Re: SR time dilation on remote objects ?

From: Bjoern Feuerbacher (feuerbac_at_thphys.uni-heidelberg.de)
Date: 09/26/04 

Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 16:19:47 +0200

Marcel Luttgens wrote:
> Bjoern Feuerbacher <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<ciug9a$ql7$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...
>
>>Marcel Luttgens wrote:
>>
>>>Bjoern Feuerbacher <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<cis5cn$ai7$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Marcel Luttgens wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Bjoern Feuerbacher <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<ciplnn$pbh$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>><snip, because those points have already been discussed>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>But you should realize that light is not sound, because
>>>>>>>of the speed limit c.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>*sigh* Obviously. That's why one uses Nu(o) = Nu sqrt((1-v/c)/(1+v/c)),
>>>>>>not Nu(o) = Nu / (1+v/c), if you didn't notice.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>No, those who use Nu(o) = Nu sqrt((1-v/c)/(1+v/c)) because of time dilation,
>>>>>forget that in an expanding universe,
>>>>
>>>>*sigh* For the 100th time: The Doppler shift formula of SR and LET,
>>>>Nu(o) = Nu sqrt((1-v/c)/(1+v/c), is *not* used in cosmology.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>GR is used, but is GR right?
>>
>>If you have evidence that it isn't, feel free to present it.
>>
>>I notice that you did not care to admit that your assertion above
>>(the SR formula is used in cosmology) was wrong
>>
>
>
> I just said, GR is used, but is GR right?

Yes, I noticed that. And I responded with:
If you have evidence that it isn't, feel free to present it.

And I notice that you did not care to present evidence for that.

[snip]

>>>>I say that for real movements, one should use Nu(o) = Nu
>>>>sqrt((1-v/c)/(1+v/c)) (regardless if the source or the observer is
>>>>moving, since motion is relative!), and in cosmology, one should use
>>>>1+z = R(t0)/R(t) for the red shift (reminder: R is the curvature
>>>>radius of the universe).
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Yes, with many assumptions, like Omega M, flat universe, etc...
>>
>>Wrong. Omega_M and the flatness of the universe are *measured*,
>>not assumed.
>>
>
>
> They were measured, after being assumed.

Complete utter nonsense.

> Or the assumptions were made
> a posteriori in order to justify the observations.

Complete utter nonsense.

Support your assertions, for a change!

[snip]

>>>Use Ted Wright's calculator if you are not yet convinced.
>>
>>For the 10th time: I don't care about Wright's calculator.
>>Compare the predictions of your formula against the actual data!!!!!
>>
>
>
> You don't care, because its results are the same as mine.

I have asked you several times now where exactly I can find that
calculator. I don't want to search his entire site for it! So,
would you please finally provide a link?

And his results are *not* the same as yours. As I already pointed out,
there are deviations on the order of 10%!

> And your "actual" data are those of SNe, which are questionnable.

They are not questionable at all. They are accepted as reliable
by the majority of astronomers. Only crackpots like Jensen (after
looking closely at his paper, I think now that he really is a crackpot
- e.g. he relies on scatter plots as evidence, and presented something
which was actually predicted by the Lambda CDM model as evidence against
it, i.e. he does not even understand what he attacks!) think that
these data are questionable.

>>>But I don't understand what you mean by "real" movements. Are
>>>movements in cosmology not "real"?
>>
>>*sigh* I already explained that several times. That the distance
>>of galaxies increases is, according to GR, not due to a movement
>>of the galaxies, but due to the space between them expanding.
>>
>
>
> You are saying that the increase is not real,

Wrong, I am *not* saying that. Try some reading comprehension!

> but simply the result of GRT application. I wholly agree with you.

You wholly agree only with the silly strawman of my actual
argument which you created here. Not with me.

>>>I show hereafter that the SR formula Nu(o) = Nu sqrt((1-v/c)/(1+v/c))
>>>cannot be right.
>>
>>Unfortunately for you, it had been *tested* and *found* to be right.

I notice that you choose to ignore that.

>>>>>Thus, 1+z = = lambda(o)/lambda = (c+v)/(c-v), and
>>>>>z = 2v/(c-v) = 2 v/c / (1-v/c),
>>>>>
>>>>>which is the same formula as the one obtained with no time dilation!
>>>>
>>>>Nice for you.
>>>>
>>>>And now explain how this situation, where light is *reflected*, is
>>>>relevant for cosmology.
>>>
>>>
>>>Because those two identical results show that something must
>>>be wrong in the derivation of the SR formula
>>
>>No, not at all. Why on earth do you think so?

Care to explain?

>>>Nu(o) = Nu sqrt((1-v/c)/(1+v/c))
>>>
>>>Let's apply the sound Doppler to light:
>>>
>>>1) The light source is receding at v from light the receiver
>>>
>>>Then Nu(o)/Nu = c/(c+v), which leads to z = v/c.
>>>
>>>Such formula is nonsensical for light, because with it, z can never be
>>>greater than 1.
>>
>>That formula is not nonsensical for light because z can never be
>>greater than 1, but because it was derived using assumptions which
>>are not valid for light.
>>
>
>
> Anyhow, it gives wrong results for light.

Nice that we agree at least on that.

Now you only have to admit that when one talks about the Doppler shift
of light, one has to use Nu(o) = Nu sqrt((1-v/c)/(1+v/c)).

Again: this formula was *tested*. And it is not only valid in SR,
but also in LET, so you have no excuse for not using it.

>>>Or galactic light can have much bigger redshifts than 1.
>>
>>Huh?
>>
>
>
> Never heard of galaxies with redhifts 3 or more?

Yes. But you said above that the formula Nu(o)/Nu = c/(c+v) is
nonsensical because with it, [conclusion 1], or galactic light can have
much bigger redshifts than 1. Read again what you actually wrote. Pay
special attention to the "Or". If you replace that with an "And",
your argument becomes sensible. But it makes no sense with the "Or"!

>>>Let fS = c/(c+v)
>>>
>>>2) The receiver is receding at v from the emitter
>>>
>>>Then Nu(o)/Nu = (c-v)/c, which leads to z = (v/c)/(1-v/c)
>>>
>>>This formula gives sensible results.
>>
>>The ultimate test if a formula gives sensible results is by
>>comparing it with experiment. For light, the formula fails then.
>>
>
>
> No,

You think that the ultimate test if a formula gives sensible
results is *not* by comparing it with experiment?

Say, what little clue do you have of science?

> look at Wright results.

If you would finally tell me where exactly on his (big) website
I can find them...

>>>The same formula can be obtained when the source is moving
>>>by hypothetising a stable universe where light is subject at
>>>every point of its trajectory to a negative acceleration cH.
>>
>>And how would that work?
>>
>
>
> I already explained this more than once.

And I pointed out already more than once that your so-called
explanations make no sense at all.

>>And how, exactly, do you plan to derive this formula in that
>>case? I don't remember that you ever presented that calculation.
>>
>
>
> You easily forget things that are not in GR textbooks.

Well, why don't you simply tell me where you presented that
derivation?

>>>Notice that the reddening is then absolute, in the sense that
>>>it is independent from observers.
>>>
>>>Let fR = (c-v)/c
>>>
>>>Now, the SR formula Nu(o) = Nu sqrt((1-v/c)/(1+v/c)), can be written
>>>
>>>Nu(o) = Nu sqrt((c-v)/c) * c/(c+v)), or
>>>Nu(o)/Nu = sqrt(fR * fS)
>>
>>Nice.
>>
>>
>>
>>>The SR frequency ratio is simply the geometric mean of the frequency
>>>ratio fR obtained when the receiver is receding and the frequency ratio
>>>fS corresponding to the receding source!
>>
>>Of the corresponding ratios obtained for *sound*.
>>
>>
>>
>>>Since fS is wrong for light, the SR formula must be wrong.
>>
>>That's a *total* non sequitur.
>>
>
>
> Your reaction reveals once more that you are impervious to logic.

No. Your reasining above reveals that *you* have no clue of logic.

That the SR frequency ratio can be written as the geometric mean of
formulas which are only valid for sound, but not for light, shows
in no way that the SR formula is not valid for light!!! How on earth
did you arrive at that absolutely nonsensical conclusion?

> The SR formula Nu(o) = Nu sqrt((1-v/c)/(1+v/c)) can be written
> Nu(o)/Nu = sqrt(fR * fS), where fR = (c-v)/c and fS = c/(c+v)
>
> It can also be written
> Nu(o) = sqrt(Nu(o)R * Nu(o)S), where
>
> Nu(o) is the frequency observed by the receiver according to SR,
> whether the source of light emitted at frequency Nu is moving or at rest
> relatively to the receiver,
>
> Nu(o)R is the frequency observed by the receiver when receding from the source
> (according to the sound formula)
> Nu(o)S is the frequency observed by the receiver when the source is receding
> (also according to the sound formula, which gives in this case wrong results
> for light)

Complete agreement so far.

> As at least Nu(o)S is wrong for light, Nu(o) is logically wrong,

And exactly here, you make a huge jump in logic!!!

 From "a formula can be written as the ratio of two other formulas,
which are *not* valid", it does *******NOT******* follow that the
formula *itself* is not valid!!!!!!!!

> IOW, the *SR formula is wrong*.

Then why does it agree with experimental tests? You conveniently
ignore that.

> If you disagree, you should explain why the form Nu(o) = sqrt(Nu(o)R * Nu(o)S)
> is mathematically wrong,

It isn't wrong. It is right. But your conclusion from the fact that one
can write it like that makes no sense at all.

> instead of simply maintaining that the SR formula is right.

It agrees with *experimental tests*. You conveniently ignore that.

>>>Notice also that no trace of a time dilation factor is to be found in
>>>Nu(o)/Nu = sqrt(fR * fS).
>>
>>Err, when you write it in a way which does not show the time dilation
>>factor directly, it's no wonder that the time dilation factor is
>>not found in the formula, don't you think?
>>
>
>
> I can write the SR formula in different ways.

Yes, obviously.

> As one of those ways clearly
> demonstrates that the formula is wrong,

It doesn't. Try learning some basic logic.

> and ignores time dilation,

If the time dilation factor is not clearly visible in one of
several possible writing of a formula, that does not prove at all
that time dilation plays no role for the effect of that formula.

Yes, you have really problems with basic logic and math.

> those who claim that it is nevertheless right, and that time dilation
> is nevertheless present, are acting as crackpots or ignorants.

It agrees with *experimental tests*. You conveniently ignore that.

>>>If a single SR formula is wrong,
>>
>>*sigh* And you *still* ignore that this formula was *tested* and found
>>to be *right*.
>>
>
>
> The results of those tests are not necessarily incompatible, taking
> into account the statistical errors, with the SR formula under the form
> Nu(o) = sqrt(Nu(o)R * Nu(o)S).

Err, *obviously* the results are not incompatible with
   Nu(o) = sqrt(Nu(o)R * Nu(o)S),
since that formula is mathematically *equivalent* to
   Nu(o) = Nu sqrt((1-v/c)/(1+v/c)),
as you yourself proved!!!

Say, how dumb *are* you?????

> This doesn't mean that it is right.

That the experimental results agree with a formula of SR does
not imply that that formula is right? Yes, you are *really* a brain-dead
idiot, who has not the faintest clue of science.

>>>The problem with SR/GRists is that most of them swallow all
>>>what they find in textbooks, and consider their findings as
>>>gospel truth.
>>
>>The problem with you is that you don't care about experimental
>>data and can't think logically.
>>
>
>
> Quite the contrary.

You demonstrated both things nicely above.

Bye,
Bjoern

Relevant Pages

  • Re: No Absolute Bible Refutation
    ... 'The Con' provided sufficient evidence to support the elaborate claims ... the audacity to try and muscle in on Wyatt's own personal Ark of the ... Care to explain metal detecting and it's use? ... of a Moses in Egyptian records. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Stop It!!
    ... .Let me make this simple for you: Supporting evidence for a hypothesis ... I only care if it's true. ... ..Wisdom et al concluded merely that animals ran away from mountain ... Energy loss is a surrogate for harm, ...
    (sci.bio.ecology)
  • Re: Stop It!!
    ... .Let me make this simple for you: Supporting evidence for a hypothesis ... I only care if it's true. ... Wisdom et al concluded merely that animals ran away from mountain ... > They are simply trying to assess the EXTENT of harm. ...
    (sci.bio.ecology)
  • Re: Actual movie-related Moore/SICKO thread
    ... Moore tries to show UK's National Health Service as a model of *foreign* ... own windmill-tiltings in spite of evidence, ... "single-payer" system called Medicare. ... people in the US want to emulate, the people receive guaranteed care, ...
    (rec.arts.movies.current-films)
  • Re: How could extra dimensions be tested?
    ... dimension beyond the basic four? ... confronted by comparison with new observations -- experimental tests. ... see any evidence that's one of your concerns unless you take "well ... your "theory cum well constructed guesses" empirical epistemology will ...
    (sci.physics)