|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |