SR time dilation on remote objects ?

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

Marcel Luttgens wrote:

[snip]


Evasion noted. Answer my questions above. Do you claim that this formula
is wrong? Or that applying it to a homogeneous universe would not give
zero?


Let's make some "reverse engineering":

O.k.



Let's consider an imaginary stable spherical universe of mean density rho
and radius R.

Let's consider an imaginary stable homogeneous universe of density
rho, with the shape of a cuboid which extends infinitely in two
directionsand has the thickness D in the third direction.



At the surface of the sphere, the acceleration A of gravity is
given by the formula A = GM/R^2, where G is the gravitational
constant.

At both surfaces of the cuboid, the acceleration A of gravity is given
by the formula A = G D rho / 2, where G is the gravitational constant.

The acceleration is everywhere parallel to the direction in which the
cuboid has the thickness D.


At a distance d R from the center of the sphere, the acceleration
of gravity becomes a = A*d/R = (GM/R^3)*d

At a height d D above the middle plane of the cuboid, the acceleration
of gravity becomes a = A*d/D = G d rho / 2.


As rho = M/V and V = (4/3)*pi*R^3, M/R^3 = (4/3)*pi*rho, hence
a = [(4/3)*G*pi*rho]*d

I do not need this step, since my formula above expresses a already in
terms of rho, not in terms of M.


In this formula, a is independant from R, thus R can take
any value. Hence, the formula should apply to a stable infinite
universe of mean density rho.

In this formula, a is independent of D, thus D can take on any value.
Hence, the formula should apply to a stable infinite homogeneous universe
of density rho.

I.e. in an infinitely extended homogeneous universe, the gravitational
field is parallel everywhere and points to a certain plane. Not the
result you wanted to achieve, eh?


Will you now *finally* admit that there is something wrong with your
approach?


Your approach is nice, but doesn't lead to H or formulae applicable
to our universe. Mine does. For instance, d = 13.7 * z/(z+1) Gly
leads to about the same results as those obtained by Ned Wright with
his calculator for a flat universe with H0=71 and Omega M = 0.27.
The only difference lies in the choice of Omega M = 0.42 instead of 0.27.
As I said, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.


[snip]


Bye,
Bjoern

Marcel Luttgens

In message , Marcel
Luttgens writes

Your approach is nice, but doesn't lead to H or formulae applicable
to our universe. Mine does. For instance, d = 13.7 * z/(z+1) Gly
leads to about the same results as those obtained by Ned Wright with
his calculator for a flat universe with H0=71 and Omega M = 0.27.
The only difference lies in the choice of Omega M = 0.42 instead of 0.27.
As I said, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.


I may have missed it, but have you explained how H0 applies to your
universe ? (which is static)
--
What have they got to hide? Release the ESA Beagle 2 report.
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.

On 3 Sep 2004 04:19:08 -0700, (Marcel Luttgens)
wrote:

Because a child could claim this.

I don't think that childs even know the meanings of all the terms in
the phrase above.


Escapist!

You might both be surprised at some of the results being seen at the
Transnational school of LEX, where they approach mathematics as they
would any foreign language. They have a web site with some interesting
information. They have all ready published `texts' on Fourier
Transform, Quantum Mechanics, and DNA. They also learn as a class 6 or
7 languages - Japanese, English, Spanish, German, Korean, Thai, etc
using a similar approach. Mathematics is just approached as a foreign
language with surprising results.

On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 14:22:48 +0200, Bjoern Feuerbacher
wrote:

BTW, how *could* such a universe be stable? You yourself say that there
is a gravitational acceleration, so it can't be stable!!!

gravitational acceleration? Does anyone deny that a gravitational
acceleration is a constant for any given mass? I thought at least that
was agreed on.

Jonathan Silverlight wrote in message ...
In message , Marcel
Luttgens writes
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message
...

Well, the result you get for the gravitational field of the universe
then is obviously wrong, as my argument above shows.

Your argument implies that gravity can be felt at distances greater
than c/H.


You keep talking about c/H and cH, but if H has its usual meaning surely
it doesn't apply to a static universe?

At a distance d R from the center of the sphere, the acceleration
of gravity becomes a = A*d/R = (GM/R^3)*d

As rho = M/V and V = (4/3)*pi*R^3, M/R^3 = (4/3)*pi*rho, hence
a = [(4/3)*G*pi*rho]*d

In this formula, a is independant from R, thus R can take
any value. Hence, the formula should apply to a stable infinite
universe of mean density rho.

As the dimension of a is L/T^2, the dimension of (4/3)*G*pi*rho
is 1/T^2, and the square root of this expression corresponds to
the inverse of a time.

The formula a = [(4/3)*G*pi*rho]*d can thus be written
a = K^2 * d

Or the Hubble constant also corresponds to 1/T, and is given,
according to Steven Weinberg (see Gravitation and Cosmology, 1972,
p. 476) by the formula
H^2 = (8/3)*G*pi*rho(c), where rho(c) is the critical density of the
universe.
As the ratio of the present density rho to the critical density
rho / rho(c) = 2*q0, and q0 is likely 1, rho(c) = rho/2.
Then H^2 = (4/3)*G*pi*rho(c) = K^2, or K = H.

The formula giving the acceleration of gravity at a distance d
from a point P situated in a stable and even infinite (as R can
take any value) universe can thus also be written
a = H^2 * d

Marcel Luttgens

Marcel Luttgens wrote:

Will you also answer my other post?


Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message ...

Marcel Luttgens wrote:

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message ...


Marcel Luttgens wrote:

[snip]



Evasion noted. Answer my questions above. Do you claim that this formula
is wrong? Or that applying it to a homogeneous universe would not give
zero?


Let's make some "reverse engineering":

O.k.




Let's consider an imaginary stable spherical universe of mean density rho
and radius R.

Let's consider an imaginary stable homogeneous universe of density
rho, with the shape of a cuboid which extends infinitely in two
directionsand has the thickness D in the third direction.




At the surface of the sphere, the acceleration A of gravity is
given by the formula A = GM/R^2, where G is the gravitational
constant.

At both surfaces of the cuboid, the acceleration A of gravity is given
by the formula A = G D rho / 2, where G is the gravitational constant.

The acceleration is everywhere parallel to the direction in which the
cuboid has the thickness D.



At a distance d R from the center of the sphere, the acceleration
of gravity becomes a = A*d/R = (GM/R^3)*d

At a height d D above the middle plane of the cuboid, the acceleration
of gravity becomes a = A*d/D = G d rho / 2.



As rho = M/V and V = (4/3)*pi*R^3, M/R^3 = (4/3)*pi*rho, hence
a = [(4/3)*G*pi*rho]*d

I do not need this step, since my formula above expresses a already in
terms of rho, not in terms of M.



In this formula, a is independant from R, thus R can take
any value. Hence, the formula should apply to a stable infinite
universe of mean density rho.

In this formula, a is independent of D, thus D can take on any value.
Hence, the formula should apply to a stable infinite homogeneous universe
of density rho.

I.e. in an infinitely extended homogeneous universe, the gravitational
field is parallel everywhere and points to a certain plane. Not the
result you wanted to achieve, eh?


Will you now *finally* admit that there is something wrong with your
approach?



Your approach is nice, but doesn't lead to H or formulae applicable
to our universe. Mine does.

*sigh* You failed to get the point. With your approach, one gets the
result that there is a spherical symmetric gravitational field in
a universe with a homogeneous density. With my approach, one gets the
result that in such a universe, there exists a homogeneous gravitational
field pointing to a plane.

Obviously not both results can be right at once, hence at least one of
them *has* to be wrong. But both approaches are *equally* valid.
Conclusion: *both* approaches are *not* valid.

What's your problem with understanding this *very simple* logic?


For instance, d = 13.7 * z/(z+1) Gly
leads to about the same results as those obtained by Ned Wright with
his calculator for a flat universe with H0=71 and Omega M = 0.27.

Which results do you mean, specifically? And what does "about the same"
mean? How big are the deviations?


The only difference lies in the choice of Omega M = 0.42 instead of 0.27.
As I said, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

Right. Please note that the BBT explains all the stuff below. I wonder
how you explain it...

* Where does the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation come from in your
model? Why is it so marvelously homogeneous? How do you explain the power
spectrum of the fluctuations in it, e.g. the acoustic peak? How do you
explain that when one takes these fluctations as representing density
fluctuations, and does computer simulations to see how these density
fluctuations grow with time, one gets the present-day large scale
structure of the universe? How do you explain that the temperature of
the CMBR changes with time?

* How do you explain that the universe is static and does not
collapse under the influence of gravity?

* How do you explain that there is evidence that in the early universe,
the expansion of the universe was decelerating, and only some billion
years ago started accelerating?

* How do you explain that the oldest stars we can see are only about 13
billion years old, although small stars can live for hundreds of
billions of years? If there was no Big Bang, but the universe is static,
why don't we see such stars?

* How do you explain that galaxies far away from us look very different
from the ones close to us? (see e.g. quasars, or the Hubble Ultra Deep
Field)

* How do you explain the abundance of elements in the universe? If it
existed for an infinite time in the past, why are not all elements fused
to iron now?

* What about the second law of thermodynamics? If the universe is
infinitely old, entropy should be at a maximum now.


Bye,
Bjoern

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


Will you also answer my other post?

*** Sure.

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message ...

Marcel Luttgens wrote:


Let's consider an imaginary stable spherical universe of mean density rho
and radius R.

Let's consider an imaginary stable homogeneous universe of density
rho, with the shape of a cuboid which extends infinitely in two
directionsand has the thickness D in the third direction.

At the surface of the sphere, the acceleration A of gravity is
given by the formula A = GM/R^2, where G is the gravitational
constant.

At both surfaces of the cuboid, the acceleration A of gravity is given
by the formula A = G D rho / 2, where G is the gravitational constant.

The acceleration is everywhere parallel to the direction in which the
cuboid has the thickness D.



At a distance d R from the center of the sphere, the acceleration
of gravity becomes a = A*d/R = (GM/R^3)*d

At a height d D above the middle plane of the cuboid, the acceleration
of gravity becomes a = A*d/D = G d rho / 2.



As rho = M/V and V = (4/3)*pi*R^3, M/R^3 = (4/3)*pi*rho, hence
a = [(4/3)*G*pi*rho]*d

I do not need this step, since my formula above expresses a already in
terms of rho, not in terms of M.



In this formula, a is independant from R, thus R can take
any value. Hence, the formula should apply to a stable infinite
universe of mean density rho.

In this formula, a is independent of D, thus D can take on any value.
Hence, the formula should apply to a stable infinite homogeneous universe
of density rho.

I.e. in an infinitely extended homogeneous universe, the gravitational
field is parallel everywhere and points to a certain plane. Not the
result you wanted to achieve, eh?


Will you now *finally* admit that there is something wrong with your
approach?



Your approach is nice, but doesn't lead to H or formulae applicable
to our universe. Mine does.

*sigh* You failed to get the point. With your approach, one gets the
result that there is a spherical symmetric gravitational field in
a universe with a homogeneous density. With my approach, one gets the
result that in such a universe, there exists a homogeneous gravitational
field pointing to a plane.

Obviously not both results can be right at once, hence at least one of
them *has* to be wrong. But both approaches are *equally* valid.
Conclusion: *both* approaches are *not* valid.

What's your problem with understanding this *very simple* logic?


*** Some humans are hairy, other not. Are you implying that for
instance Chineses are not human?

For instance, d = 13.7 * z/(z+1) Gly
leads to about the same results as those obtained by Ned Wright with
his calculator for a flat universe with H0=71 and Omega M = 0.27.

Which results do you mean, specifically? And what does "about the same"
mean? How big are the deviations?

*** The deviations are small. Here are some results
(light travel time in Gy):

z Ted Wright (Omega M = 0.27) Luttgens (d = 13.7 * z/(z+1))

0.1 1.29 1.25
0.5 5.02 4.57
1 7.73 6.85
3 11.48 10.28
6 12.72 11.74


z Ted Wright (Omega M = 0.42)

0.1 1.27
0.5 4.79
1 7.18
3 10.29
6 11.21

As you implied, all results can be wrong.


The only difference lies in the choice of Omega M = 0.42 instead of 0.27.
As I said, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

Right. Please note that the BBT explains all the stuff below. I wonder
how you explain it...

*** If cosmologists were not BBT biased, they could perhaps explain
the stuff below by hypothetizing a stable univere.

* Where does the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation come from in your
model? Why is it so marvelously homogeneous? How do you explain the power
spectrum of the fluctuations in it, e.g. the acoustic peak? How do you
explain that when one takes these fluctations as representing density
fluctuations, and does computer simulations to see how these density
fluctuations grow with time, one gets the present-day large scale
structure of the universe? How do you explain that the temperature of
the CMBR changes with time?

*** It is not marvelously homogeneous. This is the biggest problem
for BBT proponents.

* How do you explain that the universe is static and does not
collapse under the influence of gravity?

*** Einstein had a solution, the cosmological constant.

* How do you explain that there is evidence that in the early universe,
the expansion of the universe was decelerating, and only some billion
years ago started accelerating?

*** First inflation, then deceleration, followed by acceleration.
How can one believe in such ad hoc cosmological calisthenics?

* How do you explain that the oldest stars we can see are only about 13
billion years old, although small stars can live for hundreds of
billions of years? If there was no Big Bang, but the universe is static,
why don't we see such stars?

*** Did you ask youself about the fate of those small stars?
(helium white dwarf, etc., far cooler than the current
minimum mass main sequence stars. The luminosity of these
frugal objects would be more than a thousand times smaller
than the dimmest stars of today, with commensurate increases
in longevity, see arXiv: astro- ph/ 9701131 v1 18/01/1997,
A DYING UNIVERSE: The Long Term Fate and Evolution of
Astrophysical Objects).

* How do you explain that galaxies far away from us look very different
from the ones close to us? (see e.g. quasars, or the Hubble Ultra Deep
Field)

*** What you get is what you see.

* How do you explain the abundance of elements in the universe? If it
existed for an infinite time in the past, why are not all elements fused
to iron now?

*** Because of recycling.

* What about the second law of thermodynamics? If the universe is
infinitely old, entropy should be at a maximum now.

*** Should?

Instead of trying at any price to save the BBT, cosmologists
should look for alternative theories.

Marcel Luttgens

Bye,
Bjoern

vonroach wrote in message . ..
On 3 Sep 2004 04:19:08 -0700, (Marcel Luttgens)
wrote:

Because a child could claim this.

I don't think that childs even know the meanings of all the terms in
the phrase above.


Escapist!

You might both be surprised at some of the results being seen at the
Transnational school of LEX, where they approach mathematics as they
would any foreign language. They have a web site with some interesting
information. They have all ready published `texts' on Fourier
Transform, Quantum Mechanics, and DNA. They also learn as a class 6 or
7 languages - Japanese, English, Spanish, German, Korean, Thai, etc
using a similar approach. Mathematics is just approached as a foreign
language with surprising results.

Thanks.

Marcel Luttgens

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

Marcel Luttgens wrote:




[snip]


*sigh* You failed to get the point. With your approach, one gets the
result that there is a spherical symmetric gravitational field in
a universe with a homogeneous density. With my approach, one gets the
result that in such a universe, there exists a homogeneous gravitational
field pointing to a plane.

Obviously not both results can be right at once, hence at least one of
them *has* to be wrong. But both approaches are *equally* valid.
Conclusion: *both* approaches are *not* valid.

What's your problem with understanding this *very simple* logic?


*** Some humans are hairy, other not. Are you implying that for
instance Chineses are not human?

No. But what on earth has that to do with my argument above?



For instance, d = 13.7 * z/(z+1) Gly
leads to about the same results as those obtained by Ned Wright with
his calculator for a flat universe with H0=71 and Omega M = 0.27.


Which results do you mean, specifically? And what does "about the same"
mean? How big are the deviations?

*** The deviations are small. Here are some results
(light travel time in Gy):

Taken from where, specifically?


z Ted Wright (Omega M = 0.27) Luttgens (d = 13.7 * z/(z+1))

0.1 1.29 1.25
0.5 5.02 4.57
1 7.73 6.85
3 11.48 10.28
6 12.72 11.74

Deviations of up to about 8%.



z Ted Wright (Omega M = 0.42)

0.1 1.27
0.5 4.79
1 7.18
3 10.29
6 11.21


Deviations of up to 9%.


I would not call that "small".



As you implied, all results can be wrong.

Huh? What are you talking about?



The only difference lies in the choice of Omega M = 0.42 instead of 0.27.

So you also use a cosmological constant?


As I said, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.


Right. Please note that the BBT explains all the stuff below. I wonder
how you explain it...

*** If cosmologists were not BBT biased, they could perhaps explain
the stuff below by hypothetizing a stable univere.

Perhaps. That is a total wild speculation. Could you please explain how
the present model is able to describe the universe so well if it is wrong?


There *are* are were always some cosmologists who tried to model a
stable universe (Hoyle, Narlikar, etc.). However, they failed to explain
all the stuff below, although they worked for decades on that - and at
least Hoyle is obviously a rather bright man (you know that he got the
Nobel prize?).


* Where does the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation come from in your
model? Why is it so marvelously homogeneous? How do you explain the power
spectrum of the fluctuations in it, e.g. the acoustic peak? How do you
explain that when one takes these fluctations as representing density
fluctuations, and does computer simulations to see how these density
fluctuations grow with time, one gets the present-day large scale
structure of the universe? How do you explain that the temperature of
the CMBR changes with time?

*** It is not marvelously homogeneous.

Let's see. Five questions, and you answered only one of them, and that
only by asserting something which is completely wrong. The CMBR *is*
marvelously homogeneous. The fluctuations are on the order of 10^(-5)!


This is the biggest problem for BBT proponents.

Next false assertion. As I pointed out above, when one takes these
fluctations as representing density fluctuations, and does computer
simulations to see how these density fluctuations grow with time, one
gets the present-day large scale structure of the universe. So the
inhomogenities are not a problem, but they are exactly of the size
needed for our models to work!


* How do you explain that the universe is static and does not
collapse under the influence of gravity?

*** Einstein had a solution, the cosmological constant.

The cosmological constant is a parameter in the equations of General
Relativity. Please tell me how you derive your model from these equations.


* How do you explain that there is evidence that in the early universe,
the expansion of the universe was decelerating, and only some billion
years ago started accelerating?

*** First inflation, then deceleration, followed by acceleration.

Yes.


How can one believe in such ad hoc cosmological calisthenics?

There is nothing ad hoc about the deceleration and acceleration. Both
are supported by solid evidence. Inflation is partly ad hoc, but also
makes predictions which can be tested - and *were* tested, with
confirming results.

Who was it who said just above "the proof of the pudding is in the
eating"? And who is OTOH who keeps ignoring about 95% of the available
positive evidence for the BBT, and inflates every small problem with the
theory to huge proportions?


* How do you explain that the oldest stars we can see are only about 13
billion years old, although small stars can live for hundreds of
billions of years? If there was no Big Bang, but the universe is static,
why don't we see such stars?

*** Did you ask youself about the fate of those small stars?

Yes.


(helium white dwarf, etc.,
far cooler than the current
minimum mass main sequence stars. The luminosity of these
frugal objects would be more than a thousand times smaller
than the dimmest stars of today, with commensurate increases
in longevity, see arXiv: astro- ph/ 9701131 v1 18/01/1997,
A DYING UNIVERSE: The Long Term Fate and Evolution of
Astrophysical Objects).

Totally irrelevant here, since I was *not* talking about white dwarfs. I
meant the remains of K and M stars. If the universe were much older than
13.7 billion years, quite a lot of K and M stars should have left the
main sequence already. But we don't see any such stars.


* How do you explain that galaxies far away from us look very different
from the ones close to us? (see e.g. quasars, or the Hubble Ultra Deep
Field)

*** What you get is what you see.

Evasion noted.


* How do you explain the abundance of elements in the universe? If it
existed for an infinite time in the past, why are not all elements fused
to iron now?

*** Because of recycling.

How? Evasion noted.



* What about the second law of thermodynamics? If the universe is
infinitely old, entropy should be at a maximum now.

*** Should?

Yes. Evasion noted.



Instead of trying at any price to save the BBT, cosmologists
should look for alternative theories.

Marcel Luttgens

Bye,
Bjoern

In message , Marcel
Luttgens writes

I presume that you will disagree with the following
quote. I don't disclose the name of its author, because
some mainstreamers could label him as a crank.


Trouble is, there are no secrets from Google :-) and if you champion
ideas such as a face on Mars and the EPH as the origin of the asteroids
the label begins to look right.
--
What have they got to hide? Release the ESA Beagle 2 report.
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.