A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

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
  #71  
Old July 8th 04, 01:20 AM
vonroach
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default SR time dilation on remote objects ?

On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 17:32:57 +0200, Bjoern Feuerbacher
wrote:

Sorry, but "a galaxy moving through the cosmos at 1/2 the speed of
another galaxy relative to the other galaxy" makes no sense.


Then it agrees with much of cosmology. I agree with the Czech
scientist philosopher Mach, if it is not pragmatically experienced by
some human sensation in the stream of sensations, then it is abstract
hypothesis. I can experience mass, energy, inertia, momentum, force,
acceleration, and yes gravity, electromagnetism, photons, atomic and
sub atomic phenomenon in the chemical and physics laboratory and with
the help of technical apparatus.. The Astronomy and space science that
NASA has let us see is believable. I look at the cosmos and I just
see what is there, all the rest is abstract hypothesis and an
abundance of fanciful theories (all making `good sense' to somebody).
Mathematics when it goes beyond counting and simple operations is just
scratches on a piece of paper that mean nothing until it can be
measured and the results seen. Call it skepticism or pragmatism or
what ever you like. I've yet to see any `aging' or lack of it in space
travel.
  #72  
Old July 8th 04, 01:24 AM
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: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?

David A. Smith


  #73  
Old July 8th 04, 01:24 AM
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: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?

David A. Smith


  #74  
Old July 8th 04, 01:52 AM
vonroach
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default SR time dilation on remote objects ?

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


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


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


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


Actually the expect spikes in the spectrum have shifted to longer wave
lengths (`lower' than expected) interpreted as meaning we (the
observers) have moved further apart from the emitter since the light
was emitter if our prediction of what the expected spectrum should
show is correct, and the spectrum of Hydrogen, has been very reliable.
A change in Hydrogen emission spectrum could be postulated but it has
never been observed.

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?


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.

What have clocks (whatever that is supposed to mean) have to do with
it? The speed of light has been measured many times and is thought to
be a constant . It is the `clock mechanism' that produces an apparent
relative change. An astronaut in a spacecraft sets his watch by
earthtime, then when he returns a slight error is noted, If not due to
a faulty watch mechanism, it merely means it has kept accurate time in
a different frame of reference than earth clocks. However you want to
stretch, bend or fiddle with space and time in your imagination, the
speed of light is a constant... or we go back to square one.


  #75  
Old July 8th 04, 01:52 AM
vonroach
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default SR time dilation on remote objects ?

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


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


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


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


Actually the expect spikes in the spectrum have shifted to longer wave
lengths (`lower' than expected) interpreted as meaning we (the
observers) have moved further apart from the emitter since the light
was emitter if our prediction of what the expected spectrum should
show is correct, and the spectrum of Hydrogen, has been very reliable.
A change in Hydrogen emission spectrum could be postulated but it has
never been observed.

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?


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.

What have clocks (whatever that is supposed to mean) have to do with
it? The speed of light has been measured many times and is thought to
be a constant . It is the `clock mechanism' that produces an apparent
relative change. An astronaut in a spacecraft sets his watch by
earthtime, then when he returns a slight error is noted, If not due to
a faulty watch mechanism, it merely means it has kept accurate time in
a different frame of reference than earth clocks. However you want to
stretch, bend or fiddle with space and time in your imagination, the
speed of light is a constant... or we go back to square one.


  #76  
Old July 8th 04, 03:05 AM
N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default SR time dilation on remote objects ?

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*.

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.

`Big Bang' as removed the center?


'Big Bang' is the center, yes.

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).

Then was it something resembling
a `singularity'?


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

All pretty nebulous wouldn't you say?


;)

CBR seems to be rather uniform in all
directions. There are finite geographies that do not have `centers'.
If `red shift' is being correctly interpreted, everything appears to
be receding from earth's point of view.


Or from the point of view of any mass.


Then you use `mass' as synonymous with human mass.?


Any detector made of mass. Any location. Any velocity allowed to mass.
All will have a net recession from the detector's position.

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?

David A. Smith


  #77  
Old July 8th 04, 03:05 AM
N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default SR time dilation on remote objects ?

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*.

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.

`Big Bang' as removed the center?


'Big Bang' is the center, yes.

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).

Then was it something resembling
a `singularity'?


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

All pretty nebulous wouldn't you say?


;)

CBR seems to be rather uniform in all
directions. There are finite geographies that do not have `centers'.
If `red shift' is being correctly interpreted, everything appears to
be receding from earth's point of view.


Or from the point of view of any mass.


Then you use `mass' as synonymous with human mass.?


Any detector made of mass. Any location. Any velocity allowed to mass.
All will have a net recession from the detector's position.

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?

David A. Smith


  #78  
Old July 8th 04, 08:51 AM
Bjoern Feuerbacher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default SR time dilation on remote objects ?

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



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



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


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



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


Not "actually". *Additionally*.


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


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


and the spectrum of Hydrogen, has been very reliable.


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


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


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



[snip]


As both clocks tick at the same rate,


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


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


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


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


Right.


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


What do you mean by "clock mechanism"?


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


Agreed.


Bye,
Bjoern
  #79  
Old July 8th 04, 08:51 AM
Bjoern Feuerbacher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default SR time dilation on remote objects ?

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



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



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


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



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


Not "actually". *Additionally*.


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


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


and the spectrum of Hydrogen, has been very reliable.


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


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


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



[snip]


As both clocks tick at the same rate,


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


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


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


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


Right.


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


What do you mean by "clock mechanism"?


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


Agreed.


Bye,
Bjoern
  #80  
Old July 8th 04, 09:02 AM
Bjoern Feuerbacher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default SR time dilation on remote objects ?

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
Dear vonroach:

"vonroach" wrote in message
...


[snip]

What ia
all the CRR, remnants of the center?



If you mean CMBR, then it is removed from the center by 270,000 years (or
light years).


Where did you get those 270 000 years from? I never heard it before.
The accepted number today seems to be around 380 000 years. See page 25 of
http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/map/pub_papers/firstyear/parameters/wmap_parameters.pdf



[snip]

Bye,
Bjoern
 




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 11:03 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.