CMBR's motion wrt the Earth
in [Relativity]
|
From: eric gisse on 8 Sep 2009 05:18 Inertial wrote: [...] >> 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. That's the purpose of smiling, but thanks :P I guess I haven't quite managed to communicate how amused I was [and am] to have a pine cone that's the size of a football. > >> 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? I get more entertainment from showing a random person a picture of a giant pine cone than discussing physics with Seto. I take unusual pride in my giant pine cone, even though I found it in the middle of an access road in the Shasta mountains....
From: Albertito on 8 Sep 2009 05:48 On Sep 8, 10:18 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Inertial wrote: > > [...] > > >> 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. > > That's the purpose of smiling, but thanks :P > > I guess I haven't quite managed to communicate how amused I was [and am] to > have a pine cone that's the size of a football. > > > > >> 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? > > I get more entertainment from showing a random person a picture of a giant > pine cone than discussing physics with Seto. I take unusual pride in my > giant pine cone, even though I found it in the middle of an access road in > the Shasta mountains.... Uhmmmm, interesting. So, you've got giant pine cone, eh? :-P
From: Sandcastle on 8 Sep 2009 06:24 "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wublee(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:91d6f4d1-739a-4036-9b50-6a9db061edbf(a)37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > 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. No. I am assuming the Big Bang started in a singularity based on the concept that space-time is doing the expansion, not something sitting in space-time. To date there has been no challenge to space-time (with the exception of violation of Bell's Theorem in experiments based on an erroneous assumption rather than the theorem). If you accept space-time, then there is no such thing as faster than the speed of light. Time is almost at a standstill as you approach the speed of light and distances have reduced to zero. For example, if you could ride on a light beam, you would instantaneously travel the width of the universe. The photon is created at its source the same instant that it is destroyed at its destination. But an observer, not near the speed of the light beam would measure the time in billions of light years.
From: Albertito on 8 Sep 2009 06:53 On Sep 8, 11:24 am, "Sandcastle" <i...(a)vipilot.com> wrote: > "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:91d6f4d1-739a-4036-9b50-6a9db061edbf(a)37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > > > > > 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. > > No. I am assuming the Big Bang started in a singularity based on the concept > that space-time is doing the expansion, not something sitting in space-time. > To date there has been no challenge to space-time (with the exception of > violation of Bell's Theorem in experiments based on an erroneous assumption > rather than the theorem). > > If you accept space-time, then there is no such thing as faster than the > speed of light. Time is almost at a standstill as you approach the speed of > light and distances have reduced to zero. For example, if you could ride on > a light beam, you would instantaneously travel the width of the universe. > The photon is created at its source the same instant that it is destroyed at > its destination. But an observer, not near the speed of the light beam would > measure the time in billions of light years. You allucinate, dude. You believe in what mainstream textbooks tell you the truth is. Let me suggest you in addition some other sources for your gullibility, The Mahabharata http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahabharata Ramayana http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramayana Ramavataram http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramavataram bon appétit!
From: mluttgens on 8 Sep 2009 07:02
On 8 sep, 01:32, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "mluttgens" <mluttg...(a)orange.fr> wrote in message > > news: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: > > I did .. read what I 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." > > That's right > > > He didn't say that the Earth has no motion wrt the CMBR, > > Neither did I Then explain how the "radiation apparently filling the universe" can move wrt the Earth. Marcel Luttgens > > > he only > > gave his interpretation of such motion. > > No .. he gave a more specific terminology for what we had simply been > calling 'the CMBR' in this thread as a frame of reference .. he said that > what one should technically be saying it "the frame where the CMBR dipole > moment is zero". but that's pretty words, so i think its ok to continue > using 'the CMBR' as a shorthand, as long as we all know what we mean |