|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
SR time dilation on remote objects ?
vonroach wrote:
On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 09:56:04 +0200, Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote: vonroach wrote: On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 14:34:51 +0200, Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote: And this is still irrelevant for cosmology. Can a galaxy moving through the cosmos at 1/2 the speed of another galaxy claim to be older? Speed relative to what? The other galaxy as I read the interrogatory. Sorry, but "a galaxy moving through the cosmos at 1/2 the speed of another galaxy relative to the other galaxy" makes no sense. You can use either rotation or translation. From the context, translation was meant. (`1/2 the speed of another' is a comparison of one relative to the other speed?) I didn't want a comparison of the magnitudes of the speeds. I wanted to know relative to what the velocity is. Bye, Bjoern |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
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: 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? Because you keep acting as if the cosmological time dilation had to do something with the velocity. 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? I already told you that the recession of the galaxies is due to the space between them and us expanding. If it is a mere illusion, how do you explain the Doppler shift? The red shift is not a Doppler shift - it occurs due to the expansion pf space. I already told you that, too - didn't you listen, or have you forgotten that already? 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? Seen from that galaxy, the Earth seems to move at the same speed (but obviously in the opposite direction). For an Earth observer, is not the time on the galaxy slowed down by some factor wrt the time on Earth? 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. 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. 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? Drop the rhetoric and look at the actual calculations. I am looking forward to reading your comments. I am looking forward to you misunderstanding them yet again. "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. We are talking about measurements here, not about "spirit". 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. GR say that time seems to have gone slower on the SN when the light was emitted. Not that *today*, time *still* goes slower on the SN. 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. Then why do you say something nonsensical like "both Terra and the GRists are wrong"? 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, Wrong. *Only* according to Terence. but also, logically, to Terra and Galaxy, Why is that logical? who both should apply the Cosmological Principle. What on earth has this to do with the Cosmological Principle? Iow, they should know that the time slowing effect due to expansion is symmetrical, I am still not sure what you mean by "symmetrical" here. 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. Absolute total utter non sequitur. 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. Note the words "in his frame of reference". They are crucial here. 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, About what, specifically? not forgetting elementary logic? You seem to have a quite different idea of "logic" than I. This also would be fine. [Ad hominem comments snipped] Says the one who continues to libel cosmologists. Bye, Bjoern |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
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: 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? Because you keep acting as if the cosmological time dilation had to do something with the velocity. 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? I already told you that the recession of the galaxies is due to the space between them and us expanding. If it is a mere illusion, how do you explain the Doppler shift? The red shift is not a Doppler shift - it occurs due to the expansion pf space. I already told you that, too - didn't you listen, or have you forgotten that already? 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? Seen from that galaxy, the Earth seems to move at the same speed (but obviously in the opposite direction). For an Earth observer, is not the time on the galaxy slowed down by some factor wrt the time on Earth? 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. 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. 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? Drop the rhetoric and look at the actual calculations. I am looking forward to reading your comments. I am looking forward to you misunderstanding them yet again. "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. We are talking about measurements here, not about "spirit". 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. GR say that time seems to have gone slower on the SN when the light was emitted. Not that *today*, time *still* goes slower on the SN. 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. Then why do you say something nonsensical like "both Terra and the GRists are wrong"? 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, Wrong. *Only* according to Terence. but also, logically, to Terra and Galaxy, Why is that logical? who both should apply the Cosmological Principle. What on earth has this to do with the Cosmological Principle? Iow, they should know that the time slowing effect due to expansion is symmetrical, I am still not sure what you mean by "symmetrical" here. 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. Absolute total utter non sequitur. 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. Note the words "in his frame of reference". They are crucial here. 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, About what, specifically? not forgetting elementary logic? You seem to have a quite different idea of "logic" than I. This also would be fine. [Ad hominem comments snipped] Says the one who continues to libel cosmologists. Bye, Bjoern |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
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: 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". According to the Robertson-Walker metric, the "rate" of time was always the same. But the expansion of the universe "stretches" the light we receive from objects which are far away (and therefore light which left these objects long ago), and this makes it look like as if time went slower back then. 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? Evasion noted. Why don't you simply answer the question? And why did you feel the need to try to write German here? 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. Right for SR time dilation, wrong for the apparent time dilation due to space expansion. As both are simultaneously right, the only logical conclusion is that the two time dilations cancel each other. Absolute total utter non sequitur. Why is this "logical"??? How could such a cancellation happen????? But as a SR/GRist, you prefer to believe (yes, "believe") that both are right. Err, you said two, above, that both are right. What a disastrous conclusion! Why? You seem to have a big problem with the concept that time is relative... 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. That was a question, not an argument. Evasion noted. Did you ever see the calculations or not? 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 ... Pointing out that you lack the basic knowledge is not an ad hominem. 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, Nice that you admit that. In some earlier postings, you acted as if you don't not that. but even for them, it is *to-day* determined by the mean density of the universe. I said nothing against that. 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. Nonsense. 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). If this is so clear to you, then why did you act as if you don't know that? 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? No. Next evasion noted. 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! Huh? You acted several times as if you don't know that H is time-dependent. 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, See my note in the parentheses... large scale structures, What is ad hoce about them??? accelerated expansion, See my note in the parentheses... usw... Please remind me why dark energy has been introduced. Because of a variety of reasons. You seem to think that there was only one... Bye, Bjoern |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
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: 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". According to the Robertson-Walker metric, the "rate" of time was always the same. But the expansion of the universe "stretches" the light we receive from objects which are far away (and therefore light which left these objects long ago), and this makes it look like as if time went slower back then. 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? Evasion noted. Why don't you simply answer the question? And why did you feel the need to try to write German here? 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. Right for SR time dilation, wrong for the apparent time dilation due to space expansion. As both are simultaneously right, the only logical conclusion is that the two time dilations cancel each other. Absolute total utter non sequitur. Why is this "logical"??? How could such a cancellation happen????? But as a SR/GRist, you prefer to believe (yes, "believe") that both are right. Err, you said two, above, that both are right. What a disastrous conclusion! Why? You seem to have a big problem with the concept that time is relative... 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. That was a question, not an argument. Evasion noted. Did you ever see the calculations or not? 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 ... Pointing out that you lack the basic knowledge is not an ad hominem. 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, Nice that you admit that. In some earlier postings, you acted as if you don't not that. but even for them, it is *to-day* determined by the mean density of the universe. I said nothing against that. 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. Nonsense. 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). If this is so clear to you, then why did you act as if you don't know that? 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? No. Next evasion noted. 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! Huh? You acted several times as if you don't know that H is time-dependent. 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, See my note in the parentheses... large scale structures, What is ad hoce about them??? accelerated expansion, See my note in the parentheses... usw... Please remind me why dark energy has been introduced. Because of a variety of reasons. You seem to think that there was only one... Bye, Bjoern |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
SR time dilation on remote objects ?
Marcel Luttgens wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message ... [snip] 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. The Big Bang theory predicted the existence of the CMBR (let's not quibble about the fact that it didn't predict its temperature right at first). The CMBR does indeed exist. So, why is this not evidence for the BBT? For me, if a theory predicts X, and then X is indeed found, then the existence of X is evidence for the theory. Do you think otherwise? Bye, Bjoern |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
SR time dilation on remote objects ?
Marcel Luttgens wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message ... [snip] 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. The Big Bang theory predicted the existence of the CMBR (let's not quibble about the fact that it didn't predict its temperature right at first). The CMBR does indeed exist. So, why is this not evidence for the BBT? For me, if a theory predicts X, and then X is indeed found, then the existence of X is evidence for the theory. Do you think otherwise? Bye, Bjoern |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
SR time dilation on remote objects ?
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"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 Oh my goodness. I see that he is totally beyond the border, and unable to understand anything. I already suspected this, after he kept repeating this silly statement that "the two time dilations cancel each other", and this confirms it now. Thanks for providing the links! I will try to ignore him in the future. Bye, Bjoern |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
SR time dilation on remote objects ?
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"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 Oh my goodness. I see that he is totally beyond the border, and unable to understand anything. I already suspected this, after he kept repeating this silly statement that "the two time dilations cancel each other", and this confirms it now. Thanks for providing the links! I will try to ignore him in the future. Bye, Bjoern |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
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 06:21 AM |
Empirically Confirmed Superluminal Velocities? | Robert Clark | Astronomy Misc | 42 | November 11th 03 04:43 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 |