They are “defining ” in a way, that no galaxy is bound to any visible relativistic effect. Everybody does that, albeit on at least two different ways.
How convenient!
We have superluminal galaxies, not bound to relativity. We have nearly light speed galaxies, free of any observable relativistic effect. Our hypothetical ancient space ship sent there (to a nearly light speed away moving galaxy), would slow down all its clocks, the surrounding galaxy wouldn’t.
Unimportant answer: No, it will appear to have slowed down clocks (as was explained to you at the beginning of this thread) and the ancient ship, if it is now at the same distance and stationary with respect to that galaxy, will appear to have the same slowdown.
The more important answer: at this point, this discussion as it is going now is looking pointless.
You have intuitions, backed up by some argumentation, but without a complete mathematical picture, that general relativity produces predictions that don’t match observations.
I have intuitions, backed up by other argumentation, also without a complete mathematical picture, that general relativity produces predictions compatible with observations.
I think my intuitions are better supported, but that’s not what it important.
What is important: general relativity is a physical theory, published long ago and available to anyone, such that this argument can be resolved once and for all by actually doing the math. I am too lazy to do it for the purposes of a comment debate (I might possibly do a blog post though, if it turns out not to be too much work). You come across as probably smart enough to learn how to do the math, so get a general relativity textbook and work it out. You should subjectively estimate a much bigger gain than I do from doing the math, given your subjective assessment that GR gives false predictions and my subjective assessment that it gives true predictions: whoever disproves general relativity will probably get a Nobel prize.
I don’t think, that my intuition should be backed by, or crushed by (doesn’t matter which, really) - more mathematics.
I think my intuition should be backed or crushed by some experimental evidence. Which we probably have.
It seems to me, that no relativistic time slowdown is observed in distant galaxies. What are implications for the GR I really don’t care very much. Theories in Physics are downstream of how the reality is.
It seems to me, that no relativistic time slowdown is observed in distant galaxies.
If you are correct then cosmologists either (1) are very stupid or (2) are knowingly in possession of strong evidence against a pretty much universally accepted, and central, part of physics but haven’t said anything about it.
I am extremely confident that #1 and #2 are both false.
Of course this isn’t scientific evidence that you’re wrong, and if for some reason anything of substance hung on this then it would be appropriate to look more carefully at the evidence and the theory and the mathematics and see what’s going on. And if you really think you’ve got good evidence that relativity is wrong then you should do the work and collect your Nobel prize. For my part, simply on the basis of #1 and #2 (plus the absence of any reason to think you’re so astoundingly smart that it would be unsurprising for all the world’s cosmologists to have simply missed something that you see intuitively) I am confident enough that you’re wrong that I feel no inclination to go to that effort to confirm that the received wisdom hasn’t just yet been overthrown.
I am not very eager to fight against, or for the GR. I don’t care that much about this. It’s a low priority suitable maybe for my occasional blog post and a crosslink to here, where debates are quite long.
Still, no apparent time slowdown in those fast moving galaxies, or some apparent time slowdown—is a bit interesting topic.
As I mentioned earlier, you could count the number of cycles of a laser light beam between two events. For this reason, the apparent slowdown has to be proportional to the redshift. This is a fairly general argument that should work for more theories than just general relativity.
In order for there not to be an apparent slowdown, something really wierd would have to be going on.
At one moment, nothing can be faster than light, the next moment there is a billion of faster than light galaxies.
The next moment, it’s okay, they are not faster than light, only the space is replicating itself between us an them.
Exactly. If you have two ants on a rubber band and you stretch the rubber band, the time derivative of the distance between the ants may be larger than twice the maximum speed at which an ant can walk, but that’s not due to the ants walking so there’s no paradox.
I am not that sure, that there is no paradox. As I see, it can easily be. There is a smaller chance that there isn’t any paradox, after all. Still possible.
I wish, I could find an internet site, which would address those problems. I can’t.
You are mistaken.
https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0011070
There are superluminal galaxies. Quote:
They are defining distance based on the conventional picture, then asking how fast it is increasing with time, as I mentioned in my above comment.
They are “defining ” in a way, that no galaxy is bound to any visible relativistic effect. Everybody does that, albeit on at least two different ways.
How convenient!
We have superluminal galaxies, not bound to relativity. We have nearly light speed galaxies, free of any observable relativistic effect. Our hypothetical ancient space ship sent there (to a nearly light speed away moving galaxy), would slow down all its clocks, the surrounding galaxy wouldn’t.
Funny.
Unimportant answer: No, it will appear to have slowed down clocks (as was explained to you at the beginning of this thread) and the ancient ship, if it is now at the same distance and stationary with respect to that galaxy, will appear to have the same slowdown.
The more important answer: at this point, this discussion as it is going now is looking pointless.
You have intuitions, backed up by some argumentation, but without a complete mathematical picture, that general relativity produces predictions that don’t match observations.
I have intuitions, backed up by other argumentation, also without a complete mathematical picture, that general relativity produces predictions compatible with observations.
I think my intuitions are better supported, but that’s not what it important.
What is important: general relativity is a physical theory, published long ago and available to anyone, such that this argument can be resolved once and for all by actually doing the math. I am too lazy to do it for the purposes of a comment debate (I might possibly do a blog post though, if it turns out not to be too much work). You come across as probably smart enough to learn how to do the math, so get a general relativity textbook and work it out. You should subjectively estimate a much bigger gain than I do from doing the math, given your subjective assessment that GR gives false predictions and my subjective assessment that it gives true predictions: whoever disproves general relativity will probably get a Nobel prize.
I don’t think, that my intuition should be backed by, or crushed by (doesn’t matter which, really) - more mathematics.
I think my intuition should be backed or crushed by some experimental evidence. Which we probably have.
It seems to me, that no relativistic time slowdown is observed in distant galaxies. What are implications for the GR I really don’t care very much. Theories in Physics are downstream of how the reality is.
If you are correct then cosmologists either (1) are very stupid or (2) are knowingly in possession of strong evidence against a pretty much universally accepted, and central, part of physics but haven’t said anything about it.
I am extremely confident that #1 and #2 are both false.
Of course this isn’t scientific evidence that you’re wrong, and if for some reason anything of substance hung on this then it would be appropriate to look more carefully at the evidence and the theory and the mathematics and see what’s going on. And if you really think you’ve got good evidence that relativity is wrong then you should do the work and collect your Nobel prize. For my part, simply on the basis of #1 and #2 (plus the absence of any reason to think you’re so astoundingly smart that it would be unsurprising for all the world’s cosmologists to have simply missed something that you see intuitively) I am confident enough that you’re wrong that I feel no inclination to go to that effort to confirm that the received wisdom hasn’t just yet been overthrown.
I am not very eager to fight against, or for the GR. I don’t care that much about this. It’s a low priority suitable maybe for my occasional blog post and a crosslink to here, where debates are quite long.
Still, no apparent time slowdown in those fast moving galaxies, or some apparent time slowdown—is a bit interesting topic.
Isn’t it?
As I mentioned earlier, you could count the number of cycles of a laser light beam between two events. For this reason, the apparent slowdown has to be proportional to the redshift. This is a fairly general argument that should work for more theories than just general relativity.
In order for there not to be an apparent slowdown, something really wierd would have to be going on.
We have seen weirder things going on. A superluminal galaxy is quite weird, isn’t it?
At one moment, nothing can be faster than light, the next moment there is a billion of faster than light galaxies.
The next moment, it’s okay, they are not faster than light, only the space is replicating itself between us an them.
The next moment the space is growing exponentially. What is not that weird, we are accustomed to exponentials when replicating is involved.
Nothing is really weird, except the logic must not be violated. Everything else can be weird as it wants to.
Exactly. If you have two ants on a rubber band and you stretch the rubber band, the time derivative of the distance between the ants may be larger than twice the maximum speed at which an ant can walk, but that’s not due to the ants walking so there’s no paradox.
I am not that sure, that there is no paradox. As I see, it can easily be. There is a smaller chance that there isn’t any paradox, after all. Still possible.
I wish, I could find an internet site, which would address those problems. I can’t.
Can you?