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
  #11  
Old July 6th 04, 08:22 AM
Bjoern Feuerbacher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old July 6th 04, 09:59 AM
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 ?

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  
Old July 6th 04, 09:59 AM
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 ?

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  
Old July 6th 04, 10:16 AM
Marcel Luttgens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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 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.

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  
Old July 6th 04, 10:16 AM
Marcel Luttgens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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 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.

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  
Old July 6th 04, 12:08 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 ?

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 time-dependent, and therefore according
to your own argument here, the Hubble parameter has to be
time-dependent, 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.uni-heidelberg.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  
Old July 6th 04, 12:08 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 ?

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 time-dependent, and therefore according
to your own argument here, the Hubble parameter has to be
time-dependent, 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.uni-heidelberg.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  
Old July 6th 04, 12:09 PM
Bjoern Feuerbacher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old July 6th 04, 12:09 PM
Bjoern Feuerbacher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
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
 




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 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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:23 PM.


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.