CMBR's motion wrt the Earth
in [Relativity]
|
From: Koobee Wublee on 10 Sep 2009 01:53 On Sep 9, 5:32 am, "Sandcastle" <i...(a)vipilot.com> wrote: > "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: So, you cannot bring any evidence where spacetime, apparently worshipped by you to a very serious extent, is challenged. <shrug> > > 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. Can you be more specific to show which experiment? As you know, each case must be examined within its own merit. <sfrug> > 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. Would that be the GPS in your mind? Are you sure that GPS really satisfies GR? Since SR has this symmetry about the principle of relativity, how can you prove the GPS actually support this principle? > 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. What is the Bells theorem? Is it important? Does that have anything to do with Bells curve?
From: mluttgens on 10 Sep 2009 08:49 On 9 sep, 20:49, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Sep 9, 1:44 pm, Albertito <albertito1...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Sep 9, 7:02 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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? > > > What on Earth gave you that nonsensical idea? > > Of course, the rate of an atomic clock is a > > law of physics, because there are hyperfine > > structure splittings involved. > > Nothing is changing about the hyperfine splittings in the different > frames. They are the *same*. No change in the physics. > > > The rate at > > which a clock ticks can never be relative but > > absolute. If you are ageing faster than me, it > > is imposible that I were ageing faster than you. > > Not true. It IS possible. But you have to be pretty careful about > defining what this statement means, because the temptation is to think > this means that there is something physically interacting with the > system to *alter* it to affect the aging. That is the wrong conclusion > to draw. > > > > > > 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? > > > No, the preferred frame is the CMBR frame, > > where the clock would tick the fastest. > > Sorry, but no. From the Earth frame, the clock "at rest in the CMBR > frame" (and we'd have to be careful to define what that means too) is > ticking more slowly. NOT faster. Simply because the Earth's SRist considers that the clock "at rest in the CMBR frame" is moving relative to him. Iow, according to the SRist, the clock is not at rest in the CMBR anymore, it is moving wrt the CMBR as soon as he dreamed it. Marcel Luttgens > > > > > > > > > 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.-
From: PD on 10 Sep 2009 08:54 On Sep 10, 7:49 am, mluttgens <mluttg...(a)orange.fr> wrote: > On 9 sep, 20:49, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Sep 9, 1:44 pm, Albertito <albertito1...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Sep 9, 7:02 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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? > > > > What on Earth gave you that nonsensical idea? > > > Of course, the rate of an atomic clock is a > > > law of physics, because there are hyperfine > > > structure splittings involved. > > > Nothing is changing about the hyperfine splittings in the different > > frames. They are the *same*. No change in the physics. > > > > The rate at > > > which a clock ticks can never be relative but > > > absolute. If you are ageing faster than me, it > > > is imposible that I were ageing faster than you. > > > Not true. It IS possible. But you have to be pretty careful about > > defining what this statement means, because the temptation is to think > > this means that there is something physically interacting with the > > system to *alter* it to affect the aging. That is the wrong conclusion > > to draw. > > > > > 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? > > > > No, the preferred frame is the CMBR frame, > > > where the clock would tick the fastest. > > > Sorry, but no. From the Earth frame, the clock "at rest in the CMBR > > frame" (and we'd have to be careful to define what that means too) is > > ticking more slowly. NOT faster. > > Simply because the Earth's SRist considers that the clock > "at rest in the CMBR frame" is moving relative to him. > Iow, according to the SRist, the clock is not at rest in the CMBR > anymore, it is moving wrt the CMBR as soon as he dreamed it. Not true, Marcel. Gee, I see this whole concept of relative motion has got you completely addled. The clock at rest in the CMBR frame is STILL at rest relative to the CMBR, even when viewed from the Earth frame. Likewise, the stop sign is still at rest relative to the tree, even though the stop sign is moving relative to the car. Just because the stop sign is moving in the car frame does NOT mean that the stop sign is moving relative to the tree. You are stuck in this notion that moving is moving, and that something that is moving relative to one thing cannot be at rest relative to another. > > Marcel Luttgens > > > > > > 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.- > >
From: Sandcastle on 10 Sep 2009 09:37 "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wublee(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:66bc0bb0-28b1-45a0-b3bb-0df75b9c13e4(a)k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... On Sep 9, 5:32 am, "Sandcastle" <i...(a)vipilot.com> wrote: > "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: So, you cannot bring any evidence where spacetime, apparently worshipped by you to a very serious extent, is challenged. <shrug> > > 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. Can you be more specific to show which experiment? As you know, each case must be examined within its own merit. <sfrug> # Astronomical proofs: Perihelion shift of Mercury only explained by relativity Light bent by gravity - 1919 Solar Eclip0se - stars near Sun Gravitational lensing shows multiple images of far galaxy - path through gravity delayed as much as 1400 days Clocks run slower in gravitation fields - clocks in jet planes, satellites Black holes exist - 1992 Hubble Space Telescope found black holes in galaxy - gravitational lensing Gravity has its own form of radiation which can carry energy - 1995 pulsars proof Spinning body produces gravitomagnetism - check out Gravity Probe B Space can stretch during the expansion of universe - check Hubble's in 1929 There are many more # > 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. Would that be the GPS in your mind? Are you sure that GPS really satisfies GR? Since SR has this symmetry about the principle of relativity, how can you prove the GPS actually support this principle? # GPS would not work to the current accuracy without it. # > 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. What is the Bell�s theorem? Is it important? Does that have anything to do with Bell�s curve? # Breifly, Bell's Theorem proposed an experiment about 30 years ago that said a certain experiment must result in a number equal to 5/9 or greater. The experiment was run 15 years later (they thought) and got a result of 1/2. The only logical explanation for the anomoly is that with entangled pairs of particals, changing the orientation of one particle changes the orientation of the other instantaniously ... even if the particles are 13 miles (measurements so far) apart. This has been done with a property known as spin as well as with polarization of light. As I said, I think there is an assumption flaw in all of these experiments. If you want more information, Google "Bell's Theorem". #
From: Nicolaas Vroom on 10 Sep 2009 12:35
"Tom Roberts" <tjroberts137(a)sbcglobal.net> schreef in bericht news:GPWdndnqC6Np0TnXRVn_vwA(a)giganews.com... > 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. > > 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. > There are also people in favour to call it a rest frame: See: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/9601/9601151v2.pdf The Dipole Observed in the COBE DMR Four-Year Data C. H. Lineweaver, L. Tenorio, G. F. Smoot, P. Keegstra, A. J. Banday & P. Lubin Page 1: " A measurement of this Doppler dipole thus tells us our velocity with respect to the rest frame of the CMB." IMO the whole issue is a statistical (average) aspect. Nicolaas Vroom http://users.pandora.be/nicvroom/ |