CMBR's motion wrt the Earth
in [Relativity]
|
From: Inertial on 13 Sep 2009 02:56 "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wublee(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:72bb8fbd-fd09-43c5-8fcd-0bbbc86e0728(a)38g2000yqr.googlegroups.com... > On Sep 11, 11:25 pm, "Inertial" wrote: >> "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> > Don�t thank me. Thank your own ignorance. <shrug> >> >> I see you dishonestly put my reply as though it was to some other >> statement. > > What are you talking about? You snipped what I was talking about [snip rest]
From: Inertial on 13 Sep 2009 02:58 "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wublee(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:f60ccef3-9d30-46f7-9dd8-fe5e73813a81(a)m11g2000yqf.googlegroups.com... > On Sep 11, 11:22 pm, "Inertial" wrote: >> "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> > Nonsense! All students are in awe of their teachers. <shrug> >> >> How is that comment at all related to what I said? > > Well, you brought up the subject. So, you tell me. <shrug> I didn't <shrug> >> > That is a total nonsense. >> >> I see you don't understand teh twins paradox then. That's not a >> surprise. > > <shrug> <shrug> >> > 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> >> >> As per SR, that would result in no difference in 'aging' for the twins > > No, this would violate the Lorentz transform and thus SR. <shrug> It is a result of it <shrug> >> > Wow! So, you know that. >> >> Yes .. don't you? Guess you do, now that I've told you > > No, I don�t know you know that, but you actually don�t know that > because you have mis-applied the Lorentz transform. <shrug> <shrug> >> > During accelerations, you can have a period >> > where both twins were coasting away with no acceleration. >> >> Irrelevant > > It is in fact very relevant. Nope <shrug> [snip more irrelevance] <shrug>
From: mluttgens on 13 Sep 2009 05:28 On 11 sep, 07:38, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:c07ad045-933b-4070-a650-feb4f34dceff(a)s39g2000yqj.googlegroups.com... > > >> Clocks run slower in gravitation fields - clocks in jet planes, > >> satellites > > > This would manifest the twins paradox > > No .. the difference due to gravitational fields don't give you a 'paradox'. > The *apparent* paradox in the usual twins paradox is that if relative motion > results in both clocks ticking slower than each other, surely both twins > must be younger than each other, which clearly would be nonsense. Special relativity theory should be called the Theory of Mutual Time Dilation. Clearly, mutual time dilation is nonsensical. SRists found a solution for the twin paradox, explaining why "both twins cannot be younger than each other", but consider normal that two clocks moving relative to each other, for instance on a road, show the same time dilation. Contradiction doesn't bother them. They don't even try to find a general solution for the nonsense, and modify SR accordingly. Marcel Luttgens > In the > case of gravitational potential difference, there isn't mutual reciprocal > time dilation. If A and B are at different gravitational potentials, A > measures B as slower than A, and B measures A as faster than B. So that the > elapsed times being different is not unintuitive. > > > where it has never been > > resolved. > > The actual so-called 'twins paradox' is fully resolved. Like many other > such 'paradoxes', it is simply a puzzle where often ones intuitive answer is > not the correct answer.
From: Inertial on 13 Sep 2009 05:45 "mluttgens" <mluttgens(a)orange.fr> wrote in message news:07531f0c-3e23-409a-a7e5-3729d94e6072(a)s39g2000yqj.googlegroups.com... > On 11 sep, 07:38, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:c07ad045-933b-4070-a650-feb4f34dceff(a)s39g2000yqj.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> Clocks run slower in gravitation fields - clocks in jet planes, >> >> satellites >> >> > This would manifest the twins� paradox >> >> No .. the difference due to gravitational fields don't give you a >> 'paradox'. >> The *apparent* paradox in the usual twins paradox is that if relative >> motion >> results in both clocks ticking slower than each other, surely both twins >> must be younger than each other, which clearly would be nonsense. > > Special relativity theory should be called the Theory of Mutual > Time Dilation. You could call it that, but that wouldn't be representative of what it is. Better would be 'Theory of Relative Simultaneity', as that is key to things like length contraction. > Clearly, mutual time dilation is nonsensical. No .. just non-intuitive. > SRists found a solution for the twin paradox, Yes they did > explaining why "both > twins cannot be younger than each other", Of course they can't, when they reunite > but consider normal > that two clocks moving relative to each other, for instance on > a road, show the same time dilation. That they do. > Contradiction doesn't bother > them. Its not a contradiction when you understand it, but is non-intuitive. > They don't even try to find a general solution for > the nonsense, They don't need to. > and modify SR accordingly. No.. they don't modify SR. If you mean GR, then that is a general (less restrictive) case that still has SR (and all its predictions) as a subset.
From: eric gisse on 13 Sep 2009 07:23
Koobee Wublee wrote: > On Sep 12, 8:37 am, Tom Roberts wrote: >> Inertial wrote: > >> > http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/sigspec/gpssps1.pdf > > Wow! You actually believe in the nonsense of this 1usec accuracy. Do > you know that the data bit rate is only 50bits/sec. So, how the hell > are you going to benefit from this 1usec of accuracy from? There is Apparently you weren't all that good of an engineer. [snip rest,unread] |