CMBR's motion wrt the Earth
in [Relativity]
|
From: eric gisse on 16 Sep 2009 03:17 Inertial wrote: [...] > It comes from aplpixcation of the transform in the case where one is > accelerating differently to the other. > > Do the math He can't. I remember working it out for him like 3 years ago. He still doesn't understand it. [...]
From: Nicolaas Vroom on 16 Sep 2009 12:06 "Nicolaas Vroom" <nicolaas.vroom(a)pandora.be> schreef in bericht news:vZxqm.96561$Hw6.86074(a)newsfe22.ams2... > > "Nicolaas Vroom" <nicolaas.vroom(a)pandora.be> schreef in bericht > news:gV9qm.92462$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/ > > There is one more special situation which requires study. Consider two observers identical like Observer 3. We will call them Observer 31 and Observer 32. Both have the same speed 370 km/sec in the direction of Virgo. Both are a certain distance apart. In fact, both are "at rest" in the rest frame of the CMBR. The idea is to synchronise their clocks. This is a simple exercise. In fact much simpler than two Observers which both should be at rest in, for example, the rest frame of Observer 1. They should have the same speed and direction as Observer 1 and that is without a grid of rods very difficult to establish. Nicolaas Vroom
From: PD on 16 Sep 2009 13:40 On Sep 16, 12:30 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Sep 14, 11:15 pm, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote: > > > The Lorentz transform predicts both 'mutual time dilation' > > Yes, indeed agreed. <applause> > > > and 'one twin will be younger than the other', it is > > is no contradiction between the two. > > That would contradict the Lorentz transform. <boo> Um, no. It might if you don't know how to use it. > > > Strictly according to the Lorentz transform: > >http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf > > > I challenge you to point out the inconsistency. > > I will take up your challenge for the nth time, and if you continue > to cowardly stay away from the discussions, please do not bring up > this challenge again, OK? > > Right off the bat, you have grossly violated the very foundation of > SR. That is the relative simultaneity in which it makes no sense to > coherently identify events, observed in another frame of reference > where v != 0, in a chronological order. For spacelike separation between events, there is indeed frame- dependent chronological ordering. If you think that's incoherent, that's a pity. > > Please present analysis showing both A and B at rest initially, moving > apart, and getting back together. Wait. It was YOU that was going to take up the challenge and show something. Suddenly you want HIM to show everything. > Please show mathematics from both > As and Bs point of view. Please also including the scenario where A > and B move apart with identical acceleration profile leaving a period > where both A and B are coasting away or towards each other with no > acceleration.
From: Paul B. Andersen on 16 Sep 2009 17:54 Koobee Wublee wrote: > On Sep 14, 11:15 pm, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote: > >> The Lorentz transform predicts both 'mutual time dilation' > > Yes, indeed agreed. <applause> > >> and 'one twin will be younger than the other', it is >> is no contradiction between the two. > > That would contradict the Lorentz transform. <boo> > >> Strictly according to the Lorentz transform: >> http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf >> >> I challenge you to point out the inconsistency. > > I will take up your challenge for the n�th time, and if you continue > to cowardly stay away from the discussions, "Cowardly stay away from the discussions", eh? :-) Was that why you left one of our previous discussions with the words: Koobee Wublee wrote: | I could not believe I got myself sucked into | this one. Good fishing. Oh, well. The score is two to one in your | favor now. Congratulations and until next time. In the meantime, be | morbid, be happy, and enjoy playing house. :-) (I never registered you score, though.) You are welcome to let yourself get sucked into this one. :-) > please do not bring up this challenge again, OK? Point out the inconsistency, then. > Right off the bat, you have grossly violated the very foundation of > SR. That is the relative simultaneity in which it makes no sense to > coherently identify events, observed in another frame of reference > where v != 0, in a chronological order. Was this it? :-) Won't do. To quote you again: "Hand waving is cheap." You will have to be much more specific. BTW, you have demonstrated your idea of what 'relativity of simultaneity' implies before: "Paul B. Andersen" wrote: | http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/LTconsistent.pdf | Quote from the above: | "Let A, B and C be three observers who at some time are co-located. | Let C be stationary in an inertial frame hereafter called �frame C�. | Let A be moving at the speed v to the left, while B is moving at | the speed v to the right. Let each observer have a clock, | called clock A, B and C respectively. Let these clocks be set | to zero at the instant when the observers are co-located." Koobee Wublee wrote: | ** First strike | It makes no sense to synchronize the clocks of moving frames under | relative simultaneity. Paul B. Andersen wrote: | I note with interest that Koobee Wublee finds it impossible to | set three instantly co-located clocks to zero. :-) Koobee Wublee wrote: | That is correct. If you embrace relative simultaneity, you have no | right to do so. Was this the score you mentioned in the quote above? :-) > > Please present analysis showing both A and B at rest initially, moving > apart, and getting back together. Please show mathematics from both > A�s and B�s point of view. Please also including the scenario where A > and B move apart with identical acceleration profile leaving a period > where both A and B are coasting away or towards each other with no > acceleration. Is this an attempt to flee the discussion you have let yourself got sucked into ? :-) The challenge you have taken up for the n'th time is: Point out an inconsistency in these: http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/twins.html -- Paul http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/
From: Androcles on 16 Sep 2009 18:02
"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)utopia.no> wrote in message news:4AB15E7E.2060605(a)utopia.no... > Koobee Wublee wrote: >> On Sep 14, 11:15 pm, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote: >> >>> The Lorentz transform predicts both 'mutual time dilation' >> >> Yes, indeed agreed. <applause> >> >>> and 'one twin will be younger than the other', it is >>> is no contradiction between the two. >> >> That would contradict the Lorentz transform. <boo> >> >>> Strictly according to the Lorentz transform: >>> http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf >>> >>> I challenge you to point out the inconsistency. >> >> I will take up your challenge for the n�th time, and if you continue >> to cowardly stay away from the discussions, > > "Cowardly stay away from the discussions", eh? :-) > > Was that why you left one of our previous discussions with the words: > Koobee Wublee wrote: > | I could not believe I got myself sucked into > | this one. Good fishing. Oh, well. The score is two to one in your > | favor now. Congratulations and until next time. In the meantime, be > | morbid, be happy, and enjoy playing house. :-) > > (I never registered you score, though.) > > You are welcome to let yourself get sucked into this one. :-) > > >> please do not bring up this challenge again, OK? > > Point out the inconsistency, then. Simple enough. xi/tau <> x'/t where xi = x' * gamma and tau =t/gamma, and gamma = 1/sqrt(1- (x'/t)^2). > >> Right off the bat, you have grossly violated the very foundation of >> SR. That is the relative simultaneity in which it makes no sense to >> coherently identify events, observed in another frame of reference >> where v != 0, in a chronological order. > > Was this it? :-) Won't do. > To quote you again: "Hand waving is cheap." > You will have to be much more specific. > > BTW, you have demonstrated your idea of what 'relativity of simultaneity' > implies before: > > "Paul B. Andersen" wrote: > | http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/LTconsistent.pdf > | Quote from the above: > | "Let A, B and C be three observers who at some time are co-located. > | Let C be stationary in an inertial frame hereafter called �frame C�. > | Let A be moving at the speed v to the left, while B is moving at > | the speed v to the right. Let each observer have a clock, > | called clock A, B and C respectively. Let these clocks be set > | to zero at the instant when the observers are co-located." > > Koobee Wublee wrote: > | ** First strike > | It makes no sense to synchronize the clocks of moving frames under > | relative simultaneity. > > Paul B. Andersen wrote: > | I note with interest that Koobee Wublee finds it impossible to > | set three instantly co-located clocks to zero. :-) > > Koobee Wublee wrote: > | That is correct. If you embrace relative simultaneity, you have no > | right to do so. > > Was this the score you mentioned in the quote above? :-) > > >> >> Please present analysis showing both A and B at rest initially, moving >> apart, and getting back together. Please show mathematics from both >> A�s and B�s point of view. Please also including the scenario where A >> and B move apart with identical acceleration profile leaving a period >> where both A and B are coasting away or towards each other with no >> acceleration. > > Is this an attempt to flee the discussion you have let yourself > got sucked into ? :-) > > The challenge you have taken up for the n'th time is: > > Point out an inconsistency in these: > http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf > http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/twins.html Simple enough. xi/tau <> x'/t where xi = x' * gamma and tau =t/gamma, and gamma = 1/sqrt(1- (x'/t)^2). |