CMBR's motion wrt the Earth
in [Relativity]
|
From: PD on 18 Sep 2009 15:59 On Sep 18, 2:37 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote: > Dirk Van de moortel wrote: > > > > > Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote in message > >  H9Nsm.55993$la3.20752(a)attbi_s22 > >> mluttgens wrote: > > >>> Let's consider two objects A and B in uniform > >>> translatory motion. > > >>> According to SR, if A moves at v toward B, > >>> reciprocally, B moves at -v toward A. > >>> SR obviously doesn't take into consideration > >>> the velocities vA and vB of the objects relative > >>> to the CMBR (sometimes rightly called the rest > >>> frame of the universe). > > >> I was going to reply similar to PD, for you are > >> attributing concepts to SR that predate SR by > >> millennia. > > >> Time dilation from A's perspective: > > >>   t_B' = γ (t_B - x v/c^2) > > > That's only time dilation for x = 0 and x measured > > in B's frame. > > >> Time dilation from B's perspective: > > >>   t_A' = γ (t_A - x v/c^2) > > > ... and that's only time dilation for x = 0 and x measured > > in A's frame. > > >> where v is the relative velocity between A and B > >> and γ = 1/â(1-v^2/c^2) . > > > bit confused? > > > Dirk Vdm > >   No, just sloppy and in a hurry. > > Time dilation from A's perspective: > >   ât_B' = γ ât_B > > Time dilation from B's perspective: > >   ât_A' = γ ât_A > > where ât represent a time interval, v is the relative velocity > between A and B, and γ = 1/â(1-v^2/c^2) . And this is where Marcel will get confused, because he doesn't understand that those time intervals are between TWO pairs of events, not one pair. And so he tries to apply those equations, for example, to the ONE pair of events that is associated with cosmic ray muons (birth and decay).
From: Dono. on 18 Sep 2009 17:31 On Sep 18, 7:03 am, mluttgens <mluttg...(a)orange.fr> wrote: > On 13 sep, 15:55, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote: > > > > > > > mluttgens wrote: > > > > 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 > > > Marcel, you should take some time to learn what special > > relativity really says. One cannot have more than one > > perspective simultaneously. There has yet to be an observation > > that contradicts a prediction of special relativity. > > Let's consider two objects A and B in uniform > translatory motion. > > According to SR, if A moves at v toward B, > reciprocally, B moves at -v toward A. > SR obviously doesn't take into consideration > the velocities vA and vB of the objects relative > to the CMBR (sometimes rightly called the rest > frame of the universe). > > Let v be the velocity of A wrt B. > From the dipole anisotropy it observes, B > determines that its velocity relative to the > CMBR is vB, whose direction is the same as v. > > According to the CMBR observer (using c=1), > vA = (v-vB)/(1-vB*v) You mean vA = (v+vB)/(1+vB*v), right? > tB = tCMBR * sqrt(1-vB^2) You mean Delta_tB=Delta_tCMBR/sqrt(1-vB^2), right? *The above is true ONLY for Delta_xCMBR=0 > tA = tCMBR * sqrt(1-((v-vB)/(1-vB*v))^2) > = tCMBR * sqrt1-vB^2)*sqrt(1-v^2)/(1-vB*v) You mean Delta_tA=Delta_tCMBR*sqrt(1+vB*v)/sqrt(1-v^2), right? *The above is true ONLY for Delta_xCMBR=0 > > Hence, tA = tB * sqrt(1-v^2) / (1-vB*v). > You mean Delta_tA = Delta_tB *(1+v*vB) /sqrt(1-v^2) (Formula 1) To this we add: Delta_tA=Delta_tB/sqrt(1-v^2) (Formula 2) *This is true ONLY for Delta_xB=0 Delta_xB and Delta_xCMBR are NOT related to each other, so you cannot compare Formula 1 with Formula 2 and conclude that they are contradictory, because they were obtained under DIFFERENT conditions. Nice try, Lattkes, you are getting better at generating fake disproofs of SR.
From: mluttgens on 18 Sep 2009 19:15 On 18 sep, 16:53, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote: > mluttgens wrote: > > > Let's consider two objects A and B in uniform > > translatory motion. > > > According to SR, if A moves at v toward B, > > reciprocally, B moves at -v toward A. > > SR obviously doesn't take into consideration > > the velocities vA and vB of the objects relative > > to the CMBR (sometimes rightly called the rest > > frame of the universe). > > I was going to reply similar to PD, for you are > attributing concepts to SR that predate SR by > millennia. > > Time dilation from A's perspective: > >   t_B' = γ (t_B - x v/c^2) > > Time dilation from B's perspective: > >   t_A' = γ (t_A - x v/c^2) > > where v is the relative velocity between A and B > and γ = 1/â(1-v^2/c^2) . And you forget the CMBR! Marcel Luttgens
From: mluttgens on 18 Sep 2009 19:18 On 18 sep, 18:08, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...(a)nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote: > Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote in message > >  H9Nsm.55993$la3.20752(a)attbi_s22 > > > > > > > mluttgens wrote: > > >> Let's consider two objects A and B in uniform > >> translatory motion. > > >> According to SR, if A moves at v toward B, > >> reciprocally, B moves at -v toward A. > >> SR obviously doesn't take into consideration > >> the velocities vA and vB of the objects relative > >> to the CMBR (sometimes rightly called the rest > >> frame of the universe). > > > I was going to reply similar to PD, for you are > > attributing concepts to SR that predate SR by > > millennia. > > > Time dilation from A's perspective: > > >   t_B' = γ (t_B - x v/c^2) > > That's only time dilation for x = 0 and x measured > in B's frame. > > > > > Time dilation from B's perspective: > > >   t_A' = γ (t_A - x v/c^2) > > ... and that's only time dilation for x = 0 and x measured > in A's frame. > > > > > where v is the relative velocity between A and B > > and γ = 1/â(1-v^2/c^2) . > > bit confused? > > Dirk Vdm Dirk, you improved! Marcel Luttgens
From: mluttgens on 18 Sep 2009 19:20
On 18 sep, 21:37, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote: > Dirk Van de moortel wrote: > > > > > > > Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote in message > >  H9Nsm.55993$la3.20752(a)attbi_s22 > >> mluttgens wrote: > > >>> Let's consider two objects A and B in uniform > >>> translatory motion. > > >>> According to SR, if A moves at v toward B, > >>> reciprocally, B moves at -v toward A. > >>> SR obviously doesn't take into consideration > >>> the velocities vA and vB of the objects relative > >>> to the CMBR (sometimes rightly called the rest > >>> frame of the universe). > > >> I was going to reply similar to PD, for you are > >> attributing concepts to SR that predate SR by > >> millennia. > > >> Time dilation from A's perspective: > > >>   t_B' = γ (t_B - x v/c^2) > > > That's only time dilation for x = 0 and x measured > > in B's frame. > > >> Time dilation from B's perspective: > > >>   t_A' = γ (t_A - x v/c^2) > > > ... and that's only time dilation for x = 0 and x measured > > in A's frame. > > >> where v is the relative velocity between A and B > >> and γ = 1/â(1-v^2/c^2) . > > > bit confused? > > > Dirk Vdm > >   No, just sloppy and in a hurry. > > Time dilation from A's perspective: > >   ât_B' = γ ât_B > > Time dilation from B's perspective: > >   ât_A' = γ ât_A > > where ât represent a time interval, v is the relative velocity > between A and B, and γ = 1/â(1-v^2/c^2) And again, forgetting the CMBR! Marcel Luttgens |