CMBR's motion wrt the Earth
in [Relativity]
|
From: Tom Roberts on 6 Sep 2009 19:59 mluttgens wrote: > Can somebody explain how, physically, an electromagnetic > radiation filling the universe can move relative to the Earth? Your descriptions are insufficiently precise. There is no such thing as "The CMBR" -- the cosmic microwave background radiation is comprised of myriads of photons moving in all directions. This is not a "thing" in any normal sense, it is a vast collection of photons. [For the purposes of this thread I'll ignore the quantum aspects of photons.] What you are missing is the fact that measurement of "the earth's motion with respect to the CMBR" is really a measurement of the earth's speed relative to THE FRAME IN WHICH THE CMBR DIPOLE MOMENT IS ZERO [#]. This is not in any sense a "rest frame of the CMBR", because the CMBR is myriads of photons NONE of which are at rest in any frame. This is purely a statistical property of the collection of all the photons comprising the CMBR. [#] Careful authors phrase it this way, not in the careless way you did. I have been phrasing it as "the CMBR dipole=0 frame" in this newsgroup for many years. It is rather remarkable that there is such radiation apparently filling the universe (it has been observed interacting with distant stars and galaxies). This is quite strong evidence in support of the big bang cosmologies, and the synthesis known as the standard model of cosmology. There remain details still unknown, and some downright puzzles (dark matter, dark energy, ...). Tom Roberts
From: Koobee Wublee on 7 Sep 2009 00:21 On Sep 6, 4:59 pm, Tom Roberts wrote: > What you are missing is the fact that measurement of "the earth's motion > with respect to the CMBR" is really a measurement of the earth's speed > relative to THE FRAME IN WHICH THE CMBR DIPOLE MOMENT IS ZERO [#]. This > is not in any sense a "rest frame of the CMBR", because the CMBR is > myriads of photons NONE of which are at rest in any frame. This is > purely a statistical property of the collection of all the photons > comprising the CMBR. This is the second time that you have refused to recognize the absolute frame of reference. The first time was indicated by the null results of the MMX in which the only logical explanation is the Voigt transform [#] which spells out the absolute frame of reference right there and then. <shrug> [#] Although the Lorentz transform like an infinite numbers of such transforms also satisfies the null results of the MMX, it however manifests the absurdity in the twins paradox. > [#] Careful authors phrase it this way, not in the careless > way you did. I have been phrasing it as "the CMBR dipole=0 > frame" in this newsgroup for many years. It spells very clearly that is the absolute frame of reference. As a physicist, your denial of the fact is very unprofessional. <shrug> > It is rather remarkable that there is such radiation apparently filling > the universe (it has been observed interacting with distant stars and > galaxies). This is quite strong evidence in support of the big bang > cosmologies, and the synthesis known as the standard model of cosmology. If there was a Big Bang, there must be an absolute frame of reference. <shrug> Thus, yours truly is not surprised that there is a dipole shift to the CMBR. <shrug> Accepting the Big Bang and denying the absolute frame of reference is a contradictory concept. It is utterly absurd. <shrug> > There remain details still unknown, and some downright puzzles (dark > matter, dark energy, ...). Dont you believe in the Cosmological Constant anymore? Well, I dont blame you since believing in the absurdity of the Cosmological Constant, you must believe in negative mass density in vacuum. So, believing in negative mass density in vacuum does not represents a mystery but really a very fvcked up conjecture. <shrug>
From: eric gisse on 7 Sep 2009 01:46 Koobee Wublee wrote: [...] > This is the second time that you have refused to recognize the > absolute frame of reference. ....and yet the hobbyist still can't explain what makes it "absolute". [...]
From: Sam Wormley on 7 Sep 2009 01:53 Koobee Wublee wrote: > On Sep 6, 4:59 pm, Tom Roberts wrote: > >> What you are missing is the fact that measurement of "the earth's motion >> with respect to the CMBR" is really a measurement of the earth's speed >> relative to THE FRAME IN WHICH THE CMBR DIPOLE MOMENT IS ZERO [#]. This >> is not in any sense a "rest frame of the CMBR", because the CMBR is >> myriads of photons NONE of which are at rest in any frame. This is >> purely a statistical property of the collection of all the photons >> comprising the CMBR. > > This is the second time that you have refused to recognize the > absolute frame of reference. The first time was indicated by the null > results of the MMX in which the only logical explanation is the Voigt > transform [#] which spells out the absolute frame of reference right > there and then. <shrug> > > [#] Although the Lorentz transform like an infinite > numbers of such transforms also satisfies the null > results of the MMX, it however manifests the absurdity > in the twins paradox. > >> [#] Careful authors phrase it this way, not in the careless >> way you did. I have been phrasing it as "the CMBR dipole=0 >> frame" in this newsgroup for many years. > > It spells very clearly that is the absolute frame of reference. As a > physicist, your denial of the fact is very unprofessional. <shrug> > >> It is rather remarkable that there is such radiation apparently filling >> the universe (it has been observed interacting with distant stars and >> galaxies). This is quite strong evidence in support of the big bang >> cosmologies, and the synthesis known as the standard model of cosmology. > > If there was a Big Bang, there must be an absolute frame of > reference. <shrug> Thus, yours truly is not surprised that there is > a dipole shift to the CMBR. <shrug> Accepting the Big Bang and > denying the absolute frame of reference is a contradictory concept. > It is utterly absurd. <shrug> There are no absolute frames, Koobee. No Center http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html Also see Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html WMAP: Foundations of the Big Bang theory http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html > >> There remain details still unknown, and some downright puzzles (dark >> matter, dark energy, ...). > > Dont you believe in the Cosmological Constant anymore? Well, I dont > blame you since believing in the absurdity of the Cosmological > Constant, you must believe in negative mass density in vacuum. So, > believing in negative mass density in vacuum does not represents a > mystery but really a very fvcked up conjecture. <shrug> > >
From: alien8er on 7 Sep 2009 01:56
On Sep 6, 10:46 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Koobee Wublee wrote: > > [...] > > > This is the second time that you have refused to recognize the > > absolute frame of reference. > > ...and yet the hobbyist still can't explain what makes it "absolute". Even a hobbyist (me) can ask pertinent questions like "if an absolute frame of reference exists, in which direction must I accelerate, for how long, in order to come to rest in that frame?". No absolutist has ever answered that question. They all pretend to ignore it. Mark L. Fergerson |