CMBR's motion wrt the Earth
in [Relativity]
|
From: Inertial on 7 Sep 2009 02:23 "alien8er" <alien8752(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:ad3edebc-f644-4d89-a75d-fb316e53880b(a)2g2000prl.googlegroups.com... > On Sep 6, 10:46 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> Koobee Wublee wrote: >> >> [...] >> >> > This is the second time that you have refused to recognize the >> > absolute frame of reference. >> >> ...and yet the hobbyist still can't explain what makes it "absolute". > > Even a hobbyist (me) can ask pertinent questions like "if an > absolute frame of reference exists, in which direction must I > accelerate, for how long, in order to come to rest in that frame?". > > No absolutist has ever answered that question. They all pretend to > ignore it. Obviously it would depend on your current motion wrt such a frame. You'd simply need to accelerate in the opposite direction to your motion relative to the frame long enough to reduce you velocity wrt the frame to zero. Its not a particularly interesting question to ask.
From: Surfer on 7 Sep 2009 02:46 On Sun, 6 Sep 2009 21:21:16 -0700 (PDT), Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >.... the null >results of the MMX in which the only logical explanation is the Voigt >transform [#] which spells out the absolute frame of reference right >there and then. <shrug> > The Voigt transform is falsified by the experimental measurement of time dilation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woldemar_Voigt > > [#] Although the Lorentz transform like an infinite > numbers of such transforms also satisfies the null > results of the MMX, it however manifests the absurdity > in the twins� paradox. > The paradox is not caused by the Lorentz transform because if the twins calculate their time dilations relative to a preferred frame, they obtain the same answers.
From: mluttgens on 7 Sep 2009 06:43 On 7 sep, 01:59, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > 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. > > [For the purposes of this thread I'll ignore the quantum > aspects 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. > > [#] Careful authors phrase it this way, not in the careless > way you did. I have been phrasing it as "the CMBR dipole=0 > frame" in this newsgroup for many years. > > It is rather remarkable that there is such radiation apparently filling > the universe (it has been observed interacting with distant stars and > galaxies). This is quite strong evidence in support of the big bang > cosmologies, and the synthesis known as the standard model of cosmology. > There remain details still unknown, and some downright puzzles (dark > matter, dark energy, ...). > > Tom Roberts Thank you. Do you consider that claiming (like Paul Draper and others) that the CMBR moves wrt an object, makes sense? Marcel Luttgens
From: alien8er on 7 Sep 2009 08:06 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? Mark L. Fergerson
From: Inertial on 7 Sep 2009 08:22
"mluttgens" <mluttgens(a)orange.fr> wrote in message news:6e6cbfbb-70bb-4fa6-99c3-45f00c351fa7(a)w36g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > On 7 sep, 01:59, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> 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. >> >> [For the purposes of this thread I'll ignore the quantum >> aspects 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. >> >> [#] Careful authors phrase it this way, not in the careless >> way you did. I have been phrasing it as "the CMBR dipole=0 >> frame" in this newsgroup for many years. >> >> It is rather remarkable that there is such radiation apparently filling >> the universe (it has been observed interacting with distant stars and >> galaxies). This is quite strong evidence in support of the big bang >> cosmologies, and the synthesis known as the standard model of cosmology. >> There remain details still unknown, and some downright puzzles (dark >> matter, dark energy, ...). >> >> Tom Roberts > > Thank you. I would have assumed it was taken from the context of talking about frames, and absolute frames in particular, that 'the CMBR' was referring to what is sometimes called the CMBR rest frame (as described above by Tom). > Do you consider that claiming (like Paul Draper and others) > that the CMBR moves wrt an object, makes sense? It makes as much sense as an object moving wrt the CMBR. |