SR time dilation on remote objects ?

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.

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

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

Marcel Luttgens wrote:


[snip older attributions - and more]



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.

Ignored - although this is the crucial point, where your error
occurs!



[snip]


I am claiming that no time slowing effect on SN can be due to space
expansion.

You have no argument for that. And you ignore the actual calculations
which show that such a time slowing effect *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).

1) Why do we *observe* a time dilation in the light curves?
2) If the red shift is due to the gravitational potential to
the supernovae, why does it increases (approximately) linearly
with our distance to the SN?


Of course,
this reddening is time dependent, as the SN quickly expand.

No time dependence of the red shift is observed, AFAIK.


Btw, this gravitational reddening doesn't seem to have been taken
into account by the cosmologists.

Because it is totally negligible compared to the cosmological
red shift. Put in some numbers.


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

I see no reason to spend time on your "scenario", as long as you
ignore my correction of your error above.


[snip]


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.".

I said (and would say) no such thing. Stop making things up, stop
attacking straw man, and start addressing my actual arguments.

[snip]


Bye,
Bjoern

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

Marcel Luttgens wrote:


[snip older attributions - and more]



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.

Ignored - although this is the crucial point, where your error
occurs!



[snip]


I am claiming that no time slowing effect on SN can be due to space
expansion.

You have no argument for that. And you ignore the actual calculations
which show that such a time slowing effect *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).

1) Why do we *observe* a time dilation in the light curves?
2) If the red shift is due to the gravitational potential to
the supernovae, why does it increases (approximately) linearly
with our distance to the SN?


Of course,
this reddening is time dependent, as the SN quickly expand.

No time dependence of the red shift is observed, AFAIK.


Btw, this gravitational reddening doesn't seem to have been taken
into account by the cosmologists.

Because it is totally negligible compared to the cosmological
red shift. Put in some numbers.


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

I see no reason to spend time on your "scenario", as long as you
ignore my correction of your error above.


[snip]


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.".

I said (and would say) no such thing. Stop making things up, stop
attacking straw man, and start addressing my actual arguments.

[snip]


Bye,
Bjoern

"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
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).

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

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.


You are mixing up my thought experiment and the Haefele & Keating
experiment. Mine falsifies SR. I would appreciate your tentative refutation.

David A. Smith

Marcel Luttgens

"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
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).

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

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.


You are mixing up my thought experiment and the Haefele & Keating
experiment. Mine falsifies SR. I would appreciate your tentative refutation.

David A. Smith

Marcel Luttgens

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
.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.

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!



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.



You are mixing up my thought experiment and the Haefele & Keating
experiment. Mine falsifies SR.

Nice for you. Now, what about the actual Haefele & Keating experiment,
which verified SR?


I would appreciate your tentative refutation.

I would appreciate if you would actually address my arguments,
instead of attacking straw men and going off on tangents.



Bye,
Bjoern

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
.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.

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!



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.



You are mixing up my thought experiment and the Haefele & Keating
experiment. Mine falsifies SR.

Nice for you. Now, what about the actual Haefele & Keating experiment,
which verified SR?


I would appreciate your tentative refutation.

I would appreciate if you would actually address my arguments,
instead of attacking straw men and going off on tangents.



Bye,
Bjoern

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.

David A. Smith
Davy, seriously, are you nuts?

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.

David A. Smith
Davy, seriously, are you nuts?

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.