> > Luttgens:
> > You should specify that it "looks" dilated by a factor f *to an Earth 
> > observer*.
> > And you are forgetting that the time on Earth *at the time when the 
> > light was emitted* *looks* dilated by the same factor f *to a supernova
> > observer*. This is a mere consequence of the Cosmological Principle, 
> > according to which all positions in the universe are essentially 
> > equivalent.
> >
> > Mathematically, for an Earth observer, to a time interval t(earth)
> > corresponds a time interval 
> >    (1)    t(supernova) = t(earth) * f,
> > and symmetrically, for a galactic observer, 
> >           t(earth) = t(supernova) * f,
> > where f is the same time dilation factor. By replacing this
> > value of t(earth) in relation (1), one gets
> >            t(supernova) = t(supernova) * f^2,
> > which is only possible if 
> >            f = 1.
> >
> > Thus relation (1) reduces to 
> >            t(supernova) = t(earth),
> > meaning that, contrary to the claim made by contemporary cosmologists, no 
> > "time dilation factor works on supernovae to lessen the delay in 
> > the rest frame".
> >
> Hm, that sounds like the "Famous Devastating Marcel Luttgens
> Special Relativity Refutation", going like this:
>    |   t' = gamma * t  for a clock at rest in the unprimed frame
>    |       and
>    |   t = gamma * t'  for a clock at rest in the primed frame
>    |       and therefore
>    |   t' = gamma^2 * t'
>    |       which is only possible if
>    |   gamma = 1
> Sounds familiar, Marcel?

"Fumbling" Dirk is unable to realize the consequence of space
expansion, i.e. that galaxies move apart *from each other*.
Iow, when galaxy A moves wrt galaxy B, the opposite is phyically
true: galaxy B moves wrt galaxy A. Hence, when A observes a
time slowing on B, B necessarily observes the *same* time
slowing on A. SRists, like "Fumbling" Dirk, who claim against
every logic that A, or B, can observe a time dilation on B,
or on A, can only be qualified as crackpots.

>
> > Contemporary cosmologists, who base their claim on general
> > relativity, are simply wrong.