SR time dilation on remote objects ?

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



[snip]

Bye,
Bjoern

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

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

On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 09:51:28 +0200, Bjoern Feuerbacher
wrote:

vonroach wrote:
On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 17:45:13 +0200, Bjoern Feuerbacher
wrote:



The time *seems* to have moved slower when the light we observe now on
Earth left that galaxy.



And for the galactic observer, is not time on Earth slowed
down by the same factor wrt its own time?

The time *seems* to have moved slower when the light they observe now on
in that galaxy left the Earth.


Actually the expect spikes in the spectrum have shifted to longer wave
lengths (`lower' than expected)

Not "actually". *Additionally*.

`Additionally' to what. If you please to reply then include the entire
paragraph, not a snip out of context. I will guess, in addition to
your keen anticipation of what you expected to find.

interpreted as meaning we (the
observers) have moved further apart from the emitter since the light
was emitter if our prediction of what the expected spectrum should
show is correct,

No, interpreted as meaning that the space between us and the emitter
has expanded.

And with your expansion of space hypothesis, the emitter and the
observer have NOT moved farther apart? Your addition only offers an
hypothesis of to explain the finding. I merely report on what is seen.

and the spectrum of Hydrogen, has been very reliable.

When studying supernovae, one does not rely on the hydrogen spectrum,
AFAIK.

I would disagree, but apply the statement to the element of your
choice.

A change in Hydrogen emission spectrum could be postulated but it has
never been observed.

One would also have to postulate that the emission spectra of all the
other elements which are studied change in the same way.

And of course they are as constant as that of hydrogen when studied on
earth.

[snip]


As both clocks tick at the same rate,

Now they do. When the light left the source, the clocks seem
to have ticked at a different rate than they now do.


What have clocks (whatever that is supposed to mean) have to do with
it?

Read "clock" as a short hand for "every observable effect which measures
passages of time somehow" (in this case, e.g. the decay of the light
curves of the SN).

`Decay of light curves', do you mean something akin to `aging',
absurd.

The speed of light has been measured many times and is thought to
be a constant.

Right.


It is the `clock mechanism' that produces an apparent
relative change.

What do you mean by "clock mechanism"?

Choose your poison, I had in mind the oft cited parallel mirror clock.

An astronaut in a spacecraft sets his watch by
earthtime, then when he returns a slight error is noted, If not due to
a faulty watch mechanism, it merely means it has kept accurate time in
a different frame of reference than earth clocks. However you want to
stretch, bend or fiddle with space and time in your imagination, the
speed of light is a constant... or we go back to square one.

Agreed.


Bye,
Bjoern

On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 09:51:28 +0200, Bjoern Feuerbacher
wrote:

vonroach wrote:
On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 17:45:13 +0200, Bjoern Feuerbacher
wrote:



The time *seems* to have moved slower when the light we observe now on
Earth left that galaxy.



And for the galactic observer, is not time on Earth slowed
down by the same factor wrt its own time?

The time *seems* to have moved slower when the light they observe now on
in that galaxy left the Earth.


Actually the expect spikes in the spectrum have shifted to longer wave
lengths (`lower' than expected)

Not "actually". *Additionally*.

`Additionally' to what. If you please to reply then include the entire
paragraph, not a snip out of context. I will guess, in addition to
your keen anticipation of what you expected to find.

interpreted as meaning we (the
observers) have moved further apart from the emitter since the light
was emitter if our prediction of what the expected spectrum should
show is correct,

No, interpreted as meaning that the space between us and the emitter
has expanded.

And with your expansion of space hypothesis, the emitter and the
observer have NOT moved farther apart? Your addition only offers an
hypothesis of to explain the finding. I merely report on what is seen.

and the spectrum of Hydrogen, has been very reliable.

When studying supernovae, one does not rely on the hydrogen spectrum,
AFAIK.

I would disagree, but apply the statement to the element of your
choice.

A change in Hydrogen emission spectrum could be postulated but it has
never been observed.

One would also have to postulate that the emission spectra of all the
other elements which are studied change in the same way.

And of course they are as constant as that of hydrogen when studied on
earth.

[snip]


As both clocks tick at the same rate,

Now they do. When the light left the source, the clocks seem
to have ticked at a different rate than they now do.


What have clocks (whatever that is supposed to mean) have to do with
it?

Read "clock" as a short hand for "every observable effect which measures
passages of time somehow" (in this case, e.g. the decay of the light
curves of the SN).

`Decay of light curves', do you mean something akin to `aging',
absurd.

The speed of light has been measured many times and is thought to
be a constant.

Right.


It is the `clock mechanism' that produces an apparent
relative change.

What do you mean by "clock mechanism"?

Choose your poison, I had in mind the oft cited parallel mirror clock.

An astronaut in a spacecraft sets his watch by
earthtime, then when he returns a slight error is noted, If not due to
a faulty watch mechanism, it merely means it has kept accurate time in
a different frame of reference than earth clocks. However you want to
stretch, bend or fiddle with space and time in your imagination, the
speed of light is a constant... or we go back to square one.

Agreed.


Bye,
Bjoern

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)

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?

`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?

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

Then was it something resembling
a `singularity'?

Not on this side of the Big Bang, no. Mass/energy spread more-or-less
uniformly across the newly minted spacetime. No longer 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.?

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?

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.

David A. Smith

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)

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?

`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?

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

Then was it something resembling
a `singularity'?

Not on this side of the Big Bang, no. Mass/energy spread more-or-less
uniformly across the newly minted spacetime. No longer 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.?

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?

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.

David A. Smith

vonroach wrote:
On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 09:51:28 +0200, Bjoern Feuerbacher
wrote:


vonroach wrote:

On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 17:45:13 +0200, Bjoern Feuerbacher
wrote:




The time *seems* to have moved slower when the light we observe now on
Earth left that galaxy.




And for the galactic observer, is not time on Earth slowed
down by the same factor wrt its own time?

The time *seems* to have moved slower when the light they observe now on
in that galaxy left the Earth.


Actually the expect spikes in the spectrum have shifted to longer wave
lengths (`lower' than expected)

Not "actually". *Additionally*.


`Additionally' to what.

To the time dilation observed in the light curves.


If you please to reply then include the entire
paragraph, not a snip out of context.

Huh??? What context is here?


I will guess, in addition to
your keen anticipation of what you expected to find.

Thanks for showing that you had no clue of what I was talking about.



interpreted as meaning we (the
observers) have moved further apart from the emitter since the light
was emitter if our prediction of what the expected spectrum should
show is correct,

No, interpreted as meaning that the space between us and the emitter
has expanded.


And with your expansion of space hypothesis, the emitter and the
observer have NOT moved farther apart?

Depends on what you mean by "moved". The distance between them
has increased, due to the expansion of the space between them.


Your addition only offers an
hypothesis of to explain the finding. I merely report on what is seen.

Err, no. You claimed above how this is interpreted. Your claim was
wrong - it is not interpreted in this way.


and the spectrum of Hydrogen, has been very reliable.

When studying supernovae, one does not rely on the hydrogen spectrum,
AFAIK.


I would disagree,

On what basis? What do you know about studying the SNs?


but apply the statement to the element of your choice.

AFAIK, several different elements are used when studying the SNs.


[snip]


As both clocks tick at the same rate,

Now they do. When the light left the source, the clocks seem
to have ticked at a different rate than they now do.


What have clocks (whatever that is supposed to mean) have to do with
it?

Read "clock" as a short hand for "every observable effect which measures
passages of time somehow" (in this case, e.g. the decay of the light
curves of the SN).


`Decay of light curves', do you mean something akin to `aging',

I mean that the light of a SN gets weaker with time, approximately
exponentially, due to the exponential radioactive decay of the elements
produced in it, which provide a main source for the light.


absurd.

Only to someone like you how does not know what I was talking about.



[snip]

Bye,
Bjoern

vonroach wrote:
On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 09:51:28 +0200, Bjoern Feuerbacher
wrote:


vonroach wrote:

On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 17:45:13 +0200, Bjoern Feuerbacher
wrote:




The time *seems* to have moved slower when the light we observe now on
Earth left that galaxy.




And for the galactic observer, is not time on Earth slowed
down by the same factor wrt its own time?

The time *seems* to have moved slower when the light they observe now on
in that galaxy left the Earth.


Actually the expect spikes in the spectrum have shifted to longer wave
lengths (`lower' than expected)

Not "actually". *Additionally*.


`Additionally' to what.

To the time dilation observed in the light curves.


If you please to reply then include the entire
paragraph, not a snip out of context.

Huh??? What context is here?


I will guess, in addition to
your keen anticipation of what you expected to find.

Thanks for showing that you had no clue of what I was talking about.



interpreted as meaning we (the
observers) have moved further apart from the emitter since the light
was emitter if our prediction of what the expected spectrum should
show is correct,

No, interpreted as meaning that the space between us and the emitter
has expanded.


And with your expansion of space hypothesis, the emitter and the
observer have NOT moved farther apart?

Depends on what you mean by "moved". The distance between them
has increased, due to the expansion of the space between them.


Your addition only offers an
hypothesis of to explain the finding. I merely report on what is seen.

Err, no. You claimed above how this is interpreted. Your claim was
wrong - it is not interpreted in this way.


and the spectrum of Hydrogen, has been very reliable.

When studying supernovae, one does not rely on the hydrogen spectrum,
AFAIK.


I would disagree,

On what basis? What do you know about studying the SNs?


but apply the statement to the element of your choice.

AFAIK, several different elements are used when studying the SNs.


[snip]


As both clocks tick at the same rate,

Now they do. When the light left the source, the clocks seem
to have ticked at a different rate than they now do.


What have clocks (whatever that is supposed to mean) have to do with
it?

Read "clock" as a short hand for "every observable effect which measures
passages of time somehow" (in this case, e.g. the decay of the light
curves of the SN).


`Decay of light curves', do you mean something akin to `aging',

I mean that the light of a SN gets weaker with time, approximately
exponentially, due to the exponential radioactive decay of the elements
produced in it, which provide a main source for the light.


absurd.

Only to someone like you how does not know what I was talking about.



[snip]

Bye,
Bjoern

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