|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
SR time dilation on remote objects ?
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
SR time dilation on remote objects ?
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
SR time dilation on remote objects ?
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
SR time dilation on remote objects ?
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
SR time dilation on remote objects ?
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
SR time dilation on remote objects ?
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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
SR time dilation on remote objects ?
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 |
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 05:21 AM |
Empirically Confirmed Superluminal Velocities? | Robert Clark | Astronomy Misc | 42 | November 11th 03 03:43 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 |