SR time dilation on remote objects ?

Dear vonroach:

"vonroach" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 07:11:10 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" N:
dlzc1 D:cox wrote:

Dear vonroach:

"Bjoern Feuerbacher" wrote in
message
...
vonroach wrote:
On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 13:21:09 +0200, Bjoern Feuerbacher
wrote:


I am claiming that the time on SN *at the time when the light was
emitted* *looks* dilated. Due to the expansion of space which
happened
since the emission of the light. Nothing more.


Based on a `red shift' in spectral elements?

Huh? No. I am talking about the time dilation seen in the light
curves.

Just to add a little more to Bjoern's response...
astro-ph/0104382
They arrived at close agreement in derived distances using four methods:
- red shift,
- time stretch of the duration of the SN event from max intensity to
some
fixed proportion of max intensity,
- intensity (1/r^2),
- and one other I couldn't figure out.

Huh? One you couldn't figure out?

I *am* an Idiot after all. ;)

You have a standard for the decay
in the intensity of a supernova? That's a new one.

Actually no. Type I supernovas are well documented. Just read the paper.
Do you need a better link?
URL:http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0104382
You can pick the flavor of document your 'puter will tolerate.

David A. Smith

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message ...
Marcel Luttgens wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message ...

Marcel Luttgens wrote:

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message ...


Marcel Luttgens wrote:


Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message ...


snip

You are claiming that time on SN is dilated wrt time on Earth,

No, I am not claiming that. Thanks for yet again showing that
you do not understand the things which are explained to you.

I am claiming that the time on SN *at the time when the light was
emitted* *looks* dilated. Due to the expansion of space which happened
since the emission of the light. Nothing more.



You should specify that it "looks" dilated by a factor f *to an Earth
observer*.

To any observer *now*, which as the same distance to the SN as we
on Earth.


And you are forgetting that the time on Earth *at the time when the
light was emitted* *looks* dilated by the same factor f *to a supernova
observer*.

Right.


This is a mere consequence of the Cosmological Principle,
according to which all positions in the universe are essentially
equivalent.

Mathematically, for an Earth observer, to a time interval t(earth)
corresponds a time interval
(1) t(supernova) = t(earth) * f, and symmetrically, for a galactic
observer, t(earth) = t(supernova) * f,
where f is the same time dilation factor.

Err, you are denoting quite different things with the same name here.

More correct is:
dt(supernova,when light was emitted) = f*dt(earth, when light is
observed)
and
dt(earth,when light was emitted) = f*dt(supernova, when light is
observed)

One can simplify that to
dt(when light was emitted) = f*dt(when light is observed),
since that is valid for every position of the emitter and of the
observer.


By replacing this
value of t(earth) in relation (1), one gets
t(supernova) = t(supernova) * f^2, which is only possible if f = 1.

Wrong premise == wrong conclusion. If you would have written this
down more carefully, like I show above, this does obviously not
follow.

You don't understand what you are talking about - and you show that
with every single post.


Thus relation (1) reduces to t(supernova) = t(earth), meaning
that, contrary to the claim made by contemporary cosmologists, no
"time dilation factor works on supernovae to lessen the delay in
the rest frame".
Contemporary cosmologists, who base their claim on general
relativity, are simply wrong.

You are simply wrong. Because you still attack silly strawmen.
And are not careful in writing down the equations.


Bye,
Bjoern

I am claiming that no time slowing effect on SN can be due to space
expansion. What happens is a reddening of light due to their enormous
gravitational potential (phi(SN) = -G*Mass(SN)/Radius(SN). Of course,
this reddening is time dependent, as the SN quickly expand.
Btw, this gravitational reddening doesn't seem to have been taken
into account by the cosmologists.

Otoh, I imagined the following scenario, which clearly falsifies SR.
Perhaps would your reaction be more honest than that of "Fumbling" Dirk.

"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote in message ...
"Marcel Luttgens" wrote in message m...

[snip]

I give you the chance to clarify your position

Marcel, forget it - you are an idiot, and for that kind of
person I follow Dilbert's advice.

[snip unread]

Being unable to justify your indefensible SR position, you prefer to
lie and shut your eyes to the evidence. Your cowardice and bad faith
are pitiful.

For those who are not typical crackpots like you, I put back what
you snipped and allegedly didn't read:

"In order to verify the validity of Einsteinian relativity, the NASA
decided to perform the following experiment, where two jet aircrafts
flying in opposite directions would each follow the same meridian.
The departure and arrival airport would be situated exactly on
the equator. The two aircrafts would climb at exactly the same rate
till their cruising altitude of about 10000 feet, and keep the
same speed of about 900 km/h. The whole experiment would thus last
about 44 hours.
At lift-off, the two aircrafts would synchronize their clocks.
At landing, they would compare the reading of the clocks.

In view of the fundamental importance of the experiment, the NASA
chose as pilots two distinguished relativists, "Fumbling"
Dirk and Björn "the GRist".

On D-day, at local time T, the two aircrafts took off.
About 5 hours after the take off, the NASA scientist asked the
two pilots if they thought that their clocks were still synchronized.

"Fumbling" Dirk automatically replied: "Of course not, according to
the Lorentz transformation, and assuming that the Earth is homogeneous
and perfectly spherical, time on Björn's plane is dilated,
hence its clock is now slow wrt my clock. So, at landing, we
should observe a time difference between the two clocks."

Björn "the GRist", very carefully replied: "Well, there is no
absolute time, the clock readings depend on the frame of reference.
Dirk is perfectly right to claim that my clock slowed down,
but I am also perfectly right to claim that his clock is now
slow wrt my clock. I don't know if the two clocks are now ticking
at the same rate, but they could nevertheless show the same time
at landing.". Alas, the NASA scientist couldn't make out the
meaning of such obscure utterance.

Needless to say that at landing, the two clocks showed exactly the
same time."


Dirk Vdm


Marcel Luttgens

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message ...
Marcel Luttgens wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message ...

Marcel Luttgens wrote:

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message ...


Marcel Luttgens wrote:


Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message ...


snip

You are claiming that time on SN is dilated wrt time on Earth,

No, I am not claiming that. Thanks for yet again showing that
you do not understand the things which are explained to you.

I am claiming that the time on SN *at the time when the light was
emitted* *looks* dilated. Due to the expansion of space which happened
since the emission of the light. Nothing more.



You should specify that it "looks" dilated by a factor f *to an Earth
observer*.

To any observer *now*, which as the same distance to the SN as we
on Earth.


And you are forgetting that the time on Earth *at the time when the
light was emitted* *looks* dilated by the same factor f *to a supernova
observer*.

Right.


This is a mere consequence of the Cosmological Principle,
according to which all positions in the universe are essentially
equivalent.

Mathematically, for an Earth observer, to a time interval t(earth)
corresponds a time interval
(1) t(supernova) = t(earth) * f, and symmetrically, for a galactic
observer, t(earth) = t(supernova) * f,
where f is the same time dilation factor.

Err, you are denoting quite different things with the same name here.

More correct is:
dt(supernova,when light was emitted) = f*dt(earth, when light is
observed)
and
dt(earth,when light was emitted) = f*dt(supernova, when light is
observed)

One can simplify that to
dt(when light was emitted) = f*dt(when light is observed),
since that is valid for every position of the emitter and of the
observer.


By replacing this
value of t(earth) in relation (1), one gets
t(supernova) = t(supernova) * f^2, which is only possible if f = 1.

Wrong premise == wrong conclusion. If you would have written this
down more carefully, like I show above, this does obviously not
follow.

You don't understand what you are talking about - and you show that
with every single post.


Thus relation (1) reduces to t(supernova) = t(earth), meaning
that, contrary to the claim made by contemporary cosmologists, no
"time dilation factor works on supernovae to lessen the delay in
the rest frame".
Contemporary cosmologists, who base their claim on general
relativity, are simply wrong.

You are simply wrong. Because you still attack silly strawmen.
And are not careful in writing down the equations.


Bye,
Bjoern

I am claiming that no time slowing effect on SN can be due to space
expansion. What happens is a reddening of light due to their enormous
gravitational potential (phi(SN) = -G*Mass(SN)/Radius(SN). Of course,
this reddening is time dependent, as the SN quickly expand.
Btw, this gravitational reddening doesn't seem to have been taken
into account by the cosmologists.

Otoh, I imagined the following scenario, which clearly falsifies SR.
Perhaps would your reaction be more honest than that of "Fumbling" Dirk.

"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote in message ...
"Marcel Luttgens" wrote in message m...

[snip]

I give you the chance to clarify your position

Marcel, forget it - you are an idiot, and for that kind of
person I follow Dilbert's advice.

[snip unread]

Being unable to justify your indefensible SR position, you prefer to
lie and shut your eyes to the evidence. Your cowardice and bad faith
are pitiful.

For those who are not typical crackpots like you, I put back what
you snipped and allegedly didn't read:

"In order to verify the validity of Einsteinian relativity, the NASA
decided to perform the following experiment, where two jet aircrafts
flying in opposite directions would each follow the same meridian.
The departure and arrival airport would be situated exactly on
the equator. The two aircrafts would climb at exactly the same rate
till their cruising altitude of about 10000 feet, and keep the
same speed of about 900 km/h. The whole experiment would thus last
about 44 hours.
At lift-off, the two aircrafts would synchronize their clocks.
At landing, they would compare the reading of the clocks.

In view of the fundamental importance of the experiment, the NASA
chose as pilots two distinguished relativists, "Fumbling"
Dirk and Björn "the GRist".

On D-day, at local time T, the two aircrafts took off.
About 5 hours after the take off, the NASA scientist asked the
two pilots if they thought that their clocks were still synchronized.

"Fumbling" Dirk automatically replied: "Of course not, according to
the Lorentz transformation, and assuming that the Earth is homogeneous
and perfectly spherical, time on Björn's plane is dilated,
hence its clock is now slow wrt my clock. So, at landing, we
should observe a time difference between the two clocks."

Björn "the GRist", very carefully replied: "Well, there is no
absolute time, the clock readings depend on the frame of reference.
Dirk is perfectly right to claim that my clock slowed down,
but I am also perfectly right to claim that his clock is now
slow wrt my clock. I don't know if the two clocks are now ticking
at the same rate, but they could nevertheless show the same time
at landing.". Alas, the NASA scientist couldn't make out the
meaning of such obscure utterance.

Needless to say that at landing, the two clocks showed exactly the
same time."


Dirk Vdm


Marcel Luttgens

On 13 Jul 2004 03:34:31 -0700, (Marcel Luttgens)
wrote:

The two aircrafts would climb at exactly the same rate
till their cruising altitude of about 10000 feet, and keep the
same speed of about 900 km/h. The whole experiment would thus last
about 44 hours.
At lift-off, the two aircrafts would synchronize their clocks.
At landing, they would compare the reading of the clocks.

Marcy, you must be new to this game. `aircraft' `take off' and
`spacecraft' `liftoff'. You see aircraft carry power on board, while
spacecraft require booster rockets in addition on board rockets to
lift them. Depart or leave are also good terms. NASA does have a fleet
of aircraft, some capable of flying very high and extremely fast, but
nothing that is going to have any really significant effect on time.
After all `time' is a nebulous dimension dreamed up by humans so that
everything doesn't happen at once. When you get the exact nature of
time worked out (beyond all the theories, dilatations, and
transforms), then please get right to work on dark matter (the other
95%).

On 13 Jul 2004 03:34:31 -0700, (Marcel Luttgens)
wrote:

The two aircrafts would climb at exactly the same rate
till their cruising altitude of about 10000 feet, and keep the
same speed of about 900 km/h. The whole experiment would thus last
about 44 hours.
At lift-off, the two aircrafts would synchronize their clocks.
At landing, they would compare the reading of the clocks.

Marcy, you must be new to this game. `aircraft' `take off' and
`spacecraft' `liftoff'. You see aircraft carry power on board, while
spacecraft require booster rockets in addition on board rockets to
lift them. Depart or leave are also good terms. NASA does have a fleet
of aircraft, some capable of flying very high and extremely fast, but
nothing that is going to have any really significant effect on time.
After all `time' is a nebulous dimension dreamed up by humans so that
everything doesn't happen at once. When you get the exact nature of
time worked out (beyond all the theories, dilatations, and
transforms), then please get right to work on dark matter (the other
95%).

Dear Marcel Luttgens:

"Marcel Luttgens" wrote in message
om...
....
I am claiming that no time slowing effect on SN can be due to space
expansion. What happens is a reddening of light due to their enormous
gravitational potential (phi(SN) = -G*Mass(SN)/Radius(SN). Of course,
this reddening is time dependent, as the SN quickly expand.
Btw, this gravitational reddening doesn't seem to have been taken
into account by the cosmologists.

The Type I supernovae is very limited as to the size of the solar mass.
Its behavior is characteristic. It was chosen because they all behave the
same (and since this is a value judgement, there is noise in the
accumulated data). Local examples all have similar rise and fall in
intensity. More distant ones have similar rise and fall in intensity, but
the time scale is stretched. The stretching of duration is very closely
related with the red shift. So either the behavor of SN is a function of
time, or the event is redshifted as much as the light. Gravitational
effects of the SN are taken into account, since they aren't Type I
supernovae if they have too much/too little mass.

Otoh, I imagined the following scenario, which clearly falsifies SR.
Perhaps would your reaction be more honest than that of "Fumbling" Dirk

You are quite obviously not interested in discussion, only in argument. A
similar experiment was run, with clocks accurate enough to accumulate a
difference. A difference was noted. The pilot(s) names did not seem to
get recorded.

David A. Smith

Dear Marcel Luttgens:

"Marcel Luttgens" wrote in message
om...
....
I am claiming that no time slowing effect on SN can be due to space
expansion. What happens is a reddening of light due to their enormous
gravitational potential (phi(SN) = -G*Mass(SN)/Radius(SN). Of course,
this reddening is time dependent, as the SN quickly expand.
Btw, this gravitational reddening doesn't seem to have been taken
into account by the cosmologists.

The Type I supernovae is very limited as to the size of the solar mass.
Its behavior is characteristic. It was chosen because they all behave the
same (and since this is a value judgement, there is noise in the
accumulated data). Local examples all have similar rise and fall in
intensity. More distant ones have similar rise and fall in intensity, but
the time scale is stretched. The stretching of duration is very closely
related with the red shift. So either the behavor of SN is a function of
time, or the event is redshifted as much as the light. Gravitational
effects of the SN are taken into account, since they aren't Type I
supernovae if they have too much/too little mass.

Otoh, I imagined the following scenario, which clearly falsifies SR.
Perhaps would your reaction be more honest than that of "Fumbling" Dirk

You are quite obviously not interested in discussion, only in argument. A
similar experiment was run, with clocks accurate enough to accumulate a
difference. A difference was noted. The pilot(s) names did not seem to
get recorded.

David A. Smith

In message , Bjoern Feuerbacher
writes
Marcel Luttgens wrote:
"Dirk Van de moortel"
wrote in message
...


[snip]


"Fumbling" Dirk is unable to realize the consequence of space
expansion, i.e. that galaxies move apart *from each other*.

Err, no. The space between them expands. This makes it only
look like as if they move apart.

Surely they are really moving apart, in the sense that it takes longer
for a signal to go from one to the other.
--
What have they got to hide? Release the full Beagle 2 report.
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.

In message , Bjoern Feuerbacher
writes
Marcel Luttgens wrote:
"Dirk Van de moortel"
wrote in message
...


[snip]


"Fumbling" Dirk is unable to realize the consequence of space
expansion, i.e. that galaxies move apart *from each other*.

Err, no. The space between them expands. This makes it only
look like as if they move apart.

Surely they are really moving apart, in the sense that it takes longer
for a signal to go from one to the other.
--
What have they got to hide? Release the full Beagle 2 report.
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.

On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 14:50:40 +0200, Bjoern Feuerbacher
wrote:

Err, no. The space between them expands. This makes it only
look like as if they move apart.

Err, what would it take for you to conclude that they really move
farther apart? Perhaps someone would say they move farther apart,
making it look like the space between them expands. A realist might
even say that the distance from one to the other is based on flimsy
evidence. What is you frame of reference? Can you give coordinates
in spacetime for both. Another voice would pop up, `look the event
occurred millions of lyears ago, you've no way to know what the
relative positions are at any given moment.