|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
SR time dilation on remote objects ?
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 _______ Date : 04/07/04 15:18 To : "Urs Schreiber" Object : SR Time dilation on supernovae ? Dear Urs Schreiber, I am not "saying that contemporary cosmology and GR are fundamentally wrong", I prove it. Why don't you allow experts to disprove my demonstration? Science doesn't deserves censorship. I am confident that you wouldn't mind if I posted your present refusal on another, not "moderated" newsgroup. Am I too optimistic? If you don't answer, I'll conclude that you agree. Marcel Luttgens Date: 04/07/04 14:33 From : "Urs Schreiber" To : "Marcel Luttgens" Objet : SR Time dilation on supernovae ? I am sorry, but saying that contemporary cosmology and GR are fundamentally wrong is overly speculative and not appropriate for s.p.r. Sincerely, Urs Schreiber, moderator, s.p.r. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marcel Luttgens" Newsgroups: sci.physics.research To: Sent: Sunday, July 04, 2004 2:29 PM Subject: SR Time dilation on supernovae ? Excerpt from: High Redshift Supernovae from the IfA Deep Survey: Doubling the SN Sample at z 0 . 7 (arXiv: astro- ph/ 0310843 v1 29 Oct 2003) Brian J. Barris, John L. Tonry, Stephane Blondin, Peter Challis, Ryan Chornock, Alejandro Clocchiatti, Alexei V. Filippenko, Peter Garnavich, Stephen T. Holland, Saurabh Jha, Robert P. Kirshner, Kevin Krisciunas, Bruno Leibundgut, Weidong Li, Thomas Matheson, Gajus Miknaitis, Adam G. Riess, Brian P. Schmidt, R. Chris Smith, Jesper Sollerman, Jason Spyromilio, Christopher W. Stubbs, Nicholas B. Suntzeff, Herve Aussel, K. C. Chambers, M. S. Connelley, D. Donovan, J. Patrick Henry, Nick Kaiser, Michael C. Liu, Eduardo L. Martin, and Richard J. Wainscoat Excerpt (p.12): "Typically, the discovery epoch of a high-z supernova is a few days before maximum brightness, and although the time dilation factor of (1 + z) works to lessen the delay in the rest frame, etc...". As no time dilation factor can be due to space recession (cf. the "Triplets tought experiment" below), the contemporary cosmologists are fundamentally wrong. One can thus wonder about the degree of confidence that can be given to their interpretation of the supernovae observations, especially with regard to the acceleration of the assumed expansion and the correlatively hypothesized dark energy. The validity of GR formulae is also questionable, because GR expresses the red shift of distant sources in terms of special relativity (the "relativistic Doppler" formula). The "Triplets" thought experiment (Cf. the "Twin paradox") _________________________________ 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, a SR adept who considers that Galaxy flies away from her at a velocity v, claims that Galaxy is now younger than her, exactly like the 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. Question: ________ Can time be "SR dilated" on supernovae, because of space expansion? Thanks, Marcel Luttgens |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
SR time dilation on remote objects ?
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. 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. Marcel Luttgens _______ Date : 04/07/04 15:18 To : "Urs Schreiber" Object : SR Time dilation on supernovae ? Dear Urs Schreiber, 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! 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? Science doesn't deserves censorship. The newsgroup sci.physics.research is reserved for genuine research. Banning people who have elementary misconceptions, like you, has nothing to do with censorship. [snip] Bye, Bjoern |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
SR time dilation on remote objects ?
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. 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. Marcel Luttgens _______ Date : 04/07/04 15:18 To : "Urs Schreiber" Object : SR Time dilation on supernovae ? Dear Urs Schreiber, 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! 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? Science doesn't deserves censorship. The newsgroup sci.physics.research is reserved for genuine research. Banning people who have elementary misconceptions, like you, has nothing to do with censorship. [snip] Bye, Bjoern |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
SR time dilation on remote objects ?
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. The only evidence of the Big Bang is written at the observational the limits of the Universe, namely the CMBR. Which indicates the Big Bang was everywhere. David A. Smith |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
SR time dilation on remote objects ?
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. The only evidence of the Big Bang is written at the observational the limits of the Universe, namely the CMBR. Which indicates the Big Bang was everywhere. David A. Smith |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
SR time dilation on remote objects ?
On Mon, 5 Jul 2004 10:15:42 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" N:
dlzc1 D:cox wrote: The only evidence of the Big Bang is written at the observational the limits of the Universe, namely the CMBR. Which indicates the Big Bang was everywhere. David A. Smith But `everywhere' was hypothesized to be a `singularity' . Space is thought to have expanding ever since. The CMBR supports the Big Bang theory. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
SR time dilation on remote objects ?
On Mon, 5 Jul 2004 10:15:42 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" N:
dlzc1 D:cox wrote: The only evidence of the Big Bang is written at the observational the limits of the Universe, namely the CMBR. Which indicates the Big Bang was everywhere. David A. Smith But `everywhere' was hypothesized to be a `singularity' . Space is thought to have expanding ever since. The CMBR supports the Big Bang theory. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
SR time dilation on remote objects ?
Dear vonroach:
"vonroach" wrote in message ... On Mon, 5 Jul 2004 10:15:42 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" N: dlzc1 D:cox wrote: The only evidence of the Big Bang is written at the observational the limits of the Universe, namely the CMBR. Which indicates the Big Bang was everywhere. But `everywhere' was hypothesized to be a `singularity' . Space is thought to have expanding ever since. The CMBR supports the Big Bang theory. You have said nothing *I* disagree with. The singularity was for the Universe that contains us. Once inside, the mass/energy made its own space. An equivalent amount of mass/energy in all directions cannot prevent expansion, through the use of gravitation as a restraining "force". The "center", or more correctly 270000 ly from the center, is still visible all around us. David A. Smith |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
SR time dilation on remote objects ?
Dear vonroach:
"vonroach" wrote in message ... On Mon, 5 Jul 2004 10:15:42 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" N: dlzc1 D:cox wrote: The only evidence of the Big Bang is written at the observational the limits of the Universe, namely the CMBR. Which indicates the Big Bang was everywhere. But `everywhere' was hypothesized to be a `singularity' . Space is thought to have expanding ever since. The CMBR supports the Big Bang theory. You have said nothing *I* disagree with. The singularity was for the Universe that contains us. Once inside, the mass/energy made its own space. An equivalent amount of mass/energy in all directions cannot prevent expansion, through the use of gravitation as a restraining "force". The "center", or more correctly 270000 ly from the center, is still visible all around us. David A. Smith |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
SR time dilation on remote objects ?
vonroach wrote:
On Mon, 5 Jul 2004 10:15:42 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" N: dlzc1 D:cox wrote: The only evidence of the Big Bang is written at the observational the limits of the Universe, namely the CMBR. Which indicates the Big Bang was everywhere. David A. Smith But `everywhere' was hypothesized to be a `singularity'. 1) "singularity" is not necessarily the same as "point". 2) Probably there never was a singularity - at very high gravitational fields (i.e. very high densities, close to the Big Bang) Quantum Gravity effects should become important, and that could avoid a singularity. We don't know yet. Space is thought to have expanding ever since. The CMBR supports the Big Bang theory. Nice that we agree on that. 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 |