CMBR's motion wrt the Earth
in [Relativity]
|
From: mluttgens on 19 Sep 2009 09:30 On 19 sep, 02:25, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "mluttgens" <mluttg...(a)orange.fr> wrote in message > > news:756d9890-f435-4e91-b813-48c6c697cbc4(a)h30g2000vbr.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > 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. > > Fine > > > According to SR, if A moves at v toward B, > > reciprocally, B moves at -v toward A. > > That's not just SR .. its been known physics for hundreds of years. > > > 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). > > Why the fvck should it? It makes ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE to the relative > speeds of A and B > > > 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. > > No .. it wouldn't necessarily be in the same directions as v Sure, but it is what B (which could be the Earth) observed in this scenario. > > > According to the CMBR observer (using c=1), > > vA = (v-vB)/(1-vB*v) > > tB = tCMBR * sqrt(1-vB^2) > > tA = tCMBR * sqrt(1-((v-vB)/(1-vB*v))^2) > > = tCMBR * sqrt1-vB^2)*sqrt(1-v^2)/(1-vB*v) > > Hence, tA = tB * sqrt(1-v^2) / (1-vB*v). > > > Clearly, the SR formula tA = tB * sqrt(1-v^2) > > is correct only when B is at rest in the CMBR > > (vB = 0). > > But even in this case, SRists falsely claim > > that B moves at -v relative to A, > > It does. You just don't understand basic physics You are indirectly claiming that the CMBR moves relative to A. Only brainwashed SRists can be so stupid. > > > and thus, that > > tB = tA * sqrt(1-v^2). Simply by looking at the > > CMBR, B knows that its velocity vB is a physical > > fact, > > Of course it is. Just like B looking at A knows that v is a physical fact > > > which is of course independent of the hypothesis > > that motion is relative and that the time dilation > > effect is correlatively reciprocal. > > You're a complete idiot. Go learn some basic physics before you make such a > fool of yourself again SRists believe that the velocity of B wrt the CMBR changes according to their decision about what is moving relative to what. Such theoretical view is physically pure crackpottery. Marcel Luttgens
From: doug on 19 Sep 2009 10:50 mluttgens wrote: > On 19 sep, 02:25, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >>"mluttgens" <mluttg...(a)orange.fr> wrote in message >> >>news:756d9890-f435-4e91-b813-48c6c697cbc4(a)h30g2000vbr.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>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. >> >>Fine >> >> >>>According to SR, if A moves at v toward B, >>>reciprocally, B moves at -v toward A. >> >>That's not just SR .. its been known physics for hundreds of years. >> >> >>>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). >> >>Why the fvck should it? It makes ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE to the relative >>speeds of A and B >> >> >>>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. >> >>No .. it wouldn't necessarily be in the same directions as v > > > Sure, but it is what B (which could be the Earth) observed > in this scenario. > > >>>According to the CMBR observer (using c=1), >>>vA = (v-vB)/(1-vB*v) >>>tB = tCMBR * sqrt(1-vB^2) >>>tA = tCMBR * sqrt(1-((v-vB)/(1-vB*v))^2) >>> = tCMBR * sqrt1-vB^2)*sqrt(1-v^2)/(1-vB*v) >>>Hence, tA = tB * sqrt(1-v^2) / (1-vB*v). >> >>>Clearly, the SR formula tA = tB * sqrt(1-v^2) >>>is correct only when B is at rest in the CMBR >>>(vB = 0). >>>But even in this case, SRists falsely claim >>>that B moves at -v relative to A, >> >>It does. You just don't understand basic physics > > > You are indirectly claiming that the CMBR moves relative > to A. Only brainwashed SRists can be so stupid. The CMBR has nothing to do with the problem. Are you really this stupid? > > >>>and thus, that >>>tB = tA * sqrt(1-v^2). Simply by looking at the >>>CMBR, B knows that its velocity vB is a physical >>>fact, >> >>Of course it is. Just like B looking at A knows that v is a physical fact >> >> >>>which is of course independent of the hypothesis >>>that motion is relative and that the time dilation >>>effect is correlatively reciprocal. >> >>You're a complete idiot. Go learn some basic physics before you make such a >>fool of yourself again > > > SRists believe that the velocity of B wrt the CMBR changes > according to their decision about what is moving relative to > what. Such theoretical view is physically pure crackpottery. Only an uneducated and uneducateable fool would make such stupid statements as you do. But you are good to laugh at. > > Marcel Luttgens
From: Dirk Van de moortel on 19 Sep 2009 10:41 doug <xx(a)xx.com> wrote in message tvqdnbpw38zufCnXnZ2dnUVZ_t2dnZ2d(a)posted.docknet > mluttgens wrote: > >> On 19 sep, 02:25, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >>> "mluttgens" <mluttg...(a)orange.fr> wrote in message [snip] >> You are indirectly claiming that the CMBR moves relative >> to A. Only brainwashed SRists can be so stupid. > > The CMBR has nothing to do with the problem. Are you > really this stupid? Worse. Much worse. You have no idea how stupid Marcel is. It takes at least a decade to be able to make a reliable assessment of Marcel's stupidity. [snip] >> SRists believe that the velocity of B wrt the CMBR changes >> according to their decision about what is moving relative to >> what. Such theoretical view is physically pure crackpottery. > > Only an uneducated and uneducateable fool would make > such stupid statements as you do. But you are good to laugh at. Stick around. It can only evolve from funny to hilarious, but do realize that a certain point it might become somewhat painful. Dirk Vdm
From: PD on 19 Sep 2009 11:41 On Sep 18, 6:28 pm, mluttgens <mluttg...(a)orange.fr> wrote: > On 18 sep, 21:59, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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). > > Rememember Paul B. Andersen's analysis of the cosmic muons. > He considered only one pair of events. > When the CMBR is taken into consideration, it is clear that > time dilation is not mutual. I told you what mutual time dilation means. You want it to mean something other than what it means. It does NOT mean that the velocity with respect to a THIRD object will be the same when viewed from either frame. I don't know where you ever got the idea it does. > > Marcel Luttgens
From: G. L. Bradford on 19 Sep 2009 14:37
"Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote in message news:003e775f$0$2915$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... > "mluttgens" <mluttgens(a)orange.fr> wrote in message > news:41d5a838-7be2-4786-8820-32048a494322(a)o13g2000vbl.googlegroups.com... >> On 19 sep, 02:25, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >>> "mluttgens" <mluttg...(a)orange.fr> wrote in message >>> >>> news:756d9890-f435-4e91-b813-48c6c697cbc4(a)h30g2000vbr.googlegroups.com... >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> > 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. >>> >>> Fine >>> >>> > According to SR, if A moves at v toward B, >>> > reciprocally, B moves at -v toward A. >>> >>> That's not just SR .. its been known physics for hundreds of years. >>> >>> > 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). >>> >>> Why the fvck should it? It makes ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE to the >>> relative >>> speeds of A and B >>> >>> > 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. >>> >>> No .. it wouldn't necessarily be in the same directions as v >> >> Sure, but it is what B (which could be the Earth) observed >> in this scenario. > > Not that it makes any difference to the relationship between A and B. > you're wasting time discussing irrelevant nonsense. > >>> > According to the CMBR observer (using c=1), >>> > vA = (v-vB)/(1-vB*v) >>> > tB = tCMBR * sqrt(1-vB^2) >>> > tA = tCMBR * sqrt(1-((v-vB)/(1-vB*v))^2) >>> > = tCMBR * sqrt1-vB^2)*sqrt(1-v^2)/(1-vB*v) >>> > Hence, tA = tB * sqrt(1-v^2) / (1-vB*v). >>> >>> > Clearly, the SR formula tA = tB * sqrt(1-v^2) >>> > is correct only when B is at rest in the CMBR >>> > (vB = 0). >>> > But even in this case, SRists falsely claim >>> > that B moves at -v relative to A, >>> >>> It does. You just don't understand basic physics >> >> You are indirectly claiming that the CMBR moves relative >> to A. > > Not indirectly .. Directly > >> Only brainwashed SRists can be so stupid. > > Only you are so stupid to think that if I walk closer to a wall, that the > wall stays the same distance away. > ================================ There are walls, and then there are walls. There are those who are 'so stupid' as to think if they walk long enough they will walk closer to the horizon of Earth....that it will not stay the same distance from the walking traveler as from the standing observer left behind. They are 'so stupid' as to think that they can close with it. There are those who are 'so stupid' as to think if they speed up they will speed closer to the universal horizon constant of c (even getting closer to the distant Planck horizon of the Universe), that it will not stay the same distance from the walking....er, speeding....traveler as from the standing observer left behind. They are 'so stupid' as to think that they can close with it. There are those 'so stupid' as to never realize that differences exist between every constituent [local] universe and the overall entity that is the [non-local] Universe. Differences that can be manipulated. Differences that can't be manipulated. There are walls, and then there are walls. GL ================================ |