CMBR's motion wrt the Earth
in [Relativity]
|
From: Tom Roberts on 11 Sep 2009 10:00 Koobee Wublee wrote: > By acquiring signals from at least 4 GPS satellites, > there is no need to keep the synchronicity in the GPS time and the > ground time. This is just plain false, for the GPS as it is implemented. They have a REQUIREMENT to keep GPS time within 1 microsecond of UTC after correcting for leap seconds. Note also that most of the control segment of the GPS is located on the ground, and synchronicity is required for its operation (e.g. in order to QUANTITATIVELY determine the drift of the individual satellite clocks, and to QUANTITATIVELY determine corrections to the satellite orbits, etc.). Yes, in the abstract, one might imagine a geo-positioning system patterned after the GPS that has no UTC requirement or ground segment, and that ASSUMES that all satellites are in exactly circular orbits at exactly identical altitudes, that all clocks keep perfect time, and in which neither moon nor sun exist. Thus such an IDEALIZED system would have no need for either "synchronicity in the GPS time and the ground time" or relativistic corrections. But in the world we inhabit such idealizations do not occur, and the ACTUAL GPS has both a REQUIREMENT for "synchronicity in the GPS time and the ground time" and extensive need for relativistic corrections. Just READ any book on the operation and design of the GPS. BTW actual GPS receivers require signals from at least 4 GPS satellites, because there are 4 unknowns that must be determined. Good receivers can acquire up to 12 satellite signals, because more data can be used to reduce the errorbars (more than 12 satellites are never in view simultaneously). Tom Roberts
From: Nicolaas Vroom on 11 Sep 2009 15:58 "Nicolaas Vroom" <nicolaas.vroom(a)pandora.be> schreef in bericht news:gV9qm.92462$Lm6.16030(a)newsfe21.ams2... > > "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/ However I think there is more involved. If you position an observer at the equator than you can build a frame of reference in which the inertial observer 1 is at rest (rest frame observer 1) You can also consider a second observer positioned at the other side of the earth with a frame of reference in which observer 2 is at rest (rest frame obeserver 2) Both rest frames are in relative motion which each other and each with the rest frame of the CMBR. Suppose there is also a third observer with has the speed of 370 km/sec in the direction of the constellation of virgo. This observer 3 sees a the uniform CMBR directly undisturbed without the necessity for dipole subtraction. The two other observers, to see the same, have to perform dipole subtraction. See: http://aether.lbl.gov/www/projects/cobe/COBE_Home/DMR_Images.html The question is: is observer 3 in the special situation that only he can actually claim that based on his observations that from all directions all photons are having the same speed (c) ? At the same time he claims that for the observers 1 and 2 this is not the case. Observer 3 can even go further: He can claim from all directions from the same distance. I do not know the answer. Nicolaas Vroom http://users.pandora.be/nicvroom/
From: eric gisse on 11 Sep 2009 18:17 Inertial wrote: [...] >> >> Boy, you sound so much like that fake professor of physics from Texas >> who calls himself PD, Perpetual Dip$hit. <shrug> > > Guess he must be correct as well then. Meet wooby-kooby, a retired engineer of some sort.
From: Koobee Wublee on 12 Sep 2009 00:06 On Sep 11, 7:00 am, Tom Roberts wrote: > Koobee Wublee wrote: > > By acquiring signals from at least 4 GPS satellites, > > there is no need to keep the synchronicity in the GPS time and the > > ground time. > > This is just plain false, for the GPS as it is implemented. They have a > REQUIREMENT to keep GPS time within 1 microsecond of UTC after > correcting for leap seconds. Show me that spec that requires the satellite time to be maintained within 1 usec of the UTC, and explain to me why this is necessary. For applications that require precision timing outside of normal GPS channel of acquiring altitude, longitude, and latitude, the time information acquired with each receiver is very well synchronized relative to the satellite clock. An example is found in the movie Independence Day in which the genocidal aliens relied on GPS timing to blow up all the coastal cities during the first phase of annihilation. The absolute accuracy within the UTC is so unnecessary. So, claiming non-existing spec to justify continuing believing in the nonsense of SR and GR is a crime against science. > Note also that most of the control segment > of the GPS is located on the ground, and synchronicity is required for > its operation (e.g. in order to QUANTITATIVELY determine the drift of > the individual satellite clocks, and to QUANTITATIVELY determine > corrections to the satellite orbits, etc.). This is not true for ground-satellite synchronicity. > Yes, in the abstract, one might imagine a geo-positioning system > patterned after the GPS that has no UTC requirement or ground segment, > and that ASSUMES that all satellites are in exactly circular orbits at > exactly identical altitudes, that all clocks keep perfect time, and in > which neither moon nor sun exist. Thus such an IDEALIZED system would > have no need for either "synchronicity in the GPS time and the ground > time" or relativistic corrections. Hmmm... What are the error bars introduced among all these non-ideal influences? You will find them totally negligible. <shrug> > But in the world we inhabit such idealizations do not occur, and the > ACTUAL GPS has both a REQUIREMENT for "synchronicity in the GPS time and > the ground time" and extensive need for relativistic corrections. Just > READ any book on the operation and design of the GPS. This is an excuse for you to continue worshipping the nonsense of SR and GR. Again, show me the sensitivity analyses of all these non- ideal influences. > BTW actual GPS receivers require signals from at least > 4 GPS satellites, because there are 4 unknowns that > must be determined. Good receivers can acquire up to 12 > satellite signals, because more data can be used to > reduce the errorbars (more than 12 satellites are never > in view simultaneously). <shrug> What else is new? At least you are starting to understand how engineers designed the GPS. <shrug> I told you many times over that the engineers are so much smarter than physicists. <shrug>
From: Koobee Wublee on 12 Sep 2009 00:17
On Sep 11, 12:19 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > That could be true, but that is not what I was referring to. <shrug> > > Odd. as it is what you appeared to be saying quite clearly How odd is that? I was not referring to the said paradox through a gravitational effect. Just how clearly, can I make my position? <shrug> > > The discussion so far is somewhat within SR. However, you can behave > > like professor Roberts and his academic buddies why SR does apply > > anymore and convince yourself of the total bull$hit not reconcilable > > by any mathematics involved. <shrug> I meant every word of it. <shrug> > > That is very correct. The academics somewhat can never understand > > this simple logic. <shrug> > > They do understand it, as that is what many new students think. Nonsense! All students are in awe of their teachers. <shrug> > they then > go on to point out how SR actually works, and that in the twins paradox, it > is not that there was mutual motion that leads to the difference in aging, > it was because one twin accelerated more than the other .. hence its not > symmetric. That is a total nonsense. It was proposed by Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. Having two twins originally at rest relative to each other, accelerate away, and finally meeting at rest with each other with the exact same acceleration profile would easily point out the fault in that absurd claim. <shrug> > If you have BOTH twins acclerating away and returning, then > there is no age difference. Wow! So, you know that. During accelerations, you can have a period where both twins were coasting away with no acceleration. According to the Lorentz transform, mutual time dilation would build up. So, the result would falsify the Lorentz transform. <shrug> > > Yes, that is true. Part of GR is based on position where it has a > > position less affected by gravitation, but the other part of GR is > > very much under the confine of SR. That is what I am addressing. > > <shrug> > > > The ground sees the GPS satellites traveling at such high speed. > > Thus, according to the Lorentz transform, there must be time dilation > > associated with the observation. Now, the satellite also sees the > > same speed at any point on the surface of the earth. Time dilation > > must also apply to the satellites. The ground compares its time to be > > slower than the satellite, and at the same time, the satellite > > compares its time to be slower than on the ground. Thus, setting up > > equations fit for the engineering world in which the self-styled > > physicists would be totally lost, there is no solution for this case. > > Thus, the paradox still exists. It has never been resolved. <shrug> > > There is no paradox in SR, however. Yes, there is. That is the Twins paradox. In order to resolve this paradox, either the principle of relativity or time dilation has to be shown false. In doing so, it would falsify the Lorentz transform. Since SR is merely one of the infinity interpretations to the Lorentz transform, SR is also proven false by this. <shrug> > > Boy, you sound so much like that fake professor of physics from Texas > > who calls himself PD, Perpetual Dip$hit. <shrug> > > Guess he must be correct as well then. Try to guess again on that one. |