CMBR's motion wrt the Earth
in [Relativity]
|
From: Inertial on 7 Sep 2009 08:37 "alien8er" <alien8752(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:5df8d699-8d16-4727-baf1-e68cde032dc3(a)k13g2000prh.googlegroups.com... > 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? Surely that depends on how fast and in what direction the object is moving wrt the 'absolute frame' at the time.
From: Sandcastle on 7 Sep 2009 08:48 "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wublee(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:330f7550-be22-473c-bcf3-0a31fb79da37(a)e8g2000yqo.googlegroups.com... On Sep 6, 4:59 pm, Tom Roberts wrote: .... you said ... If there was a Big Bang, there must be an absolute frame of reference. <shrug> Thus, yours truly is not surprised that there is a dipole shift to the CMBR. <shrug> Accepting the Big Bang and denying the absolute frame of reference is a contradictory concept. It is utterly absurd. <shrug> .... If you think of the Big Bang as starting at a single point in space, your statemente above would be true. But if you think of the big bang as all of space time existing as a singularity, and that singularity is just expanding, then the lack of a frame of reference is no longer absurd. Gary
From: Androcles on 7 Sep 2009 09:17 "Sandcastle" <info(a)vipilot.com> wrote in message news:h82vgt$2rq8$1(a)adenine.netfront.net... > > "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wublee(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:330f7550-be22-473c-bcf3-0a31fb79da37(a)e8g2000yqo.googlegroups.com... > On Sep 6, 4:59 pm, Tom Roberts wrote: > > ... you said ... > > If there was a Big Bang, there must be an absolute frame of > reference. <shrug> Thus, yours truly is not surprised that there is > a dipole shift to the CMBR. <shrug> Accepting the Big Bang and > denying the absolute frame of reference is a contradictory concept. > It is utterly absurd. <shrug> > > ... > > If you think of the Big Bang as starting at a single point in space, your > statemente above would be true. But if you think of the big bang as all of > space time existing as a singularity, and that singularity is just > expanding, then the lack of a frame of reference is no longer absurd. > > Gary If you think... but that's absurd. If you hallucinate there was a Big Bang, then that's hilarious.
From: mluttgens on 7 Sep 2009 13:41 On 7 sep, 14:22, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "mluttgens" <mluttg...(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. No, read what Tom Roberts said: "The 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." He didn't say that the Earth has no motion wrt the CMBR, he only gave his interpretation of such motion. Marcel Luttgens
From: Dirk Van de moortel on 7 Sep 2009 14:09
mluttgens <mluttgens(a)orange.fr> wrote in message 523b7307-93cc-44c3-940e-8bd1f368776e(a)h13g2000yqk.googlegroups.com > On 7 sep, 14:22, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "mluttgens" <mluttg...(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. > > No, read what Tom Roberts said: > > "The 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." > > He didn't say that the Earth has no motion wrt the CMBR, he only > gave his interpretation of such motion. > > Marcel Luttgens What a truly sad little creep you are, Marcel. Dirk Vdm |