CMBR's motion wrt the Earth
in [Relativity]
|
From: Paul Stowe on 7 Sep 2009 20:23 On Sep 7, 12:58 pm, alien8er <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Sep 7, 5:37 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > > > > "alien8er" <alien8...(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. > > Exactly, which leads inexorably to the followup zinger: how does one > determine that velocity? > > Mark L. Fergerson Answer, look around at the CMBR...
From: Paul Stowe on 7 Sep 2009 20:25 On Sep 7, 4:34 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "alien8er" <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:1b0a5cee-720b-4dcb-b860-9b4abd6e2515(a)l35g2000pra.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On Sep 7, 5:37 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "alien8er" <alien8...(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. > > > Exactly, which leads inexorably to the followup zinger: how does one > > determine that velocity? > > First you have to find the frame. Those that hold the CNBR reference frame > is 'the absolute' frame, and our motion relative to that is known and > measureable. Right...
From: eric gisse on 7 Sep 2009 21:29 Inertial wrote: > "alien8er" <alien8752(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:1b0a5cee-720b-4dcb-b860-9b4abd6e2515(a)l35g2000pra.googlegroups.com... >> On Sep 7, 5:37 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >>> "alien8er" <alien8...(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. >> >> Exactly, which leads inexorably to the followup zinger: how does one >> determine that velocity? > > First you have to find the frame. Those that hold the CNBR reference > frame is 'the absolute' frame, and our motion relative to that is known > and measureable. Then you have to explain why it is absolute.
From: Inertial on 7 Sep 2009 21:55 "eric gisse" <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:h84c1b$jg7$3(a)news.eternal-september.org... > Inertial wrote: > >> "alien8er" <alien8752(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:1b0a5cee-720b-4dcb-b860-9b4abd6e2515(a)l35g2000pra.googlegroups.com... >>> On Sep 7, 5:37 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >>>> "alien8er" <alien8...(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. >>> >>> Exactly, which leads inexorably to the followup zinger: how does one >>> determine that velocity? >> >> First you have to find the frame. Those that hold the CNBR reference >> frame is 'the absolute' frame, and our motion relative to that is known >> and measureable. > > Then you have to explain why it is absolute. That's the tricky bit. Of course, there are lots of interesting frame of reference out there, like the CMBR frame, and that they can be useful frames in which to consider some physics problems. The CMBR reference frame doesn't seem to have any different physics to any other frame. It might be an important frame astronomically, but what justification is there for calling it 'absolute'? What is actually required for a frame to justify the label 'the absolute frame'. Is it any more than a label to hang on one frame, that is really just the same as any other frame as far as the laws of physics is concerned ? If that is all it is, then there's not much point in hanging the 'absolute' label on it. The justification for why it should be called 'the absolute frame' and how its physics differs from any other frame (note: not the properties of background radiation, in the case of CMBR, but the properties of the frame itself) is what needs to be put forward. So far there no-one seems able to show any such justification.
From: Koobee Wublee on 8 Sep 2009 01:44
On Sep 6, 11:46 pm, Surfer <n...(a)spam.net> wrote: > Koobee Wublee wrote: > > >.... the null > >results of the MMX in which the only logical explanation is the Voigt > >transform [#] which spells out the absolute frame of reference right > >there and then. <shrug> > > The Voigt transform is falsified by the experimental measurement of > time dilation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woldemar_Voigt It is so only for the very shallowed of minds. <shrug> > > [#] Although the Lorentz transform like an infinite > > numbers of such transforms also satisfies the null > > results of the MMX, it however manifests the absurdity > > in the twins paradox. > > The paradox is not caused by the Lorentz transform because if the > twins calculate their time dilations relative to a preferred frame, > they obtain the same answers. You obviously have no idea what the issues are. <shrug> |