Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #368630
| From | shuba <tim@sh.uba> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.physics.relativity |
| Subject | Re: Relativity in no trouble at all |
| Date | 2015-10-31 01:34 +0000 |
| Organization | cellular |
| Message-ID | <n115qd$3p7$1@speranza.aioe.org> (permalink) |
| References | (3 earlier) <39116024.OQNB0k2Ikp@PointedEars.de> <n0tlht$h9q$1@node2.news.atman.pl> <2461954.Zyr1NirVFH@PointedEars.de> <n0ttgl$pen$1@node2.news.atman.pl> <9070247.Hq2VpjKo90@PointedEars.de> |
On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 13:04:32 +0100,
during an apocryphal dark and stormy night
occurring at a remote place on the planet,
a dour and humorless Thomas PointyHead
adroitly employed a digital input device,
and wrote:
> The line on the top of a Usenet posting that attributes the quoted text
> to an author. *One* line per author. Not two. Not more than two.
Does something horrible happen to people who choose personal
freedom over attempted fascist coercion of others? Seems not
in this case. Maybe you will be more successful in the future.
> The theory of relativity (by Einstein and many others) states
> that time periods measured depend on the frame of reference,
> particularly on the relative speed and acceleration of such a
> frame, and are therefore dependent upon the observer who measures
> them. If the observer is not co-moving with the observed frame,
> then they will measure a different time period for a process.
>
> But that does not mean that the age of the universe is
> observer-dependent.
>
> Your misconception is that it would, because you do not
> understand the evolution of the universe as it can be observed
> with telescopes.
I think you need to crib a bit more from wikipedia. The fact is,
there is a preferred frame in standard cosmology at every point,
which is at rest in the so-called Hubble flow. It is in this frame
in which the Hubble law is valid, in which the universe is
isotropic and homogeneous, and from which the age of the universe
is determined. The Sun is approximately at rest in this preferred
cosmological frame, and it is the most natural frame to use.
"Time dilation causes the proper time measured by an
observer to depend on the velocity of the observer, so we
specify that the time variable t in the Hubble law is the
proper time since the Big Bang *for comoving observers*."
--from http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_02.htm
---Tim Shuba---
Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Relativity in big trouble Günther Huldiberaht <gunhu@allrportos.org> - 2015-10-28 14:16 +0000
Re: Relativity in big trouble Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-28 08:50 -0700
Re: Relativity in big trouble Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-10-28 17:25 +0100
Re: Relativity in big trouble Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-28 10:08 -0700
Re: Relativity in big trouble kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-28 18:22 -0400
Re: Relativity in big trouble kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-28 18:21 -0400
Re: Relativity in big trouble Bobby Sifuentes <bobsif@academicinstitute.org> - 2015-10-28 22:32 +0000
Re: Relativity in big trouble kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-28 20:25 -0400
Re: Relativity in big trouble Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-28 19:07 -0700
Re: Relativity in big trouble kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-28 22:59 -0400
Re: Relativity in big trouble Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-28 20:24 -0700
Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-10-28 22:08 +0100
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) Willie Stovall <wstov23@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-28 21:54 +0000
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-10-28 23:22 +0100
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all Bobby Sifuentes <bobsif@academicinstitute.org> - 2015-10-28 22:53 +0000
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-28 20:15 -0400
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-10-28 17:45 -0700
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-28 23:30 -0400
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-10-28 22:08 -0700
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-29 02:38 -0400
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) Bobby Sifuentes <bobsif@academicinstitute.org> - 2015-10-29 20:20 +0000
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-29 16:34 -0400
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) Bobby Sifuentes <bobsif@academicinstitute.org> - 2015-10-29 20:58 +0000
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-10-29 15:12 -0700
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-29 19:51 -0400
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-29 19:19 -0700
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-29 23:07 -0400
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-30 05:27 -0700
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-31 03:46 -0400
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-31 04:54 -0700
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-30 08:38 -0400
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-30 05:45 -0700
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) Jack Weidner <jackwd@webportal.au> - 2015-10-31 11:36 +0000
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-10-29 19:35 -0700
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-29 23:13 -0400
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) Jack Weidner <jackwd@webportal.au> - 2015-10-31 11:37 +0000
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-10-29 15:40 -0700
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-29 20:57 -0400
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-10-29 20:09 -0700
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 04:08 -0700
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-30 04:33 -0700
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 05:18 -0700
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-30 05:45 -0700
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-30 09:23 -0400
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-30 07:17 -0700
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 07:42 -0700
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 08:11 -0700
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) Bobby Sifuentes <bobsif@academicinstitute.org> - 2015-10-30 15:34 +0000
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-30 12:12 -0400
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) Bobby Sifuentes <bobsif@academicinstitute.org> - 2015-10-30 16:17 +0000
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-30 08:58 -0400
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) Bobby Sifuentes <bobsif@academicinstitute.org> - 2015-10-30 15:21 +0000
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-30 00:20 -0700
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-10-30 10:38 -0700
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-10-29 02:26 +0100
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-28 23:16 -0400
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-10-29 15:26 +0100
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all Bobby Sifuentes <bobsif@academicinstitute.org> - 2015-10-29 20:08 +0000
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-29 16:27 -0400
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) Jack Weidner <jackwd@webportal.au> - 2015-10-31 11:35 +0000
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-29 00:35 -0700
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-10-29 15:30 +0100
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-10-29 18:37 +0100
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-10-29 19:50 +0100
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-10-29 20:53 +0100
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-10-30 13:04 +0100
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-30 05:32 -0700
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all shuba <tim@sh.uba> - 2015-10-31 01:34 +0000
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) Bobby Sifuentes <bobsif@academicinstitute.org> - 2015-10-30 17:46 +0000
Re: Relativity in big trouble kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-28 18:09 -0400
csiph-web