On Tuesday, January 28, 2020 at 2:45:15 PM UTC-7, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, January 28, 2020 at 11:57:08 AM UTC-7, John Clark wrote: >> >> On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 1:28 PM Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> *> For the observer situated in a distant galaxy, his clock does not >>> dilate, and his length does not contract. * >> >> >> Alan, we know from the redshift that clocks at cosmological distances do NOT >> all run at the same rate, so if you didn't also have length contraction >> there is no way all observers could measure the same speed for light. You >> must have both. >> > > *I'm confused about what relativity tells us. I'd like some input from > Brent. We know that orbital clocks do not run at the same rate as ground > clocks, so the effect is objective, not merely apparent. So do clocks in > distant galaxies run objectively slower than clocks in our galaxy (as > orbiting clocks do compared to ground clocks) based on the cosmological red > shift, and are their masses increasing since they're moving close to light > speed? I am not sure. AG* > >> >> > those galaxies would NOT shrink in length to zero, >> >> >> But that contradicts your previous post, you said there were no >> discontinuities and length contraction, time dilation, and mass increase >> continuously and does not stop suddenly at some point short of the speed >> of light. Einstein says from our viewpoint distant galaxies can be >> arbitrarily thin and the clocks in them can be arbitrarily slow. What do >> you say? >> > > *I say you're wrong. You're implicitly claiming we can measure these > variables in the NON-observable region, but you know this is impossible. > Further, since the universe has been expanding for finite time, if it's > spherical, it's must be finite in volume. I don't see any way around this > conclusion. **The assumption that it continues to expand forever might be > correct, but at any time t, determined by the physical clock of the CMBR, > its volume is finite. AG* > > *The mass is also finite since no mass is being created as it expands. > OTOH, since distant galaxies within our observable region are receding > close to light speed, you might conclude their mass is increasing. I am not > sure how to resolve this issue. Perhaps if the relative velocities are > caused by the expansion of space, and NOT due to relative kinematic motion, > conclusions based on the cosmological red shift are invalid. I am not sure > what's going here. I think Brent can resolve this issue. AG* > > John K Clark >> > *My tentative conclusion, in addition to pointing out your error in assuming we can measure galaxy variables in our NON-observable region, is that since the expansion of space does not produce relative motions of the type assumed in SR (which I call "kinematic"), your conclusions about the relativistic effects due to the cosmological red shift (and spatial expansion) are incorrect. AG*
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/b3afc3be-dffb-42b9-aa7a-2b1a6ac8f7bb%40googlegroups.com.
