CMBR's motion wrt the Earth
in [Relativity]
|
From: mluttgens on 21 Sep 2009 06:59 On 19 sep, 20:37, "G. L. Bradford" <glbra...(a)insightbb.com> wrote: > "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote in message > > news:003e775f$0$2915$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... > > > > > > > "mluttgens" <mluttg...(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 They will not understand what you mean, being really brainwashed. Talking to them is like talking to a wall (no pun intended!). They will not realize that the CMBR must be taken into consideration, see for instance http://pagesperso-orange.fr/mluttgens/twinpdx1.htm Marcel Luttgens
From: PD on 21 Sep 2009 08:09 On Sep 21, 5:59 am, mluttgens <mluttg...(a)orange.fr> wrote: > On 19 sep, 20:37, "G. L. Bradford" <glbra...(a)insightbb.com> wrote: > > > > > "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote in message > > >news:003e775f$0$2915$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... > > > > "mluttgens" <mluttg...(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 > > They will not understand what you mean, being really > brainwashed. > Talking to them is like talking to a wall (no pun > intended!). > They will not realize that the CMBR must be taken > into consideration, Actually, no it doesn't NEED to be taken into consideration, any more than the Sun needs to be taken into consideration, or the center of the galaxy needs to be taken into consideration, or any other arbitrarily chosen artifact of the universe needs to be taken into consideration. > see for instancehttp://pagesperso-orange.fr/mluttgens/twinpdx1.htm > > Marcel Luttgens
From: mluttgens on 22 Sep 2009 08:33 On 21 sep, 14:09, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Sep 21, 5:59 am, mluttgens <mluttg...(a)orange.fr> wrote: > > > > > > > On 19 sep, 20:37, "G. L. Bradford" <glbra...(a)insightbb.com> wrote: > > > > "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote in message > > > >news:003e775f$0$2915$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... > > > > > "mluttgens" <mluttg...(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 > > > They will not understand what you mean, being really > > brainwashed. > > Talking to them is like talking to a wall (no pun > > intended!). > > They will not realize that the CMBR must be taken > > into consideration, > > Actually, no it doesn't NEED to be taken into consideration, any more > than the Sun needs to be taken into consideration, or the center of > the galaxy needs to be taken into consideration, or any other > arbitrarily chosen artifact of the universe needs to be taken into > consideration. Even if the SR analysis of the twin paradox were right, which it is not, because it doesn't take the Earth's velocity relative to the CMBR, Occam's razor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor) "recommends selection of the hypothesis that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities while still sufficiently answering the question". Whereas there is no paradox at all when the CMBR is taken into consideration (cf. http://pagesperso-orange.fr/mluttgens/twinpdx1.htm), SRists have a lot of different explanations, see http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/twin_paradox.html "*The *acceleration analysis* of the twin paradox. *The Doppler Shift Analysis* Suppose Stella and Terence each film the other's clock through a telescope throughout the trip; when does Stella see Terence's clock run fast? *The Spacetime Diagram Analysis* Where we take an Olympian view, and gaze with the Fates upon the world lines of Terence and Stella. *The Equivalence Principle Analysis* Pseudo-gravitational time dilation, and some matters of terminology." End of the story! Marcel Luttgens
From: PD on 22 Sep 2009 09:30 On Sep 22, 7:33 am, mluttgens <mluttg...(a)orange.fr> wrote: > On 21 sep, 14:09, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Sep 21, 5:59 am, mluttgens <mluttg...(a)orange.fr> wrote: > > > > On 19 sep, 20:37, "G. L. Bradford" <glbra...(a)insightbb.com> wrote: > > > > > "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote in message > > > > >news:003e775f$0$2915$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... > > > > > > "mluttgens" <mluttg...(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 > > > > They will not understand what you mean, being really > > > brainwashed. > > > Talking to them is like talking to a wall (no pun > > > intended!). > > > They will not realize that the CMBR must be taken > > > into consideration, > > > Actually, no it doesn't NEED to be taken into consideration, any more > > than the Sun needs to be taken into consideration, or the center of > > the galaxy needs to be taken into consideration, or any other > > arbitrarily chosen artifact of the universe needs to be taken into > > consideration. > > Even if the SR analysis of the twin paradox were > right, which it is not, because it doesn't take the > Earth's velocity relative to the CMBR, Relative motion is a motion between TWO bodies, and a THIRD entity (like the CMBR) does not NEED to be taken into account. I don't know why you think relative velocity DOES need to take into account a third body. > Occam's > razor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor) > "recommends selection of the hypothesis that introduces > the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest > entities while still sufficiently answering the > question". Sorry, but now you're grasping at straws. Note that YOUR idea involves more assumptions, including a dependence of relative velocity on an arbitrarily chosen third entity in the universe, the CMBR. Just because you have a hard time understanding SR, does NOT mean that it involves more complicated assumptions or postulates. There are only two assumptions in SR. Two. > > Whereas there is no paradox at all when the CMBR > is taken into consideration > (cf.http://pagesperso-orange.fr/mluttgens/twinpdx1.htm), > SRists have a lot of different explanations, Yes, they are all different ways of saying the same thing. This is not unusual in physics. Take a look at the classical Atwood machine, for example. You can explain the behavior of that system by using Newton's 2nd law. You can also explain the behavior of that system using energy conservation. You can also explain the behavior of that system using momentum conservation. They all work, and all freshman students become familiar with that. There does not have to be one and only one way to analyze a physical system. > see > > http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/twin_... > > "*The *acceleration analysis* of the twin paradox. > > *The Doppler Shift Analysis* > Suppose Stella and Terence each film the other's > clock through a telescope throughout the trip; > when does Stella see Terence's clock run fast? > > *The Spacetime Diagram Analysis* > Where we take an Olympian view, and gaze with > the Fates upon the world lines of Terence and Stella. > > *The Equivalence Principle Analysis* > Pseudo-gravitational time dilation, and some matters > of terminology." > > End of the story! > > Marcel Luttgens
From: mluttgens on 22 Sep 2009 20:32
On 22 sep, 15:30, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Sep 22, 7:33 am, mluttgens <mluttg...(a)orange.fr> wrote: > > > > > > > On 21 sep, 14:09, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Sep 21, 5:59 am, mluttgens <mluttg...(a)orange.fr> wrote: > > > > > On 19 sep, 20:37, "G. L. Bradford" <glbra...(a)insightbb.com> wrote: > > > > > > "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote in message > > > > > >news:003e775f$0$2915$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... > > > > > > > "mluttgens" <mluttg...(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 > > > > > They will not understand what you mean, being really > > > > brainwashed. > > > > Talking to them is like talking to a wall (no pun > > > > intended!). > > > > They will not realize that the CMBR must be taken > > > > into consideration, > > > > Actually, no it doesn't NEED to be taken into consideration, any more > > > than the Sun needs to be taken into consideration, or the center of > > > the galaxy needs to be taken into consideration, or any other > > > arbitrarily chosen artifact of the universe needs to be taken into > > > consideration. > > > Even if the SR analysis of the twin paradox were > > right, which it is not, because it doesn't take the > > Earth's velocity relative to the CMBR, > > Relative motion is a motion between TWO bodies, and a THIRD entity > (like the CMBR) does not NEED to be taken into account. I don't know > why you think relative velocity DOES need to take into account a third > body. The TWO bodies are not isolated in the universe, which is ignored by SRT. > > > Occam's > > razor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor) > > "recommends selection of the hypothesis that introduces > > the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest > > entities while still sufficiently answering the > > question". > > Sorry, but now you're grasping at straws. > Note that YOUR idea involves more assumptions, including a dependence > of relative velocity on an arbitrarily chosen third entity in the > universe, the CMBR. SR is based on a pure mathematical concept, and wholly neglects the fact that its objects are physically linked to the whole universe. > > Just because you have a hard time understanding SR, does NOT mean that > it involves more complicated assumptions or postulates. There are only > two assumptions in SR. Two. Only two, that's why SR is wrong. > > Whereas there is no paradox at all when the CMBR > > is taken into consideration > > (cf.http://pagesperso-orange.fr/mluttgens/twinpdx1.htm), > > SRists have a lot of different explanations, > > Yes, they are all different ways of saying the same thing. This is not > unusual in physics. Take a look at the classical Atwood machine, for > example. You can explain the behavior of that system by using Newton's > 2nd law. You can also explain the behavior of that system using energy > conservation. You can also explain the behavior of that system using > momentum conservation. They all work, and all freshman students become > familiar with that. There does not have to be one and only one way to > analyze a physical system. A false analogy! The fact is that nothing can be considered independently of the rest of the universe. You seem to have a "hard time" realizing this. Marcel Luttgens > > see > > >http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/twin_... > > > "*The *acceleration analysis* of the twin paradox. > > > *The Doppler Shift Analysis* > > Suppose Stella and Terence each film the other's > > clock through a telescope throughout the trip; > > when does Stella see Terence's clock run fast? > > > *The Spacetime Diagram Analysis* > > Where we take an Olympian view, and gaze with > > the Fates upon the world lines of Terence and Stella. > > > *The Equivalence Principle Analysis* > > Pseudo-gravitational time dilation, and some matters > > of terminology." > > > End of the story! > > > Marcel Luttgens |