CMBR's motion wrt the Earth
in [Relativity]
|
From: mluttgens on 8 Sep 2009 18:59 On 8 sep, 14:53, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Sep 8, 6:07 am, mluttgens <mluttg...(a)orange.fr> wrote: > > > > > > > On 7 sep, 20:15, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Sep 6, 7:53 am, mluttgens <mluttg...(a)orange.fr> wrote: > > > > > CMBR's motion wrt the Earth > > > > ------------------------------------------ > > > > > In cosmology, cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation > > > > (also CMBR, CBR, MBR, and relic radiation) is a form of > > > > electromagnetic radiation filling the universe. > > > > (fromhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CMBR) > > > > > By measuring the amount of the dipole anisotropy (the bluest > > > > part of the sky is .0033 K hotter than average), we can determine > > > > the magnitude of the earth's motion with respect to the CMB: > > > > the earth is moving at a speed of 370 km/s in the direction > > > > of the constellation Virgo. > > > > (fromhttp://www.phy.duke.edu/~kolena/cmb.htm) > > > > > It (the CMBR) does move with respect to an object. > > > > (from PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com>, Sep 5, 2009) > > > > > Clearly, the Earth moves wrt the CMBR. According to SR, > > > > reciprocally, the CMBR moves wrt the Earth. > > > > Can somebody explain how, physically, an electromagnetic > > > > radiation filling the universe can move relative to the Earth? > > > > > Marcel Luttgens > > > > I think you are confused about what relative motion means, Marcel. You > > > have in your head that motion is an absolute statement, as in either > > > something is in motion or it's not. This is not the case. > > > > If you have car and a stop sign and a fire hydrant, the car is in > > > motion relative to the stop sign, and the stop sign is in motion > > > relative to the car, and the fire hydrant is not in motion relative to > > > the stop sign, and the stop sign is not in relative to the fire > > > hydrant, and the fire hydrant is in motion relative to the car, and > > > the car is in motion relative to the fire hydrant. > > > > I think you have it in your head that if you have two objects A and B > > > and they are in relative motion, then this means that one of them is > > > in motion and the other is not. As in, A is in motion relative to B, > > > but B is not in motion relative to A. > > > No, what I have in my head is that if A is in motion relative > > to the CMBR, it is impossible to physically demonstrate that > > the CMBR moves wrt A. > > Take it slow, Marcel, and substitute "B" for "CMBR". > It is not the first time I myself introduced an object B, which is at rest in the CMBR, meaning that an observer on B would not detect a dipole in the CMBR (Such onject would correspond to TOM ROBERTS' FRAME IN WHICH THE CMBR DIPOLE MOMENT IS ZERO) One can consider thay an object A, for instance the Earth, moves at v relative to the object B, which is at rest inthe CMBR. This is perfectly correct, as A detects a CMBR dipole But A cannot claim that it at rest in the CMBR, and that B is moving at v wrt him. A simple look at the CMBR by A or B suffices to prove his error. This means that the relative velocity of A and B is not reciprocal. Marcel Luttgens > > > Marcel Luttgens > > > > When you say that you don't believe the CMBR is in motion relative to > > > the earth, I believe you think this because you somehow believe the > > > CMBR is fixed and stationary in some absolute sense and so can't be in > > > any kind of motion, relative or not. I don't know where you got this > > > idea. > > > > PD-
From: Inertial on 8 Sep 2009 19:10 "mluttgens" <mluttgens(a)orange.fr> wrote in message news:803e2628-310f-49cc-8dba-08b27fadaa84(a)s39g2000yqj.googlegroups.com... > On 8 sep, 14:28, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "mluttgens" <mluttg...(a)orange.fr> wrote in message >> >> news:afd5827b-f14e-4a66-a511-8148bb696967(a)g19g2000yqo.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> > On 8 sep, 01:32, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> "mluttgens" <mluttg...(a)orange.fr> wrote in message >> >> >>news:523b7307-93cc-44c3-940e-8bd1f368776e(a)h13g2000yqk.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> > On 7 sep, 14:22, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> >> "mluttgens" <mluttg...(a)orange.fr> wrote in message >> >> >> >>news:6e6cbfbb-70bb-4fa6-99c3-45f00c351fa7(a)w36g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > On 7 sep, 01:59, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >> >> >> 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 >> >> >> >> > Thank you. >> >> >> >> I would have assumed it was taken from the context of talking about >> >> >> frames, >> >> >> and absolute frames in particular, that 'the CMBR' was referring to >> >> >> what >> >> >> is >> >> >> sometimes called the CMBR rest frame (as described above by Tom). >> >> >> >> > Do you consider that claiming (like Paul Draper and others) >> >> >> > that the CMBR moves wrt an object, makes sense? >> >> >> >> It makes as much sense as an object moving wrt the CMBR. >> >> >> > No, read what Tom Roberts said: >> >> >> I did .. read what I said >> >> >> > "The 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." >> >> >> That's right >> >> >> > He didn't say that the Earth has no motion wrt the CMBR, >> >> >> Neither did I >> >> > Then explain how the "radiation apparently filling the universe" >> > can move wrt the Earth. >> >> If its radiation, it moves at c relative to us, and relative to any other >> object. >> >> But the CMBR frame, the one we move at ~370km/s within, is the frame of >> reference where the "CMBR DIPOLE MOMENT IS ZERO" (to quote Tom's caps >> from >> above). We move at 370km/s relative to it, and so it moves at 370km/s >> relative to us. > > Concretely, what could be such frame of reference? What do you mean? You don't know what the CMBR reference frame is!! UNBELIEVABLE!! The frame that you so proudly quoted links to with the information about our speed relative to it .. and you don't know what it is????
From: eric gisse on 8 Sep 2009 19:10 Albertito wrote: > On Sep 8, 10:18 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> Inertial wrote: >> >> [...] >> >> >> That's because the advocates, quite frankly, have less intellectual >> >> horsepower than my giant pine cone. >> >> > I'll have to have a look at that. Mind you, I thought you looked quite >> > friendly in your old facebook photo. >> >> That's the purpose of smiling, but thanks :P >> >> I guess I haven't quite managed to communicate how amused I was [and am] >> to have a pine cone that's the size of a football. >> >> >> >> >> I'll talk to the giant pine cone and expect a non-hallucinatory answer >> >> long >> >> before I approach the likes of someone like Seto with a serious >> >> physics problem. >> >> > Hehehehe. But is the pine cone as much fun? >> >> I get more entertainment from showing a random person a picture of a >> giant pine cone than discussing physics with Seto. I take unusual pride >> in my giant pine cone, even though I found it in the middle of an access >> road in the Shasta mountains.... > > Uhmmmm, interesting. So, you've got giant pine cone, eh? > :-P The world's largest!
From: Inertial on 8 Sep 2009 19:14 "mluttgens" <mluttgens(a)orange.fr> wrote in message news:b038c1c7-7b5b-4486-ad57-1cfa4f0206a4(a)y21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... > On 8 sep, 14:53, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On Sep 8, 6:07 am, mluttgens <mluttg...(a)orange.fr> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > On 7 sep, 20:15, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > On Sep 6, 7:53 am, mluttgens <mluttg...(a)orange.fr> wrote: >> >> > > > CMBR's motion wrt the Earth >> > > > ------------------------------------------ >> >> > > > In cosmology, cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation >> > > > (also CMBR, CBR, MBR, and relic radiation) is a form of >> > > > electromagnetic radiation filling the universe. >> > > > (fromhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CMBR) >> >> > > > By measuring the amount of the dipole anisotropy (the bluest >> > > > part of the sky is .0033 K hotter than average), we can determine >> > > > the magnitude of the earth's motion with respect to the CMB: >> > > > the earth is moving at a speed of 370 km/s in the direction >> > > > of the constellation Virgo. >> > > > (fromhttp://www.phy.duke.edu/~kolena/cmb.htm) >> >> > > > It (the CMBR) does move with respect to an object. >> > > > (from PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com>, Sep 5, 2009) >> >> > > > Clearly, the Earth moves wrt the CMBR. According to SR, >> > > > reciprocally, the CMBR moves wrt the Earth. >> > > > Can somebody explain how, physically, an electromagnetic >> > > > radiation filling the universe can move relative to the Earth? >> >> > > > Marcel Luttgens >> >> > > I think you are confused about what relative motion means, Marcel. >> > > You >> > > have in your head that motion is an absolute statement, as in either >> > > something is in motion or it's not. This is not the case. >> >> > > If you have car and a stop sign and a fire hydrant, the car is in >> > > motion relative to the stop sign, and the stop sign is in motion >> > > relative to the car, and the fire hydrant is not in motion relative >> > > to >> > > the stop sign, and the stop sign is not in relative to the fire >> > > hydrant, and the fire hydrant is in motion relative to the car, and >> > > the car is in motion relative to the fire hydrant. >> >> > > I think you have it in your head that if you have two objects A and B >> > > and they are in relative motion, then this means that one of them is >> > > in motion and the other is not. As in, A is in motion relative to B, >> > > but B is not in motion relative to A. >> >> > No, what I have in my head is that if A is in motion relative >> > to the CMBR, it is impossible to physically demonstrate that >> > the CMBR moves wrt A. >> >> Take it slow, Marcel, and substitute "B" for "CMBR". >> > > It is not the first time I myself introduced an object B, which > is at rest in the CMBR, meaning that an observer on B would > not detect a dipole in the CMBR (Such onject would correspond to > TOM ROBERTS' FRAME IN WHICH THE CMBR DIPOLE MOMENT IS ZERO) Fine > One can consider thay an object A, for instance the Earth, moves > at v relative to the object B, Fine > which is at rest inthe CMBR. Fine and so B moves at -v realtive to A > This is perfectly correct, as A detects a CMBR dipole > But A cannot claim that it at rest in the CMBR, It doesn't .. it is moving at v .. you just said that > and that > B is moving at v wrt him. B is moving at -v wrt him. If two objects are moving relative to each other, then they have the same speed but opposite direction of movements. > A simple look at the CMBR by A or B > suffices to prove his error. It provesa that you Obviously can't understand even the most basics of physics of logic > This means that the relative velocity of A and B is not reciprocal. NO .. it means you're an idiot. This has been explained to you many many times and you still persist with exactly the same nonsense that is covered in schools and has been known for centuries. The only conclusion that makes sense after all that is that you're an idiot.
From: Inertial on 8 Sep 2009 19:38
"eric gisse" <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:h86o9e$hnp$5(a)news.eternal-september.org... > Albertito wrote: > >> On Sep 8, 10:18 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> Inertial wrote: >>> >>> [...] >>> >>> >> That's because the advocates, quite frankly, have less intellectual >>> >> horsepower than my giant pine cone. >>> >>> > I'll have to have a look at that. Mind you, I thought you looked >>> > quite >>> > friendly in your old facebook photo. >>> >>> That's the purpose of smiling, but thanks :P >>> >>> I guess I haven't quite managed to communicate how amused I was [and am] >>> to have a pine cone that's the size of a football. >>> >>> >>> >>> >> I'll talk to the giant pine cone and expect a non-hallucinatory >>> >> answer >>> >> long >>> >> before I approach the likes of someone like Seto with a serious >>> >> physics problem. >>> >>> > Hehehehe. But is the pine cone as much fun? >>> >>> I get more entertainment from showing a random person a picture of a >>> giant pine cone than discussing physics with Seto. I take unusual pride >>> in my giant pine cone, even though I found it in the middle of an access >>> road in the Shasta mountains.... >> >> Uhmmmm, interesting. So, you've got giant pine cone, eh? >> :-P > > The world's largest! That is pretty impressive. Lets hope it doesn't end up travelling to quickly and get contracted into the second largest. |