CMBR's motion wrt the Earth
in [Relativity]
|
From: Albertito on 9 Sep 2009 10:16 On Sep 9, 2:35 pm, YBM <ybm...(a)nooos.fr> wrote: > Albertito wrote: > > ... If object A is moving at velocity V wrt B, which > > is a material shell surrounding A, you never can say B is moving > > at velocity -V wrt A, because B as a whole is endowed with > > a lot of distinct velocities wrt A, Ok? Some points of B may > > be approaching to A, but other points of B may simultaneously > > be getting away. There is no a simple vector velocity for > > describing the relative motion of B wrt A, Ok? > > This is definitely one of the worst blunders ever posted here... I agree. Your post is definitively one of the worst blunders ever posted here...
From: Albertito on 9 Sep 2009 10:19 On Sep 9, 3:02 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Sep 9, 4:40 am, Albertito <albertito1...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > No. You clearly don't know what relative motion means. > If a boat is moving relative to the ocean, is the ocean moving > relative to the boat? Yes or no? > No. You clearly don't know what absolute motion means. If a boat is moving relative to an infinite ocean, is the infinite ocean moving absolutely to the boat? Yes or no? > > > > 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 transitionhttp://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/quantum/hydfin.htmlhttp://...
From: YBM on 9 Sep 2009 10:21 Albertito a �crit : > On Sep 9, 2:35 pm, YBM <ybm...(a)nooos.fr> wrote: >> Albertito wrote: >>> ... If object A is moving at velocity V wrt B, which >>> is a material shell surrounding A, you never can say B is moving >>> at velocity -V wrt A, because B as a whole is endowed with >>> a lot of distinct velocities wrt A, Ok? Some points of B may >>> be approaching to A, but other points of B may simultaneously >>> be getting away. There is no a simple vector velocity for >>> describing the relative motion of B wrt A, Ok? >> This is definitely one of the worst blunders ever posted here... > > I agree. Your post is definitively one of the worst blunders ever > posted here... You didn't even realize how stupid is what you wrote?
From: PD on 9 Sep 2009 10:32 On Sep 9, 8:35 am, YBM <ybm...(a)nooos.fr> wrote: > Albertito wrote: > > ... If object A is moving at velocity V wrt B, which > > is a material shell surrounding A, you never can say B is moving > > at velocity -V wrt A, because B as a whole is endowed with > > a lot of distinct velocities wrt A, Ok? Some points of B may > > be approaching to A, but other points of B may simultaneously > > be getting away. There is no a simple vector velocity for > > describing the relative motion of B wrt A, Ok? > > This is definitely one of the worst blunders ever posted here... Agreed. Jeez.
From: PD on 9 Sep 2009 10:32
On Sep 9, 9:19 am, Albertito <albertito1...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Sep 9, 3:02 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Sep 9, 4:40 am, Albertito <albertito1...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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. > > > No. You clearly don't know what relative motion means. > > If a boat is moving relative to the ocean, is the ocean moving > > relative to the boat? Yes or no? > > No. You clearly don't know what absolute motion means. > If a boat is moving relative to an infinite ocean, is > the infinite ocean moving absolutely to the boat? > Yes or no? Yes. Duh. That's what relative motion means. > > > > > > 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 transitionhttp://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/quantum/hydfin.htmlhttp://... > > |