SR time dilation on remote objects ?

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

Marcel Luttgens wrote:

SR time dilation on remote objects ?


A remark to all GRists:

Instead of quibbling about formulae incorporating the "assumed"
space expansion, (pseudo-)cosmologists should better give their opinion
about

The "Triplets" thought experiment (Adapted from the "Twin paradox")

Why? It is irrelevant for the cosmological time dilation.

Why is it irrelevant? Are not remote galaxies receeding from
Earth with some velocity, which is a function of their distance?
Is such velocity only "apparent", Iow not real? If it is a mere
illusion, how do you explain the Doppler shift?
And if it is real (for those believing in expansion of course,
I have to dot the i's), and some galaxy at distance d from Earth
moves at v wrt the Earth, does not the Earth moves at the same
velocity wrt the galaxy? For an Earth observer, is not the time
on the galaxy slowed down by some factor wrt the time on Earth?
And for the galactic observer, is not time on Earth slowed
down by the same factor wrt its own time? Does this not logically
mean that the Earth clock and the galactic clock tick at the same
rate, as confirmed by Terence in the "Triplets thought experiment"?
As both clocks tick at the same rate, how can the contemporary
cosmologists claim that a time dilation factor of (1 + z) works
on supernovae to lessen the delay in the rest frame?
I am looking forward to reading your comments.



_________________________________

"Terence sits at home on Earth. Galaxy (yes, it's her name)
flies off in a space ship at a velocity v/2. Simultaneously,
Terra (also a name) flies off in the opposite direction at -v/2.
After a while, Terra, who considers that Galaxy flies away
from her at a velocity v,

Why should Terra consider that? Does she not know how to
add velocities in SR?


You don't seem to grasp the spirit of Terra's claim, which
is that Galaxy is flying away from her at some velocity.


claims that Galaxy is now younger
than her, exactly like GRists claim that time goes slower on
SN because of space expansion.

That is in no way "exactly like".


Don't GRists make such claim? Remove "exactly" if you prefer.


According to Terence, both Terra and the GRists are wrong,

There *is* no "right" or "wrong" here. Who is younger depends
on the frame of reference. There is no "absolute time".


This is trivial.


because Terra's clock and Galaxy's clock tick at the same
rate."

Right. And still irrelevant for cosmology.


Right, what a nice and honest concession!

But *not* irrelevant for cosmology: both clocks tick at the same
rate, not only according to Terence, but also, logically, to
Terra and Galaxy, who both should apply the Cosmological Principle.
Iow, they should know that the time slowing effect due to expansion
is symmetrical, and therefore conclude, contrary to the claims by
illogical relativistic cosmologists, to the absence of any observable
time dilation effect on remote objects like supernovae.



Till now, none of them dared to comment.
They should at least try to demonstrate that Terence is wrong.

No. In his frame of reference, he is perfectly right.


Fine.

In their frames of references, both Galaxy and Terra are also
perfectly right to claim that the other one is younger.

And this is still irrelevant for cosmology.


Could you elaborate, not forgetting elementary logic?
This also would be fine.

[Ad hominem comments snipped]



Bye,
Bjoern

Marcel Luttgens

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

Marcel Luttgens wrote:

SR time dilation on remote objects ?

Question:

Can time be "SR dilated" on remote galaxies or supernovae, because
of space expansion?

No. Apparent time dilation due to space expansion has nothing to
do with the time dilation of SR.



What do you mean by "apparent"? Is it such time expansion or not?

I don't know what you mean by "time expansion".


From the context, I clearly meant "time dilation". Now you could perhaps
explain what you mean by "apparent".


Anyhow, explaining the assumed time dilation by SR or by GR doesn't
change the fact the space expansion acts symmetrically,

What on earth is that supposed to mean?


Did you sleep enough last night? Bist du nicht ein bischen müde?


meaning that somebody on Earth *cannot* observe such dilation.

Why on earth do you think so?

Because A claims that the time on B moving away from him is dilated,
and B symmetrically claims that time on A is dilated wrt its own time.
As both are simultaneously right, the only logical conclusion is that
the two time dilations cancel each other.
But as a SR/GRist, you prefer to believe (yes, "believe") that both
are right. What a disastrous conclusion!



Claiming
that space expansion gives a time dilation redshift is simply wrong.
Only a Doppler shift can be observed.

You have never actually seen the calculations, right?


A hopeless argument. You are incorrigible.


Details are given hereafter, as well as the refusal by the
moderator to post my question in sci.physics.research

Perhaps because you could read this up yourself if you would
bother to actually open a book on cosmology? I recommend
"The early universe" by Kolb&Turner.



This is a good example of crooked debating.

It is "crooked debating" to tell you that you miss the basic knowledge
about this topic, and provide a reference where you can read it up???


Again and again the same ad hominem ...



[snip]


I am not "saying that contemporary cosmology and GR are fundamentally
wrong", I prove it.

You prove nothing like that. You even don't know what modern
cosmology says. E.g., you didn't know that the Hubble parameter
is time dependent even during quite ordinary expansion!



The Hubble constant is determined by the mean density of the
universe. Instead of just claiming that it is time dependent,

Err, didn't you notice that due to expansion, the mean density
of the universe is obviously time-dependent, and therefore according
to your own argument here, the Hubble parameter has to be
time-dependent, too?


For the expansion proponents, it is of course time dependent, but even
for them, it is *to-day* determined by the mean density of the universe.


you should better show the formula,

The formulas are there in any book on cosmology. Try looking into them.


I preferred your own formulae. With GR, according to the assumed
premises, one can say almost anything.

Further, for a particular model, I once wrote down the calculations
myself. The text is in German, but the formulas should be clear enough.
http://www.rzuser.uni-heidelberg.de/~bfeuerba/universum.pdf
The formulas there are for an accelerated universe (with cosmological
constant different from zero), but it's not hard to take the limit
of cosmological constant going to zero, and the result is that H then
still depends on t (hint: the result of taking the limit is H(t) =
2/(3t) - and that's a formula you can find in lots of books on cosmology).


Thank you. Of course, H depends historically on t, as the mean density
of the universe varies with t if the universe is expanding (with an
"apparent" ;-) velocity).


and simultaneously explain why the
assumed space expansion is not symmetrical for all observers.

I don't understand what you mean by "symmetrical" here, sorry.


Not yet?


Why don't you allow experts to disprove my
demonstration?

Because they have better things to do than to correct your
elementary misconceptions about the Big Bang theory?



The Big Bangers are those which are full of misconceptions.

Says the one who did not even know that H depends on t during
ordinary expansion...


What a bad faith!


The BB theory is riddled with ad hoc patches.

For example? (I expect now that you will mention inflation, dark
matter and dark energy - thus displaying that you have no clue of
the evidence for that stuff, and of the reasons why it was introduced)


Ad hoc inflation, large scale structures, accelerated expansion, usw...
Please remind me why dark energy has been introduced.


[snip]


Bye,
Bjoern

Marcel Luttgens

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

Marcel Luttgens wrote:

SR time dilation on remote objects ?

Question:

Can time be "SR dilated" on remote galaxies or supernovae, because
of space expansion?

No. Apparent time dilation due to space expansion has nothing to
do with the time dilation of SR.



What do you mean by "apparent"? Is it such time expansion or not?

I don't know what you mean by "time expansion".


From the context, I clearly meant "time dilation". Now you could perhaps
explain what you mean by "apparent".


Anyhow, explaining the assumed time dilation by SR or by GR doesn't
change the fact the space expansion acts symmetrically,

What on earth is that supposed to mean?


Did you sleep enough last night? Bist du nicht ein bischen müde?


meaning that somebody on Earth *cannot* observe such dilation.

Why on earth do you think so?

Because A claims that the time on B moving away from him is dilated,
and B symmetrically claims that time on A is dilated wrt its own time.
As both are simultaneously right, the only logical conclusion is that
the two time dilations cancel each other.
But as a SR/GRist, you prefer to believe (yes, "believe") that both
are right. What a disastrous conclusion!



Claiming
that space expansion gives a time dilation redshift is simply wrong.
Only a Doppler shift can be observed.

You have never actually seen the calculations, right?


A hopeless argument. You are incorrigible.


Details are given hereafter, as well as the refusal by the
moderator to post my question in sci.physics.research

Perhaps because you could read this up yourself if you would
bother to actually open a book on cosmology? I recommend
"The early universe" by Kolb&Turner.



This is a good example of crooked debating.

It is "crooked debating" to tell you that you miss the basic knowledge
about this topic, and provide a reference where you can read it up???


Again and again the same ad hominem ...



[snip]


I am not "saying that contemporary cosmology and GR are fundamentally
wrong", I prove it.

You prove nothing like that. You even don't know what modern
cosmology says. E.g., you didn't know that the Hubble parameter
is time dependent even during quite ordinary expansion!



The Hubble constant is determined by the mean density of the
universe. Instead of just claiming that it is time dependent,

Err, didn't you notice that due to expansion, the mean density
of the universe is obviously time-dependent, and therefore according
to your own argument here, the Hubble parameter has to be
time-dependent, too?


For the expansion proponents, it is of course time dependent, but even
for them, it is *to-day* determined by the mean density of the universe.


you should better show the formula,

The formulas are there in any book on cosmology. Try looking into them.


I preferred your own formulae. With GR, according to the assumed
premises, one can say almost anything.

Further, for a particular model, I once wrote down the calculations
myself. The text is in German, but the formulas should be clear enough.
http://www.rzuser.uni-heidelberg.de/~bfeuerba/universum.pdf
The formulas there are for an accelerated universe (with cosmological
constant different from zero), but it's not hard to take the limit
of cosmological constant going to zero, and the result is that H then
still depends on t (hint: the result of taking the limit is H(t) =
2/(3t) - and that's a formula you can find in lots of books on cosmology).


Thank you. Of course, H depends historically on t, as the mean density
of the universe varies with t if the universe is expanding (with an
"apparent" ;-) velocity).


and simultaneously explain why the
assumed space expansion is not symmetrical for all observers.

I don't understand what you mean by "symmetrical" here, sorry.


Not yet?


Why don't you allow experts to disprove my
demonstration?

Because they have better things to do than to correct your
elementary misconceptions about the Big Bang theory?



The Big Bangers are those which are full of misconceptions.

Says the one who did not even know that H depends on t during
ordinary expansion...


What a bad faith!


The BB theory is riddled with ad hoc patches.

For example? (I expect now that you will mention inflation, dark
matter and dark energy - thus displaying that you have no clue of
the evidence for that stuff, and of the reasons why it was introduced)


Ad hoc inflation, large scale structures, accelerated expansion, usw...
Please remind me why dark energy has been introduced.


[snip]


Bye,
Bjoern

Marcel Luttgens

vonroach wrote in message . ..
On 6 Jul 2004 05:28:52 -0700, (Marcel Luttgens)
wrote:

"Terence sits at home on Earth. Galaxy (yes, it's her name)
flies off in a space ship at a velocity v/2. Simultaneously,
Terra (also a name) flies off in the opposite direction at -v/2.
After a while, Terra, who considers that Galaxy flies away
from her at a velocity v, claims that Galaxy is now younger
than her, exactly like GRists claim that time goes slower on
SN because of space expansion.
According to Terence, both Terra and the GRists are wrong,
because Terra's clock and Galaxy's clock tick at the same
rate."

Till now, none of them dared to comment.
They should at least try to demonstrate that Terence is wrong.
As long as they play escapism, one has to conclude that
they are unsure of the validity of their paradigms.
In the meantime, further discussion is a mere waste of time.

Marcel Luttgens
In their individual frames of reference, their clocks all run at same
time. Upon their return, the travelers should both be slightly younger
than the sedentary triplet due to effect of motion on passage of time.
The travelers change are equal due to their equivalent motions.

Yes, and for Terence, the sedentary triplet, both travelers have the
*same* age.

Marcel Luttgens

vonroach wrote in message . ..
On 6 Jul 2004 05:28:52 -0700, (Marcel Luttgens)
wrote:

"Terence sits at home on Earth. Galaxy (yes, it's her name)
flies off in a space ship at a velocity v/2. Simultaneously,
Terra (also a name) flies off in the opposite direction at -v/2.
After a while, Terra, who considers that Galaxy flies away
from her at a velocity v, claims that Galaxy is now younger
than her, exactly like GRists claim that time goes slower on
SN because of space expansion.
According to Terence, both Terra and the GRists are wrong,
because Terra's clock and Galaxy's clock tick at the same
rate."

Till now, none of them dared to comment.
They should at least try to demonstrate that Terence is wrong.
As long as they play escapism, one has to conclude that
they are unsure of the validity of their paradigms.
In the meantime, further discussion is a mere waste of time.

Marcel Luttgens
In their individual frames of reference, their clocks all run at same
time. Upon their return, the travelers should both be slightly younger
than the sedentary triplet due to effect of motion on passage of time.
The travelers change are equal due to their equivalent motions.

Yes, and for Terence, the sedentary triplet, both travelers have the
*same* age.

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?

Details are given hereafter, as well as the refusal by the
moderator to post my question in sci.physics.research

Marcel Luttgens

Troll/Crackpot warning:

http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...RLuttgens.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...es/Forget.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...Relations.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...SRSymbols.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di.../IfOnlyIf.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di.../ArmsGrow.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...ArmsGrow2.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...yGalilean.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...es/SpeedV.html

Dirk Vdm

"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?

Details are given hereafter, as well as the refusal by the
moderator to post my question in sci.physics.research

Marcel Luttgens

Troll/Crackpot warning:

http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...RLuttgens.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...es/Forget.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...Relations.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...SRSymbols.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di.../IfOnlyIf.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di.../ArmsGrow.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...ArmsGrow2.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...yGalilean.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...es/SpeedV.html

Dirk Vdm

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

[snip]

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.

How on earth should the two red shifts cancel each other???????????


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.

Why not?


It is a mere interpretation.


[snip]

Bye,
Bjoern

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

[snip]

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.

How on earth should the two red shifts cancel each other???????????


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.

Why not?


It is a mere interpretation.


[snip]

Bye,
Bjoern

"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.


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.


David A. Smith

Marcel