SR time dilation on remote objects ?

Dear Marcel Luttgens:

"Marcel Luttgens" wrote in message
om...
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" N: dlzc1 D:cox wrote in
message news:IxlHc.2683$ys.2114@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:Zu0Hc.12481$nc.8542@fed1read03...
...
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?

Where is the center?

Where is the center of a balloon, Marcel? I'm not trying to be Zen, it
just comes out that way.

Meaning that the center is everywhere!

Meaning an *arbitrary* center can be formed, yes. So correctly, "A
relative center can be assumed/impressed anywhere." The use of "the center
is" a little too specific, because the Universe no longer has The Center
anywhere in its space.

David A. Smith

On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 13:21:09 +0200, Bjoern Feuerbacher
wrote:

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.

Based on a `red shift' in spectral elements? The expansion still
referable to the big bang? The constant velocity light traversing the
variable distance between two objects both moving relative to each
other?

On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 13:21:09 +0200, Bjoern Feuerbacher
wrote:

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.

Based on a `red shift' in spectral elements? The expansion still
referable to the big bang? The constant velocity light traversing the
variable distance between two objects both moving relative to each
other?

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

Marcel Luttgens wrote:

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message ...

snip

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

No, I am not claiming that. Thanks for yet again showing that
you do not understand the things which are explained to you.

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.


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


Bye,
Bjoern

Marcel Luttgens

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

Marcel Luttgens wrote:

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message ...

snip

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

No, I am not claiming that. Thanks for yet again showing that
you do not understand the things which are explained to you.

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.


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


Bye,
Bjoern

Marcel Luttgens

"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote in message ...
"Marcel Luttgens" wrote in message om...
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message ...
Marcel Luttgens wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message ...

Marcel Luttgens wrote:

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message ...

snip

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

No, I am not claiming that. Thanks for yet again showing that
you do not understand the things which are explained to you.

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.


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 Davastating 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?


"Fumbling" Dirk is unable to realize the consequence of space
expansion, i.e. that galaxies move apart *from each other*.
Iow, when galaxy A moves wrt galaxy B, the opposite is phyically
true: galaxy B moves wrt galaxy A. Hence, when A observes a
time slowing on B, B necessarily observes the *same* time
slowing on A. SRists, like "Fumbling" Dirk, who claim against
every logic that A, or B, can observe a time dilation on B,
or on A, can only be qualified as crackpots.


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!

Dirk Vdm

Marcel Luttgens

"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote in message ...
"Marcel Luttgens" wrote in message om...
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message ...
Marcel Luttgens wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message ...

Marcel Luttgens wrote:

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message ...

snip

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

No, I am not claiming that. Thanks for yet again showing that
you do not understand the things which are explained to you.

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.


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 Davastating 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?


"Fumbling" Dirk is unable to realize the consequence of space
expansion, i.e. that galaxies move apart *from each other*.
Iow, when galaxy A moves wrt galaxy B, the opposite is phyically
true: galaxy B moves wrt galaxy A. Hence, when A observes a
time slowing on B, B necessarily observes the *same* time
slowing on A. SRists, like "Fumbling" Dirk, who claim against
every logic that A, or B, can observe a time dilation on B,
or on A, can only be qualified as crackpots.


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!

Dirk Vdm

Marcel Luttgens

vonroach wrote:
On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 13:21:09 +0200, Bjoern Feuerbacher
wrote:


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.


Based on a `red shift' in spectral elements?

Huh? No. I am talking about the time dilation seen in the light curves.


The expansion still referable to the big bang?

Huh?


The constant velocity light traversing the
variable distance between two objects both moving relative to each
other?

Yes.


Bye,
Bjoern

vonroach wrote:
On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 13:21:09 +0200, Bjoern Feuerbacher
wrote:


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.


Based on a `red shift' in spectral elements?

Huh? No. I am talking about the time dilation seen in the light curves.


The expansion still referable to the big bang?

Huh?


The constant velocity light traversing the
variable distance between two objects both moving relative to each
other?

Yes.


Bye,
Bjoern

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

Marcel Luttgens wrote:

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message ...


Marcel Luttgens wrote:


Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message ...


snip

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

No, I am not claiming that. Thanks for yet again showing that
you do not understand the things which are explained to you.

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.



You should specify that it "looks" dilated by a factor f *to an Earth
observer*.

To any observer *now*, which as the same distance to the SN as we
on Earth.


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*.

Right.


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.

Err, you are denoting quite different things with the same name here.

More correct is:
dt(supernova,when light was emitted) = f*dt(earth, when light is
observed)
and
dt(earth,when light was emitted) = f*dt(supernova, when light is
observed)

One can simplify that to
dt(when light was emitted) = f*dt(when light is observed),
since that is valid for every position of the emitter and of the
observer.


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.

Wrong premise == wrong conclusion. If you would have written this
down more carefully, like I show above, this does obviously not
follow.

You don't understand what you are talking about - and you show that
with every single post.


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

You are simply wrong. Because you still attack silly strawmen.
And are not careful in writing down the equations.


Bye,
Bjoern