|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
SR time dilation on remote objects ?
On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 17:32:57 +0200, Bjoern Feuerbacher
wrote: Sorry, but "a galaxy moving through the cosmos at 1/2 the speed of another galaxy relative to the other galaxy" makes no sense. Then it agrees with much of cosmology. I agree with the Czech scientist philosopher Mach, if it is not pragmatically experienced by some human sensation in the stream of sensations, then it is abstract hypothesis. I can experience mass, energy, inertia, momentum, force, acceleration, and yes gravity, electromagnetism, photons, atomic and sub atomic phenomenon in the chemical and physics laboratory and with the help of technical apparatus.. The Astronomy and space science that NASA has let us see is believable. I look at the cosmos and I just see what is there, all the rest is abstract hypothesis and an abundance of fanciful theories (all making `good sense' to somebody). Mathematics when it goes beyond counting and simple operations is just scratches on a piece of paper that mean nothing until it can be measured and the results seen. Call it skepticism or pragmatism or what ever you like. I've yet to see any `aging' or lack of it in space travel. |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
SR time dilation on remote objects ?
Dear Marcel Luttgens:
"Marcel Luttgens" wrote in message om... "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" N: dlzc1 D:cox wrote in message news:psyGc.10766$nc.2760@fed1read03... Dear Marcel Luttgens: "Marcel Luttgens" wrote in message om... "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" N: dlzc1 D:cox wrote in message news:21gGc.10202$nc.5420@fed1read03... Dear Marcel Luttgens: "Marcel Luttgens" wrote in message om... SR time dilation on remote objects ? Question: Can time be "SR dilated" on remote galaxies or supernovae, because of space expansion? "Can" it be, based on a single data set? Yes. "Can" it be, based on this particular sky-full of data? No. The velocity illusion, to which SR would apply, will only work if all the matter is moving away from some geometrical center, and only then if the velocity is proportional to particular' body's distance from that center. Our motion is away from an area of space that shows no evidence of having had a center. And we haven't travelled very far in 13 Gy, so we should be able to resolve it. Even a trillion years wouldn't hide it completely. Of course there is no center, or better, every point of the universe can be considered as a center. Otoh, using GR doesn't change the fact that what you call the velocity illusion is the same for any observer. The observer on Earth and the one on some remote galaxy will naively conclude that expansion causes some GR red shift, ignoring that both red shifts cancel each other. I agree with Bjoern here. To which "both" red shifts do you refer? The "kinetic" velocities of other objects in spacetime appear to be very similar to our own. Therefore, there is no way the red shift due to expansion will be cancelled. Only to have small offsets. You could look to my responses to Bjoern. Which one of so many? Date at least... please. The only evidence of the Big Bang is written at the observational the limits of the Universe, namely the CMBR. Even this is no evidence. It is evidence that the Universe had a center, and where/when that center was to be expected to be located. This is another problem for the BB proponents. In the beginning, there was a center, and now, the original center is everywhere. A stable eternal universe doesn't suffer from such logical inconsistencies. To say that the center is everywhere is really not true. What is true is that all points in the Universe *now* are exactly the same distance from the center. Does this correct at least one inconsistency? David A. Smith |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
SR time dilation on remote objects ?
Dear Marcel Luttgens:
"Marcel Luttgens" wrote in message om... "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" N: dlzc1 D:cox wrote in message news:psyGc.10766$nc.2760@fed1read03... Dear Marcel Luttgens: "Marcel Luttgens" wrote in message om... "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" N: dlzc1 D:cox wrote in message news:21gGc.10202$nc.5420@fed1read03... Dear Marcel Luttgens: "Marcel Luttgens" wrote in message om... SR time dilation on remote objects ? Question: Can time be "SR dilated" on remote galaxies or supernovae, because of space expansion? "Can" it be, based on a single data set? Yes. "Can" it be, based on this particular sky-full of data? No. The velocity illusion, to which SR would apply, will only work if all the matter is moving away from some geometrical center, and only then if the velocity is proportional to particular' body's distance from that center. Our motion is away from an area of space that shows no evidence of having had a center. And we haven't travelled very far in 13 Gy, so we should be able to resolve it. Even a trillion years wouldn't hide it completely. Of course there is no center, or better, every point of the universe can be considered as a center. Otoh, using GR doesn't change the fact that what you call the velocity illusion is the same for any observer. The observer on Earth and the one on some remote galaxy will naively conclude that expansion causes some GR red shift, ignoring that both red shifts cancel each other. I agree with Bjoern here. To which "both" red shifts do you refer? The "kinetic" velocities of other objects in spacetime appear to be very similar to our own. Therefore, there is no way the red shift due to expansion will be cancelled. Only to have small offsets. You could look to my responses to Bjoern. Which one of so many? Date at least... please. The only evidence of the Big Bang is written at the observational the limits of the Universe, namely the CMBR. Even this is no evidence. It is evidence that the Universe had a center, and where/when that center was to be expected to be located. This is another problem for the BB proponents. In the beginning, there was a center, and now, the original center is everywhere. A stable eternal universe doesn't suffer from such logical inconsistencies. To say that the center is everywhere is really not true. What is true is that all points in the Universe *now* are exactly the same distance from the center. Does this correct at least one inconsistency? David A. Smith |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
SR time dilation on remote objects ?
On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 17:45:13 +0200, Bjoern Feuerbacher
wrote: The time *seems* to have moved slower when the light we observe now on Earth left that galaxy. And for the galactic observer, is not time on Earth slowed down by the same factor wrt its own time? The time *seems* to have moved slower when the light they observe now on in that galaxy left the Earth. Actually the expect spikes in the spectrum have shifted to longer wave lengths (`lower' than expected) interpreted as meaning we (the observers) have moved further apart from the emitter since the light was emitter if our prediction of what the expected spectrum should show is correct, and the spectrum of Hydrogen, has been very reliable. A change in Hydrogen emission spectrum could be postulated but it has never been observed. Does this not logically mean that the Earth clock and the galactic clock tick at the same rate, No, not at all. Why on earth do you think so? as confirmed by Terence in the "Triplets thought experiment"? That thought experiment confirms nothing like that. As both clocks tick at the same rate, Now they do. When the light left the source, the clocks seem to have ticked at a different rate than they now do. What have clocks (whatever that is supposed to mean) have to do with it? The speed of light has been measured many times and is thought to be a constant . It is the `clock mechanism' that produces an apparent relative change. An astronaut in a spacecraft sets his watch by earthtime, then when he returns a slight error is noted, If not due to a faulty watch mechanism, it merely means it has kept accurate time in a different frame of reference than earth clocks. However you want to stretch, bend or fiddle with space and time in your imagination, the speed of light is a constant... or we go back to square one. |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
SR time dilation on remote objects ?
On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 17:45:13 +0200, Bjoern Feuerbacher
wrote: The time *seems* to have moved slower when the light we observe now on Earth left that galaxy. And for the galactic observer, is not time on Earth slowed down by the same factor wrt its own time? The time *seems* to have moved slower when the light they observe now on in that galaxy left the Earth. Actually the expect spikes in the spectrum have shifted to longer wave lengths (`lower' than expected) interpreted as meaning we (the observers) have moved further apart from the emitter since the light was emitter if our prediction of what the expected spectrum should show is correct, and the spectrum of Hydrogen, has been very reliable. A change in Hydrogen emission spectrum could be postulated but it has never been observed. Does this not logically mean that the Earth clock and the galactic clock tick at the same rate, No, not at all. Why on earth do you think so? as confirmed by Terence in the "Triplets thought experiment"? That thought experiment confirms nothing like that. As both clocks tick at the same rate, Now they do. When the light left the source, the clocks seem to have ticked at a different rate than they now do. What have clocks (whatever that is supposed to mean) have to do with it? The speed of light has been measured many times and is thought to be a constant . It is the `clock mechanism' that produces an apparent relative change. An astronaut in a spacecraft sets his watch by earthtime, then when he returns a slight error is noted, If not due to a faulty watch mechanism, it merely means it has kept accurate time in a different frame of reference than earth clocks. However you want to stretch, bend or fiddle with space and time in your imagination, the speed of light is a constant... or we go back to square one. |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
SR time dilation on remote objects ?
Dear vonroach:
"vonroach" wrote in message ... On Tue, 6 Jul 2004 18:08:15 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" N: dlzc1 D:cox wrote: Dear vonroach: "vonroach" wrote in message .. . On Tue, 6 Jul 2004 07:13:41 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" N: dlzc1 D:cox wrote: It is evidence that the Universe had a center, and where/when that center was to be expected to be located. Where is this center? The "where" was any particular "here". A point? All points are equidistant from the center... *now*. What has` when' got to do with where the center you postulate was located. Because any particular *now* is not at the center. Only the Big Bang is at the center. Expansion has removed the center from the "contents" of the Universe. The center is in the past? Yes. `Big Bang' as removed the center? 'Big Bang' is the center, yes. What ia all the CRR, remnants of the center? If you mean CMBR, then it is removed from the center by 270,000 years (or light years). Then was it something resembling a `singularity'? Not on this side of the Big Bang, no. Mass/energy spread more-or-less uniformly across the newly minted spacetime. No longer a singularity. All pretty nebulous wouldn't you say? ;) CBR seems to be rather uniform in all directions. There are finite geographies that do not have `centers'. If `red shift' is being correctly interpreted, everything appears to be receding from earth's point of view. Or from the point of view of any mass. Then you use `mass' as synonymous with human mass.? Any detector made of mass. Any location. Any velocity allowed to mass. All will have a net recession from the detector's position. A rather teensy weensy part of the mass in the Universe by any estimate. Not even really significant in the estimated 5% that we know a little about. Not sure where you are trying to go here... Are you? David A. Smith |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
SR time dilation on remote objects ?
Dear vonroach:
"vonroach" wrote in message ... On Tue, 6 Jul 2004 18:08:15 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" N: dlzc1 D:cox wrote: Dear vonroach: "vonroach" wrote in message .. . On Tue, 6 Jul 2004 07:13:41 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" N: dlzc1 D:cox wrote: It is evidence that the Universe had a center, and where/when that center was to be expected to be located. Where is this center? The "where" was any particular "here". A point? All points are equidistant from the center... *now*. What has` when' got to do with where the center you postulate was located. Because any particular *now* is not at the center. Only the Big Bang is at the center. Expansion has removed the center from the "contents" of the Universe. The center is in the past? Yes. `Big Bang' as removed the center? 'Big Bang' is the center, yes. What ia all the CRR, remnants of the center? If you mean CMBR, then it is removed from the center by 270,000 years (or light years). Then was it something resembling a `singularity'? Not on this side of the Big Bang, no. Mass/energy spread more-or-less uniformly across the newly minted spacetime. No longer a singularity. All pretty nebulous wouldn't you say? ;) CBR seems to be rather uniform in all directions. There are finite geographies that do not have `centers'. If `red shift' is being correctly interpreted, everything appears to be receding from earth's point of view. Or from the point of view of any mass. Then you use `mass' as synonymous with human mass.? Any detector made of mass. Any location. Any velocity allowed to mass. All will have a net recession from the detector's position. A rather teensy weensy part of the mass in the Universe by any estimate. Not even really significant in the estimated 5% that we know a little about. Not sure where you are trying to go here... Are you? David A. Smith |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
SR time dilation on remote objects ?
vonroach wrote:
On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 17:45:13 +0200, Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote: The time *seems* to have moved slower when the light we observe now on Earth left that galaxy. And for the galactic observer, is not time on Earth slowed down by the same factor wrt its own time? The time *seems* to have moved slower when the light they observe now on in that galaxy left the Earth. Actually the expect spikes in the spectrum have shifted to longer wave lengths (`lower' than expected) Not "actually". *Additionally*. interpreted as meaning we (the observers) have moved further apart from the emitter since the light was emitter if our prediction of what the expected spectrum should show is correct, No, interpreted as meaning that the space between us and the emitter has expanded. and the spectrum of Hydrogen, has been very reliable. When studying supernovae, one does not rely on the hydrogen spectrum, AFAIK. A change in Hydrogen emission spectrum could be postulated but it has never been observed. One would also have to postulate that the emission spectra of all the other elements which are studied change in the same way. [snip] As both clocks tick at the same rate, Now they do. When the light left the source, the clocks seem to have ticked at a different rate than they now do. What have clocks (whatever that is supposed to mean) have to do with it? Read "clock" as a short hand for "every observable effect which measures passages of time somehow" (in this case, e.g. the decay of the light curves of the SN). The speed of light has been measured many times and is thought to be a constant. Right. It is the `clock mechanism' that produces an apparent relative change. What do you mean by "clock mechanism"? An astronaut in a spacecraft sets his watch by earthtime, then when he returns a slight error is noted, If not due to a faulty watch mechanism, it merely means it has kept accurate time in a different frame of reference than earth clocks. However you want to stretch, bend or fiddle with space and time in your imagination, the speed of light is a constant... or we go back to square one. Agreed. Bye, Bjoern |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
SR time dilation on remote objects ?
vonroach wrote:
On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 17:45:13 +0200, Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote: The time *seems* to have moved slower when the light we observe now on Earth left that galaxy. And for the galactic observer, is not time on Earth slowed down by the same factor wrt its own time? The time *seems* to have moved slower when the light they observe now on in that galaxy left the Earth. Actually the expect spikes in the spectrum have shifted to longer wave lengths (`lower' than expected) Not "actually". *Additionally*. interpreted as meaning we (the observers) have moved further apart from the emitter since the light was emitter if our prediction of what the expected spectrum should show is correct, No, interpreted as meaning that the space between us and the emitter has expanded. and the spectrum of Hydrogen, has been very reliable. When studying supernovae, one does not rely on the hydrogen spectrum, AFAIK. A change in Hydrogen emission spectrum could be postulated but it has never been observed. One would also have to postulate that the emission spectra of all the other elements which are studied change in the same way. [snip] As both clocks tick at the same rate, Now they do. When the light left the source, the clocks seem to have ticked at a different rate than they now do. What have clocks (whatever that is supposed to mean) have to do with it? Read "clock" as a short hand for "every observable effect which measures passages of time somehow" (in this case, e.g. the decay of the light curves of the SN). The speed of light has been measured many times and is thought to be a constant. Right. It is the `clock mechanism' that produces an apparent relative change. What do you mean by "clock mechanism"? An astronaut in a spacecraft sets his watch by earthtime, then when he returns a slight error is noted, If not due to a faulty watch mechanism, it merely means it has kept accurate time in a different frame of reference than earth clocks. However you want to stretch, bend or fiddle with space and time in your imagination, the speed of light is a constant... or we go back to square one. Agreed. Bye, Bjoern |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
SR time dilation on remote objects ?
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
Dear vonroach: "vonroach" wrote in message ... [snip] What ia all the CRR, remnants of the center? If you mean CMBR, then it is removed from the center by 270,000 years (or light years). Where did you get those 270 000 years from? I never heard it before. The accepted number today seems to be around 380 000 years. See page 25 of http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/map/pub_papers/firstyear/parameters/wmap_parameters.pdf [snip] Bye, Bjoern |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
UFO Activities from Biblical Times | Kazmer Ujvarosy | Astronomy Misc | 0 | December 25th 03 05:21 AM |
Empirically Confirmed Superluminal Velocities? | Robert Clark | Astronomy Misc | 42 | November 11th 03 03:43 AM |
NASA Releases Near-Earth Object Search Report | Ron Baalke | Astronomy Misc | 0 | September 10th 03 04:39 PM |
Correlation between CMBR and Redshift Anisotropies. | The Ghost In The Machine | Astronomy Misc | 172 | August 30th 03 10:27 PM |
Incontrovertible Evidence | Cash | Astronomy Misc | 1 | August 24th 03 07:22 PM |