SR time dilation on remote objects ?

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 11:05:42 +0200, Bjoern Feuerbacher
wrote:

The light from a supernova obviously gets dimmer with time.

The original collapse happens quickly.

The time
scale for this "decay" can be measured, and compared to the time
scale on which it *should* happen (based both on observations on
supernovae which are closer to us, and on our theories of stellar
evolution).

Sorry, I'm skeptical of theories based on very meager observations.

The result is: for supernovae which are far away, the time
scale is different - exactly in agreement with the time dilation
predictions of the BBT.

The predictions are for the big bang, not a little bang, far distant
in spacetime from the big bang and from us.

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 11:11:47 +0200, Bjoern Feuerbacher
wrote:

vonroach wrote:
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.

What would it take for you to conclude that the sun moves around the
earth? (please read the following before answering this question)

As I explained in another post (to Marcel Luttgens, IIRC): saying that
the galaxies really move, or that they only appear to move is
essentially a matter of "taste" - i.e., these are two different
descriptions of the same observations, in a sense observations from
different frames of reference.

And when galaxies collide, it is `taste' whether one says they move
and collide or that they `appear' to move and collide? And that all
galactic observations leave us with a choice of their moving or
`appear' to move? Do they rotate? One could choose to say that is
movement. If something doesn't move, then all this spacetime that we
have conjured up will go to waste, and time will cease except in a
tiny little solar system where movement occurs - spin, precession,
rotation, translation - a veritable solar-planet-moon ballet.

That's very close to the difference between geo- and heliocentrism:
in a frame of reference centered on the earth, one could say that the
sun (and essentially the rest of the universe) goes around the earth.
One can transform all laws of nature to this frame of reference and
describe everything happening in the universe in it. But obviously, the
other frame of reference, in which the earth goes around the sun, is
much preferable, and is used by essentially everyone.



A realist might
even say that the distance from one to the other is based on flimsy
evidence.

That would not be a realist, but an ignorant, who has no clue of
how distances are determined in astronomy.


What is you frame of reference?

See above.


Can you give coordinates in spacetime for both.

For both what?

And coordinates in which frame of reference?


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.

Depends on what you mean by "know". Cosmologists can *predict* what
the relative positions are in any moment, based on the distances and red
shifts measured.


Bye,
Bjoenr

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 11:11:47 +0200, Bjoern Feuerbacher
wrote:

vonroach wrote:
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.

What would it take for you to conclude that the sun moves around the
earth? (please read the following before answering this question)

As I explained in another post (to Marcel Luttgens, IIRC): saying that
the galaxies really move, or that they only appear to move is
essentially a matter of "taste" - i.e., these are two different
descriptions of the same observations, in a sense observations from
different frames of reference.

And when galaxies collide, it is `taste' whether one says they move
and collide or that they `appear' to move and collide? And that all
galactic observations leave us with a choice of their moving or
`appear' to move? Do they rotate? One could choose to say that is
movement. If something doesn't move, then all this spacetime that we
have conjured up will go to waste, and time will cease except in a
tiny little solar system where movement occurs - spin, precession,
rotation, translation - a veritable solar-planet-moon ballet.

That's very close to the difference between geo- and heliocentrism:
in a frame of reference centered on the earth, one could say that the
sun (and essentially the rest of the universe) goes around the earth.
One can transform all laws of nature to this frame of reference and
describe everything happening in the universe in it. But obviously, the
other frame of reference, in which the earth goes around the sun, is
much preferable, and is used by essentially everyone.



A realist might
even say that the distance from one to the other is based on flimsy
evidence.

That would not be a realist, but an ignorant, who has no clue of
how distances are determined in astronomy.


What is you frame of reference?

See above.


Can you give coordinates in spacetime for both.

For both what?

And coordinates in which frame of reference?


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.

Depends on what you mean by "know". Cosmologists can *predict* what
the relative positions are in any moment, based on the distances and red
shifts measured.


Bye,
Bjoenr

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 13:51:56 +0200, Bjoern Feuerbacher
wrote:

Marcel Luttgens wrote:
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" N: dlzc1 D:cox wrote in message news:5dSIc.48746$oh.26841@lakeread05...

Dear Marcel Luttgens:

"Marcel Luttgens" wrote in message
e.com...
...

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).


Much noise.

How much noise?



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.


It should be. The stretching of the time scale cannot be attributed to
space expansion,

Why not? Have you ever actually looked at the calculation?


but to local factors like the very high density of the
SN and the velocity of its expansion.

This is ambiguous: the rate of expansion of space? Or the rate of
expansion of the supernova (which is collapsing, not expanding). The
supernova is actually losing some mass in the collapse, and this
should decrease the expansion of space surrounding it.

Please give us some actual numbers.

And explain why the red shift increases with the distance to the SN.

Additionally, if the shift were a Doppler shift due to the velocity
of the expansion, it should be a *blue* shift, since we can obviously
only see the stuff moving towards us!

Why do you conclude this. The star is collapsing (surface moving
away). Only part of `debris' from the little bang should be moving
toward us.


snip exchanged insults

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 13:51:56 +0200, Bjoern Feuerbacher
wrote:

Marcel Luttgens wrote:
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" N: dlzc1 D:cox wrote in message news:5dSIc.48746$oh.26841@lakeread05...

Dear Marcel Luttgens:

"Marcel Luttgens" wrote in message
e.com...
...

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).


Much noise.

How much noise?



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.


It should be. The stretching of the time scale cannot be attributed to
space expansion,

Why not? Have you ever actually looked at the calculation?


but to local factors like the very high density of the
SN and the velocity of its expansion.

This is ambiguous: the rate of expansion of space? Or the rate of
expansion of the supernova (which is collapsing, not expanding). The
supernova is actually losing some mass in the collapse, and this
should decrease the expansion of space surrounding it.

Please give us some actual numbers.

And explain why the red shift increases with the distance to the SN.

Additionally, if the shift were a Doppler shift due to the velocity
of the expansion, it should be a *blue* shift, since we can obviously
only see the stuff moving towards us!

Why do you conclude this. The star is collapsing (surface moving
away). Only part of `debris' from the little bang should be moving
toward us.


snip exchanged insults

Dear vonroach:

"vonroach" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 16:45:21 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" N:
dlzc1 D:cox wrote:

Neglecting other observations, the red shift could be due to kinetic
velocity, yes. Including the proportional "dilation" of the duration of
a
Type I supernova.

Davy, seriously, are you nuts?

No. Are you deef?

David A. Smith

Dear vonroach:

"vonroach" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 16:45:21 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" N:
dlzc1 D:cox wrote:

Neglecting other observations, the red shift could be due to kinetic
velocity, yes. Including the proportional "dilation" of the duration of
a
Type I supernova.

Davy, seriously, are you nuts?

No. Are you deef?

David A. Smith

vonroach wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 11:05:42 +0200, Bjoern Feuerbacher
wrote:


The light from a supernova obviously gets dimmer with time.


The original collapse happens quickly.


The time
scale for this "decay" can be measured, and compared to the time
scale on which it *should* happen (based both on observations on
supernovae which are closer to us, and on our theories of stellar
evolution).


Sorry, I'm skeptical of theories based on very meager observations.

What makes you think that there are only "very meager observations"
on this???



The result is: for supernovae which are far away, the time
scale is different - exactly in agreement with the time dilation
predictions of the BBT.


The predictions are for the big bang, not a little bang, far distant
in spacetime from the big bang and from us.

I have no clue what this is supposed to mean, sorry.

Are you sure you know even what the BBT actually says?


Bye,
Bjoern

vonroach wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 11:05:42 +0200, Bjoern Feuerbacher
wrote:


The light from a supernova obviously gets dimmer with time.


The original collapse happens quickly.


The time
scale for this "decay" can be measured, and compared to the time
scale on which it *should* happen (based both on observations on
supernovae which are closer to us, and on our theories of stellar
evolution).


Sorry, I'm skeptical of theories based on very meager observations.

What makes you think that there are only "very meager observations"
on this???



The result is: for supernovae which are far away, the time
scale is different - exactly in agreement with the time dilation
predictions of the BBT.


The predictions are for the big bang, not a little bang, far distant
in spacetime from the big bang and from us.

I have no clue what this is supposed to mean, sorry.

Are you sure you know even what the BBT actually says?


Bye,
Bjoern

vonroach wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 11:11:47 +0200, Bjoern Feuerbacher
wrote:


vonroach wrote:

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.

What would it take for you to conclude that the sun moves around the
earth? (please read the following before answering this question)

As I explained in another post (to Marcel Luttgens, IIRC): saying that
the galaxies really move, or that they only appear to move is
essentially a matter of "taste" - i.e., these are two different
descriptions of the same observations, in a sense observations from
different frames of reference.


And when galaxies collide, it is `taste' whether one says they move
and collide or that they `appear' to move and collide?

Additional to the apparent motion due to the expansion of the universe,
there are also so-called "peculiar motions". These are real motions,
in every sense of the word - and *these* motions lead to galaxy collisions.


And that all
galactic observations leave us with a choice of their moving or
`appear' to move?

No, not all.


Do they rotate?

Yes. Rotation has nothing to do with the expansion of the universe.


One could choose to say that is
movement. If something doesn't move, then all this spacetime that we
have conjured up will go to waste, and time will cease except in a
tiny little solar system where movement occurs - spin, precession,
rotation, translation - a veritable solar-planet-moon ballet.

I don't understand how you arrive at this strange conclusion, sorry.

[snip]


Can you give coordinates in spacetime for both.

For both what?

And coordinates in which frame of reference?

Care to answer that?


[snip]


Bye,
Bjoern