A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

SR time dilation on remote objects ?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old July 7th 04, 03:17 PM
Marcel Luttgens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default SR time dilation on remote objects ?

"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.


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.


David A. Smith


Marcel
  #52  
Old July 7th 04, 03:23 PM
vonroach
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default SR time dilation on remote objects ?

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?

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? `Big Bang' as removed the center? What ia
all the CRR, remnants of the center? Then was it something resembling
a `singularity'? All pretty nebulous wouldn't you say?

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.? 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.

David A. Smith


  #53  
Old July 7th 04, 03:23 PM
vonroach
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default SR time dilation on remote objects ?

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?

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? `Big Bang' as removed the center? What ia
all the CRR, remnants of the center? Then was it something resembling
a `singularity'? All pretty nebulous wouldn't you say?

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.? 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.

David A. Smith


  #54  
Old July 7th 04, 03:29 PM
vonroach
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default SR time dilation on remote objects ?

On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 09:56:04 +0200, Bjoern Feuerbacher
wrote:

vonroach wrote:
On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 14:34:51 +0200, Bjoern Feuerbacher
wrote:


And this is still irrelevant for cosmology.


Can a galaxy moving through the cosmos at 1/2 the speed of another
galaxy claim to be older?


Speed relative to what?

The other galaxy as I read the interrogatory. You can use either
rotation or translation. (`1/2 the speed of another' is a comparison
of one relative to the other speed?)
Bye,
Bjoern


  #55  
Old July 7th 04, 03:29 PM
vonroach
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default SR time dilation on remote objects ?

On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 09:56:04 +0200, Bjoern Feuerbacher
wrote:

vonroach wrote:
On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 14:34:51 +0200, Bjoern Feuerbacher
wrote:


And this is still irrelevant for cosmology.


Can a galaxy moving through the cosmos at 1/2 the speed of another
galaxy claim to be older?


Speed relative to what?

The other galaxy as I read the interrogatory. You can use either
rotation or translation. (`1/2 the speed of another' is a comparison
of one relative to the other speed?)
Bye,
Bjoern


  #56  
Old July 7th 04, 03:46 PM
Dirk Van de moortel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default SR time dilation on remote objects ?


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

Marcel Luttgens wrote:

SR time dilation on remote objects ?

Question:

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

No. Apparent time dilation due to space expansion has nothing to
do with the time dilation of SR.



What do you mean by "apparent"? Is it such time expansion or not?


I don't know what you mean by "time expansion".


From the context, I clearly meant "time dilation". Now you could perhaps
explain what you mean by "apparent".


The thing is, you don't understand the concepts of
events and coordinates, as you so nicely prove he
"The Lorentz transformation (LT) are false":
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/mluttgens/LTfalse.htm
"There is no length contraction"
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/mluttgens/mmx.htm
"The Twin paradox falsifies SR"
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/mluttgens/twinpdx1.htm
So what are you still whining about time dilation?

Dirk Vdm


  #57  
Old July 7th 04, 03:46 PM
Dirk Van de moortel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default SR time dilation on remote objects ?


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

Marcel Luttgens wrote:

SR time dilation on remote objects ?

Question:

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

No. Apparent time dilation due to space expansion has nothing to
do with the time dilation of SR.



What do you mean by "apparent"? Is it such time expansion or not?


I don't know what you mean by "time expansion".


From the context, I clearly meant "time dilation". Now you could perhaps
explain what you mean by "apparent".


The thing is, you don't understand the concepts of
events and coordinates, as you so nicely prove he
"The Lorentz transformation (LT) are false":
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/mluttgens/LTfalse.htm
"There is no length contraction"
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/mluttgens/mmx.htm
"The Twin paradox falsifies SR"
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/mluttgens/twinpdx1.htm
So what are you still whining about time dilation?

Dirk Vdm


  #58  
Old July 7th 04, 03:46 PM
vonroach
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default SR time dilation on remote objects ?

On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 10:00:20 +0200, Bjoern Feuerbacher
wrote:

vonroach wrote:
On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 09:22:11 +0200, Bjoern Feuerbacher
wrote:


vonroach wrote:

On Mon, 5 Jul 2004 10:15:42 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" N:
dlzc1 D:cox wrote:



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

David A. Smith

But `everywhere' was hypothesized to be a `singularity'.

1) "singularity" is not necessarily the same as "point".
2) Probably there never was a singularity - at very high gravitational
fields (i.e. very high densities, close to the Big Bang) Quantum Gravity
effects should become important, and that could avoid a singularity. We
don't know yet.



Do you know what hypothesize means?


Yes. As you point out yourself, I said myself that we don't know yet.


As you state we do not know. Even
`probably' is an exaggeration.


No. We don't have a working quantum theory of gravity yet, but all
attempts in that direction have been quite consistent (AFAIK) in
saying that there should be no singularity.


Gravitational fields, quantum gravity,
are speculative which means the subject of thought, experiment, and
theorizing. Your very high densities, I interpret to mean very
concentrated matter, and very concentrated mass/energy, and any
`space' present would also be very tightly compacted.
A point has no dimension, only location.


It's not clear to me what you mean by "compacted" space, but I agree
with the rest.


I mean that mass creates space (not time, which requires change). A
`point' is an abstract position in a space, but not a space. I don't
think of a singularity as a `point', except perhaps in some
mathematical sense as perhaps a lower limit. Of course mass in this
sense also encompasses energy. It would be potential energy not
kinetic - otherwise there would have to be time, and I'm discussing a
timeless static mass in a `space' . A black hole has an additional
property it acts as a negative pressure drawing mass/energy from the
space time that surrounds it.


Agreed.


A singularity is a vague concept


No, not at all. That is a precisely defined term. Look it up.


that implies very dense space/matter in very compact `space'.


It implies this in this special context - not in general.


Do you think a `singularity' is ever a `point'?


Yes. For example, when talking about a Black Hole.


I don't believe that
is the case. I don't recall using the term `point'.


I thought you meant this. Sorry for the misunderstanding.



[snip]

Bye,
Bjoern


  #59  
Old July 7th 04, 03:46 PM
vonroach
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default SR time dilation on remote objects ?

On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 10:00:20 +0200, Bjoern Feuerbacher
wrote:

vonroach wrote:
On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 09:22:11 +0200, Bjoern Feuerbacher
wrote:


vonroach wrote:

On Mon, 5 Jul 2004 10:15:42 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" N:
dlzc1 D:cox wrote:



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

David A. Smith

But `everywhere' was hypothesized to be a `singularity'.

1) "singularity" is not necessarily the same as "point".
2) Probably there never was a singularity - at very high gravitational
fields (i.e. very high densities, close to the Big Bang) Quantum Gravity
effects should become important, and that could avoid a singularity. We
don't know yet.



Do you know what hypothesize means?


Yes. As you point out yourself, I said myself that we don't know yet.


As you state we do not know. Even
`probably' is an exaggeration.


No. We don't have a working quantum theory of gravity yet, but all
attempts in that direction have been quite consistent (AFAIK) in
saying that there should be no singularity.


Gravitational fields, quantum gravity,
are speculative which means the subject of thought, experiment, and
theorizing. Your very high densities, I interpret to mean very
concentrated matter, and very concentrated mass/energy, and any
`space' present would also be very tightly compacted.
A point has no dimension, only location.


It's not clear to me what you mean by "compacted" space, but I agree
with the rest.


I mean that mass creates space (not time, which requires change). A
`point' is an abstract position in a space, but not a space. I don't
think of a singularity as a `point', except perhaps in some
mathematical sense as perhaps a lower limit. Of course mass in this
sense also encompasses energy. It would be potential energy not
kinetic - otherwise there would have to be time, and I'm discussing a
timeless static mass in a `space' . A black hole has an additional
property it acts as a negative pressure drawing mass/energy from the
space time that surrounds it.


Agreed.


A singularity is a vague concept


No, not at all. That is a precisely defined term. Look it up.


that implies very dense space/matter in very compact `space'.


It implies this in this special context - not in general.


Do you think a `singularity' is ever a `point'?


Yes. For example, when talking about a Black Hole.


I don't believe that
is the case. I don't recall using the term `point'.


I thought you meant this. Sorry for the misunderstanding.



[snip]

Bye,
Bjoern


  #60  
Old July 7th 04, 04:32 PM
Bjoern Feuerbacher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default SR time dilation on remote objects ?

vonroach wrote:
On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 09:56:04 +0200, Bjoern Feuerbacher
wrote:


vonroach wrote:

On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 14:34:51 +0200, Bjoern Feuerbacher
wrote:



And this is still irrelevant for cosmology.


Can a galaxy moving through the cosmos at 1/2 the speed of another
galaxy claim to be older?


Speed relative to what?


The other galaxy as I read the interrogatory.


Sorry, but "a galaxy moving through the cosmos at 1/2 the speed of
another galaxy relative to the other galaxy" makes no sense.


You can use either rotation or translation.


From the context, translation was meant.


(`1/2 the speed of another' is a comparison
of one relative to the other speed?)


I didn't want a comparison of the magnitudes of the speeds. I wanted
to know relative to what the velocity is.


Bye,
Bjoern
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
UFO Activities from Biblical Times Kazmer Ujvarosy Astronomy Misc 0 December 25th 03 06:21 AM
Empirically Confirmed Superluminal Velocities? Robert Clark Astronomy Misc 42 November 11th 03 04:43 AM
NASA Releases Near-Earth Object Search Report Ron Baalke Astronomy Misc 0 September 10th 03 04:39 PM
Correlation between CMBR and Redshift Anisotropies. The Ghost In The Machine Astronomy Misc 172 August 30th 03 10:27 PM
Incontrovertible Evidence Cash Astronomy Misc 1 August 24th 03 07:22 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:39 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.