CMBR's motion wrt the Earth
in [Relativity]
|
From: alien8er on 10 Sep 2009 15:00 On Sep 7, 5:23 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Sep 7, 12:58 pm, alien8er <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Sep 7, 5:37 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > "alien8er" <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > > >news:5df8d699-8d16-4727-baf1-e68cde032dc3(a)k13g2000prh.googlegroups.com.... > > > > > On Sep 6, 10:53 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote: > > > >> Koobee Wublee wrote: > > > >> > On Sep 6, 4:59 pm, Tom Roberts wrote: > > > > >> >> 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. > > > > >> > This is the second time that you have refused to recognize the > > > >> > absolute frame of reference. > > > > > How much acceleration must one apply to an object, in which > > > > direction, and for how long, in order for the object to come to rest > > > > in your absolute frame of reference? > > > > Surely that depends on how fast and in what direction the object is moving > > > wrt the 'absolute frame' at the time. > > > Exactly, which leads inexorably to the followup zinger: how does one > > determine that velocity? > > Answer, look around at the CMBR... The CMBR is _not_ a "classical" preferred reference frame; there is nothing special about the physics in that frame as opposed to what we, moving at ~ 600 km/sec WRT it along with the entire Local Group of galaxies towards something called "the great attractor", can measure. http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap090906.html If it were, we would have been able to measure other effects of that 600 km/sec difference long before Arnold and Penzias discovered the CMBR. Primarily, any speed-of-light measurement experiment that aligned with that direction would show a 600 km/sec difference between day and night runs. That is not seen. Mark L. Fergerson
From: Albertito on 10 Sep 2009 16:34 On Sep 10, 8:00 pm, alien8er <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Sep 7, 5:23 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Sep 7, 12:58 pm, alien8er <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Sep 7, 5:37 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > > "alien8er" <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > > > >news:5df8d699-8d16-4727-baf1-e68cde032dc3(a)k13g2000prh.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > On Sep 6, 10:53 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote: > > > > >> Koobee Wublee wrote: > > > > >> > On Sep 6, 4:59 pm, Tom Roberts wrote: > > > > > >> >> 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. > > > > > >> > This is the second time that you have refused to recognize the > > > > >> > absolute frame of reference. > > > > > > How much acceleration must one apply to an object, in which > > > > > direction, and for how long, in order for the object to come to rest > > > > > in your absolute frame of reference? > > > > > Surely that depends on how fast and in what direction the object is moving > > > > wrt the 'absolute frame' at the time. > > > > Exactly, which leads inexorably to the followup zinger: how does one > > > determine that velocity? > > > Answer, look around at the CMBR... > > The CMBR is _not_ a "classical" preferred reference frame; there is > nothing special about the physics in that frame as opposed to what we, > moving at ~ 600 km/sec WRT it along with the entire Local Group of > galaxies towards something called "the great attractor", can measure. > > http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap090906.html > > If it were, we would have been able to measure other effects of that > 600 km/sec difference long before Arnold and Penzias discovered the > CMBR. Primarily, any speed-of-light measurement experiment that > aligned with that direction would show a 600 km/sec difference between > day and night runs. That is not seen. > > Mark L. Fergerson Can you, please, provide any explanation/reason as to why the quadrupole and octupole of the CMBR appear aligned with themselves and with the ecliptic? A Nobel prize is waiting for you, come on! I have an explanation (deeply and largely meditated). The standard value of the speed of light in a vacuum being c = 299792458 m/s is just a local value in our location on Earth as it orbits around the Sun. That value of c has a lot to do with the radial speed of the Earth around the Sun, v = sqrt(GM/R).
From: alien8er on 10 Sep 2009 17:35 On Sep 10, 1:34 pm, Albertito <albertito1...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Sep 10, 8:00 pm, alien8er <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Sep 7, 5:23 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Sep 7, 12:58 pm, alien8er <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Sep 7, 5:37 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > > > "alien8er" <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > > > > >news:5df8d699-8d16-4727-baf1-e68cde032dc3(a)k13g2000prh.googlegroups..com... > > > > > > > On Sep 6, 10:53 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote: > > > > > >> Koobee Wublee wrote: > > > > > >> > On Sep 6, 4:59 pm, Tom Roberts wrote: > > > > > > >> >> 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. > > > > > > >> > This is the second time that you have refused to recognize the > > > > > >> > absolute frame of reference. > > > > > > > How much acceleration must one apply to an object, in which > > > > > > direction, and for how long, in order for the object to come to rest > > > > > > in your absolute frame of reference? > > > > > > Surely that depends on how fast and in what direction the object is moving > > > > > wrt the 'absolute frame' at the time. > > > > > Exactly, which leads inexorably to the followup zinger: how does one > > > > determine that velocity? > > > > Answer, look around at the CMBR... > > > The CMBR is _not_ a "classical" preferred reference frame; there is > > nothing special about the physics in that frame as opposed to what we, > > moving at ~ 600 km/sec WRT it along with the entire Local Group of > > galaxies towards something called "the great attractor", can measure. > > >http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap090906.html > > > If it were, we would have been able to measure other effects of that > > 600 km/sec difference long before Arnold and Penzias discovered the > > CMBR. Primarily, any speed-of-light measurement experiment that > > aligned with that direction would show a 600 km/sec difference between > > day and night runs. That is not seen. > > > Mark L. Fergerson > > Can you, please, provide any explanation/reason > as to why the quadrupole and octupole of the CMBR > appear aligned with themselves and with the ecliptic? No, I wish I did. The almost Yin/Yang image at the site I linked to shows some strange blotches at those locations. The way their relative brightness seems to vary with their position is suggestive of several possibilities ranging from a weird linear gravitational lensing phenomenon that just _happens_ to line up with our ecliptic, to large reflective/refractive bodies in our Oort cloud. > A Nobel prize is waiting for you, come on! Give me a week or two to think about it. ;>) > I have an explanation (deeply and largely meditated). > The standard value of the speed of light in a vacuum > being c = 299792458 m/s is just a local value in our > location on Earth as it orbits around the Sun. That > value of c has a lot to do with the radial speed of > the Earth around the Sun, v = sqrt(GM/R). (I'm going to assume you didn't actually mean _radial_ speed) That doesn't work. What does it imply for the value of the speed of light at the Sun's center? Mark L. Fergerson
From: Inertial on 10 Sep 2009 18:59 "mluttgens" <mluttgens(a)orange.fr> wrote in message news:691b5329-d38a-4fe3-bdda-a774a2871216(a)y36g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... > 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: >> > > 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. Of course they do .. because it is > Iow, according to the SRist, the clock is not at rest in the CMBR > anymore, No .. it is at rest in the CMBR frame The clock and CMBR frame are moving RELATIVE TO the CMBR > it is moving wrt the CMBR as soon as he dreamed it. One observer seeing the an object is in motion RELATIVE TO HIM does NOT change any relation of motion between the object and anything else Lets pretend for a moment that one can hang the label 'ABSOLUTE FRAME' on the CMBR and that motion wrt that frames is 'absolute motion'. Then an earth observer would have ABSOLTUE motion, and would also have motion RELATIVE to the CMBR An object at rest in the CMBR would have NO ABSOLUTE motion, but would have motion RELATIVE to the earth
From: Inertial on 10 Sep 2009 19:03
"Albertito" <albertito1992(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:a902a0af-39c3-4501-a34f-1909935524b2(a)o41g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > On Sep 10, 8:00 pm, alien8er <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On Sep 7, 5:23 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> > On Sep 7, 12:58 pm, alien8er <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > On Sep 7, 5:37 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> > > > "alien8er" <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> > > >news:5df8d699-8d16-4727-baf1-e68cde032dc3(a)k13g2000prh.googlegroups.com... >> >> > > > > On Sep 6, 10:53 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote: >> > > > >> Koobee Wublee wrote: >> > > > >> > On Sep 6, 4:59 pm, Tom Roberts wrote: >> >> > > > >> >> 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. >> >> > > > >> > This is the second time that you have refused to recognize the >> > > > >> > absolute frame of reference. >> >> > > > > How much acceleration must one apply to an object, in which >> > > > > direction, and for how long, in order for the object to come to >> > > > > rest >> > > > > in your absolute frame of reference? >> >> > > > Surely that depends on how fast and in what direction the object is >> > > > moving >> > > > wrt the 'absolute frame' at the time. >> >> > > Exactly, which leads inexorably to the followup zinger: how does >> > > one >> > > determine that velocity? >> >> > Answer, look around at the CMBR... >> >> The CMBR is _not_ a "classical" preferred reference frame; there is >> nothing special about the physics in that frame as opposed to what we, >> moving at ~ 600 km/sec WRT it along with the entire Local Group of >> galaxies towards something called "the great attractor", can measure. >> >> http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap090906.html >> >> If it were, we would have been able to measure other effects of that >> 600 km/sec difference long before Arnold and Penzias discovered the >> CMBR. Primarily, any speed-of-light measurement experiment that >> aligned with that direction would show a 600 km/sec difference between >> day and night runs. That is not seen. >> >> Mark L. Fergerson > > Can you, please, provide any explanation/reason > as to why the quadrupole and octupole of the CMBR > appear aligned with themselves and with the ecliptic? Why does it matter? Whether or not the CMBR itself has some interesting properties doesn't mean that the FRAME in which its dipole is zero is a preferred absolute frame. |