|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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: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. 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
|
|||
|
|||
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: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. 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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
SR time dilation on remote objects ?
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
SR time dilation on remote objects ?
|
#30
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |