Re: Galaxy cluster at z=1.4 challenges BBT

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
>
>Max Keon wrote:
>> Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
>>>greywolf42 wrote:
>>>>The simplest recourse on your part is simply to do what you have
>>>>done. Post the 'rejected' submission to sci.astro. At least the
>>>>discussion can continue.

>>>
>>>I have answered his post one week ago. He entirely ignored my
>>>arguments (as he already did in s.a.r, BTW). Doesn't look like as if
>>>he is actually interested in discussion...

>>
>> I too am having some trouble believing that you are interested in
>> that part of the discussion you are referring to because when I
>> seek clarification on some of the terminology you use, I get nothing
>> more than a smoke screen in reply.

> Pardon??? The only time you asked for clarification of terminology
> was, IIRC, when you asked about the meaning of z. I answered that
> clearly.

I have already found the meaning of z in the Penguin dictionary of
science, without your "help". This is what I was referring to though;
I wrote:
Redshift 2.34 I assume means that the characteristic spectral line
wavelengths are 2.34 times longer than they are currently. Is that
correct?
You replied:
No. That would be the case for redshift 1.34, not for redshift 2.34.
Could you *please* try to get at least the most basic things right?
-----
-----

>> You have so far
>> failed to address the two clock and the tower scenario that I
>> continue to put to you. So here it is again;
>>
>> -Two atomic clocks which were previously synchronized adjacent, and
>> -then positioned apart at the top and the base of a tower so that
>> -their tick rates can be compared via a numeric display attached to
>> -each clock and driven by each clock's oscillator is proof beyond
>> -doubt that the frequency generated in the Caesium atom configuration
>> -that drives each display, slows in the deeper potential well at the
>> -tower base. That slowing all happens within the clock mechanism,
>> -simply because it's running in a deeper potential well, and that's
>> -the only reason.
>>
>> I'm still waiting for your in depth explanation that proves me
>> wrong.

> The above is an entirely *hypothetical* scenario. The experiment
> has never been done in that way. So why do you keep asserting so
> confidently what the results would be?

The experiment is done every second of every minute of every day.
A clock at GPS altitude is noted to be running 5.288E-10 seconds
faster per second than a ground based clock fixed with the ECI
frame. The reason according to general relativity is that, although
the tick rates are the same in each clock, the tick frequency from
the ground based clock arriving at the GPS altitude clock has been
slowed by its climb from the gravity well, while the frequency from
the GPS altitude clock has increased because it's falling into the
gravity well. That's what I gather from your interpretation of the
Pound and Rebka experiment. And the Sachs-Wolfe effect of course.

But the tick shortfall per second between the two would just keep
on adding up if they were in fact created. And that can go on for
years. After only one hour the tick shortfall is 17,500 . If they
were created, where the hell are they? The obvious answer is of
course that they were never made. The oscillator which drives the
atomic clock is slowed in the deeper gravity well, and that's
obviously all that happens.

It would seem that the GR (and yours) interpretation of the Pound
and Rebka result is nonsense.

Bring one of the GPS clocks back to ground and see if the missing
ticks held in limbo between the previously separated clocks suddenly
appear. What you are peddling is so obviously wrong that it can only
be an embarrassment for the physics community.

> And why do you keep ignoring the *actual* experiment which *has*
> been done?

>>
>> Now take your atomic clock back to the early universe, to the time
>> when the universe became transparent. Have you any idea how slow
>> that clock would be running in that environment?

> Why on earth should it run slower???

That should now be *very* obvious.

>>
>> The ratio between
>> the radius of the universe relative to the big bang at the time of
>> transparency and the current radius should give you some idea of
>> the difference in the average gravitational potential then and the
>> average potential now.

> The potential is (on average) zero, and always was. If you think
> otherwise, you show nicely that you don't understand gravity.

There was an enormous concentration of matter then relative to now,
so there was an enormous gravitational potential then relative to
now. To bring that all into perspective, the mass of the earth, or
any other constant mass, of any size (it matters not), can be used
to compare how a clock would behave at different stages in the
evolution of the universe from the big bang. The expansion of space
between two points is going to be reasonably uniform throughout the
universe. So by comparing the tick rate of an atomic clock at
different radii from the earth with the tick rate of that clock if
it was fixed at the center of earth's mass, I would get a reasonable
indication of how the clock would behave, on average, anywhere
across the entire universe at any stage of evolution. The changing
relationship between the clock and the earth would be exactly
proportionally to the clock's changing relationship with all of the
matter in the universe.

And so; For the clock at a 13E+9 light year radius (1.23E+20km)
from the earth, (G*M)/(r*c^2)
(6.67E-11*1E+38)/(1.23E+20*300000^2)= 3.6E-20 to 1 per earth clock.
For the clock at, allowing for a very rapid initial expansion, a
whopping 10,000,000 light year radius (9.46E+19km) from the earth
in the environment of the big bang universe at the time when the
universe became transparent,
(6.67E-11*1E+38)/(9.46E+19*300000^2)= 4.7E-17 to 1.
The clock tick ratio between the two stages is
4.7E-17 / 3.6E-20 = 1300 to 1.
The clock was ticking 1300 times slower than it is now, so every
frequency generated in that environment was necessarily 1300 times
slower. The spectrum generated at that time would be that of a 5.5 K
radiator, relative to now. That's before the expansion is even
thought about.

Even if you don't agree with the logic, the effect is certainly
present in rather enormous proportions. The spectrum of the CMBR
was that of a 4000 K blackbody relative to the time rate in the
environment in which it began its journey, but it was nothing like
that of a present day 4000 K blackbody.

>>
>> Hence the re-run of this next paragraph.
>>
>> -An atomic clock's tick rate would be slowed enormously in the
>> -densely populated environment of the early universe,

> No, it wouldn't. It would tick at the same rate as today.

Your handwaving is far from convincing.

The zero origin universe is looking good.

-----

Max Keon
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: [RFC][PATCH] Experimental enhanced NTP error accounting patch
    ... The ntp code provides the time update per tick: ... That's all the clock code needs from the ntp code (the details of its ... To keep timeofday the same after changing the multiplier we also have to ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Re: Time dilation
    ... an Earth clock as it leaves Earth, travels to a point a fixed distance, ... With telemetry each tick could be uniquely identified. ... The Earth observer measures the time for the 2 way trip as ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Is Lorentz contraction a real process
    ... >> slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock ... > its tick rate, due to their different PERSPECTIVES. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The Single Experiment that Destroys Einstein.
    ... and -7 us/day due to relative motion of the clock in the Earth frame. ... MEASUREMENTS of signals from a clock on the ground by an observer in ... her own clock will obtain the standard tick rate for the clock; ... attempt to compare "tick rates" for distant clocks (because one can only ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Uncle assAl: (SR) Lorentz t, x = Intervals
    ... So you have one clock B and one clock C, both moving inertially, where ... > During acceleration from rest, clock A intercepts n waves corresponding ... > already moving in the inertial frame that A accelerates into, ... Draw lines from every tick from the source ...
    (sci.math)