CMBR's motion wrt the Earth
in [Relativity]
|
From: mluttgens on 9 Sep 2009 12:24 On 9 sep, 16:01, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Sep 9, 4:16 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. > > If B is at rest relative to the CMBR, are you taking that to mean that > it must be ABSOLUTELY at rest and can not be thought of as moving? > Why???? Moving relative to what? A galaxy? A train? You turn the facts upside down. The galaxy or the train are moving wrt B (representing the CMBR frame), but the opposite is not true. Yes, one can consider that B is at absolute rest in the universe. As Albertito said, if B were a clock, it would tick faster than any clock moving wrt it. Marcel Luttgens > > 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: doug on 9 Sep 2009 14:55 mluttgens wrote: > On 9 sep, 15:10, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >>"mluttgens" <mluttg...(a)orange.fr> wrote in message >> >>news:b6640a30-86b1-4b46-b28e-8a6b642f559d(a)m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >>Now that albertito's attempts at trying to trick me with his is nonsense is >>over .. back to the issue. > > > Albertito is not brainwashed like you. > > >>The earth is in motion relative to the CMBR frame and the CMNR frame is in >>motion relative to the earth. Just as is the case with any inertial frames. > > > No! You really cannot be this stupid can you? > > Marcel Luttgens > > >>That's the case whether or not the CMBR frame has the label 'absolute' hung >>on it or not. >> >>The question is then, not withstanding that the CMBR frame is significant .. >>is there justification for labelling it 'the absolute frame', and given that >>physics works quite nicely without any absolute frame now. Would it even >>matter? > >
From: PD on 9 Sep 2009 13:54 On Sep 9, 11:09 am, mluttgens <mluttg...(a)orange.fr> wrote: > On 9 sep, 16:00, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Sep 8, 5:59 pm, mluttgens <mluttg...(a)orange.fr> wrote: > > > > 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. > > > It certainly does not mean that. > > You are trying to use a third object as a lynchpin as somehow > > determining whether another object is in fact really moving. > > > Here, let's do a swap out of physical objects: > > Let's change "Earth" to "car", "B" to "stop sign", and "CMBR" to > > "tree". Now your paragraph above reads as follows: > > You should forget Einstein's trains and realize that the CMBR > is not a tree. Nor is the CMBR special or preferred. > > Marcel Luttgens > > > =================================== > > One can consider thay a car, moves at v relative to the stop sign, > > which is at rest with respect to the tree. This is perfectly correct, > > as the car detects motion relative to the tree. But the car cannot > > claim that it at rest with respect to the tree, and that the stop sign > > is moving at v wrt him. A simple look at the tree by the car or the > > stop sign suffices to prove his error. > > This means that the relative velocity of the car and the stop sign is > > not reciprocal. > > ==================================== > > What on earth gave you the idea that for the relative velocity of the > > car and the stop sign to be reciprocal, both the car and the stop sign > > have to be able to say they are at rest relative to the tree??? > > > Or back in your terms, what on earth gave you the idea that for the > > relative velocity of the earth and the object B to be reciprocal, both > > the earth and the object have to be able to say they are at rest > > relative to the CMBR??? > > > > 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: PD on 9 Sep 2009 13:59 On Sep 9, 11:24 am, mluttgens <mluttg...(a)orange.fr> wrote: > On 9 sep, 16:01, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Sep 9, 4:16 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. > > > If B is at rest relative to the CMBR, are you taking that to mean that > > it must be ABSOLUTELY at rest and can not be thought of as moving? > > Why???? > > Moving relative to what? A galaxy? A train? The other object. If you have a pair of objects, A and B, A moves relative to B and B moves relative to A. You don't NEED a third reference, a sign post, a center of the universe, a CMBR, for A and B to be moving relative to. They just need each other for that. That's what relative motion MEANS. If you have the pair of objects, the ocean and the boat, then the boat is moving relative to the ocean and the ocean is moving relative to the boat. You don't NEED a third reference point, like the center of Paris, France, to see if the boat is moving relative to that or whether the ocean is moving relative to that. That's the point. There is NOTHING available in the universe that will serve uniquely as that third reference point. If you choose one (like the center of Paris or the CMBR), then you are making a completely arbitrary choice with no scientific value at all, because there is nothing physically different about that choice than any other choice you could make. And if the choice you are making is arbitrary, then the choice is not physically important to make AT ALL. > You turn the facts upside down. The galaxy or the train are moving > wrt B (representing the CMBR frame), but the opposite is not true. > Yes, one can consider that B is at absolute rest in the universe. > As Albertito said, if B were a clock, it would tick faster than > any clock moving wrt it. > > Marcel Luttgens > > > > 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: PD on 9 Sep 2009 14:02
On Sep 9, 9:51 am, Albertito <albertito1...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Sep 9, 3:34 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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? > > > Whoops. The infinite ocean is moving relatively to the boat. > > Neither is moving absolutely, in any way that we can detect, where > > absolute motion means with respect to a reference frame for which the > > laws of physics are uniquely distinct. That's what it means to > > physicists, anyway, though I see you have your own private definitions > > for what absolute motion means to you. > > Yet, there is a preferred frame, the CMBR frame, where > the laws of physics manifest simpler. An atomic clock > at rest in the CMBR frame ticks faster as compared to a > similar clock moving at certain speed. First of all, the rate of a clock is not a law of physics. Wherever did you get the idea that it was? Secondly, what you said is true for ANY reference frame. An atomic clock at rest on the Earth ticks faster as compared to a similar clock moving at a certain speed relative to the Earth. Does that make the Earth the preferred frame? And if it's true for any frame, then which one is the preferred one, and why again? > That CMBR frame > is said to be absolute and preferred, No, I don't believe it is said to be so, except maybe by you. > and that can only > means that Einstein's relativity (both SR and GR) is > > B U L L S H I T ! > > It can be said louder, but not clearer. > > > > > > > > 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://... > > |