SR time dilation on remote objects ?

Dear vonroach:

"vonroach" wrote in message
...
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)

Yes. The Big Bang was the center.

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?

Because so many people want to believe in a center. Since all points are
equidistant from the Big Bang, that is as good a "point" as any to be the
center.

`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?

Absolutely none. It won't put bread on your table. But then astronomy
doesn't put bread on too many people's tables.

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?

Bjoern pointed out that my facts were mixed up. It should be 380,000
years. And light will have travelled 380,000 ly in that period.

You give
yourself a rather large allowance for error.

Not really.

The current hypotheses
place the age of the Universe closer to 16,000,000,000 ly in the past.

I've still got this at 13 Gy. Do you have a citation?

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

Absolutely true. And getting bigger.

....
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?

I don't know where you are going with this. Light does not have a frame,
but light would not otherwise agree that the Universe was expanding in all
directions.

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.

Based on GR. I understand. I concur. But Marcel's misconceptions don't
agree with the observations, and whether he agrees with GR is moot.

David A. Smith

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message ...
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 ?


A remark to all GRists:

Instead of quibbling about formulae incorporating the "assumed"
space expansion, (pseudo-)cosmologists should better give their opinion
about

The "Triplets" thought experiment (Adapted from the "Twin paradox")

Why? It is irrelevant for the cosmological time dilation.


Why is it irrelevant?

Because you keep acting as if the cosmological time dilation had
to do something with the velocity.

Are not remote galaxies receeding from
Earth with some velocity, which is a function of their distance?
Is such velocity only "apparent", Iow not real?

I already told you that the recession of the galaxies is due to
the space between them and us expanding.


Meaning that they are receeding form us at some velocity, which is
a function of their distance.


If it is a mere
illusion, how do you explain the Doppler shift?

The red shift is not a Doppler shift - it occurs due to the expansion
pf space. I already told you that, too - didn't you listen, or have you
forgotten that already?


Is not the velocity of expansion expressed in the equation
v = Hr, in which v is velocity, r is distance between two points.
What are those points, if not, for instance, the Earth and a galaxy?
H is related to the density of the universe, meaning that its value
varies if the universe is expanding (This doesn't mean that H was
infinite when (?) the BB took place).


And if it is real (for those believing in expansion of course,
I have to dot the i's), and some galaxy at distance d from Earth
moves at v wrt the Earth, does not the Earth moves at the same
velocity wrt the galaxy?

Seen from that galaxy, the Earth seems to move at the
same speed (but obviously in the opposite direction).


I would delete the restriction "seems".


For an Earth observer, is not the time
on the galaxy slowed down by some factor wrt the time on Earth?

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.


Does this not logically
mean that the Earth clock and the galactic clock tick at the same
rate,

No, not at all. Why on earth do you think so?


Those SR/GRists (seemingly all of them), who don't understand
simple logic could read and comment this little tale:

5 years old's twin logic
________________________

After many months of sunless weather, Terra and Galaxy are
equally pale. Their mother decides that they need to stay
a week at a sunny southern beach.

The fourth day after their arrival, Terra says to Galaxy:
"How suntanned are you! I am sure that you are darker than me!".
And Galaxy replies: "You too are darker than me!".

Their mother then said: "Yes, you are both darker than 4 days
ago, but your colour is exactly the same. None of you is darker
than the other.
Your logic is similar to that of cosmologists, who claim, like
Brian J. Barris et al. in arXiv: astro- ph/ 0310843 v1 29 Oct 2003:

"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...".

Your error is understandable, you are only 5 years old, but
contemporary cosmologists's deficient logic can only
be explained by the persistency of magical thinking. You will find
such persistency in astrology, big bang theory, relativity
theory, voodoo, etc...".


as confirmed by Terence in the "Triplets thought experiment"?

That thought experiment confirms nothing like that.


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.


Sure, what is your point?


how can the contemporary
cosmologists claim that a time dilation factor of (1 + z) works
on supernovae to lessen the delay in the rest frame?

Drop the rhetoric and look at the actual calculations.


I am looking forward to reading your comments.

I am looking forward to you misunderstanding them yet again.



"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, who considers that Galaxy flies away
from her at a velocity v,

Why should Terra consider that? Does she not know how to
add velocities in SR?



You don't seem to grasp the spirit of Terra's claim, which
is that Galaxy is flying away from her at some velocity.

We are talking about measurements here, not about "spirit".


As you like.


claims that Galaxy is now younger
than her, exactly like GRists claim that time goes slower on
SN because of space expansion.

That is in no way "exactly like".



Don't GRists make such claim? Remove "exactly" if you prefer.

GR say that time seems to have gone slower on the SN when the
light was emitted. Not that *today*, time *still* goes slower on the SN.


What GRists infer and claim is a time slowing on SR wrt to Earth time.
This is illogical, as the reciprocal is true.



According to Terence, both Terra and the GRists are wrong,

There *is* no "right" or "wrong" here. Who is younger depends
on the frame of reference. There is no "absolute time".



This is trivial.

Then why do you say something nonsensical like "both Terra and
the GRists are wrong"?


Terra ignores that Galaxy keeps the same age as her. The GRists think
that time goes slower on supernovae wrt time on Earth, forgetting that
time on Earth goes slower, at the same rate, wrt time on supernovae.
The only logical conclusion is that no time effect can be observed from
Earth on SN.

I leave now, because I cannot repeat the same refutations ad nauseam.
You "seem" to reason like Terra and Galaxy in the little tale above.
And you don't "seem" to be able to understand its meaning.

[snip]


Bye,
Bjoern

Marcel Luttgens

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message ...
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 ?


A remark to all GRists:

Instead of quibbling about formulae incorporating the "assumed"
space expansion, (pseudo-)cosmologists should better give their opinion
about

The "Triplets" thought experiment (Adapted from the "Twin paradox")

Why? It is irrelevant for the cosmological time dilation.


Why is it irrelevant?

Because you keep acting as if the cosmological time dilation had
to do something with the velocity.

Are not remote galaxies receeding from
Earth with some velocity, which is a function of their distance?
Is such velocity only "apparent", Iow not real?

I already told you that the recession of the galaxies is due to
the space between them and us expanding.


Meaning that they are receeding form us at some velocity, which is
a function of their distance.


If it is a mere
illusion, how do you explain the Doppler shift?

The red shift is not a Doppler shift - it occurs due to the expansion
pf space. I already told you that, too - didn't you listen, or have you
forgotten that already?


Is not the velocity of expansion expressed in the equation
v = Hr, in which v is velocity, r is distance between two points.
What are those points, if not, for instance, the Earth and a galaxy?
H is related to the density of the universe, meaning that its value
varies if the universe is expanding (This doesn't mean that H was
infinite when (?) the BB took place).


And if it is real (for those believing in expansion of course,
I have to dot the i's), and some galaxy at distance d from Earth
moves at v wrt the Earth, does not the Earth moves at the same
velocity wrt the galaxy?

Seen from that galaxy, the Earth seems to move at the
same speed (but obviously in the opposite direction).


I would delete the restriction "seems".


For an Earth observer, is not the time
on the galaxy slowed down by some factor wrt the time on Earth?

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.


Does this not logically
mean that the Earth clock and the galactic clock tick at the same
rate,

No, not at all. Why on earth do you think so?


Those SR/GRists (seemingly all of them), who don't understand
simple logic could read and comment this little tale:

5 years old's twin logic
________________________

After many months of sunless weather, Terra and Galaxy are
equally pale. Their mother decides that they need to stay
a week at a sunny southern beach.

The fourth day after their arrival, Terra says to Galaxy:
"How suntanned are you! I am sure that you are darker than me!".
And Galaxy replies: "You too are darker than me!".

Their mother then said: "Yes, you are both darker than 4 days
ago, but your colour is exactly the same. None of you is darker
than the other.
Your logic is similar to that of cosmologists, who claim, like
Brian J. Barris et al. in arXiv: astro- ph/ 0310843 v1 29 Oct 2003:

"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...".

Your error is understandable, you are only 5 years old, but
contemporary cosmologists's deficient logic can only
be explained by the persistency of magical thinking. You will find
such persistency in astrology, big bang theory, relativity
theory, voodoo, etc...".


as confirmed by Terence in the "Triplets thought experiment"?

That thought experiment confirms nothing like that.


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.


Sure, what is your point?


how can the contemporary
cosmologists claim that a time dilation factor of (1 + z) works
on supernovae to lessen the delay in the rest frame?

Drop the rhetoric and look at the actual calculations.


I am looking forward to reading your comments.

I am looking forward to you misunderstanding them yet again.



"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, who considers that Galaxy flies away
from her at a velocity v,

Why should Terra consider that? Does she not know how to
add velocities in SR?



You don't seem to grasp the spirit of Terra's claim, which
is that Galaxy is flying away from her at some velocity.

We are talking about measurements here, not about "spirit".


As you like.


claims that Galaxy is now younger
than her, exactly like GRists claim that time goes slower on
SN because of space expansion.

That is in no way "exactly like".



Don't GRists make such claim? Remove "exactly" if you prefer.

GR say that time seems to have gone slower on the SN when the
light was emitted. Not that *today*, time *still* goes slower on the SN.


What GRists infer and claim is a time slowing on SR wrt to Earth time.
This is illogical, as the reciprocal is true.



According to Terence, both Terra and the GRists are wrong,

There *is* no "right" or "wrong" here. Who is younger depends
on the frame of reference. There is no "absolute time".



This is trivial.

Then why do you say something nonsensical like "both Terra and
the GRists are wrong"?


Terra ignores that Galaxy keeps the same age as her. The GRists think
that time goes slower on supernovae wrt time on Earth, forgetting that
time on Earth goes slower, at the same rate, wrt time on supernovae.
The only logical conclusion is that no time effect can be observed from
Earth on SN.

I leave now, because I cannot repeat the same refutations ad nauseam.
You "seem" to reason like Terra and Galaxy in the little tale above.
And you don't "seem" to be able to understand its meaning.

[snip]


Bye,
Bjoern

Marcel Luttgens

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" N: dlzc1 D:cox wrote in message news:Zu0Hc.12481$nc.8542@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: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.

Which one of so many? Date at least... please.

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.

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?


Where is the center?

David A. Smith

Marcel Luttgens

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" N: dlzc1 D:cox wrote in message news:Zu0Hc.12481$nc.8542@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: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.

Which one of so many? Date at least... please.

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.

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?


Where is the center?

David A. Smith

Marcel Luttgens

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message ...
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"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?

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

Marcel Luttgens


Troll/Crackpot warning:

http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...RLuttgens.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...es/Forget.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...Relations.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...SRSymbols.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di.../IfOnlyIf.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di.../ArmsGrow.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...ArmsGrow2.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...yGalilean.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...es/SpeedV.html

Oh my goodness. I see that he is totally beyond the border, and unable
to understand anything. I already suspected this, after he kept
repeating this silly statement that "the two time dilations cancel
each other", and this confirms it now.

Thanks for providing the links! I will try to ignore him in the future.


Bye,
Bjoern

Of course, it's simpler to follow the deranged Dirk than to disprove
logical arguments. Believing in voodoo is so much easier.

Bye,

Marcel Luttgens

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message ...
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"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?

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

Marcel Luttgens


Troll/Crackpot warning:

http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...RLuttgens.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...es/Forget.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...Relations.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...SRSymbols.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di.../IfOnlyIf.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di.../ArmsGrow.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...ArmsGrow2.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...yGalilean.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...es/SpeedV.html

Oh my goodness. I see that he is totally beyond the border, and unable
to understand anything. I already suspected this, after he kept
repeating this silly statement that "the two time dilations cancel
each other", and this confirms it now.

Thanks for providing the links! I will try to ignore him in the future.


Bye,
Bjoern

Of course, it's simpler to follow the deranged Dirk than to disprove
logical arguments. Believing in voodoo is so much easier.

Bye,

Marcel Luttgens

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

Dirk Van de moortel wrote:

"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?

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

Marcel Luttgens


Troll/Crackpot warning:

http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...RLuttgens.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...es/Forget.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...Relations.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...SRSymbols.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di.../IfOnlyIf.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di.../ArmsGrow.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...ArmsGrow2.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...yGalilean.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...es/SpeedV.html

Oh my goodness. I see that he is totally beyond the border, and unable
to understand anything. I already suspected this, after he kept
repeating this silly statement that "the two time dilations cancel
each other", and this confirms it now.

Thanks for providing the links! I will try to ignore him in the future.


Bye,
Bjoern


Of course, it's simpler to follow the deranged Dirk than to disprove
logical arguments.

I looked at the "arguments" you made in the posts linked to above.
They were not "logical", they only showed that you don't understand SR.
I also looked at some of the other posts in the relevant threads and
saw that you were unable to understand the corrections and explanations
which lots of people provided.


Believing in voodoo is so much easier.

I don't know, since I don't believe in voodoo.


Bye,
Bjoern

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

Dirk Van de moortel wrote:

"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?

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

Marcel Luttgens


Troll/Crackpot warning:

http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...RLuttgens.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...es/Forget.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...Relations.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...SRSymbols.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di.../IfOnlyIf.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di.../ArmsGrow.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...ArmsGrow2.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...yGalilean.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...es/SpeedV.html

Oh my goodness. I see that he is totally beyond the border, and unable
to understand anything. I already suspected this, after he kept
repeating this silly statement that "the two time dilations cancel
each other", and this confirms it now.

Thanks for providing the links! I will try to ignore him in the future.


Bye,
Bjoern


Of course, it's simpler to follow the deranged Dirk than to disprove
logical arguments.

I looked at the "arguments" you made in the posts linked to above.
They were not "logical", they only showed that you don't understand SR.
I also looked at some of the other posts in the relevant threads and
saw that you were unable to understand the corrections and explanations
which lots of people provided.


Believing in voodoo is so much easier.

I don't know, since I don't believe in voodoo.


Bye,
Bjoern

"Marcel Luttgens" wrote in message om...
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message ...
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"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?

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

Marcel Luttgens


Troll/Crackpot warning:

http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...RLuttgens.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...es/Forget.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...Relations.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...SRSymbols.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di.../IfOnlyIf.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di.../ArmsGrow.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...ArmsGrow2.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...yGalilean.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...es/SpeedV.html

Oh my goodness. I see that he is totally beyond the border, and unable
to understand anything. I already suspected this, after he kept
repeating this silly statement that "the two time dilations cancel
each other", and this confirms it now.

Thanks for providing the links! I will try to ignore him in the future.


Bye,
Bjoern

Of course, it's simpler to follow the deranged Dirk

There is nothing from *me* to follow in those links.
Everything in there was written by Marcel Luttgens ;-)

Dirk Vdm


than to disprove
logical arguments. Believing in voodoo is so much easier.

Bye,

Marcel Luttgens