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. 


Thread Tools  Display Modes 
#11




SR time dilation on remote objects ?
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. Space is thought to have expanding ever since. The CMBR supports the Big Bang theory. Nice that we agree on that. Bye, Bjoern 
Ads 
#12




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 
#13




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 
#14




SR time dilation on remote objects ?
"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 skyfull 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. 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. Which indicates the Big Bang was everywhere. David A. Smith Marcel Luttgens 
#15




SR time dilation on remote objects ?
"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 skyfull 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. 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. Which indicates the Big Bang was everywhere. David A. Smith Marcel Luttgens 
#16




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 timedependent, and therefore according to your own argument here, the Hubble parameter has to be timedependent, 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.uniheidelberg.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 
#17




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 timedependent, and therefore according to your own argument here, the Hubble parameter has to be timedependent, 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.uniheidelberg.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 
#18




SR time dilation on remote objects ?
Marcel Luttgens wrote:
[snip] 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. How on earth should the two red shifts cancel each other??????????? 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. Why not? [snip] Bye, Bjoern 
#19




SR time dilation on remote objects ?
Marcel Luttgens wrote:
[snip] 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. How on earth should the two red shifts cancel each other??????????? 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. Why not? [snip] Bye, Bjoern 
#20




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 
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 NearEarth 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 