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
  #1  
Old July 5th 04, 02:23 PM
Marcel Luttgens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default SR time dilation on remote objects ?

SR time dilation on remote objects ?

Question:

Can time be "SR dilated" on remote galaxies or supernovae, because
of space expansion?

Details are given hereafter, as well as the refusal by the
moderator to post my question in sci.physics.research

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. Why don't you allow experts to disprove my
demonstration? Science doesn't deserves censorship.

I am confident that you wouldn't mind if I posted your present
refusal on another, not "moderated" newsgroup. Am I too optimistic?
If you don't answer, I'll conclude that you agree.

Marcel Luttgens

Date: 04/07/04 14:33
From : "Urs Schreiber"
To : "Marcel Luttgens"


Objet : SR Time dilation on supernovae ?


I am sorry, but saying that contemporary cosmology and GR are
fundamentally wrong is overly speculative and not appropriate
for s.p.r.

Sincerely,


Urs Schreiber,
moderator, s.p.r.


----- Original Message -----


From: "Marcel Luttgens"
Newsgroups: sci.physics.research
To:
Sent: Sunday, July 04, 2004 2:29 PM
Subject: SR Time dilation on supernovae ?


Excerpt from:

High Redshift Supernovae from the IfA Deep Survey:
Doubling the SN Sample at z 0 . 7

(arXiv: astro- ph/ 0310843 v1 29 Oct 2003)

Brian J. Barris, John L. Tonry, Stephane Blondin, Peter Challis,
Ryan Chornock, Alejandro Clocchiatti, Alexei V. Filippenko,
Peter Garnavich, Stephen T. Holland, Saurabh Jha, Robert P. Kirshner,
Kevin Krisciunas, Bruno Leibundgut, Weidong Li, Thomas Matheson,
Gajus Miknaitis, Adam G. Riess, Brian P. Schmidt, R. Chris Smith,
Jesper Sollerman, Jason Spyromilio, Christopher W. Stubbs, Nicholas
B. Suntzeff, Herve Aussel, K. C. Chambers, M. S. Connelley,
D. Donovan, J. Patrick Henry, Nick Kaiser, Michael C. Liu,
Eduardo L. Martin, and Richard J. Wainscoat

Excerpt (p.12):

"Typically, the discovery epoch of a high-z supernova
is a few days before maximum brightness, and although
the time dilation factor of (1 + z) works to lessen
the delay in the rest frame, etc...".

As no time dilation factor can be due to space recession
(cf. the "Triplets tought experiment" below), the contemporary
cosmologists are fundamentally wrong.

One can thus wonder about the degree of confidence that can be
given to their interpretation of the supernovae observations,
especially with regard to the acceleration of the assumed
expansion and the correlatively hypothesized dark energy.

The validity of GR formulae is also questionable, because
GR expresses the red shift of distant sources in terms of
special relativity (the "relativistic Doppler" formula).

The "Triplets" thought experiment (Cf. 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, a SR adept who considers that Galaxy
flies away from her at a velocity v, claims that Galaxy is now
younger than her, exactly like the 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.

Question:
________

Can time be "SR dilated" on supernovae, because of space
expansion?

Thanks,

Marcel Luttgens


Ads
  #2  
Old July 5th 04, 04:46 PM
Bjoern Feuerbacher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default SR time dilation on remote objects ?

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.


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.


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!


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?


Science doesn't deserves 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
  #3  
Old July 5th 04, 04:46 PM
Bjoern Feuerbacher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default SR time dilation on remote objects ?

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.


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.


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!


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?


Science doesn't deserves 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
  #4  
Old July 5th 04, 06:15 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...
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.

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


  #5  
Old July 5th 04, 06:15 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...
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.

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


  #6  
Old July 6th 04, 01:31 AM
vonroach
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default SR time dilation on remote objects ?

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' . Space is
thought to have expanding ever since. The CMBR supports the Big Bang
theory.
  #7  
Old July 6th 04, 01:31 AM
vonroach
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default SR time dilation on remote objects ?

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' . Space is
thought to have expanding ever since. The CMBR supports the Big Bang
theory.
  #8  
Old July 6th 04, 02:32 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 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.


But `everywhere' was hypothesized to be a `singularity' . Space is
thought to have expanding ever since. The CMBR supports the Big Bang
theory.


You have said nothing *I* disagree with.

The singularity was for the Universe that contains us. Once inside, the
mass/energy made its own space. An equivalent amount of mass/energy in all
directions cannot prevent expansion, through the use of gravitation as a
restraining "force".

The "center", or more correctly 270000 ly from the center, is still visible
all around us.

David A. Smith


  #9  
Old July 6th 04, 02:32 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 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.


But `everywhere' was hypothesized to be a `singularity' . Space is
thought to have expanding ever since. The CMBR supports the Big Bang
theory.


You have said nothing *I* disagree with.

The singularity was for the Universe that contains us. Once inside, the
mass/energy made its own space. An equivalent amount of mass/energy in all
directions cannot prevent expansion, through the use of gravitation as a
restraining "force".

The "center", or more correctly 270000 ly from the center, is still visible
all around us.

David A. Smith


  #10  
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
 




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 05:02 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2021 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.