SR time dilation on remote objects ?

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

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.


Iow, when galaxy A moves wrt galaxy B, the opposite is phyically
true: galaxy B moves wrt galaxy A. Hence, when A observes a
time slowing on B, B necessarily observes the *same* time
slowing on A.

Right. But your conclusion that these effects somehow cancel
is total rubbish.


SRists, like "Fumbling" Dirk, who claim against
every logic that A, or B, can observe a time dilation on B,
or on A, can only be qualified as crackpots.

Try finding the fault in *your* so-called logic, crackpit.



[snip]


Bye,
Bjoern

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.


Iow, when galaxy A moves wrt galaxy B, the opposite is phyically
true: galaxy B moves wrt galaxy A. Hence, when A observes a
time slowing on B, B necessarily observes the *same* time
slowing on A.

Right. But your conclusion that these effects somehow cancel
is total rubbish.


SRists, like "Fumbling" Dirk, who claim against
every logic that A, or B, can observe a time dilation on B,
or on A, can only be qualified as crackpots.

Try finding the fault in *your* so-called logic, crackpit.



[snip]


Bye,
Bjoern

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.

David A. Smith

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.

David A. Smith

On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 10:11:09 +0200, Bjoern Feuerbacher
wrote:

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.

Huh? `Time dilatation seen in light curves' How does it manifest
itself if not by frequency change?

The expansion still referable to the big bang?

Huh?

Why is relative motion occurring? One cause might be residual
expansion as a result of `big bang'

The constant velocity light traversing the
variable distance between two objects both moving relative to each
other?

Yes.


Bye,
Bjoern

On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 10:11:09 +0200, Bjoern Feuerbacher
wrote:

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.

Huh? `Time dilatation seen in light curves' How does it manifest
itself if not by frequency change?

The expansion still referable to the big bang?

Huh?

Why is relative motion occurring? One cause might be residual
expansion as a result of `big bang'

The constant velocity light traversing the
variable distance between two objects both moving relative to each
other?

Yes.


Bye,
Bjoern

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.

David A. Smith

Huh? One you couldn't figure out? You have a standard for the decay
in the intensity of a supernova? That's a new one.

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.

David A. Smith

Huh? One you couldn't figure out? You have a standard for the decay
in the intensity of a supernova? That's a new one.

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