SR time dilation on remote objects ?

SR time dilation on remote objects ?

Question:

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

Details are given hereafter, as well as the refusal by the
moderator to post my question in sci.physics.research

Marcel Luttgens

_______


Date : 04/07/04 15:18
To : "Urs Schreiber"

Object : SR Time dilation on supernovae ?

Dear Urs Schreiber,

I am not "saying that contemporary cosmology and GR are fundamentally
wrong", I prove it. Why don't you allow experts to disprove my
demonstration? Science doesn't deserves censorship.

I am confident that you wouldn't mind if I posted your present
refusal on another, not "moderated" newsgroup. Am I too optimistic?
If you don't answer, I'll conclude that you agree.

Marcel Luttgens

Date: 04/07/04 14:33
From : "Urs Schreiber"
To : "Marcel Luttgens"

Objet : SR Time dilation on supernovae ?

I am sorry, but saying that contemporary cosmology and GR are
fundamentally wrong is overly speculative and not appropriate
for s.p.r.

Sincerely,

Urs Schreiber,
moderator, s.p.r.


----- Original Message -----

From: "Marcel Luttgens"
Newsgroups: sci.physics.research
To:
Sent: Sunday, July 04, 2004 2:29 PM
Subject: SR Time dilation on supernovae ?


Excerpt from:

High Redshift Supernovae from the IfA Deep Survey:
Doubling the SN Sample at z 0 . 7

(arXiv: astro- ph/ 0310843 v1 29 Oct 2003)

Brian J. Barris, John L. Tonry, Stephane Blondin, Peter Challis,
Ryan Chornock, Alejandro Clocchiatti, Alexei V. Filippenko,
Peter Garnavich, Stephen T. Holland, Saurabh Jha, Robert P. Kirshner,
Kevin Krisciunas, Bruno Leibundgut, Weidong Li, Thomas Matheson,
Gajus Miknaitis, Adam G. Riess, Brian P. Schmidt, R. Chris Smith,
Jesper Sollerman, Jason Spyromilio, Christopher W. Stubbs, Nicholas
B. Suntzeff, Herve Aussel, K. C. Chambers, M. S. Connelley,
D. Donovan, J. Patrick Henry, Nick Kaiser, Michael C. Liu,
Eduardo L. Martin, and Richard J. Wainscoat

Excerpt (p.12):

"Typically, the discovery epoch of a high-z supernova
is a few days before maximum brightness, and although
the time dilation factor of (1 + z) works to lessen
the delay in the rest frame, etc...".

As no time dilation factor can be due to space recession
(cf. the "Triplets tought experiment" below), the contemporary
cosmologists are fundamentally wrong.

One can thus wonder about the degree of confidence that can be
given to their interpretation of the supernovae observations,
especially with regard to the acceleration of the assumed
expansion and the correlatively hypothesized dark energy.

The validity of GR formulae is also questionable, because
GR expresses the red shift of distant sources in terms of
special relativity (the "relativistic Doppler" formula).

The "Triplets" thought experiment (Cf. the "Twin paradox")
_________________________________

Terence sits at home on Earth. Galaxy (yes, it's her name)
flies off in a space ship at a velocity v/2. Simultaneously,
Terra (also a name) flies off in the opposite direction at -v/2.
After a while, Terra, a SR adept who considers that Galaxy
flies away from her at a velocity v, claims that Galaxy is now
younger than her, exactly like the GRists claim that time
goes slower on SN because of space expansion.
According to Terence, both Terra and the GRists are wrong,
because Terra's clock and Galaxy's clock tick at the same
rate.

Question:
________

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

Thanks,

Marcel Luttgens

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.


Details are given hereafter, as well as the refusal by the
moderator to post my question in sci.physics.research

Perhaps because you could read this up yourself if you would
bother to actually open a book on cosmology? I recommend
"The early universe" by Kolb&Turner.


Marcel Luttgens

_______


Date : 04/07/04 15:18
To : "Urs Schreiber"

Object : SR Time dilation on supernovae ?

Dear Urs Schreiber,

I am not "saying that contemporary cosmology and GR are fundamentally
wrong", I prove it.

You prove nothing like that. You even don't know what modern
cosmology says. E.g., you didn't know that the Hubble parameter
is time dependent even during quite ordinary expansion!


Why don't you allow experts to disprove my
demonstration?

Because they have better things to do than to correct your
elementary misconceptions about the Big Bang theory?


Science doesn't deserves censorship.

The newsgroup sci.physics.research is reserved for genuine
research. Banning people who have elementary misconceptions, like
you, has nothing to do with censorship.


[snip]




Bye,
Bjoern

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?

Anyhow, explaining the assumed time dilation by SR or by GR doesn't
change the fact the space expansion acts symmetrically, meaning
that somebody on Earth *cannot* observe such dilation. Claiming
that space expansion gives a time dilation redshift is simply wrong.
Only a Doppler shift can be observed.


Details are given hereafter, as well as the refusal by the
moderator to post my question in sci.physics.research

Perhaps because you could read this up yourself if you would
bother to actually open a book on cosmology? I recommend
"The early universe" by Kolb&Turner.


This is a good example of crooked debating.


Marcel Luttgens

_______


Date : 04/07/04 15:18
To : "Urs Schreiber"

Object : SR Time dilation on supernovae ?

Dear Urs Schreiber,

I am not "saying that contemporary cosmology and GR are fundamentally
wrong", I prove it.

You prove nothing like that. You even don't know what modern
cosmology says. E.g., you didn't know that the Hubble parameter
is time dependent even during quite ordinary expansion!


The Hubble constant is determined by the mean density of the
universe.
Instead of just claiming that it is time dependent, you should
better show the formula, and simultaneously explain why the
assumed space expansion is not symmetrical for all observers.


Why don't you allow experts to disprove my
demonstration?

Because they have better things to do than to correct your
elementary misconceptions about the Big Bang theory?


The Big Bangers are those which are full of misconceptions.
The BB theory is riddled with ad hoc patches.


Science doesn't deserve censorship.

The newsgroup sci.physics.research is reserved for genuine
research. Banning people who have elementary misconceptions, like
you, has nothing to do with censorship.


[snip]


Bye,
Bjoern

Marcel Luttgens

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".


Anyhow, explaining the assumed time dilation by SR or by GR doesn't
change the fact the space expansion acts symmetrically,

What on earth is that supposed to mean?


meaning that somebody on Earth *cannot* observe such dilation.

Why on earth do you think so?


Claiming
that space expansion gives a time dilation redshift is simply wrong.
Only a Doppler shift can be observed.

You have never actually seen the calculations, right?


Details are given hereafter, as well as the refusal by the
moderator to post my question in sci.physics.research

Perhaps because you could read this up yourself if you would
bother to actually open a book on cosmology? I recommend
"The early universe" by Kolb&Turner.



This is a good example of crooked debating.

It is "crooked debating" to tell you that you miss the basic knowledge
about this topic, and provide a reference where you can read it up???



[snip]


I am not "saying that contemporary cosmology and GR are fundamentally
wrong", I prove it.

You prove nothing like that. You even don't know what modern
cosmology says. E.g., you didn't know that the Hubble parameter
is time dependent even during quite ordinary expansion!



The Hubble constant is determined by the mean density of the
universe. Instead of just claiming that it is time dependent,

Err, didn't you notice that due to expansion, the mean density
of the universe is obviously time-dependent, and therefore according
to your own argument here, the Hubble parameter has to be
time-dependent, too?


you should better show the formula,

The formulas are there in any book on cosmology. Try looking into them.

Further, for a particular model, I once wrote down the calculations
myself. The text is in German, but the formulas should be clear enough.
http://www.rzuser.uni-heidelberg.de/~bfeuerba/universum.pdf
The formulas there are for an accelerated universe (with cosmological
constant different from zero), but it's not hard to take the limit
of cosmological constant going to zero, and the result is that H then
still depends on t (hint: the result of taking the limit is H(t) =
2/(3t) - and that's a formula you can find in lots of books on cosmology).


and simultaneously explain why the
assumed space expansion is not symmetrical for all observers.

I don't understand what you mean by "symmetrical" here, sorry.


Why don't you allow experts to disprove my
demonstration?

Because they have better things to do than to correct your
elementary misconceptions about the Big Bang theory?



The Big Bangers are those which are full of misconceptions.

Says the one who did not even know that H depends on t during
ordinary expansion...


The BB theory is riddled with ad hoc patches.

For example? (I expect now that you will mention inflation, dark
matter and dark energy - thus displaying that you have no clue of
the evidence for that stuff, and of the reasons why it was introduced)





[snip]


Bye,
Bjoern

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".


Anyhow, explaining the assumed time dilation by SR or by GR doesn't
change the fact the space expansion acts symmetrically,

What on earth is that supposed to mean?


Did you sleep enough last night? Bist du nicht ein bischen müde?


meaning that somebody on Earth *cannot* observe such dilation.

Why on earth do you think so?

Because A claims that the time on B moving away from him is dilated,
and B symmetrically claims that time on A is dilated wrt its own time.
As both are simultaneously right, the only logical conclusion is that
the two time dilations cancel each other.
But as a SR/GRist, you prefer to believe (yes, "believe") that both
are right. What a disastrous conclusion!



Claiming
that space expansion gives a time dilation redshift is simply wrong.
Only a Doppler shift can be observed.

You have never actually seen the calculations, right?


A hopeless argument. You are incorrigible.


Details are given hereafter, as well as the refusal by the
moderator to post my question in sci.physics.research

Perhaps because you could read this up yourself if you would
bother to actually open a book on cosmology? I recommend
"The early universe" by Kolb&Turner.



This is a good example of crooked debating.

It is "crooked debating" to tell you that you miss the basic knowledge
about this topic, and provide a reference where you can read it up???


Again and again the same ad hominem ...



[snip]


I am not "saying that contemporary cosmology and GR are fundamentally
wrong", I prove it.

You prove nothing like that. You even don't know what modern
cosmology says. E.g., you didn't know that the Hubble parameter
is time dependent even during quite ordinary expansion!



The Hubble constant is determined by the mean density of the
universe. Instead of just claiming that it is time dependent,

Err, didn't you notice that due to expansion, the mean density
of the universe is obviously time-dependent, and therefore according
to your own argument here, the Hubble parameter has to be
time-dependent, too?


For the expansion proponents, it is of course time dependent, but even
for them, it is *to-day* determined by the mean density of the universe.


you should better show the formula,

The formulas are there in any book on cosmology. Try looking into them.


I preferred your own formulae. With GR, according to the assumed
premises, one can say almost anything.

Further, for a particular model, I once wrote down the calculations
myself. The text is in German, but the formulas should be clear enough.
http://www.rzuser.uni-heidelberg.de/~bfeuerba/universum.pdf
The formulas there are for an accelerated universe (with cosmological
constant different from zero), but it's not hard to take the limit
of cosmological constant going to zero, and the result is that H then
still depends on t (hint: the result of taking the limit is H(t) =
2/(3t) - and that's a formula you can find in lots of books on cosmology).


Thank you. Of course, H depends historically on t, as the mean density
of the universe varies with t if the universe is expanding (with an
"apparent" ;-) velocity).


and simultaneously explain why the
assumed space expansion is not symmetrical for all observers.

I don't understand what you mean by "symmetrical" here, sorry.


Not yet?


Why don't you allow experts to disprove my
demonstration?

Because they have better things to do than to correct your
elementary misconceptions about the Big Bang theory?



The Big Bangers are those which are full of misconceptions.

Says the one who did not even know that H depends on t during
ordinary expansion...


What a bad faith!


The BB theory is riddled with ad hoc patches.

For example? (I expect now that you will mention inflation, dark
matter and dark energy - thus displaying that you have no clue of
the evidence for that stuff, and of the reasons why it was introduced)


Ad hoc inflation, large scale structures, accelerated expansion, usw...
Please remind me why dark energy has been introduced.


[snip]


Bye,
Bjoern

Marcel Luttgens

"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

"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

Marcel Luttgens wrote:
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".

According to the Robertson-Walker metric, the "rate" of time was
always the same. But the expansion of the universe "stretches" the light
we receive from objects which are far away (and therefore light which
left these objects long ago), and this makes it look like as if time
went slower back then.


Anyhow, explaining the assumed time dilation by SR or by GR doesn't
change the fact the space expansion acts symmetrically,

What on earth is that supposed to mean?



Did you sleep enough last night? Bist du nicht ein bischen müde?

Evasion noted. Why don't you simply answer the question?

And why did you feel the need to try to write German here?



meaning that somebody on Earth *cannot* observe such dilation.

Why on earth do you think so?


Because A claims that the time on B moving away from him is dilated,
and B symmetrically claims that time on A is dilated wrt its own time.

Right for SR time dilation, wrong for the apparent time dilation
due to space expansion.


As both are simultaneously right, the only logical conclusion is that
the two time dilations cancel each other.

Absolute total utter non sequitur. Why is this "logical"??? How could
such a cancellation happen?????


But as a SR/GRist, you prefer to believe (yes, "believe") that both
are right.

Err, you said two, above, that both are right.


What a disastrous conclusion!

Why?

You seem to have a big problem with the concept that time is relative...


Claiming
that space expansion gives a time dilation redshift is simply wrong.

Only a Doppler shift can be observed.

You have never actually seen the calculations, right?



A hopeless argument. You are incorrigible.

That was a question, not an argument.

Evasion noted.

Did you ever see the calculations or not?


Details are given hereafter, as well as the refusal by the
moderator to post my question in sci.physics.research

Perhaps because you could read this up yourself if you would
bother to actually open a book on cosmology? I recommend
"The early universe" by Kolb&Turner.



This is a good example of crooked debating.

It is "crooked debating" to tell you that you miss the basic knowledge
about this topic, and provide a reference where you can read it up???



Again and again the same ad hominem ...


Pointing out that you lack the basic knowledge is not an ad hominem.




I am not "saying that contemporary cosmology and GR are fundamentally
wrong", I prove it.

You prove nothing like that. You even don't know what modern
cosmology says. E.g., you didn't know that the Hubble parameter
is time dependent even during quite ordinary expansion!



The Hubble constant is determined by the mean density of the
universe. Instead of just claiming that it is time dependent,

Err, didn't you notice that due to expansion, the mean density
of the universe is obviously time-dependent, and therefore according
to your own argument here, the Hubble parameter has to be
time-dependent, too?



For the expansion proponents, it is of course time dependent,

Nice that you admit that. In some earlier postings, you acted as
if you don't not that.


but even
for them, it is *to-day* determined by the mean density of the universe.

I said nothing against that.



you should better show the formula,

The formulas are there in any book on cosmology. Try looking into them.



I preferred your own formulae. With GR, according to the assumed
premises, one can say almost anything.

Nonsense.


Further, for a particular model, I once wrote down the calculations
myself. The text is in German, but the formulas should be clear enough.
http://www.rzuser.uni-heidelberg.de/~bfeuerba/universum.pdf
The formulas there are for an accelerated universe (with cosmological
constant different from zero), but it's not hard to take the limit
of cosmological constant going to zero, and the result is that H then
still depends on t (hint: the result of taking the limit is H(t) =
2/(3t) - and that's a formula you can find in lots of books on cosmology).



Thank you. Of course, H depends historically on t, as the mean density
of the universe varies with t if the universe is expanding (with an
"apparent" ;-) velocity).

If this is so clear to you, then why did you act as if you don't know
that?



and simultaneously explain why the
assumed space expansion is not symmetrical for all observers.

I don't understand what you mean by "symmetrical" here, sorry.



Not yet?

No.

Next evasion noted.



Why don't you allow experts to disprove my
demonstration?

Because they have better things to do than to correct your
elementary misconceptions about the Big Bang theory?



The Big Bangers are those which are full of misconceptions.

Says the one who did not even know that H depends on t during
ordinary expansion...



What a bad faith!

Huh? You acted several times as if you don't know that H is time-dependent.



The BB theory is riddled with ad hoc patches.

For example? (I expect now that you will mention inflation, dark
matter and dark energy - thus displaying that you have no clue of
the evidence for that stuff, and of the reasons why it was introduced)



Ad hoc inflation,

See my note in the parentheses...


large scale structures,

What is ad hoce about them???


accelerated expansion,

See my note in the parentheses...



usw... Please remind me why dark energy has been introduced.

Because of a variety of reasons. You seem to think that there
was only one...



Bye,
Bjoern

Marcel Luttgens wrote:
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".

According to the Robertson-Walker metric, the "rate" of time was
always the same. But the expansion of the universe "stretches" the light
we receive from objects which are far away (and therefore light which
left these objects long ago), and this makes it look like as if time
went slower back then.


Anyhow, explaining the assumed time dilation by SR or by GR doesn't
change the fact the space expansion acts symmetrically,

What on earth is that supposed to mean?



Did you sleep enough last night? Bist du nicht ein bischen müde?

Evasion noted. Why don't you simply answer the question?

And why did you feel the need to try to write German here?



meaning that somebody on Earth *cannot* observe such dilation.

Why on earth do you think so?


Because A claims that the time on B moving away from him is dilated,
and B symmetrically claims that time on A is dilated wrt its own time.

Right for SR time dilation, wrong for the apparent time dilation
due to space expansion.


As both are simultaneously right, the only logical conclusion is that
the two time dilations cancel each other.

Absolute total utter non sequitur. Why is this "logical"??? How could
such a cancellation happen?????


But as a SR/GRist, you prefer to believe (yes, "believe") that both
are right.

Err, you said two, above, that both are right.


What a disastrous conclusion!

Why?

You seem to have a big problem with the concept that time is relative...


Claiming
that space expansion gives a time dilation redshift is simply wrong.

Only a Doppler shift can be observed.

You have never actually seen the calculations, right?



A hopeless argument. You are incorrigible.

That was a question, not an argument.

Evasion noted.

Did you ever see the calculations or not?


Details are given hereafter, as well as the refusal by the
moderator to post my question in sci.physics.research

Perhaps because you could read this up yourself if you would
bother to actually open a book on cosmology? I recommend
"The early universe" by Kolb&Turner.



This is a good example of crooked debating.

It is "crooked debating" to tell you that you miss the basic knowledge
about this topic, and provide a reference where you can read it up???



Again and again the same ad hominem ...


Pointing out that you lack the basic knowledge is not an ad hominem.




I am not "saying that contemporary cosmology and GR are fundamentally
wrong", I prove it.

You prove nothing like that. You even don't know what modern
cosmology says. E.g., you didn't know that the Hubble parameter
is time dependent even during quite ordinary expansion!



The Hubble constant is determined by the mean density of the
universe. Instead of just claiming that it is time dependent,

Err, didn't you notice that due to expansion, the mean density
of the universe is obviously time-dependent, and therefore according
to your own argument here, the Hubble parameter has to be
time-dependent, too?



For the expansion proponents, it is of course time dependent,

Nice that you admit that. In some earlier postings, you acted as
if you don't not that.


but even
for them, it is *to-day* determined by the mean density of the universe.

I said nothing against that.



you should better show the formula,

The formulas are there in any book on cosmology. Try looking into them.



I preferred your own formulae. With GR, according to the assumed
premises, one can say almost anything.

Nonsense.


Further, for a particular model, I once wrote down the calculations
myself. The text is in German, but the formulas should be clear enough.
http://www.rzuser.uni-heidelberg.de/~bfeuerba/universum.pdf
The formulas there are for an accelerated universe (with cosmological
constant different from zero), but it's not hard to take the limit
of cosmological constant going to zero, and the result is that H then
still depends on t (hint: the result of taking the limit is H(t) =
2/(3t) - and that's a formula you can find in lots of books on cosmology).



Thank you. Of course, H depends historically on t, as the mean density
of the universe varies with t if the universe is expanding (with an
"apparent" ;-) velocity).

If this is so clear to you, then why did you act as if you don't know
that?



and simultaneously explain why the
assumed space expansion is not symmetrical for all observers.

I don't understand what you mean by "symmetrical" here, sorry.



Not yet?

No.

Next evasion noted.



Why don't you allow experts to disprove my
demonstration?

Because they have better things to do than to correct your
elementary misconceptions about the Big Bang theory?



The Big Bangers are those which are full of misconceptions.

Says the one who did not even know that H depends on t during
ordinary expansion...



What a bad faith!

Huh? You acted several times as if you don't know that H is time-dependent.



The BB theory is riddled with ad hoc patches.

For example? (I expect now that you will mention inflation, dark
matter and dark energy - thus displaying that you have no clue of
the evidence for that stuff, and of the reasons why it was introduced)



Ad hoc inflation,

See my note in the parentheses...


large scale structures,

What is ad hoce about them???


accelerated expansion,

See my note in the parentheses...



usw... Please remind me why dark energy has been introduced.

Because of a variety of reasons. You seem to think that there
was only one...



Bye,
Bjoern

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".


Anyhow, explaining the assumed time dilation by SR or by GR doesn't
change the fact the space expansion acts symmetrically,

What on earth is that supposed to mean?


Did you sleep enough last night? Bist du nicht ein bischen müde?


meaning that somebody on Earth *cannot* observe such dilation.

Why on earth do you think so?

Because A claims that the time on B moving away from him is dilated,
and B symmetrically claims that time on A is dilated wrt its own time.
As both are simultaneously right, the only logical conclusion is that
the two time dilations cancel each other.
But as a SR/GRist, you prefer to believe (yes, "believe") that both
are right. What a disastrous conclusion!



Claiming
that space expansion gives a time dilation redshift is simply wrong.
Only a Doppler shift can be observed.

You have never actually seen the calculations, right?


A hopeless argument. You are incorrigible.


Details are given hereafter, as well as the refusal by the
moderator to post my question in sci.physics.research

Perhaps because you could read this up yourself if you would
bother to actually open a book on cosmology? I recommend
"The early universe" by Kolb&Turner.



This is a good example of crooked debating.

It is "crooked debating" to tell you that you miss the basic knowledge
about this topic, and provide a reference where you can read it up???


Again and again the same ad hominem ...



[snip]


I am not "saying that contemporary cosmology and GR are fundamentally
wrong", I prove it.

You prove nothing like that. You even don't know what modern
cosmology says. E.g., you didn't know that the Hubble parameter
is time dependent even during quite ordinary expansion!



The Hubble constant is determined by the mean density of the
universe. Instead of just claiming that it is time dependent,

Err, didn't you notice that due to expansion, the mean density
of the universe is obviously time-dependent, and therefore according
to your own argument here, the Hubble parameter has to be
time-dependent, too?


For the expansion proponents, it is of course time dependent, but even
for them, it is *to-day* determined by the mean density of the universe.


you should better show the formula,

The formulas are there in any book on cosmology. Try looking into them.


I preferred your own formulae. With GR, according to the assumed
premises, one can say almost anything.

Further, for a particular model, I once wrote down the calculations
myself. The text is in German, but the formulas should be clear enough.
http://www.rzuser.uni-heidelberg.de/~bfeuerba/universum.pdf
The formulas there are for an accelerated universe (with cosmological
constant different from zero), but it's not hard to take the limit
of cosmological constant going to zero, and the result is that H then
still depends on t (hint: the result of taking the limit is H(t) =
2/(3t) - and that's a formula you can find in lots of books on cosmology).


Thank you. Of course, H depends historically on t, as the mean density
of the universe varies with t if the universe is expanding (with an
"apparent" ;-) velocity).


and simultaneously explain why the
assumed space expansion is not symmetrical for all observers.

I don't understand what you mean by "symmetrical" here, sorry.


Not yet?


Why don't you allow experts to disprove my
demonstration?

Because they have better things to do than to correct your
elementary misconceptions about the Big Bang theory?



The Big Bangers are those which are full of misconceptions.

Says the one who did not even know that H depends on t during
ordinary expansion...


What a bad faith!


The BB theory is riddled with ad hoc patches.

For example? (I expect now that you will mention inflation, dark
matter and dark energy - thus displaying that you have no clue of
the evidence for that stuff, and of the reasons why it was introduced)


Ad hoc inflation, large scale structures, accelerated expansion, usw...
Please remind me why dark energy has been introduced.


[snip]


Bye,
Bjoern

Marcel Luttgens