Re: SR time dilation on remote objects ?
From: Marcel Luttgens (mluttgens_at_wanadoo.fr)
Date: 08/12/04
- Next message: Bob May: "Re: P10 Acceleration: Light Speed Doesn't Extrapolate"
- Previous message: judoka1961: "Dr_Postman and the lighing rod"
- In reply to: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: SR time dilation on remote objects ?"
- Next in thread: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: SR time dilation on remote objects ?"
- Reply: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: SR time dilation on remote objects ?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 12 Aug 2004 08:47:43 -0700
Bjoern Feuerbacher <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<cfdjv6$k6i$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...
> Marcel Luttgens wrote:
> > Bjoern Feuerbacher <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<cfardg$js9$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...
> >
[ad hominem snipped]
> >>>Unless one assumes a steady state model. I know that such model is
> >>>controversial, but it is however plausible.
> >>
> >>Why is that plausible? How would one explain all the evidence in
> >>such a model?
> >
> >
> > This has been done by the proponents of such model.
>
> References, please.
>
Try Google, you will find a lot of them.
> > Apparent velocities leading to apparent redshifts?
>
> No. Apparent velocities leading to a very real redshift.
Nice hoax
>
> > Using Wright's demonstration,
> > I get v(now) = v(us to A) + v(A to B) + ... + v(X to Y) + v(Y to Z)
> > In this *analytical* case, one *has* to use the relativistic addition
> > of velocities.
>
> No, one hasn't. One is even not allowed to do that, since, as Wright
> explained, the "v" here is the change in the cosmology distance "D" -
> which is *not* identical to the distance definitions used in SR!
You could as well claim that the relativistic addition doesn't
apply to apparent velocities.
>
> BTW, what specifically do you mean by "analytical" here?
Step by step.
>
> > This is different from *globally* claiming that "in cosmology, one does
> > *not* use special relativistic coordinates and therefore also *not* the
> > special relativistic velocity addition!"
>
> This statement does indeed apply here. Try to understand that.
>
Try to understand that Wright's conclusion contradicts his own demonstration.
>
> > The *analytical* approach, used by Wright himself, demonstrates that
> > SR addition is pertinent, hence that galaxies that are far enough away
> > from us necessarily *cannot* have velocities greater than the speed of
> > light.
>
> Where does he demonstrate that?
>
He claims that.
>
>
> >>>"But the Hubble law distance Dnow, which is measured now, of these
> >>>most distant galaxies is infinity (in this model). Furthermore,
> >>>this galaxy with infinite Hubble law distance and hence infinite
> >>>Hubble law velocity is visible to us, since in this model the
> >>>observable Universe is the entire Universe. The relationships
> >>>between the Hubble law distance and velocity (Dnow & v) and
> >>>the redshift z are given below:
> >>>v = HoDnow
> >>>Dnow = (c/Ho)ln(1+z)
> >>>1+z = exp(v/c)"
> >>>
> >>>Notice "in this model",
> >>
> >>Yes, I noticed that. Why did you feel the need to quote something
> >>which is only true for one particular, rather unrealistic model?
> >>
> >
> >
> > If it is unrealistic, then why did Wright used it to demonstrate that
> > Dnow and galaxies's velocity can be infinite?
>
> He simply wanted to show that that can be true in some models. So what???
>
Iow, you agree with Wright that galaxies's velocity can be infinite.
Another hoax!
>
>
> >>>and also "Furthermore,
> >>>this galaxy with infinite Hubble law distance and hence infinite
> >>>Hubble law velocity is visible to us, since in this model the
> >>>observable Universe is the entire Universe."
> >>>
> >>>This wonderful conclusion suffices to falsify the whole reasoning.
> >>
> >>No! Why on earth do you think so?
> >
> >
> > Simply because nothing can be seen at infinite distances (unless, of
> > course, if the light speed is itself infinite).
>
> I see that you *still* confuse different definitions of distance,
> although Wright pointed out *several times* that one has to
> be careful what one means when one uses that word, as also carefully
> explained *which* distance here is infinitely large.
>
> You are apparently *really* incapable of learning something, no matter
> how clearly it is expressed.
You clearly show that you don't understand the concept of infinity.
> >
> > The problem is that it is difficult to trust the results and conclusions
> > of theories using different models, especially the one which lead to
> > an accelerated expansion.
>
> I have no clue what you mean here. The BBT uses exactly one
> established model today. And Wright says that clearly in what you
> quote above. Say, how severe *are* your reading comprehension problems?
>
And it will use another model to-morrow, as another patch to its epicycles.
Do you get this?
> > Assuming a stable (not expanding) universe with a cosmic negative
> > acceleration cHo,
>
> You ignored my question above. What would be the cause, the mechanism of
> that negative acceleration?
>
Think of a universe with radius c/H. If every of its points is a center
(according to the Cosmological principle), one automatically gets a negative
acceleration cH acting on light (and objects) leaving the center.
>
> > A light ray of wavelength lambda is sent from a point P.
> > At a distance d from P, the energy loss of a photon of frequency Nu is
> >
> > (hNu/c^2) * cH0 * d = hNu * (H0/c) * d,
>
> Why?
>
You are seemingly so bright, why do you ask?
>
>
> > where h is the Plank constant.
> >
> > Hence, the residual energy hNu(o) of the photon at the distance d is
> >
> > hNu(o) = hNu - hNu * (H0/c) * d = hNu (1 - H0*d/c), hence
> > Nu(o) = Nu (1 - (H0*d/c), and
> > lambda(o) = (1 - (H0*d/c) / lambda
> >
> > Let's notice that H0*d corresponds to the recession velocity
> > v = H0*d assumed in an expanding universe.
> >
> > Hence,
> >
> > z = (lambda(o) - lambda) / lambda
> > = (H0/c)d * (1+z), and
> >
> > d = (c/H0) * z/(1+z)
> >
> > Conclusively, the existence of a cosmic "deceleration" cH0
> > suffices to explain the so-called tiring of light in a stable universe.
>
> If you can explain from where you get your formula for the energy loss
> above from...
>
You should be able to find it by yourself. Notice that the formula
d = (c/H0) * z/(1+z) is exactly the same as the one obtained from
the *kinematic* Doppler formula valid in a stable universe, or in an
expanding universe with no relativistic time dilation on galaxies
separated by a distance d.
>
>
> > the energy loss of the photon should be globally recycled
> > by the universe itself.
>
> That's a totally vague statement and *still* says *nothing* about
> the actual interaction.
>
Where goes the energy lost by a sound wave emitted by the horn of
a car moving away from us?
> >
> > Did you look at the error bars in
> > http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm ?
> > The data spread is very big.
>
> Yes. So what? The same graph shows that tired light is clearly ruled out.
>
> If you have got another model which can produce results which agree
> with the data presented in this graph, feel free to show your calculations.
>
>From astro- ph/ 0104382 v1 24 Apr 2001
Timescale Stretch Parameterization of Type Ia Supernova B-band
Light Curves
G. Goldhaber et al.
ABSTRACT
"We also demonstrate the 1+z light-curve time-axis broadening
expected from cosmological expansion."
Till z ~ 0.2, no clear broadening can be seen, w is about 1.
>From z=0.3 til z=0.7, w is about 1.5.
It would wiser to conclude that 2 different populations of
supernovae have been observed, and that the broadening could
as well be attributed to another cause than expansion.
>
> > Calculations have been done long ago, which then gave better results
> > that those based on an expanding universe. But I didn't indeed see
> > recent calculations.
>
> References, please.
>
Again? Try Google?
> Bye,
> Bjoern
Marcel Luttgens
- Next message: Bob May: "Re: P10 Acceleration: Light Speed Doesn't Extrapolate"
- Previous message: judoka1961: "Dr_Postman and the lighing rod"
- In reply to: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: SR time dilation on remote objects ?"
- Next in thread: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: SR time dilation on remote objects ?"
- Reply: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: SR time dilation on remote objects ?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
