is in the past?

Yes.

How can we possibly designate a location for an imaginary point that
no longer exists?

Because so many people want to believe in a center. Since all points are
equidistant from the Big Bang, that is as good a "point" as any to be the
center.

`Big Bang' as removed the center?

'Big Bang' is the center, yes.

Then you know that the hypothetical `big bang', but also the exact
location of the hypothetical event? What difference do you suggest
this makes?

Absolutely none. It won't put bread on your table. But then astronomy
doesn't put bread on too many people's tables.

What ia
all the CRR, remnants of the center?

If you mean CMBR, then it is removed from the center by 270,000 years
(or
light years).

The `big bang'l occurred 270,000 _or_ 270,000 light years?

Bjoern pointed out that my facts were mixed up. It should be 380,000
years. And light will have travelled 380,000 ly in that period.

You give
yourself a rather large allowance for error.

Not really.

The current hypotheses
place the age of the Universe closer to 16,000,000,000 ly in the past.

I've still got this at 13 Gy. Do you have a citation?

The residual background radiation is of a similar age, would you
agree? The Universe is an almost incredibly big place.

Absolutely true. And getting bigger.

....
CBR seems to be rather uniform in all
directions. There are finite geographies that do not have
`centers'.
If `red shift' is being correctly interpreted, everything appears
to
be receding from earth's point of view.

Or from the point of view of any mass.

Then you use `mass' as synonymous with human mass.?

Any detector made of mass. Any location. Any velocity allowed to mass.
All will have a net recession from the detector's position.

Do you include moments of inertia, the angular equivalent of mass in
your general assertion?

I don't know where you are going with this. Light does not have a frame,
but light would not otherwise agree that the Universe was expanding in all
directions.

A rather teensy
weensy part of the mass in the Universe by any estimate. Not even
really significant in the estimated 5% that we know a little about.

Not sure where you are trying to go here... Are you?

Yes, you pile hypothesis on hypothesis from observations made on a
tiny fraction of the Universe, with implied great certainty. I am
skeptical of it all.

Based on GR. I understand. I concur. But Marcel's misconceptions don't
agree with the observations, and whether he agrees with GR is moot.

David A. Smith