A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

SR time dilation on remote objects ?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old July 6th 04, 01:28 PM
Marcel Luttgens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default SR time dilation on remote objects ?

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")
_________________________________

"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, claims that Galaxy is now younger
than her, exactly like 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."

Till now, none of them dared to comment.
They should at least try to demonstrate that Terence is wrong.
As long as they play escapism, one has to conclude that
they are unsure of the validity of their paradigms.
In the meantime, further discussion is a mere waste of time.

Marcel Luttgens
Ads
  #22  
Old July 6th 04, 01:34 PM
Bjoern Feuerbacher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default SR time dilation on remote objects ?

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.


_________________________________

"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?


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".


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".


because Terra's clock and Galaxy's clock tick at the same
rate."


Right. And still irrelevant for cosmology.



Till now, none of them dared to comment.
They should at least try to demonstrate that Terence is wrong.


No. In his frame of reference, he is perfectly right.

In their frames of referenes, both Galaxy and Terra are also
perfectly right to claim that the other one is younger.

And this is still irrelevant for cosmology.


As long as they play escapism, one has to conclude that
they are unsure of the validity of their paradigms.
In the meantime, further discussion is a mere waste of time.


Discussion with someone who keeps confusing SR time dilation with
GR time dilation, despite several corrections, could also be
considered as a waste of time.


Bye,
Bjoern
  #23  
Old July 6th 04, 01:34 PM
Bjoern Feuerbacher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default SR time dilation on remote objects ?

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.


_________________________________

"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?


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".


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".


because Terra's clock and Galaxy's clock tick at the same
rate."


Right. And still irrelevant for cosmology.



Till now, none of them dared to comment.
They should at least try to demonstrate that Terence is wrong.


No. In his frame of reference, he is perfectly right.

In their frames of referenes, both Galaxy and Terra are also
perfectly right to claim that the other one is younger.

And this is still irrelevant for cosmology.


As long as they play escapism, one has to conclude that
they are unsure of the validity of their paradigms.
In the meantime, further discussion is a mere waste of time.


Discussion with someone who keeps confusing SR time dilation with
GR time dilation, despite several corrections, could also be
considered as a waste of time.


Bye,
Bjoern
  #24  
Old July 6th 04, 03:13 PM
N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default SR time dilation on remote objects ?

Dear Marcel Luttgens:

"Marcel Luttgens" wrote in message
om...
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" N: dlzc1 D:cox wrote in

message news:[email protected]
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.

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.

David A. Smith


  #25  
Old July 6th 04, 03:13 PM
N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default SR time dilation on remote objects ?

Dear Marcel Luttgens:

"Marcel Luttgens" wrote in message
om...
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" N: dlzc1 D:cox wrote in

message news:[email protected]
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.

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.

David A. Smith


  #26  
Old July 6th 04, 03:55 PM
vonroach
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default SR time dilation on remote objects ?

On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 09:22:11 +0200, Bjoern Feuerbacher
wrote:

vonroach wrote:
On Mon, 5 Jul 2004 10:15:42 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" N:
dlzc1 D:cox wrote:


The only evidence of the Big Bang is written at the observational the
limits of the Universe, namely the CMBR. Which indicates the Big Bang was
everywhere.

David A. Smith


But `everywhere' was hypothesized to be a `singularity'.


1) "singularity" is not necessarily the same as "point".
2) Probably there never was a singularity - at very high gravitational
fields (i.e. very high densities, close to the Big Bang) Quantum Gravity
effects should become important, and that could avoid a singularity. We
don't know yet.


Do you know what hypothesize means? As you state we do not know. Even
`probably' is an exaggeration. Gravitational fields, quantum gravity,
are speculative which means the subject of thought, experiment, and
theorizing. Your very high densities, I interpret to mean very
concentrated matter, and very concentrated mass/energy, and any
`space' present would also be very tightly compacted. A point has no
dimension, only location. A singularity is a vague concept that
implies very dense space/matter in very compact `space'.
Do you think a `singularity' is ever a `point'? I don't believe that
is the case. I don't recall using the term `point'.

Space is
thought to have expanding ever since. The CMBR supports the Big Bang
theory.


Nice that we agree on that.

But not necessarily at the same rate?
ta ta
Bye,
Bjoern


  #27  
Old July 6th 04, 03:55 PM
vonroach
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default SR time dilation on remote objects ?

On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 09:22:11 +0200, Bjoern Feuerbacher
wrote:

vonroach wrote:
On Mon, 5 Jul 2004 10:15:42 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" N:
dlzc1 D:cox wrote:


The only evidence of the Big Bang is written at the observational the
limits of the Universe, namely the CMBR. Which indicates the Big Bang was
everywhere.

David A. Smith


But `everywhere' was hypothesized to be a `singularity'.


1) "singularity" is not necessarily the same as "point".
2) Probably there never was a singularity - at very high gravitational
fields (i.e. very high densities, close to the Big Bang) Quantum Gravity
effects should become important, and that could avoid a singularity. We
don't know yet.


Do you know what hypothesize means? As you state we do not know. Even
`probably' is an exaggeration. Gravitational fields, quantum gravity,
are speculative which means the subject of thought, experiment, and
theorizing. Your very high densities, I interpret to mean very
concentrated matter, and very concentrated mass/energy, and any
`space' present would also be very tightly compacted. A point has no
dimension, only location. A singularity is a vague concept that
implies very dense space/matter in very compact `space'.
Do you think a `singularity' is ever a `point'? I don't believe that
is the case. I don't recall using the term `point'.

Space is
thought to have expanding ever since. The CMBR supports the Big Bang
theory.


Nice that we agree on that.

But not necessarily at the same rate?
ta ta
Bye,
Bjoern


  #30  
Old July 6th 04, 04:10 PM
vonroach
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default SR time dilation on remote objects ?

On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 14:34:51 +0200, Bjoern Feuerbacher
wrote:

And this is still irrelevant for cosmology.

Can a galaxy moving through the cosmos at 1/2 the speed of another
galaxy claim to be older?
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
UFO Activities from Biblical Times Kazmer Ujvarosy Astronomy Misc 0 December 25th 03 06:21 AM
Empirically Confirmed Superluminal Velocities? Robert Clark Astronomy Misc 42 November 11th 03 04:43 AM
NASA Releases Near-Earth Object Search Report Ron Baalke Astronomy Misc 0 September 10th 03 04:39 PM
Correlation between CMBR and Redshift Anisotropies. The Ghost In The Machine Astronomy Misc 172 August 30th 03 10:27 PM
Incontrovertible Evidence Cash Astronomy Misc 1 August 24th 03 07:22 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:29 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2022 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.