CMBR's motion wrt the Earth
in [Relativity]
|
From: Koobee Wublee on 8 Sep 2009 01:50 On Sep 7, 5:48 am, "Sandcastle" <i...(a)vipilot.com> wrote: > "Koobee Wublee" wrote: > > 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. Hmmm... You are assuming the Big Bang started in a singularity based on false mathematical models. What if it did not? There would be no need for the absurdity in inflation where space can curve and expand faster than the speed of light.
From: eric gisse on 8 Sep 2009 02:22 Inertial wrote: [...] > 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'? Its' bigger than every other frame? > > 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. You know, I don't have a good answer for this. There is so little meaningful discussion of the concept since the cranks on here co-opted the cause, which is just as well as there isn't much merit to it in the 21st century. My understanding is that an absolute frame isn't 'absolute' in some sense of invariance or something like that, but rather 'preferred' in that the/a law/s of physics only work in that frame. An example of this would be the ether frame of LET, in which everything moves with respect to that frame. OTOH everything moves with the CMBR dipole=0 frame, and every other frame for that matter. > > 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. That's because the advocates, quite frankly, have less intellectual horsepower than my giant pine cone. I'll talk to the giant pine cone and expect a non-hallucinatory answer long before I approach the likes of someone like Seto with a serious physics problem.
From: funkenstein on 8 Sep 2009 02:28 On Sep 7, 1:59 am, 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. Hmm.. that light interacts with matter is strong evidence in support of the big bang cosmology? I assume you mean that the existence of the CMBR is consistent with big bang cosmologies. :)
From: Inertial on 8 Sep 2009 02:55 "eric gisse" <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:h84t7j$o5q$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > Inertial wrote: > > [...] > >> 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'? > > Its' bigger than every other frame? Hehehe >> 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. > > You know, I don't have a good answer for this. There is so little > meaningful > discussion of the concept since the cranks on here co-opted the cause, > which > is just as well as there isn't much merit to it in the 21st century. > > My understanding is that an absolute frame isn't 'absolute' in some sense > of > invariance or something like that, but rather 'preferred' in that the/a > law/s of physics only work in that frame. Or rather, work differently. As clearly the laws of physics work in every other frame we look at. > An example of this would be the > ether frame of LET, in which everything moves with respect to that frame. Well .. in LET physics works in every frame .. but that is only because the universe we experience and measure and model and predict with physics to is not REALLY what we experience and measure and model and predict with physics at all. Its all distorted in just such a way as to appear to be what real reality is like. But if you happen to be at rest in the right frame, the distortion disappear and reality is really real :) .. however, the catch is there is no way to detect what the special frame is. Basically, it's not a very useful theory in term of physics .. other than the parts of it that we can actually use, which has the same maths as SR and makes the same predictions. Hence we usually trim the metaphysical extras using ocam's razor and just talk about SR :):) > OTOH everything moves with the CMBR dipole=0 frame, and every other frame > for that matter. Indeed .. so it doesn't really make it absolute :) >> 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. > > That's because the advocates, quite frankly, have less intellectual > horsepower than my giant pine cone. I'll have to have a look at that. Mind you, I thought you looked quite friendly in your old facebook photo. > I'll talk to the giant pine cone and expect a non-hallucinatory answer > long > before I approach the likes of someone like Seto with a serious physics > problem. Hehehehe. But is the pine cone as much fun?
From: eric gisse on 8 Sep 2009 04:15
Koobee Wublee wrote: > 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> And your explanation as to why the Voigt transform is experimentally ruled out is..."<shrug>" ? I guess your hobby is more trolling and being stupid than learning about science. > >> > [#] 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> |