CMBR's motion wrt the Earth
in [Relativity]
|
From: Koobee Wublee on 9 Sep 2009 01:19 On Sep 8, 3:24 am, "Sandcastle" <i...(a)vipilot.com> wrote: > "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Hmmm... You are assuming the Big Bang started in a singularity based > > on false mathematical models. What if it did not? There would be no > > need for the absurdity in inflation where space can curve and expand > > faster than the speed of light. > > No. I am assuming the Big Bang started in a singularity based on the concept > that space-time is doing the expansion, not something sitting in space-time. Dont you think you are assuming too much to dictate what the universe is? > To date there has been no challenge to space-time (with the exception of > violation of Bell's Theorem in experiments based on an erroneous assumption > rather than the theorem). What do you mean by a challenge to spacetime? Spacetime is a mathematical construct where all self-styled physicists now believe in it as a mystified substance of some sort. <shrug> Please name some such failed challenges. > If you accept space-time, then there is no such thing as faster than the > speed of light. So, if I reject spacetime, then something can travel beyond the speed of light, is that right? > Time is almost at a standstill as you approach the speed of > light and distances have reduced to zero. For example, if you could ride on > a light beam, you would instantaneously travel the width of the universe. > The photon is created at its source the same instant that it is destroyed at > its destination. But an observer, not near the speed of the light beam would > measure the time in billions of light years. Now, how do you know this? Have you actually gone photon surfing yourself?
From: mluttgens on 9 Sep 2009 05:16 On 9 sep, 01:14, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "mluttgens" <mluttg...(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. B cannot move wrt A, as B is at rest in the CMBR. All you can claim is that A sees a dipole in the CMBR, but not B, meaning that A has some velocity v wrt the CMBR. You can't stupidly use Galilean relativity in this case. Marcel Luttgens > > > 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: Albertito on 9 Sep 2009 05:40 On Sep 9, 10:16 am, mluttgens <mluttg...(a)orange.fr> wrote: > On 9 sep, 01:14, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > > "mluttgens" <mluttg...(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. > > B cannot move wrt A, as B is at rest in the CMBR. > All you can claim is that A sees a dipole in the CMBR, but not B, > meaning that A has some velocity v wrt the CMBR. > You can't stupidly use Galilean relativity in this case. > > Marcel Luttgens > > > > > > 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 This guy called Inertial (I wonder whether he is not Dono in disguise) is below the mean stupidity of any SRian. He is not interested in discussing physics but in becoming the first top poster of the year in this Usenet group, by replying zillions of idiocies to any post in any thread of this spr group. Let's analyze his last idiocy. He claims that if A moves towards B then B moves towards A, and that can only mean that if the Earth moves through the CMBR frame, then the CMBR frame moves in a frame where the Earth is regarded at rest. What this imbecile can't grasp is that the CMBR is not a body as the Earth, but radiation coming to the Earth in all directions, and it yields a non-zero dipole moment. You can't ask the stupid question, "what is the dipole moment of the Earth in the rest frame of the CMBR"? It is clear that the CMBR as a whole can't move wrt the earth, but the Earth is actually moving wrt to the CMBR. It would be interesting to study the fine structure and the hyperfine structure of atoms, molecules and ions, and how the dipole moment of the CMBR might produce splittings of these structures, and also whether gravitational potentials may produce those hyperfine splittings. The reason why an atomic clokc would tick slower when moving wrt the CMBR frame would be that splitting of the hyperfine structure. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_clock#Mechanism hyperfine transition http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/quantum/hydfin.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine_structure http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperfine_structure
From: "Juan R." González-Álvarez on 9 Sep 2009 07:46 Albertito wrote on Tue, 08 Sep 2009 03:53:08 -0700: > On Sep 8, 11:24 am, "Sandcastle" <i...(a)vipilot.com> wrote: (...) > You allucinate, dude. You believe in what mainstream textbooks tell you > the truth is. Mainstream textbooks only present our current knowledge. Moreover, anyone knows that textbooks can contain mistakes. This is why University teachers give a list of different textbooks that students may consult. But since you never go to the Uni... -- http://www.canonicalscience.org/ BLOG: http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html
From: Sandcastle on 9 Sep 2009 08:32
"Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wublee(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:f6e431eb-17e0-4203-ae9c-d141d85b5bc1(a)x38g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... On Sep 8, 3:24 am, "Sandcastle" <i...(a)vipilot.com> wrote: > "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: .... > Time is almost at a standstill as you approach the speed of > light and distances have reduced to zero. For example, if you could ride > on > a light beam, you would instantaneously travel the width of the universe. > The photon is created at its source the same instant that it is destroyed > at > its destination. But an observer, not near the speed of the light beam > would > measure the time in billions of light years. Now, how do you know this? Have you actually gone photon surfing yourself? No. But there are numerous experiments that show the relationship between our measurement of time and measurement of time on the object in motion. Earlier ones had to do with the half life of particles that were moving at relativistic speeds and how far they travel. Newer ones have to do with atomic clocks in space. All (with one exception) agree within the precision we can measure with the relativistic mathematics. Extrapolation from those experiments is as close to knowing as I can get. The one exception is the set of experiments dealing with Bell's Theorem. As far as I can tell, Bell's Theorem is correct (though some dispute it). However, I see an assumption made in its application to these experiments. The wrong assumption leads to a wrong conclusion that entangled pairs can share information faster than the speed of light. |